Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1984-02-28 Minutes0 CITY OF MIAMI r%5-tlo- COMMISSION MEN TES OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 1984 (REGULAR * PLANNING & ZONING) PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G.. ONGIE CITY CLERK_ TEM NO., REGULAR * P & Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 ri�'1 f i0Al il • f . .7LDM FEBRUARY 28/84 DISCUSSION AND TEMPROARY DEFERRAL OF ALLOCATION FOR "INDUSTRIAL HOME FOR THE BLIND" (SEE LATER SAME MEETING) FIRST READING ORDINANCE: INCREASE APPROPRIATION FROM GENERAL FUND BY $1,433. TO PROVIDE FOR ALLOCATION TO JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL BURN CENTER. A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING CONGRESS TO ADOPT LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY OF CUBANS WAITING FOR VISAS IN COSTA RICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES. ACCEPT DONATION OF A BELL FROM COSTA RICA LIBRE MOVEMENT AND REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMITTEE. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIDA LEVITAN AND ASSOCIATES AND BOBBIE MUNFFORD TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH HOSTING OF VISITING DIGNATAREIS, JORUNALISTS, ETC. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO CONTACT F.I.U. IN AN EFFORT TO DISSUADE THEM FROM PROCEEDING WITH PLANS TO BUILD A CONFERENCE/HOTEL FACILITY AT THEIR NORTH CAMPUS. DISCUSSION ITEM: FIREWORKS DISPLAY AT THE ORANGE BOWL TO BE HELD ON MARCH LOTH. CONDOLENCES AND DEEPEST SY�T-ATIHY TO TII` FAMiILY AND FRIENDS OF MIA 41 BEACH POLICE O"ICTM ^^*!" ;T B. KRAMER UPON HIS DEATH. CONDOLENCES AND DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL TROOPER ALFONSO LOCKTON UPON HIS DEATH. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: ALLOCATION TO INDUSTRIAL HOME OF THE BLIND MATTER REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER FOR REPORT AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 8TH. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING SEC. 62-15 THROUGH 53 REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE CITY ZONING BOARD. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION: 2524-34-42-46 S.W. 6TH ST. FROM RS-2/2 TO RO-3/6. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2600-2650 N.W. 6TH STREET FROM CG-1/7 TO RG-2/4. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2784 S.W. 7TH ST. FROM CG-1/7 TO CR-3/7. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY SEC. 1610-HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE "WILLIAM WAGNER HOUSE"-404 N.W. 3RD STREET. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY SEC. 1610-HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATOIN OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "FORT DALLAS"-404 N.W. 3rd STREET. PAGE # 1 QRDINANCE SOLUTION !r0 PAGE NO$ DISCUSSION 1 FIRST 1-2' READING R-84-209 2-3 R-84-210 3-4 IM-84�211 4-14 M-84-212 14-15 DISCUSSION 15-16 R-R4-213 16 R-84-214 16-17 DISCUSSION 17-19 FIRST READING 19-20 ORD.9805 20-21 ORD. 9806 21-22 ORD. 9807 22-23 ORD. 9808 23-27 ORD. 9809 27-28 11 m NO.+ REGULAR * P & Z 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SI M FEBRUARY 28/84 REFER BACK TO ZONING BOARD APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3665-67 N.W. FLAGLER TERRACE. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3757-3855- GRAND AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO SPI-2. APPEAL OF VARIANCE GRANTED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1740 S.W. 22ND STREET (VARIANCE GRANTED). DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF APPEAL OF VARIANCES GRANTED BY ZONING BOARD FOR PROJECT KNOWN AS "GROVE SQUARE" LOCATED IN COCONUT GROVE AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE. PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF APPEAL OF VARIANCES GRANTED IN CONNECTION WITH A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "GROVE SQUARE" 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE - (APPEAL DENIED AND VARIANCES GRANTED BY ZONING BOARD UPHELD). QUIT -CLAIM DEED APPROVAL - AIRPORT 7 ASSOCIATION JOINT VENTURE (N.W. 7TH STREET BETWEEN N.W. 49TH AND 51ST AVENUES). ACCEPT PLAT: "AIRPORT 7 ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE .(N.W. 7TH STREET BETWEEN N.W. 49TH AND 51ST AVENUES). ACCEPT PLAT: "FLORIDA CONFERENCE ASSOCIATES OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH" - N.W. 19TH AND N.W. 30TH STREET (PLAT: "HADLEY GARDENS"). ACCEPT PLAT: "DOUGLAS GARDENS" (N.E. 51 TO 53 BETWEEN N.E. 2ND AVENUE AND N.E. MIAMI PLACE). DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2469-2471 S.W. 32ND AVENUE AND 3180 S.W. 25TH STREET FROM RG-2/3 TO CR-3/7. (SEE LATER SAME MEETING). CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO INDIVIDUALS WHO:.WORKED ON STRUCTURING OF ORDINANCE 9500. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 2469-2471-2511 S.W. 32ND AVENUE AND 3180 25TH STREET FROM RG-1/3 TO CR-3/7. DISCUSSION ITEM: MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT INC. A) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM FEBRUARY 16TH REGARDING CABLE T.V. OFFICIALLY CALLING FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD MARCH 22, 1984 TO CONSIDER PASSAGE OF A FIRST READING ORDINANCE REGARDING OPINION POLLING. B) FIRST READING ORDINANCE: DEFER IMPLEMENTATION OF TWO- WAY INTERACTIVE SERVICES ON CABLE T.V. PAGE # 2 rjau�rtoN_Nd PAGE NO, M-84-215 28-32 FIRST 32-34 READING• R-84-216 34-35 DISCUSSION 36-50 DISCUSSION. 51 R-84-217 51-53 R-84-218 R-84-219 R-84-220 R-84-221 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 53-54 54 55 55 57-59 59 M-84-222 59-62 DISCUSSION 62-67 M-84-223 FIRST RUX11JG 67-88 V C1#RSTlffFfAF BUDA PAGE # 3 TEM NO.I REGULAR * P & Z [q LM FEBRUARY 28/84 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 41 44 45 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING COMSTOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 2420 N.W. 18TH AVENUE. AS THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PLACE FOR THE APRIL 5, 1984 MEETING COMMENCING AT 3:00 O'CLOCK P.M. DISCUSSION ITEM: LEGAL OPINION RECEIVED FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CAR REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE ON CITY MANAGER AUTOMOBILES. (THIS MATTER WAS SCHEDULED FOR DISCUSSION AT THE MARCH 8, 1984 MEETING, AT 9:30 A.M.) DISCUSSION ITEM: COST OF AROUND THE CLOCK BODYGUARDS' INCLUDING THE COST OF FOODS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS COSTS AFFORDED TO THE CITY MANAGER DURING THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS AND REQUESTING MANAGER TO ADVISE CITY COMMISSION HOW MUCH LONGER THIS PROTECTION WILL BE NECESSARY. DISCUSSION ITEM: BILL RECEIVED FROM ATTORNEY GEORGE KNOX IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HARMS FILES. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ORDINANCE 9500, SUBSECTION 2008. 9.2.2., ARTICLE 22 - FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMISSIONS, COMMISSION OFFICERS AND BOARDS IN RELATION TO ZONING GENERALLY. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 9500-AMEND ARTICLE 5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICTS, GENERALLY, SUBSECTION 515.1 DELETING ERRONEOUS REFERENCE TO THE RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, ETC. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ORDINANCE 9500. AMEND ARTICLE 15 SPI SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS, SEC. 1560-6; SUBSEC. 1563.2.2.b; etc. REFER BACK TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FIRST READING ORDINANCE CONTAINING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING TEXT OF ORDINANCE 9500, ARTICLE 5,6,15,20 AND 21, IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE CHANGES. REFERRING BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SPI DISTRICTS, 15.70 SPI 7, etc. , REFER BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 9500, SPI-7.1 TO SPI-7. REFER BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING PROPOSED ATLAS CHANGES TO ORDINANCE 9500, SPI 7-2 to SPI-7. AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT MANAGER TO INITIATE A PARKING STUDY OF THE ENTIRE BRICKELL AVENUE AREA. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: 9500 TEXT CHANGE. ARTICLE 20 GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, DISCUSSION ITEM OF SPORTS, STADIUMS AND ATTENDANT COST FACTORS. I NANCE i SOLUTION R-84-224 M-84-225 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION ORD. 9810 FIRST READING FIRST READING M-84-226 IM-84-227 M-84-228 229 4-230 READING USSION PAGE N0, 88-89 89-107 108 108-109 109-110 111-121 122-127 127-128 129-149 150 150 150-151 151-152 153-155 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 28th day of February 1984, the City Commission of Miami, Florida met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 9:25 O'clock A. M. by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the Commission found to be present: ALSO PRESENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Howard V. Gary, City Manager Jose Garcia -Pedrosa, City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre, who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF ALLOCATION FOR "INDUSTRIAL HOME FOR THE BLIND" (See later same meeting). Mayor Ferre: We now have pocket items and I will take up yours Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have three or two for today. Mr. Manager, there seems to be... I have a letter from the Lions Industrial home For The Blind. I understand that there was a mix up as far as numbers are concerned. There had been allocated or suggested allocation of fourteen thousand dollars, for some reason we only allocated seven of that amount of money at the last meeting in the flurry of everything that went on. Is Dena here or someone from her office here? Mr. Gary: She is here. Mr. Plummer: They spoke to Dena on this and was the understanding that all that would be needed to be done was to correct the numbers. Mr. Gary: They way I understand it Commissioner Plummer and I have to wait until Dena comes back, but these figures were based on an annual basis and when we allocated money, we allocated for the remainder of the year which is only half of the year. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, I will be more than happy to wait for Dena to come back, alright. Mr. Gary: Ok. 2. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: INCREASE APPROPRIATION FROM GENERAL FUND BY $1,433 TO PROVIDE FOR ALLOCATION TO JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL BURN CENTER. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, do you have this other item? Bob Clark gave it to me. Mr. Mayor, this is in reference to my surplus campaign funds, as you know by law I have to give the money to the City of Miami General Fund with the proviso that I can designate and hopefully will be granted the request and this is the ordinance necessary to issue the check to the Burn Center in the amount of fourteen hundred thirty-three dollars. I would like to move such. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Commissioner Perez, further discussion, call the roll. Mr. Plummer: An Emergency Ordinance amending Sections 1 and 6,... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, we are going to need four votes for that. Mayor Ferre: So, you get three votes today and three next time. Move it as an ordinary. Further discussion, call the roll, please. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 9684 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 29, 1983, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1984, BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,433 AND BY INCREASING GENERAL FUND REVENUE, MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE IN A LIKE AMOUNT, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALLOCATION OF SAID MONIES TO THE BURN UNIT AT JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING CONGRESS TO ADOPT LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY OF CUBANS WAITING FOR VISAS IN COSTA RICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Alright, Commissioner Perez. Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I would like to call the attention of this Commission about hundreds of Cubans that are waiting in third countries to get in the U.S. visa to come into the United States. At this time we have, for example in Costa Rica eight hundred fifty-five families waiting for the visa. We have in Spain hundreds of Cubans. We have almost a hundred Cubans waiting in Lima, Peru and I would like to call the attention of this Commission in order to pass a resolution urging the federal authority to pay special attention in the new immigration legislation with a resolution strong urging the Congress of the United States to adopt legislation facilitating the entrant into this Country of Cubans who have fled their home land and who are enroute to be united with family members living in the United States as americans, but who have had bo delay their journey by waiting in Costa Rica and other countries, further directing the City Clerk to forward a copy of this resolution to the herein named official. That's what I want to move. 32 FEB 2 81984 Mayor Ferre: Alright, there has been a motion and a second, further discussion? Alright, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-209 A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADOPT LEGISLATION FACILITATING THE ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY OF CUBANS WHO HAVE FLED THEIR HOMELAND AND WHO ARE ENROUTE TO BE UNITED WITH FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUT WHO HAVE HAD TO DELAY THEIR JOURNEY BY WAITING IN COSTA RICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN NAMED OFFICIALS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins NOTE FOR THE RECORD: IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE MATTER CONCERNING CABLE TELEVISION WILL BE HELD AT 2:30 P.M. 4. ACCEPT DONATION OF A BELL FROM COSTA RICA LIBRE MOVEMENT AND REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMITTEE. Mayor Ferre: We are now on the Planning and Zoning items. Mr. Perez: Before I have another pending pocket item. I think that you are familiar with the donation of a bell from the Costa Rica Libre Movement. They told me last November that they offered you a bell in other to place in a public place here in Miami that is a two ton bell that is well-known historic piece there and I would like to introduce a resolution conditionally accepting the donation of a bell from the Cost Rica Libre Movement and requesting the Art in Public Places Committee to provide to the members of the Commission a list of recommended sites for the location of said bell. Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there a second for the bell? You are always a bell ringer, Plummer. Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry. Mayor Ferre: We are getting a bell from the... (BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD). Alright, call the roll on the donation of the bell. How big a bell is this anyway? Mr. Perez: It's a two ton bell, but I think that it's important to get first the recommendation'of the Arts in Public Places Committee. Mayor Ferre: Alright, this is... what this does as you can see Commissioner, is it moves it on to the Arts in Public Places Committee to see if they recommend where to put the bell. I got some good ideas. Alright, I know a very nice place in North Grove. )3 FEB 281984 Mr. Perez: It was in the front page of La Nacion Newspaper at the election time in reference to... It's recognized as a symbol of freedom there and two days before the election it was in the front page with the election. Mr. Plummer: Oh, no, no. Now, if you are talking about La Nacion you got to talk about what they are going to donate to this City is a banana. Mr. Perez: La Nacion from Costa Rica. Mr. Plummer: No, no. the plantinos...(AT THIS POINT COMMISSIONER PLUMMER SAYS SOMETHING IN SPANISH). Mayor Ferre: Alright, call the roll on the bell. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-210 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF A BELL FROM THE COSTA RICA LIBRE MOVEMENT AND REQUESTING THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION A LIST OF RECOMMENDED SITES FOR THE LOCATION OF SAID BELL. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 5. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIDA LEVITAN & ASSOCS. AND BOBBIE MMF 0RD TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH HOSTING OF VISITING DIGNATARIES, JOURNALISTS, ETC. Mayor Ferre: Well, let's take up Bobby Munford's pocket item and we will take about it a little bit and then we will wait until Carollo gets here to take it up. Bobby why don't you in your words explain to us... tell us exactly what it is you have in mind. Ms. Bobbie Munford: Good morning, I'm Bobbie Munford of Public Relation and Aida Levitan of Aida Levitan and Associates and I have formed a partnership to provide or rather to propose to the City of Miami that we could provide tours of foreign journalists coming to Miami for various events such as the Congress of Mayors, the Grand Prix next year perhaps, Hispanic Heritage Week, Sun Street Festival and we would bring the very best journalists from foreign nations as well as the United States. Those business editors and news editors who would make front page headlines and present a very positive image of Miami in the things that we are doing here to prevail as a tourist oriented city. For these tours we would invite at least twenty journalists and the affect of this is that we would really be embarking upon a major advertising or publicity campaign for the City of Miami which would not include any cost per se for paid advertisements, because we would hope to get positive media, And when you take a look at it we would assess a value for each of the article¢;,*hat would be a benefit to the City of Miami. The fund raising pr��iiarily will be coordinated by � FEB 28 1984 Aida Levitan and Associates and the experience that we have had in this is to work together to ensure that the journalists would have an opportunity to take a look at Miami, the trienthic and multi -cultural population and facilities that we have here in the area. That's basically it. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me make two comments about this... three comments and then get the Manager's opinion on the record. In the first place the Grand Prix is the one event that does not need any assistance in publicity. So, I would ask that you scratch that. Now, that's the... We had over four thousand journalist which to put into perspective is twice as much as the Super Bowl had, ok, as for credentials. So, that is the one event....................That is the one event that we do not need your help on. Now, the other events I do think we need to publicize. Other words we need to get Calle Ocho known throughout the world as an alternative to Marti Gras in New Orleans. I don't think we can aspire to compete with Rio because that's too ambitious, but I think if we can get Calle Ocho to be an equivalent to New Orleans that would be a great achievement. I think both the Kawanza and Goombay Festivals are festivals that need a tremendous amount of assistence. We have other enthic festivals such as... I attended the Scottish Island Games in Crandon Park which in my opinion get very little publicity. They were very upset because they had no help from the City of Miami and now help from Metro and I will tell you it was one of the most impressive days that I have seen and the place was just totally pack. So, I don't think they necessarily need financial help what they need is assistance in getting that event publicize. Demetrio has been working diligently for this Conference of Mayors and I think that... this will be what, the second Conference of Mayors? Mr. Perez: Yes. ' Mayor Ferre: And I think we definitely need some help on that because we had and I don't mean to belittle Miami News and the Miami Herald, but I don't think we even made page... we didn't even make page 7B in the Spanish section. We had thirty-two nations represented here. It's just unbelievable. It was in my opinion going to be a nothing event and all of the sudden we had these thirty-two different municipal governments. Now, I think there are over twenty-one or twenty-two nations in Latin America that were present. This second time around I think it's very important that we approach it in a more structured way. We also have the Latin American... I'm sorry, the Interamerican Chamber of Commerce fifth or sixth conference. I was just down in Mexico. I couldn't believe.... Mexico is a country of over seventy million people and here they are all excited about coming to Miami for this conference. There are so many of these things happening in Miami that we don't realize. Now, let me tell you what the benefits are, because I see some citizens that are here. What the benefits are to the taxpayers. Every time we have an event from the Grand Prix on, every time we have an event like a Grand Prix or a Super Bowl or a major convention or a gathering in Miami the hotels fill up, the taxi cabs get business, the gasoline stations pump gasoline, the insurance companies sell insurance, the candy manufacturer sell candy, the beer companies sell beer and they in turn _ employ people and then those people buy food and services and pay taxes and we have a healthier city. So, what we have to keep in balance in all these things is what the cost is in relationship to what we get out of it. Now, what Mrs. Munford is proposing here as I understand it is to give us a minimum of four hundred thousand dollars worth of what would cost now if we were to go out and buy publicity, if we would have to go out and buy and pay for this. Now, I would much rather have the front page of a Paris newspaper, a minor article in that... in La Figero or the Daily Express in England or whatever than to have a page forty- six half page advertisement by the Greater Miami and Beaches Tourist Authority that says come to Miami. I would much rather have a picture of Calle Ocho on page 3b of a major French or English or Canadian newspaper than to have a full page ad, because I think will have much more impact. The question is to do that... There are ways of - doing it. The way you do it is you have to get freebies, I guess that's the word and you got to get the Everglades Hotel to put up the editor of the Spain newspaper ABC and bring the assistant editor of ABC to Miami put them up for a week, get them a freebie on Iberia Airlines and do all of that and that's takes a lot of #ork and then what happens is � FEB 261984 when he goes back to Madrid we end up getting a series on Miami and what's the value of that, you know. So, I'm all for this. The only question is can we do it in house Mr. Manager, and I know that that's a problem that we have had in the past but it takes a speciality and I would like tu... I hate to put Virginia on the spot, but I won't. So, I will put you on the spot and let you put her on the spot. Mr. Gary: I'm used to being on the spot, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: I have noticed that. Don't get too used to it. Mr. Plummer: The problem is he is starting to enjoy it. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, first of all I would like to say that the two individuals who are before you are competent people in the field. However, the City's staff is currently performing this function and we are talking about a budget almost approaching a million dollars just to do this... Mayor Ferre: No, thirty-one thousand. Mr. Gary: No, no, I'm talking about our staff, in house. I thank it would be duplication Mr. Mayor, just to give you an example of what I'm talking about is just in the last week alone Ms. Godoy and her staff had journalists in town, foreign journalists as well as national journalists to see Miami as well as to see the Grand Prix. We have also, Mr. Mayor, have in Ms. Gallogly shop visiting journalist that are business oriented for them to see Miami and that shows that we are covering all angles. Thirdly, I would like to say to you Mr. Mayor, that we have in our appropriations to the Grand Prix... not the Grand Prix, the Calle Ocho, Goombay and other festivals provided expenditures for advertisement. If I refresh your memory we gave Calle Ocho and Carnival, I guess I think it was about thirty some thousand dollars for the S.I.N. Network so that we could broadcast this to millions of people internationally. To now come up and do this would not only be duplication of what the staff is currently doing Mr. Mayor, but would also be duplication of the money that we are currently giving these organization to do that themselves. The approach that we have been taking is that with these particular functions not only have we given them money in most cases, but we have given them assistance in terms of providing PR services to them. We have also gone as far a to assist them with staff in terms of protocol and we have a vigorous staff operation in terms of bringing journalists in this town. To now fund this Mr. Mayor, in my estimation would be a duplication of cost. I think what we can do is if the City Commission decides it wants to expand what is currently done, then we could have staff do that, but to expend money on... for me to recommend money would be a duplication of effort. Ms. Munford: Mr. Mayor, may I? Mayor Ferre: You want to answer before you get comments from the Commission or you want to answer... Mr. Gary: I would also like to say too, Mr. Mayor, while I have the floor and that is we have a Convention Bureau also that for the last Grand Prix brought in meeting planners which make decisions as to where conventions are going to be held for various associations, professional and otherwise. And they were also at the Grand Prix. so, we are not only just talking about the business side and also the journalist side in terms of good publicity, but also in terms of getting that publicity which will bring about conventions in this town. And I would also like to say finally that this City Commission appropriated seventy five thousand dollars to cover what this City Commission thought was lacking and that is how do we adveriste the Black community and get Black conventions in this town. so, I think that we are spending more than our fair rphare in trying to publicize Miami in a positive way. Virginia Godoy,would like to say something. Ms. Godoy: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Mr. Gary, I would... I just finished 06 FEB 28 t984 bringing seventeen journalists. Our office, the Office of Public Information of the City put this program together in three weeks and you mentioned before the Daily Express in London. Ok, that journalist left yesterday and he was very pleased. He is in charge... the Alan Thompson Charge --he is the sports columnist of the Daily Express. Today is leaving also one that came from Madrid and for whom I couldn't get air fare, but lie was so interested, because Madrid is interested in covering Miami that he got his own air -fare. We brought journalist from San Francisco, Detroit News and on Track Magazines, Argentina, Panama, three from Mexico, Colombia, in addition, Well, you saw some of them the other day during the breakfast and Well, I think that if we did that in three weeks and we got complimentary hotel rooms, complimentary airfare, complimentary restuarants, I think that we can continue doing it as a unit. That's all I wanted to tell you. Mayor Ferre: Alright, comments from the Commission. Mr. Perez: Mr. Manager, could I know why the members of this Commission especially why I was not notified about the last tour. I think that I read in Diario Las Americas last week that we had... I don't know, thirty or forty journalists in Miami, but we were not notified. Ms. Godoy: Give me a break please. I have been doing so many projects for the City in the seven weeks I have been in the City and I sent a memo to the Manager the day before we extended an invitation to the Mayor to preside over our breakfast and you know, it was .... next time you will receive also a notification. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor and Commissioner Perez, specifically I submitted a memorandum to this City Commission, first of all, apologizing for an event that all of you were not invited to and we... Mayor Ferre: Well, this is the first I have heard of it. Tell me what it is so I can get angry too. Mr. Gary: No, this was on the debt service conference... Mayor Ferre: I wasn't even there. Where was this? Mr. Gary: Well, you were to speak at the luncheon and you got a personal invitation from F.I.U., but the... Mr. Perez: The Mayor and Manager is what the press release say in Diario Las Americas. No, ,`)',.t you know why I was... Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about this F.I.U. thing at the Four Ambassadors? Mr. Perez: No, no, that's a different thing. (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Oh, you are talking about the sports journalists that were at the Grand Prix. I went to that breakfast. Oh, but that's not what he is talking about. Oh, you are talking about the sports breakfast? Ms. Godoy: We.sent a press release to Diario and it was printed, and that way the people, our sponsors get credit and they we will do it again. Mayor Ferre: The day before the Grand Prix there was a breakfast at 9 O'clock at the Crown Plaza Thursday or Friday, whenever it was and I went there at 9 O'clock to you know, welcome them to Miami. Mr. Gary: Well, I would like to say that Commissioner Plummer was your liaison on this particular function and any slighting you can blame on your colleague. But I would like to say Mr. Mayor, you just lost a vote. I would like to say.... (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD). W FEB 281984 Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, but the bottom line was... (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, the bottom line is that we have had a couple of problems in terms of getting invitations out and people have been informed that the formal invitation process has to occur in a timely manner so that the City Commission will be informed. It appears that some of the events which are being done by other people we may give some little minor technical support as well as somethings that may be minor and have not gotten to the Commission. And what we are going to do now is invite you to everything so that you can make that selection. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Plummer, any comments you want to make? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only... I think we all know the work of Dr. Levitan and to the others, I think that the way it stands today if it were to be a duplication we would be wrong in voting such, what I would hope is in the future if in fact that department does need -an outside help or consultant that they would be given the consideration because of their in house experience, but I don't think at this particular time that we can vote for such in the face of the actual duplication, but I do know that there are times in all departments in which they do need additional help and as such I think that's when this thing should be considered. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Bobbie. Ms. Munford: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Manager, I would just like to say that we have worked very closely with Virginia Godoy on a number of other projects and it is our hope that we would compliment the current efforts of staff in that we feel that we have a hands on approach with many of the top journalists that we are talking about inviting. And also, it is often times very to the City's advantage to have an outside consultant to do a lot of the fund raising when it comes to the airlines, to the banks and to the other supporters that we look upon to donate the two hundred fifty thousand dollars that it would really take to fulfill this program and that is where we see our technical assistance as being a great benefit to the City of Miami. Mayor Ferre: Alright, thank you very much Ms. Munford. Mr. Manager, through you may I ask Ms. Godoy a question? Virginia you better stay here I think. I know you have only been there for seven weeks and I happen to personally think that you are doing a wonderful job and I'm very proud of what you are doing and I am very happy that the Manager made the selection and I think this is wonderful. Now, I want to ask you a question, how many members do you have on your staff? Ms. Godoy: Eighteen. Mayor Ferre: Eighteen. Of the eighteen how many are top staff? Ms. Godoy: When you mean top, what do you mean? Mayor Ferre: By top I mean assistants to you and... Ms. Godoy. Well, you know that, that office had an assistant. It doesn't have anymore. So, I would say the assistant... Mayor Ferre: Well, let me say people that you would qualify as being essential people in your operation? I don't mean the clerks or secretaries or runners or messengers or draftsmen or....11m talking about people that are account executives or top quality Managers of in your Deparment. One, ten, three. Ms. Godoy: Good writers. By that I mean good writers, good coordinators. The others can assist. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, out of the eighteen we have got to be talking about nine or ten people that are professionals. s Mayor Ferre: Professionals. Alright, now... well, let me ask you of the eighteen how many are Hispanic, how many are Black and how many are woman? Ms. Godoy: The great majority. Mayor Ferre: No, I don't want an answer like that. Ms. Godoy: I would say a third... Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you have to know that by now. You have been there seven weeks. So, you know eighteen... Ms. Godoy: A third. Mayor Ferre: Excuse me. Ms. Godoy: A Third. Mayor Ferre: A third Black? Ms. Godoy: No. Black three. Mayor Ferre: Now, I want specific answers. How many Blacks? Ms. Godoy: Three are Black. Mayor Ferre: Alright, three Blacks. How many Hispanics including yourself? Ms. Godoy: Twelve. Mayor Ferre: Twelve. Hispanic are twelve including you. You are including yourself on that. Ok. Ms. Godoy: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Now, how many are women, obviously, including you? Ms. Godoy: Six. Mayor Ferre: Six. Now, the three Blacks... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, may I just ask a quick question? Mayor Ferre: Sure. Mr. Plummer: Of the eighteen how many are Anglo? Mayor Ferre: Well, what's left, three. Ms. Godoy: Two women. Mayor Ferre: There are two Anglo women. Mr. Plummer: And what do they do? Ms. Godoy: And they write. Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Ok, now, the three Blacks, what do they do? Ms. Godoy: One is in charge of Cityscape which is the newsletter. Mayor Ferre: Alright. Ms. Godoy: It goes in house to all the City employees. Mayor Ferre: Ok, fine. Ms. Godoy: Besides that we will be starting a new magazine. That 09 .FEB 281984 0 magazine will be called the Miami 'Pulse and he will have..... Mayor Ferre: The Miami what? Ms. Godoy: Pulse. But if you have any better suggestion. Mayor Ferre: No, no, please I'm ju2t trying to get information, not input. I... What's a Miami Post? Ms. Godoy: They Miami Pulse will be sent to the neighborhoods. Mayor Ferre: Neighborhood magazine. Ok, thank you. Ok, now, who are the other two Blacks? Ms. Godoy: The other two is Micheal Patterson who comes here to every City Commission meeting and he is a writer and a very good one. And I'm trying to involve him more and more in PR. Mayor Ferre: Ok, who is the third? Ms. Godoy: The third Milton our graphic artist. Mayor Ferre: Ok, now, is Milton one of the six that you said or nine --- stand corrected--- that are professional people? How many are Black? Ms. Godoy: Writers I have both of them... Mayor Ferre: Are all three of the Blacks in the nine category? Ms. Godoy: No, two of the Blacks, because one is an artist and then... Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, that department is overwhelmingly Hispanic? Ms. Godoy: Uh huh. Mayor Ferre: Now, I think it's important that we have a balance and I think Plummer's question was a very penetrating question. I think the fact that we have two Anglos in a department of eighteen is very telling. I think we need to get, you know,... and I'm not saying this as any criticism Aida to you, please don't misunderstand, because you were there before, but you know, we got to deal with Time Magazine and we have got to deal with Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal and we have got to deal with the American Press too and I think that it's great to get ABC and the Excelsior'of Mexico And Novedades and what have you, but we also have to worx Newsaay in tong Island and we have to work on the San Francisco Chronicle and the Detroit .... you know, and so on. So, we need to work on other things other than the Hispanic and European press. So, I would strongly recommend and this is.... Well, now this is not a review of the department, but that we keep a very strong eye on dealing... on strengthening you department in those areas where I think there is a very vivid and implicit weakness which is the American Press. I think that that's where we should concentrate. Now, with regards to the question of the Blacks that you have, I think it is important that we also concentrate on trying to get that African Press that I can recall we have never had any major African Press in Miami and by that I mean Nigeria and I mean North African and some of the French speaking countries like the Ivory Coast and what have you and I think if we are going to go after Latin America we also need to emphasize... that's a good way to get going on relations in the future between Miami and Africa. I also feel, lastly, Mr. Manager, that if this organization and these two ladies can bring to this community people that they have established relationships with that is no Way to say that Mrs. Godoy is not capable of doing that, it is to say that if they can get that amount of publicity and get these freebies on their on that I personally have no objections and would think that it would be a challenge provided they are properly supervised and that there is accountability in the process. I mean, that's just one person's opinion. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor. 10 FES 2 81984 Mr. Plummer: Let mo bring something to your attention because it's come to my attention and I sit on the TDA, but there is a... I want all of you to know there is a very big and clear cut distinction between the so-called governing body of the TDA and the staff of --- what is it called? Mr. Gary: Tourism and the Convention... Mr. Plummer: The Tourism Department. I have found in the last couple of months Mr. Mayor, that that staff and that department are not necessarily doing what are being asked by the TDA. They are doing things that they want to do. I'm not saying that it's detrimental, but let me give you one example which I think... That's shocked. Let me tell you one thing that upset me tremendously the other day when I was told and plan on this week through Cesar to find out for such. I was told that they are completely changing their emphasis of direction where prior to today or this period of time that it has been an emphasis on Latin and South America and Europe and that they are not concerned about that now because they don't have money to spend in Latin America where some times are hard and that this particular year they are going to take all of their resources, all of their efforts to the midwest of the United States and completely voiding any monies efforts and time into Latin, South America and Europe. Mayor Ferre: That's hard to believe. Mr. Plummer: Well, it's hard for me to believe, but let me tell you that one person who made application last year and received monies --- I will lay it on the line, the Grand Prix--- were told don't apply this year. Don't even put in an application this year because you are appealing to Latin and South American and we are not going to be going that way, that we are definitely going to the midwest of the United States. I think this Commission needs to express itself very loudly, that we are very concerned about that situation and that since we do in fact raise forty percent of that bed tax that we feel that that has got to be rethought and redirected and I'm just bringing that to the attention of this Commission. I have not had the opportunity yet to confront the department, which I plan on doing... Mayor Ferre: That's hard to believe. I will tell you they ought to go to the airport and see the people coming off of planes from Mexico and Colombia and Venezuela and Argentina. Mr. Plummer: Well, it seems like the attitude is that we played to them when they had dollars to spend and now that they don't have dollars we are not going to play to them, the dollars are in the midwest. Mayor Ferre: Plummer what--- you know, what I'm saying is just the opposite. I just came back from Mexico you know, Demetrio and I were down there on this... Pan American has and Mexican Airlines there are about seven or eight flights non-stop from Mexico City a day. I mean, you can... it's almost like going to New York. You can go out to the airport and just wait for the next flight and you will never wait more than a couple of hours. I mean, that how many flights there are coming in from Mexico City into this City and you know, if what you are saying is so not only is it negligent, I think it is negligent to the point that they are not facing the reality. The statement that was made is just simply not true. Mr. Plummer: I agree. Mayor Ferre: In other words, there is tourism coming in here from Latin America in large quantities. Now, they may be going through and not stopping in Miami, but we need to do a great amount of work. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, I am going to bring this up at the next TDA meeting. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Mr. Perez: And it's important also, Mr. Mayor, that the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce at this time is sponsoring two trade missions to 11 FEB 2 81884 Latin America and the State of Florida is sponsoring several missions to Latin America also at this time, but something that I think that I would like to know Virginia, how much is your personal budget Mr. Gary. Ms. Godoy: Seve►, hundred thousand. Mr. Perez: Seven hundred for personnel only? Mayor Ferre: For those eighteen people? Ms. Godoy: No, for everything because we have... Mr. Perez: For eighteen people? Mr. Plummer: No, for the total department. Personnel. Mr. Perez: No, personnel. Ms. Godoy: Personnel. I have it here. Mayor Ferre: You have got eighteen people and the question is how much does personnel cost? Ms. Godoy: I have very bad memory, that's why I write everything down, but if you want me to I will get you the figures right now. Mayor Ferre: well, I think it's important that you get'familiar with the figures on your department, you know, as to how many are Black and how many are women are Latin. And I know you have only been there several weeks so it' really unfair to ask you to have those things, but there are some basics things that you really have to have in mind without having to... Ms. Godoy: I agree with you. Mayor Ferre: Yeah. You know about what your budget is and how much of it is for personnel, but we will talk about that in the future. Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I think that this project would be a great... Mayor Ferre: I think Commissioner Carollo wanted to say something. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, the project that's presented to us here if I understand it correctly is asking a total contribution from the City of Miami of thirty-one thousand eight hundred seventy-five dollars. Is that correct? My personal feelings are and I'm not trying to take any credit away from some of the people that we have, but I don't know of a more qualified individual than Aida Levitan in as far as handling this sort of thing. The experience that she has had I don't think can be equal by anyone anywhere in Dade County of Miami City Government and while we have good people that are learning the ropes and expanding some of their other areas of knowledge I don't think we could afford to let something like this just sit idle and what I'm seeing here that what we are getting in return in dollars is going to be so much greater than what is going to be generated in publicity at the same time in additional dollars that are going to be coming back into the City of Miami, you can't really put a price tag on that. It might be twenty thirty times what we are getting in free publicity out of it. So, I have no problems in presenting a motion anytime the Mayor sees it appropriate to approve the request that is being made here. Mayor Ferre: Alright, ok. Mr. Perez: I don't have inconvenience to move for to second this motion. I share what Commissioner Carollo said and I think that it's important that this project would be a great challenger for the administration. If we have a budget of seven hundred thousand dollars we can get for thirty-one thousand dollars an amount of four hundred thousand in publicity, I think that would'be great for this community and I don't have any doubt to share or to move for to second this motion. U FEB 2819&4 0 Mayor Ferre: Alright, this motion has been duly moved and seconded, is there further discussion? Alright, as I understand it I think the motion properly should be that the Manager is instructed to sit down with Ms. Munford and Dr. Levitan and come back to the Commission with a properly negotiated contract so that the scope of the work and the description and the period of time to be covered in the tasks are explicitly covered. Mr. Carollo: If I may I would like to include in the motion a date when the Manager should be back by. Mayor Ferre: Fine, by what time? Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. Manager, how long will it take you to be able to put a contract such as this together? A couple of weeks? A week? Mr. Gary: A couple of weeks. Mr. Carollo: Ok, would we have enough time to have it back by the 22nd? Will that... Mayor Ferre: By no later than the 22nd? Mr. Carollo: By no later than the 22nd of March? That's when we meet again. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on the motion? Alright, call the roll. ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: I made my comments before. I think is a contract I have to vote against because of the Manager's statement and duplication. I still feel that on a consulting basis as needed is worth while and -- should be considered, but as to a general contract I would have to vote no'► . Mayor Ferre: Let me in voting for this explain again, so that's it's very clearly understood on the record. Bringing together foreign journalists is a specialty both Bobbie Munford and Aida Levitan have shown their ability to do so. I think what we get is a lot for what we are paying and the return is good. That is not to say... Virginia that's not to say that you couldn't do it in house. I know that you could, but... Ms. Godoy: I did it before in tourism. Mayor Ferre: And I'm sure you did it well, but that's not what's in question here. I really think that you need to look at the department from a more global point of view and frankly with all due respects to both you and Dr. Aida Letivan, your predecessor the think that concerns me is that you would narrow your focus and in effect end up with a department where twelve people out of eighteen are Hispanic where we only have two Anglos, where Time Magazine and ABC and the Seattle Journal and others don't get the. proper; there is no way physically, humanly that you can with twelve Hispanics and eight non -Hispanics, two Anglos and 3 Blacks do an appropriate job. When was the last time the department talk to the New Orleans Times Picayune. When was the last time that the Los Angeles Times Stringer who interview or brought to Miami to do something? And I think that's where we need to concentrate some of our efforts and I would hope that being somewhat relieved of having to worry about the European and Hispanic journalist that we would do things that are in my opinion are much more germane and needed at this time, not that the other made or not that you should become involved in other, but that I do think that... I would hope your efforts would be in having a balanced apartment that would look upon the many many other things that need -to be done and that need doing in this City very very quickly. So, I vote "yes". 13 FEB 28198Q The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-211 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIDA LEVITAN & ASSOCIATES AND BOBBIE MUNFFORD TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOSTING OF VISITING DIGNATARIES, JOURNALISTS, ETC., FURTHER REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE WORK IN THE PROPOSED CONTRACT, THE PERIOD OF TIME WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN ACCOMPLISHING THEIR TASK, ETC.; AND INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT SAID PROPOSED CONTRACT TO THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 22ND. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 6. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO CONTACT F.I.U. IN AN EFFORT TO DISSUADE THEM FROM PROCEEDING WITH PLANS TO BUILD A CONFERENCE/HOTEL FACILITY AT THEIR NORTH CAMPUS. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, there was one thing that came to mind I think we need to address. It's not really a pocket item, but I think for discussion purposes. I read in the paper, Mr. Gary, that F.I.U. is considering joining with some other school for the purposes of building a conference center and hotel. Did the rest of the Commission see that article in the paper. It it was in Sunday's... Mayor Ferre: No. A conference center/hotel where? Mr. Plummer: On their campus in the North end. I think the problems that we are having with our conference center and a hotel Already in place that this would be in direct competition to that and I would hope that in some way the administration could approach the people at F.I.U. and see if there can't be a multiple use rather separate facilities in a competitive manner, because I think it's going to be just self defeating to both entities and I would hope the administration would do something about talking with those officials. Mayor Ferre: Why don't you formalize that Plummer into a motion directed to Dr. Greg Wolfe and the Advisory Council of F.I.U. Mr. Plummer: I so move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion, call the roll. 14 FEB 28 1984 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO, 84-212 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTACT MP.. GREGORY WOLFE, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, IN AN EFFORT TO DISSUADE THEM FROM PROCEEDING WITH PLANS TO BUILD A CONFERENCE -HOTEL FACILITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL IN THE FIU NORTH CAMPUS; FURTHER SUGGESTING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF FIU THAT A MULTIPLE -USE ARRANGEMENTOR AGREEMENT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE USE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI- UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI/JAMES L. KNIGHT CONVENTION CENTER WITH ITS ATTENDANT HOTEL, WHICH FACILITIES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 7. DISCUSSION ITEM: FIREWORKS DISPLAY AT THE ORANGE BOWL TO BE HELD ON MARCH loth Mayor Ferre: Alright, Commissioner Carollo has two pocket items. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, one pocket item is a request from Carnival Miami to have the usage of fireworks in the Orange Bowl on March the loth. If they could have at until 10:30 to 11:00 O'clock at night. Mayor Ferre: March the loth. Mr. Carollo: Right. Mayor Ferre: March the loth falls on a Saturday and our rules are until when 10 O'clock? And they want until 10:307 Mr. Carollo: Well, 10:30 possibly 11:00 is what they need really. Mr. Gary: It's to 9, but... Mayor Ferre: What? Mr. Gary: It's to 9 O'clock, but we have when it's only one day we have given it to the Orange Bowl Committee and we see no problem in that request. Mayor Ferre: You don't see any problem in this? Mr. Gary: No. I think it... the cut off should Commissioner Carollo if I request that we did with the Orange Bowl was at 11 O'clock. Mayor Ferre: Ok, do you need a motion to that effect, Mr. Manager? Mr, Gary: No. 1 Mr. Carollo: You don't need a motion to that effect? Ok. so, fine. R f EB 2 81984 0 8. CONDOLENCES AND DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MIAMI BEACH POLICE OFFICER DONALD D. KRAMER UPON HIS DEATH Mayor Ferre: What's your second. Mr. Carollo: The second motion is a resolution expressing the deepest sympathy and sincerest condolences of the City Commission on behalf of the City of Miami and its citizens to the family and friends of Miami Beach Office Donald B. Kramer upon his death. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Seconded by Commissioner Perez, further discussion call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-213 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY AND SINCEREST CONDOLENCES OF THE CITY COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND ITS CITIZENS TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MIAMI BEACH POLICE OFFICER DONALD B. KRAMER UPON HIS DEATH. (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 Joe Carollo Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 9. CONDOLENCES AND DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL TROOPER ALFONSO LOCKTON UPON HIS DEATH. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Would you pass a similar resolution Commissioner on the death of the Florida Highway Patrol Officer that just died yesterday. What's his name? Mr. Gary: Al Lofton. Mayor Ferre: Al Lofton. Mr. Carollo: So, move Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Commissioner Perez, further discussion, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-214 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY AND SINCEREST CONDOLENCES OF THE CITY COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND ITS CITIZENS TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL TROOPER ALPHONSO LOFTON HIS DEATH. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Lt FE8 281984 6 El Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: ALIACATION TO INDUSTRIAL HOME OF THE BLIND - MATTER REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER FOR REPORT AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 8TH. Mr. Plummer: While -we are waiting for that Mr. Mayor, could I get my... Mayor Ferre: Go ahead Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Dena, Mr. Gary about the light house for the blind, can we get this matter straighten around. Mayor Ferre: Ms. Spillman. Mr. Gary: It appears that ---we have it here--- that they asked for... they got what they asked for, but obviously, they made a mistake in terms of what they asked for. We gave them what they asked for, but they made a mistake in what they asked for. Mr. Plummer: Alright, how do we straighten it out I... Mr. Gary: You all got to vote.. Mr. Plummer: Alright, we got to vote, but what are we voting on to straightep the matter out, Mr. Gary. That's what I'm asking. Mr. Gary: The figure is they are seven eight hundred ninety dollars short. Mayor Ferre: Well, how much do they get Howard? Mr. Gary: Through September 30th. Mayor Ferre: How much did they get? Mr. Gary: Sixteen thousand one hundred. Mayor Ferre: That's what I figured. They got close to seven... Now, they want another seven thousand, is that it? Mr. Gary: Almost eight thousand. Seven thousand eight hundred ninety dollars. Mr. Plummer: The impression given to me was that there was a mix up in the numbers and it would take a motion of this Commission to straighten it out. Mayor Ferre: That's right, but let me tell you where the mix up is. They... how much did they get last year, Dena, from us? Ms. Spillman: I believe it was around eleven thousand dollars. They wanted fourteen thousand dollars more this year. Mayor Ferre: They recieved eleven thousand last year, right? As I 17 FEB 281984 L7 4 remember the figures they wanted an additional fourteen or fifteen thousand dollars. Ok. As I remember we ended up giving them seventeen thousand So, there is no mix. In other words, they now want another eight thousand to bring them up to twenty-five thousand which is an increase of a hundred fifty percent over what they received last year. Mr. Plummer: Are you saying that the monies that they did not receive were monies because of the timing of the year? Is that a part of it? Mr. Gary: You are talking about for this year? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Gary: No. The reason I told you that you gave them what they asked for. The mix up and the mistake was on their part in terms of not asking for what they thought they needed. Mr. Plummer: Alright, Mr. Gary. Mayor Ferre: The mix up was on our part Howard. They asked for their twenty-four thousand and we turned them down. Mr. Gary: No, that's not what happened. Mayor Ferre: They didn't. Mr. Gary: No, they didn't. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me ask you this, how much is their total budget? Ms. Spillman: I don't know. Mayor Ferre: Do they get money anywhere else... Ms. Spillman: It's so confused at this point because remember we got into all those temporary fundings. Mayor Ferre: Do they get money anywhere else other than the City of Miami? Ms. Spillman: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Who do they get money? Ms. Spillman: They get money from contributions for the Lions Club, private money. Mayor Ferre: Is this the Lions Club? Ms. Spillman: Yes. Mayor Ferre: How much do they get from the Lions Club? Ms. Spillman: I don't have that information. I didn't know this was coming up today. Mayor Ferres How many people do they serve? Are they serving them efficiently? I mean, do you recommend this? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can I ask that this matter be looked into by Dena and come back on the Sth with an answer. Mayor Ferre: I think you have to do it that way J. L. