HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1982-12-16 Minutesz 1
�Yci t$ P3f,
a zf
r
�4y7 w 'M
Rol e`�r�¢
CITY OF MIAMI
COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON December 16, 1982
(PLANNING AND ZONING)
PREPAREO BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
K
a � }t
A �
L, 4
l'
ctPsSWJ51MUT.cna
1O NO, 112/16/82 - P & Z SL&ECT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i
_
15
p�IWNCE
REsoLuTloNlt o. PACE NO,
DECLARE THE CITY OF NICE, FRANCE, AS A SISTER CITY OF
p
MIAMI,
R-82-1153
1-2
CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF JORGE VALDES AS A MEMBER OF THE
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
M-82-1154
3
DISCUSSION ITEM: CITY OF MIAMI BOXING AND WRESTLING
BOARD COMMISSION,
DISCUSSION
3-5 =
DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF A APPLICATION
FOR REMOVAL OF GRANT AND SECURITY INTEREST
MIAMI CABLEVISION, AMERICABLE AND TCI.
(SEE LATER, SAME MEETING)
DISCUSSION
6-9
APPROVE TRANSFER TO T.C.I. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF R.C.I./TAFT CABLEVISION ASSOCIATES INTEREST IN
MIAMI TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC.
R-82-1155
10-23
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
4000, 40401 4050 WEST FLAGLER STREET FROM
R-4 TO C-2.
FIRST READING
23-32
DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY: APPEAL BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OF VARIANCE GRANTED TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE
BUILDING LOCATED AT 1198 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE (NO
ACTION TAKEN).
DISCUSSION
33-37
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE $15,000 FOR A
,
FEASIBILITY STUDY MULTI USE PARKING FACILITY PLAYER
STATE THEATRE.
R-82-1156
37-38
DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST
FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2169 AND 2177
SOUTHWEST 12th STREET FROM R-1 TO R-2.
M-82-1157
38-39
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
3665-71 N.W. 7TH STREET AND 821-899 N.W. 37 AVENUE
FROM R-4 TO C-2.
FIRST READING
40-43
DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION FOR
CHANCE OF ZONING LOCATED 2860-70-90 AND 2900 S.W.
28 TERRACE FROM R-4 TO C-2/ (SEE LABEL NO. 13).
DISCUSSION
44-48.
PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS, AND SPECIAL ITEMS.
DISCUSSION
48
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION 2860-70-90- AND 2900 S.W. 28
TERRACE FROM R-4 AND SPD-2 TO R-C (SEE LABEL NO. 11).
FIRST READING
48-52
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 6871-
ARTICLE X-1 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE R-5-A.
ORD. 9535
53-71
INSTRUCT PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE STUDY
REMAINING PORTION S.W. 28 TERRACE FOR POSSIBLE
ZONING CHANGE CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 AND SPD-2
TO R-C.
M-82-1158
71
!I
5
Cl i JJIUY KUAM"55R � Page #2
AN
NO. 12/16/82- P & z SLUCTT rsollujTclamo, PAGE NO.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DIRECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO STUDY POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS ON BRICKELL AVENUE IN THE AREA OF THE 7TH
AND 8TH STREETS FOR PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH AND
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.
M-82-1159
72
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
3216-28 AVIATION AVENUE FROM R-4 TO R-C.
FIRST READING
73-74
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
581 NE. 62 ST. FROM RO-3/6 TO CR-2/7.
FIRST READING
74-75
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
AREA BOUNDED APPROXIMATELY NW. 3 COURT A LINE 86
FEET NORTH AND PARALELL TO NW 22 LANE ETC.
FIRST READING
75
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
100-174 NW. 9TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 800-898
NW. FIRST AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 101-175 NW. 8 ST.
FROM C-5 TO R-4
FIRST READING
76
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGING ZONING
CLASSIFICATION 100-174 NW. 9 ST. APPROXIMATELY
800-898 NW 1 AVENUE AND 101-175
NW. 8 STREET FROM CR-3/7 TO RG-3/6.
FIRST READING
77
DISCUSSION AND DEFERAL OF CONSIDERATION FOR CHANGE
OF ZONING LOCATED AT 3521 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE AND
50 SW. 32 ROAD FROM R-1 TO GU.
DISCUSSION
78
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 6871
ARTICLE II SECTION L, HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT, AFTER SPD-7 COCONUT
GROVE SPECIAL CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
FIRST READING
78
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD NEW SECTION 161G
HC-1, GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO NEW ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 9500.
FIRST READING
79-80
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO PROPERTY LOCATED 2985 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
(HOUSEKEEPER'S CLUB).
FIRST READING
80-81
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL
USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE 9500 APPLICABLE TO THE HOUSEKEEPER'S
CLUB.
FIRST READING
81-82
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE -
"PAN AMERICAN TERMINAL BUILDING/CITY HALL"
FIRST READING
82-83
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE 9500 PERTAINING TO PAN AMERICAN TERMINAL
BUILDING/CITY HALL,
IRST READING
83
4
i NO.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
f (�
�i A
CI41cofli1JJ1ff� Am' F
page #3
12/16/82 - P & Z SLUCT
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
(FREEDOM TOWER).
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERIT AGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE 9500 PERTAINING TO PROPERTY:
600 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD (FREEDOM TOWER).
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL
USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPER
LOCATED AT 1475 N.W. 12TH AVENUE (HALISSEE HALL).
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO
NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE NO.
9500 PERTAINING TO HALISSEE HALL.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1737 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
(THE MIAMI WOMAN'S CLUB).
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL
USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO NEW
OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 9500
PERTAINING TO PROPERTY KNOWS AS THE MIAMI WOMAN'S
CLUB.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1611
N.W. 12TH AVENUE (THE ALAMO).
roWCE oR
LuTioN No. PAGE NO.
IFIRST READING
IFIRST READING
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
IRST READING
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE
NO. 9500 CONCERNING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE ALAMO. IRST READING
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3485 MAIN HIGHWAY (THE BARNACLE). IFIRST READING
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HD-1 GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE
NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO.
9500 CONCERNING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BARNACLE. I FIRST READING
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
RO PRRPERTY LOCATED AT 190 S.E. 12TH TERRACE KNOWN AS
DR. JACKSON'S OFFICE. IFIRST READING
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HD-1
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS
OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 CONCERNING PROPERTY
KNOWN AS DR. JACKSON'S OFFICE. I FIRST READING
84
Ef
88
89
89
91
1 91
016
1 93
,try
CiTY1CDt'MISSICiJ Q�IM11, Fl.DRID4
41
LONG DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL FOR INSPECTION OF
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT EXISTING FLORIDA
ROOM AT 441 - 441� S.W. 35TH AVENUE.
42
UPHOLD RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZONING BOARD TO
DENY PERMIT FOR EXISTING RETAIL WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO
EXISTING WAREHOUSE AT 774 N.W. 1 STREET.
43
LONG DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION
OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR JACAROL BAY CLUB
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 4865 N.W. 7TH STREET.
44
RESOLUTION CHANGING THE DATES OF CITY COMMISSION
MEETINGS DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1983.
45
ACCEPT PLAT: "KAHN-CARLIN SUB"
46
ACCEPT PLAT: "REVISED PLAT OF HANSON SUB".
47
CODESIGNATE N.E. 69 STREET FROM BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
TO BISCAYNE BAY AS "N.E. 69 STREET/PALM BAY LANE".
48
%UTI]ORIZl' CITY >LINAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT BRTt;T-
17111: CITY O17 NTIAMI, METRO DADI: COUNTY AND OFF-STRI:I:T
PARKINIG AUTHORITY REGARDING PARKIlliG ;•CODIFICATION"
IN NEDIAN OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD.
49
CLAIM SETTLEMENT: SUTERRENO IN MIAMI, INC.
50
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 6871.
ARTICLE XV. CENTRAL COMMERCIAL C-3
TO ALLOW INTERIM PARKING LOTS.
51
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 9500.
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR CRD-1
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL PRINCIPAL USES TO ALLOW
FOR INTERIM PARKING LOTS.
52
LONG DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND DEFERRAL OF
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION TO CHANGE ZONING AT
2629-2645 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE FROM R-4 TO R-C.
53
CANVAS RESULTS OF CITY OF MIAMI SPECIAL
ELECTION HELD DECEMBER 14, 1982.
54
ACCEPT BID OF BOSTON WHALER INC. FOR FURNISHING
ONE MARINE PATROL BOAT FOR THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
55
ESTABLISH FUND NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 TO BE OFFERED
AS A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST
AND CONVICTION OF CULPRITS RESPONSIBLE FOR RECENT
ARSON.
56
ALLOCATE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500 TO MIAMI
NORTHWESTERN SENIOR HIGH COMMUNITY SCHOOL
FOR CLOSE-UP PROGRAM.
57
AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE GRANTING OF CERTAIN SECURITY
INTERESTS OF CABLETELEVISION SYSTEM AND OTHER
PROPERTY INTEREST OF AMERICABLE MIAMI TELE-
COMMUNICATIONS INC. TOGETHER DOING BUSINESS AS
MIAMICABLE VISION.
Page # 4
rso"LUT'lolo.
E
PAGE NO,
M-82-1160
93-95
R-82-1161
96-100
M-82-1162
101-12
R-82-1163
120
R-82-1164
121
R-82-1165
121-12
R-82-1166
122-•1:
R-82-1167
125
R-82-1168
126-1.
ORD. 9536
127-1
ORD. 9537
129
M-82-1169
130-144
R-82-1170
145
R-82-1171
145-14,
M-82-1172
148
M-82-1173
149
R-82-1174 150-16
MtNftES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 16th day of December, 1982, the City Commission of MiAMi,
Fidrida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan
Ametican Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 9:20 A.M., by Mayor Maurice Ferre
with the following members of the Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
s
ALSO PRESENT WERE:
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. DECLARE THE CITY OF NICE, FRANCE AS A SISTER CITY TO THE CITY
OF MIAMI.
Mayor Ferre: We are on pocket items. J.L., we will start with you.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have none, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Demetrio?
Mr. Perez: No.
Mayor Ferre: Miller? O.K., I have two pocket items. The first one is a
request by our Sister City Committee to designate the city of Nice, France
as a sister city. The Mayor of Nice was here recently. He was so enthused
and taken by Miami, he wants to come back. He thinks that Nice, France is
the closest thing to Miami. He is a great guy. His father was the mayor
of Nice (listen to this) for 30 years. He has been mayor of Nice for 18 years.
He is about ready to...he says this is his last term. He is going to do
bigger and better things. But he is a wonderful guy. He speaks perfect
English.
Mr. Carollo: We have heard that before.
Mayor Ferre: He is married to an American lady. They are very, very nice
people. I think this is a great move forward. They are very enthused
about it. I would like for one of you to offer such a resolution. I'd
be greatful.
Mr. Dawkins: Move.
Mayor Ferre: It has been moved by Miller Dawkins. Is there a second?
01
DEC 16 1982
sI
Mr, catallo: Second.
Mt', Plummer: Mr. Mayor, as you know....
Mayor Ferre: A resolution designating the city of hide, PrAtide as a distat
city of Miami, Florida. Yes.
Mr. Plummer: There has to be attached to that resolution a member of this
Commission who is designated as the representative liaison.
Mayor Ferre: I will assume that responsibility.
Mr. Plummer: I figured you would.
Mayor Ferre: You can have Cali, Colombia and I will take Nice, PtAtite.
Mr. Plummer: But how come you get Nice, France and Monaco?
Mayor Ferre: Well, as a matter of fact one of the ideas is to invite the
full Commission over to the Monaco races, whenever they are held. When are
they held? In May or June?
Mr. Plummer: I don't know. Just go ahead and call your vote on that.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1153
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION MAKING THE CITY
OF NICE, FRANCE, A SISTER CITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted herein and
on file in the Office of the Clerk).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, in pursuit of the request of this Commission, there
is a problem with adopting Monaco as a sister city in that we are trying to
overcome... is because of the fact that they do not have a local government
of a city as such. The King is the King is the King. Because of that it
would be extremely difficult under a sister city program to establish with
a country even though it might be small. But that was our immediate reaction
when we applied to Washington. We are pursuing it further, but I wanted to
let you know that we are finding a slight problem.
ip{r
Y 2
DEC 16 1982
n
2. CONFIRM APPOINTMMENT OF JORGE VALDEZ AS A MEMBER OF THE DOVNTOt,-N
: DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
i%
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Jorge Valdez has been designated by the County Commission
as their representative on the D.D.A. We have to confirm it. Is there a
motion?
Mr. Plummer: So move.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion?
George Valdez as the County....
Cali the roll oft the danfirution of
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption.
MOTION 82-1154
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION CONFIRMING THE METRO-
POLITAN DADE COUNTY APPOINTMENT OF JORGE VALDES AS THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. DISCUSSION ITEM: CITY OF MIAMI BOXING AND WRESTLING BOARD
COMMISSION.
Mayor Ferre: We have a little bit of a problem, J.L., and this is something
that you of all Members of the Commission has taken a serious and abiding
interest in. That's the Boxing Commission. The problem of the Boxing
Commission is that we have to designate a chairman. Until there is a
chairman designated, I think we are going to have problems because the
thing is kind of bouncing around. I want to read to you very briefly
what came out of the New York Post, which is probably as you know the
most read newspaper in the country especially with regard to boxing.
This had more to do with the death of Korean boxer, Du Ko Kim. Here is
what they said. J.L., I want you to listen to this because this is what
they said about Miami: "This was a fight which the world watched
through the blinking eye of television which more than 20,000
saw in person and which involved huge sums of money and massive
03 DEC 16 19812
7
YOf Perte (CON'T): promotion, Because Florida has no state
doMission it was under the immediate control of the Miami
City Boxing Commission, which could not provide ring stools or
a bell on time which despite all the tickets and seats it required
assigned just one inspector to cover both the championship
dressing rooms. The other five were highly visible at ring
side. The only thing it did indeed do efficiently was for its
chairman to instruct the ring announcer three times not to
forget to announce the names of all those associated with the
Boxing Commission. We do not ask these kinds of amateur fumblers
to supervise the safety of dynamite trucks,or public highways, or
even garbage collection. But we continue to permit them to
control the lives of men who work in a highly volatile industry.
Now is the time for industrial standards. The time to make
this thing which is clearly an interstate commercial and seriously
regulated business with qualified professionals, not political
hacks in charge. It is the time to give its employees the
protection and the dignity to which they are entitled. The
time for rhetoric is passed. If we can't or won't do it now,
if we are so calloused that these human beings are not important
enough in the national minds to be afforded what is due to them
then the time to end boxing forever is surely here."
Iom not going to get into a reconstruction of what occured in the Alex Arguello/Prior
fight. We all know that the urine samples were not taken. We all know that
the inspector was no where to be found after the fight. There were all kinds
of small, and some of them potentially big mistakes. Thank God Alex Arguello
survived! If he had died like poor Du Ko Kim I think that would have added
to a rather bleak reputation that Miami has had. I really think that we,
as a governing body in the City have a responsibility to rethink this whole
thing over. I think we need to get a chairman who is truly knowledgeable and
interested. I think we need to reconstitute that committee so that the people
that are on that Boxing Commission are people who are not fanatics of boxing
but who know something about the boxing sport. It is a very complicated
thing. I really think that we have to ... I don't say that we necessarily
have to do it today but for God's sake let's do it before the next fight.
We have fights now going on. Is it every week now that we have theth at
the Knight Center, at the City of Miami Center?
Mr. Plummer: More or less.
Mayor Ferre: We really must address this because God forbid that somebody
should get hurt there!
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, may I say something?
Mayor Ferre: Certainly.
Mr. Dawkins: I agree with the Mayor. But I have to share the blame with
this Commission. But we do it constantly up here. We constantly create
boards and commissions without any forethought. We were new in the boxing
game and so were the people whom we appointed. What the Mayor is saying is
that somewhere along the lines we should have asked the W.B.A. or some
controlling entity to come down and hold seminars or workshops or whatever
you have with our people to insure that they knew what the rules were
and how to conduct it. Now, I must as a Commissioner take blame for not
having done this....
Mayor Ferre: I share it with you. We all share it with you.
Mr. Dawkins: ....and I will assure you that we up here will be in touch
with the appropriate officials to train our Boxing Board and the method
in which it should be trained so that, as the Mayor said, if (and God
forbid) anything does happen it will not be because we did not attempt
to prevent it.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me also add one other consideration. I am
not trying to shrug the blame, but I think it has to be noted for the
record. It will be recalled that during the time in the interim where
there was no Boxing Board the people that promoted the fight came before
this Commission and negotiated a contract. That contract in many ways
04
sl
OE C 16 1982
3
81
Mt, PluMet (CON'T): once a Boxing Beard was establishedy placated the
authority of the Boxing Board. What was in fact reality that the Boxing
Board Commission did not have full control as they would in normal conditions
or under normal times. It did create a great deal of chaos for the Boxing
Board, for the stadium manager, and for the promoters. There have to be
reasons for everything, not necessarily excuses, but there was that hiatus
of time when there was no Boxing Board. They did not have the authority
over a contract negotiated by this Commission. We all received I think
a very well thought out memo through Mr. Gary from Walter Golby, the
stadium manager, which has made some very definite recommendations that
I feel are very good. I would hope that whatever is necessary from this
Commission to the Manager, that we adopt that memo so that in the future
there will be a coordinated effort between the promoters, the Boxing
Commission, and the City. I think it is a very good memo. Whenever you
bring up the item of the chairman, I think we should also likewise bring
up that memo and adopt it as policy.
Mayor Ferre: I think we ought to do that in January. Howard, I tell you,
if the rest of the Commission would concur, because I don't want to hurt
anybody's feelings, but I would like your recommendations personally. I
don't want you to put them in writing. You all know who appointed whom.
If the appointees that I made have not been present at these fights, are
not doing their job, or are not qualified, or don't know anything about
boxing, and just simply are amateurs who like to go to the games but are
not fit to be holding that job, I want you to tell me. I commit to you
right now point blank that I will ask them to resign and I will find somebody
else who is qualified. I would hope that we all assume that responsibility
ourselves, because this is really too dangerous a thing for us to have people
who are just friends. We need to have a Boxing Commission that functions
as a Boxing Commission protecting more than anybody else the people that are
out there fighting. I would like also a recommendation of all those who is
the most qualified to be the chairperson. I don't have any pride of authorship.
Whoever is the most qualified is the person that should... whoever cares and
is there at all the fights and is willing to put the time and the effort.
This takes a lot of time. It is not a casual type of a thing. That is all
I have.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Gary: If I may on this same subject, I would suggest that part of my
recommendation also include a very, very small budget to provide certain
types of training opportunities for those people in the Commission, if it
is O.K. with the Mayor and the Commission.
Mayor Ferre: O.K. Is there anything else to come up before the Commission
before we get on to the....
M
4. DISCUSSION 1ND TDIPORARY DEFERR:IL OF A r1PPLICATION FOR REMOVAL
OF GRANIT AND SECURITY INTEREST MI,L.`1I CABLEVISION, AMERICABLE
s AND T.C.I. (See later, same meeting.)
Mayor Ferre: We are on Item Number "A", Mr. Manager.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, that is the one that we wanted to defer for
a moment.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you go ahead and make your statement into the record.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, we are working out, or attempting to work out
some remaining matters with respect to Item "A". We would request that the
Commission take it up this morning, but not until we have had an opportunity
to work it out with the cable company.
Mr. Dawkins: What kind of obstacles are you trying to work out?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The loan documentation, Commissioner, has in it a number
of points that we have identified as either ambiguous, or for some reason not
fully acceptable to us. We have provided counsel with what amounts to a
laundry list of the things that we would require and he is in the process of
checking with his client to see if those changes are acceptable.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, now when these obstacles were identified... last week,
right?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir, the original identification was last week, but
there was a second draft prepared and delivered to our office I believe it
was two days ago.
1 Mr. Dawkins: Okay, I would like to move that this be deferred until you get
your act together, they get their act together and then you give me a final
- thing. I don't want to be sitting up here voting on nothing, so I move to
defer this until all of your questions are answered, so that when it comes
before us, at least I know that you have been through this and that I am
satisfied with your opinion. Mr. Gary, I want to move it; I want to defer it.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion...
Mr. Dawkins: I want to defer it!
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion that this item be deferred. Is
there a second.
Mr. Plummer: For the purposes of discussion, I will second.
• Mayor Ferre: All right, go ahead, Mr. Cliry.
Mr Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. Gary, might I suggest - I know that Mr. Meyers
is in the building and I would suggest rather than to have to repeat all of
this over, that we find Mr. Meyers, who I believe is in my office using the
phone and he is representing the applicant in this case, and as such, I feel
that he should be present in the room.
Mayor Ferre: I think you are right. Will somebody....
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We can get him, Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: I think he is in my office.
Mayor Ferre: .... get all of the interested parties off the phones. I would
assume, Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa, that that also is "B", Item "A" and "B".
Mr. Plummer: No, they are two separate items, even though they relate to the
same subject. They are two separate items. One is the transfer of stock,
the other relates to releasing and waiver of loans.
06
Id DEC 1 61982
Mdydr fetre! Beyond that, well t think toe might be able td take ftes 1190}'
ether quickly.
Mr. Plummer: Here comes Kenny now.
Mayor Ferre: Senator Meyers, there has been a motion Mde by Commissioner
Dawkins, seconded for discussion purposes by Commissioner Plummer that this
whole item be deferred and I am pretty sure the intetit is to to defer it be-
yond today.
Mr. Plummer: Well...excuse me.
Mayor Ferre: Even though the motion didn't say that specifically, but I...
Mr. Plummer: Senator, it was because of the comments of the City -Attorney
that in fact, the draft which we, the Commission have and predicate our vote
upon, is being renegotiated or thought out in sore areas and because of that
Commissioner Dawkins...well he is here now, he can tell you himself. But, he
felt that it was unfair to ask this Commission to vote where the City -Attorney
has indicated there are going to be changes, and that was the reason for the
deferral.
Senator Kenneth Meyers: I think I can allay your fears or concerns regarding
that, Commissioner Dawkins, and Commissioner Plummer. Starting about 8:30 A.M.
this morning, Mr. Pedrosa and I and his staff have been discussing particularly
certain specific areas in the loan agreement that they would like modified that
are not of severe concern at all to counsel for the lenders. I have been on
the telephone for the last twenty minutes with the attorney in New York, going
over these items, and it does not appear that we are going to have a major
problem in agreeing to those this morning so that I would re-
spectfully ask, Commissioner Dawkins, that you give me an opportunity for at
least the next hour to meet again with Mr. Pedrosa, which he has agreed to do,
and confirm that these concerns have been worked out in language....
Mr. Plummer: They have got a problem.
Senator Meyers:.... and then come back. Let me tell you what our concern is.
We must close - we have to close this loan before December 31st. There are
very severe consequences, tax and otherwise, to the borrower and lenders if
we don't fund this thing before December 31st. Your City -Attorney has been
tremendously cooperative on this matter and the lawyers in New York, as well,
in trying to coalesce this. There are no problems. They really are some
minor things now in wording that we can work out if you will just give me the
next hour to do it.
Mr. Dawkins: With no disrespect to you, Senator, at all - this is a part of
my problem. When it comes to money, you can find deliberate speed with
which to get the things ironed out, but for one year I have been complaining
that I have not seen any Black people sharing in the bigger profits of this
thing, but nobody with deliberate speed comes up with what I am asking for!
But, everytime I look when you come down here, you can solve everything.
You just got into this. see. When I first came on the Commission, they pro-
mised me faithfully that Black people were going to get a part and Latins
were going to get a part of this and now they finally got it up; they are in
business, but I have yet to see anything come across my desk that says a
Latin or a Black was hired at $100,000 a year salary. I have yet to see where
any firm is buying anything (and they are buying it from a local firm) that is
Black or Latin that he is giving money. And like I say, with due respect, that
is why I am telling the lawyer that I am not going for anything else that I
don't see. If I don't see it in writing, I am not going to go for it, and if
he tells me it is in writing and it is not, then I am going to go for him,
that is all I am saying, so now if...
Senator Meyers: Commissioner Dawkins, I fully apprecaite and am sensitized
to.your concerns. I think your concerns, personally, from what I understand
and know, have been met and tenfold, but that, may I respectfully suggest, is
not the issue at the moment.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, let me ask you a question then. It is with me!
Senator Meyers: Well, isn't this a two-edged sword? We have a $31,600,000
funding...
Id 37 DEC 1 61982
4
Mr, batakint! tnvesttnent!
10
Senator Meyers: No, no, not investment, funding on this loan from the bank
for the purpose - not to go into the pockets of the cable T.V. people, but
to build the system for the City, Blacks, White or otherwise, so that the
citizens can start to enjoy cable T.V. If we can't get the money to do it,
then construction of the system can't commence.
Mr. Dawkin Okay, let me ask you one question, Senator.
Senator Meyers: That is, you know...
Mr. Dawkins: Let me ask you one question.
Senator Meyers: That is the threshold question, where everybody is concerned.
Mr. Dawkins: For one year this company worked with George H. Green to see that
George H. Green became a proprietor, okay? They could not come to an agree-
ment with George H. Green and six or eight months ago you came up with another
Black group. I don't see where they have made one penny since you came up
with them, but yet and still, for deliberate speed, you can borrow $31,000,000.
That is my problem!
Senator Meyers: Well, no one is going to make any money unless the system
gets into ground and people are started to be tied into cable T.V.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, show me in writing where that firm is going to...you see,
the problem I have with thiG is Senator...
Senator Meyers: There is a contract with that firm.
Mr. Dawkins: Senator, let me tell you the problem I have with it.
Senator Meyers: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: This is contract is worth $800,000,000. That is a billion
dollars!
Senator Meyers: Well, everybody hopes so, but that is really a...
Mr. Dawkins: Well then, if it is not, then why borrow $31,000,000 if you are
not going to make a profit on it?
Mayor Ferre: All right, we have a motion before us.
Mr. Gary: May I speak, Mr. Mayor, please?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, Mr. Gary.
Mr. Gary: I appreciate the comments of Commissioner Dawkins and my comments
are not in contradiction to what he has said before us today. I might recall
that the City Commission directed me to inform Mr. Hermanowski that he was to
meet with Commissioner Dawkins prior to the next meeting. I am not sure
whether that meeting occurred. But on the other side, Mr. Mayor and members
of the Commission, I must inform you as City Manager that they have an obli-
gation in terms of building the system under a certain time frame. If we are
put in the position of withholding their financing arrangement, then we may
be in jeopardy in terms of their complying with the specifics of the con-
tract, namely the time frame and $2,000,000 fund that we have at our disposal
if they do not comply with that time frame, and I would hate fbr this City
Commission to put itself in that position of allowing them... taking them off
the hook in terms of the timely completion of that system in accordance with
the technical specification of that system, primarily because of funding,
and I just have to say that to you so that when you make your decision, you
take all that into consideration, not to say that you should vote "yes" or
of
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, let me ask Mr. Gary a question. Okay, are you working
with that same deliberation on bringing up the minority participation?
Mr. Gary: I would like to say, Commissioner Dawkins, and I share that with
you just as much as you do - they have to provide to us, Commissioner, an
08
Id
DEC 1 61982
r j
atiti al tepott. That annual report brie have received. We have teque§ted Addi-
tional information to satisfy us. If they do not comply with that ininotitY
aspect, Commissioner, you as the City Commission have the right to either
fine them or take the license, and I am saying I am recommending that is the
time when you should address the minority issue as opposed to the financing
hart, which is necessary for construction.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you a question now, and I guess this is a dual
question. I mean it is a question, but to both of you, because there is a
legal ramification. Would we be in jeopardy if the holders of the license
were to sue us for having improperly withheld this approval, of them coming
back and asking us for the difference in the money?I mean, would this be an
unreasonable withholding? I know that is a very vague question.
Mr. Plummer: Are you now in reference to Item "A"?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I am talking about Item "A". In other words, is there any
jeopardy on our part?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I am not a legal, and I am not answering the legal, but
let me tell you what does bother me. I don't want to give the present company
any excuse of getting off the hook for deadlines and I think that if in fact,
you do play with this, or for whatever reason (maybe playing is not the
right word), but you don't pass this and allow them to get their money, I think
they have a very legal, good ground for saying "Hey, City, don't get on my case
because I didn't meet deadline. You withheld...".
Mr. Dawkins: I withdraw my request...
Mayor Ferre: And I withdraw my question, because we really shouldn't have
an answer to that question on the record.
Mr. Dawkins: I withdraw my request.
Mr. Carollo: I think I have got a solution for this whole problem.
_ Mr. Plummer: Well, no, Miller, you don't withdraw your motion, because as
the seconder I don't accept it, because the terminology you used I thought
was very proper. You said defer it, but not until when, which does not pre-
clude us from hearing it this afternoon.
Mayor Ferre: All right, but the Chair will therefore rule that we will take
this matter up later on today, whenever all the people...
Mr. Plummer: What happened to our motion?
Mayor Ferre: You don't need to vote on a deferral when it is going to be
taken up subsequently, unless you want to.
Mr. Plummer: The monarch!
Mayor Ferre:
All right, are we ready to move along?.,..
41
71
5. APPROVE TRANSFER TO T.C.I. DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF T.C.I./TA FT
CABLEVISION ASSOCIATES INTEREST IN MIAI' 1 TELECO�C•fl-%;!CATIONS INC.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item "B". Now that one we can take up, Howard,
is that right?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, but as an associated item I have given you
a memo suggesting that we consider the issue regarding cable as it relates
to the distribution of obscene or indecent material to be scheduled. I just
want to let you know because there are some people in the audience who are
specifically on that item.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the Manager has sent to the Commission a request
that this item be deferred. I'm talking about the question of obscene and
indecent material. The ordinance dealing with that is not going to be put
on until the January 13th meeting. We're not going to discuss that today.
Mr. Plummer: Where is that on the agenda of today?
Mr. Gary: It is not on the agenda. But the City Commission asked me to
put it in this agenda because ....................
Mr. Plummer: So this is a memo of getting Gary off the hot seat.
Mr. Gary: I'm always there.
Mayor Ferre: No, he decided that this should be put off until January and
I have no problem with that unless somebody else does. O.K., now we are on
item "B", right?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: How many of you are here on that particular issue and wanted
to speak, on the question of indecent —we will not be hearing that until
January 13th. I'm sorry that you had to come down this morning. We are
now on item "B".
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, before the attorney for the T.C.I. speaks, I would
like to for Mrs. Sue Smoller of my staff to explain what they are recommending
in terms of transferring of stock.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the chair recognizes you.
Mrs. Sue Smoller: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager, our office is
recommending that the Commission approve the transfer of stock. We feel
that withholding a transfer would create problems for the purchase of the
television stations like Taft Broadcasting. We feel that it might create
further problems for the City because the withholding of that transfer
approval might bring litigation to the City. I understand that there are
questions outstanding in your minds and there is a representative of TCI,
Mr. J.C. Sparkman, here today who is very, very well qualified and I'm sure
is looking forward to responding to your questions. But our office would
recommend approval of this transfer.
Mr. Carollo: You are not recommending that we give them the award for
Man of the Year either? Is that all?
Mrs. Smoller: Just the transfer.
Mr. Carollo: O.K.
Mr. Martin Genauer: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Martin Gena mr, 200 S.E.
1 Street, Miami. I'm here again before you on the TCI-Taft matter,
10
DEC 16 191921
el
t
ttahsferring of stock, t w ult go ifito....
Mt. Mummer: Excuse me, I think, Mr, Mayor, properly there ere mw
questions that Commissioner Carollo had.
Mr, Carollo: That is correct; and yourself.
Mr, Plummer: No, no, no, in particular one that I had. I won't speak for
Commissioner Carollo, but I think we ought to have some answers prior to
an presentation. My question, Mr. City Attorney, which I had hoped to
receive back in writing prior to this meeting and unfortunately I know
that you are busy. My question was simple. What happens if this City
does not approve this transfer? I have not had an answer to that question.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I will be glad to answer it now, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: I am happy that you are prepared.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The legal ramifications of your failure to approve
the transfer would be measured by the reasonableness of your actions, both
contractually and by operational law. Specifically the contractual, the
legal standard is one of reasonableness. If you act reasonably in dis-
approving the transfer; or contractually if you have legitimate reasons
based upon the ordinance in a section that I have in front of me which
spells out what your rights are, then you are entitled to refuse the
transfer, refuse the privilege of transfer without any consequence to
the City, other than the fact that there might be some litigation which
in my judgement would not be a successful piece of litigation.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Pedrosa, I thank you for your standard answer to every
question. I will waive consecutive translation. I thought that only
George Knox spoke with two tongues. But, basically, in a very simple
language, I assume that by virtue of this item being before us, we have
the right to approve or disapprove and as such, I then assume that what
you are telling me is that if there is a reason and if we can justify that
reason, we can disapprove. If there is no reason, we must approve. Is
that basically what you are saying?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Genauer: The last time that I was here, Commissioner Carollo and some
of,the other Commissioners asked certain questions about the financial
status of the joint venture and the financial status of TCI and requested
that we have a representative of TCI and a representative of Americable
appear before the Commission to answer those questions and any other questions
that Commissioners might have. I have had the executive vice president of
TCI, Mr. J.C. Sparkman, fly into town to be present this morning to answer
those questions. I would also like to announce that Mr. Sparkman is now
going to be personally taking over the involvement of TCI and the cable
franchise in Miami. There are other members of his staff which is a
separate staff than have I guess been involved on behalf of TCI up to this
point who are going to be assisting him on this matter. I would like to
introduce Mr. Sparkman to you. I also understand that Mr. Bill Wertz, of
the Americable Organization, is here to answer any questions that you may
have of that comapany. I will leave it to your pleasure as to who you want
to talk to first.
Mr. Carollo: Let me see if I understood you correctly. Does this mean
that Paul Alden is not going to be working with the Miami System?
Mr. Genauer: I think that is the bottom line of what I just announced.
Mr. Sparkman.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Sparkmah, if you would like starting off with your name
and mailing address, please sir, and what position you hold with the
company that you are here to represent.
DEC 16 1982
0
MB& J,C. Sparkman: My name is J.C. Sparkman. I am the executive Vide pteaident
df 'telecommunications and chief operating officer with Cable Co. My addteas
is 2530 S. Dudley Street, Lakewood, Colorado, 80227.
Mr. Plummer: You heard the question of Commissioner Carollo?
Mr. Sparkman: Mr. Paul Alden will not be involved in the Miami operation
from this point forward and has no authority at all in this operation. Mr.
Alden worked in my franchising department. We have made a public announcement
that we are no longer going to be doing franchising, so the franchising
department is being unwound.
Mr. Carollo: Let me congratulate you for making that very wise decision.
Mr. Sparkman: Thank you.
Mr. Carollo: I have two other questions that were the ones that I presented
to counsel last week. The first one was that it was my understanding that
out of the joint venture that you have here in Miami, TCI has not completely
kept up 100% of its financial commitment; that you are some $300,000 behind
in your share of financial commitments. Is this correct, or not?
Mr. Sparkman: There was a point in which we were behind. There was a
problem. We were behind. I sat down with Mr. Hermanowski because being
a public company we have to require some documentation that some private
company's don't. Subsequently, some of the documentation was not
timely. Mr. Hermanowski and I worked that out. As money is needed in
this point in time we are moving money in. I think that Mr. _
can certainly attest to that fact. We have worked that out. I don't
know where this came from. I have worked personally with Johnny Hermanowski
on this situation and I have known him for many years. I was not aware that
we had any problems between the'two companies.
Mr. Carollo: Let me say this, sir. The complaints that I received have
mainly come from some of your own stockholders in TCI.
Mr. Sparkman: Local stockholders?
Mr. Carollo: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Sparkman: That we have not kept up our contribution into the joint
venture?
Mr. Carollo: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Sparkman: I would have to say that I have not heard from any of them
on that particular matter. If my stockholders have a problem they certainly
have my name and address. I have been to several of the stockholders'
meetings personally. They know where I am. I'd certainly have answered
their questions.
Mr. Carollo: The second question that I have is where is the bulk of the
financing coming from? Is it coming from London institutions that have
been your Lending instutions of Americable Lending institutions?
Mr. Sparkman: The present Lending institution we are dealing with was
one that Americable had. As part of the joint venture agreement we
separated some responsibilities. One of the responsibilities that
Americable took was to go forth on the financing. As it worked out,
we have, needless to say, had to join in with Mr. Hermanowski on
getting this done. I have had my financial department working with the
Bank of Montreal. As a matter of fact, the Bank of Montreal would like
to become one of TCI's lenders. As to the lenders, in the beginning
Charlie wanted to take this on as a responsibility, which we agreed to.
BEG 161982
Mi: bawkins: May I ask him a question?
Mr. Carollo: O.K., go ahead, Commissioner Dawkins,
Mr. Dawkins: You, sir, are far removed from here. 1 am pretty sure that
the sort of things that I am discussing no doubt have not filtered up to
you, but from the very beginning here there has been very little Black
participation and just a little more Latin participation. As I said
before, this is an $800,000,000 venture. Regardless of how someone may
play it down as 'that is projected' it may go over and it may go under.
My concern is that locally I have yet to see anything where local Blacks
or Latins are going to participate in that $800,000,000.
Mr. Sparkman: I believe that Mr. Wertz can answer that question. We have
discussed that. I am not...
Mr. Dawkins: You are working on it?
Mr. Sparkman: Mr. Commissioner, I am not that far removed because...there
is a lot of money involved.
Mr. Dawkins: I know, O.K., but conditions are... I mean what is the
condition? Are we correcting it? Are we going to do something? What
is it?
Mr. Sparkman: Can I ask Mr. Wertz to answer that question because we have
been doing something about it all along?
Mr. Bill Wertz: Bill Wertz, 20146 S.W. 123 Road Drive. I am director of
operations for Americable.
Mr. Carollo: I will be asking the same questions I asked him. Have they
kept up with their complete financial commitment? And have they at any
time been behind in their share of their financial commitment to this joint
venture.
Mr. Wertz: Well, as Mr. Sparkman already said, there was a time when perhaps
a draw down of monies from Denver might have been a week later than we
wanted it. He is correct in saying that problem there was basically our
accountants doing the forms so that his accountants could understand it.
But it is all resolved. Presently we have no problem in that regard.
Mr. Carollo: As of today they have kept their complete commitment to
the system?
Mr. Wertz: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Mr. Carollo: The second question that I asked the gentleman was from where
was the bulk of the financing arriving from? Was it from your lending
institutions or theirs? He acknowledged that it had come from your lending
institutions. So, I would assume that is correct.
Mr. Wertz: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: The question that I want to ask now is why was that? Was
it because Americable was in a much easier position financially to be
able to acquire the loans or was it because it was just something that
they felt it would be easier for you to do, or how did that come about?
Mr. Wertz: My knowledge on that, as Mr. Sparkman pointed out, when Mr.
Hermanowski and TCI got together and formed the joint venture, he alluded
that he would take on that responsibility because coincidentally at the
same time we were having negotiations with the Bank of Montreal for our
South Dade operation. So Charlie felt that after having met with these
bank officials and so forth that he could pursue and get the financing
for Miami. I was not present at that meeting, but as Mr. Sparkman said,
TCI went along with that.
13
s DEC 16 1982
Mr, Cafdllos Are there any other present problems that the Co= sa opt
ahould know about between the partners of the joint ventute?
Mt, 'Wertz: To the best of my knowledge, no.
Mr. Carollo: Thank you.
Mr. Dawkins: Now to my question, how long have you been associated Ash
the company?
Mr. Wertz: I joined Mr. Hermanowski in March 1981.
Mr. Dawkins: In 1981, March. Prior to 1981...no, you were here then, you
were here. This Cable T.V. was quite a hassle. I think the reason I was
told by Father Gibson the reason he voted for it was they promissed that
minorities would participate. I came on board and I was the swing
vote and I voted for it for the same reasons. I was told by Mr. Hermanowski
that the things that Father Gibson had in mind and I had in mind would be
done. Then one day I go out there and I see two Blacks with sledge hammers
and a wheel barrow and asked them, "What are you doing?" They said, "We
are working." I said, "What contracting company are you with?" They
said, "Nobody." They said that they were told to go out there and go
to work. Then I called Hermanowski to find out what was happening
and I'm so glad I see some union people in here. They were non -union.
They were nothing. Then when I look up, not only they went to Homestead
and come up with a contractor, he was not Latin, nor Black. So therefore,
and I have been watching it ever since —so I would like for you to tell
me ... now, one more thing I have to say. Then they came up with George H.
Green, who was going to be the "token participation." They jerked him
around for one year. Then all of a sudden they can no longer agree with
anything after one year with him. Then you come up with a group with
Joshua High and Georgia Ayres. So you divide and conquer. You have
had Goerge Green. Now you have another one. I've yet to see anything
substantive where they are going to participate in anything. So, I'd
like to know from you, since the building is open, off the top of your
head, run through your organizational chart with me and tell me at the
stage of where you are. Who is where? What his hours are and their race?
Mr. Wertz: You are asking me to trust a lot to memory.
Mr. Dawkins: That's all right. I'll take it off the top of your head.
Mr. Wertz: O.K. We have been in the Miami building now I guess about
two weeks. We have approximately 50 subscribers. Presently we have a
general manager on board. We have a controller.
Mr. Dawkins: O.K., go ahead.
Mr. Wertz: We have a director of programming. We have a sales manager.
We have a secretary. We have a receptionist. We have a director of
engineering. We have a couple of technicians and several installers.
Mr. Dawkins: A director of engineering and then what?
Mr. Wertz: Some installers.
Mr. Dawkins: And you said something before inst
Mr. Wertz: Technicians, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Technicians. So you are...
Mr. Wertz: Somewhere around 12 to 15 people.
Mr. Dawkins: The controller is what color?
Mr. Wertz: He is Anglo.
Utt; 16 1982
Mt. Dawkins: The general manager is what color?
Mr. Wertz: He is Anglo.
Mr. Dawkins: The director of programming?
Mr. Wertz: Black.
Mr. Dawkins: Sales manager?
Mr. Wertz: Latin.
Mr. Dawkins: Secretary?
Mr. Wertz: Anglo.
Mr. Dawkins: Receptionist?
Mr. Wertz: Latin.
s
r�
Mr. Dawkins: Director of engineering?
Mr. Wertz: Anglo.
Mr. Dawkins: How many technicians?
Mr. Wertz: Two presently.
Mr. Dawkins: Make-up, I mean race?
Mr. Wertz: Anglo.
Mr. Dawkins: Now we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight
positions that we are talking about.
Mr. Wertz: Well, we have four....
Mr. Dawkins: And of those eight positions you just told me one, two, three,
four are Anglo.
Mr. Wertz: If I may interrupt, there happen to be four installers. They
happen to be Black.
Mr. Dawkins: Naturally, that is the lowest paid damn thing on the bill.
That is why I did not ask you about them. I knew what they would be.
Mr. Wertz: They came out of our job training program, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: O.K., so that is your minority participation, having Black
folks learn to install. O.K., I buy that. This is my problem, see, and
it is not with you. It started with the very beginning. If you are
going to help us... and I am not trying to embarrass you in any way. I
am merely trying to get my point across. I'm just going to take three
of these. What is the salary of the controller annually?
Mr. Wertz: It is $40,000.
Mr. Dawkins: What is the salary of the director of programming?
Mr, Wertz: I believe it is $18,500.
Mr. Dawkins: He's Black. The Anglo is white and gets $40,000; the
Black at $18,000. This is why. I don't know why or what, but I'm
just showing you my concerns. I am hoping that by pointing them out
to you in some way somebody will work on those just as hard as you
worked to borrow the $31,000,000. That is my only concern.
15
DEC 16 1982
% 0
Mr, Wettz: Well, Commissioner, if 1 may, 1 would personally like to assure
YOU that we have open applications. We ate looking very hard for qualified
People. You mentioned that it's been a year. But we really have not been
in operation for a year, sir. We have only been in operation for a couple
of weeks.
Mr. Dawkins: But you knew that this day was coming. You knew that you had
to open. You knew that you had to have these people. You knew you had to
borrow the $31,000,000. You went and found banks and etc. to loan it to you.
You did not sit and wait until the day that you were going to open to find
out who was going to loan you the $31,000,000. So why do you wait until
the day that you are going to open to find a qualified Black? You should
have had him in line...I mean this is my opinion. I can't tell you how to
run it. I'm going to tell you my opinion. He should have been in place.
When you opened, he should have been there to say, "I'm here to go to work."
That's all. I'm just saying that these are my concerns. I hope that somewhere
along the lines someone will work as hard at them as we are at borrowing
$31,000,000. Thank you.
Mr.Genauer: Are there any further questions regarding the Taft transfer?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I have some, but since I am running the meeting, Commissioner
Carollo, do you have any further?
Mr. Carollo: Not at this point in time.
Mr. Plummer: Commissioner Dawkins?
Mr. Dawkins: No.
Mr. Plummer: Commissioner Perez?
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, you will be at the appropriate time. Mr. Sparkman,
Mr. Sparkman: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: I want to first express a contradictory statement to the young
lady who is now on staff. I am always concerned about litigation. I don't
want her statements to go unnoticed. I want to counteract those statements
by saying that the problems created by Taft were created by Taft; nothing
that we, the Commission, did nor TCI to my knowledge, nor Americable to my
knowledge put Taft in the jackpot. They did it themselves. They, without
obvious ignorace of the law or count of a straw ballot, went ahead and
purchased or commited to purchase Channel 6. Then suddenly found themselves
in rules and regulations that said they could not own Channel 6 and a part
of the Cable T.V. This Commission had nothing to do with that. Absolutely
nothing! So, any problems that they created are a self created hardship for
themselves. So in no way shape or form is this Commission responsible to
correct their mistake that they made themselves. So if in fact litigation
•
does occur because of whatever action this Commission takes I find it very
difficult that a judge or a jury would find a self created hardship asking
this Commission to take them off the hook... is our fault. I want that on
the record. Mr. Sparkman, I share with my colleagues here the sensitivity
that is needed in this community. I would hope that both of the joint
=
ventures would recognize the sensitivity in the community in which we live
and will correct or bring up and meet those same sensitive commitments to
this community as this Commission itself has done in the past. I hope you
can read between those lines.
Mr. Sparkman: I think I understand exactly what you are saying, sir.
r.
Mr. Plummer: Second of all, let me tell you where my great area of concern
about this transfer comes about. Mr. Sparkman, were you associated with TCI
`
71,
at the time of November '81?
Mr. Sparkman: Yes, I was.
4 �
a
1
DEC 16 196r
s
r]
Mt. Plummer: At that particular time in literally hundreds of conversations
in which we the Commission were talked to by all companies including TCI,
reason was given to me to believe that the association of Taft with your
organization was in fact that they were the bankers, that they were the people
with the money, and that TCI had not difficult problems, but TCI had been -
assimilating a great number of Cable systems and financially were rather thin.
On paper they were worth millions, billions. But if they had to buy a pack of
cigarettes, there might be a little bit of difficulty because that would take -
cash. Now I appreciate those problems in business. I understand them. But
my concern is that in November 1981 your stock on the market was worth approximately $16 -
a share. Am I in the ball park?
Mr. Sparkman: The date... it has been at that level. I'm not sure of the exact
date, sir.
Mr. Plummer: More or less. What is your stock today?
Mr. Sparkman: Yesterday it closed at $25.50.
Mr. Plummer: So it has enhanced. Now, did it have a drop since November of '81?
Mr. Sparkman: It did go down. As a matter of fact, along with all the other
cable stock went to a low of $13 and has rebounded to $25.50. That is what
it closed at yesterday.
Mr. Plummer: My concern, which has not been aleviated at this point, if
others knew as I was given reason to believe, that the financial stability
of the Taft Group with yours was in fact the source of finance, what fear
will be portrayed not only by your stockholders, but by this Commission,
that in fact they were the bankers of the group who are now exiting for
whatever reason leaving TCI without i.e. "bankers." That is a great concern
to me, sir.
Mr. Sparkman: I would like to answer your first question first, sir, if I
may and then give you an update on where TCI stands.
Mr. Plummer: As you wish.
Mr. Sparkman: I don't know who intimated that TCI was unable to raise the
cash to become a part of Miami by itself. Our association with Taft is a
large one. We own several systems in Michigan and New England as a partnership
with Taft. But as most partnerships, the money is put in on equal/equal. They
put in a dollar, we put in a dollar, so on down the line. We associated with
Taft because Taft has a large library of programming that we feel could be
very interesting to the cable business as a whole. We have two joint ventures
with Taft. We have the TCI-Taft Cable Company. We have the Taft-TCI
Programming Company. We presently jointly own a transponder on Westar Five
which we are programming. We also ... TCI-Taft is the funding of B.E.T.,
which is Black Entertainment Network in its program out of Washington, D.C.
through one of Taft studios and their stations and through the transponder
Westar rive.
As to TC1's financial stability, as of Friday of this last week we were
successful in putting out $125,000,000 offering, which is what the underwriters
have underwritten. It is now being marketed in the marketplace. So I would sav
if TCI had a financial problem I doubt if the public would, and especially
the underwriting people would underwrite an offer of this type.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, would you further state for the record that offering
was for the Miami system or for your total system?
Mr. Sparkman: The offering is for use as to TCI sees fit. I cannot say
that $125,000,000 is specifically for Miami, but that is total.
Mr. Plummer: There is a big difference.
1'7
4� 3
DEC 16 1982
$I
Mr. Sparkman: I think you will find if you talk to our banks, the bank in
New York, which is our lead bank, if not the Bank of Montreal who have been
in our offices and have gone through our company with a fine tooth comb because
in fact, they are looking at us to make sure that this $31,000,000 loan is
paid back. Whether or not the system in Miami is successful or not they
fully intend to collect their money from Mr. Hermanowski and Telecommunications.
As the money in Miami is loaned based on some projections, yes, but it is
loaned based on the financial stability of the companies involved. I will
point out that Taft has nothing to do with the loan from the Bank of Montreal
at this point in time. Their name is not mentioned in the document I do not
believe.
Mr. Plummer: That is well and good but then the question has to arise, did
at any time since the letting of the franchise by the City of Miami, (I am
only speaking as it relates to the City. I am going to get off the City in
a minute into another area) at any time did TCI make application for a
commitment of dollars to the Miami system in which it was denied or not
approved?
Mr. Sparkman: Not that I am aware of. The only application that has been
made by Mr. Hermanowski.
Mr. Plummer: Are you then indicating, for the record, that at no time you
have made application for a loan for the Miami system?
Mr. Sparkman: We, TCI?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Sparkman: We, TCI, have not directly made application for a loan. The
loan has been made under the joint venture of Americable and TCI. But we have
never. We have conversations with the bank.
Mr. Plummer: With full responsibility to the joint partnership or to
Hermanowski individually, or to Americable individually?
Mr. Sparkmen: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Plummer: Well, was the loan made by the joint venture with full
responsibility of collection to the joint venture or to Americable individually?
Mr. Sparkman: To the joint venture.
Mr. Plummer: So both are on the hook.
Mr. Sparkman: Both are on the hook.
Mr. Plummer: All right, sir.
Mr. Sparkman: We are on the hook for 50% and Mr. Hermanowski, Americable, is
on the hook 50%.
- Mr. Plummer: All right, sir, let me get into another subject. I do not
normally go after Knight-Ridder as a newspaper and I am not speaking to
them today as a newspaper. I am speaking to them as an applicant for
Cable T.V. in the city of Tampa, Florida in which you went joint venture
with Knight-Ridder and obviously had some kind of existing partnership or
proposed partnership if successful. I am concerned that Knight-Ridder is
_ presently involved with TCI in some way, shape, or form whether it is in
fact the Miami franchise or some other franchise you hold or propose to hold.
I have had a very fine discussion with one of the individuals in Tampa who
indicated to me that in fact the application of TCI-Knight-Ridder came in
fourth out of four. That in fact the application really was not an
application, that it was not given serious consideration. Thus, my concern
comes about to the final Miami franchise as to what part, if any, Knight-
Ridder plays with your company. Secondly, I am concerned that a company
that comes in fourth out of four might some day have a piece of the Miami
-_ franchise. That concerns me greatly. I wish that you would speak to that
issue.
o �V
DEC 16 1982
0
sl
Mt. Sparkman: As to the Miami franchise we have never had any discussions
With Knight=Ridder as to their participation in this franchise. As to the
Tampa application, they were an applicant in conjuction with another cable
company. I believe it is a con�lany called Telecable. Telecable determined at
the eleventh hour that they no longer wanted to participate in the franchise
application. Knight-Ridder why we ars a partner with in other things which
I will explain to you in a moment, called us, asked if we would participate.
We told them it is the eleventh hour. It is going to be difficult, but in
essence we did. You are right. We did come in fourth out of four, which it
was a bad application but we put it together in two weeks and it was unfortunate
at best. We right now have a company called TKR which we own 50% of and
Knight-Ridder owns 50% of. It presently is, as to the agreements, it is
limited in geography as to where it can go. First of all they came to us
and wanted, as did Taft, and asked us if we would participate in with some
cable companies so they could get a look at the cable business as a whole,
to which we agreed.
Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, for a minute, sir. I am sorry to interrupt you.
When did they first come to you to discuss any form of participation with you?
Mr. Sparkman: This was... the exact time I cannot say ... but it was about a
year and a half ago.
Mr. Plummer: Prior to the Miami franchise.
Mr. Sparkman: It was prior to the Miami franchise, yes. But we now own TKR,
which now owns approximately 100,000 subscribers in the State of New Jersey.
We are moving one other system into it which is Roslyn County, New York.
Mr. Plummer: That is a 50/50 venture?
Mr. Sparkman: That is a 50/50 venture. It is a venture that is not managed
by either partner. It has a board of directors, which I am a member of.
John Malone, our president, is a member of and then they have two members
on the board. As to their participation, again in the Miami franchise and
the Miami area we have a very definitive contract. It is that if we are
involved in an area we will not be able to allow the joint venture to go
into that area because it would raise a question of corporate opportunities
for Telecommunications.
Mr. Plummer: What percentage would you say that this company of TKR, what
percentage of their involvement in TCI? Would you say that they are 20%
of TCI, 10%, 50%, what?
Mr. Sparkman: TKR, as I say, has approximately 100,000 cable subscribers.
TCI has 2.4 million.
Mr. Plummer: No, sir. O.K., well, then you want me to do the mathematics.
Mr. Sparkman: Well, as far as their percentage of TCI, they do not own any
of TCI. They own nothing of TCI.
Mr. Plummer: O.K., of TCI what percentage of TCI are they involved in?
Mr. Sparkman: 100,000 subscribers are, you know, have a percent.