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Mayor Ferre: I'm all in favor of helping the blind and what have you, but we can't go about--- this can't be blind on our part. Ms. Spillman; That would be good, then we can get all the information. 18 FEB 2 81984 `J Mr. Plummer: It was my understanding, Mr. Mayor, for the record that there was a mix up in the numbers and it took a simple motion to correct, obviously, that's not the case. So, let's let her go look at it and report back. Mayor Ferre: Listen, I'm going to vote for it Dena and I want... but I'm not going to vote for it if this thing... if they are serving three people, you know, and they are not really... unless you can give them a green light as far as I'm concerned I feel very uncomfortable just voting to give them twenty-five thousand as much as I want them to help and I want to help them and Mr.... Dr. Vidal, I want to tell you that I am all for this, but it has to be done properly. Ms. Spillman: We can have a report for you on the 8th. Mr. Plummer: Fine. 11. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING SEC. 62-15 through 53 REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE CITY ZONING BOARD. Mayor Ferre: Now, we are on Item #1. his request? Mr. Gary: Yes, copies are being made. Are you ready with the answer on Mayor Ferre: Alright, do you want to put this on as a... huh? As a pocket ordinance this expands ---you want to move it?--- expands the Zoning and Planning Board from seven to nine. Is that alright, Joe? Do you second that motion expanding the Planning and Zoning Board from seven to nine. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: This is formalization of the action that you... Mayor Ferre: Alright, this is formalization, it's moved by Commissioner Perez, Seconded by Plummer, further discussion, read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 62-15, 62-24, 62-26, 62-32, 62-33, 62-34, 62-350 62-47, 62-48, 62-49, 62-52 AND 62-53 OF CHAPTER 62, ENTITLED "ZONING AND PLANNING", OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE CITY ZONING BOARD TO CONSIST OF 9 MEMEBERS AND 1 ALTERNATE MEMBER FOR EACH BOARD, ESTABLISHING THE QUORUM REQUIREMENT FOR SAID BOARDS: FURTHER ESTABLISHING A METHOD OF NOMINATION AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENTS] FURTHER PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL OF MEMBERS WHO DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARD ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETINGS OF SAID BOARD] CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Carollo and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins. � FEB 281984 T FURTHER DISCUSSION: Mayor Ferre: Was that on first reading? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Lugones, when is the department going to advertise now for these positions? Would you be doing that immediately or not, because we have some new positions to fill. Mr. Perez-Lugones: We have a second reading next month. It takes thirty days to take effect. So you are talking about March, April. Mr. Carollo: Around April... Mr. Perez-Lugones: We during April barring any consideration from the Law Department, I think that the City Clerk can move to advertise for those positions. Mr. Carollo: Ok, around April then. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Around April, yes. It takes a month for the advertising and the procedure. Mr. Carollo: Certainly, I understand, because I think that the Mayor and myself are the only two that would have to make appointments then on the guidelines that we established for this. Mr. Perez-Lugones: For the Zoning Board... Mayor Ferre: To the Zoning Board, I have one appointment. Mr. Carollo: I have one there also out of the two new ones. Mr. Perez-lugones: Right, and for the Planning Advisory Board. Mr. Carollo: I have one. Mr. Perez-Lugones: You have one and there is another Commissioner who has... Mr. Carollo: Did you have another one Mr. Mayor, I think? Mr. Perez-Lugones: It's not the Mayor, in the Planning Advisory Board. I'm sure of that. I don't remember who the other Commissioner is. Mr. Carollo: Well, I have one in each, so... Mayor Ferret Ok, further discussion? 12. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2524-34- 42-46 S.W. 6th St. FROM RS-2/2 TO RO-3/6. Mayor Ferret We are now on Item 1 which is an ordinance zoning atlas on second reading, Richard Crisonion, Esquire. This is the Riverside Spanish Baptist Church. The petition to change from RS-2/2 to M-3/6. It was moved by Plummer and seconded by Dawkins. Are there any individuals that are here in opposition to Item #1 . This is right off of Beacom Boulevard and 6th Street. Anybody have any statements to make on this? If not, Plummer, you want to move it again? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferret Plummer moves, Carollo seconds, further discussion? Read the ordinance. Alright, are you here on that issue? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE)... attorney at law, 1040 Southwest 27th Avenue, here as the applicant as well as attorney for the other applicants. 20 FEB 2 81984 E ;46 Mayor Ferre: Further statements? Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2524-34-42-46 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS-2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO RO-3/6 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 34 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 or. its first reading by title at the meeting of January 26s 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, 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 Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer,Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferro NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9805 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 13. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 5600- 5650 N.W. 6TH ST. FROM CG-1/7 TO RG-2/4. Mayor Ferre: Yes, take up Item #2. Simon Ferro, also known as Simon Ferro, Esquire, Fabulous Partnership. It was first... It was moved by Plummer, Seconded by Dawkins on first reading. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to Item #2? Your name and address for the record. Mr. Simon Ferro: My name is Simon Ferro, I'm attorney for applicants, address at 1235 Southwest 87th Avenue. Mayor Ferro: Ok, further statements? Anybody here as an objector? Plummer, you want to move this again? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Carollo Item #2. Seconded, further discussion, read the ordinance. Alright, further discussion on Item 2, call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 5600-5650 NORTHWEST 6TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM CG-1/7 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO RG-2/4 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL), BY MAKING FINDINGS, 21 FEB 28 1984 AND P" MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANG ON PAGE $,. 31 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE 4? 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 January 26, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, 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 Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. NOES: None. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9806. 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. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: AGENDA ITEM 3 WAS DEFERRED TO MARCH 22ND. 14. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2784 S.W. 7TH ST. FROM CG-1/7 TO CR-3/7. Mayor Ferre: Alright, #4 on second reading. This is a petition ordinance 9500 Atlas change from CG-1/7 to CR-3/7 and it is the Planning Department's application. Are there... Mr. Plummer: I moved it before, I will move it again. Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody here wishing to speak on Item 4. If not it's been moved by Plummer, is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Perez, further discussion? Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2784 SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM CG-1/7 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO CR-3/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 33 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DES- SCRIPTION 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 January, was 26, 1964, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, 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 Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre 11 NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9807 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 15. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY SEC. 1610 HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE "WILLIAM WAGNER HOUSE " - 404 N.W. 3RD STREET. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item #5, which is the Zoning Atlas on second reading. The Planning Department, Dade Heritage Trust. This was previously moved by Plummer. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this issue? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can we wait just a moment, I have just been handed a memo from the Manager. Mayor Ferre: On what? On this issue? Mr. Plummer: On the cost Mr. Mayor, which I had asked for before. Let me read it into the record so it's fair. Mayor Ferre: Can we see that too? Mr. Plummer: Well, it was just handed to me. It was addressed to me Mr. Mayor, but you all can have a copy of course. Mayor Ferre: No, I don't have a copy of it. That's all right. Mr. Plummer: Reading it into the record. "In reference to the William Wagner House to date forty thousand dollars in City funds have been expended on the William Wagner House located in Lummus Park. This amount from third year Community Development Block Grant Funds paid for the actual move of the building from its original site labor and materials, architectual and engineering fees, historical research and insurance. In addition Dade Heritage Trust has spent at least five thousand of its own funds for windowsnand contractors fees and has collected approximately twelve objects including period furniture to place in the house. Dade Heritage Trust will be forwarding its own memo to you detailing future plans for the building". Now, I guess -we all have just received this from the Dade Heritage Trust. I guess it's... Mayor Ferre: Don, now you want to address the Commission. Mr. Don Slesnick: Yes, than you, Mayor. I'm Don Slesnick. I am the President of Dade Heritage Trust and I... with me is Paul Thompson our Executive Director and it was my information that the last time that this came before you on first reading, that a number of questions were asked for information purposes as to where is the Wagner Homestead headed. I would hope that some of the facts that have been put before you only indicate one thing, that Dade Heritage Trust cannot and cannot make any promises here of controlling the exact cost, but we have made an honest and sincere effort in cooperation with the City has we have done on other projects to secure this place, to bring it to where it is. As you know that it has been moved to Lummus Park. It has undergone a great deal of restoration and reconstruction to bring it into a stable condition and now we are still searching for those few funds that are left as outlined -here to bring it to where we have aimed and where the City has aimed tp make it a tourist attraction, to make it an attraction for the school children of Dade County which is part of our heritage. It is the oldest standing building in Dade County and dates back to our pioneer days. We think that it makes an important impact on Dade County. � FEB 28 1984 Mayor Ferre: uid you say it's the oldest? Mr. Slesnick: It's the oldest standing structure, 1858. Mr. Gary: Not anymore, it's new now. Mayor Ferre: What? Mr. Gary: It'-- new now. Mayor Ferre: It's,new. Mr. Slesnick: It is partially new and it has been done, I think in conformance with all the standards of historic preservation and restoration and we have already entered into a series of negotiations with the Historic Association of South Florida, so that when the two hundred seven Thousand school kid who will be passing through in the next couple of years, the historic museum that this will be included as one of the stops on their tours. Mr. Plummer: Who is going to maintain the building. Mr. Slesnick: The DAde Heritage Trust, hopefully in cooperation with the City will maintain the building and hopefully in cooperation with the Historic Association of South Florida, they will provide the docem program which w 1. be able to guide the people through the building. Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you a question Don, back in 18�8 was it known as Dade? When was the word "Dade" for used? May be... Mr. Slesnick: Well, General Dade was not a hero until civil war time. So, 1858 second seminole war, I am told which was what date. Mayor Ferre: Well, when was Dade County named Dade County. Paul you might know that. Mr. Slesnick: Joyce, do you know that? Mayor Ferre: Was it know as Miami when this 1858 house was or Miami. Mr. Plummer: Sure it was known as Miami. Sweetwater. Mayor Ferre: Huh? It was known as Miami right? Mr. Slesnick: Yes, it was. Mayor Ferre: Well, then I tell you since you are so interested in historic conservation and heritage why are you called the Dade Heritage Trust, Inc. rather than the Miami/Dade Trust Heritage? Mr. Slesnick: Well, we have tried to be County wide Mayor, but I certainly think that the membership would be willing to consider calling it the Miami/Dade Heritage Trust. No, one has suggested that before and... Mayor Ferre: I'm surprised that Arva Parks and others who are so conscious of preservation of history would want to call an association the Dade Heritage Trust when Colonel Dade hadn't even died when Miami was a community. Mr. Plummer: But Mr. Mayor, you have to understand even the Metro Commission doesn't like the word "Dade". They are trying to change their name and I don't blame them. Mayor Ferre: Well, that has nothing to do with this subject and you know, but I just think it might be appropriate for you to bring that up for discussion in the future. Mr. Slesnick: We have been partners with this Commission on a number of historic preservation projects and we would certainly take that under advisement. ftm FEB 281984 0 40 Mr. Plummer: I have two problems. One, we have already spent forty thousand dollars, you know, that I got a problem with, but second of all I have the problem with long term, you say partners. Usually, when we the Commission are addressed as partners that means our pocket book and your thoughts. Now, you know and I know that at the present time and has been for some two years, it has been an absolute disgrace. People make comments "what is the oversized outhouse doing in Lummus Park with a fence around it". Now, I am very much concerned about this partnership. What does a partnership mean? Are you looking for the City to put up dollars? Are you going to put up the dollars? At the present time you know and I know unfortunately people are not going to go to that location. Now, I know you didn't especially care for that location, but it's a reality and what is reality to the future going to be as far as cost, a tourist attraction, ---may be the place to apply is the T.D.A. if it's a tourist attraction, but I'm very concerned to continue to pour dollars into that project, where it is and what it is. Mr. Slesnick: Commissioner Plummer, let me--- I have written down I think the points that you have covered let me see if I can respond. First, as to the disgrace. I don't believe it's a disgrace even though all of us would prefer that it was finished and would look exactly as we have pictured it in the ultimate situation. However, when you speak and go around and talk with people who find out that a structure from the 1850s does exist and exist in the middle of the City of Miami in Lummus Park, they are quite not only impressed, but I have known a number of people to travel there to see the structure and have offered help. We have raised money from those types of people.. I have known people who have offered us services and so forth. I think that this particular place could be a rallying point for trying to create and make sure that we protect some of the history of Miami and the County area in as situation where we are not fighting developers. Secondly, as to the cost, of course, forty thousand dollars is no small piece of change of the taxpayers money and as you heard from the memo from the City Manager that most of that cost, of course, we are talking about just the moving of the building which we had to do to save it to city property. What we are looking at now is a very small percentage of the total cost. When we look back in years to come at the fifty, fifty-five or possibly sixty thousand dollars which had been total totally expended to bring it on line as an operating visitable, historic site the forty thousand dollars that already been expended is the majority of that money. So, we are looking at only the finishing touches. Thirdly, as to the location... Mr. Plummer: No, no, excuse me, let's finish up on the second point the financial. Mr. Slesnick: Ok, well, then financial I was going to get back to that funding. Mr. Plummer: What is the... Mr. Slesnick: The partnership I talk about and as I hope you realize through the years of dealing with Dade Heritage Trust, yes we have come to the City for funds to do certain things, those funds have been expended inside the City limits on historic properties within the City improving, we hope, the type of surroundings and the atmosphere for people living in the City, but I would point out that we a have gone to many other places and the reason that the building has been sitting there for two years is we haven't come back to you for the extra money. We have gone to the State. We have gone to private Foundation and Paul Thompson has worked very very hard trying to locate and pin point a private foundation that would come up with the money. As yet we have been frustrated, but right now we are on the verge we believe of getting the State monies from the next round of grants which will be issued in April from the new State Advisory Board to the Secretary of State and we are looking to that source for the funding. We have not come back to you because we are dedicated and are demanding on our selves to raise money from a variety of sources. And as you know we operate totally on contributions and on the monies... and all of the monies we have come to this Commission to get have been specifically dedicated to projects. Unlike many people who come before you, we don't come here asking for administrative money to pay Paul or to pay the light bill. We come here for money to spend on property, on � FEB 281984 6 property improvement and on historic preservation and we... Mr. Plummer: What is your estimate as to the yearly cost of maintenance and operation? Mr. Slesnick: We have looked at a low estimate as a matter of fact because of the volunteer help to keep the thing going. A very small electric bill and the maintenance on the property has been estimated at approximately three to five thousand a year. Mr. Plummer: That's includes liability insurance? Mr. Slesnick: That's includes liability insurance. It certainly does. Mr. Plummer: And you plan on getting either that in a grant or raising the money, is that correct? You are not looking to the City. Mr. Slesnick: Yes, we do. We are not here to request it from the City. Mr. Plummer: But you are not looking for it from the City? Mr. Slesnick: No, we are not looking for it from the City. We have been actively looking for it from other places, Commissioner Plummer. Finally, the location point. Possibly Lummus Park may never come. Mayor Ferre: Thank you. I think you made a very good presentation. Mr. Slesnick: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: And I think Commissioner Plummer has been favorably impressed. Mr. Plummer: I move the item. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: You are going to say something? Now, be careful. Mr. Plummer: I withdraw my motion. Mr. Martin Fine: No, no. My name is Martin Fine. I didn't know this was on the agenda. I'm here on another matter. My address is 58 Samana Drive, Miami, Florida. For twenty years some of my partners and I have been the largest property owners in that area and I want to tell you that was very upset with the condition of that shack for two years or so, but I'm glad to hear they are going to improve it and I'm for it, but I see the new Chief here and I want to mention this to you. You wouldn't want your school children nor mine or any in this city going to that area without a hell of a lot of police protection. That area is one of the worst policed areas in the City of Miami, it is in the shadows of the Police Department. We have people moving out of our apartments all the time because it not safe there and it is a public disgrace and I'm sick and tired of paying taxes for property that doesn't get protected and I just want to put you all on notice that you are in my opinion, unless you get some real police protection in there endangering the safety of people who come in that area to see a house that was built in 1858. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Perez seconds the motion, further discussion on Item 5? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. � FEB 281984 6 6 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE "WILLIAM WAGNER HOUSE", LOCATED IN LUMMUS PARK AT APPROXIMATELY 404 NORTHWEST 3RD STREET, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 36 OF THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID 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 January 26, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, 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 Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. , Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9808. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY SEC. 1610 HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "FORT DALLAS" - 404 N.W. 3rd Sir. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 6. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves, Perez seconds, is there anybody here who wishes to address the Commission on Item 6? Alright, read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE HC-l: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "FORT DALLAS (A.K.A. WILLIAM ENGLISH PLANTATION)" LOCATED IN LUMMUS PARK AT APPROXIMATELY 404 NORTHWEST 3RD STREET (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN): MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 36 OF THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. 27 FE6 281984 0 • Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 26, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, 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 Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9809 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 17. REFER BACK TO ZONING BOARD APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3665-67 N.W. FLAGLER TERRACE. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 7, Anthony LaRossa. Alright, this is a matter that was continued. The Planning Department recommended denial. The Zoning Board recommended denial unanimously. There were four in favor and one against. Mr. Augustin A. Perez: My name is Augustin A. Perez. I'm an attorney at law and I represent Mr. Anthony LaRossa and his mother Elizabeth. They are seeking... They have filed an application. The application was filed prior to our office being retained. Since then we have given a lot of thought to this application and we feel that it is in the applicants best interest to seek a zoning change as to lots 9 and 12 and request transitional use as to the two adjacent lots 13 and 14. I think in our opinion that would be feasible. Mr. LaRossa by way of a little history, Mr. LaRossa inherited this property in 1957. Since then his mother has leased the property and they own all of the property lots 1 thru 8 which are border at 37th Avenue. They also own all of the property on that block which borders Northwest Flagler Terrace. They own all that property. Now, back in 1973 Mr. LaRossa bought a realty office which was being run out of a duplex in lots 13 and 14. At the time he bought the business there was a realty office in fact being conducted there. There was a City occupational license. Mr. LaRossa had no idea that there was a zoning problem with this particular piece of property until he applied for a permit to renovate the duplex. This was in 1983, just last year. This why we proceed to file this application do we could get the proper zoning so Mr. LaRossa can conduct his realty office which is located in the duplex on lots 12 and 13. In our opinion the zoning change which we are requesting will not in anyway affect the neighborhood where the property is situated. I would point out to you that the property which is immediately across the street on Northwest Flagler Terrace, that being lots 5 and 6 in block 10, they have already been rezoned to CR-2/7 and furthermore the property which is adjacent to those two lots which have already been resolved there is a parking lot therein therefore, apparently they have received transitional use. This is the property which is immediately across the street from the subject property. Furthermore, in lot 9 itself, if you look immediately to the North lot 10 and 11, there is a doctor'ss office in those two lots. Therefore, we have precedent for the change that we are seeking. There is another piece of property that I would make reference to and that is the property of the Mansenes Restaurant on 37th Avenue. That has also already been rezoned CR-2/7. We are talking about block 6, lots 9, 10, 11 and 12. It is important to note that all of the neighbors are in agreement with this proposed change. We have over twenty-three letters from the immediate neighbors consenting to FEB 28 1984 0 0 the change sought herein by Mr. LaRossa. Mayor Ferre: What is it that you want to put up there? A restaurant? Mr. Augustin Perez: No, that is... I should have mentioned this earlier. That is the property immediately in the rear of Los Marinos Restaurant. You may be familiar with that area and there... simply there is an existing duplex and Mr. LaRossa has been running his office there for the last ten years. Unfortunately, he did not realize that it was improperly zoned for an office and that's why we are seeking the change. There is not going to be any change to the community at all. The neighbors are in favor of it. There is precedent for it. As I just mentioned to you the property across the street is already rezoned exactly just the way we want it and therefore, I think that it would not prejudice the community. The neighbors are in favor of it and of course, it would cause great prejudice to Mr. LaRossa after having his office there for ten years to have to pack up and move out. Mayor Ferre: Having his office illegally there for ten years. Mr. Augustin Perez: Yes, that's correct, but I would mention that at the time he purchased the realty office there was a City occupational license. Naively he assumed that the seller had the license, that a office was proper. Again, that was... he was naive in believing so, but that is in fact the case here. The reason... there will not be any change to the community. I mean, all Mr. LaRossa would like to do is to continue the status quo as is. There is not going to be... he is not going to renovate it completely to look an office. The neighbors have not objected. We have twenty-three letters which I would proffer to the Commission signed by the neighbors consenting to this proposed change. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, counselor. Mr. Plummer: Tell us again what your revisal today is. Mr. Augustin Perez: We would like to request a zoning change to CR-2/7 with respect to lots 9 and 12. Mayor Ferre: Would you point them out on the map so we can see? Mr. Augustin Perez: Yes, they are the ones which are vertical. Those two vertical lots. We are requesting a zoning change as to those two and then we would request a transitional use as to the two horizontal lots adjacent thereto. Mr. Plummer: But that would only be the first hundred feet. Mr. Augustin Perez: Yes, sir,•that's correct. We would only need ninety-four. So, it's within the one hundred feet. Mr. Plummer: Well, the problem existing is that same transitional use would be extended to 16 and 15, right? (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: They don't own it. Mr. Augustin Perez: I would point out that the owner... there is a house. The tenant who lives in lot 15 which is in the backyard, she approves and she consents to our request here and she is the person who would be most affected by this change. Mr. Plummer: Is the department ready to make a recommendation on the revised application? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, The Planning Department recommend denial not only of the revised application, but of the application as previously presented as did the Zoning Board :recommend denial. The concern there is that you are taking just a portion of two platted lots and saying it might be available for transitional use and this leaves that � FEp 28198Q remainder of a portion in limbo. Not only that we do not believe that because of the existence of the abundant amount of commercial zoning existing along 37th Avenue and along Flagler and along both East/West North and South that additional commercial zoning is warranted. The fact that the office has existed there, we don't have the records in front of us today with respect to the legality of it. I suspect there might have been a home occupation approval at one point and time and it expanded from there. We believe that this bid looks like a duplex or not, it's still a commercial use and this would set a precedent for establishing additional commerical or office development in the residential area. It's a very sound residential area and believe it desirious to provide the protection through the zoning that is needed to maintain it as a sound residential area. Mr. Augustin Perez: May I have a short response? Mayor Ferre: Go ahea. Mr. Augustin Perez: In fact I can't see how Mr. Whipple can say it's a sound residential area, as I just have indicated to the Commission the property immediately across the street has already been rezoned CR-2/7 and has transitional use the parking lot. So, there goes the residential area right there. The property immediately to the North of the property we are seeking to change here has... also there is an office there, there is a doctor's office. We have the mansenes property as further precedent. So, we do not have any sound residential area as Mr. Whipple would indicate. Mayor Ferre: Look, let me for the record... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you might want to hear my motion first. Mayor Ferre: Ok, go ahead. Mr. Plummer: My motion Mr. Mayor is going to be that this matter be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Board as a application revised and have them come back with a recommendation. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Alright, now under discussion on the motion. I want to express my opinion. Mr. Plummer: It is now a different application. Send it back to the Zoning Board and let them hear as a new application. (BACKGROUND COMMEND OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: No, for the entire application. It's a different application. Oh, excuse me, you are talking about the two that are revised, but it's a part and parcel of the total and what I'm saying is send it back to them. Mayor Ferre: Alright, now look. Let me put my opinion on the record. My opinion is this, if you look across the street--- I'm talking about Flagler Terrace, you will find... Howard, if you turn around and look at the map for a second. If you look across the street you will see 1,2,3, and 4 are zoned the same way as the blue is which is CR-2/7, but also the two lots adjacent to 1,2,3 and 4 are also zoned that way. Ok. So for me what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I have no objections at all to those two lots across the street being zoned the same way as the other ones across the street which is CR-2/7. I do have objections to 13*and 14 and if these people had insisted on a vote and they had to come to the board, I would have voted Aeainst this, because I do think 13 and 14 is an intrusion into a residential neighborhood in the same Vay as across the street 7 and 6 are zoned RG.... What are they zoned? RG what? 30 FEB 28 1984 0 4 Mr. Whipple: Rg-1, Mayor Ferre: So in other words this is strictly a residen- tial area. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: So I don't have any problems with 16 and 17, I have concerns about 13 and 14. If they can assure that no ingress - egress and they landscape and all that. kind of stuff, and if it has your or the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation I would reconsider it. I think the fact that both the Department denied it and the Zoning Board denied it unanimously is very significant. Mr. Whipple: Well, if you want additional comment, Mr. Mayor, the intrusion is still going to be there under the revised request and that type of intrusion is still what bothers us because of the transitional requirement and where the office is now. Yes, that is where the office is. That is the whole objective of the original application, to legalize the old illegal office. Mayor Ferre: The motion that is before us art this time is that it be sent back to the Zoning Board so that is what we are discussing now, the motion before us. Mr. Augustin Perez: I would like to point out that in Block 10, Lots 7 and 8, there is, in fact, transitional use there. Those are parking lots for the businesses on that block. Mayor Ferre: Is that correct? He says that what you're saying is not so, that 7 and 8 is already being used as transitional because it is parking for the properties there. Mr. Whipple: It is not a properly improved lot, it may be used for parking, it did have an illegal structure on it for a while and they were cited on that and it is not an ap- proved parking area to the best of my knowledge, sir. Mayor Ferre: He made a statement and you're saying that's not a true statement. Mr. Whipple: The two lots could be used for parking only because they would be side transitional to the commercial development. Mayor Ferre; That's a transitional use. Mr. Whipple: But it isn't a transitional use for an office structure. Mayor Ferre: Okay, that's valid. Anything else? All right, are we ready to vote on this item? Call the roll on the motion. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-215 A MOTION REFERRING BACK TO THE ZONING BOARD, PURSUANT TO REVISED APPLICATION PROFFERED BY AUGUSTO PEREZ, ESQ. ON THIS DAY AND FOR PURPOSES OF REHEARING THE REVISED APPLICATION, A REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RG- 1/3 TO CR-2/7 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3665-67 N.W. FLAGLER TERR. RT 31 FED 281984 0 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------ r-------------------------r--r r-r-r------- 18. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3757 - 3855 GRAND AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO SPI-2. ------------------------r ----------------r— Mayor Ferre: Is there anyone here that is an opponent to Item 9? Mr. Plummer: What is proposed? Why is the Department the applicant when there are so many owners? Mr. Jack Luft: The problem is that there are so many owners and they are small properties and no owner is entitled to apply, they do not have either the square footage or the lineal frontage. Mr. Plummer: Okay, so what you're recommending, what would be done? What are you trying to accomplish? Mr. Luft: What we're trying to accomplish is to place a commercial zoning over properties that are currently commer- cially used. Mayor Ferre: Well, where is the theatre there? Mr. Luft: The Ace Theatre is just off the right edge of the map. The corner there in the middle is the Douglas Road - Grand Avenue intersection. Mayor Ferre: That's why I'm asking, just place the Ace Theatre for me on that map so I can... Mr. Luft: The Ace Theatre is right over here. Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see. And where is the Tiki? Mr. Plummer: The Tiki is across the street. Mr. Luft: The Tiki Club is on the corner on the northeast corner. Mayor Ferre: Okay, I just want to get oriented. Mr. Luft: So proceeding to the west to the City Limit line from Jack's Place to the Black Arts Council and then the remainder of the block has 8 commercial properties on it. Mayor Ferre: This is where Elizabeth Virrick's old office used to be, right? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Luft: Yes. I ' Mr. Plummer: Now, question. You are recommending this go to a SPI-2. Is there any way that that can be construed for alcoholic beverages, either package, night club, bar? RT 32 FEB 28 1984 0 0 Mr. Luft: They would have to meet the distance requirements in the City Code in order to put that type of use in and, of course, there are already uses there... Mr. Plummer: But you say it would qualify. Mr. Luft: It could qualify if they could meet the require- ments, which they cannot. Mr. Plummer: If the Tiki went out of business. Mr. Luft: You still Jack's Place and you still have Gills Spot. Mr. Gary: Right, so they probably wouldn't qualify, J. L., not in that area. Mr. Luft: And you have the Three Chips Lounge. Mr. Whipple: It is approximately 1000 feet to the end of this rezoning so I don't see how anybody could qualify in there because of the location of.... Mr. Plummer: You know how they qualify, Mr. Whipple, they come down and ask for a Conditional Use. Mr. Gary: They can't do that anymore, 9500, you can't do that anymore. Mr. Luft: There are vacant commercial buildings there that are seeking tenants, an auto parts store which cannot go in because of the residential zoning. We're trying to encour- age new businesses. Mr. Plummer: My fear is another whiskey joint. Mr. Gary: You can't do it, J. L. Mr. Luft: You cannot do that at this location but you can put in legitimate businesses which are trying to go in there in commercial structures. Mayor Ferre: All right, I'll tell you, we're going to go on First Reading. Would you in the meantime bring the ordi- nance to satisfy Commissioner Plummer to your statement that it cannot be done. Mr. Plummer: Let me do it this way: Let's pass it o First Reading, I'll talk with them between now and Second. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 95009 THE ZONING ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3757-3855 GRAND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS-2/2 ONE -FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 47 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. R T 33. F Z; B 2 ig" Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Perez and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote — AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice —Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. -�----------------------------------------------------------- 19. APPEAL OF VARIANCE GRANTED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1740 S.W. 22ND STREET (VARIANCE GRANTED). --------------------- -------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 10. Mr. Anderson, do you ever take up easy matters before the Commission? Mr. Michel Anderson: I think this is going to be easy, we have pretty much resolved the differences. We're going to put in a van sized space and I think the staff is with us on that. Mr. Plummer: You're going to do what? Mr. Anderson: We were required to put a loading bay in this office building and we have asked for a reduction. Initial- ly we asked for a variance of the one loading bay. Mr. Plummer: Where is Coral Way? Mayor Ferre: You know, these maps, I hate to tell you, Whipple, you know, sometimes you put maps up here and here is a good case in point. The only identification that we have is 21st Terrace. Oh, I see 18th Avenue here also. Okay. Where is 18th Avenue, Coral Way is.... What is that street there? Where is Coral Way? I see. In the future, when you have a major avenue like that, even if you put it in by pen would you put in Coral Way or something so that we can... This is Coral Way and 17th? Mr. Plummer: It is on the south side of Coral Way. Mayor Ferre: You'd better get somebody else to vote because I have a conflict, I own a property within that circle. This is Coral Way and which is 17th? Oh, no, I have no problem. Okay. Mr. Plummer: This is almost next to the barber shop, right? Mayor Ferre: Okay. I have no problem, I can vote. Okay. Mr. Anderson: What we have done is we have provided a van space instead of a loading bay at this point so the staff has changed its recommendation. Mayor Ferre: Where is the drawing? Is that it? Mr. Anderson: This is the building, what we have had to do, let me explain what happened. We came in with this building and the ordinance provides that you have to have one loading RT 34 F U 2 81984 bay if you have 10,000 square feet. The zoning inspector who was there at the time said that wasn't being enforced and, in fact, I have pictures in my car that show loads of buildings on Coral Way that don't have loading bays. My client had the plans completely drawn, went back, the zoning inspector who was there was gone, the new zoning inspector said you have to have a loading bay. Well, the building was completely designed, working drawings so we came in for a variance beca►ase it was in a situation where the building was designed under 6871. Mayor Ferre: Michel, where do we stand from staff's point of view? Is this acceptable now? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, with the covenant being proffered and with the tying of the plans to the covenant with the providing of a van space with reduction of 800 square feet of floor area from their original request we would go along with that. Mayor Ferre: Okay, any objectors? Are we ready to vote on this? Is there a motion on Item 2? The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-216 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE 68719 ARTICLE XXIII, SECTION 7(4)(c) TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1740 SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET, ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOTS 91 10 AND 11, BLOCK 279 NEW SHENANDOAH, (10-55) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WAIVING ONE REQUIRED OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE; ZONED C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL). (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. RT 35 F E� 198 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------ 20. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF APPEAL OF VARIANCES GRANTED BY ZONING BOARD FOR PROJECT KNOWN AS "GROVE SQUARE" LOCATED IN COCONUT GROVE AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE. --------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: We're on Item 11, Stanley Price, Esquire. This is Grove Square and the applicant is Yiannis Antoniadis. So we would hear first, I guess an explanation from the department would be proper and then we'll hear the applicant. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, where is this? It doesn't state on this application where it is. Mayor Ferre: It is a big hole in Coconut Grove. Mr. Whipple: It is right behind Mayfair. Mr. Plummer: But I mean on the application it doesn't say where it is, or on my agenda. Mr. Whipple: You're right. The location is 2801 Florida Avenue. Mr. Plummer: Is this the one next to the Farm Store? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, this is the big hole in the ground. Mr. Plummer: Isn't this the one that is in violation? Mr. Whipple: No, sir, not to my knowledge. Mr. Plummer: No, I think it is. Wait a minute. Are you involved in this? This building was originally built.... Where is Mr. Yiannis's building presently? Mr. Whipple: The spot in red. And the application is the yellow around it. Mr. Plummer: Okay, let me just put it on the record. Mr. Yiannis came before this Commission and made certain allega- tions when he built his original building. You correct me if I'm wrong. And it pertained to an alley -way and that alley -way was infringed upon and there was some big hassle after that zoning application. What was it? Mr. Whipple: That was resolved in court, sir. Mr. Plummer: It was resolved in court? Mr. Whipple: 'To the best of my knowledge it has been re- solved in court. Mr. Plummer: But it was a misconception before this Commis- sion, am I correct? At the original inception there was to be no covering of the alley -way or the dedication. Refresh my memory. This was Yiannis's building, yes. Mayor Ferre: But that!s not what is before us. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but* I've got a good memory and that was what was up before us before. Mayor Ferre: And I also have a good memory because as you may recall... Liu RT R R 1QR4 0 Mr. Plummer: What was the problem? Mr. George Campbell: As I remember, Mr. Antoniadis' build- ing was not supposed to encroach in the alley, it was sup- posed to honor the alley and there is an encroachment of Mr. Antoniadis' building into the alley. Mr. Plummer: That's right. So let me say to you. Okay, and the gentleman is sitting here and I know him, but let me tell you something, when a man comes before this Commission and says he is going to do one thing and does another it does have an impression on me in this particular applica- tion. Mayor Ferre: And furthermore, Plummer, we went way out of our way because we gave the applicant who was an objector, Mr. Antoniadis a great deal of variances including the ability to put a residential up on top, everybody was up in arms against it and we let him have a roof top thing and we gave him all kinds of variances. How many variances did we give you, Yiannis? No, we didn't give you one, we gave you more than one. Well, I remember it was a hot issue and I remember taking a lot of heat for it. I voted with you, as I recall, on that. Mr. Plummer: And I did too. Mayor Ferre: And you did too, but that has nothing to do with this particular issue, I don't think, except its presi- dent, as you said. Mr. Plummer: Okay, let's hear it. Mayor Ferre: Okay, what is the issue, Department? Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor, the Department did recom- mend approval of this item. In reviewing the files and the statements made with the application. Mayor Ferre: Did you say the Department did not? Mr. Whipple: Did. Mayor Ferre: Did, that's what I thought. It says the Department granted approval and the Zoning Hoard went 7 to 0 unanimously in favor of it. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. We based our recommendation upon the fact that it was pointed that there were some geological problems with respect to the site and extreme difficulty with de -watering the site. We reviewed the summary report or a report in the files with respect to this, and not going into great detail and research, accepted the report of a registered engineer and agreed that this did, in fact, it was, in fact, a hardship based upon this geological problem with the underground strata and, therefore, recommended approval of the item. Mayor Ferre: Well, what was it that they requested because of a mixed use, right? Mr. Whipple: They are requesting to raise their building up six fees over the 50 foot maximum height limit. Mayor Ferre: In other words they went from 50 to 56 feet. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. ' Mayor Ferre: So the issue before us is 6 feet. 3'7 RT ' FFA 2 8 1984 0 0 Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: And mixed use? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Was that also a variance? Mr. Whipple: No, that is part of the design of the SPI District. Mayor Ferre: The design agreement, I've got you. Mr. Plummer: They want to get the bottom out of the water. Mayor Ferre: Okay, I've got you. Now let's hear from Mr. Antoniadis. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, let me understand this. As I understand it, they are not the applicants, the applicants are Stanley Price, Esquire. Mayor Ferre: No. Mr. Whipple: Well, this is on appeal, Mr. Antoniadis is appealing the approval of the Zoning board of Mr. Price's original application. Mr. Plummer: Okay, but in other words Price got approved at the lower level and Mr Antoniadis is asking that that ruling be overturned. Mr. Whipple: That's correct. Mayor Ferre: That's correct, so he is the applicant. He is appealing to this... Mr. Plummer: He is the applicant for the appeal, not the applicant of the application. RT � r s 0 0 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: He's the appellant. Mayor Ferre: He's the appellant, right. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Yiannis B. Antoniadis: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioners, good morning, my name is Yiannis Antoniadis. I reside at 3326 Mary Street in Coconut Grove. I'm an agrieved property owner who is adversely affected in this matter; it is of great consequences to me. I would like to address an issue here. I would like to remind all that we're not here to discuss me. I'm not the source of this variance petition. My building is not the source of this cause. Commissioner Plummer and Mayor Ferre, I would like to... there were some statements made regarding my property, which is not, again, the case at point, but I would like to set the record straight regardless. You, Mayor Ferre, and all of you Commissioners voted for me unanimously to give me a variance regarding set backs from the front, front street set backs. The set backs at the time were ten feet and then there was an escalating effect that was going for every... I'm not sure, for every three feet up to the back or vise versa. Mayor Ferre: We also gave you permission to put an apartment on the top floor. Mr. Antoniadis: I'm not sure about that, Mayor Ferre, because.... Mayor Ferre: I am. Mr. Antoniadis: ....because at the time I believe I was allowed to have mixed use. If you did so, I accept this. There is someone mentioned here that there is an infringement on this alley. There is no infringement on this alley. I have requested to go into the alley underground two and a half feet to put in the foundation. You, Mayor Ferre, asked me if I had anything to offer to the City, if the City were to allow me to do this, which by the way was not the City's domain, but let it be. I redesigned my foundations at a cost of about I would say over $15,000. At the time that was a lot of money. I redesigned my foundations and did not encroach on the alley. There is only one architectural encroachment of less than an inch and about this long in the front of the building which has a steel angle to avoid the cars hitting the building. The building is within its perimeters. It is less than 3/4 in one area... I'm not sure 5/8ths or 3/4ths of an inch inside the lot line. Mayor Ferre: I happen to think it is a very nice building...so that has nothing to do ... let's move along. Mr. Antoniadis: The roof -top garden is a contribution of my own. I didn't have to have it. My opponents may again attack me. If they so do, that's a shame. There is nothing I can do about that. I'm here to protect my home. I'm here to protect my view. I'm here to protect my tranquility. I will show you the gentlemen who are seeking these variances have not established a hardship. It's not unique to this particular site. It's not unique to this particular project. It's not unique to this particular owner. These problems should have been anticipated, they were put on notice in advance by several studies and by neighbors that have consulted and they did anticipate some of these problems. To begin with in 1982 this Grove Square project hired law engineering companies to prepare certain geological explorations to know exactly what is underneath where they are going to put the building, what kind of foundations to use, what to anticipate. This particular geological exploration is with the City Clerk and T introduce this as evidence and it has been introduced last time as well. This particular report doesn't exactly ... the problems they are going to encounter and how to solve these problems. But I will get to that in detail later on. First of all, I would like to regress a moment and point out the depart- ment's recommendations, a recommendation by Mr. Whipple was put in very well, to use his words, in a weasel kind of a way. I.asr rime, hp axiA he found that there is definitely a hardship there and that these people have tried in every possible way to solve this and they could not solve it. Yet Mr. Whipple is neither a geologist nor an engineer nor has any of their qualifications other than being perhaps a very good City planner. 39 sl FEB 28 t984 0 V Mr. Antoniadis (Con't): There is also an opinion by Mr. Campbell. Mr. George Campbell, the department head of Public Works, I believe. I read from the minutes of this meeting. I says: "Notwithstanding what the Planning Department has said as to the geological strata of the subject site, we have reviewed, my staff has reviewed the engineering reports submitted by law engineering testing company, dated December 8, 1982, concerning the Grove Square project. According to the engineering report, there is no...." I cannot make this word. The copy is very poor that was given here. "There is no geological formation. There is no unique...." And I'm not sure of this word. I have to.... "....geological formation in there. This is a normal geological, hydrolic formation indigenous to this area." And he goes on farther and says: "This particular hydrologic situation is not unique to this particular site, while it is unique to this are opposed to other areas in the County. We feel, we believe, I should say that there is no problem with this generally." Then later on, to quote again from his recommendations. He says: "There is the possibility that they may run into some unwarranted situations, something unforeseen, and they should take care of that." Mr. Price also had made certain statements that they are not to my belief exactly as they were stated. He pointed out that Mayfair is Mayfair in the Grove is taller than our building. I don't believe that's true. I was told that the Mayfair is only 30 feet in height. It's three stories above ground and it goes down some below ground. The Raleigh Development building is taller than ours. I don't know that to be a fact. Also, the back in 1974, the petitioner, refering to me, permitted to go to a higher grade that the height we are asking for. That is not true either. I didn't ask for a height variance. I just asked for a set back variance. Furthermore he states the testimony is predicated upon the fact that we have known of the actual conditions of the time of planning this building. We never would have built or planned this type of building; that's not true. They have known exactly what this situation was there. The law report has done considerable amount of test borings. If I may borrow the report from the City Clerk, because there is one voluminous report. Mayor Ferre: All right, do you have a test boring report in your records? Mr. Ralph Ongie: It's right here. Mr. Antoniadis: They have conducted I don't know how many pages of test borings. They came up with certain conclusions. On top of that, I was sued by the Grove Square in order to close the alley so they can join the two properties and make it into one large project. At that time during our trial and later on Mr. Price pointed out to the court as well as proffered testimony for Mr. Mobley that states that, and I read this from his appeal: "The alley for approximately lot 28, 29, and 30, those are the green properties." 29 and 30 is their property. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Antoniadis, I've let you kind of ramble along now for about ten or twelve minutes. How much longer do you think your presentation will take, within reason, sir? Mr. Antoniadis: Mayor Ferre, I have not estimated time. I'll try to be as brief as possible. Mayor Ferre: No, no, see, I can limit you by law to five minutes, which I'm not going to do. I need to know how much longer you have. Mr. Antoniadis: I'd like to have at least ten to fifteen minutes, sir. Mayor Ferre: I'll give you ten more minutes. Then the opposition will have equal amount of time. I will give you in total, how much time has gone by so far? About ten or twelve minutes? I will give you ten more minutes, which will give you twenty-five. `9 Q1 F ES 28 1984 0 V Mr. Antoniadis: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Mayor Ferre: The law permits the chair to limit all speak- ers to five minutes. Instead of five minutes, I'm giving you 25 minutes. You have ten more minutes to speak. Mr. Antoniadis: I submit this, that Mr. Mobley stated under oath, that there is a sink hole in the back of the property, which later on they claimed that they didn't know about it. I was going to go in detail and point out all the things that there are in this report. Unfortunately, I will not be allowed to do so. Therefore, this report as well as this, I would like to submit as evidence to the Clerk. Furthermore, in the testimony that Mr. Cummings gave, he told the Commis- sioners that they would have to pump anywhere from 25,000 gallons per minute all the way up to 100,000. Then later on Mr. George Campbell said, "You are going to have to pump the whole Biscayne Bay." Contrary to this letter submitted by Mr. Griffiths on January 9th that states that the maximum would be about 23,000 as well as the letter from Dames and Moore, both concur that there is only 23,000 gallons per minute. I also submit these. The Law report states on page 5, "the technical exploration to this date, our evaluations and recommendations summarized in this report pertain to phase I only", this property is divided in two phases. The photographs, which I have submitted last time and is part of this record. Half of this project has been developed. The other half they have not put a spade to it yet. I will also submit additional photographs for the record of this matter. On page 11 they show what the stratification is. It says it is "from 26 to 28 feet of limestone", also that "engineer David Barreiro and Charles Arguinzoni dove to ascertain the continuity and integrity of the limestone from 22 to 27 feet below existing grade". "The water tested", furthermore, they said "was not brackish, it was sweet". "The ground water may fluctuate slightly", I have photographs to show that this ground water only fluctuates about four inches. The feasi- bility of open cut excavation system was documented in page 25, that "similar geological area conditions exist in the same area". On page 30 test results indicate that maybe the dewatering used in the sump pump system confirm conclusions that the draw down is indicated of the pump's capacity." On page 37 through 39 they make recommendations of how to do this step by step. They are recommending three different ways to do it. On page 40 they say, and they warn the developer to "anticipate modifications due to the variation in subsurface conditions". On page - and also to solve boiling which means water coming up or if water is coming in from the sides - on page 41, "modification may be required as a result of variations in the subsurface conditions." Also, that "the more money they spend the higher the proba- bility of success." And they go ahead and tell them that the way to do this thing is to do it by testing one small section. What they tried to do here is they tried to take one big bite at once. This is why they have not been able initially to be able to dewater this. However, since that time they have installed a 36 inch main storm water sewer that goes down to the Bay and I will show you photographs that they have been very successful after they were approved to have these zoning variances that the water went down very fast. Furthermore, my engineer, and he is on record here, a geological engineer,• Mr. Fred Leon, pointed out that there are many other ways to do this, that there is a possibility that this can be done and he suggested the different methods that it can be done. In all available material that is in this particular file today, there is none of them that have any conclusive evidence that there is a hardship there and that it cannot be done. The only hardship that they have is that they are going to have to expend moneys and they have MI RT #pAA A A !AA! 0 to spend more money than they anticipated. Now, if they want to come up to the City and ask for a million dollars, that's fine, you can grant them that but there is no basis for any hardship here documented anywhere. Furthermore, they're asking for a variance on a place that they state in this record, Mr. Cummings states that they don't know if it is even going to be built. I submit these photographs, this is the site that they are asking the variance for which is Phase II. Phase I is under excavation. Mayor Ferre: I don't understand what you're saying with this photograph. Mr. Antoniadis: That is Phase II, Mayor Ferre. Mayor Ferre: In other words is this the Farm Store? Mr. Antoniadis: The Farm Store, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Phase II is behind it. Mr. Antoniadis: Yes. There is an aerial view that is submitted as a part of this record that depicts that. Right now, furthermore, the Commissioners last time who granted them these variances, I think they were somewhat confused as to what they were granting. Mayor Ferre: That's not unusual. Mr. Antoniadis: Well, and I w meet, the closing argument of � actually solve this problem wi is there a mechanical way tha this. Mr. Campbell, "It could estimation, it could be possibl argument. And also, in closir reason they came in front of u these problems in there and tha are we going to raise it six going to be even less than si: really that much that they're a I vote yes." The bottom line tion of my hardship. They have requirements. They did not ac issue of a hardshic. The of )uld state to close an argu- r. Moran is Okay, could they .hoot granting the variance, they could go about doing )e extremely expensive, to my done." That is not a legal g, Mr. Gort says, "the only s is because they confronted the bottom line for this is feet and I understand it is : feet. I don't think that's 3king for and for that reason does not take any considera- not satisfied here the legal dress the issue that is the ily hardship here is money, nothing else. Mr. Freixas earlier, he has a project on 3rd Avenue, and I believe that the gentleman was somewhat con- fused and so were we all because of this very large hearing. I presented three pictures of how to do this in smaller sections and he pointed out that we did not find water at 7 feet - the water table, by the way, of the City of Miami, and I submit this datum chart that the City of Miami has supplied to me, is the same pretty much throughout the City. So they went down seven and a half feet. In fact, seven and a half feet is almost, they have to go, according to one of their reports, they have to go down to minus 6.08. He even went down farther than they did. I will also submit here the test borings that they did for the Mayfair as well as the Continental Plaza and you'll notice that there isn't much difference between their type of geology and the one adjacent to it, and I made a small comparison, and I want to give you now the test borings of those two sites. This is Pittsburg Laboratories for Continental Services and the Testing Engineering for Mayfair. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr:.... Mr. Antoniadis: Well, I'm sorry that I did not get.... 42 RT Vrn A 0 UNA 0 f Mayor Ferre: No, I'll give you a little extra time just to wind up your argument because frankly, you know, I don't mean to tell you how to be a lawyer because I know you're a good lawyer but I would recommend, you know, you've been giving us all kinds of technical things, nobody here under- stands what you're talking about. You said submit this into the record, I don't know what you're submitting into the record - this thing and that thing and then you're going on for half an hour that I don't know what you're talking about. Mr. Antoniadis: I'll be happy to explain if you'll give me the opportunity. Mayor Ferre: In other words, as I understand your position is really very simple. What you're saying is that there is no other hardship other than the economic. Mr. Antoniadis: That is it, that is the bottom line. Mayor Ferre: That in effect what you're saying is you object, you think that there was confusion at the Zoning Board, they didn't understand what they were voting on and that you don't think that they should be granted six feet because there is no hardship. Mr. Antoniadis: Precisely. Mayor Ferre: In effect what it is doing is causing you a hardship because that extra six feet blocks your view from the Bay. Is that your argument? Mr. Antoniadis: Yes, that is precisely exact. Thank you, sir. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. All right, counselor, you've got equal time. Mr. Marty Fine: No, we're going to take a lot less than that. Mr. Mayor, my name is Martin Fine of Fine Jacobson Block. I'm here with my partner Stanley Block and we'll take much less time. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no, Stanley Price I think is the name. Mr. Fine: What did I say, Block? Well, either one of them would be good. I must tell you it takes a lot of something to keep me still, sitting here listening to all of this conversation because I think it is important to put things in perspective. Mr. Plummer, I've learned after all the years he has been on the Commission, has an elephant like memory. Mayor Ferre: Unfortunately. Mr. Fine: His memory is correct in that there were a lot of representations made by this man and he is so busy having these statements.... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fine, with all due respects to you, sir, his problems and what he did and what he didn't do have nothing to do with this particular application. I think Plummer is entitled to have his elephant memory and remember all the things that' were promised and weren't done and whatever and Antoniadis has a right to correct it on the record. That has nothing to do with this application. Mr. Fine: Let me just say this, if you might be kind e- nough, give me 120 seconds to read something into the record 10 RT FAR 9 A 100A 0 because we've been in court with this fellow and I expect we may be there again. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Fine: Let me just say that we think he was and present- ly is in violation of the variance that you've granted. We've advised the City Attorney's Office, they're looking into it, not as quickly as we'd like, but we're saying to you please understand that he is coming here with violations on his property talking about our property. Please under- stand that we've tried to negotiate with him, he has asked for 18 parking spaces, try to give him what he wants then he changes his mind and then asks us to guarantee in writing an affidavit for him that we won't object to an agreement where he'll come before this Commission and ask for a variance. Now, that's the kind of objector that we have to deal with and that you have to listen today. Now, we also want to suggest to you that the testimony that he put in the record this morning we think is not proper because he's not quali- fied as an engineer and all of that is where it's at. But let me just share with you briefly right before Mr. Price presents his situation. Mayor Ferre: There is a portable mike under the.... Mr. Fine: Just to keep things in perspective, his building is 60 feet high, 6-0 feet high. If you grant this variance, the building we're talking to you about will be 56 feet high. Mayor Ferre: Four feet less. Mr. Fine: Four feet less. Other buildings in the area are 60 feet or above. So I think it is very important to keep that in perspective. May I suggest to you, in order to save time, that there is one statement before Mr. Price comes on that I want to share with you and then he'll do it and we'll move on from there. All of the testing that was paid for by the applicant is basically that, it is testing. The data they had indicated to them by the most reputable firm that they could get that they were preparing to deal with this earth and with the soil condition in a certain way. Testing is just that, there is no certainty to it. Once they did it they found they had these problems, they're coming here today to ask you to allow them to go six extra feet whereas in all probability they will have to go four. Mr. Price will present the remainder. Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. Mr. Stanley Price: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. I would just like to briefly give you a summary of what has occurred and led us to this point in time. Initially, our client purchased the two tracts, there are two individual applicants, Interdevco and Earca which are seeking to build a mixed use building under the new provi- sions of the City of Miami Zoning Code. This provision of the Code permits an applicant to build a mixed use building and has the ability to obtain certain bonuses by working with staff in order to put in public theaters, public walkways and the like. As a responsible developer, my client, from day one met with your planning staff and, in fact, Mr. Luft can testify that they were there almost on a daily basis trying to work a plan that meets every single objective of the City's Zoning Ordinance. They were able to come up with a plan that not only meets the entire criteria of the Zoning Code but also places in the development every single amenity in which the Code provides and Mr. Luft can also testify to that. We then forwarded our plans to the I� fir+ RT FEB 28 484 City and because we did not need the first variance from the City Commission you did not see this project. We then went out and pulled the necessary building permits. As a respon- sible developer, my client was interested in the topography of the area. So what does he do? He hires one of the best engineering firms, Law Engineering in the City of Miami to do a test. Law Engineering prepared a voluminous document which Mr. Antoniadis has placed in the record. The report used good sound engineering techniques. However, the report, we have found to be in error. That is the point that Mr. Antoniadis does not recognize. The report is in error as to reality. My client would not be fool hardy enough to spend $500,000, which is what it has cost him to this point in time, to dig a hole in the ground to find out that he has a dewatering problem. Mayor Ferre: $500,000? Mr. Price: $500,000 in time. Mayor Ferre: To dig that hole? Mr. Price: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: How much did you estimate it was going to cost? Mr. Price: I'm talking about carrying charges and every- thing else, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: The moral of the story is you don't dig holes in Miami. Go ahead. Mr. Price: All right. Mr. Mayor, so what does my client do? My client goes out and tries to find the best experts available in the United States and the World have to dewater this site. And what do they do? They hire Mr. John Raleigh, who is renowned, probably the foremost dewatering engineer in the world. Mayor Ferre: Where is he based? Mr. Price: He is based in Omaha, Nebraska. Mayor Ferre: Okay, thank you. Mr. Price: This is the same gentleman that the City's experts who developed Virginia Key called in to dewater that site. Mr. Raleigh is here today. Mr. Raleigh's degrees are longer than this room. Mayor Ferre: Where is Mr. Raleigh? Mr. Price: Mr.'Raleigh. We asked Mr. Raleigh to come .... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Raleigh, before I forget, after this - I'm glad he's here because I'm going to take advantage of his presence - I'd like to chat with you, sir. Don't forget after this is finished. Mr. Price: Mr. Raleigh submitted an affidavit because he was unable to be at the Zoning Board hearing, where he indicated that there is no sound engineering technique available which .would not be cost prohibitive to dewater the site. We're coming.before this Commission seeking a vari- ance. I know what the burden of a variance is, the burden is spelled out very well in your Zoning Code. And if I may just quote briefly from Anderson on zoning which is the leading text in the field, "A land owner is entitled to a variance if he can show unique physical circumstances of the a-, RT 0 or land which will cause unnecessary hardship if strict compli- ance with the Zoning Ordinance is required. The variance cannot alter the essential character of the neighborhood and must represent the minimum departure from the ordinance." Mr. Mayor, we are asking for six feet. Our experts tell us we can probably accomplish what we want with four feet which will still give us a smaller building that Mr. Antoniadis has. Mr. Mayor, I have testimony from Mr. Cummings who is here today who is the general contractor of this property. I have testimony from Mr. Raleigh who is a renowned expert in the field of dewatering. I have testimony from Mr. Suriol who is*the'principle of the company, but I am not going to ask them to testify because it is already on the record before the Zoning Board. Mr. City Attorney, I just want to verify that record is made part of this record. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I want to say on that point that I have shown the Commission a transcript of that February 13th Zoning Board Meeting and I think it is impor- tant that that be on the record as well. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. Mr. Price: I would just like to ask one brief question of Mr. Raleigh, if he would verify that the affidavit and accompanying report which he submitted the last time accu- rately reflect his opinion in this matter. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Raleigh, why don't you stand up and come to the microphone, identify yourself for the record and make your statement. Mr. John C. Raleigh: My name is John C. Raleigh. My ad- dress is 917 S. 113th Street, Omaha, Nebraska. I've been in the dewatering business for a long long time. That's all I've done since 1945. Mr. Plummer: How much of a water problem do you have in Nebraska? Mr. Raleigh: Which particular project? Mr. Price: Mr. Raleigh, I would just like you to verify that the affidavit and the accompanying report accurately reflect your position on this matter. Mr. Raleigh: They do. Mr. Price: Mr. Mayor, I have one more expert witness, an individual who is probably better qualified to testify as to what Coconut Grove is all about in terms of zoning and in terms of what Mr. Antoniadis complains about his lack of ability to view the bay. I would like to call Mr. Jack Luft who is a principal planner with the City of Miami just to testify as to what the zoning in this area sought to accom- plish and how this building will fit into that zoning and also to address Mr. Antoniadis' complaint that he will no longer see the bay. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead, Mr. Luft. Mr. Jack Luft: My name is Jack Luft, City Planning Depart- ment. As the applicants, of Mr. Price has stated, this building conforms to every basic objective of the SPI-II Zoning District for mixed use and amenities. The critical issue of views, one must consider that when you develop residential in a commercial district such as this you have basically two opportunities for exposing that residential to views, internally to court yards or internal yard areas or externally to the open street spaces that it may front. �2 RT FFA 9 A 1000A Those are the only true realistic opportunities you have. If you provide windows to side lot lines or any other expo- sure except those guaranteed spaces you do so at your own risk and with the calculated gamble that it may or may not ever be blocked. There is no assurance that we can provide clear and open views i all events when you take those gam- bles. Grove Square is building residential, a good bit of it. They are exposing their residential to permanent street spaces or to interior court yards. But Mr. Antoniadis has the unfortunate problem which he took as a calculated gam- ble, frankly, of exposing his residential not just to inte- rior yards or exterior streets but to internal side lot lines which he knew could have been blocked at some point in the future. I regret that this situation has arisen and I've worked with Grove Square in the past when they were not exceeding the height limit to try to limit the blockage of his view as best we could, but we are convinced that this is a hardship, that this is a necessary change to accomplish this project and as much as I regret blockage of Mr. Antoniadis' view, I cannot escape the fact that it is a blockage that he should have and could have and probably did anticipate when he built his building and there is nothing we can do about that. Mr. Price: Mr. Mayor, we are very proud of this project, we think this project is going to be a tremendous asset for Coconut Grove and we ask that you affirm the Zoning Board and approve the variance request. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Yiannis, for a brief rebuttal if you want to take the time. Three minutes, Okay? Mr. Antoniadis: Mr. Mayor, in rebuttal to Mr. Luft's argu- ment, I have not anticipated this, I have not expected this and, in fact, when they did put a five foot parapet wall and blocked my view, Mr. Luft and the Planning Department issued this letter and requested them to move their wall down and (inaudible) as well. Mayor Ferre: Yiannis, if we agreed with you and denied them the six feet, I would assume they're too far into the pro- ject, they're going to build that project anyway. They would just knock out a floor and then they would proceed, or they would probably adjust it and make the ceiling heights a little bit higher so instead of having a 56 foot building you should have a 50 foot building and you would have 10 feet. You would still have a building next to you. Mr. Antoniadis: Fine, I don't object to the 50 foot build- ing. Mayor Ferre: You don't object to a 50 foot building, you object to a 56 foot building. Mr. Antoniadis: Yes, the 56 is what blocks me off. Mayor Ferre: It is the 6 feet that makes the difference in your view, right? Mr. Antoniadis: Absolutely. Mayor Ferre: Okay, I understand the logic of that. Mr. Antoniadis: That's all, you know, I've got to move out of there if they do. Thank you, there is nothing more to say. Mayor Ferre: All right, what is the will of this Commis- sion? Are you ready? I guess we don't have to make any 47 RT FEB 2 8 1984 0 0 motion. If there is no motion, then the recommendation of the Department and the 7 to 0 vote granted by the Zoning Board stays in effect. Is that correct? Is that the le- gal ... Or does there have to be a motion on an appeal? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me look at the ordinance, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: There has to be a motion of denial to the appeal, is that correct? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: One moment, Mr. Mayor, please. Mayor Ferre: The Planning Department recommended it, the Zoning Department voted for it 7 to 0, you've heard the testimony on both sides. The difference is six feet... Mr. Carollo: Yes, but the difference of six feet, Mr. Mayor, what is that going to create a difference in the project, I mean is it going to give them how many more additional feet to build on? Is it going to let them build or bring additional commercial or non-commercial? You know, it sounds simple in one way, it is just 6 feet but just what change is it really going to make for the project? Mr. Fine: For the record, Martin Fine, Mr. Carollo, not one inch of additional space, not one inch of additional use, absolutely zero, nothing more. It will allow us to go ahead and build exactly what we were going to build before for which we needed no variance. This is frankly one of the truest hardship cases I've ever presented. We will not gain one inch other than we will have lost a substantial sum of money in doing this. And Mr. Mayor, while I'm on my feet, I respect counsel's right obviously to look it up, but I am 99.5% sure that an affirmative vote denying this applica- tion, denying the appeal is what you need. And we would respectfully ask that, and Mr. Carollo, I want to be very clear, there is not an extra inch of space. There is a benefit of any way. There is not any particular advantage or any advantage at all in doing this other than being able to proceed and build this building. Mr. Carollo: What percentage of this project is going to go to residential usage and what percentage will be going to commercial usage? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, we're violating our own rule, the last speaker at noon is the last speaker. Mr. Fine: 20,000 feet of commercial space and 81 apart- ments. Mr. Carollo: That would stay the same regardless of... Mr. Fine: Exactly the same, we will not change a thing. We are representing to you we will not change one inch, one area at all other than the other six feet. Mayor Ferre: In other words your position is that the only reason you are doing this is because you have a hardship in the dewatering process and you need the extra six feet. Mr. Fine: Exactly. Mayor Ferre: The Department has agreed to that and brought in expert testimony that says that that is the case. Jack Luft for the Department says -that he agrees, the Planning Department recommended it, the Zoning Department has moved it 7 to 0. Is that correct? me i RT FFF 2 8 1984 0 0 Mr. Fine: Exactly. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Antoniadis, on the other hand, says that there is no hardship and it is just an economic matter and he claims that that six feet is crucial to him because his top floor will have a view with 50 feet rather than 56 feet. Mr. Fine: You know, we didn't go into all the things that he's doing in that building, the answer is you are correct in stating it that way and these developers are doing a great thing. You know the guardian of Coconut Grove is Jack Luft, he knows this building, he knows the amenities, he knows the contributions, I would really request that you move that this application be denied. Mr. Plummer: Who are the owners, who are the people of Earca NV and Interdeveo? Who are they? Mr. Fine: Mr. Suriol. Mr. Joe Suriol: My name is Joe Suriol. I live 17700 S. W. 70th Avenue. I have been a developer for the last six years in the City of Miami and we are the owners of Grove Square. Mr. Plummer: Who are members of this corporation? Mr. Suriol: My parents Isaac Mildenberg.... Mr. Carollo: It is the people that are listed in the appli- cation? Mr. Suriol: Yes. Mr. Carollo: Isaac Mildenberg, Pedro Valls, Jose Suriol, Jose Antonio Gutierrez Morillo. Mr. Fine: Mr. Plummer, we have put in all the names of all the owners and obviously in compliance with all of your requirements. Mr. Carollo: That has been complied with. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to go along with the request by Commissioner Plummer for that reason, and what I would like to do is request from... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, what was my request? Mr. Carollo: The time factor. Mr. Plummer: Okay. Mr. Carollo: What I would like to see from the counsel for the applicant is if he could bring in for this afternoon, if you don't have it here already, and if you do, just bring it back please, the way the project would look before - you have the after here now. ... Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission... Mayor Ferre: But you see, I think there is confusion as to what you're doing. It looks the same. the only thing they're doing is they're going up six feet. Mr. Fine: You know, we're really at a disadvantage. Excuse me, I don't know what time frame you have but we were here at 10:15 when we were asked to be here, I have a 2:00 mat- ter, I'll come back if you want me to, but really the fact of the matter, Mr. Carollo, is those pictures reflect it, it is just like taking this as a building and lifting it liter- ally 6 feet and the building stays exactly the same except F. ro RT FED 2 8 1984 0 V that it is 6 feet higher. Now, when it is all said and done, pretty pictures can tell a lot of stories but I think your Planning Department will tell you the building is simply going to be 6 feet higher than it was before and nothing else changes not a square foot of extra space, not a living unit, the commercial, not any of those things. Mr. Carollo: The whole structure, you're saying, Mr. Fine, is going to be the same before, every inch' of 'it. ' ' Mr. Fine: Every inch of it. Mr. Carollo: The only difference would be that it would be six feet higher. Mr. Fine: Exactly. Now, we're making that as a representa- tion so you all know it, it is in the record, it is part of the record and if you vote to deny this appeal we understand you're doing it based on our representations and we're saying that. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Antoniadis, are you the owner of the building next door or do you just have offices there? Mr. Antoniadis: Commissioner Carollo, I am surrounded by this project on all three sides. Mr. Carollo: On all three sides, and do you own the build- ing, the building that is surrounded, do you own that? Mr. Fine: He owns that building. Mr. Antoniadis: Yes, I own that... Mayor Ferre: He owns the building and he got from a previ- ous Commission, I served on it and Plummer, variances to build that building and he built what I think is one of the most beautiful buildings in Coconut Grove, it is a small building, but he took a chance. What he did is he put windows on the side of his building. And what is happening, of course, is that when this building gets put up those windows will look at walls. But, you know.... Mr. Fine: We're not even going to block his views in this new one, it really isn't that at all, we're not even going to block his views. Mayor Ferre: And so the question is the difference between the six feet, Yiannis, what you're trying to accomplish, in my opinion, I understand how badly you feel, but it is unaccomplishable because suppose we were to grant you, and they built their building, they are still going to build their building and it is going to be six feet less and they're still going to block your building, you know, that six feet up at the top means that the top floor will have six feet more to look through rather than 4 feet. You know, I know how badly you feel, I know how strong you fight for things and I feel badly for you, but there is nothing real- ly, I don't see that we can do anything. I just want to say on the record, you know, in my opinion, I think there is an honest to goodness hardship that these people have proven that they have gone into this hole and they have a disaster on their hands. Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, I thought the hearing was closed, if we're going to go up and, back on this we'll never finish. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you see, the point is, as you can see Mr. Fine, there are two members of this Commission here, this Commission is really not functioning legally at this W HT FEB 2 8 1984 0 0 point because we have a rule that at 12:00 O'clock we break and Mr. Plummer is in his rights to get up and walk out. Mr. Fine: Okay, then we'll be back at 2:00 O'clock, and we'll be heard first on the agenda? Mr. Carollo: Oh, certainly, Mr. Fine. Mr. Fine: Well, if that is what we have to do we'll do it. Is that correct about voting, you have to vote? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, I think you do need to vote, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Carollo: I think you're right, Marty. Mayor Ferre: Okay, we'll see you all at 2:00 O'Clock. THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION RECESSED AT 12:10 O'CLOCK P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:20 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH COMMISSIONERS CAROLLO AND DAWKINS ABSENT. ------------------------------------ ---------------------- 21. PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS. ------------------------------------------------------------ Presentation of proclamation to Peter O'Connell declaring Saturday, March 17, 1984 as "St. Patrick's Day" in Miami. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to members of the Zoning Ordinance 9500 Review Committee. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: COMMISSIONER CAROLLO ENTERED THE MEETING AT 2:25 P.M. ------------------------------------------------------------ 22. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF APPEAL OF VARIANCES GRANTED IN CONNECTION WITH A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "GROVE SQUARE" - 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE - (APPEAL DENIED AND VARIANCES GRANTED BY ZONING BOARD UPHELD). ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: All right, we'll take up where we left off, Mr. Antoniadis. Mr. Martin Fine: Mr. Mayor, I understood that we finished the public hearing and you were just waiting to vote on this item, I would hope we don't have to reopen it and to go through all of this discussion again. Mr. Antoniadis: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Carollo posed a question and Mr. Fine answered and I would like to give him my answer also. The question was whether this building would be affected had it been designed not to go up as high as it has. Mayor Ferre: What we were going to get a three minute rebuttal from each side. Mr. Fine: No, no, the. way we left it, Mr. Mayor, my memory is very clear, all -the. public discussion was over. It was before you all, Mr. Carollo asked a question and we respond- ed by saying the building would be the exact same building except that it would be six -feet higher. Now, if we're going to open this you all will be here all day, we'll just never finish. 51 RT FEB 22'8 1984 P Mayor Ferre: But Marty, obviously a Commissioner has a right to ask a question and get an answer. Mr. Fine: Of course, I didn't mean Mr. Carollo. Let him answer, but please, let's have some semblance of finalizing this and then going to a vote. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, the answered pretty thoroughly. If add something to it or if there Mr. Fine represented, I'll be me as far as I'm concerned, the answered very clearly. So I am questions that I had were the gentleman would like to was anything incorrect that re than happy to hear it but questions that I had were ready to vote. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move on Item 11 to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Carollo: I second the motion. Mayor Ferre: It has been moved and seconded, is there further discussion? Mr. Plummer: Let the record reflect that all documents were before this Commission including the one on the geographical study and also all documents were transmitted to us prior, hearing at the Zoning and Planning Board and that I person- ally, and I'm sure that every Commissioner here has studied them as part of our decision. Mayor Ferre: Let me, since obviously we're getting into legal areas, before I vote explain my vote on the record. I will be voting for the motion. The reason I am voting for the motion is (1) because the Planning Department has gone strongly on record and stays on record in being for it and (2) it was a unanimous vote of the Zoning Board by a vote of 7 to 0 so it wasn't even a contested vote; (3) I was im- pressed by the testimony and specifically I talked to Mr. John C. Raleigh of Omaha, Nebraska who is an expert on dewatering problems, that there is, indeed, a major critical point which makes this an exceptional thing; (4) that even though I sympathize with Mr. Antoniadis' problem, when he built his building, I'm sure he was well aware that the property owners next door could build a building and the fact that a building is going up which is 56 feet high that's approved which is 4 feet less than his own building is not an unreasonable thing not only under the law, but I think just under common sense. It is a similar sized build- ing. And lastly, because by reducing this building six feet, we would be causing a hardship to the developers and I don't think we would be granting relief to Mr. Antoniadis because in effect instead of looking over the roof of a building 56 feet high, he would be looking over the roof of a building 50 feet high and frankly I don't know what kind of a relief that is. I understand that he would like for the building not to go up but I just don't think that is not only a probability, I don't think that is even possible. So, therefore, I am voting with the motion for all the reasons as stated into the record. Okay, further discus- sion? Call the roll. . Mr. Ongie: Roll call on the denial of the appeal. RT FES 2 81984 11 0 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-217 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S ACTION IN GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 95001 AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 1527, MAXIMUM HEIGHT, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT (GROVE SQUARE) AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE S 95' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 LESS THE E R.0' AND THE S 5.0' THEREOF, BLOCK 41 WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) AND TRACTS "A" AND "B" GROVE SQUARE (121-83) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED) AND SUBJECT TO THE DEDICATION OF THE .S 5' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 AND THE E 5' OF THE S 9' OF LOT 25; CONTAINING A TIME LIMITATION OF 12 MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBRTAINED; ZONED SPI-2; COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Mr. Antoniadis: Mr. Mayor, for the record I would like to state that Mr. Fine attempted to do some character assassi- nation here by stating that I was offered 18 parking spaces, and this has nothing to do with this specific case, he had to do something else with an alley that we were in court... Mayor Ferre: Yes. And let me say to you, Yiannis, that I have nothing but the highest regard, and I think all of us here have the highest regard for you. Your building is an exceptionally beautiful building, it is a great addition to Coconut Grove, I'm sorry we're having this problem and I don't think that whatever variances, whether it was one or more that you got have anything to do with any of this and I so stated into the record, and furthermore, I think whatever legal recourses you have you have and so be it. Mr. Antoniadis: Thank you. ---------------------- ------------------ -------------------- 23. QUIT -CLAIM DEED APPROVAL - AIRPORT 7 ASSOC. JOINT VEN- TURE (N.W. 7TH ST, BETWEEN N.Y. 49TH AND 51ST AVENUES). ----• -----•------------*r---•-----------------------•-----w--- Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item #12, Airport 7 Associates, Joint Venture. This is a companion item to #13. All right, Mr. Whipple, we're back with you, sir. 5 Ij 3 RT FEB 2 81984 Mr. Whipple: There is no problem with this item, sir, this is in conjunction with the following item of plat acceptance of Airport 7. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-218 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PROPER CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER A QUIT- CLAIM DEED TO AIRPORT SEVEN ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE RELEASING THAT CERTAIN ASSIGNMENT OF EASEMENT BY AND BETWEEN ALCAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF MIAMI AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 8564 AT PAGE 1512 ON JANU- ARY 15, 197;4 IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------ ----------- 24. ACCEPT PLAT: "AIRPORT 7 ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE (N.W. 7TH STREET BETWEEN N. W. 49TH AND 51ST AVENUES). The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-219 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "AIRPORT SEVEN", A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; 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 RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. 54 RT FEB 28 1984 Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- 25. ACCEPT PLAT: "FLORIDA CONFERENCE ASSOCIATES OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH" - N.Y. 19TH AND N. W. 30TH STREET (PLAT: "HADLEY GARDENS"). The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-220 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED HADLEY GARDENS, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF-MIAMI, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICA- TIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZ- ING 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, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------ ----------------------------------------------- 26. ACCEPT PLAT: "DOUGLAS GARDENS" (N.E. 51 TO 53 BETWEEN N.E. 2ND AVENUE AND N.E. MIAMI PLACE). The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-221 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED DOUGLAS GARDENS REVISED, 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 RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 9� RT FEB 2B 1984 9 0 (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins KII FES 2 8 1984 RT --------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 27. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2469-2471-2511 S.W. 32ND AVE. AND 3180 S.W. 25TH ST. FROM RG-2/3 TO CR-3/7. (See later same meeting). Mayor Ferre: We are on item 8, the applicant... this is a petition, right?... and the applicant is Mr. Robert Korner. Mr. Korner, I might say for the record that the neighbors have very generously and kindly conceded to come back at 2:30. They have, all twelve of them, let you have the opportunity to fulfil your civic obligations, and on behalf of your daughter, who was here, and on behalf of the City of Miami Commission, and I was speaking for you also, I thanked them for their courtesy. Mr. Robert Korner: Thank you, Mayor, I do appreciate it very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, we'll start with you. Why don't you give us.... Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, the request is for a change of zoning from an RG-1, which is a single family duplex area, to a CR-3, which is a commercial residential area. This is the site of the old restaurant, perhaps those of us who have been around for a while refer to as the old Rocky Graziani Restaurant. It changed hands several times. It was a Swiss Chalet for a while. Now, I believe, has another name. We believe this request is truly a spot zoning application. As you note on the map on the wall, the property is completely surrounded by residential zoning, and in fact land use single family and duplex uses. We feel that this change of zoning is in conflict with the comprehensive plan for the City of Miami. There is no similar type of commercial zoning within at least 1/3 of a mile from the subject property. The only reason it is only a third of a mile is up toward N.W. 23rd and 24th Streets, 23rd Street, 23rd Terrace. There is some commercial development that extends down from Coral Way along 32nd Avenue. We feel that the requested change is contrary to the land use pattern. As I've pointed out, it does create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent nearby districts and we believe would provide an illogically drawn commercial zoning boundary. The subject use as it exists today is a legal non -conforming use, under the terms of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, may continue indefinitely. There are also sufficient provisions to allow considerations for minor additions and to allow for structural alterations and those matters that might involve life and safety. We believe that this is a reasonable permission in light of the non -conforming status that it has. For those reasons, we have recommended denial of the requested change of zoning. Mayor Ferre: All right, now you, sir. Mr. Korner: My name is Robert Korner. I'm representing the applicant in this case. We are talking about the Swiss Chatteau Restaurant, which is located in S.W. 32nd Avenue. We are not -I emphasize not- asking for a zoning change permit a new or a different use on the subject property. The existing commercial use is there and a commercial use has been on that property since mid 1920's. The neighborhood has developed and con- tinues to develop with the existing restaurant right where it is. This rezoning will not make commercial any property that is presently not already being used commercially. These neighbors came to this area knowing that commercial use was already there and was established. The neighbors have seemed to indicate at the Planning Board hearing that the existing restaurant is an acceptable use. Staff expressed a concern that rezoning this property would allow billboards or a gasoline station. I can asure you that this owner will give a covenant running with the land that will prohibit billboards or gasoline stations to ever be put on this property and any other undesirable uses that the staff would feel are not compatible. I think the question is why are we requesting a zone change. -•We have already legal non -conforming use on the property. The reason that we are asking for this is that we believe this Commission. We believed this Commission, when they passed Ordinance No. 9500. Ordinance No. 9500, passed less than a year ago 57 81 FEB 28 1984 0 0 Mr. Korner (Con't): Section 2101.3 makes clear the intent of this Commission and our zoning program for this City. It says: "It is the intent of this zoning ordinance to require removal or cessation of certain of these non -conformities and to permit others to continue subject to terms of this zoning ordinance until they are otherwise removed or ceased but not to encourage their survival." I think the method of doing that is also clear in the ordinance. I would point out Section 2104.1: "An existing structure that houses a non -conforming use may not be enlarged, extended, constructed, re -constructed, replaced or structurally altered." 2104.6: "Any such non -conforming use that is discontinued for any reason for a continous period of 180 days loses its right to be there. If it is out of business for 365 in any three year period, it loses its right to exist." Section 2104.8 says: "If it is damaged to 50% or more, it's lost. You can't continue it." Variances, and I think that is probably a problem with a lot of people, varances can be applied for and they might be issued. Special exceptions can be applied for and they too might possibly be issued. That's not the kind of asurance that an astute investor or businessman requires in order to run a business. Section 2107.2.1 says: "Within one year of the passage of Ordinance No. 9500,...." a few months from now, "signs that are not permitted in residential districts, must conform to the regulations that apply in the restaurant district and if they don't they have to be torn down." Now, non -conforming signs in the rest of the City can remain, but these signs would have to be removed within the first year. If the ordinance accomplishes its expressed intent to require removal, to require discon- tinuance, not to encourage survival, we can see why this owner cannot abide the legal, non -conforming classification placed upon his property. Relegating this business to a failure would be detrimental to the neighborhood. A business that makes money can be properly maintained, can uphold an attractive appearance, can continue to be a credit to the area. One that loses money is no credit to this City nor to the neighbor- hood. It is a extremely difficult to market a commercial piece of property that is burdened with residential zoning. Vendors are reluctant to loan money for any kind of improvements on such property. What is S.W. 32nd Avenue today? It is a half -section line road. It is an arterial street. There presently exist commercial uses in the third block north of the subject. There is a boy's club to the south. There are several churches on this stretch of 32nd Avenue. Staff takes the position that there is something wrong, detrimental, almost immoral about what they call spot zoning. I would suggest that they didn't feel that spot zoning was bad a few months ago when they asked this Commission to pass Ordinance No. 9500. I'd like to show you a map. Here is the subject marked in yellow. Just to the west of it, I'm sorry, to the east of it spot zoning all by itself, certain spot zoning. The only difference between this spot and that spot is that this is not an arterial street. Mayor Ferre: When was that granted, for the record? Mr. Korner: That was passed when you passed Ordinance No. 9500. Now that bit of spot zoning is right. Mayor Ferre: No, no, when was it originally passed? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, I can answer that if you would like. It was originally 1682, prior to 1961, zoned 8-3, which was a commercial use and I believe it housed a.garage for some of the bus system at that time. Subsequently, when 6871 came into effect in '61, it was rezoned to a multiple family, it'was rezoned to surrounding area. A petition came in and requested a multiple family zoning, which was granted over the objection of staff and that spot has continued ever since. Zbol 61 .FEB 2 81984 Mayor Ferre: counselor, how long has he taken so far? How much longer do you think your presentation will take? Mr. Korner: About three minutes. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Korner: That spot zoning there was done for the right reason. It recognized *the cxisting uses that were on the property. That's what we are asking for right here, to recognize the existing uses. We ask that you give favorable consideration to the requested rezoning, that you allow the existing legal, non -conforming use to become a legal conforming use, that you allow this business the opportunity to survive in this City to compete with other restaurants on an equal footing. In our free enterprise system, people and businesses should be entitled to a fair an equal treatment. As long as we are classified as a non -conforming use, that treatment cannot be fair or equal. Thank you. For the record, I would like to enter these pictures and this map. Mayor Ferre: All right, why don't you give them to me so we can look at them and then I will pass them on to the Clerk for the files and the record. Thank you. Before we continue, we did say that at 2:30 we would make some presentations. AT THIS POINT THIS ITEM WAS MOMENTARILY DEFERRED. 28. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO INDIVIDUALS WHO WORKED ON STRUCTURING OF ORDINANCE 9500. Mayor Ferre: There are people that have come here for these presentations. I would ask them to step forward. Most of them are not here, so we'll have these delivered separately, Alberto Cardenas, Paul J. Briensa...these are the people precisely that helped us with the Zoning Ordinance 9500 review, Terry Percy, Stanley B. Price, Robert D. Korner, George Knox, Raul Rodriguez, Cliff Shulman, Luciano Isla, Herbert Simon, Gary S. Brooks, Ronald Chapel, James Dean, Architect, Charles Chase, Daniel Paul, Robert, McKnight, John Forte, Robert Traurig, Silvan Holtsman, Tony Marina, Herman Romney, Aaron Maynes, Alicia Baro, Martin Fine, Janet Cooper, Jose Garcia -Pedrosa, Richard Whipple, Howard V. Gary, Walter B. Martinez, Richard K. Weisberg, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, Joe McManus, Sergio Rodriguez, Walter Pierce, Miriam Maer, David Teems, Don Cather, Bill Mackey, Joel Maxwell, and Officer Oscar Tejada. AT THIS POINT THE COMMENDATION WAS MADE AND PICTURE TAKEN. 29. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 2469-2471-2511 S.W. 32ND AVE. AND 3180 25TH ST. FROM RG-1/3 TO CR-3/7. Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, the neighbors that are here to speak in opposition. How many of you wish to be heard today? Fourteen, you all want to speak? I will ask all of you here that are in opposition that are against, to stand up so we can clearly see. How many wish to be heard as spokespeople for the group? You two ladies wish to speak? That's fine. Would five minutes do for each one of you? Two minutes, all right. You are welcome to come up and use the microphone. 5�FEBFEP A Q �+V 1994 al 0 Mrs. Esther Lundblad: May I be permitted to hand one of these to each of you, please? My name is Esther Lundblad. I live at 3178 S.W. 25 St., which is lot 5, I believe, the Pines, which is adjacent to one of the pieces of properties that they wish rezoned. I stood here on two ocassions, listened to the attorney tell you about the restaurant. Well, the restaurant has made improvements within the last year. They have redone the whole front of the building. They have added on an outside patio with a different entrance into the restaurant. So, they are not lacking for redoing of the business. That restaurant has been there for many years. It was there for as long as I know. My house was built in 1949. There are children on 25th Street and putting commercial property would be very bad. This property is on a private street, where there is not- too much traffic now. It is a residential area. The neighborhood is quiet. We can't see any reason for the rezoning. I have 200 and some odd feet adjacent to this property that they are talking about. I really resent them wanting to change it. There is no cause for it, no reason for it. That restaurant has been that way for so many years. If it is doing business, why change it? If they are not doing business, then let it go to residential property instead of commercial. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Ms. Alice Basave: My name is Alice Basave. We own the house of 3168 S.W. 25th Street, block 8 there. It is a beautiful, tranquil, residential area where we all take pride in keeping it beautiful and peaceful. We feel threatened by the thought of rezoning it to commercial, when there is really no need for it in this area. All the undesirable characteristics endemic to a commercial area would approach upon our lovely neighborhood. We would feel very badly and strongly about that. We would not like the congestion, the traffic, noice, garbage, crime, or whatever that a commercial zoned could cause to spill over on us and devastate the peace and beauty of this nice, residential area as we now know it. Making it commercial would downgrade it as a fine residential area, as anybody knows. It definitely would not enhance the area. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Are there any other speakers at this time? If not, we'll open it up for questions. —Yes, sir. Mr. Henry L. Clark: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Commissioner Plummer, we have heard this argument before. My name is Henry L. Clark. I live in 3186 S.W. 25th Street in Miami. I have lived there for over forty years. We are the nearest neighbors to this restaurant. There has been an improvement since this new Cena Corporation got it in 1978. They opened in May 1978; that's six years almost. But what we are objecting to is the operation, the rnoise of that place. They have a 3:00 o'clock license, as you probably well know. That noise from that nightclub or whatever it is, noice I can't describe it, but it's penetrating and it keeps you awake at night. It's a continuous beat. We have lost two tenants in the last ... well, my duplex has been vacant for over two years on account of... the reason they moved was that they couldn't sleep. They worked days and they tried to sleep there at night, but they finally gave out, and one of these tenants had been there almost seven years. That's pretty good for that neighborhood. They liked that neighborhood. I like it. I like to live there, but it's hard to do with this commercial business the way it is operating right now. Last Saturday night the noise was going on, I heard it at 3:00 o'clock. Then after 5:00 o'clock the garbage wagon came and picked up that big drum and with all that machinery I guess the neighborhood heard him. Mayor Ferre: At what time? Mr. Plummer: 5:00 he said. Mr. Clark: Well, it was after 5:00, between 5:00 and 6:00. But I've heard it come there at 4:00 o'clock; it makes the same noise no matter what time it comes. These`are the things I'm objecting to, because I'd like to live there a little while longer. About this rezoning, I don't know anything about it, only I know and Mr. Plummer knows well that Rocky wanted it rezoned, but he didn't have a bunch of lawyers operating for him, but he had the same idea and it wasn't true at that time, I so FES 2 6 1984 sl Mr. Clark (Con't): believe Mr. Plummer was in charge of Zoning and Planning, it went before the Commission when Robert King High was the Mayor, the Honorable. I feel the same way yet, only I feel like it should revert back and be used what it is zoned for. Let these people, some way or another get a new address for the zoning will fit their business. That's about all I can think about, except at one time the bus came. It was owned by Don Bus. I lived there at that time at 31st Avenue and 25th Street. The building is still there, but the City of Miami eventually took over the Don Bus, as some of you know, and they moved. There was a man there at one time to try to get that moved "t of th neighborhood. There were other places that ran all night wlrth noise like boiler shops along with the boy's club on the north side of the highway that had been moved and moved out in suburban area, Hialeah and so forth. I don't know if it is possible, but I would like to see that done. I thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Clark, thank you, sir. Counselor, for a brief rebuttal and let the neighbors rebut too. Mr. Korner: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioners, there had been improvements made recently and those improvements were made under Ordinance No. 6871, not under Ordinance No. 9500. The reason for the rezoning is exactly what we have stated. We find it extremely burdensome to be classified as a legal, non -conforming use. The neighbor has mentioned that they resent the idea of the zoning changes. The use is not changing. The zoning change will reflect the use that is there. They say that the neighborhood is a beautiful, peaceful neighborhood now. 'That restaurant has been there since...well, the commercial use has been there since the mid 1920's, that restaurant has been there for several decades. Mr. Clark mentioned at the Planning Board meeting about the garbage pick-up and since that time, the garbage trucks have been told to collect the garbage after 8:00 o'clock or later. That problem has been solved. We didn't know about it until the Planning Board hearing. We would say that zoning this property commercial won't downgrade the neighborhood. It would simply recognize the uses that are already there. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Questions from the Commission? You want to rebut that? Ms. Lundblad: I'd like to have him there at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, really. Another thing that I wanted to make sure you realize is that on 25th Street there is a little house there now and they want that piece rezoned to commercial too. That I know is right on 25th Street, certainly not on 32nd Avenue, where it is not being used for anything; people have lived in that house until they came up with this change for zoning. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Anyone else wishing to discuss this issue? You are the Vice Mayor; what the hell am I doing? Ms. Lundblad: If, as the counsel says, if it is simply recognized as what is already there, then I say why does the zoning have to be changed to commercial? If there is really no need for it... they could make the alterations, if there is no need of changing it to commercial. Mayor Ferre: Questions from the Commission? Statements? My position is simply this. This is just one person's opinion. I vote once in a while against the department and I vote against the Board when I find good cause. However, when you have a Planning Department recommendation of denial and the Zoning Board votes for denial unanimously, 7 to 0, there has to be a pretty good reason. Counselor, I can't think of a good reason why this City should overturn the Zoning Board's recommendation for denial. I just can't; I don't see any logical reason for it. Mr. Plummer: I move to uphold the Board on item 8. Mayor Ferre; There is a motion to uphold the Board on item 8. Is there a second? Further discussion? Call the roll. 61 sl F88 2 81984 i The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption. MOTION 84-222 A MOTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2469-2471, 2511 S.W. 32nd AVENUE AND 3180 S.W. 25th STREET FROM RG-1/3 TO CR-3/7. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Mayor Ferre: I don't know whose pictures these are. Do they belong to you? Ladies and gentlemen, this item has been ... the request by the Cena Corporation has been denied and thank you for your patience. 30. DISCUSSION ITEM: MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. Mayor Ferre: We are now on item 23. Mr. Juan del Cerro, I asked you and Dr. Anderson to step by today to answer the request of Commissioner Miller Dawkins regarding a loan application of a black Miamian entrepeneur that had gone to the Bahamas on our Bahamian trip and requested a loan. So Miller Dawkins is not here today, but you have been kind enough to be here anyway, so why don't you for the record give us, if you wish, either you or Dr. Anderson grant us an explanation as to what has occured on this gentleman's request. Mr. Juan del Cerro: What we have done is we have prepared a chronology of the Miami Capital Development's dealings with Sabir Converting Company dating from 1981. I thought there were a series of questions that would be asked by Commissioner Dawkins. Unfortunately, he is not here to ask those questions. Mayor Ferre: The question is that in December of 181, they applied for a loan, as I see it now for $143,000. Has the loan been granted or not? Mr. Cerro% I understand from the Executive Director, who is here with me, Dr. Anderson, that they were granted a $25,000 line of credit. Mayor Ferre: Has that been fulfilled? Mr. del Cerro: That line of credit is contingent upon his obtaining contracts for his company. Mayor Ferre: Has he come forward with the contracts? Mr. del Cerro: Not to my knowledge. Mayor Ferre: So, therefore, the line of credit is not.... Mr. del Cerro: No, the money is there. The money is there, Mr. Mayor. I think he wanted $50,000. We give him $25,000. Mayor Ferre: Is the principal here? WY sl .FEB 281984 C� Mr. del Cerro: I don't know who he is, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is the principal of Sabir here? Mr. del Cerro: What I'd like with your permission is to allow Dr. Anderson, the Executive Director, to go into details in how Miami Capital handles the beaurocratic part of the loan processes. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask one quick question. In any way has this application been handles any differently than those in the past? Mr. del Cerro: No. Mr. Plummer: Is it a standard procedure of issuing a line of credit and they draw against it as contracts? Is that a standard operating procedure? Mr. del Cerro: In some cases, it is. Mr. Plummer: In cases that it is not, why? Mr. del Cerro: A lot of times, it's just an outright loan to the company. Mr. Plummer: Speaking to letters of credit. Mr. del Cerro: You mean lines of credit. I don't understand what you're.... Mr. Plummer: In other words, you are saying that you usually either give lines of credit or an outright grant? Mr. del Cerro: Right. Mr. Plummer: Why wasn't this company given an outright grant? Mr. del Cerro: I think, I shouldn't say think, I'm sure that the loan committee and the staff didn't feel that the business could stand the direct loan, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Those loans are repayable? Mr. del Cerro: Absolutely. Mr. Plummer: At what percent? Mr. del Cerro: I don't know what the percentage was in this particular case. The percentages charged on loans given by Miami Capital vary, depending on what the source of the money is. But in this particular case, I don't know if it is appropriate for us to discuss this fellow's personal financial information. Mayor Ferre: I don't think it is. I think that I would imagine that sooner or later our City Attorney is going to stop us and say that we are exposing ourselves to potential law suits if we start discussing somebody's private financial affairs. Mr. Carollo: No only that, Mr. Mayor, but I think this is totally out of line that we are going to be drilling these people here as to why this loan is not being given. Mr. del Cerro: No, no, it has been given. The line of credit was extended, Commissioner Carollo. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Dawkins asked, and as far as I am concerned.... Mr. Carollo: It was extended? Mr. del Cerro: Yes, the line of credit was...I wasn't here when Commissioner Dawkins brought this up. I don't know what brought all this about. j sl .,FEB 2 81984 sl Mayor Ferre: Joe, in December 1981, we are now in February 1984, they applied for �143,000 loan. Mr. Carollo: What kind of company is this, by the way? Mr. del Cerro: They convert paper. I asked Dr. Anderson what they converted into.... Mayor Ferre: On July 1983, they were approved the line of credit of $25,000, provided that they show a contract with the Bahamian government for...a contract to supply them.... Mr. del Cerro: To process paper. Mayor Ferre: And the fact is they haven't.... Mr. Carollo: The Bahamian government to process paper. What kind of paper are they processing? Mayor Ferre: It doesn't matter. The point is that they haven't come up with a contract. We are not going to put ourselves in the position of questioning the loan board. We never have, that I know of. Mr. del Cerro: No, we haven't. Mr. Carollo: I think we would be making a really terrible precedent if we start doing that. I don't have any question about it. Mayor Ferre: Any other questions about this? Mr. Plummer: Let me just put one thing on the record, I'm not going to put all this on the record. I'm going to give this back to you. I think the key issue is in number 8. Number 8 states that the lines of credit was accomplished on September 21, 1983, 36 days after M.C.D.I. receives Sabir 's July 31, 1983 financial records, which was the first records that they provided. Mr. del Cerro: Complete records. Mr. Plummer: Complete records. I think that's the important factor cutting through all of the red tape 36 days after they complied they were addressed and granted the lines of credit. I think that is the key issue. Mr. del Cerro, I would like to hand this back to you or to Dr. Anderson personally. I don't want this in my possession. Mayor Ferre: I think you ought to pick them all up, frankly. I don't think this Commission should be involving itself. Mr. del Cerro: We supplied you this, Mr. Mayor, at the request of Commissioner Dawkins. He wanted to know exactly how and why the loan was handled. That is the reason we brought that. Mayor Ferre: I understand that we are going to be talking about the status report of*M.C.D.I. subsequently in the next meeting, which is March. Mr. del Cerro: Right. Mayor Ferre: I'm going to be asking you at that time, just so I put it on the record and you'll know, I noticed that there were Dade County loans and City of Miami loans. Mr. del Cerro: Yes. Mayor Ferre: I want an explanation and I need to go over the logic of why the number of loans inquiries to the riot affected Areas in Dade County were 625 and the ones in Miami were 409. Are you telling me that Miami Capital is doing more business in Dade County than it is in Miami? TIJ FE8 2 81984 V Mr. del Cerro: This refers to the revolving loan fund. Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about the February 15, 1984 loan portfolio status report from 1980 to the present, which is a four year period, in which 625 loans, a number of loan inquiries have been done in Dade County and 409 in Miami. The question that I'm going to have for you is how much business are we doing of the total of -the $27,000,000 that have been requested; of the $34,000,000 total capital formation of the total loans that have been granted, how many of the 102 loans that you have outlined in the back page are in Dade County and how much are City of Miami oriented? That's my first question; second question I want to ask you is, some of these have been granted but not taken. For example, we just went over one with SABIR. How many other loans have you granted, or loan application that have been granted that have not been taken out? Mr. del Cerro: The exact number I can ask our Executive...I don't know the exact number, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Mr. del Cerro, let me repeat my question so you understand. I am not asking you for an answer now. I'm.saying that on March 8th I will be asking you the following questions and on March 8th I expect an answer. I need to know what you are doing on Dade County vs. the City of Miami and how much are we doing in the City of Miami. If we are doing that much in Dade County, how much money Metropolitan Dade County putting into this with their Federals funds. I don't care where it's coming from. If we are carrying all of the burden or part of the burden, why? How many of these 102 loans have actually been taken. How many are still out there to be taken. I noticed that in the last couple of years, eighty some odd percentage of the loans have been...68% have been to blacks, 20% to His- panics, and 13% to Anglos. But as I recall in the first year or two it was just the reverse, it was totally or mostly Hispanic. You see, the affected areas is mostly black. I think that is the right proportion. I'm glad that we are doing that. But I'd like to have that broken up. I'd like to know how much we have done in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months because if in the past 12 months, for example, were going to 98% black and 2% Hispanic and no Anglos, then I think that is wrong. Mr. del Cerro: No, that's not the case. Mayor Ferre: I didn't think that was the case, but I would hope that there is some kind of a balance in there. Yes, ma'am? This is not a public hearing, but I will recognize you briefly. Ms. Wynelle Sabree: I'm sorry, I recognize that it is not a public hearing, but I know something. My name is Wynelle Sabree, 1043 N. Greenway Drive, Coral Gables. I'm very familiar with the application that Mr. Sabir placed with the Miami Capital in 1981. That is totally different that the $25 line of credit that was recently issued. Mr. Sabir did supply all the required documents together with financial statements in the complete loan package for 1981 on that 1981 application. I believe that application was made in August 1981, not December. I don't know why Mr. Sabir is not here. He intended to be here today. So perhaps he's been misled or something. The total $25,000 is totally different than the original loan of $143,000 in 1981. The reason that this is so, there have been no contracts on this $25,000 line of credit Mr. Sabir had the contracts for this Bahamian merchandize, but he did not have the money. I think that Mr. Sabir had applied earlier. It was not granted within 36 days, just for the record is all I'm making this statement for. Mayor Ferre: Do you want to answer that, Dr. Anderson? Mr. Plummer: Ma'am, would you come back on the record? What is your association with that company that you have such pertinent information? Are you a stockholder? Are you an investor? Ms. Sabree: Mr. Sabir requested of me money to keep him going until this loan was approved only for gap finances and only for a very short time. Since 1981 I have not been able to get money, but I had invested or given to him to keep the company going for a few months until this loan could be disbursed as was promised to him. �i5 .FEB 28 1984 sl 0 sl Mr. Plummer: So in other words, he owes you money. Ms. Sabree: He owes me money, and the money that he owes me was because that he had this loan and all indication was that the loan would be gotten. I only did it as a personal favor to the man. Mr. Plummer: When was that loan give by you? Ms. Sabree: T started, let's say giving him money, loaning him money on contingent on this loan going through in 1981. I first gave him a.... Mayor Ferre: J.L., I don't think we should be getting involved in the loan application, in the very complex.... Miller is the guy that wanted.... Mr. Plummer: Maurice, the only reason that I was pursuing it is because she was speaking as an authority and I wanted to know on what authority she spoke. Mayor Ferre: The problem is this. This board is a quasi or a semi- autonomous board. We fund it. We use Federal monies and we pass it on to them. They have a loan committee and they go through their procedures. The first time that a member of this Commission has ever -and I think Mr. Dawkins did it the appropriate way- did it publicly. It would have been totally inappropriate for him to do this on a private... to call you or Dr. Anderson and I want to tell you on the record, God forbid that I ever find the day that any member of this Commission has in any way discussed any of these loans in particular with any member of that staff. I think it was done appropriately through the public record. Therefore, on his request, this matter is coming before us. I don't think it is appropriate for us to get into the details of this thing without the request of Miller Dawkins. We are not going to substitute for a loan committee. The only question, as I understand it, is that Miller Dawkins was concerned that this gentleman that we hei taken to the Bahamas with us on a trade mission, encouraged him to seek new business, he made an application and he had been given the run-around. Either he has or he hasn't been given the run-around. Ms. Sabree: Sir, I'm not here to say it should before you or it shouldn't be before. I'm only here because the facts that the gentleman was stating were not accurate as I know them to be. I don't know where he got his information, but I only tried to correct the record. Mayor Ferre: I think the thing to do is this, Mr. del Cerro, would you meet with this lady? Would you go over the facts and when we come back on March 8th, if Commissioner Dawkins should be here, I'm sure we can discuss this matter again. Mr. del Cerro: Mr. Mayor, I don't think it is appropriate for us, for me as President, certainly for Dr. Anderson as Executive Director, to debate the actions of our loan committee. Mayor Ferre: That's not what she is talking about. She said you made an erroneous statement. Mr. Plummer: She said the facts as presented in the sheet were erroneous. Mr. del Cerro: What I would like to do, if possible, to keep everything straight, I would like to request that any questions that Commissioner Dawkins has about the way this loan was handled, to be given in writing either the Manager or to the Director of the Department of Economic Development in writing or to Dr. Anderson and we will respond to him in writing with the facts that we have. I don't think it is appropriate for us to sit here and autopsy what the loan committee has done as far as this loan is concerned. I would want to have it done.... FEB 2 81984 Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. del Cerro, that sheet that you just returned back from me, who prepared it? Mr. del Cerro: This was prepared by the staff of Miami Capital Development for us from the files. There is nothing here that is untrue. What we have here are statements of fact. Mr. Plummer: All right, that's exactly the point. This woman is saying that your statements of fact are wrong. If there is a discrepancy, then I think it behooves not maybe you as president or Dr. Anderson as the Executive Director, but somebody who put that sheet together should be faced with this woman's alleged misrepresentation and let her air it out. I think that's most appropriate. I think another fact that needs to be brought out possibly is if the financial statements which you have of this company don't reflect this lady in those statements. That could be a personal thing and not necessarily a part of this statement and could reflect even worse, but you're not going to find that out unless you talk with her. Mr. del Cerro: No, we have no problem with that. Ms. Sabree: Thank you, sir. Mayor Ferre: Anything else? Mr. del Cerro: No, that's it. Mayor Ferre: We will see you on the loth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 31. A) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM FEBRUARY 16TH REGARDING CABLE T.V. OFFICIALLY CALLING FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD MARCH 22, 1984 TO CONSIDER PASSAGE OF A FIRST READING ORD. REGARDING OPINION POLLING. B) FIRST READING ORDINANCE: DEFER IMPLEMENTATION OF TWO-WAY INTERACTIVE SERVICES ON CABLE T.V. Mayor Ferre: The next item is a Cable T.V. public hearing continuation of February 16th. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for those who may not have been here this morning, I think it would be best if we announced of what we are actually deciding this afternoon, since the other decision was made early this morning, I think you should announce it. Mayor Ferre: There is a matter that was pending where the City Manager, which has been continued at the Manager's request. Mr. Gary: Mutual request. Mayor Ferre: Mutual request, the only thing that we are dealing with this time in this continuing public hearing is the issue with the cable T.V. access, which I call the little black box. Is Senator Myers here? Can we get the interested parties in the room? Ah, Senator, I thought you might have an interest in this. Ladies in gentlemen, so we understand where we are at, Mr. Manager, and is Clark Merrill here? Mr. Gary: Ms. Smoller is here. Mr. Plummer: Oh, no, we are going to be deprived of Clark Merrill? Mayor Ferre: Ms. Smoller, this is directed mainly at you and Clark Merrill and the Manager so that we 4nderstand each other. There are two issues involved here. I think they are separate issues. Issue number one, Mr. Manager, is the question of polling. Now, I don't know how many of you watch public television, but I had the pleasure of watching Channel 2 last night on a program about manipulation of public opinion in the political 67 FEB 2 81984 sl Mayor Ferre (Con't): process. It was a wonderful, in-depth hour study. It showed NBC and CBS and how they approached New Hampshire and how they jockey around and they make judgements and then they put the judgements in two and a half minute sections and at 6:00 o'clock you're captured by CBS or ABC and they feed into your computer, otherwise known as your mind, all kinds of information and they begin to mold; and the question really came out of that, who really molds public ... do the politicians mold the image makers in the CBS, NBC, ABC and the New York Times, Washington Post, and the national press, excuse me Knight-Ridder newspapers, Cox newspapers and so on, or is it the reverse? Who manipulates whom? Do the politicians manipulate the press? Does the press manipulate the politicians? The answer is that they both manipulate each other and the system manipulates. The next thing you know is we all get taken by all this. So the question is who really is making decisions as to who the nominee for the Democratic Party is? I'm going to tell you after watching that program, I had a big question in my mind as to how these things occur. I want to tell you what my problem is, because evidently Mr. Clark Merrill, who has been through this from the very beginning does not understand. Maybe he did understand, I'm sorry. I apologize. You understand my philosophical objections, you don't accept them. Let me just for the record explain it one more time. The only straight democracy that the world has known has functioned was Athens, Greece. It is the only one. There has been none other. That worked for a while. Athens, Greece people got together every so often and the leaders put together questions, then everybody would vote. That, by the way, was where the black ball was invented. That's where black balling started, a little marble ball. They voted by putting in a little black ball or a little white ball. I object to black balling. I object to little black boxes. Let me tell you how the black ball functioned. It was very simple. It was a very simple system. You could vote if you were a free man. Now you see, the problem with Athenian democracy is that it was based on slavery and so if you were a free man and you were a property owner and you had certain rights, then you had the right to vote, so all the people who voted were of like kind, they were equals. They were peers of each other. They were all property owners, wealthy people, all men, and they had rights. That system worked for a while. We, in America, do not have a straight democracy. We have a republican form of government. That means that people are elected to the presidency, to the judicial body sometimes and in the local cases, or selected by the president in the Federal case and to the legislature. These people who govern us make decisions for us, they vote. We, the people, have an opportunity to replace them if we don't like the way they are voting. There are those who do not like that system. I understand. I think they have certain rights to be concerned. I'm concerned too. I'm not too sure that our republican form of democracy is always responsible and always works. But like Winston Churchill said, "until somebody comes up with a better system..." It is a bad system of government, but there is none better. I think that a political polling aparatus emasculates, if you will, the democratic republican form of government, because it puts to the test on a very short string crucial points. I don't mind opinion polling. I do mind opinion polling, because I think these opinion pollers have a racket and I think they are trying to mold my opinion as to what I think about who, what I like about corn flakes or don't like about Pepsi Cola or don't like about Walter Mondale or Ronald Reagan or whomever. I don't particularly like to be led by the nose by opinion pollsters. What I very strongly object to is to not have a sample of the universe since I studied graduate courses in not only polling techniques, but also when I went to school, went through several courses in mathematics and in statistics, so I know what the median is and I know what polling is, I know what -the different techniques of achieving the universe and the selection process and what have you. I want to tell you that it's bad enough when the universe is a thousand, but the when the universe in a city like Miami is 50,000, and somebody, and I say this with all due respects to Mr. Hermanowski has control of what questions are going to be asked and when they are going to be asked and how they are going to be asked. Let me give you two classic examples and I will rest my case on that, so we understand each other. The first one is the Viet- namese war. it is my Wayne Morse story. Wayne Morse was the senator from Oregon. Wayne Morse -vas a good senator from Oregon; everybody loved Wayne Morse. He always got re-elected. Wayne Morse, from the beginning, was a dove. Oregon was a hawk state in the beginning. Ao sl FES 2 8 1984 61 W sl Mayor Ferre (Con't): Poor Wayne Morse got his head chopped off. He lost his election. One of the best senators that this country has had was no longer a senator because the people of Oregon decided that Wayne Morse was on the wrong side of the Vietnam issue. As it ended by the end of the war, the people of Oregon along with the rest of America were strongly against the Vietnamese war. Poor Wayne Morse was gone by then. When were the people of Oregon right? In the beginning or in the end? So the question is if you put things to the test, you see, if Wayne Morse had been a United States Senator and this little box existed in Oregon and everybody said, "What do we do in Vietnam?" and everybody pushes a little button; Wayne Morse would have been gone just like that. As it ended up he got ... he was lost a little bit quicker than he should have been lost. Let me give you another example. Another example is Brown vs. the school board of Topeka. It is the watershed judicial case in the history of this century in civil rights law. It was the case in 1953 that changed the history of our country. It said, "You shall not segregate Black people from going to different kinds of schools." Now I ask you, if that was put to a vote in the little black box in the United States of America, how many Americans do you think would have voted to keep segregated schools? '53? '63? How about'73? Now I am a believer that today, 31 years later, because it occured on March 3, 1953 if I recall the date, that momentous decision would probably be accepted by the American people, not by much, but if you put it to a vote, it would be accepted. Now who is right? Was the wisdom of the American people when they were horrified by the Supreme Court by what they did in 1953 correct, or is their wisdom correct now? So, my position is really very simple. I think that you cannot decide momentous things in a community by instant voting. I am against it. I am for a republican form of government. I am totally against the political manipulation by the media, especially media controlled by one individual or one organization. I just think that it is philosophically patently wrong. I am emotionally against it. I am philosophically against it. I am intellectually against it. I will fight it as long as I can. To that issue, I have a solution. I think the solution, pending a legal opinion by the City Attorney, is that we take this matter to the people of Miami and that we change our Charter so that the Charter will say, "There shall be no electronic polling by any licensee or franchisee in the City of Miami," unless the people of the City of Miami so desire it. If the people of Miami wish to change the Charter in the future, I don't mean to imply that I distrust the vote of three members of this Commission, but I would rather, in this case, since we want to go to a democratic form of access than a republican form, then let's put it into the Charter. Then let the people of Miami make that decision, that momentous decision. If that's the will of the majority, then so be it. Then they will have to live with it, but as long as we can hold off that type of a thing, I'm willing to take my chances. Now you say suppose the people of Miami vote against it and they want polling? Well, fine, if they vote that Charter change down, then that's their decision and God bless them and I'll live with it. I won't live happily with it, but I'll live with it. Now, the other issue deals with a complicated legal contract that has been signed wherein we went out and bid, Mr. Manager and bids came in and we selected a licensee, a joint venture between T.C.I. and Americable, and Miami Cable Joint Venture was formed. Now the question now deals with a little black box in issues other than opinion making. I have no objections to the little black box, other than in polling. In other words, I have no objections to have two-way communications to write checks to do shopping from Burdines and so that we can avoid Jane Fonda's visit or whatever it is that we don't want to do, we can do whatever we want. I have no problems with that, provided that little box cannot be used for poll taking, unless it is the will of the people of Miami. I don't think it is enough that three members of this Commission to will it so, because then I think we are dangerously close to the edge. Once we have this matter taken care of, polling, I have no objections to putting the little black box in because then it depends on the people of Miami. Then it would be their will. The only other consideration that I would have, I don't want to buy...what's the saying?... a pig in a pole? I don't want to buy something that doesn't work. I have read, I remember, back in January in the New York Times there was an article, January 13, 1984, where Warner Amex was asking a whole bunch of cities to renegotiate the contracts and further noticed the Washington FEE 2 81984 Mayor Ferre (Con't): Post story of the same date. January 13th, that it's not only Dallas and Pittsburg and Omaha and Titscon and it is not only Warner Amex Cable Communications, but Cox -Cable, the parent company of the Miami News. I noticed, that had nothing to do with any of this, except that I noticed that an awful lot of people in the newspaper business, like Knight-Ridder, are also involved in telecommunications now. Subsequent to that, there has been a lot of national news about the disaster of the Cube system in Colombus, Ohio. Then there has been an attempt by Amex to just drop. Warner Amex Cable eyes ways to cut losses from Cube. Warner Amex plans lay off Metro ops. Two-way cable dissappoints viewers in Columbus, Ohio as programming lags. So, 1 would like to recommend something like this, Mr. Manager. I don't know, I would just make it in a motion, after discussion to see what the Commission feeling is and if we can get a consensus around here. I would propose the following. That once we get this matter of polling decided by the people of Miami, which would be either September -October or November, and by the way, on the record, Clark, my preference would be November, when most of Miami will be voting, not September, when very few Miamians will be voting. Let as many people vote on this as possible. Once the people of Miami vote and make a decision as to whether or not they want polling to take place, asuming... well, it doesn't matter, whatever the decision is, then I have no objections to proceed with the two-way communications on cable T.V., provided, however that we have a clear cut definition that the system exists that works, because I don't think it is fair for us to impose upon anybody and we are not about to be the pioneers in the process and cause severe damage to the reputation of the City in something that does not work. So I will be willing to do it this way. If the City of Miami wishes to propose, if the Administration wishes to propose a system, I would like to make sure that it is working effectively someplace in the world, that we are not out pushing our cable T.V. company into something that does not exist. If it exists, then I'm all for it. You show me where it exists. I'm not going to be the judge, because I don't think I should be the judge and neither should you. I think that we would appoint an expert in the field and let the company appoint an expert in the field. I want that system to be in effect wherever it is functional for at least two years. If it is in place somewhere for two years and we appoint an expert, they appoint an expert, if they can't come to an agreement, the two of them would appoint a third expert as to whether or not the system is functioning and that would be binding on the City of Miami. Absent that, Mr. Manager, I am not for the imposing of a non -existing system. When it becomes existing, and I want to say on the record I'll be happy to do it under oath by the way, that I have not, this is totally out of my mind. I have not talked... because I can see your little smiles, Ms. Smoller. I understand. I just want to tell you, I don't want to be paranoid, like everybody else is in this City, but I want to tell you that I have not discussed this with anybody. This is my personal opinion and nobody has discussed this with me, O.K.? This is me doing this. Nobody else, nobody has talked to me. As a matter of fact, I want to make that abundantly clear on the record. This is my thinking. This has not been discussed with anybody, nor has anybody told me about this idea. This came out of my own little fertile imagination. I have an imagination that's as fertile as Clark Merrill's. Let me say that if you do not like that system, you give me an alternate. It has to be something that makes common sense to me, not pie in the sky, which is what I think you are dealing with. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I would surmise that the smile is not any reflection on you, as a Mayor, I think it is a smile that is in terms of anticipating an oportunity to respond. Mr. Mayor, I agree with everything which you said, except for the latter. I have before me an ordinance and I think it is important that we address the City Commission, as directed, with regard to letting the voters decide on polling and I think it should be a time certain which you have so stated and you prefer November. However, Mr. Mayor, I think two things need to be brought out with regard to this ordinance. That is it addresses economic feasibility. I must remind you, Mr. Mayor, that when we put out this lucrative, namely the City of Miami, we had people falling all over themselves to promise us things that would persuade this City Commission to judge them as the best cable company and therefore award them the license. I must also remind you that the cable licensee, both parties of the joint venture agreed to the interactive system. I would also like to remind the Commission that they also agree to expend a minimum of $45,000,000 on this system; not 70 FES 281984 sl 6' V Mr. Gary (Con't): maximum, minimum. That was to insure that we got the best system. Mayor Ferre: I don't have a problem with any of that. Mr. Gary: O.K., I know the intent of this City Commission, but I have to say that I'm suspect of the cable company in terms of its desires to support that City Commission's intent, and that is to save money. I would say that to put a requirement that has to be economically feasible on us.... Mayor Ferre: I didn't say anything about economically.... Mr. Gary: I'm talking about this ordinance here that's being proffered. Mayor Ferre: Hey, I don't know where this comes from. This is not mine. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: No, wait, wait, who distributed this? Mr. Gary: This comes from the City Attorney's office. Mayor Ferre: Who asked him for this to be distributed? Why is it being distributed? What is this? Mr. Joel Maxwell: Mr. Mayor, I only had it distributed so you could see what the Manager was referring to. Mayor Ferre: Well, would you tell me who asked you to do that? Mr. Maxwell: I didn't have any authority to do it, but I thought you wanted to look at it to see what he was referring to. Mayor Ferre: No, no, no, no, you don't understand what I'm asking now. Who is the author of this? Mr. Maxwell: The author of it? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Maxwell: The office, it was prepared by me. Mayor Ferre: This was prepared by you. Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Who asked you to prepare this? Mr. Jose Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, I was in contact with Senator Myers and reworked a draft that he indicated might be a reasonable.... Mayor Ferre: Well, let him speak for himself. I want to tell you that I have not seen this, nor do I have any interest in seeing it, because when you told me that Senator Myers had requested this, that's not talking for me. I want to tell you that I don't know, I don't want anything to do with this. I have not seen it. I do not want to see it. This is his, what he wants to do. That's not what I want to do. What he wants to do is his problem. I don't want to deal with that. If there is somebody else that wants to present this as his piece of paper, or on behalf of Senator Myers, then you are welcome to do it, but not me. I just want to make sure we understand each other very clearly. There are two issues before us. One is polling and I have addressed that. The other one is the installation of the black box. I just want to tell you I have no problems once we get the polling thing behind us, to have the City install the black box. I'want them to spend $45,000,000 and I want them to have the best system and all of that. The only thing that I do not want is I do not want'to be an experimenter. I do not want for the City of Miami to invent what little black box works and doesn't work. Once the state of the art is at a point that the little black box exists, then I think that is the moment where we insist that it be instituted, when the system is technically viable. 151 . 71 FEB 2 81984 4 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, I think if you look at Section 2 of the document that you were looking at earlier, that's what that attempts to do. That is a...makes.... Mayor Ferre: Are you recommending this? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: If the Commission wants a deferral for the reasons that you have stated, this would be a good way of doing it. In other words, it requires notice and a public hearing after which this Commission would have to make a full finding and determination that a two-way interactive system has become technically and economically feasible for implementation. Mayor Ferre: Is the City Administration the author of this? Mr. Gary: No, we're not. Mayor Ferre: Is the City Attorney's office the author of this? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, we are. Mayor Ferre: At whose request did you do this? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I discussed the matter with Senator Myers. This is our work product. Mayor Ferre: So this is your recommendation; then you explain it. Senator Myers: Mayor, let me explain how this arose. Mayor Ferre: Let him explain, Howard. Senator Myers: Based on your expressions of concern about the two-way interactive system... the Commission's unanimous express of concern about the system at the last meeting, I discussed with Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa, because there were some legal questions involved, as to whether you could get rid of such two-way interactive requirements forever. We felt, the City Attorney and I, that we would offer you, just as a suggested base, there is no mistique or plot.... Mayor Ferre: Has the City Administration seen this document? Senator Myers: ....about this. What we suggested, since the ordinance requires two separate readings at two separate hearings is that you have some kind of initial format to go for as a first reading. Then within the next two to four weeks, or however time you want to wait until the second reading, we could then throw in all the detailed thoughts that you have, Mayor, as to the mechanics, as to how you would want to implement it. Mayor Ferre: Have you seen this document? Mr. Gary: I have it now. Mayor Ferre: Have you seen this document? Ms. Smoller: Yes, I have. Mayor Ferre: You have seen it before? Ms. Smoller: Yes. Mayor Ferre: And you saw it before, Clark? Mr. Gary: Not a long time before now. Mayor Ferre: Did you see this.,..? Mr. Gary: Today. sl 72 FEB 2 81984 4 0 Mayor Ferret You saw this today. Has any member of this Commission seen this before this time? Mr. Plummer: I just got a copy. Mayor Ferret O.K., I just wanted to get on the record exactly how this came about. Senator Myers: It came about as an attempted helpful suggestion to the Commission as a base for going forward with what you want to work-out in the mechanics, the very thing that you have been talking about, Mayor. I think this has the skelleton outline of what you may want to use as a first reading ordinance. We can then go from there. Mayor Ferret I think we ought to take five minutes to read this thing, and then we can discuss it. This is the first time we've seen it. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, while you are doing that, let me add one thought that I am concerned about and I also discussed with Senator Myers. The request for proposals that was issued by the City when the license was awarded. Rightly or wrongly, and I hear you clearly and tend to believe perhaps it was wrongly, but it did include a requirement for a two-way interactive system. One of my concerns which goes back to the Watson Island litigation and all those things that we know of is that something other than what you have in front of you might be challenged in court. I don't think this would place the City in jeopardy. This is merely a deferral of implementation until such time as there is a technical and economic feasibility. Whereas an outright elimination might be deemed to be a change expost facto of the R.F.P. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Pedrosa, I'm not trying to find fault, but you know, I do remember and I usually remember very well, and even at the last meeting the Mayor once again reitererated and made a remotion. Yes, that's what is in the cable ordinance, but somehow or another that motion made by him, which at the time of implementation was very clear, no polling was never done. He was upset at the last meeting, as you will recall and made another motion at that time, NO, -N-O. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: But Commissioner, that motion is embodied in the referendum that the Mayor referred to earlier, which would put it in the Charter and in essence ban polling as a program function until and unless the people of the City of Miami choose otherwise. That is to be differenciated from this box, which is hardware, which is not programming It is the'deferral of that box that document embodies. Mayor Ferre: Again, J.L., let me repeat it, there are two issues and we have to keep them separate. One is the little box and the other one is the usage of that box for polling. If there is a Charter, which is our constitution, if there is a Charter prohobition of using it without the people's approval, then I have no objections to the little box. The question, then becomes this, when is it built? When do we implement it? My position is, I think we ought to implement it the moment it exists. I didn't say anything about economic feasibility. That's his problem. That's not my problem. I have no problem with economic feasibility. It just seems ridiculous for us to demand to put in a system that doesn't exist, or that doesn't work, or that is going to be experimental in nature. Once we have the technology that for example, there is a system that does exist, that does function, that is operational and is commercially being used by an operator somewhere in the United States and that it hasn't folded in six months, we have to have it operational for two or three years, two years at least and it's functioning, then I have no problems in putting it in. But I don't think we ought to go going around when the state of the art is so new and what has been implemented has been a failure. We are going to put something in that is a failure? 73 sl TE© 2 t984 4 Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, when I brought this up, I didn't know that you didn't have a copy of it. This was just given to me, but I agree with the City Attorney. I have no problem with the deferral aspect of the ordinance, but I do have problems with that part of the language that says that after the voters make that decision, and if they make the decision in the positive, then we give up a right with regard to technicality, the technical aspect of it and the economic aspect of it. The system is in existance now and it works. I think a better approach, Mr. Mayor, to insure that we get everything they promise us, if the voters make that decision in the positive, that the system will be implemented at their expense, which they promised this community when they got the license. Mayor Ferre: I have no problem with that, if it works. Excuse my ignorance. Where is the system that is operational and works? Mr. Gary: Pittsburgh Ms. Smoller: Pittsburgh, Dallas, Cincinatti, Houston, those are using the same converters that are proposed to use here. Mayor Ferre: They have been in effect.... Ms. Smoller: Pittsburg for I think pushing three years now. Mayor Ferre: How long? Ms. Smoller: About three years. Mayor Ferre: That's acceptable to me. If there is a system working Pittsburgh that is functional then I have no problems. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, functioning in what way? Polling or for what? Ms. Smoller: No. Mr. Gary: No. Ms. Smoller: The impulse paper view, which means that viewers can decide to watch a certain movie that's being programmed right at the time our boxing match or whatever, because of being able to punch that in right away, they can see it. Now that turn some nice revenues in all of those cities. In fact, Warner has been very happy about that particular aspect. Ironically, the aspect that they have not been happy about is the opinion polling. The part that Warner is trying to cut out, and indeed they have cut out, is their satellite, linking those systems by satellite and doing programming that includes opinion polling about the programming. That was costing them a bundle. That's what they have cut out. As a matter of fact, the report that the company gave you at the last meeting prepared by their consultant, the Aura Group, a survey of available interactive services is pretty accurate except for two things. One thing it neglected to mention impulse paper view. It talked about security services, information retrieval, and then it said other services, primarily for local origination. That's Just what I was talking about with the opinion polling. It neglected to mention the impulse paper view, and that is where the good revenues are coming in. Also it neglected, when it said that consumers in those Warner cities weren't accepting it, that wasn't quite accurate. In Dallas, when they first started offering the service, 30% of all the subscribers took it. Now they are up to 79%. In Pittsburg, Warner anticipated 25% of all their subscribers would take that interactive service; now 72% are. In Cincinatti 85% of all the subscribers are choosing that. Again, the revenues on these impulse paper view are hitting around an average of $4.00 per month. Mayor Ferre: Ms. Smoller, please do not try to think what I'm thinking and outguess me. Ms. Smoller: I'm not, sir. You asked me a question. 74 sl FES 2 81984 f W Mayor Ferre: I want you to understand that I have no problems... the economic feasibility is not and should not be this City's concern, because if they agreed to it on the contract, then that's their problem. My only concern is I do not want to put in a system which is technically nonfunctional. Ms. Smoller: It's working. Mayor Ferre: If it is a functional system, and if we agree that it is a functional system, then I have no problems. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I think, Mr. Mayor, I'm glad you agree with us on the economics of it. I'd also like to say that with regard to our past experience that this City Commission should retain the right to make those kinds of decisions. To put it to a third party takes authority away from the Commission, as well as the fact that based on what we got in terms of what will come up in the annual report, they are going to want to arbitrate everything. Mayor Ferre: I accept that, Howard. You are right and that is a better way to do it. In other words, I think we would, but I would want to get an objective technical opinion.... Mr. Gary: You are paying somebody to do that already, Maurice. Mayor Ferre: ....that the system functions. Ms. Smoller: Would you accept the opinion of the City's,consultant? Mayor Ferre: Maybe, maybe not. That's subject to discussion. But that's their opinion, that's not my opinion. Senator Myers: I think there ought to be some clarifications on what's been said about what is working effectively. You used the term, Mayor, working effectively, if there is a system around that's working effectively. I think that ought to be addressed between now and second reading in any ordinance as to what we mean by that, because I can already see some very interesting misunderstandings here. They talk about Pittsburg and they say it's technically working. All they have is game shows. There is no software base available in this country yet that is effective in an interactive system. They are showing game shows up there. They are going broke. They are closing down that system. When you say working effectively, I assume you are including a software base that's seleable out there too as well as hardware. Mayor Ferre: I don't know what the technical language is, Senator. Senator Myers: All right, Mayor, that has to be addressed. The other thing is -because I'm getting a little irritated- I want to ask the engineer to come up here too. She keeps talking about paper view. You can provide impulse paper view by downloading software, you can do that in a system without any kind of interactive two-way system at all. You don't need an interactive two-way system to provide impulse paper view. We have paper view now. We provide it now. So what they're saying is a lot of boloneyl And what we ought to have is an ordinance that clearly spells out what you mean by working effectively. I'm sick and tired of the staff coming out with this kind of stuff and that's the problem we've had. Mr. Plummer: Senator, you're much better when you're mad. Mr. Carollo: Senator, I will say this. I can certainly understand how you feel about wanting the words spelled out clearly. It seems we've had problems of that nature before in other areas, that is. Mr. Joe Branon: Mr. Mayor, I would only say one thing. I'm Joe Branon, I'm the Director of Engineering for Miami Cablevision. My address is 13025 S.W. 134 Avenue. The one objection that I hear over and over again is the objection to opinion polling. I can tell you as an engineer for Jerrold Electronic Corporation that made these boxes that if you have any type of return address from a poll computer, other than by law, you cannot control the question and answer on a two-way interactive system. Thank you. 75 F E 8 A 8 "151184 sl Mayor Ferre: i4hat does that mean? Mr. Branon: In other words, if you object to opinion polling, or political polling, the box that you are trying to ask is effective, there is no way that you can effectively, technically stop political polling, except by the law. Mr. Gary: The law. Mayor Ferre: That's why I want to put it into the Charter. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: And let the people of Miami make the decision. Yes, sir. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, something working technically effective has nothing to do whether they make money or not. Mayor Ferre: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: No, no, wait, that's not a true statement. You know and I know that if they are going to come in here and they are going to have a system that's costing them a pot full of money, you know what's going to happen, they are going to be back in here asking for rate increases to cover that loss that you forced upon them. Don't tell me it doesn't.... Mr. Gary: Well, Commissioner Plummer, since these were experts in the field and they responded to our R.F.P. that said that it called for a two-way interactive system, and with the technical expertise they had they offered it in view of knowing the market and the technical aspects of cable, then I'm sure they should have known that ahead of time. Mr. Plummer: That sounds good. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa. Senator Myers: Now that sounds good, except that if you ignore two years of experience after all these cable T.V. companies have bid around the country and if you ignore the fact that these systems haven't worked yet. Mr. Plummer: Just think if we had those little boxes right now we could have ended this discussion an hour ago. We would have just asked the people to punch a button, yes or no, and the computer would have blown up. Senator Myers: Mayor, I'll say one thing and then I'll stop, because we should get back, I think.... Mr. Carollo: Whether we should keep the Police Chief or not, the City Manager or not. Senator Myers: I want the City Manager to hear this too. If the Commission wants us to have a system installed that costs $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 or so that 15 people are using and have the rest of the customers on the system subsidize those people who are not using it, then you knock out economically feasible, but there is some what that there has to be a determination. I don't care if you call it economics or not, Mr. Gary. There ii has to be some way a determination as to whether something is y95kliCeeffectively,nd out that'snfunnys whether or not people are using it. Mr. Gary: You know, that's the whole American system of subsidizing people. You know we have people who don't to schools, don't have people going to schools, but yet again we do have to pay for those kids. Senator Myers: We're not talking about government. sl 76 FEB 2 81984 • .•ar sl Mr. Plummer: Ia . Gary, this was found on the floor, and since 1 can't pass it down to Carollo, I would like to make it as part of the record. "If Clark Merrill persists in the little black box, he will exit in a large black box through the courtesy of J.L. Plummer." LAUGHTER. Hermanowski is providing the nails. Mayor Ferre: I'd like to see if we can separate these two issues, because I think we are going to find an easy agreement on the first one, and maybe we can make a little headway. So I would, at this time, Mr. Garcia - Pedrosa, you had drafted proper language for a referendum. Do you have that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, I do. Mayor Ferre: Would you read that into the record as to what you propose that language to be that will be placed on the ballot? This would be on first reading, so we would have it, I guess, on second reading again. Is that it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, let me do it this way, if I might. Let me read the title of the ordinance and then the operative section. The title of the ordinance will be: "An ordinance setting forth a proposed Charter Amendment by adding a new Section 132 to the Charter of the City of Miami, Florida subject to referendum prohibiting opinion polling by means of any electronic device, which is controlled by any cable television licensee, permitee, or franchisee in the City of Miami." That Section 132 that that Charter Amendment would create would be entitled prohibition on the use of electronic devise for C.A.T.V. opinion polling. It would read as follows: "Opinion polling by means of any electronic devise controlled by any licensee, permitee, or franchisee for cable television in the City of Miami is hereby prohibited." Mayor Ferre: Now let me ask you this. Do you think that this in any way is an attack on the first amendment? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: In other words, as an attorney, would you be willing to defend this before a court of law as being within the preview of the policing powers of a local government, specifically the City of Miami, and that there are not first amendment violations or any other constitutional violations? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, my staff and I drafted this provision and I have signed the proposed ordinance approving it as to form and correctness, that carries with it that imprimatur. Mr. Plummer: Not more so than the porno. Mayor Ferre: Jose, could we get copies passed out? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Sure. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections to that, Howard? Mr. Gary: No, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me have it copied so the Commission and the public has copies in front of.them before you vote. Mayor Ferre; Does your client have any objections to that? 77 FEB 2 81984 Senator Myers: If that is the will of the Commission to put that on the ballot, we don't have.... Mayor Ferre: I didn't ask you that. Senator Myers: We don't have any technical objections to that. Mayor Ferre: In other words, the question is does anybody have any big hang ups about putting that issue before the people of Miami and letting them decide if they want to put provision in the Charter? Mr. Carollo: What I want to make sure is that it is spelled out in a clear way, that people can understand it. The problems that I see is that people will not understand it, and they might be voting for something that they are against. Mayor Ferre: I want to make sure because I see that perhaps the phone company and Florida Power and Light might be concerned. This is specifically limited to cable television polling. In other words, this has nothing to do with telephone polling. In other words, the Miami Herald does not have to worry because View-a-tron works on the telephone lines. Is that right? So they are not affected by this. Is that correct? Mr. Plummer: But they are not under our franchise anyhow. Mr. Carollo: You never know. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, this comes from a suggestion that Commissioner Plummer made at the hearing last week or the week before that we focused on devises controlled by our franchisee, or licensee, or permittee. Mayor Ferre: Could somebody attack this on a legal basis that we are selecting one medium and not the other? For example, that in effect, this can be done, for example, Channel 4 can say, "We want to know what your opinion is on the Orange Bowl. Call 374-0000 and vote." Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now, wait a minute. That could be done now under this system. Mayor Ferre: I understand that. But could somebody attack the legality of this by saying, in effect, you have polling anyway, which you cannot prohibit. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The answer, I think, Mr. Mayor that anybody can pay the $50 or whatever to file a law suit, but I don't think that the City controls, in fact, the City does not control anybody other than its cable television licensee, therefore, the City itself is not discriminating by placing this restriction on the license that it offers its only licensee in this area. Mr. Carollo: Will somebody pass through all this motion before we vote on it? Mayor Ferre: Well, let me do this so that we can move along. I'm going to pass the gavel to the Vice Mayor and just so that we can get this on the floor, I'm going to move this ordinance at this time, on first reading only and ask that we hold a public hearing before it is passed on second reading. At that time, that we be prepared, Mr. City Attorney, with the proper ordinance to put this on the ballot in November. That gives us plenty of time to have a public hearing. Let's have a public hearing on this and see where we stand. For the purposes of having a public hearing, let me just move this ordinance as is on first reading with the clear understanding that we will have a public hearing on it and that it might be subject to change on second reading. So move. Mr. Perez: Do we have a'second? Do we have any second to this motion? Do we have any second? Mr. Carollo: Would you repeat the motion again, Mr. Mayor? U .FED 2 81984 sl d W sl Mayor Ferre: Yes, it's a motion to pass this ordinance on first reading, for the purpose of having a public hearing before passing it on second reading. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if you make a motion to schedule a public hearing on the matter, I'll second that motion. Mayor Ferre: See, I don't want to get caught up, J.L., on this whole question of timing and we may run out of time. I tell you what, if you want to do it that way, I don't mind doing it that way, as long as we set a day certain right now for the public.... Mr. Carollo: Why do we have to go through a Charter amendment? Why can't we just make it through our regular ordinance? Mayor Ferre: Because then, Joe, any three votes in the future could change that. I think that something as important as this ought to be the will of the majority of the people in Miami. I mean, this is an important enough, in my opinion, this is a momentous enough issue, the people should decide that. Mr. Carollo: I can't argue with that. You're right. Mayor Ferre: If the people want polling, then I'm for it. I mean, I am not for it, I'm going to vote against it, and I won't be happy if it passes, but if it passes, I'll live with it. Mr. Carollo: I just hope you guys agree with me when there are other issues that are of equal importance to bring up to the people to vote. Mayor Ferre: We have done that in the past. We voted on questions that were straw ballot. Mr. Carollo: I'll second, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Hey, look, let the record reflect that the only intention in trying to do this is to bring this issue before this Commission for a public hearing. I don't want to get caught in the trap of timing, J.L. I don't want to force the issue. Do you feel more comfortable just calling a public hearing? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only problem I have it, when you pass it on first ordinance, you give the people of the public an opinion that you know,.it is a foregone conclusion and that the public hearing is just a routine vehicle.... Mayor Ferre: That's not the way Metropolitan Dade County does it, or most.... Mr. Plummer: We're not Metropolitan Dade County. Mayor Ferre: ....or the City of Miami or most legislative bodies. Things are passed on first hearing routinely and it is on second hearing that you have a public hearing. That, in both Robert's rules and Mason's rules of order, that's the procedure. You pass a thing on first hearing as an ordinance, and at the second hearing you hold a public hearing on the issue that requires public hearing. This does not, as such, require a public hearing, does it? But I'm saying that it should. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: This would be an ordinance, Mr. Mayor, so the second reading would be a public hearing. Mayor Ferre: It is automatically a public hearing. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, under State law. Mayor Ferre: I understand, in other words, it is State law. You often, J.L., when you vote on something, say, "I'm voting on this on first reading; but I reserve my right to vote against it on second reading, unless you clarify such and such and such." So you do it yourself all the time. All I'm saying is pass it on first reading, and we'll see what happens at the public hearing. Unless there is something that is FES 2 81984 L it. Mayor Ferre (Con't): blatantly wrong, that you are in disagreement with, I don't see what's wrong with doing it this way. I think it is too important an issue to have dissension in the Commission. So if you would rather just call a public hearing. Mr. Plummer: I'd rather just have a public hearing in March, bring it up at that time, and let's listen to it. Mayor Ferre: O.K., I accept that. I accept it that way and I make my motion this way, then, Joe, if it is all right with you. Mr. Carollo: Sure. Mayor Ferre: That we call for a public hearing on this issue that's before us and at that time we will vote the first time on it. Then we'll have a second public hearing and vote the second time on it. Does that make it better? Mr. Plummer: Fine. You are talking about March or September? Mayor Ferre: Sure, no November election. Mr. Plummer: Call your date. Mayor Ferre: The first reading will be March 8th. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Wait a minute, Mr. Mayor, we may not have time to advertise. Mayor Ferre: March 22nd. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: O.K. Mayor Ferre: March 22nd, for a first reading of this ordinance. The second reading is automatically a public hearing. This is the subject matter, is that acceptable to you? Mr. Perez: Do you have any discussion? Call the roll. Mayor Ferre: March 22nd at 9:00 A.M. The second we will do in the afternoon. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption. MOTION 84-223 A MOTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF MARCH 22, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M., AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT ON FIRST READING WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT OPEN POLLING ON CATV. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins o0 FE8 2 8 1984 sl Mayor Ferre: Now, on the other issue, I have not read this other thing, so I'd like to read it. I think we ought to take time to read this document. Have you read it? Mr. Plummer: I've scanned it. Mayor Ferre: All right, I've read this. I don't know whether I agree with it. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferre: You see, my problem is this. I don't personally have any problems with this first page and the second page, sections 1 and 2, to the word "technically" and then beyond the word "technically," I think that is what the Manager is talking about. Senator Myers: I understand. May I make a suggestion? Why don't we knock out after "have become, residential subscribers" why don't we knock out "technically and economically" and just say, "the Commission makes a full finding determination that such two-way interactive service to residential subscribers have become feasible for implementation by the licensee" and stop. Then if you want to take out the cost benefit analysis thing, if the Manager is worried about the question of economic... Mayor Ferre: That's fine. Senator Myers: Then the question of what feasible is will be a matter of a Commission hearing. Mayor Ferre: Read me the way that it would read, section 2. Mr. Carollo: Hold on, I want the Manager to enlighten us on that area he was saying no, no, no, Mr. Manager. Mr. Gary: It is consistent with the City Commission policy and particularly yours regarding getting the best system. My concern is that they have proffered to us in response minimum $45,000,000 system, which means that they have to spend at least $45,000,000. It doesn't mean that they can't spend $80,000,000. They have proffered that benefit. If the voters decide with you, then the issue is dead. Mayor Ferre: No it isn't; that has nothing to do with the black box. Mr. Carollo: Just on polling is all that the issue.... Mayor Ferre: Just on polling. Mr. Gary: Exactly. Mayor Ferre: We can put in black boxes after that. Mr. Gary: The thing that I'm trying to convey to you, Mr. Mayor, is that what they are attempting to do here is to say that the economics of it has to be the burden of the City when it was their burden. Senator Myers: No, it doesn't say that. Mr. Gary: The financial burden on this system was dead when they bid it when they said, "We'll give you X,Y,2...." Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, that's why I agree that we should make no reference to economic feasibility. I thought you had corrected that. Mr. Gary: When you said technically feasible too, Mr. Mayor.... Mayor Ferre: There they have me. Senator Myers: I knocked that out. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, when you say feasible, feasible means technically feasible for implementation by the licensee. Feasible could be it's not feasible for us to do it because we don't have the man -power. It's not feasible for us to do it because we don't have the money. FEB 2 81984 81 sl . Mayor Ferre: No, then we have to define what.... Mr. Gary: Feasible, as a definition, leaves this City Commission open to not getting the benefits. Mr. Carollo: Mr. City Attorney, can we get enlightened from you also, if you get a Webster's dictionary and define feasible? Maybe we could clear this up that way. Mayor Ferre: I think this is a question of legal language. Mr. Carollo: I know the Manager gets carried away sometimes interpreting things. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I want to welcome Mr. Gary to the Dinner Key Bar Association. But I agree with him, Commissioner Carollo. The problem with feasibility, if you just leave it at that is that there are no guidelines as to what this Commission should be looking at in the future to make that determination. Mayor Ferre: I agree with that. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I don't know what the objection is to the technically feasible, but that is certainly one guideline that you could properly use, or whatever other guideline you want. Mayor Ferre: He said technically feasible. Is that what I understood? Mr. Carollo: Yes, but you wanted to take that out. I think the area that should be taken out is economically, leave technically. Senator Myers: May I respectfully make a suggestion? I think you all are raising legitimate areas of concern in the language of the ordinance. If you just leave it in short form that I'm suggesting on first reading, then we can work these things out. It is the intention of the Commission that the implementation of the use of the two-way interactive services to residential subscribers with the cable television system of licensing be deferred until such time in the future as the Commission, after notice and public hearing, makes a full finding and determination that such two- way interactive services to residential subscribers have become feasible for implementation by the licensee, period. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, he's taking away the authority from the Commission. Mr. Carollo: Technically feasible, it's just cutting economically out. Then I think it will be fine. Senator Myers: I can take both out and then between now and second reading what I was going to suggest is that we sit down with staff and whomever on the Commission would like to work on it and try to work out some guidelines as to what you would have before you on the hearing to determine as to whether it's a workable system at that time. We'll put in a bunch of guidelines if you want. I don't know whether we can have a work session now and do it, unless you want to. Mayor Ferre: The question is the definition of technically feasible. Is that right? Senator Myers: That may include software. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's one question. Mayor Ferre: Since this has Mr. Jones' ... and it has your signature on it too, so in other words, in your opinion the word technically feasible is a definable term sl FEB 281984 11.. , .. 46 0 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, the other problem is who makes that determination. The Manager, I think, is correctly pointing out that the phraseology that presently exists might put that definition or that determination really more in the hands of the licensee. Senator Myers: Then scratch "by the licensee" if you want, if that's your concern. Mayor Ferre: By the City of Miami Commission. Mr. Carollo: That's what I understand by reading this. Senator Myers: There was no intention, I don't think, to take the decision away from the Commission. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I agree. Senator Myers: If "by the licensee" is throwing you, that language... just say...." Mr. Gary: By the City Commission. Senator Myers: ...."find and determine that such two-way interactive services to resident subscribers have become feasible" or whatever other word would work out, "for implementation" period. Mr. Gary: By the City Commission. Senator Myers: No, feasible for implementation. Mr. Gary: By the City Commission. The City Commission has that authority. Senator Myers: We have already said that. Mr. Gary: No, we haven't. Senator Myers: Up above. Mr. Carollo: Beforehand. Mr. Gary: No, it says "intention of the City Commission," it says "intention." Mr. Carollo: "In such time in the future as the Commission." Mayor Ferre: "That the implementation of the use of the two-way inter- active services to resident subscribers within the cable...." Mr. Plummer: "At such time as the Commission..." Mr. Gary: Yes, they make a full finding, but the decision has to be the City Commission's. Mr. Plummer: It says that here. Mr. Gary: No, it doesn't. it says, "after the City Commission makes a full finding." Senator Myers: "and determination..." Mr. Gary; ..."and determination..." but it needs to make the decision. Mr. Carollo: So long as you don't get free car repairs and motor pool. Mayor Ferre: It's very simple. You add the word "after full finding and determination." Mr. Plummer: That's in here. Mayor Ferre: Oh, it is, O.K. Then what is the question? "...makes a full finding and determination that such two-way interactive services to residential subscribers have become technically feasible for implementation by the licensee." Q UUVV .FEB 2 81984 sl 46 46 Garcia -Pedrosa: Can I make a different suggestion, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Carollu: I can't understand how Mr. Gary is so good at closing the loopholes in these contracts. It's not the time to bring that out. Sen. Ken Myers: I will put whatever language you want to make it clear that it is the Commission that makes the determination. I thought that is what it says. It says "Makes a full finding until such time in the future as the Commission, after notice and hearing, makes a full find- ing and determination.". That the two way system is people. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: What I thought to eliminate that problem might work is to say that "Until such time in the future as the Commission, after notice and public hearing makes a full finding and determination" "that" - and this will be the change "the technology of the industry has made such two-way interactive services feasible to residential subscribers". . Mayor Ferre: "To residential subscribers". That is fine, I accept that. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I don't think the Manager heard it though, and I think you might want to have that... Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, but I wasn't aware that the Manager had a sixth vote on the Commission, here. (INAUDIBLE, OFF MICROPHONE) Mr. Gary: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor - another one of my five bosses calling. He said he would be back here tomorrow. Mayor Ferre: We have a rewrite by the City Attorney. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: It is the intention of the Commission that the implementation of the use of the two-way interactive services to resi- dential subscribers within the cable television system of licensee be deferred until such time in the future as the Commission, after notice and public hearing makes a full finding and determination; that the technology of the industry has made such two-way interactive services to residential subscribers feasible. Mr. Plummer: Question. Why is such emphasis being placed on the word "residential"? Mayor Ferre: That is who we deal with. Mr. Plummer: No, no. Is there a commercial aspect to this? Why is the word emphasis being placed on the word "residential"? Ms. Smollers Commissoner Plummer, the reason that the emphasis is placed on residential subscribers goes back to the definitions within the ordinance. Residential subscribers is who receives the subscribers system. Mr. Gary: Regardless of whether it is commercial or not. Ms. Smoller: The reason, you know, the emphasis there is to not pro- hibit the use of the two-way going back, by for example, Mrs. Virrick and her Black local origination group, who will have their programming studio apart froaa the head in, so they need to use this two-way return path to get their programming up, and as the subscribers. Similiarly, the institutional system is separate and apart from the subscriber's system. That is the system, that for example, the Fire Department and the Police Department and the different City agencies will use for their communication. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, the language is acceptable to me with one excep- tion, and I would recommend to the City Commission that instead of leaving the time open, to defer until such time in the future this Commission, after noticing the public is made in full, that we could set some time after the referendum, time certain. Mr. Carollo: I think that the reason behind that is that whenever - it might before, it ;night be long after that technology might be available. You are taking it for granted it is going to be available right after the referendum. QA [� F E B 2 81984 6 4 Mr. Gary: Well, I am also trying to preclude, Commissioner Carollo, the dilemma we are in now in terms of what we do in the interim. So, say after the referendum, that is saying that in the interim we do nothing. Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. City Attorney, am I correct to say that by passing this in the word that you have read to us, we can call a meet- ing anytime we want to go over it again? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. You would have to advertise it first, but I think you could, yes. Mr. Gary: But, you have got us in a dilemma, is what I am trying to say to you. That is in the interim between now and the November election, in terms of what we do. Mr. Carollo: The dilemma Howard, this is not going to be put up for a Charter amendment, is it, Mr. Mayor? This is only an ordinance, correct? Mr. Gary: No. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, it is an ordinance. Mr. Carollo: So, I really don't understand what you are saying. Sen. Myers: The system has an active two-way capability now. We have got addressable converters - it is all there, so you kngw, any time in the future - three years, four years, or whatever it is down the road, these determinations are made, they can be implemented in the system with the capability it has built into it. Mr. Carollo: Mr. City Attorney, can... Mayor Ferre: Well, what are we doing, Mr. Manager, do you want to continue this public hearing? Because I think we are getting confused and we are going all over the place on this. Sen. Myers: It seems to me that we are on fairly good track, though. Mr. Carollo: Can you guide us in the proper wordage so that we don't have any more mixups? Mayor Ferro: Do you want to defer this to the next meeting? I am asking, I'am not suggesting anything. I am asking a question. Today is the 28th - you are talking about next Thursday. Sen. Myers: Mr. Mayor, could I comment on that. The only thing is that this a first reading of an ordinance. All of these concerns need to be addressed over the next two weeks in language for the second reading. Mayor Ferro: I think there is confusion on this thing. I move that you know, to hammer it out today, but if you feel more comfortable doing it next week, I don't have any problems doing it. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, the problem with that is, is that we are in the process of negotiating with them, which is going to extend that even further. The negotiations include the cross wiring. Also include the interactive boxes regard to the fines. And I think once we clear this up, it gives the Administration some direction on how to move. What I said to you earlier. That is going to be a thing hanging over your head. Mayor Ferro: So again we go back to Commissioner Carollo's request of the City Attorney to guide us legally. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, I think it would he appropriate if you were to pass on first reading an ordinance which would incorporate basically the language that I gave you, which eliminates the basis of economic feasibility and so forth and so on and between now and the second reading of the ordinance, which could not take place on the 8th, because we don't have time to advertise it, but it could take 85 FEB 81984 6 i place perhaps concurrently with the public hearing that you scheduled on the 22nd. We could hammer out any questions about the language that may remain. I think the important thing is two things - Number one, that you clarify the Commission's position on the matter of the interactive ser- vices without giving a disappointed person an opportunity to challenge the awarding of the license or the changing of the RFP problem, and the second thing is that you give your Manager some direction with respect to negotiations that are on going and will be on going between now and March 22nd, so I would suggest that you pass the ordinance with this language on first reading and bring it back on the 22nd. Mayor Ferre: Okay, is there a motion? (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The Manager is making a point, Mr. Mayor, that certainly could be properly included, and that is, instead of leaving the future date open as the language now leaves it, that you give it a date certain, at least for review by the Commission - let's say 30 days, or within 30 days after that referendum, so that the language would be deferred until a date to exceed 30 days after November 6, 1984. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think that November 6th - that is the earliest in NOvember, okay. Mr. Gary: We don't want to give the opportunity for a disappointed applicant to come in and challenge what has been done, and something that is indefinite, he could say is never. Mayor Ferre: All right, and then suppose - in other words, we would have a public hearing to determine whether this is feasible at this point? Mr. Gary: Yes, the.language stays in there. Mayor Ferre: And suppose we decide at that point that it is not feasible? When is the next time we could hear it? Every year? Ms Smoller: Yes. Mr. Gary: Well, that is not mentioned in here, but at that time you make a determination, it doesn't come back up until you hear it again. Mayor Ferre: In other words, once we make a determination in December, that the State of the art is such that it doesn't exist, you have to put in this language when the hearing is. Is it a year later, or ten years later? Mr. Carollo: Well, that is simple, you don't have to... Mr. Gary: You don't have to. At that time when you made that decision 30 days after, then you could decide that it's not technically feasible and hear it again. Mr. Carollo: If you make it 30 days after the election, which is what, November 6th? And if we include that if at that time the Commission finds that it is not feasible, then we have an annual review a year from that date until it finally is feasible. Mayor Ferre: Or every two years, the question is do we need to put a time? Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I think... Mr. Carollo: I think the way of going about it is an annual review. I think we are safe there. We are protecting the public's right com- pletely - an annual review. We could include it... Mayor Ferre: And we can always change that to two years later on if we need to, because after a while we find that an annual review... 00 ld .FEB 2 8 t984 16 4 Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I have no problems in making it two years. It is not that big of a difference. Mayor Ferrel Annual review is fine. I've haven't got a problem making it annual review. Mr. Carollo: I am sure that if the technology is found before that, they are going to be running to us before we even have to tell them to put it on, because they are going to want to put it on. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me suggest some language now, Mr. Mayor. "It is the intention of the Commission that the implementation or the use of two-way interactive services to residential subscribers within the Cable television system of licensee be deferred until a date not later than December 31, 1984, as the Commission, after notice and public hearing makes a full finding and determination as to whether the technology of the industry has made such two-way interactive services to residential subscribers feasible. If such determination is that such system is not feasible, then the Commission shall con- duct an annual review of the matter." Mayor Ferre: All right, do you want to move it? Mr. Carollo: Well, is there a motion? Mayor Ferre: Do you want to move it? Mr. Carollo: Yes, I will move it. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion. Is there a second, as amended? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, before you vote, Mr. Mayor, could I suggest too that I be permitted on second reading to revise whatever portion the whereas clauses that would need to be revised to conform to what you just did. Mayor Ferre: Of course. Are we ready? Do you want to read it now as amended? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, let me see if this works. THEREUPON, the City Attorney reads ordinance into the record. Mayor Ferre: All right, that is acceptable to everybody? Mr. Plummer: That is if this Commission shall make that finding. Mayor Ferre: Sure, that is in effect. So we will see you on second reading. Further discussion? Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9332, THE CITY OF MIAMI CABLE TELEVISION LICENSE ORDINANCE: AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO SAID ORDINANCE RELATING TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS BY DEFERRING THE REQUIREMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING TWO-WAY INTERACTIVE SERVICES UNTIL A DETERMINATION NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 1984, AS TO WHETHER THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE INDUSTRY HAS MADE SUCH SERVICES TO RESIDENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS FEASI- BLE; PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL REVIEWS THEREAFTER, AND AMEND- ING ALL PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE TO CONFORM TO THIS AMENDMENT. ld FES 2 8 SUN i 0 Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo* Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins The City Attorney read the ordinance into the Public Record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the Public. Mayor Ferre: Now, Mr. Plummer, tell me, since you voted for this one, what the difference is between this one and the previous one. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the difference between the two - this one will defer until until after... There is no such hearing on this one until after the November ballot. The other one you were passing on first reading was prior to a public hearing. We are not passing anything here at a public hearing, or any other way. Mayor Ferre: Valid point. Okay. That is valid, I accept that. 32. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING COMSTOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 2420 N.W. 18TH AVENUE. AS THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PLACE FOR THE APRIL 5, 1984 MEETING COMMENCING AT 3:00 O'CLOCK P.M. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, you have a resolution that you might want to pass in the meantime, concerning the dates of the Commission hearings in alternate locations. Again, it is a formalization of your action of last meeting. I think you have it there. Mayor Ferre: A resolution designating the auditorium of the Comstock Elementary School, 2420, N. W. 18th Avenue - is that the one? ... as the meeting place for April 5th - is that right? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, that is the one. Mayor Ferro: All right, is there a motion? Plummer moves. Perez seconds. Further discussion on having our meeting at Comstock. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well that is one now do you have the other ours? Mayor Ferro: We are just doing one now. This is for the meeting of April 5th, is that right? 3 P.M. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-224 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE AUDITORIUM OF THE COM- STOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 2420 NW 18TH AVENUEr MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS THE MEETING PLACE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ON APRIL 5, 1984 AT 3:00 P.M. WHEN THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL RECONVENE ITS REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1984 FOLLOWING A RECESS IN SAID MEETING BETWEEN 1:00 P.M. AND 3:00 P.M.i SAID MEETING HAVING CONVENED AT 9:00 A.M. ON SAID DATE IN THE CHAMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION AT CITY HALL, DINNER KEY, MIAMI, FLORIDA,cc 00 p nnQ A ld F E7 4 14V (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: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre None Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins DISCUSSION ITEM: LEGAL OPINION RECEIVED FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CAR REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE ON CITY MANAGER AUTOMO- BILES. (THIS MATTER WAS SCHEDULED FOR DISCUSSION AT THE MARCH 8, 1984 MEETING, AT 9:30 A.M.) Mayor Ferre: to bring up. Commissioner Carollo has a pocket item that he wanted Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. Mayor, I have a combination of things, that I think this Commission should deal with it now, and not let it sit out any longer. The first area that I would like to bring up, Mr. Mayor, has to do with the legal opinion that the City Attorney re- cently rendered in as far as the vehicle or car repairs of the City Manager that in his best legal opinion, they were illegal, and at this point in time, I would like to present a motion requesting of the City Manager to reimburse the taxpayers of Miami for the $8,000 plus dollars and that has been reported by the media that he has spent on his vehicles, including the $400, or so plus dollars that were spent approximately two weeks ago, when we were discussing this publicly. Mr. Mayor, what I am doing is, presenting a motion based upon the legal opinion that was rendered by our City Attorney that the vehicle repairs that the City Manager was getting from the City were illegal. Mr. Dawkins: They were illegal? Mr. Carollo: That is correct. This has been the motion from our City Attorney that was dated February 10, 1984, Number MIA-84-3. Mr. Plummer: May I ask a question? Mayor Ferre: What was it you want, Joe? I didn't get it. Mr. Carollo: It is a motion of this Commission's intent in asking the Manager to reimburse the taxpayers of the City of Miami for the... Mayor Ferre: You are making a motion that based on the City Attor- ney's interpretation, you are asking the City Manager to reimburse the City, is that correct? Mr. Carollo: That is correct, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is that the intent of the motion? Mr. Carollo: That is the intent of the motion, and I think that the only way that it could be dealt with at this point in time is having a consensus of the Commission. Id FEB 2 8 INN Mayor Ferre: You want to discuss it, or do you want to get a second, or what? I think it is subject to discussion. You want to say some- thing on that, Mr. City Attorney? Your memorandum is clear. Do you want to say sometning, Mr. Manager? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. I didn't read any place in the City Attorney's opinion that said that my car repairs were an illegal act, and I ob- ject to that connotation. Second, Mr. Mayor, I think it is important that my memorandum to the Mayor and Commission dated February 15th also be addressed. I think secondly, which is the most key part of the City Attorney's opinion, is that the benefits afforded to me were capa- ble of conflicting interpretations, even to the point that in certain sections it says I am entitled, and in other sections it says I am not entitled. I think thirdly there are some, as pointed out in my Feb- ruary 15th memorandum, is that there are some interpretation dif- ferences in terms of the use of the word car allowance, vs. what the benefits call for rental costs, which are totally two different things. I think also the intent of the benefits clause was one which allowed me to have certain options available to me with certain expenditures paid by the City, which was inclusive in my February 15, 1984 memoran- dum. I would like to also state to the Commission that when these allegations were made, that I immediately asked the State Attorney to look into them and her office is currently doing such. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me tell you what my ooinion is and then you know, we will see what the majority of the Commission wishes to do. It is my opinion that as long as the State Attorney is in the midst of investigating this and taking testimony, that we should not involve ourselves in making the final determination on any of this, because I don't think we should interfere with due process as what is going on with the State Attorney. It is my understand that that is not going to take long, and once that is concluded, I don't think there is any question but that the City of Miami Commission should specifically spell what was the previous intention, and more importantly, what is our future intention. Now, I want to say on the record so that my position is understood. When the matter of the contract of the Manager was under review, from the very beginning, despite the editorial sup- port of the Miami Herald and the Miami News both, my position was abundantly clear and that is that the Manager form of government, which is what we have here - Manager, Commission form of government philosophi- cally means that the Manager serves at the will of the Commission on the very same way that the City Fire Chief and Police Chief serve at the will of the Managers the Manager and the City Attorney and the City Clerk serve at the will of the Commission. Now, it is an obvious contra- diction that we have the benefits on the one hand of a system where the chief executive officer is not elected, but appointed, and then he is protected by a contract. It doesn't make any sense and is totally con- trary to the basic form of our demoncracy. Either he is elected, at which time he can't be removed except for malfeasance or misfeasance under legal action, or if he is appointed, then her serves at the will of the elected officials, and therefore we went through that whole rigmarole - The Miami Herald and The Miami News both thought it was terrific for the Manager to have a contract. Eventually that matter was defeated by the -Commission on a three to two vote. Mr. Carollo: It was as you stated at the time, Mr. Mayor, it was illegal, to start off with. Mayor Ferre: what? Mr. Carollo: It was illegal to start off with. Mayor Ferre: There was never any question in my mind that a contract was an illegal thing, so George Knox, who was the attorney then, came back with the argument that it was not a contract, but an agreement for compensation. Mr. Carollo: Agreement for compensation is another word for a contract. Mayor Ferre: But it had all kinds of contractual arrangements in it. Now, the fact is that after that was all done and over with, the Manager an Id F E ® 2 81984 6 ld did come to see me. I distinctly remember, and I distinctly remember discussing that my vote was that I thought that the contract was illegal, but even if it was legal I was opposed to it, but I didn't think that any Manager should serve under a contract, but at the will of the Commission, and that was my only position! Now, with regards to pay and to the emoluments, that they were to be absolutely the same. I wasn't quarreling with the Manager about what he achieved from this Commission in compensation and emoluments. Now, the question then be- comes as to what that contract, when it was in existence gave the Mana- ger. Now, that is a legal matter - Mr. City Attorney. And for me to vote on an issue such as the one that is being proposed by Commissioner Carollo, and by vote has to be predicated on whether or not the so-called nom contract that he had, which we wiped out, whether that was covered in there. Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. Mayor, that is clear in the City Attorney's opnion. The City Attorney (I am reading from his opinion now) - the City Attorney, do you have a copy of it, before you, sir? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir, I think we are trying tc locate one. Mr. Carollo: Okay. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: But I remember what I said. Mr. Carollo: The question was, the first question that I asked of the City Attorney, was if the compensation agreement executed by City Mana- ger Howard V. Gary in June 17, 1981 in effect at this time, and if not, when did that agreement cease to be effective? He answers that extreme- ly clear in where he says: "Upon a review of the facts and the documents referred to therein, it is my view that the subject agreement is not in effect at this time and that it ceased to be effective on April 20, 1982." That was the day that Mr. Gary relinquished that contract. Mayor Ferre: But the question is, in the emoluments that he received under the agreement for compensation, was he allowed in that agreement... Mr. Carollo: Okay, now... Mayor Ferre: .... the ability to either rent a car, or lease a car, own a car, and be compensated, get gasoline and fix his car. Mr. Carollo: That is also answered, Mr. Mayor. Now, based on that agree- ment - first of all, the agreement from April forward did not exist - the contract, which is the actual word that we should use, because it was a contract. The second question that I asked was, "What is the legal interpretation of "4-C" of that agreement insofar as it relates to the benefits that Mr. Gary is entitled to, if he provides his own car, makes in particular, reference to car repairs. Now, Number two, and let me read it for the record - Section 4-C of the subject agreement reads entirely as follows: "Howard V. Gary's duties require that he shall have the ex- clusive and unrestricted use of an automobile at all times during his employment with the City. Howard V. Gary shall be entitled to the same car emoluments as the prior City Manager. The City shall be responsible for payment of lia- bility, property damage, and comprehensive insurance, and for the purchase, operation, maintenance, repair and regular re- placement of said automobile, or the rental cost of the leased vehicle, plus maintenance and gas if Howard V. Gary decides to provide his own car." Trying to go to the bottom line of the City Attorney's opinion, he says the following: FE6 28198Q Id "My best legal interpretation is that the benefits afforded to Mr. Gary, if he provides his own car, are (1) liability, property damage and comprehensive insurance (2) maintenance, and (3) gas. The basis of my exclusion of such items as re- pair, is that those items are included in phrase - purchase, operation, maintenance, and repair and regular replacement of said automobile, or the rental cost of the leased vehicle; which phrase relates to a City owned, or City leased vehicle; further, the word maintenance, and not the word "repair" is repated in the phrase that relates to Mr. Gary's own car as in for maintenance and gas if Howard V. Gary decides to ride his own car." That's the bottom line of the City Attorney's opinion. And no "ifs", "buts" about it any other way. That is the bottom line, and this is clear as English could possibly be. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. City Attorney... Mr. Carollo: And furthermore, if I may add, Mr. Mayor - we are not in- terfering in any way whatsoever in whatever investigation the State Attorney is conducting. On the contrary, we have a responsibility to make sure that we justify to the people of Miami what is happening with their tax money and I think this issue has to be resolved now, particu- larly when just a week and one-half, two weeks ago the Manager was still getting his vehicle repaired after all this controversy went public. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT) Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir, getting the BMW repaired at City expense at the motor pool. Mayor Ferree Well, what you are saying in effect is that this is a matter that has not only occured in the past, and is occuring now... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre:....and it is a policy matter which needs ... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I will go even further than that. In this last six months, there were probably anywhere $3,000, $4,000 spent on repairs of the Manager's cars by the City of Miami taxpapers. Mayor Ferre: Are you finished? Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, in your memorandum of February 14th, I want to make sure of Commissioner Carollo's interpretation as he read it is accurate, and Howard, I want you to listen to me. As I understand the issue is that you were to have the same emoluments that you had when that contract was in existence - after. Now, as you explained it, that includes the leasing or the monthly payment to you if you provide your own vehicle, an allowance - the maintenance of a vehicle, and the gaso- line for the vehicle. Now, Joe read the City Attorney's memorandum to us. You say that is not the case in the previous agreement. Is that correct? And therefore, what you are saying is that when the thing was in writing, there was no provisions for the maintenance of the car? And yet, when you read it, (let me say that paragraph that you read) it says maintenance. How do you...? "City shall be responsible for payment of liability, property damage, comprehensive insurance and for the purchase, operation, maintenance, repair and regular replacement of said automobile, or the rental cost of a leased vehicle, plus maintenance and gas if Howard V. Gary decides to provide his own car." Mr. Carollo: That paragraph, Mr. Mayor, as explained in the legal opinion of the City Attorney, can only be construed that it is providing for three options - the last being if the City Manager decides to provide his own car, he is entitled to insurance, gas and maintenance, but not repairs. F E B 2 81984 Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see, so the distinction is between maintenance and repairs, is that it? Mr. City Attorney, I need an explanation of this, please. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: well, in all fairness to the situation, Mr. Mayor, I think it should be clarified as Commissioner Carollo began, that that agreement is not in effect and has not been in effect. Mayor Ferre: I understand that it is not in effect, but as far as this member of this five member board, I understood with that Manager there, when he came to see me - I don't know whether he came to see anybody else and he has to say that on the record and clarify it, but when he came to see me, he said "Now, I want to make sure we understand each other, that we are not dealing with my emoluments, that were under the contract", and I said, that is right. I am not interested in them - my own only interest is it is illegal for you to have a contract. I don't want a contract, even if it is legal, I don't want a contract! Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, my point there was simply this► Mr. Mayor - that the discussion of what his so-called emoluments, really his com- pensation, which is what the word is, - was, is not on that record, and the matter is very properly therefore before the Commission because the Manager, as myself, as the Clerk, are entitled to those emoluments, or that compensation, which this Commission... Mayor Ferre: The question is very simple - if that contract were in effect today, okay? ... and assuming it was legal - is Howard Gary en- titled to be paid a monthly amount is he entitled to have his car maintained and repaired, either/or, and is he entitled to gasoline? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That was the third question that Commissioner Carollo asked me and without trying to over simplify a fairly explicite answer, I think that that clause is a confusing clause, capable of con- flicting interpretations. I gave it my best shot, and my best shot was that if he provides his own car, he gets insurance, maintenance and gas. Mayor Ferre: What is the difference between maintenance and repairs? Would you explain that to me? Because I don't understand - you know, if my car is being maintained, give me a legal opinion between maint- enance and repairs, Mr. garcia-Pedrosa: Okay, the basis for my distinguishing those two, Mr. Mayor.is, that in the clause immediately above that (it is a shame we don't have it in front of us, because it is set out - I think copies are being made) the word "maintenance" and "repair" are both mentioned. Mr. Carollo: I read that before, but we can go over it again, the part of what I read, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: If you are telling me that there is a difference between maintenance and repairs, then tell me legally what the difference is and then I am bound by what you are telling me. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: What I am saying to you, Mr. Mayor, is that the draftsman of that contract made use of those two words separately, and that has legal meaning. Mayor Ferre: All right, since you are the chief legal officer of the City, you have got to give me an opinion as to what the distinction is between a car repair and car maintenance. That is where the crux of the matter is. Now, if what you tell me is, that he can an oil filter change, but he can't have a gasket changed, that one is maintenance and the other one is repair, then I guess that is what we have got to live with, but you have got to tell me what the difference is, that as far as I am con- cerned, I don't know what'the difference is between maintaining a motor and repairing a motor. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, I think, Mr. Mayor, that the question can be made difficult by using the example that you used, but I can think of some easier... ld LM Mayor Ferre: All right, give me an easier example. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: For example, the difference between a change of oil, which would probably clearly qualify as maintenance, and say that Mr. Gary had a scrape - banged up his car to a light pole, and the engine needed replacement or new parts of it. Mayor Ferre: Okay, well, then there is a definable difference. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am not an expert in the field of car matters, but I am saying to you that the contract uses... Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, General Motors and the Ford Motor Company and General Motors Leasing make a living off of this, okay? There is such a thing as a warranty in an automobile, okay? And auto- mobile warranties say such and such, you know? Now, I get your point. If there is an accident and a motor is wiped out and it has to be re- placed, that is repairing. Now, if it wears down, that is maintenance, is that it? Mr. Carollot Yes, that is why in a lot of these guarantees, Mr. Mayor, you usually find that they will repair whatever the part is within a 12 month or 12,000 mile warranty, as long as the vehicle has been properly maintained. Mayor Ferre: I think we need to get a legal interpretation as to what the difference is between maintenance and repair, and then we need to get somebody to determine whether the City Manager had his car main- tained at the City garage, or that it was repaired at the City garage. There is a difference. Mr. Plummer: Or if those repairs were of a maintenance feature, or they were repair features. In other words, as I recall, and I have not seen any documents and I hate to go on what I read in the paper, but one of the things that I saw that was repair was a muffler system. Now, maintenance is normally defined that if the muffler went out under normal wear and tear, as the wording used, maintenance would be replac- ing that. It is much different than if Mr. Gary ran over in the road and tore it up. It is not under amortization or normal wear and tear, and I think that is where the distinction comes, and how much of those bills are normal wear and tear, or let's say, accident or neglect? I think there is a big difference there. Mr. Carollo: If I may, Mr. Gary, who drafted this contract for you, sir, the original contract that you had? Mr. Gary: Who drafted it? Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir. Mr. Gary: It was drafted. I can't recall. Mr. Carollo: You can't recall who drafted the contract for you. Here is the contract that was giving you the guarantees that you felt that you need for your job and you don't recall who drafted the contract? Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, there was a pattern... Mr. Carollo: If I may ask... Mr. Gary: It was patterned after ... I will answer your question if you will allow me. It was patterned after I.M.A. model agreement, and Mr. Mayor, I would like to say that... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Manager, I... Mayor Ferre; Go ahead. Mr. Carollo: He is not answering the question, Mr. Mayor. He is going to some other areas. QA Id FED 281984 i 0 Mayor Ferre: Yes, but let him finish answering the question and then I will recognize you for more questions. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if you can take the basis from which the agreement, part of the agreement was drafted, and apply it to the City of Miami, the previous manager had the right and utilized those rights, both of them, which was to utilize a City car, or to lease a car, which both of those options were utilized. And if you take the utilization of a City car, not only do we buy it, we insure it, we maintain it, and we repair it - all that was done at City expense for previous managers. You apply it to the same philosophy, the same thing exists. I think it is also important that this is...we read a portion of the City At- torney's opinion. We ought to also read that portion which says that it is subject to conflicting interpretations and also it would probab- ly be appropriate to eloquently read my response to that particular phrase, I mean, that particular legal opinion also. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Manager, you still did not answer my question, sir, and my question was, who drafted the contract for you, sir. Mr. Gary: It was drafted by me. Mr. Carollo: it was drafted by you. Okay, but before ... you just said two minutes beforehand that you don't recollect, and now it was drafted by you. Mr. Gary: I take responsibility for anything that I present here. Mr. Carollo: I am not asking you to take responsibility, sir. Mr. Gary: I will. Mr. Carollo: What I am asking for, who was responsible for putting in that contract every word in the contract? You said two minutes ago you did not recollect. Mr. Gary: The contract is my contract. Mr. Carollo: I know it is your contract, sir, but what I am asking is, who drafted the contract? Mr. Gary: The contract is my contract. Mr. Carollb: Okay, you don't want to answer the question - that's fine. It might be because your friend George Knox might have helped drafting it. If that is the case, I could surely understand it, Mr. Manager, but that is really not all that relevant here at this point in time. What is relevant is, was Mr. Gary entitled to receive some $9,000 of car repairs by the City of Miami? And again, according to the statement that the City Attorney has given us, he was not entitled to that! In fact, if we would go back to part of what that contract stated, the contract stated that - I will read it for the record. Howard V. Gary's fluty require it, and so on. It says "Howard V. Gary should be entitled to the same car emolument as the prior City Manager". The prior City Managers, Mr. Grassie and Mr. Fosmoen, drove a leased Chevrolet Caprice that the City leased for them. They did not receive on top of that $32S a month and there was never no car repairs made on those vehicles, at least no car repairs that would have come anywhere near to the amounts of money that we spent on your vehicles. Now, the situation that we have here is that at that time particularly, the City was paying its employees $250 a month in car allowance in lieu of providing them a car, Mr. Gary was receiving $325 a month. On top of that, the City was spending several thousand dollars a year in preparing his car. Just with the money that the City was spending repairing his cars, we could have leased a car for him. On top of that, every single day that Mr. Gary would drop his car off at the motor pool, and other days Mr. Gary would have use of a City owned car also, like -hi has been driving on numerous occasions in the last few weeks when his BMW has been at the motor pool. So, what I am seeing here is that Mr. Gary was getting everything! He was getting monthly car allowance, he was getting thousands of dollars of car repairs by the City of Miami taxpapers and Mr. Gary was getting also at different ld FEB 2 81984 times usage of the City owned car or leased car. Now, you know, just because things are tough at times to make decisions, if you see the sun is shining, maybe some people might want to say "no", it is not the sun, it is completely pitch dark, but if I see the sun is shining, I am going to say it is shining, and I am not going to say it is pitch dark. And I don't see that we have any other alternative but to make a decision in asking for the Manager to reimburse the $9,000 approxi- mately that he has taken in car repair bills. If my colleagues want to vote in the majority that no, he doesn't have to reimburse that, on one vote I go along with you, just like if my colleagues would like to bring up a motion that we ought to get the Manager a mansion and a yacht too, to go along with his job, the majority of my colleagues could do that. But, if I may read a couple of statements that were made at previous meetings - this was made at the June 8, 1981 meeting. It was made by Commissioner Plummer and it brings I think a lot of things...I think this might remind a lot of people similarities in what is happening here and Plummer made the statement, I will just read the end of it - he says "I am not going to give anybody else carte blanche to go out an order $100 champagne when you should be ordering a beer". Well, I subject to you, my colleagues, that what has been happening here is that the City Manager has been taking $100 champagne from the City instead of ordering the beer that prior City Manager's had. I will go further than that. Go into the record. On the meeting of December 10, 1981, the Mayor made a statement that and the statement was simply be that we carry out Section 4 of the contract - that is the full section that I just read that question. Namely, under the title of salary, which means that the Manager must come before this Commission for the discussion of any and all salary increases or bene- fits that are pertinent to him. Mr. Mayor, the Manager never came be- fore this Commission to get the car repair go-ahead from this Commission. He took it on his own, like he has done in the past on other things, and it is a pattern that he has been creating, and this is the statement that you made, Mr. Mayor, on the record some time ago in the past years also. April 20, 1982, the Mayor states: "The other things that have been brought out in the press as a result of some of the requests of your office - for example, such as the fact that there is the car owned by the City, which is at the disposal of the Manager, and intermittently at a different time you have also received rental cash for leased vehi- cles, or a car allowance, if you will. That seems to be somewhat nebulous, and I think that needs a little clarification". Mayor Ferre: Is that the annual review? Mr. Carollo: "And I don't think it needs to be done at this particular time, but whenever you are ready, and I think in a memorandum form would be the best way to do that". That was April 20, 1982when the Manager relinquished his contract. Mayor Ferre: Was that the annual review date? Was that the day of the annual review? Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir, that was. Now, the only thing that we received from the Manager in reference to that, we finally received... (that was April 20, 198i, Mr. Mayor) a couple of months later on June 21, 1982, we finally received a memo from the Manager addressed to the Mayor and members of the Commission, subject, the use of City vehicles. It says; "The City Commission asked that I clarify my use of the City vehicles vs. receiving an automobile allowance during my tenure as City Manager. Upon review, I discovered some clerical errors involved in the assignment of the City vehi- cle to the City Manager's office. To eliminate any further confusion as to exact vehicle assignment, new procedures have been implemented that include requiring identification for the vehicle driver, purpose of the vehicle use, and check out and check in date. This procedure will clearly identify the individual to whom,a vehicle is assigned. It really didn't answer the Mayor's question, but I think this will clarify for the record that the Manager was put in warning by the Mayor that this was something that had to be clarified and done right, and tWS ld FEE 2 81984 qb (16 any benefits that were not given to him, he had to come before the Com- mission to get approval for it. Now, Mr. Mayor, that same problem re- fers to, which I read before, and I will read it again, Howard V. Gary should be entitled to the same car emolument as the prior City Manager. The prior City Manager, and I will state it for the record again (prior two City Managers) drove a Chevrolet Caprice that was leased by the City of Miami. They did not receive beyond that a monthly car allowance. Mr. Mayor, you tell me if I am out of order or not, but I think that this Commission cannot ignore this any longer. We cannot let the City Manager keep going ahead and getting his car repaired at City expense and having his car take priority over even police vehicles that have sat there for a month or two months and when he wants his car repaired, it gets repaired. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Gary: In view of the personal attack, I would like to respond. Mayor Ferre: You are entitled to respond. Mr. Gary: First of all, it has been alleged that I took those privileges without approval of the Commission. When I gave up this contract that has been mentioned, in my statement to the City Commission I said that I would be given the same emoluments. Because emoluments were in the minutes and there had been no discussion of details of emoluments, even though when I gave up my contract to this City Commission before the time expired, it was assuming that my emoluments remain the same, and that was the intent of my relinquishing. I went to the Mayor and all members of this City Commission, including Commissioner Carollo, who said that they did not mind me keeping the same benefits, and that was the interpretation as long as I gave up the contract - all of the Commis- sioners. That was the benefits of this office which each of the Commissioners agreed to when I gave up the contract, and I talked to each one of them personally. That was a benefit that was on -going. In terms of a clerical error regarding the vehicles as Commissioner Car- rollo mentioned, what is he is talking about is the same thing that he has been talking about before is that on one hand I should have the same emoluments as the prior managers, but on this particular case, it seems as though he is questioning that, and that deals with the fact that when prior City Managers had a vehicle - whenever that vehicle, regard- less of whether it was a leased vehicle totally leased and City funds expended for that had to be repaired, that vehicle was taken by the motor pool, repaired, and during the interim, the City provided that City Manager with a car. In terms of clerical errors with regard to use of that vehicle, the Building Director himself stated that the records were in error and they were not keeping control of those records. A lot of times that vehicle, which is in question, when I did not use my vehicle, was also a vehicle utilized as the dignitary car, and was utilized for dignitaries that came in this town and that vehicle came to this office for use by the City Commission and other people and digni- taries were in this town. And just because it had City Manager's name on it is only because the City Manager got the vehicle for those digni- taries. In terms of the City Commission, the response in regard to the salary issue had to come before the City Commission before it was granted, I would like -to refresh your memory that all of my predecessors and particularly Mr. Grassie and Mr. Fosmoen, including the prior City Attorneys and the current City Clerk automatically got the cost of living increase as all other employees receive automatically, and it has been happening for five, five and one-half years before I became Manager and probably longer. However, in this particular case, when it was granted to all of the appointed officials, this City Commission de- cided that they wanted to change the rules because I had the contract. Based on that, I honored the City Commission's directive that because I had the contract, the.rules would no longer exist the way they were be- fore, even those were the same type of emoluments previous Managers were given. However, when I gave up the contract, this City Commission said, "Now, Mr. Manager, that you have given up your contract", and they also agreed privately to give me the same benefits, this City Commission said Id FE8 2 81984 4h 4 they were going to treat me just as they treated all other appointed officials. So, in terms of the salary issue, the salary issue was the only issue that this City Commission instructed its officials, which is three - me, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk, to come before this City Commission before salary increases are granted, just as they are granted other employees, which have been automatically granted to prior City Managers, prior City Attorneys and prior City Clerks, and that rule is in effect and it deals strictly with the salary. Now, in terms of the comment that my car got priority over police vehicles, that is not correct. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: If I may read for the record, April 20, 1982, Mr. Gary stated "I will relinquish my existing agreement. I am satisifed that you will continue to provide me the customary benefits and emoluments of my office". Mr. Mayor, when Mr. Gary was receiving many thousands of dollars of free car repairs by the City of Miami, it was not the custo- mary benefits or emoluments of his office. In fact, what Mr. Gary has been trying to allege is that he not being dealt with in the same way as prior City Managers and I would like to say for the record that I fully agree with Mr. Garyl He has not been dealt with in the same way as prior City Managers. Mr. Gary has been treated like a king by this City, much different than any other City Manager that we had in this City. If Joe Grassie, Fosmoen, would have done something like this, their head would have been rolling. The difference of the City paying for repair bills for the private vehicles of the Manager is quite dif- ferent than if the City would repair a vehicle that they would ownl When you lease a vehicle for two years, the first year of that lease the car is under factory warranty that if anything happens to it the company would repair it, whether a Chevrolet, or Ford, or what have you. Rarely do you see any major repairs that have to be made on a one or two year new vehicle. The problem here has been that Mr. Gary has had three used cars in very apparent bad working condition when he bought them at the time. And this is why the City has had to spend some $9,000 in repairing his vehicles. Now, what I see here is that we have spent at least twice as much, if not more in taking care of Mr. Gary's halucination of benefits, then we would have if we would have followed the standard set precedent that we lease a new Chevrolet Caprice for the City Manager. Now, I am sorry that Mr. Gary takes what I have been saying personal, but you know, if truth is to be taken as personal, then take it personal, Mr. Gary, but what I am interested in here is in pro- tecting the monies of the taxpayers of the City of Miami, which I want, and every year you suggest that we raise our taxes, but my service goes down, while every other City in this county, with the exception of one little tiny island, has much lower taxes than we do, but much higher services. Well, Mr. Mayor, I call the question that based on the legal opinion and interpretation of the City Attorney that this Commission decide if Mr. Gary should reimburse the taxpayers of the City of Miami for the expense of car repairs on his three vehicles that he has re- ceived, or should we give him an extra bonus and tell him, no, Howard. Mayor Ferre: Your words, Mr. Carollo, at the April 20th approval, were as follows: "Mr. Mayor in keeping with my word that I gave some months back, I feel very strongly that one of the few things that a man has in his life is his word. If you can't keep your word, you are not much of a man, therefore Mr. Mayor, regardless of what my feelings are at this point in time, regardless of some of the areas that I am unhappy with, I will make a motion to ap- prove the salary increase for our City Manager beginning today." Mr. Carollo: That is correct, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferro: Plummer said: "Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask the maker of the motion to in- crease it to what?" ld r ` � Mayor Ferret Carollo says: "Mr. Plummer, I think it is very clear - a salary increase according to what everyone else in the City government has gotten." Mayor Ferret Mayor Ferre says: "Which is 10, plus 2, is that right?" Mayor Ferret Mr. Gary.says: "Mr. Mayor, the City Commission granted the City Clerk and the City Attorney approximately 18%. There will be adjust- ments as a result of the Police contract and Fire contract that will require adjustments in upper echelons of the Police and Fire Department and other departments which will total from 15, 17, to 20%." Mayor Ferret Mr. Carollo says: "I figured you would have that very handy, Howard." Mayor Ferret Mr. Plummer says: "Well, Mr. Carollo, is it the intent of your motion that the Manager would receive the same percentages as indicated?" Mayor Ferret Mr. Carollo says: "I think that the Manager understands my motion clearly. I think he clarified any misconceptions that there could be. You are approving the same percentage of raise that has been approved to the two other members of this City that this Commission is empowerea to approve in raises." Mr. Carollo: That has to do with salary, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferret Mr. Plummer seconds the motion. Mayor Ferret "All right, further discussion?" Mayor Ferret Plummer says: "Well, let this motion go ahead. I'd like to make another one." And we voted on it and we voted on it affirmatively. The point I am trying to make leading to this, the end of that April 20th session is that in your own motion, you, yourself as the maker of the motion of approval of increasing his salary. Mr. Carollo: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferret And not only from 12%, but up in the vicinity of 18%. Mr. Carollo: That is correct, Mayor, and my statements were clear. Mayor Ferret So in other words, I think there has been a clarity that this Commission has been generous in its dealings with the emoluments that go to the Manager. Now, the question that is before me at this time is Mr. City Attorney - there are two areas, as I understand, and I want to repeat again for the record, the Manager did come to my office and did discuss emoluments and I said that it was my intention that he should be paid exactly what he had under this compensation agreement which he signed the 17th day of June of 1981 which he, on April 20th, relinquished. Now, the crux of the matter, from a legal point of view comes up in the definition of 'the word "maintenance and the word "repairs". If the word "maintenance" and the word "repairs" were in fact different then we need to go into what maintenace means and what repair means, and then I am ready to vote at that point. Now, apart from the legal aspects ld 99 FES 2 81984 0 6 of this, I don't think there is any question, Mr. Manager, in all fair- ness and trying to be as objective and above board as I possibly can on this, but that this problem comes about because this is the first time that a Manage of the City of Miami has owned his own car. Now, we have solved the problem since, as I understand it by your volunteering the City simply leasing a car in the same way that we did with former City Manager Grassie and Fosmoen, and that clarifies the problem, so the policy from this point on has been simplified because of what is going to be done. The issue before us now, is what was the intent of the Commission, since there was no established policy even though I think Carollo, and I have gone over it, and I recall very vividly in my mind when I said the other things that have been brought out in the press as a result of some of the requests of the office, for example, such as the fact that there is a car owned by the City which is at the disposal of the Manager and intermittently at different times, you have also received rental cash for leased vehicles, or a car allowance, if you will. That seems to be somewhat nebulous, and I think that needs a little clarification, and I don't think it needs to be done at this particular time, but whenever you are ready, I think in a memorandum form would be the best way to do that. Unfortunately, and I accept the fault personally, and I think this Commission shares that fault with me, and Mr. Manager, you share that fault too, that we should have put all of this down in a memorandum and gotten it totally clarified. We didn't. You came to see me; you went to see the other members of the Commission, and we did this verbally and it wasn't on the record, so therefore it was not clarified and now the problem plagues us. The issue therefore, in my vote, is simply this. As far as I am concerned, whatever this document said that you had, that is what you had. Now,,as far as I am concerned, until I get a clarification, the difference between repair and maintenance, from a legal point of view. From a non -legal point of view, just purely from a common sense approach to the problem - the prob- lem arises, and I think it is a very unfortunate problem, that they have been European cars that are not new cars and they have had maintenance expenses, and I think therefore that is the area where unfortunately, I think the press and public opinion has brought this whole matter to the question. Now, there is no question that this is not something that has occurred before in this City, nor in the County, nor in local govern- ment. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it does bring up a new area and I think there is no question that when you are talking about $9,000 in repair and maintenance bills over a two year period - three year period, and in addition to the monthly payments and what have you, that there is confusion. Mr. Carollo: It is based on a two year period. You were correct before. Mayor Ferro: I think Commissioner Carollo, you were eminently correct, and I am glad to see that you and the Miami Herald agree for a change, in their editorial that this matter needs clarification. Mr. Carollo: They are right sometimes, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferro: And I think we are in the midst of doing that. For myself, my vote is predicated on the clarification, the legal clarification of Mr. City Attorney as to the difference between... because I cannot make this decision based on what I think is an emotional issue, or even on a common sense basis, as much as I like to do things on a common sense basis because we are dealing now with a legal issue as far as I am concerned. Mr. Carollo: Mr. City Attorney, I think if you will read the part re- lating to maintenance and repair that you gave me in the legal opinion that you wrote, that should be sufficient to clarify the Mayor's con- cern. I think you outlined it very eloquently the difference based upon Mr. Gary's old contract that whomever wrote, that he himself, states there is a difference in that contract by not including repairs in the third option. Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am not sure what the question is, Commissioner, but... Mr. Carollo: I guess what I am asking you, Mr. City Attorney, is to read your interpretation, your legal opinion, based upon maintenance and repair. , 100 FEB 28 1984 ld 0 0 Mayor Ferre: For me to vote, I need to have a clear cut legal defi- nition that there is a difference between repair and maintenance and that one was allowed and the other was not, or both were allowed, okay? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me come at it this way - maybe I will be answer- ing both of your question. Mr. Mayor, I can't give you a mechanical opinion. I am a lawyer. I can give you a legal opinion. Mayor Ferre: That is all I am asking for. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I can also read to you the dictionary, but you can do that. Mayor Ferre: You don't need to do that, sir. You can read me your legal opinion. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay. Mayor Ferre: That will be sufficient. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: From my review of the contract, the draftsman - it is legally significant that the draftsman thought there to be a dif- ference between maintenance and repair, because the draftsman used both terms in one clause. That is number one. Mayor Ferre: Let me simplify my question to you sir, so I can move ahead and vote. Was the City Manager, under this contract, whoever prepared it... Mr. Carollo: Whomever is correct! Mayor Ferre:.... entitled to both maintenance and repair? Mr. Garcia-Pedoosa: For a vehicle owned by the City Manager? In my best legal opinion, the answer is no. Mayor Ferre: Okay, now, which was he entitled to, maintenance or repairs? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Maintenance. Mayor Ferre: And he was not entitled to repairs. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Correct. Mayor Ferre: Is that correct? Well then my position is very simple - that whatever this document says you are entitled to, that is what you are entitled to and if the legal opinion is that you were entitled -to maintenance but not to repairs, then that is the way it is. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Gary: I would probably say that the legal opinion in itself says that it is subject to conflicting interpretations. Unfortunately, my memo has not been read, and I would like to read a paragraph, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Gary: First of all, it says: "In reference to the issue which re- lated to repairs, February 10, 1984 legal opinion excluded repairs when I used my own car. The basis for this opinion was in the fact that repairs were included only when the City purchased or leased a car for my use, but excluded it when I used my own car. Even though this was considered an oversight, the term maintenance and repair are the same. Maintaining means to keep in a condition of good repair or efficiency." I'd also like to say that there was also a confusion in terms of inter- pretation when it talks about - in addition it says, to clarify... In 101 YEs 2 8 1984 Id summary the City Attorney stated in his February 10, 1984 legal opinion that the language related to the car benefit was confusing and capable of conflicting interpretations. Furthermore, the above analysis deals in definition and interpretation of terms needs a further analysis. I think we all agree that the issue of interpretation and intent needs to be resolved. One of the things was rental cost vs. car allowance. It is specifically in there that my benefits call for rental car. Now, in view of the innuendos that have been raised and in view of the fact that employees do have rights, I think it is important that my attorney also interpret my benefits and my rights, just as I have interpreted those benefits and rights which were agreed to by the City Commission. Lastly, Mr. Mayor, in being an obedient employee of my five bosses, I will abide 'by any decision this august body makes. Mayor Ferre: I wouldn't expect anything less, Mr. Manager. As for reading memorandums into the record, let me also put into the record my memorandum of February 16th, which is addressed to you with copies to the members of the Commission and the City Attorney. "I have read City Attorney Garcia-Pedrosa's legal position regarding the City's expenditures and your car allowance. This matter, at your request, and that of former Police Chief Harms is being investigated by Janet Reno. The State Attorney, however, has nothing to do with the policy as established by the City of Miami Commission. In this case, after your evaluation in April of 1982, since you received a salary increase, you and I met and discussed the emoluments issued. However, there was no clear cut definition of the emoluments and the City Commission, unfortunately, by not establishing such a policy on the record, erred and let this matter open. We must now correct this omission. The ques- tion is whether you should receive a car allowance and also have your car repaired at the City garage and use City gaso- line. It is my opinion that we should be guided by prece- dent and the same policy should be applicable to you as to former City Managers. Also taken into consideration should be the policy dealing with the established and accepted policy in the general community for other comparable top appointed officials such as the Superintendent of Schools, the County Manager and the City Attorney. Based upon the above, you should be properly and amply compensated for an automobile so that you will have the use of a car that be- fits -the office similar to your counterpart. This should be a set policy by the Commission to avoid any further confusion. Base on your memorandum of February 15, 1984, it is my recom- mendation that the policy of the City Commission be that we should lease a four -door automobile, available to you on a twenty-four hour basis, maintained and repaired by the City garage, with gasoline available for the car. This is the policy we have had with previous City Managers and any ex- ception to this rule should be brought before the City Com- mission for a vote." Now, I think that I would like at the proper time just to use that as the basis for the policy of the City of Miami on this issue fopthwith. Now, from a procedural point of view, I am sorry we didn't do it before, and we should have done it, and we didn't and here we are! Now, on the issue again, dealing with Commissioner Carollo's statement or motion, if the City Attorney interprets that you were entitled to maintenance, not repairs, then I think that has got to be the position. I've served on this board how many years, Plummer? You have been here 15 years; I've been here 14 years. Mr. Plummer: 14 and 13. Mayor Ferre: You have been here 14 years, I've been here 13 years. Okay. Now, in the 14 years you have served, and in the 13 years I have served, I do not remember, and between use we have served since 1967 on. We can say that between you and I, we have been around ... Mr. Plummer; A long time. V& FEB 2 8 1984 t 0 0 Mayor Ferre:....on this board since 1967, and I have yet to recall collectively between us where we have not followed the City Attorney's interpretation and that we have also challanged the City Attorney's legal interpretation on the matter. Now, the City Manager is asking that his attorney have input. I do not have any hesitation in letting the City Manager's attorney having input to our City Attorney. Once a City Attorney makes a legal position, as far as I am concerned, I am voting with the City Attorney's legal recommendation. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, the attorney of the Manager can make a challange to this Commission anytime that he would so like, but I don't think this Commission should go against the legal opinion of our own attorney at this point in time. Mayor Ferre: I just said that. I just said that, Joe. The point I am trying to make is that since this is a very delicate and sensitive matter, I would want to give the Manager an opportunity, as he so wishes, to have his attorney discuss this matter further with the City Attorney, and if the City Attorney agrees on the legal interpretation that is being recommended by the Manager's attorney, I've got no problems with that, especially since he, the Manager, Howard Gary has said that what- ever this Commission decides he will abide by. Mr. Carollo: Well then, Mr. Manager, I think that this Commission should go ahead and vote on the motion that I have made and then at whatever time the attorney representing Mr. Gary would like to make any kind of challange to it, meet with our City Attorney, meet with this Commission, coming before us, or take whatever recourses he might have in our court system, I think he should do it, but I... Mayor Ferre: Joe, I happen to think that you are right, but the problem is the Manager is asking... Mr. Carollo: think that... Maurice, bear me out for a second. I think you will understand where I am coming to. I feel like you do when you voted for him with me. You were one of the three original votes, that our City Attorney is a pretty confident individual, and I don't think that he would have put down in his legal opinion what he did in refer- ence to this particular issue if he didn't really feel that that was the case. Mayor Ferre: I accept that. Mr. Carollo: Now, by us saying that well, we are going to wait to vote until Mr. Gary's attorney has a chance to meet with him, we are act- ually saying that, hey, we don't really believe or trust the opinion that our attorney has given us as correct, that it could be mistaken. But, what I am saying is, let's vote on this, and then if Mr. Gary's attorney wants to come before us, fine, but let's vote upon it now. Mayor Ferre: The Chair will accept your motion and if there is a second, we will vote upon it. However, my position again is this - I think if we were to vote today, I have already expressed how I am going to vote, so I am saying it on the record. I think because of the sensitivity of the issue, and since Miller Dawkins who is a member of this Commis- sion is not here, and since somebody could invoke the five day ruling, although nobody has, because this is not a matter that is on this agenda scheduled for discussion, and we have been at it for one hour and five minutes now, on this matter, and the 5:00 o'clock agenda has been delayed for one hour at this point, it seems to me that the proper way to do this is to let the City Manager have his input and the City Attorney, have the City Attorney come back, Thursday a week, when we next meet and we will put this as the first item on the agenda and vote upon it at that time. My position as to how I am going to vote is already on the record. If others want to do that or don't want to do that, that is their decision, and I think the matter will be resolved one way or the other, and I don't think that precipitating it at this point in any way, in any way solves the problems, so what I am saying to you is, you have made your point - I think you have made ... obvioiusly you have done a tremendous amount of research, because you have got this detailed going back to 1980. Now, I think your points have been valid. Your legal opinion as you have read it has been interpreted by the City Attorney, and you 03 FE8 2 81984 ld i 0 know, what is, isi And what I am saying is at this point that it is my opinion that we should move on with the regular agenda and let this matter come before the Commission as a scheduled agenda item on the 8th of March, which is a week from Thursday. All right, if you want to make the motion, I will accept it and if there is a second, we will vote on it. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I respect the opinions that you have given. I think you are trying to do what is right and honorable. I just feel that we should vote upon this now and then go ahead and give Mr. Gary's attorney... Mayor Ferre: A11 right, there is a motion on the floor, and I will... Mr. Carollo:.... that the motion is Mr. Mayor, to request of our City Manager to reimburse the taxpayers of Miami for the monies that have been spent on repairs and labor of his personal vehicles by the City of Miami. Mayor Ferre: But you are not talking about... that means that there will be a requirement of the distinction betweeen maintenance and re- pairs. You are not talking about maintenance. Mr. Carollo: I am not talking about maintenance. I am talking about repair and the labor that went along with those repairs, and that we give the opportunity, if he so wishes, for Mr. Gary to have his attor- ney appear before this Commission at any future date that he would so like. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a secon to that motion? Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Ferre: I think, Mr. Mayor, in order to understand clearly the motion is Commissioner Carollo trying to propose that we take a position after giving his attorney the opportunity to come here? I... Mayor Ferre: No, he wants to make the decision now. Mr. Perez: Okay, I would like to amend that motion to give Mr. Gary the opportunity to be listened to the same way that we proposed in the last Commission meeting to give our former Chief Harms the opportunity to be listened to by the City Commission. I would like for Mr. Gary to have the opportunity to be listened to with his attorney in the next Commis- sion meeting in a public hearing, and I don't have inconvenience... Mr. Carollo: Well, we heard Mr. Gary. I guess what you are saying, Commissioner, is to let Mr. Gary's attorney, or attorneys come before this City Commission and present their case. Mr. Perez: I would second the motion, subject to that... Mayor Ferre: I will tell you, this is not a court of law and we are not going to do that. Unless three of your over -ride me, I am not going to have a circus here with attorneys going back and forth. I don't mind the attorney meeting with Garcia -Pedrosa and having input to him, okay? And then, if he wishes to change his legal position, or if he wishes to amend it, or he wishes to put an adjunct to it, or a qualification to it, I have no problems with that, and I think out of courtesy, we ought to extend that courtesy to the City Manager. However, I am not going to have a public hearing here on an issue that is not, in my opinion due a public hearing! Now, the Manager has stated his position, the City Attorney has stated his. Commission Carollo has stated his. I am ready to vote on the thing in a moment. The only thing I want to do is extend the courtesy for three reasons - one, becuase Miller Dawkins is not here and this is an important issue. Two, because this is a sensitive area that in my opinion requires some tact, and thirdly, because I want to afford the City Manager all opportunity to be able impact legally on the City Attor- ney's opinion. Having done those three things, I am ready to vote, and I have stated on the record how I am voting, so you know, I've got no problems, but if you want to second the motion, I'm not ... I think this is much too important an issue for me to either invoke the five day rule, or for me to rule out of order, which I could do technically and then you 104 FEB 2 81984 Id 0 0 would require three votes other than mine to over -rule my ruling, but I am not going to do that. Mr. Carollo: Demetrio, did you understand what the Mayor has stated? He has stated that he does not want the attorney to appear before the Commission, just to have the attorney meet with our attorney to see if our attorney is going to change his mind and is going to admit that his knowledge on the particular issue is not what he had represented to us that it was. Mr. Perez: As a matter of courtesy, and also we don't have one member of this Commission today, I would like to discuss this item as the first issue at the next Commission meeting as a courtesy. But I want to ratify in the same way that I tried to have Chief Harms to have the opportunity to be listened to by this Commission. I would like that the attorney, or whatever they want to explain or clarify - I have my own point of view and I am very clear, but I would like to give him this courtesy and I would like to have the opportunity to discuss this item at the next Commission meeting. Mr. Carollo: It is a shame that so many of us were not as courteous when it came to Harms, but it is obvious that I don't have the votes to bring to a head now, so Mr. Mayor what... Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, I don't know whether Plummer wants to second that. No? Okay. Wait a minute, Joe, I think it is very impor- tant now, because we are going on very important issues now. The dif- ference between this and the Harms matter is... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, may I respectfully interrupt you. There is a lawsuit just been filed and if you would do the favor and not get into that topic, I think I would... Mayor Ferre: I'm not going to do you the favor, because I am going to make a statement very simply into the record. The City Manager works for the City of Miami. The Police Chief works for the City Manager, and that is a very substantial difference. Mr. Carollo: They both work for the people of Miami. Mayor Ferre: And we all work for the people of Miami. Mr. Perez: Each member of this Commission has the right to request the procedure that they want to clarify. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, let me make the following motion then - that the next City Commission meeting of March 8th, we will put this issue as the Number one item on the agenda at 9:00 A.M. Mayor Ferre: 9:30 A.M., because it is after the... Mr. Carollo: 9:30 A.M., and to include discussion to clearly outline the complete benefit that the Manager is to receive from this Commis- sion. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: From this day forward - from that day forward. Mr. Carollo: To outline the benefits that the Manager will be receiving from this Commission. Mayor Ferre: In other words, the emoluments should be spelled out, is that what you are saying? Mr. Carollo: Make sure that there is no mistake whatsoever, and what I am going to do is so that no one accuses me of having any hidden agenda, I am going to present the shme benefits and emoluments that the prior City Manager recieved and they were outlined for the prior City Manager, including the pension, ,and everything else. I am not going to give one additional benefit to Mr. Gary that a prior City Manager did not have. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? ld 105 FE8 2 8 1984 i 0 Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? That's not a part of the motion? Mr. Carollo: No, that is not a part of the motion. Those are my personal views. The motion is to have as the first item on the agenda the topic that we discussed here of Mr Gary's... Mayor Ferre: The definition of Mr. Gary's emoluments besides his salary. Mr. Carollo: Right, and the issue of Mr. Gary reimbursing the taxpayers of Miami for the approximate $9,000 he received in car repairs... Mayor Ferre: Oh whatever it is that was expended in car repairs.... Mr. Carollo: Whatever it is. If it is more, it is more. Mayor Ferre:.... because of that may have been in maintenance, and we have to get into that. Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Plummer: Is the motion just to move it over until March 8th? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Plummer: I second the motion. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Mr. Plummer: Under discussion. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, prior to March 8th, it is a pretty well known fact that Mr. Gary has appeared at his own request at the State Attorney's office in this matter. I would ask you sir to deter- - mine from Ms. Reno, whether or not, this Commission, entering into such a discussion would interfere, or be construed as interfering, if that investigation is not concluded. Second of all, the Mayor touched on, and I would like - I guess I have to ask the Manager, I can't ask the City Attorney, that the bills of $9,000, or whatever the bills are - Carollo has said $9,000 plus $400 - whatever those bills are, that a breakdown be made and some competent person, whether it is in-house or out, trying using the City Attorney's ruling, what is maintenance, and what is repairs. Mr. Carollo: Well, J. L., let me say this to you. Mr. Plummer: So I don't know, but I am just asking that be prepared for the next meeting for this discussion. Mr. Carollo: There is no way that you are going to get any City employee giving us an honest opinion, because if you do.... Mr. Plummer: Joe, I said in-house or out. Mr. Carollo:.... they are going to get a phone call at 2:47 A.M. and they are not going to be a City employee any longer. If you leave it up to the Manager to go to an outside counsel, we might get George Knox again. Mayor Ferre: Well, you are not going to recommend Norman Braman, are you? Mr. Carollo: No, I am not! I think that the Mayor would agree to it too greatly! (LAUGHTER) But, I think... Mr. Plummer: In house or out. I don't care, Joe, I am not trying to make an interpretation. Mr. Carollo: J. L., I think that what we should do is, when that time comes, let's get copies of all the maintenance and repairs and I think this Commission can pick up fairly simply what is maintenance and what 106 FES z 81984 ld is maintenance and what is repairs. If we can't, then let's go to some- one outside, but we pick them. Mr. Plummer: Okay. Mayor Ferre: All right, the motion is clear? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 84-225 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE A DIS- CUSSION ITEM AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1984, AT 9:30 A.M., REGARDING THE MATTER OF DEFINITION OF BENEFITS AND EMOLUMENTS THAT CITY MANAGER HOWARD V. GARY IS TO RECEIVE FROM THAT DATE FORWARD; AND FURTHER, TO DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF REIMBURSEMENT BY THE CITY MANAGER OF ALL COSTS INVOLVED IN REPAIRS WHICH WERE MADE TO HIS PRIVATE CARS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Ferre: Now, I move...no, I guess we don't have to move this. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I... Mayor Ferre: We don't need to move this question of what the policy should be. We will be dealing with that on March 8th. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, real brief. I would like from the Manager before March Sth, hopefully, at least the night before, a full accounting, year by year, since ht� has been our City Manager, of all the money, of all the benefits, emoluments, that he has received from the City of Miami, in- cluding reimbursement that he has received from the City for any ex- penses that he has had. These are things, Mr. Mayor, that are public record... Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute; because I think you need to be clearer. Mr. Carollo: In other words, what I am asking for ... I want to know every single penny that the City of Miami has spent on Mr. Gary either through salary, benefits, emoluments, or reimbursements. Mayor Ferre: Okay, that clarifies it, because I think the way you said it before was also subject to interpretation. Mr. Carollo: And I would just like to have it before the March 8th meeting. Mayor Ferre: Okay, I don't think we need a motion for that, do we? Mr. Carollo: No, we don't need a motion for that. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there anything else on this? ld *��+98 107 FEB 2 8 14 i a — 34. DISCUSSION ITEM: COST OF AROUND THE CLOCK BODYGUARDS, INCLUDING THE COST OF FOODS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS COSTS AFFORDED TO THE CITY MANAGER DURING THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS AND REQUESTING MANAGER TO ADVISE CITY COMMISSION HOW MUCH LONGER THIS PROTECTION WILL BE NECESSARY. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there anything else on this? Mr. Carollo: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think we all will acknowledge that because of the positions that we all hold at different times, there might be a greater risk of danger to each of us, but I think you have to draw a line at what is reasonable and what is not - even though at times during election campaigns, for one or two days, at different occasions for most of us, all of us, police protection has been extended. It has been something that has been done in a reasonable level and for a very short period of time. What I would like to know is, how long has the Manager been having body guards with him around the clock; how much is it costing the Citv of Miami, all the food that is heino anent when he goes out to restaurants, the liquor tabs when he goes out to bars with them - who is paying for that? Is it the Manager himself, or the City of Miami? I would like to know how much it is costing the taxpayers in the salaries and benefits that are being paid for these officers that are guarding the Manager, and the others that are guarding his home? And for how long a period of time has that been extended? I understand that at times we all have had threats in our lives , for that matter, our families. Mr. Mayor, I will say it publicly. I think I received as many, if not more threats against me and my family than anyone in this Commission and I am not going around like the days of Capone in Chicago with body guards everywhere, nor do you see ... well, I think I am making my point clear, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: That is your second request. Mr. Carollo: There has to be a line drawn, and the resources that we are using that Police Department for.... Mayor Ferre: We are not dealing with that issue today - what you are asking is for the information on the cost, as you required. Is that correct? Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, what I am asking for is to get a full accounting of the taxpayer's monies that are being spent on this police protection as body guards and for how long has this been going on. Now, and at different times in the future, any time that it has gone on for more than three days at a time. Mayor Ferre: All right, any other requests? 35. DISCUSSIOU ITEM.: BILL RECEIVED FRO14 ATTORNEY GEORGE KNOX IN THE Amotnr. OF $28,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HARMS FILES. Mr. Carollo: Yes, Mr. Mayor. in reference to the money that Mr. Knox is requesting for his law firm, $28,000 plus, I would like to have that placed also on the next City Commission agenda before it is paid, to discuss point by point. I really find it extremely high for eight days of work for the City of Miami to be charged over $28,000 for legal ser- vices, when in fact from the start we knew that our attorney's office could have handled that. Mayor Ferre: Anything else? Mr. Carollo: Yes, Mr. Mayor, but I'll bring it up later. 108 FED 2 8 1984 THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO A BRIEF RECESS AT 6:20 P.M., reconvening at 6:30 P.M. with all members of the Commission found to be present except: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. 36. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ORDINANCE 9500, SUBSECTION 2008.9.2.2, ARTICLE 22 - FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMISSIONS, COMMISSION OFFICERS AND BOARDS IN RELATION TO ZONING GENERALLY. Mayor Ferre: All right, we are taking up Item Number 16 first. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Sergio Rodriguez. We are going on this -last part of the Agenda item 16 through 22, which are comprehensive amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Items 16, 17, 18 and 22 are part of the amendment that we have been bringing to you since July of last year that have been to get the ordinance in the best possible shape we can. The first one, Item 16, is a Second Reading, and this item basically deals... first it was approved by the Planning Advisory Board at the meeting of November 22nd by a 4 to 0 vote. Amendment "H", as we call this amendment is an amendment that tires to further clarify some revisions that were made in Amendment "C" and "E" of the Ordinance 9500. These two amendments provided for the following clarifications: In cases where we have driveways and a street intersection, we are trying to make sure that the visibility triangles are maintained in an area bounded by the base building line and the driveway, and Number two, that questions of interpretation regarding the floor area ratio and other development ratios shall be first presented to the Zoning Administrator, rather than the Director of the Planning Department. Do you have any questions? This one is not controversial at all. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there anybody here on Item 16 that wishes to speak to Item 16? If not, is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: I moved it before, I will move it again. Mayor Ferro: Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2008.9.2.2 PERTAINING TO "VISION CLEARANCE AT INTERSECTIONS." TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 10 FEET MEASUREMENT WITHIN THE BASE BUILDING LINE ALONG ONE SIDE OF A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE; AND AMENDING SECTION 2200 BY CLARIFYING LANGUAGE PERTAIN- ING TO INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 26, 1984 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On Motion of Qommissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Carollo , the Ordinance and thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: .09 FEB 281984 ld i AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J.-b.•Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins _ Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9810. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commis- sion and to the public. ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: I've got a question before we vote on this, and it is a Coconut Grove question. The question is, Whipple, do you want to listen to this, and Mr. Luft? The question is this - in Coconut Grove there are walls and sometimes hedges that go right out almost to the street, and there is a question of vision. We are voting on 16 now. When you are talking about visions from buildings, does that include a wall? Mr. Rodriguez: If I may read - it says that the first ten feet along the intersection edges of the base building line and the driveway. Mr. Plummer: What is a Class "C"? Mr. Rodriguez: Class "C" are the permits which are granted by the Plan- ning Director. Mayor Ferre: What? Mr. Rodriguez: Permits - Special Permits, which are granted by the Planning Director. Mayor Ferre: Well, the question is, you know, for example - what is the name of the street where Jack used to live? Chucunantah. When you go down - it crosses Tigertail on both sides - that has got to be the most dangerous intersection I've seen. On the one hand there is a wall and on the other hand there is a hedge, right to the property line, and there is feasible way that you can make a stop and see a car speeding from (OFF MICROPHONE) Mr. Rodriguez: If I may, this ordinance relates to new development in any of the areas where this will apply, so if you are going to have new development, this will try to correct that situation. Mayor Ferre: I asked a question - does this include a wall? Mr. Rodriguez: It will apply to the wall, yes. Mayor Ferree So a person could not build a wall at an intersection like they exist all over in Coconut Grove. That is all I wanted to know. I am ready to vote. ld 110 FEE 2 8 1984 - .- 10 .lplr i 0 37. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 9500 - AMEND ARTICLE 5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICTS, GENERALLY, SUBSECTION 515.1 DELETING ERRONEOUS REFERENCE TO THE RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, ETC. Mayor Ferre: We are now on Agenda Item 17. Mr. Rodriguez: Item 17 is what is called Amendment "F", which is the one that relates to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee which you gave some Certificate of Appreciation today at 2:30 P.M. During the spring of 1983, the City Commission instructed the City Manager and City Attorney to co-chair a review committee on Zoning Ordinance 9500. This committee was composed, basically - Who is Who in Development Process, Knowledge and Experience. As a result of a meeting held in May 24, June 29, July 26 and September 13 of 1983, the 9500 Review Committee reached certain conclusions on neither amendment to our new zoning ordinance. Committee members were informed that the September 13, 1983, Committee meeting that will be their last opportunity to pro- pose amendments. The amendments, as proposed by the Committee were heard by the Planning Advisory Board during the November meeting. The Planning Advisory Board, at a meeting of November 9, 1983, following an advertised hearing adopted by a unanimous vote, the amendments are in- corporated in this what we call Amendment "F". If you want me to go into details of the amendment, I can go item by item through the ones we have here. Mayor Ferre: No, we may have to do that later on, but the first thing is to see if we have public opinion and input. We are on Item 17. Does any member of the public at this public hearing wish to speak on this issue? Is there anybody here who wishes to address this Commission on Item 17? This is on First Reading. Anybody have any problems that they wish to discuss, or they want to go on...? Mr. Plummer: You are speaking about now the Commission? Mayor Ferre: Yes, about the Commission. Mr. Plummer: On Item 17, Mr. Mayor, I have a problem in reference to walls. I think a six foot wall is more,than adequate. I think anything above that, whether it is intended or not, is spite. I think it gives the idea and the impression to me of a fortress. Mayor Ferre: When will this go into effect? 30 days? Mr. Plummer: I am opposed to an eight foot wall by anybody's discretion. If you want to speak to it issue by issue, I will. I have done that. I want clarification back on the permit pertaining to preservation of natural or archeological features, and I don't understand the wording that says that it pertains to new automobiles, rather than automobiles. Mr. Rodriguez: In relation to the first item, let me refer you back... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. That one you don't discuss. I'm opposed to anything above a six foot wall. Mayor Ferre: Even a what? I didn't hear your comment. Mr, Rodriguez: I was going to say you might have an eight foot wall in which the other part of the wall might be railings. Mr. Plummer: Might be what? Mr. Rodriguez: Iron railings - for example, that would let the air through and the light through, for example. Mr. Plummer: I'm opposed to above six foot. That is above eye level. If people want privacy, we don't have too many 617" people around, or ld FEB 2 8 1984 0 0 V people. I have have just had, and it was with my concurrence, my neighbor built an eight foot wall. Mayor Ferre: Wait till you see what your other neighbor is going to do. Mr. Plummer: Now, I have no problem, because I concurred with that, but after the wall is built, I say to you that wall is too high, and I... Mr. Carollo: What are you doing to your neighbor that he has to block you off, Plummer? Mr. Plummer: He has got two pit bulls, and I am not sure whether they are bulls that are in the pits, or pits that are in the bull. All I am saying to you is, I think a six foot wall is adequate, and that refers also to hedges. Mr. Rodriguez: The present regulations allow an eight foot wall. That is what we are trying to change. Mr. Plummer: That is what I ave an objection to - anything above a six foot wall. Mr. Rodriguez: So what you are saying is that the amendment that we are making... Mr. Plummer: This vote is predicated on a six foot wall - not six foot one, and that is one vote. Mayor Ferre: But us Latins like high walls, see! Mr. Plummer: No, no. If you count Latins, you had better count again! Mayor Ferre: Three and three-quarters! (LAUGHTER) Mr. Plummer: As the token Anglo, I would argue - one and one -quarter! Mr. Rodriguez: What I was going to say is that the existing regula- tions that we are amending allows an eight feet wall. Mr. Plummer: I understand that. Mr. Rodriguez: We are trying to amend to six and then in some cases, with a special permit, go to eight. Mr. Plummer: I don't like the special permits. Mr. Carollo: Don't worry about it. You know, there are three other guys here. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Mayor Ferre: Well, you want to take them one at a time, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: That one is just... Mayor Ferre: No, but I think you know, so that we get the sense of the Commission. Why don't you do it in the form of a motion so that we can understand. Mr. Plummer: No, well I have two other items in 17, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Take one at a time and make a motion! Mr. Plummer: If he can answer these other two, then I think that we are in good shape. Mayor Ferre: All right, go ahead. ld 112 FEB 2 8 1984 Mr. Plummer: Speak to the archeological features.. What is that we are changing? Mr. Rodriguez: Well, we felt that in some cases if there might be by any chance an archeological feature in one site to be discovered, or natural features - rather than saying that we have apply these stand- ards exactly, or deny the permit in that case because it is affecting an archeological feature, that we could make adjustments up to a certain point in those requirements or t that Class "E" permit. We are trying to provide some logical flexibility for areas in which we really should, and there are some parameters as to how far we can go and allow them to deviate.. Mr. Plummer: Speak to the area of appeals of the Administrator. Mr. Rodriguez: What happens is if there is a decision made by the Plan- ning Dorector and that Class "E" permit can be appealed to the Zoning Board, and that of course, can be appealed to the Commission. Mr. Plummer: The final thing,'tell me why the word "to" appears in front of all automobiles and dstinguishes between the two. Mr. Rodriguez: There was a mistake in the schedule of district regula- tions that didn't specify the intention of the ordinance as it was before of separating or differentiating between used car lots and new car lot, and this was just a correcting language of the omission that was left before. Mr. Plummer: One other question and I will quit on 17. Unrelated people in the same household - you are reducing it from five to three. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: Is that single family only? I don't see that terminology here, unless that is Article 36. Mr. Rodriguez: That is a definition of Section 20. Mr. Plummer: But I don't see that here! It says Article 36, defini- tion, Section 3602. - "Family, to change the definition of family to include three rather than five unrelated individuals and delete para- graph by amending the official schedule, etc. ..." Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Where are you reading from - what page? Mr. Plummer: I am reading from right here. Mr. Rodriguez: Page 13 and 16. Mr. Plummer: No, I am on page number 8, about 60% of the way dowt:. Mr. Rodriguez: What is your question again, sir? Mr. Plummer: You look at what you want, and I am going to look at what I want. This is what the public has and this is what we are voting on. I am talking about unrelated individuals in the household. Mr. Rodriguez: Okay, the question again, Mr. Plummer, so I can try to answer it. Mr. Plummer: My question is, on the record, you are proposing to drop from five unrelated individuals in a household to three. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: Does that relate only to single-family residents? Mr. Rodriguez: It applies to single -dwelling, or a lodging unit. Mr. Plummer: Or lodging....? ld 113 FE8 2 8 1984 0 9 Mr. Rodriguez:... unit, right. Mr. Plummer: A lodge is not usually considered a permanent residence, is it? Mr. Rodriguez: Only the definition of residential, there are some places in which lodges are allowed and we are trying to cover every possible angle. By the way, this definition which is very strict was basically recommended by the committee. There was some objections to the definition of three being too strict., but that was the final recommendation of the committee. If you look on Page 14 of the ordinance, which I think you are looking at... Mr. Plummer: Well, now, what he is giving me here, it says a family may also include a group of not more than eight children. Are you telling me if somebody has nine children they can't live at home? Well, you know there are these people that don't have a televison set! Mr. Rodriguez: If you keep reading the definition where it says - "A family may also include a group of not more than eight children, in addition to foster parents residing in a home, caring for foster children with the total number of children, including natural children..." Mr. Plummer: All right then, that only speaks to foster homes? Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: Well, how does that come back and relate to what I was speaking about before? Mr. Rodriguez: Because the other one relates to three people which are not related, by blood or marriage, or adoption. Mr. Plummer: Still, my question remains, is that only to single family residents? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir, single family and lodgings. Mr. Plummer: Is there anywhere in this 9500 ordinance, and I am totally unrelated to Item 17. 1.14 ld FEB 2 81984 -omw Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Pierce: The definition of family will relate to anywhere in the zoning ordinance where it mentions a family -dwelling unit, period. Mr. Plummer: Is there anywhere in this ordinance that refers to the number of animals? Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: I don't believe that we deal with that in the zoning ordinance. It is under City Code. Mr. Plummer: O.K. Mr. Rodriguez: That's what is a difficult problem for enforcement, I believe. Mr. Plummer: It's impossible. Mr. Rodriguez: If you don't like roosters. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have no further.... Mayor Ferre: What was that again? Roosters? Mr. Rodriguez: There have been complaints, I believe, in some areas in the City of noise made by roosters or different animals at night. Mayor Ferre: Are you for or against? Mr. Plummer: What? For or against roosters? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Plummer: I'm against them. Mayor Ferre: Wait, let me get this straight now, Plummer is against roosters. Mr. Plummer: That's true, otherwise known as "gallos." Chickies I am not against. Mayor Ferra: You are against roosters? Mr. Plummer: Roosters, yes. Anymore than you want your share, you go to Miami City Cemetery and you can pick them up by the dozens. Mayor Ferre: The point is we are not supposed to have roosters. Is that it? Mr. Rodriguez: We don't deal with that in the zoning ordinance. Mayor Ferre: We're not dealing with that. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: What do you have against roosters, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: I have nothing against roosters. Plummer is the guy that doesn't like roosters. Mr. Plummer: The thing is we have a lot of turkeys around here. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's go, turkey. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have no other question on 17. sl 115 FES 28 1984 Mayor Ferre: Plummer, how do you want to handle all these things? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'm voting against 17 unless it's amended. I've already indicated that, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Why don't you pass it on first reading. Mr. Plummer: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: Well, you better get Commissioner Carollo over here. Why don't you start amending them one by one? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Do you want to knock out the 8-foot wall? Is that it? Mr. Gary: Can we take that portion out with the eight -foot wall and vote on that separately? Mr. Plummer: We're on item 17, Joe. Mayor Ferre: Let's go. The first item is Plummer doesn't want an eight - foot wall; he wants a six-foot wall. Are we ready to vote on that? Mr. Plummer: I make a motion to amend the ordinance to read that the maximum height of a wall is six-foot. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Is there a second? Is there a second? Mr. Ongie: No second. Mr. Plummer: Get the little black box. Mayor Ferre: No second. What is your next motion, Plummer? Mr. Plummer: That's it, sir. Mayor Ferre: Is that the only one? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I hope you have three votes. Mayor Ferre: Is there a middle ground? What are you recommending, an eight -foot wall? Mr. Rodriguez: What we are recommending is to reduce the eight -foot wall, which is presently allowed in the ordinance, to a six-foot wall. Then, in some cases, if they want to go to eight feet walls, that there will be a review made by the Planning Department and a class E permit allowing it when they can prove there will be no negative effects on the properties adjacent to it and so on. Mr. Carollo: See, what we are doing is laying extra layers of bureaucracy. By the time they get done with all our multi -million dollar City administrators, it might take them a year just to put a lousy fifty foot, eight -foot fence up. I think we should make a determination. If we don't want eight foot, let's not make it eight -foot; make it six, make it seven. But let's make a decision so that people don't keep having to come back to us. Mayor Ferre: It's being made. What it is is six feet, but you have an appeal provision. You have to have an appeal provision. That's like getting married without having a divorce clause. Mr. Carollo: It happens all the time. Mr. Plummer: You are speaking to an expert. Sergio, let me proffer one thing that was not said here,today in reference to the walls. My motion has died, of course. You remember we had the very serious problem here, and I see her around somewhere, about the barb wire. Has that been addressed? Is that beyond the eight foot? I mean, if you are going to make a fort out of a house, you might as well go...you know..,is the barb wire and the 220 electric and all of that above the eight -foot or is that included in the eight foot? sl 116 FEB 2 81984 E Mr. Carollo: Don't forget the towers now. Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, 220 electric? Can I do that too? Mr. Plummer: Sure, you can ptit turrets for 155 howitzers. I understand, for a you need it. You need it, buddy, I want to tell you something. Mr. Carollo: That's why I don't need the bodyguards. Mr. Rodriguez: Let me, sir, if I may, section 2008.6.1, the second paragraph reads: "Barb wire fences or use of barb wire along the top of a fence or wall shall be permissible only by special exception." Mayor Ferre: I'd better get mine in quick, right? Mr. Plummer: With the special exception, is that above the eight feet or included in the eight feet? Mr. Rodriguez: Along the top of a fence. That will be above the six feet that we are proposing. Mr. Plummer: But if they get the exception from you as a special permit for eight foot, then the barb wire would be above that. Mr. Carollo: It should be eight feet, period. Mr. Plummer: That's what I'm asking. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no, it would be above that. Mr. Rodriguez: Above the six feet. Mr. Carollo: Then let's limit it, eight feet, no matter what you do, eight feet is the maximum. Mr. Rodriguez: That's what we are saying. We are saying that we have a limitation of six feet, and then.... Mayor Ferre: What Commissioner Carollo is saying, no matter what the maximum is eight feet. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mayor Ferre: Unless, of course, it's a gate for an entry, or something like that. Mr. Plummer: At the eight -foot level? Mayor Ferre: I have news for you, I am putting a gate where the doors themselves are eight feet high, and obviously the concrete on top of that has to be higher than eight feet. Mr. Carollo: You have to come to the Commission for a special permit. Mayor Ferre: Uh-uh. I'm arandfathered. I ant in hefnre you Guys got here. Mr. Plummer: Non -conforming use. Mr. Carollo: Zoning Department, take note of the Mayor's new address. Mayor Ferre: I do not need a variance. Mr. Carollo: If not, call the County and tell them to go to Key Biscayne and check it out. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, are the doors in? 1 , Mayor Ferre: No, they're not. Mr. Plummer: Ah, the doors are not in. sl 117 FEB 281984 •- • - Mayor Ferre: But the permit....listen, you talk to my wife about that. You think I'm bad. Mr. Plummer: We're going to blow away his doors. Mayor Ferre: You'd better not. Mr. Plummer: You want to mess with my car port, huh? Come here, turkey. Mayor Ferre: You'd better not fool around with my doors. Mr. Rodriguez: In relation to the comment made by Commissioner Carollo, what we are doing with the class E permit is allowing that a permit of this nature that otherwise would have to go for the difference between six and eight feet, not including barb wires, would have to go through a special exception process. We will process it administratively and it is usually taken care of within one or two days. Mr. Plummer: Is that from grade elevation or the highest point? Mr. Rodriguez: Grade. Mr. Carollo: Where do we stand with the height? Mayor Ferre: Six feet, unless they give them a special permit. Mr. Carollo: No, sir, I will not vote for special permits. I will vote for set a height, whether it is six, seven, or eight feet; but not for special permits. Mr. Plummer: Joe, I'm going to make a motion.... Mr. Carollo: Maurice, what's going to happen is that we are going to be getting every single home owner that cannot afford the time, the extra money, and heartaches to come before our City bureaucracy and be tangled up for months and months until they finally get an answer, if they get an answer. Mayor Ferre: Well, there is a very simple solution. They can build a six-foot fence. Mr. Plummer: The problem is, let me tell you where the real problem is. You ask a man in the construction business, or builder or developer, the problem is that if he goes down there with a set of plans, you see, they are the Zoning Department and the Planning Department, the real problem in the crux comes in the Building Department. They're making the rules and the other ones are interpreting them. Now, a guy took a set of plans there the other day. An inspector didn't like the idea where a platform was for an air-conditioning unit, and he wasn't going to issue a permit. Mayor Ferre: Hey, I went through that and had to move my damn air -con- ditioner. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, there was nothing in the rules that said you couldn't have an air-conditioning platform there, but the inspector or the man who said, "I don't like it." Show me where it's wrong. It was not wrong. The guy stood his ground. That's where I think Commissioner Carollo is trying to say that the more latitude you build into this thing, the more problems that you are going to have. Mr. Carollo: That's one of the areas. Mr. Plummer: I tell you, at the very end of this, I'm going to make a motion that no special permits be issued, because all you're doing is laying yourself wide open for problems. sl 118 FED 28 1984 0 0 Mr. Carollo: Maurice, if he goes with that, I'm going to go with him including for doors and everything else. Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm already grandfathered in. Mr. Carollo: No, you're not. Mr. Plummer: No, no. Mr. Carollo: What's the address? Let's get the address. Mayor Ferre: This is serious business. I want you to know that my house and my wall are up. Mr. Plummer: But the doors are not in. Mr. Carollo: And they are going to be going down. Mr. Plummer: Do you have a C.O. on it yet? Do you have a C.O.? Mr. Carollo: Do you want eight feet or do you want six feet? Take your pick. Mayor Ferre: What's the will of this Commission? Mr. Carollo: I'll go with the eight feet, maximum eight feet. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on the floor that walls not be permitted to go over eight feet. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, that's already in the proposal. Mr. Pierce: It's already the standard. Mayor Ferre: No, the standard is that they be six feet. Mr. Rodriguez: We are proposing that, not to allow —now is eight feet. Mr. Pierce: Eight feet is automatically allowed now. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The change, Mr. Mayor, is to reduce it from eight feet to six, and then to permit it to go back up to eight by special permit. It is now eight feet. Mr. Plummer: With special exceptions. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The special exceptions is for the barb wire only. Mr. Plummer: And to go up to eight feet. Mr. Rodriguez: No. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, there is a difference, Commissioner Plummer, between the two items. For the eight foot, as proposed now, the amendment is by special permit. For the barbed wire is by special exception. Mr. Carollo: Well, what I am in favor of doing is leaving that provision as it is now of having a maximum of eight foot walls. Mr. Plummer: Period. Mr. Carollo: I think you'd better agree with me, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: I have no problems. I'm grandfathered in. My walls are already up. Mr. Carollo: No, O.K., if you say so. Mr. Plummer: Do you have a C.O.? Where is the C.O.? Mr. Carollo: Of course he doesn't have one. 119 FE8 2 8 1984 ..r sl 0 sl Mr. Plummer: Where's the C.O.? Mayor Ferre: There is my attorney, right there. Counselor, tell them... that's right, I'm looking at you. Mr. Plummer: Where's the beef? Mayor Ferre: Counselor, tell them...what is that when you get.... Mr. Robert Traurig: Vested rights. Mayor Ferre: Vested rights. Mr. Traurig: I don't give advice until I first get retainers. Mr. Gary: I like that word, vested rights. Mr. Traurig: Vested rights, yes, sir, once the building permit has been issued, you're vested. Mr. Carollo: I don't blame you, counselor. Mr. Traurig: I don't care what they say. Mr. Carollo: I don't blame you. You know the individual's reputation. I don't blame you. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Can I be heard on that, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Plummer: No, no, counselor, what item are you here on? The one with the bald-headed blue suit, we remember him. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: He's here on items 27 through 84. Mr. Plummer: Those are the three pages called the Traurig pages. Mayor Ferre: Can we move along now? What's your wish? Make your motion, so we can move along. Mr. Carollo: My motion is to leave it at 8 feet, as is. Mayor Ferre: As is, all right, is there a second to that motion? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Second by Demetrio Perez. Is there further discussion on the motion? Call the roll. THEREUPON THE COMMISSION PASSED THE MOTION TO AMEND AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 BY LEAVING OUT SECTION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF FENCES, LEAVING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES AT EIGHT (8) FEET. THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 120 F 4 8 1984 0 .! 1. 0 Mayor Ferre: Now, on with the next one. Anything else? Are we ready to vote on the main motion? Who is going to make the motion on 17, as amended. Mr. Carollo: So move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Read the ordinance. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that on page 5 we'll take out the reference to the changes in 2008.6.1, which is the eight foot matter, as amended. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, 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 AND TWO-FAMILY DETACHED 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 ONE -FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, 2510.2.3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.2.3 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE, 2510.2.3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHTS AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE; BY DELETING SUBSECTIONS 2802.2, 2802.2.1, 2802.2.2., 2802.2.3 AND SECTIONS 2800 AND 2802 TO ABOLISH PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS, SECTIONS 2803 RELATIVE TO STANDARDS AND FINAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND SECTION 3004 PERTAINING TO NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTION 3101.1 TO PROHIBIT FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES, AND 3602 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY"; FURTHER, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS: PAGE 2, BY ADDING "RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 1 AND 2; PAGE 3, RO-1, RO-2, RO-2.1, RO-3, RO-4, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS, TO PROVIDE NEW TRANSITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS AND ADDING "NON-RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 3 AND 4; AND PAGE 4, CR-2, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY), PERMISSIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL PERMIT, BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS TO "NEW" AUTOMOBILES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, and seconded by Commissioner Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. ABSENT: Commissioner Millet J. Dawkins The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 121 sl FEB 2 8 1984 ... - E 38. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ORDINANCE 9500 - AMEND ART. 15 SPI SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS, SEC. 1560 SPI-6; SUBSEC. 1563.2.2.b; etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferret Pick up item 18. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, on item 18, I'm going to ask that ... do you want me to do it by line? Mayor Ferret Yes. Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Plummer, would it be possible that I make a couple of statements? Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mr. Whipple: It has come to my attention today and yesterday that there are people that are concerned, and I might want to suggest you may want to hear their concerns, which your concerns are opposite. It seems that we have some construction plans in progress. They would like to address the Commission if they could and if the Commission is willing, to explain what their problems are. Otherwise, we can proceed with the line deletions that you feel are not appropriate, and proceed from there. There are matters in this particular series of amendments relating to reduced elderly parking, accesory signs, and things of that nature, which we would like to see proceed and also three elderly housing projects are waiting on this amendment to proceed. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple, you and I have discussed this matter. My thoughts are very clear and they relate to the stacking in relation to drive-in facilities. As you know, I brought before this Commission some year, year and a half ago, my great concern about banks with drive- in facilities not providing sufficient off-street stacking of automobiles and the problems that were being created on the streets, because there were more cars on the street waiting to get in to the bank tellers than there were on bank property. My same concern is in the area of restaurants. We have seen a great number of competitiveness among drive-in facilities, especially the fast food, franchise chains. I happen to disagree with the department in relation to the amount of required stacking per lane of drive-in facility. I think seven is inadequate. I think we need to address not just drive-in restaurants, but I think the broad coverage as it relates to in drive-in facilities that a person can be serviced from a building to their car without getting out; i.e., I am concerned about safety of people who cannot get off the streets and are using the streets as stacking lanes and creating a traffic hazard. I then have asked, as I've discussed with you, the items starting with line 12, 13, 14, and 15; items 23, line 23, 31, 32, and 33 to be at this time removed from this ordinance for further discussion. Mayor Ferret I accept the motion. Mr. Plummer: I will offer that in the form of a motion. Mayor Ferret Is there a second to the exceptions for the sake of discussion? Do you want to second this? He wants to remove these items. Mr. Plummer: As it relates to drive-ins. Unidentified Speaker: Could I possibly comment on that? Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mayor Ferret There is a motion that they be deleted for now on first reading. Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. al FEB 28 1984 0 0 Mayor Ferre: Now under discussion. Mr. Ron Mastriana: My name is Ron Mastriana. I'm an attorney for Mc Donald's Corporation. We have a site that we have worked on for over one year at the N.W. corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and I-95. That site is zoned SP1-1. As you are well aware, SP1-1 sets forth CR-3 uses only. CR-3 uses will not permit a drive -through. Without a drive -through we cannot naturally construct a Mc Donalds restaurant in that area. We are situated right next to an off ramp on I-95. Mc Donalds takes a different view than some of the other organizations. I'd like to show you our plans, only to show you what we've done, as far as stacking. I agree that perhaps... well, I can't agree, except that Mc Donald's provides more than seven car spaces. It always does, especially in areas of this nature where we expect to extract a lot of traffic on and off of I-95. We believe that we are doing a great improvement in the area and are within the intent of the SP1-1 zoning; and that would prohibit, by taking that out, would prohibit all of the Mc Donald's type restaurants and improvements in that area. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I'm not taking it out. I am deferring that portion for further discussion. Mr. Mastriana: Our major problem is it has taken us one year to tie this site up. There are six different parcels. Our options expire April 1st. We cannot go ahead and construct this restaurant unless now we know that we can have drive through. Mr. Plummer: Sir, it is not my intent to eliminate dri%ie-through facilities. It has never been my intent. It is a very great convenience to the public and I am in favor of them. What I am trying to accomplish is that these drive-in facilities will be adequately on -site stacking availability. So, for you to stand here and say that I am putting you in any jeopardy, I'm not. It is not my intent in any way, sir, to eliminate drive-in facilities. It is to make them safe. Mr. Mastriana: I understand that. My understanding also is that the class C permit.... Mr. Plummer: Sir, I'm not speaking to that. That's what they spoke to, the department. I am saying that this is going to be all the way through. Any drive-in facility, regardless of what zoning classification it is in, is going to have to have some minimum standards set, as to stacking. Mr. Mastriana: We agree with that. Mr. Plummer: So I don't think that I've put you in any jeopardy at all. Mr. Mastriana: Except for the fact that by not approving it tonight you delay it at least 30 days. Is that right? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Mastriana: That 30 days would jeopardize this project. Mr. Plummer: For that, if there is an apology necessary, I so apologize, sir. But I have to be uniform in my thinking. I cannot make exceptions for you and not give one to a man who came here this morning in a like circumstance, who came here at 32 Avenue and Dixie Highway. Mr. Mastriana: Let me ask two questions. One is would you set a time certain that this would be on the agenda say within 30 days of tomorrow or whatever? Mr. Plummer: I will tell you the same thing that I told the gentleman this morning. I would have no qualms, if our problems and our differences are ironed out, to offer it as an emergency on the 22nd of March. Mx. Garcia -Pedrosa: Can't do.it. Mr. Plummer: We can't do it as an emergency. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. �23 sl FES 28 1984 0 0 Mr. Whipple: We make a substantial change and I'll yield to the City Attorney in the wording that we have before us today. In all probability, we would have to go back to the Planning Advisory Board and bring it back on through. Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about 18 now or 17? Mr. Whipple: 18. Mayor Ferre: Well, we're going to have to do that with 17 also. Mr. Whipple: Well, no, that was a deletion. But this is changed wording over and above what might have been advertised. Mayor Ferre: Yes, for other reasons. Mr. Plummer: But it is not reducing it. It's increasing, making it more stringent than what you have proposed. It's not less stringent. If we can get that type of ruling or work that out with the City Attorney, if that's O.K. I don't know. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: What do you want to do? Do you want to delete the whole article 36? Mr. Whipple: No, the question is.... Mr. Plummer: That which is in yellow. Mr. Whipple: Mr. City Attorney, the question is that wording, which we are deleting now, can that wording be changed to be more restrictive let's say at second reading than what it is now? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: What do you want to do? Mr. Plummer: What I want to do is increase it from seven cars per lane to up like ten or twelve. Mr. Whipple: That specific is not covered under this amendment. That specific is in the ordinance and it is not being changed. So we would have to change that section of the ordinance again, having to go back to the P.A.B., and bring it forward to the Commission. Mr. Plummer: That's correct. In other words, what I'm talking about is to go seven cars per lane to twelve. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The problem with that, as Mr. Whipple has just stated, is that.... Mr. Plummer: How can I accomodate these people and still accomplish what I'm trying to accomplish? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's not part of this. Mr. Mastriana: Couldn't we pass this and then require that the City bring this other matter, which is another part of the Code, up to your review? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: It won't happen contemporaneously; you realize that. But.... Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: We can do that, except for that portion of the amendment that we have to go to the Planning Advisory Board and then come here for first reading; then come here for second reading. So we are talking about three months. Under this, he could do it right now, if you pass it today whenever the ordinance is in effect. In the meantime we have to go with the other amendment. Mr. Plummer: All right, I'll tell you what I'm willing to do. If I have the Administration's concurrence, I'm willing to leave it in and vote on it in first reading. That's what it is proposed as, right? Between now and the second reading, to see if we can in fact come up with some kind of compromise. I'm willing to do that. I withdraw the motion, Mr. Mayor, with the full understanding that we can compromise. sl V4 F B B 2 8 1984 Mayor Ferre: The motion has now been withdrawn. Where do we stand? Mr. Whipple: Ready to vote on this item. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to go on the main motion? Is there anyone who wishes to address the Commission on item 18? Are we ready to vote on 18? Are there any statements by the Commission on 18? All right, Mr. Plummer, do you want to make a motion on 18? Does anybody want to move 18? Mr. Carollo: Move. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Carollo moves 18. Mr. Plummer: Wait, let me understand what the department...I am not speaking just to restaurants. I'm not just speaking to banks. 1 am speaking to all drive-in facilities, including alcoholic beverages, which is possible, and package stores, which I think is dangerous as hell. I'm not speaking to a given zoning location. I'm saying blank it, as it refers to drive-in facilities. Mr. Whipple: That blank it is twelve in your opinion. Mr. Plummer: No, I'm saying I'm open to compromise. I think we need to go look at a couple of them. Mr. Carollo: You are absolutely correct, J.L. Mr. Plummer: I'll withdraw for the purposes, it is a first reading and we will get together before the second. Mr. Mayor, as you always like to kid me and you're not aware, there does exist drive-in funeral homes in the United States. You missed one, buddy. I had a woman drive right through the middle of the chapel. LAUGHTER. No stacking problem at all. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. Let me ask one more question in the other context of the thing. We are speaking about reducing handicapped spaces in housing for elderly. Mr. Whipple: Not handicapped, no sir. Mr. Plummer: What are you...? Mr. Whipple: The number of required parking spaces. If you remember over the years, we have worked with.... Mr. Plummer: We have let them put in grass, then we reviewed it. Mr. Whipple: Yes, plus studies that have been done both by our department which we have relayed to you in the past, this parking isn't needed. It is better as an open space, rather than asphalt pavement, because it just isn't being used. The standard that we had under the old ordinance is what we are proposing under the new ordinance, and both H.U.D. and the Planning Department found this adequate, in fact, more than adequate. Mr. Plummer: But we are still going to keep the option open, if we find the necessity of additional parking that we can require. Mr. Whipple: That is covered in a statement in that section for the parking for the elderly. Mr. Plummer: A call to my office of concern, is there anything in this item 18 or any of the other ordinances we are talking about that reduces the benefits to the handicapped? Mr. Whipple: Not to my knowledge, as that is a building code and a federal requirement of sorts. 2fi sl v -3 lz 8 1984 i.. . .! 0 .A Mr. Plummer: So, in other words, there is nothing in here that reduces what I would, if you can call amenities to the handicapped? Mr. Whipple: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: O.K. Mr. Mayor, I have no further problems with 18. Mayor Ferre: Are you seconding the motion, Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Yes, air, and who made it? Mayor Ferre: Carollo made it. We are now ready to vote. Read the ordinance. Mr. Plummer: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE 90. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 1563 AND 1573 OF ARTICLE 15 ENTITLED "SPIs SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS" TO REQUIRE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR DRIVE—IN FACILITIES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 2017 OF ARTICLE 20 ENTITLED "GENERAL AND SUPPLEMEN— TARY REGULATIONS" BY REDUCING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING FOR THE ELbERLY, SUBJECT TO A CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 36 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" BY REVISING THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT, DRIVE—IN"; FURTHER, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONSs PAGES 1 —6, INCLUSIVE, BY MOVING THE ENTIRE "LIMITATION ON SIGNS" COLUMN TO A NEW POSITION IMMEDIATE— LY TO TOE RIGHT OF "ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES" AND UNDER "USES AND STRUCTURES", AND REVISING THE TITLE OF THIS RELOCATED COLUMN TO READ "ACCESSORY USES — LIMITATIONS ON SIGNS"f PAGE 31 RO-3 AND 0—I "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO REQUIRE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR DRIVE—IN FACILITIES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS; PAGE 41 CR-1, "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO REQUIRE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR DRIVE-IN FACILITIES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROVIDE FOR DRIVE—IN FACILITIES AT EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS BY CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT; AND PAGE S, CG-10, "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO REQUIRE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR DRIVE—IN FACILITIES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER A NEW BEADING "PERMISSIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL PERMIT," AND AMENDING COD-1 TO PROVIDE THAT DRIVE—IN ESTABLISHMENTS, OTHER THAN THOSE FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PERMITTED BY SPECIAL ZXCEPTION, ARE ZXCLUDEDi CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. 0 0 Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 39. REFER BACK TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FIRST READING ORDINANCE CONTAINING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING TEXT OF ORD. 9500, ART. 5, 6, 15, 20 AND 21 IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE CHANGES. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, can we go back for a moment to item 17? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, go ahead. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Because of a timing problem, 17 having been deferred now for some time, you need now, in order to keep it alive for second reading, to pass a motion referring it back to the Planning Advisory Board, which will stop the clock from running and permit you to vote on it on second reading after it comes back. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves that item 17 be ... no? You don't move? Mr. Plummer: I don't understand that. Mayor Ferre: Technically, it runs out in ten days. Mr. Rodriguez: 17 days. Mayor Ferre: -Since we don't meet in ten days, we have to stop the clock, just like a football game, you know. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: A trick, a legal trick. Mayor Ferre: It's the last quarter and there it is and you pass the ball and you stop the clock, rather than running, so you are on the sideline. That's what we are doing. We are on the sideline where it is safe. You know Robbie and all those other bad guys. Mr. Plummer: Who? Mayor Ferre: Joe Robbie and all the other bad guys. Mr. Plummer: Who? Mayor Ferre: You remember. Mr. Plummer: You mean the new writer for the Herald? Mayor Ferre: What else do we have? Plummer moves.... Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. Mayor Ferre: Plummer doesn't move. 12'7 sl F E B 2 81984 0. .. - .. E 6 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Plummer, it'll die. Mr. Plummer: That's what I want it to do. Mayor Ferre: Joe, we need your vote. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The whole thing dies. Mayor Ferre: Technically, to stop the clock on 17, we need to defer it to the Planning Board. Obviously, since Plummer voted against it, he's not going to make the motion. So we need you or you to make the motion to refer it back to the Planning Board so that we can vote upon it. Mr. Carollo: So move that we defer 17 back to the Planning Board. Mayor Ferre: Is that the correct motion? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Perez seconds. Further discussion? Call the roll. Mr. Gary: You're not deferring it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no, refering, he said refer, I think. Mayor Ferre: No, refer. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: To consider the changes that we made in it. Mr. Plummer: You had every body over here with their ears burning when you said 'reefer.' Mayor Ferre: There you go again, Plummer. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption. MOTION 84-226 A MOTION REFERRING BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD A FIRST READING ORDINANCE CONTAINING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING TEXT OF ORDINANCE 9500 BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5, 6, 15, 20, 21, etc. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER CHANGES AS MANDATED IN THE PASSAGE OF THE AFORESAID FIRST READING ORDINANCE ON THIS DATE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 1�8 sl FED 281984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40. REFERRING BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SPI DISTRICTS, 15.70 SPI 7, ETC. Mayor Ferre: We are now on 19. Mr. Rodriguez: Item 19, on December 15th of last year, the Commission voted to defer amendment SPI 7 back to the Planning Advisory Board for further study. Since that time the Planning Department has been holding a series of meetings with affected property owners in the area and came back to the Planning Advisory Board with the recommendation for the ordinance that you have in front of you today. The Planning Advisory Board at the meeting that they held ... when was it? Mr. Plummer: February 15th. Mr. Rodriguez: February 15th; approved the recommendations of the staff and at the end of the meeting they further recommended that the staff meet before the next meeting with the Commission, which is today, with affected property owners in the area and try to resolve some of the differences that we had in our recommendations and what they wanted. Before we get into the details of the recommendations that we are making today, let me try to give an overview of the position of the department in relation to SPI-7. First, the Planning Department believes that we should have a balance and quality development for the City. We also accept as a given that residential is desired close to downtown and Brickell. Number three, we have adopted City policy to get residential in the SPI-7 area. In the comprehensive plan of 1976, in the Brickel Transit Station area, it says that redevelopment should be promoted of high density, moderate income housing in this area. The S.A.D.D. plan approved in 1980 notes that we should promote mixed -use developments including a substantial portion of residential uses, as well as office and support activities through the use of intensity bonuses. The MXD adopted in 1982, which is a direct translation of the SADD plan principles, incorporates this recommendation. In relation to SPI-5, which this area relates very strongly to, we believe that Brickell area is an area that has become a very high class office area, but nevertheless it's not an area where people live now. It's an area where people basically go to work and drive by. When SPI-5 was increased in intensity last fall, this policy decision has definitely had an effect on what could happen in SPI-7. We believe that SPI-7 should be somewhat higher in intensity as it relates to Brickell Avenue because of the relationship that it has with transit, but we also believe there has been very strong inflated expectations in relation to what SPI-7 can do. Due to the several meetings we have had with developers and property owners in the area, we are accepting what we have been told by them, which is that there is no market immediately now for any residential in the area. We believe that we have'to anyhow incorporate the policies that have been expoused before by the Commission and insist on having residential, even if it is later. We are concerned that if we increase the intensity in this area in inordinate amounts, this might have a negative effect on downtown office market and other areas of the City. An increasing intensity in this area could also have a rippling effect in the area which is to the south of this and which is residential, possibly in Coral Way and the West Brickell area in Claughton Island. An increase in intensity beyond what we believe is reasonable might have a very negative impact on the traffic and the other infrastructures that serve the City in that area. We are concerned that an increase in intensity that is unreasonable might have an effect of having a spill -over parking into other areas adjacent to this. Based on that, we have tried to establish some basic objectives as to what the ordinance should reflect which are in the next transparency. The objectives that we are trying to maintain are as follows. We believe that it is important that we keep a mixed use in the area and at least a 20% minimum residential to the area. We believe that it is important that we try to create an urban environment for the area and this includes all the different things that help toward the image and the character that this environment is supposed to Have. We believe this area should be pedestrian oriented 1 f•1� �► 8 198 Sl 6100 • .�.•. Mr. Rodriguez (Con't): We believe this area should be pedestrian oriented and that the recommendations that we make today and that we hope you endorse take into account that there has to be a balance infrastructure serving the area. We believe that any regulations which are passed in relation to this area has to take into account the relationship to the intensity that we have in Brickell Avenue and the relationship that we have to the station areas. Mr. Jack Luft from the Planning Department will now go into the details of the ordinance that we are proposing that you approve today. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: How many speakers wish to be heard on this item? AT THIS POINT THE MAYOR TAKES A COUNT OF HANDS. Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, before we take any speakers, may we conclude our presentation? Mr. Jack Luft can go into the details of the ordinance. Mayor Ferre: Look, all these speakers are either property owners or attorneys. They have all heard your speech before. We haven't heard your speech. This is a major zoning text on second reading. How long is your speech going to take? Go ahead. Mr. Jack Luft: As Mr. Rodriguez has said, since the last time we came to you in November with the first reading, we have made some changes in response to the concerns and debates we've had with the development community in Brickell. To pinpoint those changes very simply, we are recommending an increase in the overall allowed F.A.R., the floor area ratio of the area to accomplish up to a floor area ratio of 5.25 for office and maximum of 6.0 for residential and for mixed uses, up to an 8.0. Coupled with this we are recommending that the base F.A.R. remain at 2.25, but to achieve these higher office densities, we revise our housing bonus. You will recall, the prior ordinance required the developer to build housing in order to get office, just like on Brickell Avenue. The developers in the west Brickell area are saying very simply, "We cannot afford to build the housing now. There is no market. We cannot get the financing for our office." We acknowledge that issue. Like Brickell Avenue, we are recommending the simple mechanism of a buy out provision, $4 a square foot, identical to Brickell Avenue, wherein through a contribution to an affordable housing fund, you could achieve a greater office F.A.R. than a 2.25 base, up to the 5.25 coupled with some minor bonuses for retail. The overall effect would be to create, after a period of years, an initial phase of office developeent, the financial mechanism whereby the City could support the housing development and could offer the financial incentives to provide the market for that housing. So, we are eliminating the required building it now. We're saying, "Pay for it now; we'll build it later." The second provision that we've changed concerns light planes. There is an article in the zoning ordinance that requires building to set back from the street in compliance with the plane that leans in at 80 degrees from the front of the property. This proved with the kinds of intensities we're now dealing with in the larger...with these F.A.R. increases, to be unwieldy and cumbersome, in fact, confiscatory on some properties. You couldn't deal with it. To replace that, we are recommending that the light plane provisions be struck from the ordinance, as you see it and be replaced with the clause that it would require, in essence, a 15 foot set back at grade, which would provide us the wider sidewalks we so desperately need in this high density area, if the lots were of a narrow dimension, that setback would not have to exceed more than 10% of the depth of the lot. If the streets were very wide, like S.W. 8th Street, then we could go ahead with the 10 foot set back. I have the language to that clause, if you wish to consider it; we would recommend inserting that instead of the light plane provision. Mayor Ferre: Well, are you going to make that available to us tonight? Mr. Luft: Yes, the language would read simply, instead of 1576.3.1.1, we would say, front and street sideyards is the title of the division. We call that front and street sideyards shall have a set back of 10% of lot depth, but not greater than 15 feet or less than 10 feet. When adjacent street right-of-way is 60 feet wide or more, the set back need not exceed ten feet. That would be entirely in lieu of the light plane provisions, which are, for the record, section 1577. The final note 130 . • sl d .a.- Mr. Luft (Con't): that I wish to stress is that parking provisions, as we have originally envisioned them in this district would remain and the critical point is that there is a maximum on the amount of parking that we allow, so while we are increasing the intensities, we are still limiting the overall, on -site parking impacts. The point in this regard is that we are now stressing that as we do in the downtown core area, we must turn to an off site parking program. We must consider the involvement of the Off -Street Parking Authority and establish these remote site facilities instead of building all of the parking on site, evenly distributed throughout the Brickell area. This would lead, we believe, to unacceptable traffic conditions. That is the basic gist of what we are proposing. Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you where you are kidding yourself on that situation. We require these buildings, other than in the downtown business districts, to provide off-street parking. I want to tell you something, as far as I am concerned, the whole thing is a fallacy. First of all, we require it based on the square footage projected office space. There are few buildings, if any, that provide parking for clientelle. Usually you find that our provisions are inadequate and that when a person goes to do business in that building, whether with a lawyer or a doctor or an Indian chief, you can't find a parking space. So, you drive him out onto the street. Second of all, there are no provisions, even though we make them provide that they can't charge for them. I want to tell you, some of these buildings downtown and in Brickell Avenue, I think are making more money off their parking facilities than they are off their office lease rentals. It just seems like to me it is self defeating that if we make them provide their employees and we make them provide for visitor parking, that we should have the right to say you can't charge for it. You can control it, of course. There has to be control, but I think we are self defeating. I think that if a guy says, "Well, I'm going to go in there to see my lawyer, but it's going to cost me $8 to park my car, I'm going to park on the street. I'm going to park somewhere else, or I'm going to park on a parking meter." And he's not going to have adequate time. I'm just saying that as we have our parking right now, we are kidding ourselves. It doesn't work. I used the example down on Brickell Avenue in the Brickell Townhouse or any of those facilities. There is a provision that you have to provide parking, but there is no mandate that says that if you buy a condo, you have to buy a parking space, because in some cases, some places buy one condo buys three parking spaces and one for a boat and there is none left for some other people. I think that somewhere along the line the bottom line that we are trying to do is to get traffic or parking off the street and make people provide. I think we are self-defeating at the present time. Mr. Luft: Commissioner, these points, at least two of the three, were brought up by you at the last meeting with directions to this department to consider those and we have. I neglected to tell you, and I apologize, that the revised ordinance that you have before you does state specifically that for non-residential parking, there should be a maximum of 15% assigned... 10% of the parking may be assigned; no more than that. This is the only effective mechanism for dealing with needs of visitors to buildings. The problem has been in many structures that the parking is assigned, and empty parking spaces are unavailable to those, as you've said, who come to the building seeking parking on a temporary basis. In the second sense, we have required that all residential units must have a parking assigned to that residential unit. There must be one space per unit provided in the building. Mr. Plummer: Is there any requirement presently as to the number of handicapped spaces that must be provided? Mr. Luft: There is in the Code a minimum percentage of parking for the handicapped. Mr. Plummer: Percentage. Mr. Luft: I'm sorry, I.don't know what the percentage is, but it is a standard percentage for these types of buildings. 131 FEB 28 1984 sl Mr. Plummer: That's really all I need to know, but in other words, in residential structures there is no requirement for visitor parking? Mr. Luft: Not currently, I don't believe. Mr. Plummer: Is that the department's feeling; that there is no need to be concerned about that? Mr. Luft: the point that we feel is at issue here is that most commercial, most residential, and all the residential indeed in this Brickell area, will likely be built as part of a mixed used project. It is in fact, the mix of uses that provides the surplus parking, the excess of parking beyond that one space per unit that addresses that particular issue. Mr. Plummer: You are talking about after 5:00 o'clock at night. Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: But not during the day. Mr. Luft: Not during the day. Mr. Plummer: And you have no problem, the department has no problem with these building owners charging for parking, which I feel is a deterrent. Mr. Luft: I'm not sure that it would be wise to prohibit developers from charging for parking. It's been my experience that in urban areas throughout the country now that is the rule, rather than the exception. There is significant carrying cost of parking. It is, in fact, a luxury in these dense urban areas and that there is a cost attached to it. It's in effect, a user fee. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you where you're wrong. It's not a luxury. The problem that we are fighting in this Commission and the people of this community are fighting day in and day out is that if I go downtown to shop in downtown Miami, it's going to cost me a minimum of $4 if I go in and make a single purchase and it could cost me as much as $18 if I spend the day; and yet I can turn around and drive the same amount of time to Dadeland and I don't have to pay for parking, so I don't consider that a luxury. If the department is considering that a luxury, I can understand their lack of concern. But what I'm saying to you is that you cannot depend on this rapid transit. You are very much aware that if that rapid transit carries the maximum capacity of 800,000 people a day, it will only address 20% of the needs of this community. So people are kidding themselves. I'm saying to you when you start saying that parking is a luxury, I don't agree. I think it is a deterrant when you start charging for it. Mr. Luft: I'm not saying all parking is a luxury. I'm saying to provide free parking for every resident in the building, for every employee is today considered something of a luxury to approach it on that basis. Mr. Plummer: I think I disagree with that. Mr. Luft: I think perhaps the developers within this meeting tonight could address that area more specifically, because it is the cost of this parking that is the difficulty of putting it on site that is the major limitting factor in these developments. Obviously, if you provide free parking, the cost would be absorbed in the rents. For those people who choose not to drive their automobile, for those percentage of the employees that do take public transit, you are in effect saying that they must involuntarily subsidize through their rents, through their payments on that lease, all the other people who choose to use their cars. Mr. Plummer: I don't agree with that statement. 132 sl FE8 2 81984 Mr. Luft: That is in effect what it amounts to. Mr. Plummer: No, not necessarily. I find it very objectionable, but I want to go visit someone in a hospital, a friend is in a hospital, I have to pay $3 or $4 for the privilege of visiting that friend in a hospital. You will recall one of the biggest fights is when they tried to put in parking meters at the police station. Remember that? A guy says, "Hey I got to go there and pay a ticket and I'm going to get a ticket." Mr. Luft: We are talking now about downtown office employement concentrations. Mr. Plummer: I understand. Mr. Luft: That's what is really the issue here. Mr. Plummer: See, that's no problem in the urban area. That's what I'm trying to make the point to you, that you in a way are discouraging people from coming downtown. Not you, excuse me, but when people go to the Kendall Towers or they go to the Kendall area, they get free parking, and more than adequate free parking. Dadeland has oodles of parking, but when I go to Omni, I have to pay. Mr. Luft: When you can pay $10, $12, $15 a square for land, you can afford to provide oodles of free parking. When you pay $75, $100, $150, $200 a square foot for land, then you pay $7,000 to $8,000 for parking space, and increasing up to $10,000 in some cases, that parking does not really become free. There is a tremendous cost. You can build surface parking at Dadeland for $600 per space. The parking at Brickell is costing $8,000. It's the difference that is the problem. Somebody has to absorb that cost. You can say the cost will be picked up by the office tenant and that's fine, but it's the old there is no free lunch issue. Somebody is paying for that cost. What is happening now today is the people leasing these buildings are simply saying, the people who pay the cost best be those users, the direct users of the spaces, rather than spreading it throughout the spectrum of all the office users, because it's making those that choose not to drive pay a penalty for that plus a cost of the inconvenience of public transportation. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Luft, I will conclude by saying, the bottom line is the traffic problem is getting worse, the parking situation is getting worse. I think that within itself speaks to what I'm speaking to to say that you are wrong. Mr. Luft: Sir, I have to agree with you. The parking is getting worse; the traffic is getting worse; it's going to be a very difficult issue to manage, despite the pressure for increased intensities. These are the facts of life. The best we can do is to proceed with our transportation system management plan that we are doing and hope that, as we believe now, these intensities are still at a manageable level. Mayor Ferre: Are you finished with your three -minute presentation? Mr. Luft: It was about a fifteen -minute answer. I'm sorry, sir. I was through twelve minutes ago. Mayor Ferre: I'll start with you and we'll go this way. Would you stand up, Mr. Sharlin? Counselor, would you like to go first? Which one of you lawyers want to go first? Mr. Traurig: I'd like to go last. Mayor Ferre: O.K., I don't have any preference in order. Mr. Howard Sharlin: My name is Howard Sharlin. I'm a property owner in the area between the river and 8th Street. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Sharlin, does anybody... there are about 20 speakers here. If we listen to each one of you for three minutes, it'll be an hour. It is now almost 8:00 o'clock. It will be 9:00 with interruptions and all before we get through all of you. Does anybody have any objections that we limit speakers to the next hour and fifteen minutes, so that will be three minutes per speaker? Does anybody need more than three minutes? O.K. sl 1 FEB 2 81984 1 0 sl Mr. Sharlin: As I said, I'm a property owner in the area between the river and 8th Street. I also own a small parcel between 8th Street and 13th Street. I just wanted to indicate to the Commission that I have seen what the Planning Department proposes and as a property owner in the area, I consider their proposal to be a fair one and one that would, I believe, benefit the area. Mayor Ferre: We need more like you. Next, any other speakers? I saw a lot of hands, now I don't see too many speakers. Mr. Max Puyanic: Good evening, my name is Max Puyanic; I'm an attorney. I am also a property owner on 9th Street and loth Street area. I've been attending these meetings for a good number of years now, originally with the S.A.D.D. meetings that resulted in the plan that resulted in the MXD zoning. I also, for the most part, go along with what the Planning Department is proposing and want to keep my presentation as short as possible. I think that part of what they are proposing is in response to what else has happened, since that master plan was originally approved by you. What I want to say the position that I support is that there was originally a concept in that master plan of a higher density and higher usage, a closer one to that transit station. You have two other items coming up on your agenda after this pertaining to changes in 7.1 and 7.2. Basically, I see them all in some way going together, because the higher usage was concentrated in the SPI-7 district immediately adjoining the transit system. I think you want to support your transit system and its usage and there should remain that basic principle in what you do here today. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Mr. Tom Pennekamp: I'm Tom Pennekamp, 1434 S. Miami Avenue. I am here, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, to support the Planning and Zoning Department. Their concept, I think, is excellent, especially with the advent of the funds now in place for the people mover. I think the area they are discussing is the same and should have equal zoning. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. I have no preference as to what order you speak in. Mr. Michael Armbruster: My name is Michael Armbruster. I own some property on S.W. 1st Avenue. My office is located at 1060 Brickell Avenue. Overall I must complement the Planning Department on their proposal. J do, however, prefer that a higher density would be located nearer to the station, rather than at some distance away only on account of the fact that I believe that a higher density of construction will assure the proper ridership. With respect to Mr. Plummer and the parking situation, it might be that you could add insult to injury by forcing people to go further away from the station in order to get to their places of employment or shopping. Overall, though, I think the proposal that is presented is a fair proposal. I would, however, urge you to, if your would, put the issue at rest so that we can start development. I think it is a shame that many people now have had to draft and then re- draft only to redraft again, again and again plans for development. I think that it is a shame that the City Planning Department and the Building Department and the Commission and such allows a question to continue. I think that hopefully this evening we can bring the issue to a conclusion so that people can now get off the drawing boards and into the ground where they belong. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Sir, where is your property? Mayor Ferre: Near a station, obviously. Mr. Armbruster: 931 S.W. 1 Avenue. Mr. Plummer: How long have you owned that property? Mr. Armbruster: Three years. in FEB 2 81984 1 0 Mr. Plummer: Have you made any estimate at this time, sir, about what the value of your property the minute this passes? Mr. Armbruster: No. Mr. Plummer: Will ten time the value be a pretty good estimate? Mr. Armbruster: Ten times the current value? Mr. Plummer: What you paid for it. Mr. Armbruster: Oh, what I paid for it? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Armbruster: I think that would be a little more, a little excess of what I think. Mr. Plummer: But it is not too far off. Mr. Armbruster: I think it is maybe twice. Mr. Plummer: You think it is only five times as much? Mr. Armbruster: Perhaps. Mr. Plummer: Pretty damn fine investment on your money: Isn't it? Mr. Armbruster: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: We're going to do it right. Mr. Armbruster: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Next, no other speakers. Right? I'm about to close it off. Mr. Edward Norling: Well, I would but two of you there and you need three to vote. Right? Mayor Ferre: We're not going to vote yet. Mr. Edward N. Norling: My name is Edward N. Norling. I'm a property owner on S.W. loth Street. I have one small lot. I just want to say that I am opposed to the changes that they are proposing. I am satisfied with what is there at the present time. I have been paying taxes based on that. One other question that I would like to ask you is this the second reading or the first reading? Mayor Ferre: Second reading. Mr. Norling: Second reading, if they make changes does it become a second reading. I mean can it still be a second reading? Mr. Plummer: No, sir, it becomes effective law in 30 days. Mayor Ferre: No, once we do that ... now we can amend further, but once we vote on this on second reading, that becomes the law of the land. Mr. Norling: Right, but when they heard it before, it was the first reading. Mayor Ferre: It was. Mr. Norling: But they have since made some changes to it. Mr. Plummer: That is correct. Mr. Norling: But it still stands as a first reading. sl 135 FEB 2 B 1984 . . . - _. 