Mr. Plummer: But you also indicate that they are about to join hands with
you on another franchise. It is strictly... what it boils down to is when
we formed this joint venture Roslyn County, New York is owned by TCI. We
agreed and our board of Directors of Telecommunications agreed to put that
particular plan into our joint venture. It is a geographical location.
Mr. Plummer: Of course, my fear is the fact that everyone is well aware
from a financial standpoint Knight-Ridder is very successful.
Mr. Sparkman: Very strong, no question.
Mr. Plummer: And they have a cash flow that is unbelievable. The fear that
I have to have is their possible buying in and buying out TCI,
DEC 16 1982
6
st
Mrs gparkman: Let me say this. TC1 is controlled by its management stbckwise.
Out chairman, Bob Magnus, who founded the company votes a short 50%. Between
myself and Dr. Malone and Don Fisher, who is our treasurer, we can certainly
Mote stock. We restructured our company a few years ago because of knowing
that we would be a potential take over so that it takes 66 2/3% of the votes
of our stockholders to sell our company. The reason being that as the chairman
said and I have said, we did not work this damn hard to build it to sell it.
I would hope my heirs get a little out of it because all I have so far is a
lot of hard work. That is where we stand. Our particular company, if you
start checking the cash flow and it uses industry cash flow, our company in
cash flow in 1982 will have approximately $130,000,000 in cash flow, which is
not a company that is losing money. We are not losing money.
Mayor Ferre: Any further questions? If not, Mr. Friedman, I will recognize
you for your statement.
Mr. Friedman: Gentlemen, as I understand this it, this is on a petition of
Taft. I believe Taft has no standing.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Friedman, just for the record, we need your full name and
address, and who you represent.
Mr. Julius I. Friedman: Julius I. Friedman, 12490 N.E. 7 Avenue, North Miami,
Florida. I represent Sable Cable Communication Company, Inc. which is presently
involved in litigation in the circuit court with the licensees.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Friedman, who is Sable Cable Company?
Mr. Friedman: Sable Cable Company is the assignee of George Green under a
contract with the licensees for the award of the Black Programming Channel.
Mr. Carollo: I believe I have heard that name before.
Mr. Friedman: Yes, sir, I guess you will hear it again too. Now, as I
understand it this is a petition by Taft. Under the ordinance Taft has no
standing to come into before this Commission for approval of anything. The
ordinance provides, number one, "the word shall is mandatory and is not
directive." You have to excuse me. My sight is impaired. But permit me
to read from your ordinance.
"The licensee shall promptly notify the City of an actual
or proposed change in control of ownership of the licensee."
Consequently you can only deal with the licensee for any change of ownership or
control. I suggest that any action on petition of Taft might subject the
City to answer to the licensees who have the sole, exclusive right to come
in and petition for a proposed change of ownership. I must propose, so
I suggest that you defer any action until the licensee comes in for the
change of ownership.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Pedrosa, you have heard the comments and allegations. Would
you like to address that, sir.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Vice Mayor, the ordinance 9332 does provide the
notification shall be by the licensee.
Mr. Plummer: Is then your conclusion drawn, sir, that action before this
Commission today is not proper?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am not certain whether the licensee has or has not
played a role in this notification. I would say that if he has not, then
there is a technical deficiency.
Mr. Plummer: I think it behooves this City Attorney to determine whether
or not he has or has not.
Unidentified Speaker: If I may, I would like to....
Mr. Plummer: Sir, we pay him. We don't pay you.
,t
,zt
20
DEC 16 1982
0
$I
Mt, Caieia4edrosa: The problem I have, Mr. Vice -Mayor, is I believe touft§dI
has identified himself previously as representing any and all parties, if
that be the case, why he is here on behalf of the licensee as well. 1 just
don't have that independently.
Mr. Friedman: I think we should stick on the record....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Friedman, excuse me, sir. Mr. Pedrosa, 1 would strongly
suggest, sir, that you ask whatever questions are necessary on the teeord
to make that determination to assure this Commission that this is either
before us properly or not so, sir.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: O.K., Mr. Genauer, are you here on behalf of the lioattaee
as well as other parties?
Mr. Genauer: Yes, I am. In fact, in the letters I have submitted to the
City Manager on this matter and the proposed ordinance that was prepared
as a result of those letters I firmly stated that I was here on behalf of
TCI-Taft Cablevision Associates, which is the controlling partner of
Miami TCI, which is the licensee. The request in fact is not that Taft
Broadcasting Company be able to sell its shares. The request is that
TCI-Taft Cablevision Associates, the controlling shareholder of Miami-
TCI, be permitted to sell its shares to TCI Development Corporation, another
subsidiary of Telecommunications, Inc.
I have only been using Taft Broadcasting Company so that it would be
a little simpler for people to understand the purpose behind what is going
on. But the technicalities are the way I just expressed them.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Are you making this request on behalf of the licensee?
Mr. Genauer: I am making this request on behalf of the licensee.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I think that would comply with the
ordinance.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Pedrosa.
Mr. Friedman: May I be heard aeain? _
Mr. Plummer: You will be, sir. Mr. Pedrosa, I think that to clarify and
make absolutely certain that those same questions should be asked of Mr.
Sparkman and of Mr. Wertz; that they concur that this gentleman is in fact
representing them as the license holder.
Mr. Sparkman: He certainly represents....
Mr. Plummer: For the record, your name, sir.
Mr. Sparkman: My name is J.C. Sparkman. He is representing us as the licensee.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Wertz.
Mr. Wertz: My name is Bill Wertz. To the best of my knowledge that is correct.
He is representing TCI.
Mr. Plummer: That was not the question, sir. The question was is he representing
the Miami Franchise?
Mr. Wertz: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: He speaks for you as well as for TCI?
Mr. Wertz: In this matter, that is correct, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, are you willing now to give a determination
as to whether or not you feel this is properly before this Commission?
1
DEC 16 1982
Mr. Gatcia-Pedrosa: Yes, sift I think it is in litre with the tequitettents Of
the ordinance.
Mt. Plummer: Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman: Yes, may I suggest that only the licensee may come before this
body for determination and the licensee is not TCI. It's a joint venture of
two entities, a part limited partnership and Miami Cables Communication. Until
this Commission has this petition proposed by these two parties as the licensee,
the joint venture, it will be acting improperly and I suggest, exposing itself
to damages.
Mayor Ferre: Let the record reflect that after questions by Commissioner
Plummer that the Chair rules according to the advice given by the City
Counsel that the licensee....
Mr. Plummer: The City Attorney.
Mayor Ferre: ....by the City Attorney, the licensee is properly before us
at this time. Any further questions? Where are we now? What is the will
of this Commission on this matter? Are there any further questions on item
"B"? If not, the Chair will accept a motion one way or the other.
Mr. Plummer: I want to tell you it has been a long time since I have heard
Dawkins this quiet. It is obviously not "Miller time."
Mayor Ferre: All right, for the last time because we really have a very long....
Mr. Plummer: Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. So
the funeral director will always make you a motion.
Mayor Ferre: All right, funeral director.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, in my examination this morning, even though I do
have some concerns, I find nothing in the record established here this
morning that would be a reasonable ground for withholding or denying of
this request. I think we all have our problems in different areas and they
are problems and will continue to be problems to the present franchise
holder. I hope if nothing more that it is taken noted this morning that
there are concerns that need and must be addressed. But those are not legal
reasons, as I see them, under the definition for withholding of this request
of a transfer. As such, I then make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we approve
the transfer.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: After that long dissertation by the funeral director and knowing
how he says that people have to die to get to heaven and he has business
I will second the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Is there further discussion on the item?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, better than that, I want Commissioner Dawkins to realize
that I am the only one licensed in the City of Miami to sell one way tickets.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll.
DEC 16 1982
sl
6 0
NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ABSENT: None.
6. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 4000,
4040, 4050 VEST FL%GLER STREET FROM R-4 TO C-2.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item "C" but out of deference to Commissioner
Harvey Ruvin, who I know has some government business pending we are going
to take ... we do this as a matter of legislative courtesy in all governing
bodies. It is a long standing tradition in the City of Miami and Dade County
that whenever a government official is involved that he has government business
that we get him out of here as quickly as posible.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Gary: The Mayor and the City Commission directed me to go before Dade
County with regard to assisting Dade County and understanding the Park
West, Overtown plan. Since Mr. Ruvin is here and I was your representative,
Dade County was very supportive of the plan. It approved unanimously and
Mr. Ruvin was one of the catalysts in that occurence. I just wanted to let
you know that you may want to thank him at this time.
Mr. Plummer: And also, Mr. Mayor, since I know that next Tuesday Mr. Ruvin
is going to support Miami's request for their legitimate $250,000 for tourism
that they owe us from the past year, I don't think that we should delay him
to get back and do his research of why he is supporting that issue.
Mayor Ferre: Well, we have two tasks. One to thank you and the other one
to thank you in advance. All right, Commissioner, what item are you here on?
Mr. Harvey Ruvin: Mr. Mayor, Members of Board, we are here on item number 3
of your zoning agenda representing Lester G. Kates, etc.
Mr, Plummer: Who were the others that you are representing?
Mr, Ruvin: Lester G. Kates is the trustee. He was the original applicant,
That application has been enlarged through the joinder of other property
in the area listed....
3
DEC 161982
Mr. Ruvin: ....on the page. As a result of objections that were made origiftaiiy
by your staff and others in trying to improve the application, there were others
that happened to be next door that are now part of the application. They are
listed on your agenda. If you would like me to, J.L., if you are going to put
me to it, I'd be glad to read them.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, I am well aware of, and let the record reflect that
even though your client is a continual and continuing harassment to me in
everything that I do personally, that I hold no animosity and will vote on
this strictly on the merits of the case. If there is ever a time that I
would be very close to abstaining from a vote because of personal feelings
it is on this case because of who you represent. But I want to assure you
that I will not vote based on my personal feelings as to your client.
Furthermore, I have a note that has been sent out to me here that the
lawyer on item number 35 has to catch a plane. Is there anybody else that
has an emergency of that nature? By that I mean a hospital or catching planes
or something... Please, I do this at every meeting. I hope that the people
involved do not abuse this, but there are legitimate emergencies and if
there are any others that are present I will consider them if you will give
the Clerk a note. All right, Commissioner.
Mr. Ruvin: I would first of all like to preface my comments by saying that
your staff, and particularly your City Manager, has exhibited the kind of
partnership energies that I think will make the joint efforts of the County
and the City really aim steadfastly at the success, particularly with regard
to that project and others that we are working on. It is a privilege for me
to be in the position that I am to be able to work in that kind of a manner
with your staff. Unfortunately, our charter does not provide the outrageous
salaries that yours do, so some of us have to earn a living. I am here
wearing a hat that is separate and apart from that which preceeded my
standing here today. As I said, I represent Mr. Kates and the other
applicants. We have appeared before your Zoning Board. I would like to
give you a little bit of history. Originally the application was only in
the name of Lester G. Kates representing Frank Mestre and others. For
RC zoning on the easterly lots on the two groups of lots that are involved
here. We met with your Planning Department, with your Building Department.
As a result of those conversations sought to enlarge the proposal by joining
the property owners immediately to our west so that we would then be totally
contiguous to C-2 zoning and the size of the property, the lot frontage would
be more consistent with your master plan, with the goals of your Planning
Department. Thre were other changes that occurred as well. In an effort
to bring our application in compliance, the two northerly lots that border
the RU 'zoning to the north were dropped from the application. It is our
intent to come in with a conditional use request for that. So with those
two changes I believe we brought the request within the goals and objectives
of your master plan and the primary original objections of your Planning
Department. We also had a problem in that originally we had some people
come to the Zoning Hearing because of an improper or an incorrect advertisement
throwing in some odd lots that actually existed in the interior of this RU-1
development to the north. That was also corrected at the Zoning Appeals Board.
I believe that all of those matters in addition to our making a further
agreement after meeting with the people that were here protesting to fully
covenant to build according to the plans that we originally filed under the
RC request. All of those things added up I believe to the final result, which
was a seven to nothing vote before your Zoning Appeals Board. The covenant
has been prepared with consultation of Mr. Percy and we would certainly have
that fully executed with a check covering all recording costs at the time of
the second reading of this proposal. Soon that basis, I will sit down or
Mt. kichard Whipple: Mir. Mayor, Commissioners# the statements made by Mt,
Ruvin are correct. The application was considerably improved from its
otiginal concept. We do have however, a concern with respect to adding
commercial zoning and adding it, if you will, to the east and out of context
with the zoning that exists north of the property and east of the property,
go we are still not in favor of the C-2 zoning as being requested and did
recommend denial.
Mayor Ferre: Questions from the Commission?
Mr. Plummer: Are there any opponents?
Mr.
Carollo:
Mr.
Whipple, directly across
into both sides this Zarlifig in thato
is
R-4, correct?
Mr.
Whipple:
It
is RC to the north and R-4
to the ease.
r
Mr.
Plummer:
No.
Mr.
Carollo:
So
it is RC to the north.
Mr.
Whipple:
R-4
to the east and RC to the
north,
Mr.
Carollo:
The
green lots, what is their
zoning presently, the green?
Mr.
Whipple:
The
green is R-4, sir,
Mr.
Carollo:
R-4.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, oh, yes, yes, I see.
Mr. Whipple: See, the R-4 comes down around from the other side with the RC
on top.
Mr. Carollo: I see, so there is no C-2 anywhere around either across the
street or to the side of it?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, there is.
Mr. Whipple: I will point out... it is C-2 where Mr. Perez is pointing to
the west and to the northwest is C-2. In other words, it is an extension
of the existing C-2 that exists west of the property.
Mr. Gary: Well, hold on, Commissioner Carollo, let us draw little lines where
C-2 exists.
Mr. Carollo: Why don't you do that for me.
Mr.
Whipple:
I you will refer to the sketch attached to the fact
sheet
I
—
think it shows where the C-2 is, Commissioner Carollo.
•
Mr.
Plummer:
In other words, it is C-2 contiguous to the west.
_
Mr.
Whipple:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Carollo:
Right to the left of it, that lot 1, 2, 5, 41 5, and
6..0
Mr.
Whipple:
Of lot 1, yes, sir.
Mr.
Plummer:
Is the line where the ... put your pencil over a little
bit
further;
the
next block.
Is that Le Jeune Road?
Mr.
Whipple:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Ruvin:
Yes, it is.
.�,
Mr.
Plummer:
That is Le Jeune Road,
Mr.
Whipple:
Yes, six.
1
25
=_ s
DEC
1 61982
-p
i
0
Mt, Plummer: So right there where from 1-6 in the C=2 is where thAt building is
With the underground parking and the filling station?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, the brick building.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Ruvin, what is proposed by your client to be placed on
that property? Excuse me, Commissioner Carollo, did you get all the answers?
Are you finished?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Ruvin, what is proposed by your client?
Mr. Ruvin: Mr. Eddie Francis, the architect, is here with me today. This is
a rendering of the building that is proposed on the lot. It will be totally
offices and no storefronts or no retail outlets will be permitted. That will
all be part of the covenant that we will have prepared and submitted before
you by the time second reading comes. That was one of the key objections that
the people in the area had. They felt they were fearful of that kind of
commercial development going into that building. On those assurances we
felt that we had safeguarded them. The three lots that are shown in green
there,I am advised actually was the subject of rezoning and currently is
the site of a medical office building. That is not respon,�;ve to your
question. I just added that because I wanted to make sure that there wasn't
any misleading aspect on the map.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any opponents that are here that wish to speak?
Those that are opponents that wish to speak, please step forward.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I ask one other question, please?
Mayor Ferre: Will the opponents step forward so that we will have you here?
If there is a spokesman for you, that is fine. Otherwise, I will recognize
whomever wishes to speak.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple, I see a rendering and since there are indicated
to me that this is a professional building, why would the classification of
RC not be applicable in allowing them to build what they are proposing?
Mr. Whipple: I would believe that would be a matter of intensity of development.
The use would be permitted by RC, an office building. It would, however, limit
the floor area ratio to a 1.5 where 2.0 would be permitted in the C-2 zone.
It would also, the RC would be subject to additional set backs and lot coverage
considerations that would not be present in the C-2. So I am making the
assumption that their plans would not per se meet the RC classification.
Mr. Ruvin: Mr. Mayor, if I may just add one thing to that response. ks I
said before even though have joined these additional property owners we have
from the very beginning tendered a covenant which would in essence go ahead
with development in the context of a lesser included zoning category, RC-1.
C-1 would still be all right in terms of being able to build this building.
I'm told that the difference in the usage that one would only permit a
professional office kind of clientele. The other would be a broader type of
clientele would be the key feature that the applicant wants to retain at
this point so that he would not be limited to that as his total clientele.
Also they feel that they have been able to adjust the same building on the
property to provide for three more parking places and therefore these are
the C-2 as requested or C-1 would certainly be applicable and appropriate
with the building that they propose to build.
Mr. Plummer: I think, Harvey, that the fear, as you well know, is once you
change the zoning what you propose today does not bind you tomorrow.
Mr. Plummer: Is it at the City Attorney's office?
Mr. Ruvin: I have conferred with the City Attorney and we agree that ptiat
to the second reading we would have in your hands....
Mr. Plummer: Have the opponents....
Mr. Ruvin: ....totally executed....
Mr. Plummer: Have the opponents seen the covenant?
Mr. Ruvin: I think the opponents have not seen the covenant. We have
discussed the covenant with them. It was on that basis, at least with
regard to that part of the application that I speak to now that the
covenant would cover, I think you will find that their objections were
eliminated with regard to that part of it.
Mr. Plummer: All right, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let us hear from the opponents. Your name and
address for the record.
Mrs. Kolberg: Mrs. Kolberg, I live at 15 S.W. 40 Avenue. I have lived
there for 26 years, so I am well aware....
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, would you repeat that address?
Mrs. Kolberg: 15 S.W. 40 Avenue. I have lived there for 26 years, so you
know I must like the neighborhood to stay there. I am very much opposed to
the C-2 zoning for these particular lots 1-6. I don't think it is necessary
for them to use that in building an office building. Lots 1, 2, and 3
already have multiple dwellings on them so I don't see the need to change
it to C-2.
Mr. Plummer: Question, to speak more to the issue as it has been defined
this morning, you have seen the rendering of the building?
Mrs. Kolberg: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Are you opposed to that?
Mrs. Kolberg: It is a very large building for that lot. It will create
more traffic in the area. We have enough problems there now.
Mr. Plummer: O.K.
Mayor Ferre: The next speaker.
Mr. Jose Gonzalez: Jose Gonzalez, I live at 16 S.W. 40 Avenue. The reason
that I am opposing the C-2 is for the same reason that they expressed before.
They can do anything they wish. A: it is, to build that office building
right now, they do not have to change the zoning. On lots 1, 2, and 3
apartment buildings are built there right now. They have been there for
a long time. I don't see any reason to change the zoning unless something
else is going to be there.
Mayor Ferre: Any other opponents who wish to speak?
Mr. Gonzalez: Let me say that I am not opposed to the building itself as
long as it goes under the present zoning, under which they could build it.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Commissioner.
2/
DEC 1 61982
Mt, twin! The rebuttal that I would offer is that with regard to the lots
that lie to the east, -those owned by the Kates group and those to which will
be the subject matter of the covenant, if we are not able to secure the
zoning that we have now what will go there based upon the R-4 residential
zoning will be much more intense from a standpoint of the traffic pollution
and use after hours in particular for the neighborhood. So I think it
represents a great possitive change in the neighborhood and since we are
willing to tie our covenant to the plan that they have seen, I think you
will find that is a reasonable response.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Whipple. Did he leave?
Mr. Plummer: No, he is here. He is having a caucus with the City Attorney+
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Ripple...Mr. Whipple.
Mr. Plummer: Ripple! That's a wine.
LAUGHTER
Mayor Ferre: I was thinking of the ripple effects that this would have on
the community. I wanted to ask you since your basic statement is the C-2
zoning could seriously impact the residential area to the south especially
in light of the fact that R-1 lots are included in the request change. The
change is not in accord with the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ruvin: That has been changed, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Whipple: Those two lots were removed from the application, Mr. Mayor.
That is part of the change that Mr. Ruvin alluded to earlier.
Mayor Ferre: I see.
Mr. Whipple: The concern again is one of potential commercial development.
The covenant has been proffered for three of the lots, but does not include
_ the other three. For instance, and we don't see the need for additional
commercial development, as such retail commercial activity which C-2 would
permit.
Mayor Ferre: Is the traditional problem that exists on all these things where
you have the need of the commercial sector and there is no question that
Flagler is quickly developing into a commercial area, what could they do
with R-4 that would be different?
Mr. Whipple: The R-4 would not permit office development per se. It would
allow conditional use consideration for dental and medical facilities, but
no other type of office.
Mayor Ferre: Could they build this building under R...they can't build this
building under R-4?
Mr. Whipple: Again, when you go to either an RC or R-4 classifications, you
are talking about set backs, a lesser floor area ratio, and more restrictions
than what a commercial zoning has. Although I have not reviewed the plans, it
appears as such that the additional area is needed. They cannot, or elect
not to provide the set backs which would be required of an RC or an R-4.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple.
Mr. Ruvin:
The only reason that we went ... excuse me, J.L.
l 1
DEC 161982
•
1i
Mfg IUMor : Excuse me, at the County you ate boss. Mr. Whipple, t think
what needs to be said and I think the Mayor was alluding to is if in fact
they were to build a building complying with the present zoning, the At 4,
I think what we need to know is what density, what height could they presently
legally build under the classification that presently exists. I am assuming
that it is a joint venture so that is lots 1 through 6 would be taken in
to the application. Could they build a three story, a ten story?
Mr. Whipple: Let's start with the use. The use would be restricted to
multiple family development.
Mr. Plummer: That we understand.
Mr. Whipple: As to intensity, the R-4 is a 1.0 or a 1.1, depending upon the
size of the units to be developed. As far as height that is a relationship
with the set backs. I would think that we are probably talking in the vicinity
of five or six stories as the maximum height to meet the required set backs
in that district.
Mr. Ruvin: That is under the R-4.
Mr. Whipple: Under R-4, that is right.
Mr. Ruvin: Mr. Plummer, the reason we changed the application to C-2 is
simply because it appeared to us to be the logical application since with
the joinder of those additional property owners we now were contiguous to
an already zoned parcel of C-2., a large C-2 to the west.
Mr. Plummer: What kind of height, Mr. Whipple, could they build to in an
RC classification? I realize that this is off the top of your head.
Mr. Whipple: You are probably talking about a couple or three additional
floors, perhaps seven or eight story range. In that case the critical point
would be the rear set back that is required when you are adjacent to residential
development.
Mr. Plummer: The final question: I know we are in the process, but where
are we presently today on transitional use?
Mr. Whipple: The transitional use would be applicable if the zoning is changed
to lots 7 and 8 immediately below 4, 5, and 6 and it would be available to lots
13 and 14 below lots 1, 2, and 3. It is still in effect and it is proposed.
Mayor Eerre: That is the thing that worries me the most of this whole thing.
Mr. Plummer: There is a way to get around that.
Mayor Ferre: See, there is no question that Flagler Street is basically a
commercial area. But the problem that I have with all of this is that, you
know, when you get into... and this really is not spot zoning because there
is a C-2 immediately adjacent to it, but I think we have this problem that
if we permit this, you are just furthering the whole process of C-2 intrusion
into a residential area, which is R-1. And so the question is of one of lesser
evils. It is not as if these people don't have any alternatives. With an
R-4 classification they can build a major building there, even higher. The
question is that they would have some set backs and the reason that they would
have to have these set backs is to protect the neighborhood. These neighbors,
you see, the people that are here are the people that live in lots, 8, 9, 13,
12...all those little red spots are people that have homes in the area and
who are affected by this. So the question is what happen to their rights?
The other side of it, ladies and gentlemen of the neighborhood, is that
something is going to happen to that property one way or the other. You
understand that they are going to build a building. Are you better off with
a smaller building under C-2 than a bigger building which is probably what
they are going to end up putting up under the present zoning without any
zoning variances?
INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
29
s DEC 1 61982
Mayes' Verre! If I were a neighbor, of course I can't tell you how to feel,
but if I were a neighbor, and I learned that pretty well on Tuesday, but if
Iwete....
Mr. Plummer: I have to ask the question, is it true that Braman called you
and offered you a penny for your thoughts?
Mayor Ferre: Yes. I have to tell you that if I were a neighbor in that
particular neighborhood, I would rather have a smaller building than a
bigger building. I think that is what is going to be achieved if we let
them do that. But the problem, Harvey, is not your building but what
comes next. You see, because once we give you, then obviously the next
block would also have....
Mr. Ruvin: The next block is already C-2.
Mayor Ferre: And the one underneath, 7, 8, 14, 13.
Mr. Ruvin: I think the key to what I regard as the acceptability of our
application is that we have changed it to withdraw those lots that buffer
directly to the residential areas to the north. What we have left is....
Mr. Plummer: To the north or to the south?
Mr. Ruvin: ....is a totally consistent piece of zoning now that if you grant it
would create a homogeneous C-2 along that path there from Le Jeune all the way
over to 4Oth. That, I think, would make much more sense from a purely Planning
standpoint.
Mayor Ferre: Actually to 39th, because it is a C-2 all the way to 39th.
Mr. Ruvin: All right, 39th, right; it is already there. Originally one of
the objections to our simple RC application for the half of the application
that we started with originally, one of the objections was that would create
a spot zone where the Shepnik and Gordon properties are. That if we bring
them in that would make it more consistent with the goals of the master plan
and you would eliminate the potential spot zone. So, in trying to do that,
we did that.
Mayor Ferre: What is the will of this Commission?
Mr. Perez: Could I ask Mr. Perez-Lugones, what kind of modification did the
applicant make at the time of the Zoning Board Hearing? I think that they
requested modifications. Are you familiar with that one?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: They deleted two lots: one whole lot, lot 7 and the
the north 14 feet of lot 8, that they own and they had originally included
in the application. But later on they agreed not to include those two lots.
Mr. Ruvin: Mr. Perez, that was done to eliminate what was really a valid
objection, that would actully intrude. If we had kept that in, I think
that would have been an intrusion into the residential area. But the way
that we are now going, I think, has met that objection in large part. I
don't think that it can be said that we are intruding. We would just simply
be, if the Commission in its wisdom approves our application, they would
simply be doing the logical step from what now currently exists as C-2
zoning to our immediate west and to the east of Le Jeune along Flagler,
which the Mayor has, I think correctly, characterized as an already established
commercial area. I think that if we were to build the R-4, we would be
impacting this neighborhood much more harshly in terms of traffic and in
terms of having an additional activity in the area after the hours that
offices would normally be open.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, I have not seen the covenant. Does the
covenant in any way speak to the waiver of their right of the transitional
use?
Mr. Terry Percy: I do not believe that specifically that provision is included,
but we could insure that it does prior to second reading.
DEC 16 1982
G
•
Mt. Plumet: You can only assure if they volunteer it.
Mr. Percy: 1 would certainly request it.
fs 1
I
s
rv: �
t � 4
r
Mr. Ruvin: You need not request it because I voluntarily ptoffef it td YdU
at this time. We definitely will include that. That will be a patt of the
covenant when this matter again graces your table for second reading.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask one further question. In a nut shell what does the
covenant presently surrendered speak to?
Mr. Ruvin: The covenant, as it will be prepared, oh, excuse me....
Mr. Percy: What we provided the applicant with, Commissioner, is a form
covenant that is acceptable to the Planning and the Law Departments' previous
applications of this sort. What it does, it limits the site to encompass
the concerns of the neighbors and the recommendations of the Planning Department.
So the covenant does not have a boiler plate provision, but is modified to
accomplish the specific site here. It would limit it to office use and to the
density that has been suggested. We don't have it in final form, but just a
form in general is acceptable.
Mr. Ruvin: We would even go a step further and limit it to the specific building
that we have talked about and that we have proposed in the drawings that we
submitted. So we are really waiving anything but that project that we represented
that we are going to do. So this is a case, actually, where the so-called
pretty plan is something that is tied in lot and perpetuity to the land.
Mayor Ferre: All right, where are we now?
Mr. Plummer: On item 3.
Mayor Ferre: Where are we? Go ahead, we need to move along now.
Mr. Gonzalez: My question is this: if they can build the building as it is
right now on lots 4, 5, and 6 why do they have to change 1, 2, 3 which is
apartment units and also 4, 5, and 6?
Mr. Plummer: Only the applicant can answer that.
Mr. Gonzalez: Unless there is something else coming in 1, 2, and 3.
Mr. Ruvin: The answer to that is, as I said before, those additional lots
and those additional property owners were joined after meeting with your
staff to overcome the objections with regarding the creation of spot zone
that may have existed if that was not part of the application. It also
extended the application to run contiguous to the already existing the
C-2 that exists.
that
hatever
and 3
ill
Mr. Dawkins: Do I down sond you to thatcan puts ayhigherwbuilding?s Inthink, w
not be pushed that is the
gentleman's question.
Mr. Ruvin: Will not be... I'm not sure....
Mr. Dawkins: Torn down, pushed down, demolished, etc.
Mayor Ferre: The apartment building in 1, 2, and 3.
Mr. Ruvin: Wlthisregard
the presentlintentionrepresent
those peuplethat
to.will .be A
the future.
Mr. Dawkins: But it is quite possible that they might change their minds.
DEC 1 61982
Mr, Ruvin: No, no, what exists now on those lots...those are lots that Ara
owned by the Shepniks and the Gordons. They were added to the....
Mr. Dawkins: By who now?
Mr. Ruvin: By the Shepniks and the Gordons.
Mr. Dawkins: O.K.
Mr. Ruvin: They are currently operating an apartment house there mainly for
elderly people. They have said that they do not wish to change the operation
of that. But they feel that it appreciates the value of their property to
join in this proposal. The original applicants are bearing the total cost of
the proposal. They .just felt that rather than come in here and object, that
they would join in so that we would have a consistent application.
Mayor Ferre: O.K., we have to move along now. So where are we? What is the
will of this Commission?
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I wish to agree with the action taken by the Zoning
Board. I agree to the original recommendation to approve this application.
I understand that a change to C-2 would not affect the quality of life on
this neighborhood and I propose and I move that this case be approved.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: It has been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Call the
roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 2, STADLER GROVE (9-187),
ALSO DESCRIBED AS 4000-40-50 WEST FLAGLER STREET,
FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING) TO C-2
(COMMUNITY CO','t4ERCIAL); AND BY MAKING ALL THE
NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE
A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF, BY
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF
IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez, and seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
ar Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: I am going to vote favorably today. I have not seen the covenant.
I am only voting favorably to let the clock start running. I want it fully
understood that in no way does this preclude my changing my vote at the time
of second reading.
t
32
DEC 1 61982
0
2
7. DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY: APPEAL BY PLA,v'NI`+G DEPART.-H-."T OF �7ARIAINCE
GRANTED TO PERIMIT CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT
1198 SOUTH BATSHORE DRIVE (NO ACTION TA -KEN).
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item 35. The Chair recognizes the Administration.
All right, Mr. McManus, are you going to make the presentation?
Mr. McManus: Mr. Whipple will be making the presentation.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, this item was deferred at the last
meeting because there was a certain amount of confusion as to figures that
were being recited by the applicant and the Planning Department. The
Planning Department pointed out to you what we felt was the basic problem
with this request in that we had a brand new revised RCB zoning district,
which was considerably liberalized from what it used to be. With our
concern being, here we are just coming out of the box and right away
we are back into the variance routine which we were trying to avoid with
the revision to the RCB district. In your packet handed out as a supplement
to item number 35, we did prepare a short table indicating three or four
basic items in relation to the development permitted. Those being floor
area ratio, lot coverage, yard set backs, parking, and open space. We
did three columns: one showing what the old RCB would permit; second
column, what the new RCB permits; third column, what the request of the
applicant is. I call your attention to one error on my part in that the
final request for the applicant as far as floor area ratio goes was 3.517
and not 3.613 as indicated in our table. The square footage is 101,114;
not 103,872.
Now, as you noted at the last meeting there is not a significant
difference in the floor area as such. But there is a considerable difference
in the lot coverage. And there are considerable differences in what was
previously permitted under the old RCB and what is permitted today.
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, just if I may call the attention of the Commission.
The table I am referring to is this table. Perhaps if you followed me along
with just a couple more comments on it. Summarizing this table the floor
area ratio, and I am talking about the old and the new for a moment, the
floor area ratio was doubled 1.5 to 3.0 base. The lot coverage was doubled
10% to 20%. Set backs were considerably relieved so that now only a base
set back of what was previously required is required under the new ordinance
and the parking and open spaces are about the same. It is true that this
application does not represent a great increase in floor area. It does
represent a great increase in lot coverage. We feel the regulations are
appropriate. We feel that the proposed coverage is excessive and that
the variances ought to be denied.
Mr. Al Cardenas: Thank you, if I may, my name is Al Cardenas. I am the
attorney representing the developer who prevailed as you may remember in
=
the Zoning Board. I think it is important to have a little bit of a
=
chronological background as to how this matter got before you today. The
RCB ordinance which was adopted, my client and ourselves feel it is a sound
ordinance. The problem with the ordinance is that insofar as this particular
lot is concerned, it does not apply, it does not make sense. We worked together
-
with...we have been working together with the City for over one year on this
matter. We took up to the Urban Development Review Board three separate
scaled down version of the concept until such point as the Urban Development
Review Board felt satisfied with the project we had available. It voted
s
5-0 in our favor in the concept that was presented to them. Subsequent to
a
that time we went up before the Zoning Board. When we went up before the
Zoning Board our argument for the variances, of course, was basic. It is
a basic law of zoning. That is that this particular lot size and shape is
E
so much different than a typical lot size and shape within that particular
R
zoning classification that it made this a very particular problem and a
e
strict enforcement of the ordinance would deny us a reasonable use of the
property. This is the RCB ordinance involving Brickell Avenue around the
s3302C
1 61982
Mr. Al Cardenas (CON'T): Four Ambassador area that you are all familiar with.
Most of these structures are built on lots which are 1000000 to 200,000 square
feet. This particular lot is 28,000 square feet. In addition to that it is
L=shaped lot and it has an odd configuration. What we had to do was work
around two things which are very basic, a very small size lot for that
particular district and a very odd shaped lot for that particular district.
Working with the Zoning Board on this, they made a correction which we made
and it is not reflected in the Planning Board's memorandum that was submitted
to you. Basically the argument before the Zoning Board was we wanted an
F.A.R. of 3.613. After an hour and half presentation the Zoning Board said,
"Look, we agree with you that you are unreasonably denied the use of your
property because of the shape of the lot. What we are going to do is we
are going to allow you to have an F.A.R. which would have been the same
F.A.R. had your lot been rectangular, the same square footage. Had that
lot been rectangular you would have been entitled to an F.A.R. of 3.517.
We agreed with the Zoning Board. During the meeting we agreed to scale
down their request for F.A.R. That was accepted by the Zoning Board. So
it is not the 3.613 that the Planning Department is stating here. It is
3.517. Let me basically tell you that is not the whole story. If you take
all the bonus provisions that are provided in the ordinance, we could have
had an F.A.R. of 5.76. We could have built a building in excess of .165,000
square feet. In reality what we will build is something that is around
100,000 square feet, which is significantly less and hopefully even below
the 3.517. If you might recall, I think about three weeks ago I came before
this Commission and the City agreed to deed a small piece of property to
the developer in exchange, which was really a no-man's land. What that in
effect did is that it even further lowered the 3.517. So in reality what
we are talking about is the difference in building about 1,500 or 2,000
square feet from what the statutory F.A.R. allows. I think the Zoning
Board was more than reasonable in granting this variance. It granted it
based on the odd size shape of the particular lot. As far as the lot
coverage is concerned, yes, a variance was granted. And yes, there was
meritorious reason for it. It was discussed at length. The ordinance
provides for a 30% lot coverage whenever you have a parking structure
located within the building structure itself. What we actually did is
we incorporated this concept as closely as possible to the spirit of the
ordinance and spent an amount in excess of $500,000. We agreed to spend
to make the facade of the building look totally the same so that in effect
this would be one contiguous building. The net effect would be that it
would be in compliance with the spirit of the 30% provision. Let me show
you what we mean here. Here is an architectural rendering of what this
building would look like. This is the facade that I am talking to you about,
which is an investment on the part of the developer in excess of $500,000
which would be in keeping with the intent of the 30% lot coverage.
Mayor Ferre: Now that is looking at it from what is now the Hemsley property,
right? This is looking at it catty -cornered.
Mr. Cardenas: This is directly diagonal to the Channel 6 property.
Mayor Ferre: No, no, the perspective shown here, we are now looking in a
westerly direction.
Mr. Cardenas: You are right, from the Hemsley property. That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: Towards Brickell Avenue to what is now the Hemsley property.
Mr. Cardenas: That is correct. This is what the building could have looked
like had we not decided to make this commitment to the facade we could have
had a structure which looked like this, but we felt it was not in keeping
with the intent of the 30% lot coverage. As such decided to make the
additional investiture so that the structure would look like this.
DEC 16 1982
f � d-
i
MAYdt Vdrre! I think that is a gteat ittprovetient. I tell you. I don't havt
any ptoblems...if I can interrupt your ptesentation...with the additional
V,A.lt. of 3.61 nor do I have any substantial problem with the lot coverage
because of what you are doing here and because of where this is in patticulat.
I do have a problem with your set back. I have a problem with that 5 foot
set back.
Mr. Cardenas: Let me go over that, Mayor, because the reason why the set
back is required, even the Planning Board at the Zoning Board presentation
did not object to it that strenously is because it is an engineering
necessity. The lot size is so small, and I think Mr. Candela would be
the best one to depict it, but the lot size is so small that when we come
up with....
Mayor Ferre: Show me where the west side would be where you have to set
back 5 feet.
Mr. Cardenas: Iladio, do you want to take over outlining this?
Mayor Ferre: Where is the five foot set back?
Mr. Cardenas: Right here.
Mayor Ferre: ....that the law would require.
Mr. Cardenas: Right here.
Mayor Ferre: Who owns the property next door? I mean is that going to be
a building too? Are they going to go up to the property line or...?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes and no, Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Well, it is either yes or nol
Mr. Cardenas: Right, the building is not going to have a set back. It is
just a wall. In other words, we are not requesting a set back for the
building structure itself.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see. The building itself does not go....
Mr. Cardenas: It does not necessitate a set back. That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: ....I see. The building itself does not go to the property line.
It is just that you are putting up a wall at that point.
Mr. Cardenas: A curb.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see.
• Mr. Cardenas: It is a two foot curb or three foot curb.
Mr. Plummer: Or an eight foot curb.
Mayor Ferre: All right, do you have a response?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a couple of points if I
could. First off, to reiterate the point that the Department did appeal
this item. The purpose of appealing the item is that we don't feel that
the variances are necessitated under the new RCB regulations. We don't
want to send up the flag and say well, here we go again in the RCB. Anybody
can get a variance or something of that nature. Referring to the chart,
the changes that were made in the RCB are beneficial to the community, are
reasonable. We think that the Commission should uphold our appeal by denial
of these variances. I would like to point out that the reference to a
hardship as to the shape of the lot is inaccurate to the extent that floor
area ratio and lot coverage are numerical figures based upon the square
footage of the lot, not necessarily the shape. They are simple multiplication
permitted a floor area ratio of X amount and you have a lot area of X amount
and that calculates out to the permitted floor area ratio or to the lot
35
-- DEC 16 1982
Mr. Whipple (CON'T): coverage. The reference to what could be done in terns
of a floor area ratio of 5.160 I think you can see the difficulty in just
accomodating the permitted floor area ratio of 3.35. Perhaps it could be
done, but that isn't what they are asking. So they are not permitted a floor
area ratio of 5.76, as suggested. They do not have residential development
therefore, they cannot have that bonus. It is a situation and as pointed out
the lot is 28,750 square feet. This is a little over a half acre. It is
not 100,000, 200,000 square foot lot that exist elsewhere on Brickell. Therefore,
you cannot develop a lot of that size such as other lots have been developed
on Brickell. For these reasons we feel that the variances should be denied
and our appeal upheld.
Mr. Cardenas: Mayor, if I could respond to both of those points.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Gary: If I may just add just from a positive point of view, you know we
have gone through an extensive planning process with regard to developing
the new comprehensive zoning ordinance. That process included input from
citizens, developers, and all interested parties.
Mayor Ferre: Right.
Mr. Gary: Even to the point that we expended considerable amounts of money
to allow that type of participation. I guess staff position is that we have
now gone through that process. It includes input from all segments of our
society. It also took into consideration the need for increased development
in those areas. What we are saying is now, after you have gone through that
process, you are now establishing a precedent that we think will be very
difficult for you to do something differently in the future, particularly
in view of the fact that we are only talking about a net difference of
7,000 square feet between what we are proposing under the new zoning ordinance
and what is being requested.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Mr. Manager. All right, very briefly, Mr. Cardenas,
and then we need to move along.
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, Mr. Mayor, most of the time the important factor in all
of these things is the bottom line. In this particular ordinance within this
particular zone a total of 50% lot coverage is permitted included parking
structure and main structure. This concept, this project is going to
encompass a lot coverage of 49%, which is a total lot coverage of 49%
including the parking structures, so we are well beneath the lot coverage
concept. Item number 2, this particular lot and I repeat it is not a
precedent setting lot; it is a 28,000 square foot, L-shapped lot. There
is not another one in the whole zone. The basic premise behind these
particular Urban Development Review Boards and Zoning Boards is to treat
particular situations that are unique and not in keeping with what an
ordinance is generally intended to encompass.
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. Thank you. What is the will of this Commission?
Are there any opponents who wish to speak? Any questions from the Commission?
What is the will of this Commission? This is an appeal from the Planning
Department. We are on item number 35. The Planning Department themselves
appealed. The Zoning Board granted 7-0. The Planning Department recommended
denial and is now appealing it. It is before the City Commission. What is
the will of this Commission? Terry, technically, if nobody makes a motion,
what happens?
Mr. Terry Percy: That means the Zoning Board's determination prevails and
the variances as granted by the Zoning Board would be allowed.
DEC 161982
Mt. Carollo: Next item.
Mayor Ferre: Hearing none, that speaks for itself.
Mr. Cardenas: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
8. AUTHORIZE CITY �IAINAGER TO ALLOCATE $15,000 FOR A FEASIBILITY }
STUDY 'MULTI USE PARKING FACILITY PLAYER STATE THEATRE.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item (on the agenda) number "C". Can we do that
quickly, Mr. Manager? I think it is clearly explained in the feasibility
study Players Theatre recommendation. Is there a motion on this? Does
anybody want to move item "C" or not? Or do you want to talk about it?
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, what we are saying here, and I think everybody realizes
the parking problems that exist within the Grove. Approximately a year or
so ago you took the charge and the lead to recognize that problem. You
instructed us to....
Mayor Ferre: No, that was George Firestone. George Firestone called me about
a year ago and said, "Look, if you guys do something, we might give you the
land," or something or other. Now I think we have the Off Street Parking
Authority enthused about this. They want to do a study as I understand it.
Is that your recommendation?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir, the study...we will pick up 50% of the cost and Off Street
Parking will pick up 50% of the cost.
Mayor Ferre: One way or the other, let us decide.
Mr. Gary: I would recommend in view....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will move the motion as long as it is fully
understood by the Off Street Parking Authority who reside downtown and
by the Administration that for God's sakes you are contemplating something
in Coconut Grove. So that we don't come back here to this Commission with
a monstrosity that does not fit in and blend with the uniqueness of the
Grove....
Mayor Ferre: J.L., with all due respects I think Roger Carlton has to be
one of the better public bureaucrats that we have. If he is not sensitive
I want to know who is.
k {
1 �
� 4
I }
Maydf Ferre:
bemettio Petea
seconds. Further
discussion?
^l
Mr. Gary: Mr.
Mayor, under
discussion.
Mayor Ferre: If not, call the roll. What?
Mr. Gary: Under discussion, Mr. Mayor, just to aleviate any problems you have
we'll make sure that the people affected will be involved in the planning
process.
Mr. Plummer: That is very smart.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll, please.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1156
A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000
FROM THE CONTINGENT FUND AS 50% OF THE PROPOSED COST FOR
A DETAILED FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A MULTI -USE PARKING
FACILITY ON THE PLAYERS STATE THEATER SITE AT MAIN
HIGHWAY AND CLARLES AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE, CONTINGENT
ON THE OFF-STREET PARKING BOARD PROVIDING THE REMAINING
50% OF THE COST.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted herein and
on file in the Office of the Clerk).
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
i
( 9. DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF CO":SIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CHAINGE
i OF ZONINU CL% SIFIC:%T10°; 2169 %.N'D 2177 SOUTHWEST 12 STREET
FROM R-1 TO R-2.
i
,.
Mayor Ferre: We are on item number 4. This is an application by Felipe
Alvarez and Roberto Ramiro to change the zoning from R-1 to R-2. The
Department recommended denial. The Zoning Board recommended denial 6-1.
Item 4.
Mr. Max Spiegelman: Max Spiegelman, my office is 19 W. Flagler Street. I
represent the applicants. I wish to point out that although the Department
has recommended denial what we are seeking will not in any way be incompatible
with the existing zoning. The two lots we have are between two duplex lots
right now. The zoning line ends right at the second lot on southwest....
11
al
DEC 16 1982
_ �
r
t}
V F
Mayor refire:
Wait, wait, waits
do l understand this?
Must let me ask you ane,,,
I only have one question. This
is an R-1 neighborhood.
This is staek in the
Biddle of two
lots away from an
R-2. You wean to tell
me that you don't think
that this is
spot zoning?
Mr. Spiegelman: No, your Honor. We are right next to the R-2, The lots.•.:
Mayor Ferre: Where?
Mr. Spiegelman: Three and four. that is R-2, the blue, 1-2 runs right through
there.
Mr. Plummer: No, it is definitely not spot zoning, He has problems, but I
do not see it as spot zoning.
Mr. Spiegelman: Immediately to our east, lot 5, is also a triplex; that is
2161. Behind us, if you look at S.W. 11 Terrace, actually S.W. 10 Street,
right next to the line which separates R-2 from R-1 at the following 2176,
2164, 2156, 2144 are all either duplexes or triplexes. If we go down to
the S.E. corner at S.W. 21 Avenue which on that chart would be lots 1 and 2
and block 14 there exist two units immediately north. The next lot are
two units in blue which indicate that is a duplex. Come further south on
the corner from S.W. 11 Terrace and S.W. 12 Street on lot 12 on the eastern
part of the circle are duplex lots. Go further east on blocks 1 and 2 are
44 units three stories high residential right below the elementary school.
We are right on the boundary line of the R-2. On both sides of us are
duplexes and triplexes. Immediately to the south of us the first five
blocks within the R-1 zone are also duplexes. On 11 Terrace the fourth
house, which is shown as lot 22 is also a triplex. So what we are asking for
is in complete compatibility with the existing zoning. We are in between
two triplexes. All we want are duplexes for these lots.
Mayor Ferre: O.K. Questions from the Commission? Do you want to make your
statement into the record?
Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, the Department
recommends denial of this item. We do feel it is an encroachment into the
single family home residential area. What is evidently being alluded to
are some nonconformities that could either exist or did exist prior to the
present zoning; or perhaps some illegal usage that has occured. We
recommend denial of this item.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Questions?
Mr. Plummer: What about opponents?
Mayor Ferre: Are there any opponents here who wish to speak? What is the
will of the Commission on item 4?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move this item be deferred so I can go out and
look at it.
Mr. Perez: Yes,
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on item 4 that it be deferred. Further
discussion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption.
MOTION 82-1157
A MOTION CONTINUING CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
CHANGE OF ZONING AT APPROXIMATELY 2169-2177 S.W. 12 STREET
FROM R1 TO R2, FOR INSPECTION OF SAID PREMISES BY THE CITY
COMMISSION.
9
DEC 161982
r
++
U06ft being seconded by Cotimiasiotiet Pdrdl, the mat aft wn PaHad afld
eddpted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
.14
10. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHA1NGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
3665-71 N.W. 7 STREET AND 821-899 N.W. 37 AVENUE FROM
R-4 TO C-2.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item number 5, application by Racasa, N.V. on
N.W. 7 Street from R-4 to C-2. The Planning Department recommended denial.
The Zoning Board recommended approval to C-1 6-0.
Mr. Plummer: This ought to be interesting to me in particular. This is a
plat?
Mr. Whipple:
No, sir, this is a change of zoning request.
Mr. Plummer:
Oh.
Mayor Ferre:
That is not the location.
Mr. Plummer:
We are talking about Douglas Road and 9th
Street.
Mr. Whipple:
We are talking about the property that is
behind the new
McDonald or
Burger King on the northwest corner of 37th,
catty -cornered
the dog track.
Mr. Plummer:
Yes.
Mr. Whipple:
Easterly of the Central Shopping Plaza.
Mayor Ferre:
What does the blue mean?
}
Mr. Plummer:
That is also property they own.
Mr. Whipple:
Property that the applicant owns.
Mr. Plummer:
The yellow is that in question.
Mr. Whipple: The Department did recommend denial of this item. We do not
feel it is in accord with our comprehensive plan. We feel that the encroachment
_ of the commercial zoning will have an impact on the residential development
immediately to the east of the subject property and across the street to the
north of the subject property. The R-4 zoning that presently exists on
the site can accomodate multiple family development. The site is of
sufficient size that the existing zoning is reasonable. We believe that
the change would provide a greater intensity of development and would
further congest the traffic and circulation system in this area,
40
s DEC 16 1982
i
Mrs Plummer: So that the record is understood, as I see it here the application
as read by the Mayor is not quite understood. The favorable vote of the Zoning
Board was predicated on a C-1, I assume a reduction, not a C-2. So my information,
counselor, I need to know as you stand before us today are you standing before us
as the application reads or as what was granted by the board?
Mr. Robert H. Traurig: What was granted by the board, Mr. Plummer.
Mr, Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Robert Traurig: Not only C-1, but C-1 which is even further reduced by
a declaration of restrictive covenants that we worked out with the neighbors
who live on 9th Street who are here to testify before you if you like that
they now fully concur in the C-1 zoning. For the record, I would like to
introduce myself. My name is Robert H. Traurig. I am an attorney with offices
at 1401 Brickell Avenue. I represent the applicant, Racasa, N.V. Its principal
is Mr. Guiseppe Randazzo. I am here with Mr. Roy Rodriguez, his general
counsel and also Eddy Rances, the architect on the project. Basically and
very briefly because of the hour we have this parcel property which your
map reflects as being C-4 and partially being R-4. We are at the corner
of 7th Street and Douglas Road across from Central Shopping Plaza, catty -cornered
from the Flagler Dog Track. We wanted to consolidate our two parcels into one
developable parcel. We originally asked for C-4, which was a big mistake. It
was actually a mistake in the request. We did not want the C-4 uses. We
reduced the request to C-2. Then, as a result of some excellent meetings
in the neighborhood with a number of our neighbors. We reached the agreement
on C-1 and with a restrictive covenant. I particularly want to thank Manuel
Garcia and Maria Fero and Raul Godines and Manuel Lopez and Mr. Jimenez who
met with us along with about 20 or 25 other owners three different occasions.
We did reach this rather comprehensive agreement which says that we not only
have C-1, but we are limited to certain uses within C-1. We have enforcement
provisions in that and so forth. We have given the executed agreement to them.
Mayor Ferre: What exactly are you going to do on that, or your client going
to do on that property?
Mr. Traurig: We propose to have probably a combination of a hotel and an
office building. The juxtaposition depends upon a number of factors. But
the important thing from our standpoint was how to protect the neighbors.
We have along our 9th Street, which is our north boundary line border, an
intensive landscape buffer so that we will not have any impact upon the
apartment development immediately to the north of us. So we have this
elevation proposal. We have agreed....
Mayor Ferre: Is that 9th Street?
Mr. Traurig: That's 9th Street, yes, sir, which is the north boundary line
of our property. 9th Street would be right here.
Mayor Ferre: In other words, show me where 9th Street is.
Mr. Traurig: Right here.
Mayor Ferre: So you are talking along that boundary looking over the R-4
district.
Mr. Traurig: R-4 is to the north of us down here.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a'motel there in that area?
Mr. Traurig: There is presently a motel. We are going to replace this very
poor motel which has been the subject of some concern by your Police Department,
I think. We are going to replace it with a high class hotel and office building
combination. The concerns that the neighbors had were not the office building
and the hotel; but merely whether or not within the C-1 zone there would be
the kinds of uses that would create other neighborhood problems. That's why
we limited the kinds of uses. We urge you to support the Zoning Board which
was unanimous.
41
DEC 16 1982
51
Mayor Farce: Terry, Mrs Party, id that a ddvdhaut that would be 1401 acid
binding?
Mr. Terry Percy: The covenant?
Mayor Ferre: The restrictions that they said that they would place.
Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. If that is presented in recordable form prior to
the adoption of the ordinance that will be binding on the land.
Mr. Traurig: It has been presented, Mr. Percy, but we will get it back to
you again. We have presented the executed covenant, I am sure.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any opponents here who wish to speak? Are there
any questions by Members of the Commission? What is the will of the City
Commission?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, there are a number of thoughts in my mind. Just let
me express a few if I may. I don't think anyone including the owners of
the property presently are proud of the motel that presently exists there.
This is an area that needs some upgrading and I see this as an opportunity
to upgrade. I have no problem with extending the C classification, or
commercial, to this area simply because I don't know of anywhere existing
there is more intense development in the commercial area than this particular
site. I have no problems. If the neighbors who are vitally affected seem
to have their problems resolved by virtue of this buffer, Mr. Mayor, I move
to....
Mayor Ferre: Uphold the Zoning Board.
Mr. Plummer: Correct, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: It has been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Read the
ordinance.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, this covenant that you speak of has been surrendered?
Mr. Traurig: I think that....
Mr. Plummer: My motion is subject to the covenant.
Mr. Traurig: We have made a voluntary proffer of it. If you have not received
it....
Mayor Ferre: It has been received. Let the record reflect that it is part...
voluntarily proffered as part and portion of the motion.
Mr. Plummer: I of course spoke to that voluntary proffering.
Mr. Traurig: We think that we have already physically delivered it. If you
do not have a copy of it in your files, we will give you another. We have
and hereby reconfirm the voluntary covenant which we have worked out with
our neighbors.
Mayor Ferre: This is on first reading. By second reading, I will expect
for the Law Department to give us a final opinion on this. Read the ordinance.