0 -*a- a 0 Mayor Ferre: That is a legal decision and I think the legal interpretation that we have is that this is properly before us on second reading. Is that correct, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Norling: I understand that the Planning Department had a meeting either the 14th or the 15th. As a property owner, should I have been notified of this meeting? Mr. Luft: This was not a formal notification of a public hearing. You would have received that notification in the mail for this public hearing here. Mr. Norling: Did you have a meeting with some of the property owners? Mr. Luft: We did have a meeting with some of the property owners in the area that indicated an interest in this. I think most of them are here tonight. I think the Allen Morris Company is responsible for inviting many of them and we took a sign up list and invited as many more as we could get. Mayor Ferre: The next speaker. Mr. Salvador Bonilla: Salvador Bonilla, represent 3337 S.E. 7th Street. I would like to ask the gentleman that explained the program, Mr. Luft, I want to know that I understood him correctly. By the way, I think this is a fine solution to the problems that we have been facing. I would like to congratulate them on that. But I have one question in my mind. When you are talking about a set back, you said 10% of the width of the land or the depth. Mr. Luft: Whatever the depth is as measured from that lot frontage. Mr. Bonilla: I can run into a lot 300 feet deep. Mr. Luft: Not to exceed fifteen feet. Mr. Bonilla:. Never to exceed fifteen feet. All right, I'll buy that. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker; we're faster than I thought. Ms. Jean Everett: My name is Jean Everett. I own two properties in the City of Miami. One of them is across the street from the rapid transit station. I think there are many, many questions here tonight that are being asked by the property owners and the people in the audience. There have been some changes made since the last time I talked with Mr. Luft and other planners. I really think we need a little more time to sit down with our planners and know exactly what they are telling us they are going to do. Like the gentleman before us he didn't understand about the depth and so forth and all the light plane changes that has come up tonight. I think they really need one more meeting with us to tell us what exactly we can use our property for and how well we can use it. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: The problem that I have with that is, how high is high? Some people say, you ought to delay, we need more explanations. Others are coming up here and saying you have been putting this thing off long enough and it's time for you to get on with this so that we can get buildings under construction and under way. I guess that's why we live in a democracy. Everybody has an opinion. Yes, sir, go ahead. Mr. Louis Goodman: My name is Louis Goodman. I'm at 842 Brickell Plaza. I'm a property owner. I have a little drug store there. I've been there 30 years. I'm really happy the way things are going now. I don't want any changes. I'm really happy now. I've seen the place grow and I think it's doing fine the way it's doing. Mayor Ferre: Do you want this delayed? Do you want us to vote on it? You want us to vote against it, is what you want us to do. OU F E 8 2 81984 sl a 0 Mr. Goodman: Absolutely, that's the way I feel about it. Mr. Plummer: You know, it's pretty obvious, if you listen to the people speaking here tonight, the people who basically are residents of the area have suddenly realized when this is approved that their taxes on individual property are going to sky rocket. You know it and I know it. If I use this gentleman's terminology, five times the value. I think it's more. I remember Maurice Ferre, who stood up before this Commission when they proposed to change everything from Rickenbacker Causeway to 15th Road R-5A from R-1. He screamed. Mayor Ferre: You were a little baby then. Mr. Plummer: Yes, because you were a pretty old man. He screamed and hollered, "Please do it on an individual basis so my property taxes won't go up." I think that's exactly what we are hearing here this evening. The individual home owner, who really is not ready yet to move, or this man who is in business who doesn't plan to expanding his business. You might be on a lease; I don't know. They are concerned. Mayor Ferre: Lou, let me tell you how far back that goes. That's 20 years ago. Robert King High was the Mayor and the Commission used to meet down on 12th Street, where the jail is now, that red brick building was brand new. I went down there. Darrey Davis was my attorney. Darrey Davis got up before the Commission and said, "We oppose this zoning change from R-1 to R-5A because it increases taxes." I got up and I said, "All I want is to live there. I don't want my property value to go up." "Oh, your values won't go up and your taxes... zoning has nothing to do with taxes," said Robert King High, "don't you worry," he says, "you're going to be protected because it has to be." The moment they voted, the moment that thing was passed, those taxes started going up and up and up, and of course buildings started to go up and up. As it ended up, I was very happy that it worked out that way because.... Mr. Goodman: My taxes have doubled in a year. Mr. Plummer: That's nothing compared to what they will do. Mayor Ferre: It's always nice to have Plummer around. Isn't it? Dr. Anita Thornaug: My name is Dr. Anita Thornaug. I own a residence at 10 S.E. 6 Street. I am happy with the way that the Planning Board has developed this program. I would.... Mr. Plummer: That's a rooming house. Dr. Thornaug: No, it isn't. Mr. Plummer: Did you say 10 S.E. 6th Street? Dr. Thornaug: 10 S.E. 6th Street is not a rooming house. It is a residence. Mayor Ferre: How come you know where all the rooming houses are around? Dr. Thornaug: Sir, it's a two-story house. It's a house; not a rooming house. Across the street is a rooming house. Mr. Plummer: Miami Avenue and 6th Street. Dr. Thornaug: There is a rooming house across the street from my two-story house. Mr. Plummer: O.K., all right. Dr. Thornaug: I would say that they have done a good job and commend them. sl 13'7, FEB 2 81984 EI 0 Ms. Carolyn O'HPict: I'm Carolyn O'Heist. I have property on 1st Avenue and 11th Street. We've heard the second reading on this tonight and I think we need more time to really understand and to sit down with the planners and work out with this thing. I request that this be referred back to the Planning Committee and that we have more time to sit down and talk to them about what the future of this area is. You folks are talking about how long you've known people. I was on Brickell Avenue a long time before some of you were here. I remember that we had a business on Brickell Avenue at that time in the 550 building. We had a business over town; well, we had to comute back and forth and it was years before that really business jumped the river. I think we need to sit down and really with this group before we really make a quick decision. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Mr. Ismael Bermudez: My name is Ismael Bermudez. I am an American citizen. I'm living at 87 S.W. 11 Street with my family. I oppose the proposal of the Planning Department Board and it is my request that this matter must be sent back for reconsideration with the private owners of that Brickell area. That's my point. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Mr. Michael Latterner: My name is Michael Latterner. I live at 3930 Utopia Court, Miami. I'm a real estate broker, active in the Brickell area and I am a property owner and represent property owners in both the old SPI-1 and the SPI districts. The point I want to make to the Commission is that I support, we support the new zoning prdinance recommended by the Planning Department and in particular the uniform density aspects of it, which as you know is a change from what was before. Their arguments for this, I think, are sound. They are based on the idea that the people mover is going to be approved. Should that happen, it creates the situation in the Brickell area where all this property in the SPI-7 district is similar, in terms of access to the Rapid Transit system. Therefore, I am recommending to the Commission that they approve this SPI-7 ordinance. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Mr. Salvador Bonia, Jr.: My name is Salvador Bonia, Jr. I'm representing 38 S.E. 6th Street. Basically I agree with the changing from SPI-7.1 and SPI-7.2 to SPI-7. Now, there are certain things that being left and I think should be taken care of. One of them is the suggestion by Mr. Luft of the light plane provision, to do away with it entirely. Except there will be some problems, I see as of now, if you start talking about ten per cent depth of the property, which would really affect small property owners. The composition of a lot of the property owners in the area... there are smaller lots which are not very wide, sort to speak. If you have... in our particular case a lot that is 80 feet wide, and you take away 15 feet, you can't do much with it. Mayor Ferre: No, no, 10%. Mr. Bonia: Of the depth.... Mr. Luft: Ten feet in your case. Mr. Bonia: Oh, ten feet. You see because my father just got up and he said 15 feet. I want to make sure it is 10 feet. Mr. Luft: Ten. Mr. Bonia: Ten? I have nothing else to say then. O.K. that. Mayor Ferre: Father and son.are in agreement now. Mr. Plummer: Mas o menos. Mayor Ferre: Any other speakers? INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. I agree with FEB 28 i984 sl a 9 Mr. Robert H. Traurig: I don't know if this is a matter of strategy or just a matter of courtesy.... Mayor Ferre: It doesn't matter, counselor. Mr. Traurig: Out of respect for my old age.... Mayor Ferre: When it's all over and done with, all that counts is the votes. Mr. Plummer: Is this the man that is the Mayor's lawyer? Mayor Ferre: That's right. Mr. Carollo: Well, the Mayor can't vote on this one. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Has he paid his retainer? Mr. Traurig: I'm the one with the blue suit. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, for the record, I am Robert H. Traurig. I will try to make this into a three minute address, because I will name for you and a number of other people whom I represent, perhaps you may give me more than three minutes. There are petitions which have been signed by property owners in the SPI-7.1 and 7.2 areas, which have been circulated and signed. Some of the names on those petitions who have indicated that we can represent them in making these presentations are Ted Slack and Larry Rohand and Silver Myers and Richard Furman and Gerald Catcher, United National Bank, Armando Codina, Jeb Bush, Southeast Mortgage through D.R. Mead, and Jose Rosado, who is sitting here. Those are in addition to other speakers whom you have heard who are within the 7.1 and the 7.2 areas, including Mr. Sharlin, Mr. Pennekamp, Mr. Latterner, Dr. Bonia, Jr. and Ms. Thornaug. Basically, what we would like you to know is we do support for the most part the Planning Department proposals. We recognize that there are issues to be addressed by you as to what the density in this area ought to be in the future, but some very important policy statements were made by the Planning Director when he addressed you initially. One of which was that SPI-7 should be somewhat higher than SPI-5, due to the relationship of 7 to the transit. I think that was the thrust of your original zoning of MXD and that there ought to be some recognition of that. The only thing with which I have any disagreement regarding the Planning Department proposal, is perhaps the base F.A.R. which the Planning Department has reflected as 2.25. 1 would only call to your attention that the base F.A.R. on Brickell, which is the SPI-5, is 3.25. You used the same technique on Brickell. That is to give a bonus for buying housing credits. So, we would suggest to you that perhaps to be consistent and to help this SPI-7 district, you might want to consider a 3.25 F.A.R. at least to be consistent with the Brickell zoning and the SPI-5 district. One of the other things which Mr. Rodriguez said was that.... Mayor Ferre: That brought you back in the room. Right? Mr. Traurig: ....that he would be concerned if we increased density in an inordinate amount, because it might have an adverse effect upon the entire area, and particularly downtown in the area to the south. We agree with that. We are not going to seek anything higher than the 3.25 F.A.R. and the bonuses that have already been suggested by Mr. Luft in his remarks. Mayor Ferre: Who, when you say 'we', you mean all the people you named? Mr. Traurig: As a matter of fact, I would like to show you, which I will in just a minute, a map which reflects that almost all property owners in SPI-7.1 and 7.2 have signed these petitions urging that you take this action. Therefore, when I speak, I really speak with the unified support of the people within those districts. Mayor Ferre: You said that they would not be seeking any changes. sl 100 FEB 26 1984 a a Mr. Traurig: Well, I'm saying to you that the only change that we would ask you even to consider is to the 3.25 base F.A.R., by consider changes I mean changes from what is being proposed by the Planning Department. Mayf)i Ferre: But in the years they will come back for variances and all that. Right? Mr. Traurig: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: And additional F.A.R. and all that. Mr. Traurig: No, sir, we feel that there is only one other area that ought to be considered at a later date, and that is the entire parking situation, which Mr. Plummer brought up, which we think ought to be readdressed at a different and more appropriate time, when the pressure of this entire ordinance change has already subsided so that we can look at that independently. But in order for you, and I'm trying to synthesize this, in order for you to understand that we have three different districts that you are considering within this ordinance change and then we are going to ask you to map the 7.1 into 7 and the 7.2 into 7, I support completely the basic thesis that Mr. Luft has espoused, and that is that the trans- portation system management plan and the new people mover system within the area does unify this district. We would suggest to you that it now has become a district which will generally be served not only by the main transit station, but by the people mover stations which will be within the districts. We have a map to show it to you. I'm trying to speak fast. I'm going to save you the trouble of seeing where all those people mover stations are, but Jack is helping me by showing you the distances that will be within the walking area of stations and we believe that the entire district will be adequately served by the people mover station. To deny the existance of the funding of the people mover and the very close time frame within which it will be created would be to deny the good work done by this City and by other municipal and governmental officials of the county in getting the people mover to move both up to Omni and south to Brickell. We know that Congressman Lehman and a team of people have worked diligently, have now been successful in getting this funding and we're sure that this will be a reality in the very near future. Therefore, as the S.A.D.D. indicated, this ought to be considered as one unified district. We would also call to your attention the remarks made at your table when you consider the Socarraz zoning at Coral Way and 13th Street at the time that the Pantry Pride zoning application was heard. There was a recognition that the office area is moving, can be accomodated in a number of places, that the people mover and the new transportation systems will be adequate to have increased density within this entire area west of Brickell. We think that the new people mover and the mass transit stations will be the great impetus to that. We would also call to your attention that the bonuses that you will give for the payment of $4 a square foot, as were imposed on the Brickell area will create a housing fund which will have great social and economic benefits in other areas of the town and particularly in southeast Overtown. Finally, we would call to your attention that the areas that are north and south of the present SPI-7 have great value to this City. sl 40 FED 2 8 1964 - • 0ramm a 6 Mr. Traurig: (cont'd) To deny that SPI-7.1, which is at the river, eligible to have the benefits of SPI-7 when, in fact, it is closer to the core of the City and is going to be served by this transit system. And to deny that the area south of SPI-7 which would be the 7.2 which will have proximity to the Brickell area and proximity to the transit station is the same as SPI-7 would really negate the efforts of the Planning Department and the commu- nity to try to develop a great central core area which includes all of the property to the bay to the transit system and we urge you to support the Planning Department but in doing so to consider whether or not the base FAR should be very slightly moved. from a 2.25 to a 3.25. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Morris. Mr. Allen Morris: My name is Allen Morris. My address is 1000 Brickell Avenue. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, it is difficult to speak in the same league with Bob Traurig and I feel like David looking for five smooth stones. I think all of you know of our commitment and long term involvement in Miami and that we're not land speculators but are developers and I think it is safe to say we have built mere nffice buildings than anybody in the State of Florida. We are just one property owner in the SPI-7 area and in the SPI-7.1 area also but we are representing many other owners, I'm not going to list all the names, but we own about 35% of all of the private property in SPI-7. We also represent 85 to 90% of all the other private property owners in SPI-7, about 30 different people. Of the people that we do not represent on SPI-7, about 10% of that property, 10% of which is for sale. This proposal that you heard from the Planning Department tonight is new. It has not been pending since last summer. This proposal has never been heard before the Commission before and this was a proposal that was developed February 14th, just about ten days ago, and changed since then with the most recent light plane addition. There is no absence of zoning right now in the SPI-7, in effect, so nobody is being held up from building something if they really wanted to build up something, they could build something now. But there is a hardship that has been created in the SPI-7 area because' of the -relative roll back of intensity of use in this area compared to Brickell. This is described a little bit in the booklet that you have before you on page 8 and page 9 that describes this roll back effect. It requires an impractical amount of residential development and prohibits feasible office development. Although it is a very compli- cated issue and the numbers are complicated the basic issues are really very simple, and let just explain those basic issues because there is no way that you can be familiar with all the details of this. First of all, the issue is to help Metrorail succeed and on page 11 of the booklet that you have in front of you, page 11 and 12, that has been rein- forced even in the Metrorail publication of the idea of trying to encourage the walking of passengers from develop- ments in this area to Metrorail. The planners say they will not walk more than 1200 feet. The second thing is to en- courage development near the station in the back yard of Brickell. It doesn't have a Brickell Avenue address, it doesn't have the Brickell Avenue prestige, so increased density is necessary to make this area succeed in competi- tion with Brickell Avenue and, therefore, as it succeeds the Metrorail will succeed because ridership will increase. The third thing is that the problem was creatively solved by the 1981 Master Plan. On page 1 of the letter inside your book here it mentions .and reminds us of the people that partici- pated in the creation of this 1981 Master Plan - citizen committees, the City of Miami Planning Department, the City RT 141 F ES 28 1984 4 of Miami Zoning Department, the Planning Advisory Board of the City of Miami, the Miami City Commission, the Metro Dade Office of Transportation, the Kaiser Transit Group, the Dade County Board of Commissioners, the Downtown Development Authority, property owners and agents, the Urban Mass Tran- sit Administration, the United States Department of Trans- portation and many other private and public groups from the different sectors participated in the creation of this Master Plan. In 1983, last year, as we all know, the on Brickell Avenue densities were increased 342%, almost 3!1 times, eliminating these incentives that were created in the off Brickell Avenue area. And if you look at page 8 in your book, I'm sorry, if you will look at the letter in this cover page, page 3 of the cover letter of February 14th, it quotes this Master Plan and it says something real interest- ing. It says the SPI-7 area as opposed to the other two areas should be the hub of activity - and I'm quoting from the Master Plan document - the hub of activity in the Brickell area. The entire area is within a convenient two block walk of the station. Transit ridership substantially above area wide averages can be expected from this area. And then at the bottom of this page 3 of the introductory letter, it says about the SPI-7 area distinctively from the other two areas, "...The total accumulated floor area poten- tial is intended to permit a level of development with a competitive economic advantage over alternative locations and of sufficient mass to provide its own special identity and environment". The idea is to have a higher density around the station to encourage the use of Metrorail and to make it succeed in the real world when those buildings have to compete with Brickell Avenue. We have a recommendation to fairly correct this inequity that is being proposed by the Planning Department. I think your time is too valuable for you to be involved in the hassling with the details of all of this but I think it should go back to the Planning Department, and I speak on behalf of the 30 some odd proper- ty owners that we're representing, approximately 90% of all of the property ownership in SPI-7, it should go back to the Planning Department with the dictate that the Planning Department in their recommendation maintain the integrity of the 1981 Master Plan as we have proposed in our proposal here on page 30, and that calls for a higher density, not the same proportionate increase that Brickell got, but it is a highet base density and John Emmer would like to speak to the legal aspects. Mr. John Emmer: My name is John Emmer, I live at 3837 N. Moorings Court, Coconut Grove and I am with the law firm of Smathers and Thompson. We are here tonight on behalf of Allen Morris and Company. I think one of the main things that has been overlooked tonight, Mr. Mayor and Commission- ers, is the fact that there have been substantial changes made in this ordinance since it was presented or since it originally passed the Planning Advisory Board on July 20, 1983. At that particular time, the question of deletion of SPI-7.1 and SPI-7.2 from the main ordinance, from 9500, the section that deals with SPI-7 was not included at that particular time. It has never been included until December so we're talking now about appearing before you on what is ostensibly a second reading. That was not included at that particular time, we consider that a substantive change as you have heard from all the speakers tonight who were ex- pounding the approval of that particular deletion. That was never included before. There have been some other minor changes as this procedure went through the Planning process. There was a notice sent out on January 31, 1984 having to do with the proposed changes that were being sent back to the PAB which included at that particular time the deletion of SPI-7.1 and SPI-7.2, that was the first time. After that particular notice of hearing before the Planning Advisory RT 1"#2 n FED � 1984 Board, the citizens who own property in that particular area met with the Planning Department, they have done this before and in an effort to, you know, resolve some of the disputes that were going on; at that particular time, on the 14th of February there were major substantial changes to the 9500 Ordinance as it affected SPI-7, the first time the owner saw this. The next night we had to appear before the Planning Advisory Board. We asked the Board at that particular time that this be deferred. It was at the first time that we saw, for instance, the buy up provision, the first time that we reviewed the light plane situation. At that particular meeting in which we first became aware of this light plane situation it was revealed to us that there were problems with it. As you see tonight, they have come again, the Planning Department, and changed the light plane situation. As far as I'm concerned this is a substantive change which according to the rules of the City itself specifically section 35-15.4 requires that any substantive amendment be sent back for the process to begin again and that is our own ordinance here and* that is the law too that if you are going to make an amendment.... Mayor Ferre: John, hold on. Mr. City Attorney, I think this is a major legal challenge coming here. Mr. Emmer: I hate to do it to one of my former partners, but.... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I was just getting a red -lined change form, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: I just need a definition from you of whether or not you concur that this is a major substantive, that what we may have to do is make this a First Reading, come back and refer it to Planning like we did on 17 and then bring it back. Mr. Plummer: Can't do it for the time lapse. Mr. Emmer: Well, we're suggesting that the substantive changes require that it go back to the beginning.... Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, John, we can do it, we did it on 17 and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, if we did it on 17 we can do it with 19. Mr. Plummer: That's not what he is saying. He is saying send the whole thing back and start it from scratch. Mayor Ferre: No, that's what he is saying. Mr. Emmer: Yes, that's what I'm saying, Mr. Mayor, that that is the ordinance that you have, it doesn't provide for sending it back again. Mayor Ferre: Well, we're going to get a legal opinion in a moment from our City Attorney. Mr. Emmer: 35-15•41 such proposed changes are to be treated as a proposed new amendment and subject to the applicable procedures and standards of this article which is article 35 as for proposed new amendments. Mr. Plummer: Well, may I suggest that you just hold until we get an answer? Stop the clock. Because if that is the case then why continue? You get paid by the hour. Right? Mayor Ferre: Why didn't we start with you first? It would have saved an hour and a half. RT ' FEB 28 1984 El Mr. Emmer: I'd like to hear the opposition for the next go - around. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, the very concept of legisla- tion of this magnitude, particularly when there was a PAB Meeting in between the first and second reading inevitably brings about a number of changes, and I think we have heard a great deal of that tonight. The bottom line is I think it is a closed question, and my conservative, practicing con- servative law advice to you, and let me say this before I say that, I think you could do it but I think the conserva- tive thing to do would be to consider this a First Reading and come back on Second Reading. Mayor Ferre: That was my opinion, thank you, I'm glad you concurred with my humble opinion. So I am a bona fide member of the Dinner Key Bar Association. Mr. Emmer: I hate to take exception to .... Mayor Ferre: Are you a member of the Dinner Key Bar Associ- ation, or are you a member of the Florida Bar? Mr. Emmer: Sometimes I wonder. Mayor Ferre: As long as your clients don't it's all right. Mr. Emmer: I hate to take exception to learned counsel here but I think the problem is that it says that if you're making substantial changes after you've had a notice of the hearing or if you're making substantial changes at the hearing, it has to go back and start all over again is what it really says in the ordinance itself, in 3515.4. So it isn't a question of sending it back to the board again or having considered this as another reading or as the first reading on this particular matter because this is the first time that a lot of have heard, after the meeting for the PAB was noticed on January 31, 1984, one day before that meeting we received a list, a laundry list of maybe 10 or 12 chang- es. Now let me just explain this, Mr. Mayor, we're not trying to obstruct those people who claim that they have already got their building plans all ready to go and that they didn't hear anything about this or we haven't heard about it before that particular day, we did not hear about it and Mr. Sergio Rodriguez testified at the PAB hearing that these things were only given to us the day before the hearing. Mayor Ferre: Counselor, you made your point. Mr. City Attorney, the question is not whether or not we read this on First Reading, the question is does it go back to the square peg one and does the process begin or is there a middle peg that we can hang our hat on. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, let me look that up. Mr. Bill Me Khan: Mr. Mayor, my name is Bill Me Khan, I'm the attorney for a developer between 8th Street and 9th Street and 1st Avenue. It is quite obvious what has hap- pened here, I think before the City Attorney decides that there is substantitl change or not he needs to know what is changed from the First Reading to the Second Reading and I think if he does he will find out that there has not been substantial change at all. We have been before this before, we.... Mayor Ferre: Counselor, with all due respects found a long time ago that you've got to let City deliberate with staff on their own and come to conclusions. I'm sure the City Attorney is well can see he is now consulting with the appropriate RT to you, I Attorneys their own aware, you staff and FEB 2 8 1984 a a he is properly endowed both by nature and by education to make that decision. Okay? We appreciate your interest. Mr. Me Khan: Mr. Mayor, my point is very simple, we went through this before the PAB, Mr. Morris and his group then tried to get the thing deferred.... Mayor Ferre: You respectfully disagree with the other attorney? Mr. Me Khan: Absolutely. Mayor Ferre: And we'll let our City Attorney make the decision for this City. Okay? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, the predominant number of changes both in quantity and in quality, if you will, came out, I am advised, of that February 15th Planning Advisory Board Meeting which took place after the First Reading. Therefore, I think the Commission would be in order to consider that PAB Meeting as the predecessor meeting to this First Reading and go ahead and read this ordinance at this time as a First Reading. Mayor Ferre: And refer it back to the PAB? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, you may have to -do that for a timing problem, let me check that. Yes, you have 16 days left so you do have to do that to stop the clock again. Mayor Ferre: Again, as a bona fide member of the Dinner Key Bar Association, I don't want to create any problems or put any ideas in your mind, but I would hate, after all this work for this whole thing to be challenged. Isn't the most conservative thing for us to do is to refer it back to the PAB and have them finalize on it and then we'll schedule it for first hearing at the second meeting in March? Can't they do that by then or do we have to advertise and go through all this? Sergio, my question to you is this: What is the difference in time between reading it as First Read- ing, sending it back to the PAB and then taking it up on Second Reading next month and sending it all back to the PAB and letting it come up again? How much time are we going to lose by doing that? Mr. Rodriguez: If I understand you correctly, the only thing would be 30 days. Mayor Ferre: Now the PAB has to advertise, you have to have a public hearing and they have to vote and then it has to come up on a First Reading and then it has to come up on Second Reading. My guess is you're talking about three or four months. Three months. You've got to advertise... Mr. Plummer: One lawsuit to contest it can tie you up for a year. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, but I think that is the question, but if you have to start all over again.... Mayor Ferre: I don't mean start over again down at the bottom, I mean start over again at the PAB level which is where it belongs, isn't it? Mr. Rodriguez: If it is a substantive change as being the reason for this being sent again then we are starting all over again and if we start all over again we start with the PAB the first time', we go to First Reading before you, we go to Second Reading before you and then 30 days afterwards it is approved so we're talking about 4 months. HT 145 ep c f G P 2 8 198 Mayor Ferre: Okay, that's what I said. So the difference between reading on first and going to second next month which is one month is it would take an additional three months. Now there is a lot at stake here and where did Bob Traurig go? He ducked at the right time. Well, there are a lot of attorneys around here and this is an important deci- sion for you, it is an important decision for Mr. Emmer, Mr. Anderson, all the learned attorneys. All right, don't get up all at once now. John, what have you go to add to this? Mr. Emmer: Well, I think we've got another change tonight, Maurice, Mr. Mayor, which further complicates the situation. That was made at the Meeting and I think that that provision still provides for it to go back, at least back beyond First Reading. I don't consider it First Reading because (1) at that point in time with the PAB these changes were not advertised and any one going down at that point in time once the advertisement hit, to take a look at the records in the Planning Department would not have seen these substantive changes which were brought on, albeit somewhat at our behest on the 14th, we call them the Valentine Amendments. Mayor Ferre: Michael, do you want to add anything to this? Mr. Anderson: I just think your attorney is correct that there is a substantive change and I don't see how if you pass this on First Reading and it misses the 90 day deadline then we're back, and somebody wants to challenge it, I mean for the purposes of property owners we'd like to know that.... Mayor Ferre: You think we've got to go back to the Planning Advisory Board? Mr. Anderson: From my owner's purpose I want to make sure that we've got an ordinance when we do have one. Mayor Ferre: Bob, do you want to add anything to this? The City Attorney is saying we could go on First Reading but he says that the most conservative thing for us to do is to go back to the Planning Advisory Board. The difference in time between.one and the other is one month versus four months. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I haven't been involved in this process long enough to know whether or not this is a sub- stantial change. I know that there are property owners who have spoken to me today who are very anxioVs•to get started with some development but because I'm basically a conserva- tive person as well, I think that it is always best to take the conservative approach to avoid the possibility of liti- gation in the future so were I the City Attorney, I would go back through the process. Mayor Ferre: That makes three. Howard? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It seems to me, Mr. Mayor, that there are two fundamental issues not only in this ordinance but there are two more that ought to be considered. Most of the people from the .1 and the .2 areas are principally con- cerned in creating uniformity from the river to 15th Road. There have been no substantive changes in those two ordi- nances which are separate and that involves changing the reading of the map. So if it is appropriate to go back and reconsider whether or not you should go from 2.35 to 3.4... Mayor Ferre: You'rg talking about just one area which is SPI-7, you're not talking about SPI-7.1 or SPI-7.2. �.%0 FEB 281984 RT UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right, the next two ordinances that are to be considered which most of the people from the .1 and .2 areas have been taking as a single issue, are redefining the .1 and .2 areas as the 7 area and that is what Mr. Morris has been principally against. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, I think you may have come up with a solution and the solution is that since there are no substantive changes in SPI-7.1 and SPI-7.2 we can vote on those and not vote on SPI-7. Mr. Emmer: Mr. Mayor, let me explain to you what this ordinance does. The way it is proposed now before you is to delete from the SPI-7 and where it defines in that particu- lar ordinance SPI-7.1 and SPI-7.2, the purpose of this ordinance is to delete those distinctions. Okay? And they're just put on there for the first time. They are just substantive changes that have come up. They are just put on there for the first time so it's not a question of them being divorced totally from this. Before the PAB those issues were considered separate and those issues were de- nied. Mayor Ferre: So what you're saying is.... Mr. Emmer: It's in this, it is fundamental to this and I don't want you to be misled that if you just go ahead and treat this and just leave out 7.1 and 7.2 that there is no problem, that is not true at all. Mr. Traurig: There are three items on your agenda, Mr. Mayor, one is the textual changes and the two others are the map changes. There is no reason why you can't change the map to change the 7.1 to 7.0 and 7.2 to 7.0 and when you get around to textual changes you'll delete all references to districts that no longer exist, so you can do that. Mr. Emmer: Assuming that you override the turn down from the Planning Board, we're not satisfied with those either, we don't go along with those at this stage of the game, including all of this in together. Mayor Ferre: Well, it's not a question of what you're satisfied with. Mr. Emmer: No, I'm just saying that we would object to that too because we're going to oppose that, the inclusion, I mean all of a sudden we're just saying it is a fait accompli that we are going to include .1 and .2 in this or delete them and just include them as en masse to 5YI-7. Mr. Rodriguez: I don't see how you can approve the.... Mayor Ferre: You're not a lawyer, hold on, you're a plan- ner. You can't give me a legal opinion, you can give me a planning opinion, you can give him an opinion and he can give me a legal opinion. Why don't you go talk to him. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, what the Planning Department is saying is that they may or may not go along with it depending on what the textual change comes out to be once you go back through the process on Item #19 and so while I think technically from•a strictly technical legal standpoint 20 and 21 do not contain those substantive changes, they have a point as a 'practical logical matter that you ought not to change the map without changing the text in advance. Mr. Gary: Right. 147 RT FEB 2 8 Q84 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now, the other solution that I might suggest to you is this, looking at the calendar over there, if you wanted to cut down on the delay and at the same time achieve, go through the process on a more conservative approach, the PAB I am told meets on the 21st of March, we could put this on First Reading on April 5th and on Second on april 26th. That would make these three ordinances effective on May 26. Mayor Ferre: That's fine, that short circuits a couple of months. I have no problems with that. You've got to adver- tise properly on that. Do you have enough time between the 21st and the 5th to advertise? Okay. So the timing factor is all right between 21st, 5th and 26th, is that right? Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 2: Mr. Mayor, I just have one ques- tion. Can we go ahead under the existing ordinances at this time or are we stuck? Mayor Ferre: The question is a legal question again. Can they go ahead under the existing ordinance? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 2: In SPI-7, can we go ahead under the existing ordinance or are we stuck? It has only been going on since July of 1983. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, the situation doesn't change any between yesterday and tomorrow in that respect. You're stopped. Mayor Ferre: In other words what you could have done yes- terday you can do tomorrow. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 2: No, I think he is saying we can't do anything. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No. Mr. Luft: No, there is zoning in place today. We are seeking to amend that. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: This is not coming into effect, this is not happening so the zoning that was in effect yesterday is in effect tomorrow. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 2: And there is no provision to wait until this thing, building permits or anything until this thing gets... Mayor Ferre: Not so far now, that may develop too. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Under the old one, yes. Mayor Ferre: All right, yes, sir, counselor. Mr. Traurig: I realize that at the present time we're talking about Item 19. We would urge you that if you do defer Item 19 to go through the process that you, neverthe- less, take up Item 20 and 21 so that we can have a unified district and, therefore, we can deal with the entire area as a package. The Planning Department has expressed concern about whether or not those should be changed, but their recommendation was to approve the change. And I think that all of the speakers here except Mr. Emmer and Mr. Morris have concurred that it is an appropriate change. So let's do it so that we can all get together and work in concert on the SPI-7. RT FEB 2 8 1984 Mayor Ferre: Counselor, the problem with that is that the staff, and I assume the City Manager is backing up their recommendation, does not want to do that. So the Commission would have to override staff's opinion on this, that's why I tried to give them time to work with the attorney to see, but it is not a legal problem, it is a staff recommendation that we not do'that. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you've only got 7 minutes to com- plete this evening anyhow. Mayor Ferre: Under our rules we end up at 9:00, we only work 12 hours a day. Mr. Traurig: I don't understand what staff is trying to say to you. Their recommendations are very clear.... Mayor Ferre: Their recommendation is that they're recom- mending against our taking up Items 20 and 21 and that if we're going to start the process, we do it together. So, therefore, I will accept motions to that affect. Mr. Gary: What, to withdraw it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, let's send it to the PAB. Mayor Ferre: No, you don't want to do that.. I think what you want to do legally is for this Commission to send it back to the PAB for hearing on the 21st and ask them to immediately do whatever they have to do legally to hear it on the 21 st of March to bring it back to this Commission on April 5th for first hearing and properly advertised and for second hearing on the 26th. Is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, based on what the City Attorney - says, we have no choice. I always like a Cuban attorney that is Archie Bunker. Mayor Ferre: All right, Carollo seconds. Further discus- sion on the motion on 19. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-227 A MOTION REFERRING BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING ON MARCH 21ST PROPOSED CHANGES TO ORDINANCE 9500 ARTICLE 15, SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS, SEC. 15.709 SPI-79 ETC.; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING THIS MATTER BACK BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1984 FOR FIRST READING, AND ON APRIL 26, 1984 FOR SECOND READING. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 149 FEB 2 81984 . ... HT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41. REFER BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 95009 SPI-7.1 TO SPIN-7. ------------------ --------------------------- ------ The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-228 A MOTION REFERRING BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING ON MARCH 21ST PROPOSED ATLAS CHANGE TO ORDINANCE 9500 FROM SPI-7.1 TO SPI-7 BRICKELL MIAMI RIVER RAPID TRANSIT COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ETC. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------ ----------- ------- -------------- --------- ------- 42. REFER BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING PROPOSED ATLAS CHANGES TO ORD. 9500, SPI-T.2 TO SPI-7. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-229 A MOTION REFERRING BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REHEARING ON MARCH 21ST ATLAS CHANGE TO ORDINANCE 9500 FROM SPI-7.2 TO SPI-7 BRICKELL MIAMI RIVER RAPID TRANSIT COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ETC. Upon, being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ----------------------- -'. w----w _ ---------------------------- 43. AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT MANAGER TO INITIATE A PARKING STUDY OF THE ENTIRE BRICKELL AVENUE AREA. OU FE8 281984 RT Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to get back to the problem I addressed before. Mr. Mayor, I would like to instruct the City Manager to come back within 60 days on a parking study and recommendation relating to the Brickell area. Do I need a motion, Mr. Gary? Mr. Gary: You need a motion for us to come back with a firm to do the study. Mr. Plummer: For parking? I make a motion that the City Manager be instructed to come back within 60 days and study the parking situation that relates to the entire Brickell area. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-230 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE A PARKING STUDY OF THE ENTIRE BRICKELL AVENUE AREA AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STUDY TO THE CITY COMMIS- SION IN A PERIOD OF NOT TO EXCEED SIXTY (60) DAYS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 44. FIRST READING ORDINANCE; 9500 TEXT CHANGE - ART. 20 GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 22. Is there anybody here to speak on 22? Do you want to explain 22? Mr. Whipple: Briefly, if you want me to. Perhaps these amendments are the amendments that have been most bothering the general public to date. It has to do with our single family and duplex areas, it has to do with setbacks return- ing to what they used to be to avoid confusion. It is a relaxation of the light plane so that a person can build a two story building rather than be limited to a one story building 12 feet wide, etc., etc. Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody here that wishes to address this issue? Mr. Whipple: All these amendments are the results of the continuing meetings between the enforcement personnel, Public Works and Planning. Mayor Ferre: This is on First Reading, is there a motion? IN 1151 RT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDI- NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2005, 20089 2013, 2015, AND 2028 OF ARTICLE 20 ENTITLED "GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS911 BY REDEFINING LOT COVERAGE, RENUMBERING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS, RELAXING BUILDING SPACING REQUIREMENTS, AND EXCLUDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES FROM HEIGHT LIMITATIONS UNDER CERTAIN CONDI- TIONS; FURTHER, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS: PAGE 1, RS-1, RS-29 "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO REQUIRE SPECIAL EXCEP- TION APPROVAL FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSI- TIES, AND ELIMINATE MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT, "MINIMUM OPEN SPACE," TO CHANGE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD REQUIRE- MENT TO 5 FEET, "MAXIMUM HEIGHT," TO CHANGE LIGHT PLANES AND RELAX HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR CERTAIN ROOFS, "MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS", TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, RG-1, "MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS," TO CHANGE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD REQUIRE- MENT, RS-1.1 AND RG-1, "MAXIMUM HEIGHT," BY APPLYING RS-1 AND RS-2 REGULATIONS IN LIEU OF TABLE 2; AND PAGE 4 CR-19 "PRIN- CIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO PERMIT SALE OF SECOND-HAND MERCHANDISE BY JEWELRY STORES, CR-2, "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO PERMIT RENTAL OF FORMAL ATTIRE AND HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT AND TO PERMIT ART, JEWELRY, AND BOOKSTORES TO SELL SECOND-HAND MERCHANDISE, CR-3, "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO PERMIT RENTAL OF FORMAL ATTIRE AND HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT AND TO PERMIT ART, JEWELRY, AND BOOKSTORES TO SELL SECOND- HAND MERCHANDISE, CR-3, "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES," TO PERMIT JEWELRY STORES AND STORES RENTING FORMAL ATTIRE AND HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT TO SELL SECOND HAND MERCHANDISE AND TO PERMIT AUCTION GALLERIES TO SELL ANTIQUES, ART OBJECTS, JEWELRY AND SIMILAR MERCHANDISE, BUT NO OTHER SECOND-HAND MERCHANDISE; CONTAIN- ING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Carollo and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. .152 FEB 2 81984 RT ------------------ ----------------------------------------- 45. DISCUSSION ITEM OF SPORTS, STADIUMS AND ATTENDANT COST FACTORS. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Gary, I'd like for you personally, this is assuming you saw this blast that we took in the paper about the Baseball Stadium. Mayor Ferre: On February 19th in the Miami Herald Sports Section dealing with the Orioles. Mr. Plummer: I would like you to come back, Mr. Gary, with a cost factor of how much the City is losing in that facili- ty... Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, why don't you put it right on the record? They're paying just slightly over how much? Mr. Plummer: Last time I heard it was $131 per game. Mayor Ferre: A day, every time they use that stadium they're paying $131. Okay? Mr. Plummer: I think the light bill is something like $300. Mayor Ferre: In addition to which, and I'm not knocking, but I think we need to get the record straight when we get stories like that. The last time I looked, we were losing well over $100,000 a year. Mr. Gary: $200,000. Mayor Ferre: $200,000 in that stadium. So the only reason we're keeping that stadium open is to service the Orioles. Mr. Gary: At a loss. Mayor Ferre: So let the taxpayers and the newspaper people understand that for us to have the Orioles here you the taxpayers are paying $200,000 a year and the Orioles, on the other hand, are paying Just over $100 every time they play there. That is it. Now, that is the one deal in this town that is a better deal than Joe Robbie has and the only reason Joe Robbie is upset about it is because he wants to pay $100 a game too. Mr. Cesar Odio: Mr. Mayor, let me tell you something. I meet with Hank Peters at the Stadium a week ago Saturday, and the only problem that he was complaining about was Jim Palmer with the grass. We were late because we didn't want to cancel the old-timer's game and we put irrigation ditches around the in -field, not inside the in -field area. Mayor Ferre: Cesar, if you read that story, and I read it three times, it is a terrible indictment and it is an ugly bad story. It was the basis of an ugly, strong and bad editorial by the Miami Herald and the basis of an article written by Joe Robbie. Mr. Odio: But you want to put on the record, Mr. Mayor, that we spent over $80P000 this year, the stands, the build- ing itself is better than it has ever been. mayor Ferre: Well, why didn't you... May I ask you, sir, because today, and maybe, Mr. Manager, out of fairness to you, today is the 28th of February. That article is the FEB 281984 RT 18th of February. Ten days have gone by and we have re- mained silent? Mr. Odio: No, sir, I met there with Channel 7 and Channel 10, they did a story on it, they were very fair. Mayor Ferre: Channel 10 and 7 didn't write that story, the Miami Herald wrote that story. I think you should demand that the Miami Herald at least have a follow up on that demand request, that they have a follow up story and get the record straight. The record is (1) that we spent $80,000 to improve the stadium; (2) that it costs the taxpayers $200,000 a year or more to keep that stadium going; (3) that the Orioles are paying just slightly over $100 a game and that there is no better deal in baseball than what the Orioles have here and that we're sorry that the grass didn't grow right, we apologize.... Mr. Carollo: The bottom line, Maurice, is that this is something that staff should have done a long time ago. You know, why does it take one of us to tell them what to do? We don't get paid for that, they get paid for that. Mr. Odio: To do what, sir? I called the reporter, Peter Richmon and I told him the same thing I'm telling you now and he said he didn't have anything else to write. I called one of the editorial board members and asked them how did they get their information on which they founded their editorial and he said they had it from their reporter. I said they are totally wrong, I invite you to come out to the stadium and look at the stadium. I cannot write their stories. Mr. Carollo: Did anybody think of writing a letter to the editor which I'm sure they'll publish? Mr. Odio: No, I did not think about that, Cesar, I'm sorry. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think we need to clarify the record because I think right now.... Mr. Carollo: Give somebody a raise and maybe they'll think about it next time. Mayor Ferre: .... in the Miami Herald on the record that is the last story that there is and you need to write a letter, if this doesn't get 'into the Herald tomorrow you need to write a letter so at least there is a letter on the record that, you know, they didn't tell the full story. The Miami Herald, in my opinion, since Dick Capen got there, has become a totally different newspaper than it was and they will go out of their way to give a balanced viewpoint. You may not agree with them and they may not agree with you, but they will balance, they will tell both sides of the story, unlike what used to be done before. So I think what you need to do is tell you side of it and if the reporter says no call the editor whose name is Heath Merriweather and the City guy is Billy Rhoades. Who is the guy at the sports desk, does anybody know? Paul Pope? And if he doesn't answer then call up Merriweather and if he answer write him a letter, he'll publish it. Mr. Carollo: Okay. FEB 2 81984 RT THERE biiAG NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSIONS THE MEETING WAS ►DJOURNED AT 9:05 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: Ralph G. Ongie CITY CLERK Natty Hirai ASSISTANT CITY CLERK .IM Maurice A. Ferre M A Y 0 R go F'E8 2 81984 RT 10"t y OF 1%'e)" Ml DOCUMENT MEETING DATE: February 28, 1984 INDEX COMMISSION RETRIEVALACTION DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION AND CODE NO. URGING THE CONGRESS OF UNITED STATES TO ADOPT LEGISLATION FACILITATING THE ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY OF CUBANS WHO HAVE FLED THEIR HOMELAND. R-84-209 ACCEPTING DONATION OF A BELL FROM THE COSTA RICA LIBRE MOVEMENT AND REQUESTING THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION A LIST OF RECOMMENDED SITES FOR THE LOCATION OF SAID BELL. R-84-210 CONDOLENCES OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO THE FAMILY AND FRIEND OF MIAMI BEACH POLICE OFFICE DONALD B. KRAMER UPON HIS DEATH. R-84-21.3 CONDOLENCES FOR THE DEATH OF PATROL TROOPER ALPHONSO LOFTON. R-84-214 GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE 6871 SECTION 7(4) TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1740 S.W. 22 STREET. R-84-216 VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO.9500 AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520 SPI 2 - COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. R-84-217 AUTHORIZING THE PROPER CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE A QUIT- CLAIM DEED TO AIRPORT SEVEN ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE. R-84-218 ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED "AIRPORT SEVEN", A SUBDIVISION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI. R-84-219 ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED HARDLEY GARDENS, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. R-84-220 ACCEPT THE PLAT ENTITLED DOUGLAS GARDENS REVISED, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. R-84-221 DESIGNATING THE AUDITORIUM OF THE COMSTOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AS THE MEETING PLACE FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1984 AT 3:00 P.M.- R-84-224