6
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAM10
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE NORTHERLY
293.63' OF LOT 6 AND THE NORTHERLY 398.47' OF LOT 7,
TROPICAL TRADES CO., STATION "A" (4-6), BEING APPROXIMA-
TELY 3665-71 NORTHWEST 7 STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 821-
899 NORTHWEST 37 AVENUE FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTIPLE DWELLING) TO C-1 (LOCAL COMMERCIAL); AND BY
MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT
MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS
THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, and seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote!
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: I have indicated before that I am voting favorably, but also,
Mr. Traurig, that one matter that has not been discussed is the beautification
of the area. I would hope, sir, that you would... No, no, no, no, no, Mr.
Traurig, no.
Mr. Traurig: I understand the black olive implication.
Mr. Plummer: You understand fully. I vote yes.
Mr. Traurig: This was in early rendering of what was proposed, Mr. Mayor,'
Mayor Ferre: Would you bring it up here?
Mr. Plummer: Your application did not fail. Your photo did.
Mayor Ferre: Counselor, is this building included in the property?
Mr. Traurig: Yes, that's already in the C-4 district. It is part of the
overall development. Thank you very much.
DEC 16 1982
0
11. DISCUSSION AND TERMPORARY DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE
OF ZONING LOCATED 2860-70-90 AND 2900 S.W. 28 TERRACE FROM
R-4 TO C-2. (See label 13)
Mayor Ferre: Item number 6, Mr. Philip A. Foti, Labrada and Clasca, Hernando
Acosta and Frank C. Petrine to change the zoning from R-4 and SPD-2 to R-C.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think it should be indicated for the record for
anyone we do have to break for a luncheon. Anyone here who is after item 6
is not going to be hear until after the lunch break.
Mayor Ferre: We'll be coming back at 2:00 o'clock.
Mr. Plummer: I don't want them sitting around waiting to be heard in anticipation.
I think it is only fair they should be advised.
Mayor Ferre: This is the last item we are going to take up this morning. The
rest of the agenda we will take up this afternoon after 2:00 o'clock. Take up
item number 6. Go ahead.
Mr. Morris G. Provenza: Thank you very much, good morning.
Mayor Ferre: Who is the applicant?
Mr. Provenza: My name is Morris Provenza representing Mr. Hernando Acosta.
The names that appear before you are not entirely accurate in that I have
purchased the lot from Mr. Labrada and Clasca and I am closing on the lot
owned by Mr. Petrine probably within two weeks. I am here as the attorney
for Mr. Acosta and also as the potential owner of two of the lots involved.
We are joined in the application by Mr. Foti who owns a fourth lot and agrees
with our position in this particular application. We have had numerous
discussions and meetings with the neighbors, one of which I attended. From
our best observation and based on letters that have been written to the
Commission the only objection that we could find as to the neighbors that
live in this particular block is from one of the lots. In other =ords, there
are eleven lots that we are talking about on this particular street. Of those
eleven lots we have four objections from one lot. That is a condominium
project. The Planning Department is and has been in favor of our proposal.
Under the present zoning we would be permitted to build a four story, 20-unit
facility there for residential housing. What we propose to do....
Mayor Ferre: You mean under SPD-2.
Mr. Provenza: Yes, sir. What we are asking to do is to be able to construct
under commercial classification a five -story office building. That office
• building is going to be used hopefully by my law firm, one other law firm,
and Mr. Acosta's architectural office. This is not a spec venture. We are
going to use it and hopefully we are going to live there. The property,
as you can tell, is as a practical matter is on US-1.
Mr. Plummer: Counselor.
Mr. Provenza: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Can I interrupt?
Mr. Provenza: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Are there any objectors? Oh, you are objectors? Ah! Proceed.
Mr. Provenza: Thank you, sir, because Mr. Acosta will make the actual presentation.
This property will always be facing to my knowledge US-1. Interestingly enough
the people that object to this were very much in favor of Grove Gate, which
is right across the street from their condominium, a very big, extensive
project. But they object to our project, which is down the block from them,
44 DE
16 1982
j
F
y :
xdw
`
Mr. Provenza (CONOT): ....apparently on the basis that our project is
ffiediocre. That it is not a 40-story or 50-story tower. That it is really
not going to increase the value of their property for later resale. It is
not a question of their objecting to commercial so much as saying, "Well,
we don't mind Grove Gate. That is big and pretty and will impress people.
But you guys want to build a little five story building and we don't want
you to do that." With that, I would like to present at this time Mr. Acosta.
Mr. Whipple, if you want to speak first, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, the Planning Department did recommend approval of
this item in support of some of the statements that have been made. Again
pointing out the fact that we have adopted and approved the SPD-6 item on
the triangle north of this property. Also based upon the fact that this
property being in such close proximity to US-1, we feel that there is a
substantial change that is going to occur in this area. We have likewise
given similar consideration for the remainder of the property under the
new zoning ordinance going on down the street. We feel that the change as
requested is proper and therefore recommended approval of the item.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let us hear from the opponents now. Counselor, are
you going to....
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I would also like to know where the senior citizens are that
you said... they don't look too senior to me.
Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Ferre: You have to say everything into our record, sir, according to
our laws. If you want to speak, I will recognize you.
Mr. Provenza: Mr. Mayor, may Mr. Acosta be heard to make a short presentation
to the....?
Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. Let's finalize then with the
proponent and then hear from the opponents.
Mr. Provenza: Thank you, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I apologize. I thought you had concluded your statement.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, excuse me, it is a minute past twelve noon. According
to the guidelines that we have been following we break exactly at 12:00 noon
no matter what item is before us. From what I gather this item is going to
go on for at least another 20 minutes or more.
Mayor Ferre: I am afraid I think you are right because I think all these
people have a long... How long do you have to speak? I tell you what, do
you mind if we extend it ten minutes? If in ten minutes we cannot wind it
up then we will leave.
Mr. Carollo: All right.
Mayor Ferre: Quickly! Mr. Acosta, we have very little time.
Mr. Hernando Acosta: Briefly, why the application came about. All the
south side of US-1 between Douglas. and 17th Avenue has been developed
under the R-C or the C zoning. The 28th Terrace was rezoned back from
R-C to R-4 mainly for the problems that could be developed with the triangle
that was rezoned already.
Mayon Ferre: Go ahead, Mr. Acosta, very quickly.
45
- DEC 16 1982
Mayor Ferre: We know that. That has all been said.
Mr. Acosta: Grove Gates contemplates 11 stories high. Here is the actual
mapping. The main thing of the rezoning from R-C to R-4 was traffic
compatability with the surrounding areas and sewers. On the sewers with
an office building we are saving 300 fixed units of load for the area. The
traffic will be a hazard no matter what.
Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, you agree with the Department's recommendation.
Mr. Acosta: Oh, definitely!
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else you want to tell us?
Mr. Acosta: No, that we are still open to the highway.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you very much. Now, the opponents. Very
quickly or we are going to....
Ms. Anne Spizano: I'm Anne Spizano, Coconut Avenue 2849. We were there sifted
1970. I represent Church Group. They have a petition that says:
"We the undersigned are opposed to zoning changes as they may
affect 2860-70-90 and 2900 S.W. 28 Terrace. We would like the
zoning to remain the same."
We are in an area where there will be changes. We have the most unique
situation because Grove Gate, if developed, will be one of the nicest
additions to the Grove without changing the Grove.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Spizano, I have that and I am going to submit it
into the record. I have it right here signed by all the neighbors.
Ms. Spizano: Then I better make a statement. The moral tone of a community
is perpetuated by the preservation of structures dedicated to the advancement
of spiritual growth. On this street is just such a building, Christ United
Methodist Church, quite the largest in the area on the corner of 27th Avenue
and so forth. They recommend leaving everything the way it is because they
want families or townhouses or such on that street. And then, if in the
distant future, the• might want to change to commercial. Maybe all the
individuals might move out by then. Thank you.
Mr. Rodney Scott: Rodney Scott at 2850 S.W. 28 Terrace, unit A. The only
disagreement I have with this is primarily we should have Grove Gate that
we readily approve now first be built and then we see how it changes the
complexion of the neighborhood and how it affects it. At the present time
we are dealing with a speculating venture that is being offered here in
the zoning change. I am just merely recommending that we leave it residential
and see what this large development that has just been approved in Grove Gate,
how it affects our area. Thank you.
Mr. Mario Rodriguez: My name is Mario Rodriguez. I live in the lot immediately
adjacent to the subject property. I will make my comments very brief. This
is an absolutely residential street. Grove Gate is across from it. Grove
Gate is a watershed type of development that can only enhance the community.
I don't believe that this project will enhance it in any way. We feel that
it may even have a detrimental effect to real estate values. The immediate
neighbors are not for it. I don't see any reason why a zoning change should
be made. There is no community benefit to be served, no kind of benefit to
be served other than the immediate benefit of the developers, who bought the
property knowing what the existing zoning was.
Mayor Ferre: 0.K., anybody else?
4
s�
OEUe1982
Mr. Allyn Lean: My name is Allyn tean� Honorable Mayor, fellow Commissionem
l line at 2850 S.W. 28 Terrace. I am opposed to the planned change to the
toning basically and primarily on the planning study for Coconut Grove. The
planners specifically sited our street for R-4 zoning. At one point it was
R-C. It was changed to R-4 realizing that they would like to keep the
neighborhood low density. Following that they rethought the neighborhood
in terms of an SPD-2 overlay district and left the nature of the beast as
residential. Thank you very much. Excuse me, your Honor, the Mayor. We
have a professional appraiser who would like to indicate to you what he
thinks the highest and best use of the property is. We would like to
introduce his evidence into the record. His name is Gene Klein. He will
speak to you now. Thank you.
Mr. Eugene Klein: Good afternoon, my name is Eugene Klein. I am at 2610
S.W. 21 Terrace. I have a couple of quick slides I would like to show you.
This is a project that was built by Nick Morley of Interterra just south of
Le Jeune Road on South Dixie Highway. It is directly on South Dixie Highway
and not set back from it in any shape, way, or form. I think Mr. Morley
is a rather astute developer. There are also...this small town -house
complex is located on Thomas Avenue. It also is on South Dixie Highway.
This is new development. I have another project; this is on North
Kendall Drive, known as Dadeland Walk. What is impressive about this
is Kendall Drive is well known for its commercial and residential development
in a planned manner, not a hodge-podge manner. Dadeland Walk is within
walking distance of Dadeland Mall. Consider the difference between north
Kendall Drive and Bird Road and you see what good planning can be like.
Consider that please. This is a new office building which is developed
by ;filler and Solomon on the southeast corner of 22nd Avenue and South
Dixie Highway. When you consider that Coconut Grove has 33,000 square
feet of space available now if anybody is interested in leasing. We have
another new building in the heart of the Grove Village. Continental Plaza
I believe it is called. It is approximately 1/3 pre -leased. This is an
80,000 square foot building. There is a lot of space in the Grove available
for offices. This is the new Bayshore Plaza, approximately 160,000 additional
new feet coming on available in a very short time. This is the subject site
from Dixie Highway side. On the right side you can see the apartment house,
which is well vegetated. Mr. Acosta's property is in the middle. These
smaller houses to the left. The houses that are currently situated on the
side are old and should be removed. However, you should certainly that the
Interterra type of project that should go in. This is a typical house on
the street, additional houses, that is the apartment house at the end of the
block. This is Mr. Merrick Smith's house who has maintained it. It is an
old house, but very well maintained. This is the property which is adjacent
to the petition property. This is the type of development which could be
in place. I have some additional information which I would like to provide,
especially in terms of....
Mayor Ferre: We are about out of time so we are going to have to hear this
this afternoon.
Mr. Klein: O.K., could I just have two minutes?
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead.
Mr.Klein: A recent office study by the Clark -Biondi Company was done. It
indicates that approximately 2,500 square feet per month is being absorbed
in the Coconut Grove area. We already have a 15% vacancy factor with the
new projects that are proposed and are under construction. If there is an
additional one put on the station side itself, which is occuring along the
station line, we are talking about 850,000 square feet of building area.
That is enough at 2,500 square feet per month for 28 1/2 years. There is
really no justification for intruding on a residential area at this time.
Certainly in the future a review may be necessary.
Mayor Ferre: I don't want to preclude you from your time in speaking, or
the lady who wants to speak, but I think we are going to have to hold it
after 2:00 o'clock unless... are you finished? Is there anything else
you want to add?
407
s
DEC 16 1982
1.
2.
3.
4.
AT THIS POINT THIS DISCUSSION IS MOMENTARILY DEFERRED.
WHEREUPON, THE ACITY COMMISSION WENT INTO
A RECESS AT: 12:15 P.M., RECONVENING AT:
2:25 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT.
12. PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS, AND SPECIAL ITEMS.
Commendation presented to Mr. Terry Percy, Esquire, member of the Law
Department upon his leaving the City of Miami for a job well done.
Commendation presented to Lt. Donald March, Most Outstanding Officer
of the Month for November, 1982.
Commendation presented to Judy Drucker, for her dedication and
contributions to the cultural life in our community.
Commendation presented to the University of Miami School of Medicine's
Department of Neurological Surgery, Professor Robert Hubert Rosomov.
13. FIRST RE:1DI:;( (_)RDINA1,CE: CIL-%:GE Zo-l'G CLISSIFICATION 2860-70-90
AND 2900 S.ld. ''S "I ER -%CE FROM R-' :LND SPD-2 TO R-C.
(See label " 11) �
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Klein, I want to tell you that we promised that you would
be first. Where is Mr. Klein? That promise is good. We were in the middle
of an item, which is item 6. As soon as we conclude that we'll take up the
item that you were here at 2:00 o'clock on. We are now on item 6. Continue.
Mr. Eugene Klein: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I was speaking last. I don't
know if it is appropriate for me to continue at this point.
Mayor Ferre: I think that it would be. I had asked you to hurry it up and
now we are back.
Mr. Klein: I think I rushed it.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else you want to add? There was a lady bete
also who wanted to speak. Go right ahead.
8 DEC s� 16 1982
Mr. Klein*. What I would like to do. There are some citizens from the area
who have come over. There is a lady here who is in a wheel chair. I would
like to give her an opportunity to make her presentation at this time.
Mayor Ferre: All right.
Mr. Plummer: There is a portable mike that you can give to her.
Ms. Jean McMeyer: Jean McMeyer, I am finance chairman of Christ United Methodist
Church. We are very much interested on houses being on the street that you
want to change to businesses. We are interested in people coming to church.
I know with business offices we will not have this. So we are here in favor
of not having this changed. Thank you.
Mr. Klein: Are there any other ladies who would like to speak before the
Commission? Could they have the opportunity to step up?
Mr. Plummer: Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Mayor Ferre: Does anybody else wish to speak? All right, sir.
Mr. Charles Spezzano: My name is Charles Spezzano. I live at 2849 Coconut Avenue.
It is my opinion that the zoning at this particular time on the south side of
S.W. 28th Terrace should not be changed. The primary reason that I have is
the fact that since such a big project will be taking place, which is know
as Grove Gate, I believe that we should wait to feel what the impact of that
project is to our area before we decide to make any future changes. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, are there any other speakers? Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wilhemina Dunning: I'm Wilhemina Dunning. I live at 2850 Coconut Avenue.
I have lived there for 32 years. I'm interested in maintaining the residential
quality of both Coconut Avenue and 28th Terrace. I have lived there for 32 years.
Mayor Ferre: Next speaker.
Mr. Klein: I would like to go through my presentation a little slower this time.
I won't take as much....
Mayor Ferre: I would like for you not to repeat.
Mr. Klein: I will try and definitely avoid any redundancy. Again, in terms
of the subject property one of the major considerations is the impact that
Grove Gate will have on that particular street. I think that at this time
it is a little premature for spot zoning changes in that particular area.
I have already demonstrated through the slides, etc. that there are viable
residential, multi -family projects on major thoroughfares. One of these
was the Interterra project. Another, again example, was along North Kendall
Drive. Not to belabor the point about the high vacancy rate of office space
in Coconut Grove and the massive amount of building of office space that is
going to occur, even if the absorption rate would increase four times to
10,000 square feet a month, from what is proposed and what is under construction
there would be approximately eight years of office space that is coming on line.
So we are essentially tripling the existing space. That is a lot of space to
absorb. Other competitive areas to consider is Coral Way. Several new buildings
have been built on Coral Way. They are basically vacant. Another point to
consider is there have been joint ventures along the station areas of the
Metrorail between public and private enterprises. There is no reason not
to suspect that this will not also happen at the 27th Avenue station, again
increasing the amount of office space available, the mixed -used. We need
residential back up to provide habitation for the people who will use these
massive amounts of facilities that are being developed at this time. So,
in summary, again I would like you in considering this request to consider
the spot zoning, the integrity of the neighborhood in trying to maintain
the integrity of the Coconut Grove area. Also the petitioner has indicated
the willingness to live on site in some way, shape, or form. To me this
indicates that there is nothing wrong with this site as residential. I
think what they presented is self defeating. Quality multi -family projects
would satisfy that particular zoning as it is now on that site very well
right now. So to me the logical conclusion is that at this time there should
be no zoning change made. Thank you.
�l
s�
DEC 16 1982
MAYdt kette: Thank you, sit. All tight, for a concluding statement and then
we ate on to the Commission.
Mt. Morris Provenza: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, again Morris Provenza,
3211 S.W. 22 Avenue. We have other people here that would like to speak,
but we have taken up enough of your time we feel. In rebuttal I would say
basically what I said in the opening. That is, number one, this property
and this building is not for speculation. It is not for profit. It is for
two law firms and one architect and that is all. I can't believe that they
are concerned about an impact as to Grove Gate. They were all in favor of
that. They are now all against a little five story building that is two
blocks where their condominium is. The nice ladies from the church I have
no quarrel with. That church is across from a Burger King and next to a
laundry, which I think are fairly commercial enterprises. I don't understand
how again a five story small office building could in any way affect a church
on another street a couple of blocks away. Finally, in conclusion, the only
objections that we have had from the neighbors, the people that live on this
block (we have met with them) have come from one lot. They have all spoken
today. The other objections are all from the ladies that live in Coconut
Lane and Coconut Avenue, which are behind us. If they can live with Grove
Gate, they can certainly live with this project. We ask for your consideration
and approval. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Now questions from members of the Commission?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I think we ought to do is to have
the Department since they recommended approval and they are the professional
staff, I think we ought to hear from them. It is so rare that they recommend
anything.
Mr. Jack Luft: Mr. Mayor, the irony in this particular location is that it
was zoned R-C in the 60's. It was only after the high density apartments
were built on Dixie Highway that the Commission and the community became
concerned about the quality of that housing and the impacts that it faced
on Dixie Highway that they attempted to reduce the zoning. It was not an
effort to prevent office. It was an effort to reduce the intensity of
housing on Dixie Highway. I would have to say an objective look at our
experience with housing on Dixie Highway has not been a good one. We
cannot conclude that in this case that it is the highest and best use to
restrict this particular property to residential. We feel the net effect
for the community would be a positive one to have a quality office building
on this site facing Dixie Highway, having to live with the right turning
traffic for access to the Metrorail station and the access to the Grove
Gate project. We think this is a compatible use change.
Mayor Ferre: Questions from the Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Not really related to this, but I would like to see... I have
not seen a copy of the project across the street. I have seen a rendering,
but I would like the Administration to send, and I think the Administration
on a regular basis on major projects, which I think this is supposed to be,
we, the Commission, have not seen what that proposal is.
Mayor Ferre: Is that project....?
Mr. Plummer: I don't know if anyone else from here....
Mr. Luft: They have not come in for building permit on that project. There
has been nothing submitted for approval yet, a concept is all. I would add
one thing. The zoning there today is both R-4 and SPD-2. The SPD-2 is
simply a device to provide for site plan reulew. While we are in favor of
the R-4 changing to R-C, we would like to maintain the SPD-2 simply as a
way to give the department side plan review approval over this so that we
can aim for the highest quality design, if you choose to change the zoning.
Mayor Ferre: Further questions, statements? Is there a motion?
Mr. Carollo: There is a motion to uphold the Planning Department's recommendation
for approval,
m
s DEC 16 Igor.
Mr. Carollo: So be it. It is a motion to override the Zoning board's
recommendation .for a denial.
Mayor Ferre: Is that right, Terry?
Mr. Terry Percy: Correct.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: I second it.
Mayor Ferre: Is there further diecussion?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, under discussion, I think it is unrealistic to believe
that the project of what is proposed and what I have seen to go across the street
that this area will stay as a simple, quiet, little residential street that it
has been in the past. I think that one of the monstrosities that we have
in this community. Those two apartment buildings, I don't know the name of
them, I see one of them...I hope it is vacated and going away, that exist.
I think that if we don't establish a trend, and this is a first, of something
that is nice for that street, I think we are allowing possibly the pitfall in
the future of applications to come in of more of those two monstrosities
that exist down the street. The gentleman who was the appraiser in most cases
did not refer to the most major development or change in that particular area.
It is going to be a radical change. Nick Morley, yes, sir, does first class
jobs; he did so west of LeJeune Road. But Nick Morley across the street is
faced with the thing called the Rapid Transit. In the same way that this
community's face changed when we got expressways, it once again is going to
change when we have Rapid Transit. Nick Morley's project on LeJeune Road,
or west of LeJeune Road, is not ...is it a Grove? What is the name
of it? Grove Gate?
Mr. Luft: Grove Gate.
Mr. Plummer: Grove Gate across the street...I am voting for this project
because I, as an individual, would rather see a trend established of something
of what I consider to be first class for that neighborhood rather than allowing
no action and possibly allowing the monstrosities that presently exist which
would allow people to come back and say, "They got it there. I want it here."
That is the reason that I second the motion and will vote favorably.
Mayor Ferre: Further comments? Call the roll, please.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871,
AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING OR-
DINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOT 1, BLOCK
4, LESS THE 11 7.5' AND THE W 1/2 OF THE
ROADWAY LYING BETWEEN BLOCKS 4 AND 5 LESS
THE N 7.5' THEREOF AND LOT 16, BLOCK 5, LESS
THE N 7.5' AND THE E 1/2 OF THE ROADWIAY
LYING BET1dEEN BLOCKS 4 AND 5 LESS THE N 7.5'
THEREOF AND LOTS 14 AND 15 LESS THE N 7.5'
THEREOF, BLOCK 5, P 11,E TERR-ACE ( 3 - 51) , ALSO
DESCRIBED AS 2860-70-90 - 2900 SOUT}?NTEST
28 TERRACE, FROM R-4 (I=IL'.-'. DENSITY MULTIPLE
DWELLING) TO R-C (RESIDF,IYTIAL OFFICE) RE-
TAINING THE S11D-2 (COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY
DISTRICT) ; AN'D BY Mr' KING ALL TIIE NECESSARY
CHANGES 11, TNF ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A
PART OF SAID ORDINANCI: NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 111, SECTION 2,
THEREOF, BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE
SECTIONS, OR PARTS T1:EREOF 114 CONFLICT AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
51
DEC 16 1982
Vag it►ttoduced by Commissioner Catoilo, and seconded by Cd isajoher
Plumer and passed on its first reading by title by the fdlldwing VBte!
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
ASSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
Mayor Ferre: I think that the recommendation of the department is a valid
recommendation. Even though the vote was three to one; it could have very
easily ducked and voted no and you still would carry, it would be less than
honest on my part because I do think that what they are asking for is
reasonable. I think it will be an asset to the community. What they can
build there anyway, I think would be no worse. I think this has been very
carefully reasoned out.
Mr. Dawkins: I voted no simply because I feel that even though it had been
simply reasoned out I felt that had I been living there I would have shared
the same views of the people who live there. Therefore, that is why I voted
no.
UGIj j u ��vc.
6
0
14. StCOND READING ORDINANCE: A?1E.D ORDINANCE 6E71 ARTICLE X-1,
HIGH DENSITY ,1CLTIPLE-R-5A.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item Number one. Mr. McManus, are you making a
presentation? All right, make a brief comment, and then let us hear from
Janet and then we will go one by one.
Mr. Joe McManus: For the record, Joe McManus, Acting Director of the Planning
Department. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, at your request, we con-
vened a workshop on the R-5A amendments yesterday morning.
Mayor Ferre: You did inform the other members of the Commission that the work-
shop was taking place.
Mr. McManus: No, sir. We did not do that, sir. That was not my direction.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think, you know, obviously whenever you inform one mem-
ber of the Commission, you must inform all members of the Commission.
Mr. McManus: I stand corrected.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, please. I mean, that is very important that in the future
whenever ... and you have to properly post it. You have to post it outside and
you have to let the press know in case the press wants to cover it. I mean,
that is the Sunshine Law. Even though we are not in violation of it technical-
ly, let the record also reflect that, since there was only one member of the
Commission present, but I think we have got to be careful with these things.
All right, go ahead.
Mr. Dawkins: I have something else to say. Since I am new, I, above all
should have been notified to attend the workshop. There is quite a bit of
knowledge I could have gotten from the workshop.
Mr. McManus: I apologize, Commissioner.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I don't mean to defend Joe McManus, because I really think
there is no excuse for that, but I think in all fairness, if you will recall,
I had some problems that I voiced and I asked to meet with the representative
of the developers and the Administration to go over, and I guess they just
assumed that that was just a personal request on my part, so it is probably
my fault too. Go ahead.
Mr. McManus: Commissioner Plummer did request that as a result of that work-
shop, he be supplied with a memo or report on this, and that is what I just
distributed to you. Let me highlight approximately six major issues that were
brought up during the meeting. First of these was a proposed height
limit and the Planning Department does not believe that a height limit is
necessary. Second, that the side yard setbacks - the reductions as proposed
were excessive and the Planning Department's response is that these reflected
existing conditions and provided the necessary flexibility to the proper site
development without forcing stereotype development. Thirdly, the contention
is that accessory structures are allowed within the side yard area. These
would be parking garages and they should not be permitted in the side yards
and we believe that these merely reflect the existing configurations of build-
ings and should be allowed. The fourth point was that the floor area ratio
is probably based on submerged land and intensifies up on development. The
Planning Department believes that the floor ratio and bonuses proposed take
into account factors considering allowing development along this Brickell
Avenue area. Treatment on these services roads, larger unit sizes and certain
site amenities, the inclusion of water areas in the calculation is a matter of
existing law in City policies. And finally, the contention is that the site
development plan review is essentially meaningless. We believe the site and
development plan review reinforces the general intent of the district and ad-
ditional standards are not necessary. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be happy
to answer any questions ...... Mr, Mayor and members of the Commission, I wonder
Id 53 DEC 1 61982
as a thattet of information, we hate a seties of perhaps eight Aerial C616f
aiides, whether that would be of information to the Commission in getting them
a further fix on this area we are talking about.
Mayor Ferre: Myself I don't...I think we all know Brickell Avenue pretty well,
thank you.
Mr. McManus: I would also like to point out for you that on the floor immediately
in front of the podium, we have part of the R-5A district. Reading from your
left to your right on the model, we have the Palace, the Villa Regina, the
Imperial, and the Santa Maria. The Santa Maria is a proposed building. The
others are in active construction. I might point out to you that the Imperial,
that is the first building from your left, model, face slightly higher.
To indicate to you, it is approximately as high as the Villa Regina next to it.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Now we will hear from Janet Cooper and just so we can establish
ground rules as promised yesterday, Janet, how much time do you think you will
require for your presentation?
Ms. Janet Cooper: I thought there was a one hour limit.
Mayor Ferre: I didn't...
Ms. Cooper: I don't expect to take the full hour.
Mayor Ferre: How much time do you need? You tell me.
Ms. Cooper: I didn't time it sir, because I knew I was going to be under an
hour.
Mayor Ferre: Well, we have to kind of set guidelines, so tell me how much
time you will need.
Ms. Cooper: Let me ask for forty-five minutes. Then I hope not to take the
full time.
Mayor Ferre: All right, because of the magnitude of the problem before us,
the complexity of it and since I think you are the only spokesman on the one
side, unless there is an objection, I will allow forty-five minutes and then
the proponents will have equal time. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Fine,
Mr. Dubbin, Mr. O'Donnell? Anybody else?
(INAUDIBLE COM1%ENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Well, I will allow a very short period of rebuttal of a few
minutes, five minutes at most. That will be acceptable. All right, you can
commence.
Ms. Cooper: Thank you. My name is Janet Cooper. I own property and reside
at 1901 Brickell Avenue, which is within the R-5A district. I am also the
president of Save Brickell Avenue, Inc., a homeowner's association in this
area. First, I would like to tell the Commissioners there are efforts con-
tinuing to settle these lawsuits, the lawsuits that exist on these three
buildings, Santa Maria, Villa Regina and Imperial, but we have not reached
a conclusion yet, so I am forced to go ahead, unfortunately with a presenta-
tion based on non -settlement of those lawsuits. The effect of the pending
litigation will be that if the court comes down with an order... if there is a
court order, which we expect any day, that court order will stand. In order
to not have it stand, the developers will have to prove mootness by this
amendment, and if they if that raise that issue, we will certainly challenge
their it in the pending litigation. We will challenge it on a number of
grounds, including notice. There is tremendous prejudice by the defects
in noticing that nobody else is aware of. I will just briefly tell you that
for the Planning Advisory Board meeting...
Mr. Plummer: Janet, let me stop you for one minute. Mr. Mayor, I am tired of
hearing, and I want to make a determination now. Almost every item that Janet
comes before this Commission, she is bringing up improper notice. Now, un-
fortunately, a lot of times, Janet Cooper is right and I want the Administra-
tion to look into and report back to this Commission whether they and the
City Attorney feel there is any credence in what she is saying as to improper
ult DEC 1 619 82
tidtite, and if so, let's try and stop some future litigation by doing what is
prdper notice. If you feel that she is not right, I expect you to tell me that.
But, almost every item that she speaks on, she brings this same thing up about
improper notice. I, as a Commissioner, would like to know, if in fact, there
is any credence to that. I am sorry, but I wanted to bring it up.
Ms. Cooper: I appreciate it, because I feel the same way. I don't like having
to do this. It is boring, it is not interesting, it doesn't do anything for
the presentation. For the Planning Advisory Board meeting, the only notice...
there was no mailed notice, there was no posted notice. The only notice was
published and I would like to show you the original that was published in
the Miami Review and I will pass it among you. You don't see it on there and
the reason you don't see it on there is because every other item has a heading,
except for this item. This item is attached to the bottom of one that is headed
approximately 581 N. E. 62nd Street. There is not even a space between that
item on 62nd Street and the amendment of the R-5A district and there is no
heading like there is for any other, so that even though I saw the notice
published and reviewed it, I looked at the headings and I didn't see anything
and I found out about it the day before the Planning Advisory Board meeting.
I didn't get a copy of the proposed amendments until the night of the hearing
and complained about it, was unable to get a deferral. So, the people didn't
know anything about it at the Planning Advisory Board meeting. At the City
Commission meeting last week, there is no posted notice although for every
other ordinance, there is always posted notice. There is no published notice
to the best of my knowledge and the mailed notice content was insufficient and
for this meeting there was no mailed notice or posted notice. I am told there
was published, but I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it. The next
point I need to raise for procedural clarification is that there is again the
question of just who is the applicant in this case? Now, this application that
is coming before you is a Planning Department application; however, there are a
number of indications that it is not actually a Planning Department application.
The first that you might notice is that in the folder that Mr. Aurelio Perez-
Lugones keeps, you will see that there was notice to Mr. Traurig, Mr. Fine,
and Mr. Dubbin by certified mail. That is generally reserved only for the
applicant.
Mayor Ferre: Where is it? I don't even see any notices.
Mr. Plummer: I'll show it to you.
Ms. Cooper: You know it is there, Mr. Mayor and you still can't find it!
Mayor Ferre: Who does this, the Clerk's Office?
Mr. Plummer: Lee Ruwitch
Mayor Ferre: No, I think this is a legitimate complaint, I mean, good
gracious. I mean, even after I had it before me for a couple of minutes, I
still couldn't find the darn thing!
Ms. Cooper: And that was the only notice, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: He is getting old and his glasses need changing!
Ms. Cooper: Okay, now, we are talking about who the applicant is in this
case. At the Planning Advisory Board meeting, I inquired of Mr. McManus, who
was present, and I asked him - On page nine of the transcript, who initiated
and began this proposal?"
Mr. McManus: "This item initiated was the concern of the Law Department
and the Planning Department over the fact that we had a Planned Area
Development ordinance which court had ruled invalid, therefore we had
a very important section of our City, or of a series of developments
that were affected. There were a number of courses open to us and it
seems that the most expeditious way of approaching the problem was by
amending the R5-A ordinance. In discussion with the attorney for
developer, the attorney for developer submitted drafts of proposed amend-
ments to R5-A, and I would say that there were perhaps a series of three
separate drafts..."
And 1 will comment again that there are three buildings in question here.
55
Id
DEC 161982
"that were presented to the Planning Department. Revisions vote trade,
drafts were submitted again for review. Further revisions were made$
further drafts were submitted by the attorney."
And I asked him a line or two later, "Would you be so kind as to name the
attorneys with whom you dealt on this matter?" The attorneys were Mr.
Andrew Morber, Mr. Stanley Price, Mr. Tony O'Donnell and there is a fourth
attorney present in the discussion. He didn't remember his name. My point
is that this item initiated with the developer. It is a result of it actually
being an application by someone not within the City who has not followed the
proper procedure for an application presented by someone who is not a member
of City staff.
Mayor Ferre: Janet, I think you really ought to speak to the subject.
Ms. Cooper: I will, but I have got to get this in the record, I am sorry.
The application is defective in that it contains no supporting data. The
time has expired for this Commission to hear the item. Now I am at the sub-
stance, all the boring stuff is over. This items constitutes...and this is one
of the grounds on which it will be challenged if it is necessary to challenge
this amendment. This really constitutes contract zoning. We have got build-
ings here and they want approval. They came to the City; an ordinance was
drafted as closely for these buildings as a glove fits the hands, with almost
as many fingers and constitutes contract zoning. It also constitutes spot
zoning, not only that it affects primarily these three buildings, but also
that it will only be in effect for a period of time less than three months
and no one else will be able to benefit from it. The amendment to the ordi-
nance was not proposed for the public health, safety, morals or welfare.
In addition, this amendment will be held invalid, because it appears that the
changes were made solely as a favor to owners of this particular property.
A similar type situation was ruled invalid and Cole vs. Oake in 1961 —
Third District case and it said in that case that mere economic gain is not
sufficient cause to justify exercise of the amending power. Also, in a platting
case involving upgrading of the zoning during litigation, the court held that
it was invalid where the zoning change was made in order to defeat the pending
litigation, which is exactly the situation here. That case is Dade County
vs. Williams in 1973 Third District case. Now, last week I addressed you on
items having to do specifically with the ordinance itself and I am not going
to repeat the points I made last week. It was only a week ago and I feel
that it is still fresh enough in your minds that I don't have to go into it
in detail. But again, we have a problem with the side yard setback requirement
not being reasonable and the first reason why they are not reasonable is be-
cause it is a multiple choice question here. The first choice, which is the
current requirement for side yard setbacks and then if the developer doesn't
want to meet that, he can comply with the second one, which is a significant
reduction, anywhere from 45% to 55% reduction. And then if doesn't want to
meet that, he can comply another one that is even less stringent and because
the three choices are not equal, it creates a problem in that it is not really
a viable choice, but of course these choices were offered in order to fit
these three buildings. The last time I told you that the principal building
had to be 15% of the lot width from the lot line. On more careful review of
the ordinance, I find that is not true. That is only after the first twenty-
five feet in height of the building, so that your principal structure for the
first twenty-five feet above the ground can be even within the 15% from the
lot line to the building and that doesn't provide much set back whatsoever.
In dealing with the lot coverage, I told you that I was concerned about how
intense the projects would be as a result of the increase in lot coverage. I
failed to mention to you that this also includes submerged land. Now, we are
dealing with parcels of property here where up to one-third of the property
is under water, so when you are talking about increasing lot coverage to 12%,
it is not 12% of the 100% of site, it is 12% of the two-thirds of the site
that is actually upland and that creates a tremendous foot print on the
property because you are getting not the 120%. that you think you are getting,
g but some figure signicantly higher than that. In regard to the F.A.R. bonuses,
the one that I will highlight for you again today is the bonus provided for
dedication of the seventy foot strip for the service road. Brickell Place was
forced to build the service road and none of the other developers thus far
have. The City could certainly use the construction of the service road by the
developer who will benefit from it and since the ordinance requires that the
seventy foot be dedicated anyway to give him a bonus for merely doing what he
is required doesn't seem justified. I would suggest that if you insist on
increasing the F.A.R. by this type of bonus that it be for constructing the
4
4 � v
M&
DEC 161982
0 0
Id
sefhice toad and not merely for dedicating the land which then would have to go
to the citizens to pay for the construction of it. Also, on the lot coverage,
there is an interesting provision that allows an increase by reason of applica-
tion of the increase in the the permitted F.A.R. and they compare the F.A.R. that
was permitted in the current code to the one that would be permitted in the
amendment and they try to make a similar comparison with lot coverage. The
only problem is that the formula that they use does not account for the full
F.A.R. that was allowed before. In other words, they are saying "If you get an —
increase of F.A.R. up to 2.8, you should compare that and have a relative in-
crease in the lot coverage based on 2.0", but they were allowed 2.2 before, the
increase is not from 2.0 to 2.8. The increase is only from 2.2 to 2.8, and
therefore, this percentage in this formula figure should be changed to comply
with what the situation actually is, rather than an arbitrary figure that does =
not accurately reflect the increase in the F.A.R. Now I have some suggestions
for additions to the ordinance that would help to make it more palatable to the
area, although I am not suggesting that it would make it completely palatable.
First of all, I have received numerous calls and I have seen letters to the
editor regarding the colors that have been painted on these buildings and I
am going to pass around a letter to the editor that appeared in Tuesday, Dec- -
ember 7th Herald and I will give one to the Clerk.
Mr. Plummer: Are these buildings the ones that have the atrium in the middle?
Ms. Cooper: In response to your question, Mr. Plummer, there is a building
which should be in the slides I am going to show you all. The Atlantis has
a hole all the way through with a big, red spiral staircase. That is not one
of the buildings in controversy, that is not, but the building - Imperial,
which is further north, which has a big cutout and a red wall behind it with
a very bright light that shines all night long, creating a very bright orange
glow, that building is involved here.
Mr. Plummer: I look out of my bedroom at home and see these lamps and I don't
buy their story that says that they did that so that hurricanes could go through
the middle of it.
Ms. Cooper: I didn't hear that story.
Mayor Ferre: Why are you passing this thing? Here is a person who objects
to me because of what we are trying to do on porno on television, and yet the
same person now wants to deny the right of expression of the developer to
paint the building any color he wants, so in other words...
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, I am not aware of any expression in relation to any
issue.other than this. I just brought this letter to the editor regarding
the color clashes and this is consistent with the telephone calls that I have
gotten from members of Save Brickell Avenue, Inc.
Mayor Ferre: I don't know of any ordinance in the City of Miami, Mletropolitan
Dade County, or anywhere in Florida that determines how buildings are to'be painted
and if they are to be painted in a color.
Ms. Cooper: Coral Gables has such an ordinance for its entire community.
Mr. Plummer: You cannot change the color of your home in Coral Gables without
city permission. You can repaint the same color, but if you want to change
the color and that is to avoid the row housing look that might apply.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let me tell you then, I don't like the architecture very much,
but I have to tell you, those colors aren't too bad. The more I see them,
the more I like them.
Ms. Cooper: In some instances they are notas bad. Anyway, I pet a lot of
phone calls about the color. It is one of the major complaints that I do
get. One of the persons who called me is a woman named Marion Seligman who
lives in Brickell Townhouse. She is an interior designer and had a lot of
negative comments. I just give you the names so you know that there is at
least one person I can name.
Mr. Plummer: If she is an interior decorator, she probably had a mental
breakdown. Doesn't that thing have a coconut tree in the middle of it?
57
DEC 1 61982
sr
Mgt 'Cd6 sef :
The Atlantis does,
Mr, Plummer:
Yes.
Ms, Cooper:
It has some sort of tree,
It is Called, es
t utidentand it, a
sky court.
Mr. Plummer: It is called a what?
Ms, Cooper: Sky court.
Mr. Plummer: A sky court.
Mayor Ferre: Wait until you see the way that Nick Morley till psitt thia
buildingl
Ms. Cooper: Yes, we have got six shades of purple, pink, yellow and green
with some white.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Ms. Cooper: So, I would request that this Commission....
Ms, Cooper:....especially considering the size of the buildings that we are
dealing with, consider imposing some sort of limitation on the color that can
be painted in order to minimize as much as possible the effect of these build-
ings on the surrounding neighborhood and I discussed it briefly with Mr. Mc-
Manus. We have a little problem coming up with a control that will be adequate,
but there is some sort of measure as to darkness of the color. It is a
numerical measure and I think we could go along lines of that nature that
would provide not such darkened and overbearing colors. Because the side
yard setback from the lot coverage conditions used to provide some control
for the height and those, by this amendment would be eliminated. I am not
suggesting an absolute limit on height, but I am suggesting that this Commis-
sion needs to come up with some form of control of height - something similar
to what existed in the past where other features will control the height to
some extent. Last week Mr. McManus told you that the reason for this amend-
ment to this ordinance is because of the policy that has been expressed by
this City Commission. I would like to state that I have not heard a clear
policy from the Commission on such things as lot coverage, side yard setbacks
and —well, I have heard it on F.A.R., but lot coverage and side yard setbacks
I have not. In the past, when this Commission has made a policy decision of
that nature, it has directed the Planning Department to re-evaluate the ordi-
nance and to come up with an ordinance that is consistent with the policy.
That was not done by this Commission. This was something that was initiated
by the developers, brought to the Planning Department and has been brought
to you on the initiative of either the developers or the Planning Department,
so it does not reflect the policy decision that was made by this Commission.
This Commission did rule in three instances on three specific buildings, but
there was no stated policy even after the third, when the Commission had the
opportunity to do so, and furthermore, if there were to be a policy, it
should not be based on the most extreme case and what we have in this amendment
to this ordinance is an amendment that would allow the most extreme case and
I am certain that this Commission would not want to pass as a general policy
statement and allow for the entire district that case which is the most ex-
treme and which may have been based on pleasing architectural features or
other amenities that were offered in that specific development that would
not be required in another project that would fall under this ordinance.
I would also like to discuss briefly the concept that this amendment to this
ordinance is being proposed in order to legitimize these buildings so that
these developers can get there C.O.'s and go forward with their project. It
has been stated that there is concern about the integrity of the City Commis-
sion when it approves a project and then the courts for some reason stop it,
that the City Commission has got to step in and make good everything that it
ever approved. Well, these developers were very well aware before they
poured the first beam in the first floor on their building that there was
litigation in this matter. It has been stated that these developers went
forward in good faith, relying on the approval by the City Commission, but
when the developers were aware of the litigation, its been held that that is
not good faith. For example, in the case of Kolski vs. Coral Gables, we
58 DEC 1 61982
hsd a situation where there was pending litigation and the court said that the
affect of pending ligitation directly attacking the validity of a permit or
a toning ordinance, or the effect of an eventual determination that such per-
mit was invalid presents a different problem that in this case�the decision
in this case, the Kolski case, was not rested on any showing that the petition-
er at any time acted in reliance on the permit granted him was a party defendent
in legal action directly attacking its validity, that he had any notice that
his permit might have been invalid in its inception, or that revocation was
in fact, required in the public interest. We conclude, consequently, that he
acted in good faith. In other words, the court is saying that because he
didn't have the notice, he acted in good faith. In this case, the developers
had notice, so it could not be said that they acted in good faith. They took
a business risk and certainly, this City Commission could not be asked to
come in and save every bad business risk that a developer or any other business-
man in the City takes. I would like to show you some slides, if I may now.
All right, these first few pictures are photographs from about 1980.... well,
maybe in the '70's from the twentieth floor, Brickell Place "B" building, show-
ing what the north portion of Brickell Avenue looked like. The first two are
at night and this is day photos. This is a photograph showing the construction
phase. This was taken in May of this year. You can see in the background the
Palace Condominium - its very narrow from this view, and this is the Imperial
that you see being constructed here. This was taken Sunday. You can see
above the red and blue multi -level stages of the roof, you can see Villa
Regina and then you can see the Palace penthouse right above that. And this
red square in the lower left hand portion of the Imperial is a breakthrough
with a wall behind it and that is well lit every night so that it glows a sort
of orange. These are photographs from the Palace Condominium of the area
surrounding on the other side of Brickell Avenue and over into South Miami
Avenue, which is the next block. You can see that there is an area of single
family homes that will be also affected by this ordinance. Now, immediately
across from R-5A is R-3B, which is three story townhouse development. This
is a photograph, and I apologize for how dark it is - a few of these are not
too good in lighting quality...
Mayor Ferre: You are a hell of lawyer, but not much of a photographer.
Ms. Cooper: I know. I am not a Willy Gort. This is a photograph of Brickell
Place in the Atlantis from its worst angle, as far as how the buildings are
together. This is taken from the service road, right immediately in front of
Brickell Place. This is from across the street, and if you will try to notice
the spacing between the building, even though you see it from this angle
they sort of line up, you can see how far apart they are. Compare that, please,
with this next photograph of the Imperial, Villa Regina and the Palace and just
like the last photographs were taken at the worst angle, this is admittedly
the worst angle, but it is there.
Mayor Ferre: No, there is one worst. Brickell... go out of... the other
picture is a solid wall of concrete.
Ms. Cooper: Now, I have a few more shots of the same thing and I am sorry
this comes up so small, because... maybe you can see it in this one. There is
a little editorial comment by the developer. It says "prison". It says
"prison" right by the building that they are building and some people have
told me that they would feel as though they were in a prison if they were
living in these buildings because they are so close to each other.
Mayor Ferre: Is that the name of the company?
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND CO?ZI NTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Ms. Cooper: Is that what he said?
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COUNTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Ms. Cooper: This is also a little dark, but I am showing you now the
spacing between the various buildings. I am starting with the biggest build-
ing on the south. The building on the right is Brickell Townhouse and the
building on the left is Brickell Bay Club. Here is a photograph of Commis-
sioner Plummer's favorite building,the Atlantis, from the south side and
from the north side. Now, when you see this building, you can see that there
is no other building right next to it - you see sky surrounding this build-
ing. On the very far right, you see a little corner of the Brickell Bay Club,
Id 59 DEC 1 61982
but basically, you see the building and see sky. This is the space between the
Atlantis and the fourth building of Brickell Place. where you see plenty of sky.
This is from an angle, a pretty bad angle, but you can still see sky between
the two buildings. This is the fourth building of Brickell Place where you
can see sky on either side, significant portions. This is between the third
and fourth buildings. This is a photograph between the two middle buildings
in Brickell Place, and I had to stand back as far as I could on the property
to even get both buildings in this picture. There is a sigificant distance
between the two buildings here, and this is the distance between the first
and the second buildings. Herelwe have between the first building of Brickell
Place and the U.T.D. Tower - also a tremendous amount of spacing. Another
angle of the same thing. These are the three buildings, U.T.D. Tower and the
first two buildings of Brickell Place. You can see a lot of sky between them.
This is again the photograph of the three buildings on the corner: the Palace,
Villa Regina and the Imperial and you see that there is no sky visible, unless
you get right up to the portion where you would be looking directly at it. You
can't sky from any angle. This is a result of the decreased side yard setback
that we were talking about. Now, this is a photograph of the south side of
Imperial, and I am going to go over and point for you so you can see the edge
of the building compared to the property line. This is the north side of the
Imperial where the parking structure is very close to the property line, as
you can see there. Now, when this item was coming up before the City Commis-
sion on its P.A.D. application, I would like to tell you what the Planning
Department said about it. It said in its recommendation:
"The side yard variances are unacceptable and if they are permitted,
the parking structure will be obnoxious to the adjacent property
owners. It will create a solid wall varying in height from 7.35
feet in front to 13 feet on the Bay."
They also said:
"The proposed development as it is designed would over develop the
site and could be harmful to neighbors and to citizens of Miami."
This is your own Planning Department. That was on Page 161 of the July
24, 1980 transcript. There was no page number, but the July 7, 1980
Zoning Board transcript, the Planning Department said:
"The proposed development would not be in keeping with past develop-
ment in the Brickell area and we feel that it will over -develop the
site and be detrimental to adjacent property, therefore we see all
of the problems that have been created with the lot coverage and
the setbacks, and those are the two items that are of concern
specifically."
' On Page 26 of a Commission transcript (they don't have the date) Susan Groves
of the Planning Department said:
"The proposed development as it is designed would over develop the site
and could be harmful to neighbors and citizens of Miami."
and evidence of this is the number and magnitude of the variances that are
being requested. Now, what you are being asked to do here today is to
legitimize this not only for this one building, but for any developer who
obtains property on this area and would like to develop the property in that
way.
Mayor Ferre: Janet, refresh my memory, because I remember that you and I had
a little bit of a tassle on that. I didn't vote on the Atlantis, right, be-
cause I recused myself because it was my sister's property, but I dia vote on
the other one.
Ms. Cooper: Well, that is the Imperial.
Mayor Ferre: I mean the Imperial. I didn't vote on the Imperial.
Ms. Cooper: I don't remember for sure,
Mayor Ferre: I don't think I voted on the other one either,
why,
60
I don't know
DEC 1 61982
id
Ma. Cooper: I don't remembet, but ypu... -
(speaking to the City Clerk)
Mayor Ferre: Would'you make a research of that for me and tell me which Me
of these things I didn't vote on? ... because I know I had a conflict for sure
with the one that went on my sister's property, which is the Imperial.
Ms. Cooper: The point is that the Planning Department is now telling you to
make a change in the ordinance that would allow for every building changes
that were found to be obnoxious and detrimental to the citizens of the City
just a few years ago. The next snapshot shows the distance between the
Imperial and the Villa Regina, and I am going to go point it out again to
you, so you can see just how close they really are. This is another angle of
the same spacing where you can see just how close these buildings are, and
another. This a photograph of the north side of Villa Regina. Now, when
Villa Regina came before the Commission for its P.A.D. approval, the Planning
Department recommended denial, saying that:
"The proposed project would over develop the site. There is no justi-
fication for exceeding the F.A.R., particularly since the water area
is being included in the lot area computation. The F.A.R. should be
brought down from 2.68 to 2.2, based on growth area, including water.
This would mean removing five floors, or forty units, based on this
project's design. Such..."
and here is the key,
"Such a reduction would bring the project more into conformance with
zoning regulations and with adjacent development."
Here is a photograph of the spacing between Villa Regina and the Palace and
another shot from across 15th Road. This is during construction in May. This =
is from the Palace, and I hope you all look at this one, because it shows just _
how close to the property line the parking structure of Villa Regina is and I
am going to go point it out to you, if any of you are looking.
61
7.d
DEC 1 61982
sl
Mayor Fette! Is that up or down? It looks like an abstract photograph.
Ms. Cooper: To respond to Mr. Plummer's question, the principal structure is
on that side either 47 or 67 feet from the property line. You are looking at
the accessory structure which is significantly less. I do not have the exact
figure but it is really not very far. This is when I was there on Tuesday for
a meeting, I stood on the Palace property and I felt like I could reach in and
touch the cars that were parked in the garage at the Villa Regina.
Mayor Ferre: I bet some of those developers would not have minded if you
had tried.
Ms. Cooper: Meaning I would have been hurt, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: I think that is what I meant, yes.
Ms. Cooper: Here is another shot showing how close the parking structure is
to the adjacent property at the Palace. This is a shot from the pool area of
the Palace showing how imposing Villa Regina is. This is taken from the very
far side of the Palace property as far as I could get and still take this
picture. Here is a picture of the top portion when it was under construction
in May. This is a picture from one of the apartments in the Palace showing
how close Villa Regina is. This is on the street side of the property. Here
we have one on the bay side of the property from the other side of the Palace
looking again at Villa Regina. This photograph was taken Sunday from 15th
Road showing the view from the street as the person rides down the street.
This is from the other side of the street. That is the end of the slide
presentation.
Basically this ordinance is a very serious ordinance that will affect
the development on Brickell Avenue to such a magnitude, as you just saw,
the difference between those that would comply with the Code; how close they
are to each other and the buildings that are already existing. Three of you
last week expressed some serious concern over the wording of the ordinance
and many of the provisions of the ordinance. If it is to be passed in any
form at all it needs to be reworked very seriously. I don't know that that
could be done here today. I would ask you to either reject it outright or
to at 1:.ist consider very seriously, taking your time and writing it properly
so that there will be adequate protection for the people who live in this
area. Because even though people may choose to live in a high rise a mile
or two from downtown, they are still entitled when they look out their window
to see some sky. And they are still entitled when they step outside and want
to stretch their arms to not worry about touching the next building. They
are entitled to a little bit of peace and quiet in the way they live their
lives. This ordinance would not allow for that. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, we will hear from the other side now.
Mr. Martin Fine: For the record, my name is :Martin Fine, 2401 Douglas Road.
Our firm represents the developers of the Imperial House, a development which
was approved by this Commission in 1981. Just for the record, because I think
that the photograph are very interesting, depending on where you take them.
If Mr. Gary would be kind enough...if I could hand him these and pass them
around, I think you will find that it is not only attractive but patriotic
in red, white and blue. I think that you will find it is very pleasant to
look at. I will give you copies and deliver them to you.
Very briefly, I am not sure if it is an act of good faith to go through
the hearing last week and go through a workshop and raise procedural defects
today. I think good faith would indicate that one comes to the City Attorney
as one has in the past when we think there is a problem with the notice, so
that the staff would have had time to do it rather than try to embarrass anybody
and at the last minute raise these procedural questions. So I am not going to
respond to the procedure. We are satisfied as multi -million dollar developers
there that the procedure is correct and the advertisement is correct.
The carrying charges on these projects are in this particular project,
as you can understand, involves many hundreds of thousands of dollars per
month. You know we are talking about these projects. There is no deviousness
circuitousness involved. We want to share with you that we have had input
and met with the City Attorney; pardon me, the Planning Department, and then
submitted through the Planning Department, the City Attorney, the ordinance
62 DEC 1 61900
Mr. pine (CON'T): that we thought was appropriate. It was changed. It
was not passed or not approved by that Department in the form in which you
have it today. I particularly want to be very brief, but I want to stress
one thing. I know Mr. Plummer has raised this on occasion over the years.
Mr. Dawkins, you mentioned you were not at the workshops. I apologize. But
there is one major thrust in zoning that we would like to share with all of
you, perhaps as the newest member, particularly with you. That is that it
is a function of the City Commission to zone, not the Planning staff, the
City Commission; not the courts, the City Commission. The courts have a
right to review. The courts did review the PAD ordinance and said it was
unconstitutional. In my opinion you have a right, and perhaps even an
obligation to approve such an ordinance to carry out your original intent.
The circuit court, if it wanted to, could say, "If you approve this ordinance
today that it is unconstitutional." I think that anyone could come up and
challenge it, and the courts might say it is wrong. But it is up to this
legislative body, not a circuit court, to zone the property of the City
of Miami. We think you did that before.
I might also point out that in the case of the Imperial there is no
decision from the circuit court. That zoning that the Imperial has in our
opinion is absolutely legal, correct, and binding on the City of Miami as
the City passed it. The circuit court has a rule it is not a PAD. There
were variances granted there.
We think that this ordinance merely recodifies this Commission's past
policies and would not grant to this client or any other client involved
in this property of the developer any additional benefits other than those
which you have previously approved before. In that spirit we ask that this
Commission retain its responsibility to zone the property within its boundaries
and not to abdicate that decision and responsibility to the courts. The courts
have dealt with the PAD ordinance and said it is wrong. That it did not
standards. You Planning staff and City Attorney have come back and given you
an ordinance which does have standards and we hope you pass it today.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the next speaker. ?fr. Dubbin.
Mr. Murray Dubbin: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, I am going to
be very brief. My name is Murray Dubbin. I am an attorney at law. I
together with Mr. Moreber, who is here, and Mr. Paul, who is present
in the audience, represent the developers of Villa Regina. We can't...
I don't believe it would be productive to attempt to respond to the
scattered gun presentation that the opponent to the measure has made.
I do not think that it would be productive because basically, aside from
the "procedural issues" that were raised, the only other issues raised by
the opponent are the fact that in her judgement the proposed ordinance
would have the result that would be not to her satisfaction. In other
words, her judgement differs from the judgement of the proponent, which is
the Planning Department that this proposed amendment to the zoning code
would serve the best interest of the people. Commissioner Plumirer raised
a question at the last meeting that I would like to address. That had to
do with the view corridors. I know the project that I represent, Villa
Regina, is in total conformity with the see through provisions of the
Charter. That is without any... includes all accessory structures. See
through provisions call for 25% see through. It is in total conformity.
It has never even been a question but I am bringing that out to satisfy
the Commissioner as to what the results of this ordinance will be. Further
at this point I would like to show you our project as it relates to what
a similar project, the same project would be under the new ordinance which
becomes effective in April of this year, of 83. I would like to ask Mr.
Moriber to bring the sketches that we have. Would you mind explaining them
while I hold them?
Mr. Andrew Moriber: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, for the record
my name is Andrew Moriber. I practice with the firm of Dubbin, Berkman,
Dubbin, and Greenfield in Miami. I also represent Villa Regina. Sometime
after this matter came to our attention, I requested our architects to do
a study for us. As you all know, you passed a comprehensive zoning
ordinance that will go into effect in April of this year. I asked the
architects to see what would happen to the Villa Regina under that
ordinance because we were told that the Villa Regina was such a gross
63 DEC 161982
s
Mrs Motibet (CON'T): ovetdevelopment. At least that contention had bean
Bade by Save Brickell Avenue. We frankly doubt it. The results are
visible from these two boards we have in front of you. The board that
Mt. Dubbin is holding in his hand shows on the left side of the board
a profile of the building as seen from Brickell Avenue or from the bay
side, that is the narrow exposure of the building. The red mark on the
upper right hand side shows the portion of the building which would be
clipped, if you will, by the light plane, which becomes the governing
item on set back under the new ordinance. As you can see, the section
that gets clipped is approximately 100 feet in height at the top portion.
It is about 20-25 feet wide at its widest point.
However, as you look at it there you are not getting the whole picture
because as you know, the Villa Regina is not exactly a conventional square
or rectangular shape building. If you take a look at this larger drawing
that I have in my hand now, Mr. Dubbin is now holding, you can see a red
outline. That is the outline of the light plane at the top level, at the
roof level of the building. You can see that what the light plane flips
off the building, if you will, is this little portion that is marked in
red. The total portion that is clipped off is approximately 40,000 cubic
feet, which since we have 9 1/2 foot floors translates roughly 4,000
square feet, two and a half apartments out of a total of 205. It is a
very minimal deviation from the new ordinance that will go into effect
in April which was adopted in accordance with your comprehensive plan.
I understand that similar results occur when you take the other buildings
which are under construction or permitting and apply the new ordinance to
them. I just wanted you to have that piece of information because I think
it is very valuable for you to understand that. Thank you.
Mr. Dubbin: Thank you, Andy. Aside from that, Mr. Mayor and Members of
the Commission, we will be pleased to respond to any questions which you
may have. Thank you very much.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you. The next speaker. Are there any other speakers
at this time?
Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, my name is Robert
H. Traurig, 1401 Brickell Avenue. I and Tony O'Donnell, Julio Diaz are
here in connection with the property which has not been developed, the
Santa Maria project. We urge you to adopt the ordinance as proposed by
the Planning Department.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let Dr. Theede speak.
Dr. Jane Theede: Dr. Jane Theede, 150 S.W. 7th Street. Unfortunately, I
lack the formal education that Janet has. Unfortunately I have not seen
the ordinance, but there is something that is becoming very apparent. It
happened this morning. It is happening now. This, Mr. Mayor, is that we
are wasting our time writing these ordinances and writing these laws because
in the years that I have been coming to the Commission it seems that every
time I turn around, they are being rewritten always for the convenience of
someone developing. There is an inconsistency. The City is beginning to visually
show this inconsistency. It is beginning to get ugly instead of pretty. Big
dollar ugly, but still ugly. Now, I think that in all fairness to the Commission,
to the developers, to the citizens of Miami you should make an ordinance and
say, "Come hell or high water we are not varying it. We are not changing it.
That is the way it is."Because each time you vary it, you have been unfair
to the person that has developed his property prior to that time when he did
not have that benefit of this extra floor footage. This is grossly unfair.
Now, you know, when I built my own building I did not come to you for any
variances of any thing. I think it is grossly unfair to anyone who invests
money in the City of Miami to force them to live by one ordinance and a week
later or two weeks later to change ordinance to give somebody else the benefit.
We should set our ordinances and then leave them, put a cap on them for five
years or ten years or whatever time it may be. But this daily change of
ordinances leaves question to the integrity, the intelligence, the wisdom,
whatever words you want to use, to this Commission. Thank you.
T
DEC 161982
a
Mgt Cooper: Just briefly addressing some of the points taisedt Vitat of
ails all the procedural defects I raised today were raised before, 80
there is no question I'd like to incorporate by reference all the previous
hearings on this matter. Second of all, yes, it is true that how your
photographs look depend on where you are when you take them. I am telling
you that I took every one of those photographs on ground level as a pedestrian
or a person in a car would see the property. The photographs that were passed
around to you were taken from an airplane way above the buildings and in many
cases over the bay. I would question how many people would be in that position
to see the buildings from that angle very often. I guess if you go high
enough or far away enough, any photograph, any building could look nice;
but the question is when you are walking down that street and when you are
looking at the building from the viewpoint of the people that are going to
be living on that street, what do those properties look like. That is the
true question.
It was suggested to you that this ordinance is merely to meet the
intent of what you already did. But if you were going to pass an ordinance
to meet the intent of what you did you would not be passing amendments to
the R-5A ordinance, where a person would not have to provide any extra
amenities and they could just go in and get a building permit and build
the worst possible building that they could fit under that ordinance.
You would be passing instead a revised PAD ordinance. But that is not
what is before you. A revised PAD ordinance, or something similar to
the ordinance passed in the OMNI area would require certain amenities.
That is not the situation here.
When these particular projects were approved by this Commission the
developers contend and the City contends in their briefs in the court system
that these deviations from these standard R-5A were granted as a result of
significant amenities that were being provided. But this ordinance does not
require amenities. It does not require any review for amenities. There is
no opportunity to obtain those amenities. That is one of the main problems
with this ordinance. It gives everything. But there is no opportunity for
the City to benefit from it.
It was stated that this ordinance would not grant benefits that were
already given to these particular projects. That is not entirely true,
because there is nothing to prevent if this ordinance is passed, these
developers from coming in and applying for a building permit to modify
these buildings. I am not suggesting that is their intention. But there
is nothing to prevent them from coming in and modifying their buildings in
such a way that it would reach the maximum allowed by the ordinance, which
as we discussed last week could extend on one side to the property line.
In the case of Santa Maria, for example, could go up an additional
185.feet to almost 600 feet tall. I don't know. I have not analyzed each
project in that way, but certainly not every project is at the maximum of
every measurement that it could have. So, it is not a true statement that
the projects could not benefit any further. The harm that could be done
by this ordinance by this being in existence for even less than three months
is significant to the area.
You were told that the Planning Department thinks this would be to
the benefit of this community. The Planning Department never told you that.
The Planning Department told you that the ordinance is being proposed in
order to legitimize these buildings and in order to be consistent with what
they interpreted as the City Commission's policy, even though it was never
directed to them. The only statement of the Planning Department's opinion
of whether or not this would benefit the community are the statements that
I read you from the recommendations when these items were individually before
you, which were statements such as, "obnoxious" and "dangerous," and
"harmful," and "detrimental," not dangerous but detrimental and "harmful"
to the adjacent properties and the citizens of this City. That is the
position as far as I know of the Planning Department as to what these
amendments would propose; not that they think that it is wonderful.
It was stated that I was the one who said that Villa Regina was
overdeveloped. That was not my own statement. That was a direct quote from
the Planning Department recommendation. As far as compliance with the new
code, to the best of my information, none of these three buildings would
comply with this new code. The developers for Santa Maria showed us
yesterday at the workshop that their building would not. George Acton
of the Planning Department told me that the Imperial would not. Mr.
Moriber stood here and told you that Villa Regina would not comply with
65
DEC 16 1982
Ufa► Cooper (CON'T)i the new code. So I think it is unfair to say what
the new code would allow them to do in some respects. The bottom line is
that these projects would not comply with the new code. They do not comply
with the present code. The only thing that is happening here today is an
attempt to legitimize a business risk that these developers took with their
eyes wide open and with full knowledge of that possibility. I will be glad
to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Do the attorneys representing the properties have any other
statements to make? All right, for a closing statement, Mr. McManus, is
there anything you want to say? Is that it? Now, we are at the Commission
level. Any questions from Members of the Commission?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, to the gentleman who said he answered Commissioner Plummer's
question, that was the view corridors are important and maybe the semantics
are wrong. My great concern was not the concern of the view corridor as much
as it was the availability of being able to back two buildings up back to
back on a property line. Now maybe that is what you consider a view corridor,
but that is what I consider jamming. Mr. McManus, I asked that be addressed
that if in fact that ordinance does allow that and what modifications we
would have to insert to keep it from happening.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Plummer, we do not think that is the case.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. McManus, I do not pay you to give me a maybe answer.
I need to know, is it possible? If it is, then we have to address that issue.
I really don't feel I am overbearing asking for a yes or no. While Mr.
Whipple is looking that up, Mr. McManus, let me ask a few questions because
you know one must I guess admire Janet Cooper for the time she drives these
very illustrious lawyers in this community to bats. Obviously not a penny
renumeration to her. Whether you agree or disagree with her, I think that
active spirit on her part. Yes, I guess we do get tired of listening every
once in a while. Especially to someone who goes into such great detail.
But I have to ask a few questions because I think that even though she makes
a very fine presentation I have to wonder if it really applies. We basically
are speaking of three buildings. Am I correct?
Mr. McManus: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: That presently exist and was the subject of the court case.
I am assuming that when these three projects applied for and received their
PAD, that they did in fact comply. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr. McManus: Well, you understand, Commissioner, that as a part of the
PAD process the underlying zoning was looked to as a point of reference
and through the PAD process there were certain deviations.
Mr. Plummer: But what I am saying is that those, when drawn those building
permits for those three individual structures, they did comply with the
ordinance at that present time.
Mr. McManus: Absolutely.
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mr. Plummer: The PAD, that is exactly what I said. The ordinance existing
at the time. It is my understanding that very close to what is being
proposed in the master comprehensive, that these buildings even though
they might not exactly, they would be very close to compliance in the
new comprehensive which goes in effect in April.
Mr. McManus: That is my understanding, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: More practical tells me that these three structures are
built or they are out of the ground.
Mr. McManus: Yes, sir.
s �.
Mr: Plummer: At least two of them ate out of the ground. It is well And
good and I would much prefer to wait until April and let the new ordinance
apply. But for some reason there is a reluctance on the developers' part
and I can understand that in today's market everybody is very nervous about
being stopped or litigation. But when you have a building out of the
ground there ain't no big razor blade in the sky that is going to come down
and shave these buildings into compliance (is the way I see it).
RECORDER DIFFICULTY.
....agree with her 100%, I would assume that you would damn near have to
tear those three structures down and start from scratch. All I am saying
I guess in the long run, is there any way, Mr. City Attorney, that this
Commission can in fact grandfather those which are presently there without
adopting the ordinance? I have some real fears of an interim ordinance
which no one makes any pretense about the fact that we are doing it to try
and bring existing buildings which had legitimate permits into compliance.
But my fear is to opening the door to others who have not applied.
Mr. Fine said it is only 96 days and the new ordinance goes into effect.
I want to tell you in 96 days, Marty, we could have 95 applications. Well,
you don't think so because there is not that much property. I understand
that but there are some vacant parcels, O.K.?
Mr. City Attorney, I want to tell you exactly where I am and you tell
me what is the best way —and I don't give many people that latitude, but
you are retiring so I will give you that final shot. I think there is no
question that we have to...and I don't like that terminology... legitimize
that which is there. There is no question. You are just not going to tear
them down or shave them. I would prefer to make those in compliance, if it
is humanly possible without passing an interim ordinance because I do have
reservations. If you tell me that we cannot do that, then I have to abide
by that. But I do not see where we really have any other alternative. I
will say to you that if in fact you tell me that we have to have the
ordinance, then I will go and have some other further questions, but I
ask that for you.
Mr. Terry Percy: Briefly, Commissioner, the proposed ordinance isn't in
response to a problem confronted with those projects that are near completion.
and are ready for a certificate of occupancy. I don't believe there is
mechanism to grandfather them as you suggested without some curative
legislation, unless of course they are permitted before some final determination
is made by the courts. Since there are more than one project involved at
various stages of development I don't know if you could accomplish that.
So this is the most suitable means to address that given all of the contingencies
that we might expect.
Mr. Plummer: Would the vehicle of a variance on each individual building
accomplish the same.
Mr. Percy: That would be very cumbersome. You would have to rely then on
the underlying ordinance that is in existence. You would have a difficulty
Those variances would be pretty much prescribed. That would be a very
rudimentary process, so I don't think that would be the recommended approach.
Mr. Plummer: So then your recommendation, if I understand correctly is to
preoceed with this ordinance.
Mr. Percy: Absolutely.
Mr. Plummer: O.K., now, Mr. McManus, back to you in reference to the
jamming up of the buildings.
Mr. McManus: Commissioner, there is language here that says in the amendments
that accessory structures may encroach into the minimum side yard required
by this amendment provided they do not encroach in the yards required by
the waterfront charter amendment. To eliminate any ambiguity that whole
sentence could be eliminated entirely, in which case the accessory
structures (and we are talking here about parking garages) could then
encroach out into the side yards to approximately one half. But again,
they are still governed by the waterfront charter amendment. You still
have to provide that 25% see through.
67
sl DEC 1 61982
S
0
Mr, PIU eft Go a little bit further in what are accessory structute§:
Pat ekamplet is a swimming pool an accessory structure?
Mr, McManus: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: See, I have no problem with that. In other words# a switmtting
pool is a recreational area. I have no problem with that. My concern is
-_
a parking structure or a wall of one story or more back to back. That I
have a problem with. Are you saying to me that if we drop that paragraph
it would eliminate my concern?
Mr. McManus: I believe so. In reference, this is on page three of the
-
ordinance, approximately the second paragraph of paragraph(d) that starts
out, "the foregoing regulations are applicable to principal structures
only," and would strike the following sentence beginning "accessory
structures."
Mr. Plummer: The question is now of the three structures in question do
-
any of them violate my concern? My concern in jamming up building on
building on property line.
-
Mr. Martin Fine: Martin Fine, for the record. Mr. Plummer, I just waftt
to point out one thing that I think is appropriate.
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Fine: First of all, in all candor while the City has a lot at stake
any developer and any lender with any degree of reasonableness and most
people who are smart enough to accumulate enough money to buy Brickell
=
Avenue property and to develop it have a certain degree of intelligence,
are not going to do what you are concerned they might do. But there is
one other thing. This ordinance, if passed today, does not become effective
for 30 days. Is that correct? So you only have 66 days, 66 days before
it is sunsetted as a result of your new ordinance. Now, really, in all
candor it is impossible, I would submit to you, for any developer whether
they own that property now or buy it to get a set of plans to come in to
go all through the department. It takes that department sometimes more
than 60 days to review these projects to determine if they are in compliance.
I think that by passing this ordinance you do it in a manner which is uniform,
fair, equitable, and carries out your intent and does not in any way in a
realistic manner allow what you are concerned about to happen. Honestly,
I really believe that. If you think about it, you know in this community
or almost any community today with all these regulations it takes 66 days
to get somebody in some of these departments to return your call. I mean
it takes a lot of time to run a set of plans through.
The Fire Department... now you have a great deal of confidence in that
department and it is justified. Now you know they have a lot of concern
about these buildings. It may take them 60 days just to review it. If
you wanted to make sure it took that much time, I think you could arrange
that. The City could in a responsible manner. So, by passing this ordinance
' in the manner in which it is, in my opinion, listening to you today, trying
to be very fair and objective, you would be carrying out your objective
without causing the City any concern. We would object to striking that
paragraph because it would cause several of these buildings a problem.
- Mayor Ferre: Further questions?
f { } >���
Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, may I just say that if Mr. Plummer...
' Robert H. Traurig, for the record... if Mr. Plummer is concerned aboutT"
-= the allegation that the buildings are right up to the side lot line....
4
e o- �
Ht, Plummer: Bob, Bob, for the tecotd, that was not an allegation, it
tdas said that it could be.
Mr. Traurig: All right, I would like to point out to you that you know
What the existing buildings look like. The only other building that is
permitable between now and the time that the new comprehensive zoning
ordinance would become effective is the Santa Maria project; because the
other projects, as Mr. Fine indicates, I'm sure would not have working
drawings that could be permitted within that period of time. I would
Just like this Commission to know that there is a very substantial
side yard in connection with Santa Maria. It is about 100 feet on the
north side and it is 104 feet on the south side. No, it is 104 plus
26, 130 feet. So there is a very substantial side yard set back on
both sides, in case that was troubling you.
Mayor Ferre: Is the light gray area the parking structure?
Mr. Traurig: The light gray area is the parking structure and that is
underground for one level and the other level is a maximum of eight
feet above ground. There is, I have to clarify my answer, there is
an existing former home on the north side which when the PAD was approved
was designated as an historic structure to be retained on the site. So
it is our intention to retain that. But on the other hand, if it were
the will of this Commission to have that full set back area, we could of
course demolish it, which we do not want to do.
Mayor Ferre: Further questions?
Ms. Cooper: There are, Mr. Mayor, at least two other developers I am aware
of who have plans who could probably submit plans within the time that
this amendment would be effective. I am speaking of the Brickell Bay
Village and the Brickell Inn properties. There is no assurance that others
don't have plans that I don't know about.
If you were to make the ordinance such that a person could apply but
could not possibly obtain their permit during the time that the ordinance
was effective, I think that would be a pretty strong case for that developer
to come in and say, "as long as I made my application during the time that
the ordinance was effective I should be entitled to the benefits of that
ordinance." merely delaying the process, I think, would be seemed not only
to be of violation of its due process and his property rights, but would
certainly render the amendment much more vulnerable legally in court and
challengeable by many other people than say, Brickell Avenue, Inc.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, what happens if after the second reading
when this goes into effect this Commission places a moratorium?
Mr. Percy: That is a very cumbersome process. It would take an ordinance,
which is a notice requirement, which is a minimum of 30 days.if it affects
more than 5% of the land mass in the City. So, you are talking of four
to five day minimum process before you could affect a moratorium.
Ms. Cooper: The next comment was that the developers will not build this
horrible thing that we are seeing as a possibility. Well, quite frankly
I did not think the developers would build some of these buildings that
are already standing. I am sure many other people did not either. Mr.
Plummer had questions as to just how significant the deviations were. I
have a chart that I passed out when we were dealing with the PAD. I would
like t6 go ahead and pass out to you so you could take a look at it.
Mayor Ferre: I gave her five minutes to respond.
Ms. Cooper: Briefly, the type of deviations that you are seeing in Villa
Regina, which is the first yellowed item on your chart is a lot coverage,
This is considering only the upland area not the submerged land of almost
12% compared to the 8% allowed. On the principal structure 46% where 22%
was allowed on the overall, an FAR of 3.403 and side yard set backs. Where
148 1/2 feet are required on each side they are providing 63 on one side
and 47 1/2 on the other. That is the significant deviation on that one.
We
DEC 1 61982
sI
is
77
Mss Cooper (CON1fi): On imperial your 'PAR is 3,364 lot coverage for principal
structure over 14, where only 9 is allowed. Principal structure 43 where
only 23 is allowed, and their side yards provided are 80.5 and 82 and a little -
change, where 134 is required. You can see the figures on Santa Maria are —
not as bad.
The Planning Department, I should in all fairness, did not recommend
denial of Santa Maria; it recommended approval. It is a building that is
of less concern to my organization.
Mayor Ferre: All right, any further questions?
Mr. Andrew Moriber: Mr. Mayor, just one point of clarification, I think
mostly for Commissioner Plummer. In addition to the zoning ordinance,
as you know, there are many other ordinances that govern building. One of
them is the South Florida Building Code. Another is the Fire Code. As
far as I know, the provision I am going to tell you about is not under
amendment at any level of government at this point. But the Fire Code
specifically requires that the Fire Department have access to a building
from all sides from the street.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you.
Mr. Moriber: That requires some space on either side of the building.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Further questions? What is the will
of this Commission?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the second reading of the
ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on the floor on item 1 by Commissioner
Carollo. Is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I just don't really see where we have any latitude
to do anything else. They played by the rules and applied at the time
that they applied.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion?
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI,
BY AMENDING ARTICLE X-1 ENTITLED "HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE
R-5A DISTRICT" BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (5) TO SECTION
3 (YARDS), ANT BY AMENDING SECTIONS 5 (FLOOR AREA RATIO)
AND 6 (LOT COVERAGE); FURTHER BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 9
ENTITLED "SITE PLAIN REVIEW" TO SAID ARTICLE X-1; BY
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF
IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 9, 1982,
it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
on motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by commissioner Plummer,
the and ordinance
was thereupon given its second and fine g
by title adopted by the following vote:
E
40
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummert Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr,
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9535
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. INSTRUCT PLANNING DEPARTNSENT TO INITIATE STUDY REMAINING
PORTION S.W. 28 TERR. FOR POSSIBLE ZONING CHANGE CLASSIFICATION
FROM R-4 AND SPD-2 TO R-C.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I revert back please for one minute to item 6?
Mayor Ferre: Item 6, yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion at this time that
the Planning Department be instructed to instigate a study for the remaining
portion of southwest 28th Terrace for the proposed change to that which we
changed the property today to aleviate my fear that we might be inviting
some areas in there that I think would be bad.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption.
MOTION 82-1158
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY MANAGER TO
INSTRUCT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO
INITIATE A STUDY FOR
THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF S.W. 28TH
TERRACE FOR CONSIDERATION
OF CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION
FROM R4 AND SPD-2 TO RC.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted
by the following vote:
AjI S:
Commissioner Joe Carollo
-_
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice Ferre
-
NOES;
None.
M
-
ABSENT:
Commissioner Demetrio Pereaf Jr�
c
t 1
71
DEC 1 61982
s
6
16. DIRECT PLAidNIi;G DLPAI:Tia.iiT TO STUDY POTZi�TIAI P :OBLL:IS ON
BRICKELL AVENUE IN THE AREA Or 7TH P`Tn QTH STvr-aTc FOR
PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, I am going to turn over to you and also make a
_ motion on Brickell Avenue around 7th and 8th Streets ... the question —this
is a study on projected traffic growth and a potential solution. I would
like for staff to study it and come back to report to the Commission. I
would so move.
Mr. Plummer: Second.
' Mr. Dawkins: Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, Who shoved
its adoption.
MOTION 82-1159
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
INSTRUCT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO STUDY POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS ON BRICKELL AVENUE IN THE AREA OF 7TH AND 8TH
STREETS REGARDING PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH AND POTENTIAL
SOLUTION TO SAME; FURTHER REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT REPORT THEIR FINDINGS BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION
AT A LATER DATE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
sl
17. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3216-23
AVIATION AVENUE FROM R-4 TO R-C.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item number 7.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, Commission, it should be noted that this is another
item that the Planning Department has recommended approval. The request for
a change of zoning is one that is pursuant to a previous grant on the other
side of the street and this request is to even up that zoning.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any objectors? All right, this was passed unanimously
by the Zoning Board.
Mr. Plummer: Counselor, so that you can collect your fee, would you like to
state your name and address for the record?
Mr. Robert Traurig: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Do you stipulate that herein contained all add items to be
true and correct to the best of your knowledge.
Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir. My name is Robert H. Traurig and we concur fully
with the Planning Department in its recommendation.
Mr. Plummer: And you do solemnly swear that you never got a fee so easy in
your life?
Mr. Traurig: No, I can't swear to that.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Plummer moves, so we can get out of here by 9:00 P.M.
Dawkins seconds, further discussion on this Item number 7. Read the ordinance,
please.
THEREUPON, CITY -ATTORNEY READ ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Ferre: With an amendment that Mr. Traurig is donating that photo to
City Hall for permanent... thank you, Mr. Traurig.
Mr. Traurig: Yes, as a matter of fact, we would be happy to do that and
this is really a perfect photo for this room.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS
= AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE CITY OF MIAIII, BY CHANGING THE ZON-
ING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 14 THROUGH 22 IN-
CLUSIVE , BLOCK 39, NEW BISCAYNE Al -ID (B-16) ,
- ALSO DESCRIBED AS APPROXIVATELY 3216-28
AVIATION AVENUE FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTIPLE DWELLING) TO R-C (RESIDENITIAL OFFICE)
AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY C1I1.}vGES IN
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP IIADE A PART OF SAID
-- ORDIIIANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE A'D DESCRIP-
TION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY
i REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR
' PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A
.r SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
id
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner DawkinA1
4nd passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
73
DEC 16 1982
AYES., Commissioner Miller J. Dawkitct
Comnissiler Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer* Jt,
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES, None
ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio Perez* Jt,
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 members of the public.
18. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 501
N. E. 62 STREET FRO?* RO-3/6 TO CR-2/7.
Mayor Ferre: All right, take up Item number 8. This is a change in zoning.
Mr. Robert Traurig: This is to the City Clerk.
Mayor Ferre: City of Miami zoning ordinance. The Planning Department recom-
mends approval and the Planning Advisory Board recommends it unanimously.
Are there any objectors?
Mr. Plummer: Don't forget the black olives, Bob.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any objectors? If not, is there a motion on Item 8?
Mr. Carollo: Moved.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Carollo. Is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a second. Further discussion? Read the
ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500
(EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1983), THE NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI , FLORIDA, `'
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE AREA LOCATED APPROXIMATELY AT 581
NORTHEAST 62ND STREET, ALSO DESCRIBED AS
LOT 16, BLOCK 10, NORTHGATE (8-68), FROM
RO-3/6 (RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE) TO CR-2/7
(COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY);
AND BY MAKING ALL NECESSARY CHANGES IN
THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID
ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND ,
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300,
THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON-
FLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
,YES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES; None
ANENT: None
DEC 161982
Id
The City Attorney r -d the ordinance into the public record and announced =_
that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the
members of the public.
19. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AREA
BOL'11DED APPROXI'MATELii N.W. 3 COURT A LINE 36 FEET NORTH AND
PtULULEL TO N.W. 22 LANE ETC.
Mr. Plummer: Item number 9. Anyone wishing to testify on Item number 9,
please come forward. This is a change of zoning of the area bounded on
N. W. 3rd Court. This is an application of the Planning Department. Strangely
enough, it is recommended by the Planning Department. It is recommended by
the Advisory Board. Anyone wishing to testify on Item number 9. Let the
record reflect that no one came forth to testify for or against. Is there a
motion on the Commission?
Mr. Dawkins: I am going to move it and I'll have discussion.
Mr. Plummer: Moved by Commissioner Dawkins. Is there a second?
Mr. Perez: I second.
Mr. Plummer: Seconded by Commissioner Perez. Under discussion, Commissioner
Dawkins.
Mr. Dawkins: Where is Mr. Reid?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jim Reid.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, I will tell the Manager. There was a gentleman in here
this morning who is the only Black in this area who has something. He said
that he constantly gets notices and he didn't understand them, so I want to
be sure that...there is Mr. Reid. Mr. Reid, the gentlemen who was in here
this morning, you explained to him that this did not apply to him - am I
correct?
Mr. Jim Reid: That is correct. We have had a long standing agreement with
that gentlemen that his auto repair place would stay open. We intend to ad-
here to that agreement.
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Further discussion by Commissioners or questions?
stood.. Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500
(EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1983), THE NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE AREA APPROXIMATELY BOU14DED BY NORTH-
WEST 3RD COURT, A LINE 86' + NORTH OF AND
PARALLEL TO NORTHWEST 2211,ID LANE, NORTH-
WEST 5TH AVENUE AND NORTHWEST 22ND
STREET, ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE WEST 5' OF
LOT 12, BLOCK 1, AND ALL OF BLOCKS 2 AND
3, AND LOT 11, BLOCY 4, WEAVER FIRST
ADDITION (UNRECORDED PLAT), AND LOT 11,
BLOCK 1, AND BLOCKS 2 AND 3 .BEAVER SUB-
DIVISION (6-31), AND BLOCKS C AND D, J.
A. DANNS SECOND ADDITION (3-25), FROM
CG-2/7 (GENERAL CCMMERCIAL) AND RG-2/5
(GENERAL RESIDENTIAL) TO I-1/7 (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL), ALL AS PER TENTATIVE PLAT
#1152-A, "MIAMI FASHION CENTER SECTION
1;" AND BY MAKING ALL T':E NECESSARY
CHANGES IN THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART
OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION
3000 THEREOF, 3Y REPEALING ALL ORDI-
NANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF
IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
75
ja
DFm 4 ;; �riArf
6.. V I .. I.�..�.
a
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
_ announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
20. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 100-174
N.W. 9TH STREET, APPRONI!AATELY 300-898 N.W. 1 AVENUE AND
APPROXIMATELY 101-175 N.W. 8 STREET FROM C-5 TO R-4.
Mr. Plummer: Item number 10 on first reading. The change of zoning of
100-174 N. W. 9th Street from C-5 to R-4. Planning Department recommends
approval. The Planning Advisory Board recommended approval. The applicant
is Planning Department. Strangely enough, they recommend it. Does anyone
wish to come forth and speak on Item number 109 Let the record reflect that
no one came forth to speak for or against the item. Is there a motion? This
also is a companion to item 11 and 12. Is there a motion on item 10.
_ Mr.
Perez: I move it.
Mr.
Plummer: Moved by Perez. Is there a second? Is there a second?
Mr.
Dawkins: I second it.
r
- Mr.
Plummer: The motion is seconded. Read the ordinance.
F
— AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED-
.�
,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS
;.41
i+'Z i1 I �4�k�
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
k
FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING
,t�
t�
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREAS
i 1;
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY AT 100-174 NORTHWEST
9TH STREET, 800-898 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND
101-175 NORTHWEST 8TH STREET, ALSO
COLLECTIVELY DESCRIBED AS TRACT "A",
`
-_
TENTATIVE PLAT #1182,-DORSEY HEIGHTS", FROM
C-5 (LIBERAL COMMERCIAL) TO R-4 (:MEDIUM
�
-
DENSITY MULTIPLE) ; AND BY MAKING ALL THE
@'�
NECESSARY CHANCES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT' MAP
-,
MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY
f ;�` ,5�
_
REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III,
'
m
SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF
IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SgVERABILITY
CLAUSE..
a
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by CommissiQnet
PewkiUe
end passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
,
1d
76
DEC 6 ARP
AYES CdtMissioner Miller J. Dawkift
t;dmmissioner Demetrio Pere26 Jt.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummero Jt.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
21. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION 100-174
N. W. 9 STREET, APPROKI:iATELY 800-093 N. W. 1 AVENUE AND 101-175
N. W. 8 STREET FROM CR 3/7 TO RG-3/6.
Mr. Plummer: Item number 11 is also on first reading.
Mr. Dawkins: Move it.
Mr. Perez: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Moved by Commissioner Dawkins, who is very abrupt this time, and
very quick and then seconded by Demetrio Perez. Is there anyone in the audi-
ence who wishes to discuss item 11? Let the record reflect that no one came
froth to speak for or against this item. Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
9500,(EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1983), THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA? BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
AREAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY AT 100-174
NORTHWEST 9TH STREET, 800-898 NORTHWEST 1ST
AVENUE AND 101-175 NORTHWEST 8TH STREET, ALSO
COLLECTIVELY DESCRIBED AS TRACT "A",
TENTATIVE PLAT #1182, "DORSEY HEIGHTS", FROM
CR-3/7 (COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL) TO RG-3/6'.
(GENERAL RESIDENTIAL); AND BY MAKING ALL THE
}
NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZCNING ATLAS MADE A
PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE s
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300,
THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE
SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner Perez
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
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
members of the
public.
'' "�
1d
I
{i't�CY.$Yizr15..i]�iGi.$Si7Gi9�' $$3iiiii$ii$S.Yi IGyf".Siiiiii$$3Ct"iliJCyfliii�.Yh:ii$' JY..�.l. r r �.r -�. rr-� 1.+.i$$YiCt.'YiS9ii1ffi$i'6i114
too;iiiFOR THE RECORD: Agenda item 12 was deferred.
$$�$---------------------------------------------------------
22. DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION FOR CHAINGE OF ZONNING
LOCATED 3521 SOUTH IMIAMI AVENUE AND 50 S.W. 32 ROAD FROM R-1
TO GU.
Mr. Plummer: Item 13 is an application by Metro Dade County to change the
zoning to 3251 South Miami Avenue from R-1 to GU. Is there anyone here who
wishes to speak in behalf of this item?
Mr. Bud Daniels: Yes, sir, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Commission,
I am Bud Daniels from Metropolitan Dade County Parks and Recreation Department.
We endorse the recommendations for approval for these two companion items,
number 13 and 14 and if it is your pleasure to also address item number 33 and
34, which deal with the historic conservation overlay as well.
Mr. Plummer: We will get to that in a while.
Mr. Gary: Vice -Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Gary.
Mr. Gary: In view of some zoning... to ordinance recommendations regarding the
zoning from Dade County, as it relates to the bay side, as well as some other
matters that we have before Dade County, I would...
Mr. Plummer: There is a motion to defer for further information. Moved by
Dawkins, seconded by Ferre. Any further discussion? Hearing none, call
the roll.
THEREUPON, the members of the City Commission
on motion duly made by Commissioner Dawkins
and seconded by Mayor Ferre,
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO DEFER THE ABOVE MATTER.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Agenda item 14 was deferred.
-----7-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23. FIRST RENDING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 6571 ARTICLE III SEC-
TION 1, HC-1, GENER:%L USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVEf"'LAY DISTRICT,
AFTER SPD-i COCONUT GROVE SPECIAL. CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Mr. Plummer: Ordinance, first reading, HC-1, general use heritage conservation
overlay. Any persons wishing to speak. on Item number 15, please come forward.
This is a companion with Item number 16. Do the departments...
Mayor Ferre: Plummer recommends.
Mr. Plummer: I know the Fire Department recommends. This is a total area?
Ms, Joyce Meyers: This is a district that can be applied to historic sites any-
where throughout the City. It has the effect of requiring approval for alter-
ations by the Heritage Conservation...
Mr. Plummer: Only funeral homes? (LAUGHTER)
Ms. Meyers: No funeral homes that we know of.
Mayor Ferre: I know of a historic funeral home!
Mr, Plummer; Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on Item names 15?
Id 78 DEC 16 1982
Id
r,
Mayot rette! Move it.
Mt. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Moved by Vdtte, neened by Dawkinat Mt. City-AttoftaYj rdad
item number 15.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED- '
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871t AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE
III - ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTICN 1-CLASSES AND
SYMBOLS, BY ADDING "HC-1: GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLY DISTRICT AFTER
SPD-7 COCONUT GROVE SPECIAL CONSERVATION
OVERLAY DISTRICT", FURTHER,BY ADDING A NEW
"ARTICLE XXI--10 (HC--1) GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION_ OVERLAY DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR
INTENT, EFFECT, AND REQUIREME;ITS FOR CERTIFI-
CATES OF APPROPRIATENESS; BY MAKING THE
NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY
REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, -
SECTION 2, THEREOF; AND BY REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN
CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABI.,ITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
24. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD Nip; SECTION 1610, HC-1, GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION O%'ERLAY DISTRICT TO NE;ti ZO:�ItiG AN
NO. 9500.
Mr. Plummer: Item number 16 is a companion to 15.
Mr. Dawkins: Move it.
Mr. Plummer: Moved by Ferre, seconded by Dawkins. Any question? Anyone
wishing to testify on item number 16 for or against? Let the record reflect
that no one came forward. Mr. City -Attorney, read item 16.
�j
r
r �
79
DEC 16 1982
AR Ni Met E1 ttth-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 9500
(EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1983), THE NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY
AMENDING ARTICLE 16 OF SAID ORDINANCE
ENTITLED "HC: HERITAGE CONSERVATION
DISTRICTS;" MORE PARTICULARLY BY ADDING A NEW
«SECTION 1610. HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT;" PROVIDING FOR
INTENT, EFFECT, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS; AND BY
MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE
ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN
ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS
THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: I have a question. These still, in the final analysis, will
take Commission approval to apply.
Ms. Meyers: Yes.
25. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPERTY LOCATED 2905 SOUTH BAY -
SHORE DRIVE (HOUSEKEEPER'S CLUB).
Mr. Plummer: Item number 17 is 2985 South Bayshore Drive. Is there anyone
wishing to testify on item 17 for first reading, applying the ordinance just
approved.
Mayor Ferre: Move it.
Mr. Plummer: Moved by Ferre.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Seconded by Dawkins. Let me ask a question. This is the Women -'a
Club down here?
Ms. Meyers: That is right.
Mr. Plummer: Are they in accord with this?
Ms. Meyers: Yes, they are.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, anyone wishing to testify on item number 177 Let the re-
cord reflect that no one came forth to speak for or against. Mr. City -Attorney,
read Item number 17.
so DEC 16 1982
I
t
�{
a
AN MINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY APPLYING THE HC-1:
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO "THE HOUSEKEEPERS CLUB OF COCONUT
GROVE," 2985 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE (MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING
FINDINGS; AND BY IIAKING ALL THE NECESSARY
CHANGES IN THE z0NING DISTRICT MAP MADE A
PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2r
THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE
SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
26. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE NEW OFFICIAL
ZONING ATLAS OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE 9500 APPLICABLE TO THE
HOUSEKEEPER'S CLUB.
Mr. Plummer: Item number 18 is a companion to 17. *coved by Ferre and seconded
by Dawkins. Is there anyone wishing to testify on item 18. Let the record
reflect no one came forth to testify for or against. Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE
ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500
(EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1983), THE NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY
APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "THE
HOUSEKEEPERS CLUB OF COCONUT GROVE," 2985
SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE (MCRE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN) ; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY
MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY C::A�GES IN THE
ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE
NO. 95001 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN
ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS
THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CCNTAINING A SEVERA-
BILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
MA
DEC 16 1982
Id
1
Tli,1
AM.
Com-issioftet Millet J. bavkitis
;
C69lissionet bemettio Peteri Jts
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor .j. L. Plummets Jr,
Mayor Maurice A. Pette
NOES.,
None
AtSENT:
None
The City
Attorney read the ordinance into the
public record and
announced that copies were available to the members
of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
27.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED
HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3500 PAN
AMERICAN DRIVE "PAN AMERICAN TEFUMINAL
BUILDING/CITY HALL".
Mr. Plummer: Item number 19 refers to applying it to this death trap we are
in called City Hall. Moved by Ferre. Seconded by Dawkins. Anyone wishing to
testify on how bad City Hall is and why this ordinance should not be applied
in this particular case, please come forward. Let the record reflect that
no one.... sit down! Let the record reflect that Janet Cooper sat down with
even volunteering!
Ms. Meyers: May I point out one particular thing about this? ... City Hall.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, please do.
Ms. Meyers: Included in the ordinance is a request by the Heritage Conserva-
tion Board that they be given an opportunity to comment and make recommenda-
tions on the future reuse of the building on the inside.
Mayor Ferre: Of course.
Ms. Meyers: Okay.
Mr. Plummer: We hope they rebuild it. With those amendments noted, is there
any further discussion? They just want the right to, they are not going to
do it. They want the right to. Read item number 19.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: You change my office, you don't call them, that is all.
Ms. Meyers: It doesn't apply to the office areas - only to the lobby and
this Commission chamber.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY APPLYING THE HC-1:
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO THE "PAN AMERICAN TERMINAL
z�$
1!"41
BUILDING", ALSO KNOWN AS MIAMI CITY HALL,
F
3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE ( MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING
FOR INTERIOR MODIFICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES;
AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES INt
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID
ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND
z
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 21
`
THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE
SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
iq
82
DEC 6
198
0
0
Vas introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by CdMissionet Davkin§
And passed on its first reading by title by the following -vate3
ffittg: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
28. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSER%'ATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS
OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE 9500 PERTAINING TO PAN AMERICAN TERMINAL
BUILD I:QG/CITY HALL.
Mr. Plummer: Item number 20 is a companion to 19. Is there anyone wishing to
testify for or against on item 20?
Mayor Ferre: Move 20.
Mr. Plummer: Let the record reflect that no one came forth to testify. Moved
by Ferre, seconded by Dawkins. Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500
(EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1983), THE NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY
APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE "PAN
AMERICAN TERMINAL BUILDING: ALSO KNOWN AS
MIAMI CITY HALL, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE,
(MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING
FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR INTERIOR MODIFICATION
REVIEW PROCEDURES; AND BY MAKING ALL THE
NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A
PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY RF.FERFNCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300,
THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE
SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dal
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AXES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES; None
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the members of the public.
Id 83 DEC
_ 16 1982
0
29. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
600 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD (FREEDOM TOWER).
Mr. Plummer: Item number 21. I see that trouble maker Eli Feinberg here on
behalf of the owners. Is there anyone wishing to testify on item 21.
Mr. Eli Feinberg: My name is Eli Feinberg, Senior Vice -President of Venture
Development Company, 50 Biscayne Boulevard. We support the staff recommenda-
tion on the Freedom Tower, but I would like to urge the Mayor and the Commis-
sion, along with the staff and the Heritage Conservation Board to consider any
use along the FEC property that might impact measurably on the Freedom Tower
as a historic monument.
Mayor Ferre: It is valid.
Mr. Plummer: Staff, is that a valid request?
Mr. Feinberg: The possibility of maybe even including the FEC right -a -way
within the heritage district too.
Mr. Plummer: I dodn't know you were on staff.
Ms. Meyers: I don't know - I doubt that we could include the FEC right-of-way
within the historic district, but we certainly would like to review proposals
there and make...
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think let's ask you to the contrary. It doesn't preclude
that being looked at and possibly sought after.
Ms. Meyers: We will study it. We will consult the City Attorney and see what
can be done with it.
Mayor Ferre: With that proviso, I move the ordinance.
Mr. Dawkins: Second. And Mr. Feinberg is my dollar a year administrative
assistant, so he is on staff.
Mr. Plummer: Commissioner Reid, do you wish to inject something here?
Mr. Wd: I would like to say that just for the record...
Mr. Gary: Leave it alone. Leave it alone.
Mr. Reid: .... that I have nothing to say! (LAUGHTER)
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Reid, you have been just treated as a Commissioner. I hope
you know that! Item 21, moved by Ferre. Seconded by the dollar a year staff
member. Dawkins. Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY APPLYING THE HC-1:
GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO "FREEDOM TOWER", 600 BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL
THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT
MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871,
BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III,
SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDI-
NANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN
CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
84
Id nFr; 1 A 1QRP
E n i f t
1
i
E
AU11
Commissioner
Miller .1. Dawkins
Commissioner
Demetrio Pere2s dY.
Commissioner
Joe Carollo
-_
Vice -Mayor J.
L. Plummets Jt&
r,
Mayor Maurice
A. Ferre
I�BSt
None
ABSENT:
None
The City
Attorney read
the ordinance into the
public record and
announced
that copies
were available to the
members of the City
Commission
and to the
members of the public.
,
7 _
4
Y I
Id 8
DEC 16 1982
a i . ate} rr• sr _r i e Y .aY .Yli aYi►... i111Ye ! .ia ..�11�. ��1 _�_ ,._M
30. FIRST READING�O'PDII'.ANCE: ADD P_^,OPOSED HC-1 GEI17:U, L USr
HErITAG? CONS7aVATIO71 OV771LAY DIS=ICT TO 27-r;l OFFICI°.L 7.OP1ING
ATLAS OF NEW :014I"G O^.DIII*1,7CG 9500 P _T_'T.1I.dI_?C TO PrOPr_^TY-
600 BISCAY14E BOULEVARD (F2.EEDOII TOWER) .
Mr. Plummer: 22 is a companion to 21, is there anyone wishing to testify on
First Reading? Let the record reflect no one came forward to testify for or
against.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 140. 9500 (EFFECTIVE
APRIL 6, 1983), THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE HC-1 GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "FREEDOM
TOWER", 600 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL
THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART
OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION
IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT
AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
31. FI^,ST READING OPDI:U,.NCE: APPLY P.^.OPOSED KC-1 7.7'_L USE
IIEP.ITF_GZ CONSE'_'.VATIO". nl1_^.L:Y DIS'_'rICT -0 PROPr.nTY LCC7.1=170 AT
1475 `1.1,7. 12 'AVENUE (HALISSEE Fl: iLL) .
Mr. Plummer: Item 23 is the application to Halissee Hall. Is there anybody
wishing to speak on Item 23? Let the record reflect that no one came forth
to testify for or against. To staff, who is the posessor of Halissee Hall
presently?
Ms. Joyce Meyers: The University of Miami Medical School.
Mr. Plummer: And is this with their concurrence?
Ms. Meyers: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: You've checked with them?
Ms. Meyers: I have never spoken directly to the President of the University
but they have never replied to any of our 50 notices so I can only assume
that they have no objections.
Mr. Plummer: Then you're operating under a theory that silence gives consent,
Ms. Meyers; That's correct.
MOM
f
1
DEC 16 1982
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Pere2
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote-
AM.- Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOM None,
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
32. :II'.ST AEADI_IG OP0IIUC4CE: .ADO P!^OPOS D HC-1 GE_?E.^�L US HE^I'=_"GE
CO:IS7-RVATION CVEUAY DIST_ICT TO .1Ela OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF
NEW ::ONI013 ORDINANCE i10. 9500 PFnTAI_4I"7 TO ILALISSrE ILUL.
Mr. Plummer: Item 24 is a companion to 23. Does anyone wish to testify on
Item 24 for or against? Let the record reflect that no one came forward.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 (EFFECTIVE APRIL 6,
1983), THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVA-
TION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "HALISSEE HALL", 1475 NORTHWEST 12TH
AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS;
AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING ATLAS
MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT
AND CCNTAI14ING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner
Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
The City'Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public,
7 DEC 1 1982
33, FIRST r'.EADING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1737 NORTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE (THE I!IAIII WOMAN' S CLUB) .
Mr. Plummer: Item 25 is the Miami woman's Club, applying the same ordinance.
Is there anyone wishing to testify on Item 25 for or against? Let the record
reflect that no one came forth.
Mr. Dawkins: Did you contact the Women's Club, are they in favor of this?
Ms. Meyers: Yes.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS A!'IENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVER-
LAY DISTRICT TO "MIAMI WOMAN'S CLUB", 1737 NORTH BAYSHORE
DRIVE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS;
AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DIS-
TRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY RE-
PEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN
CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre <<''
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
DEC 16 1982
0
34. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD P^.OPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DIST'21 CT TO NEW OFFICIAL ZONING
ATLAS TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 PERTAINING TO PROPERTY
KNOWN AS THE MIAIII WOISEN' S CLUB.
Mr. Plummer: Item 26 is a companion to Item 25. Anyone wishing to testify
on Item 26? Let the record reflect that no one came forth to testify for or
against.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 (EFFECTIVE APRIL 6,
1983), THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
BY APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVER-
LAY DISTRICT TO "MIAMI WOMAN'S CLUB", 1737 NORTH BAYSHORE
DRIVE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS;
AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING ATLAS
MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT
AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demet:rio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
35. FIRST READING CIL^I..A?+'CE: APPLY PaCPCSED F;C-1 GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1611 N. W. 12 AVENUE (THE ALA O) .
- Mr. Plummer: Item 27 applies the ordinance to the Alamo at Jackson Hospital.
Is there anyone wishing to come forth and testify on Item 27? Let the record
reflect that no one came forth.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE t% ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVER-
LAY DISTRICT TO "THE ALAMO", BEING APPROXIMATELY 1611 NORTH-
WEST 12TH AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAK-
ING FINDINGS; AND BY :BAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871,
BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTICN IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2,
THEREOF; BY REPEALIG ALL ORDIANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR
PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AM; Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carol'_o
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
IS9 Q E C 16 1982
ABSENT i stone,
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
36. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PZOPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONI2IG :ATLAS
OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 CONCERNING PROPERTY INOWN AS THE
ALAVO .
Mr. Plummer: Item 28 is a companion to Item 27. Anyone wishing to testify to
Item 28 please come forward. Let the record reflect that no one came forth to
testify for or against.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 (EFFECTIVE APRIL 6,
1983), THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
BY APPLYING THE HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO "THE ALAMO", 1611 NORTHWEST 12TH AVENUE, (MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING
ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF
SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN
ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
0
0
-M
I wow
7, FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE
HEPITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3485 MAIN HIGH11AY (THE BARNACLE).
Mr. Plummer: Item 29 applies the ordinance to the Barnacle in Coconut Grove.
Anyone wishing to testify on Item 29 please come forth at this time. Let the
record reflect that no one came forth to testify. Are the owners in compliance
voluntarily of this?
Ms. Meyers: Yes.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVER-
LAY DISTRICT TO "THE BARNACLE", 3485 MAIN HIGHWAY (MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY
MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY REPEAL-
ING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN
CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES- None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
38. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PROPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS
OF ZONING ORDINANCE I70. 9500 CCNC_RNING P.T'.CPE11TY AS THE
Br RI:ACLE.
Mr. Plummer: Item 30 is a companion to 29. Is there anyone wishing to testi-
fy on Item 30? Let the record reflect that no one came forward to testify for
or against.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE A:AXNDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 (EFFECTIVE APRIL 6,
1983), THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
BY APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVER-
LAY DISTRICT TO "THE BARNACLE", 3485 MAIN HIGHWAY (MORE PARTIC-
ULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL
THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID
ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3,
SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SEC-
TIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABIL-
ITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner Perot
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AM; Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
91
DEC 16 1982
1 � �
ABstNt, None,
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
39. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY PROPOSED HC-1 GEtIErAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 190 S. E. 12 TERRACE Ivv^TOWN AS DR. JACI:SON'S OFFICE.
Mr. Plummer: Item 31 applies the ordinance to the office of Dr. James M. Jackson.
Is there anyone wishing to come forth and testify on Item 31? For the record,
sir, your name and mailing address and who you represent.
Mr. Paul Thompson: Paul Thompson, Executive Director of Dade Heritage Trust,
Office at 190 S. E. 12th Terrace, Dr. Jackson's Office. I just want to thank
you Commissioners for first of all applying yourselves to put together such a
great ordinance and Heritage Conservation Board, it shows every possibility
of doing a marvelous job. Your staff is also doing doing a terriffic job in
putting its reports together as I think you have them in front of you. We
are continuing to improve Dr. Jackson's Office, our most recent restoration
portion concluded only recently with a grant from Dade County. There is
still more to do but I think you'll be very proud of this particular office
when it is finished and we're very much, of course, in support of your posi-
tive vote today. Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on Item 31? Let
the record reflect that no one else came forward to speak for or against.
Is there a motion?
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO "DR. JAMES M. JACKSON'S OFFICE", 190 SOUTHEAST
12TH TERRACE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING
FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZON-
ING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6671, BY
REFERENCE AI4D DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF;
BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF
IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Perez
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
40. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD PP.OPOSED HC-1 GENERAL USE HEI'.ITAGE
CONSERVATION OVE^.LAY DISTRICT TO THE NEW OFFICIAL ZONIIIG ATLAS
OF ZONING ORDINANCE IIO. 9500 CONCERNING PROPERTY 'NNO'.•TN AS DR.
JACKSON'S OFFICE.
Mr. Plummer: Item 32 is a companion to 31. Is there anyone wishing to testi-
fy on Item 32? Let the record reflect that no one came forward to testify for
or against.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 (EFFECTIVE APRIL 6,
1983), THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
BY APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO "DR. JAMES M. JACKSON'S OFFICE", 190 SOUTHEAST
12TH TERRACE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FIND-
INGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING
ATLAST MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; BY REPEAL-
ING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON-
FLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Perez
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Agenda Item 33 was deferred.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Agenda Item 34 was deferred.
41. LONG DISCUSSION MID DEFERRAL FOR INSPECTION CF :'.EOUEST FCr A
VARIANCE TO PEr'14IT EXISTING FLORIDA ROOI: AT 441 -�441� S.W. 35
AVENUE.
Mr. Plummer: ,tie now go to Item 36. Is the applicant on Item 36 present? To
the Department, it is an appeal by the applicants Ernesto Serrano and Miguel
Lemus of the variance denied to permit an existing Florida room addition to
the duplex at 441-441� S. W. 35 Avenue. The Planning Department recommended
denial and the Zoning Board likewise recommended a denial 6 - 0. To the Depart-
ment, your recommendation.
Mr. Richard Whipple: Commissioner Plummer, members of the Commission, we
recommend denial, they key word is a variance for an existing Florida room
addition. I bring to your attention that this is construction that was not
properly permitted and approved and the Zoning Board also recommended denial
along with the Planning Department and we have a report from Mr. Lou Jimenez
from the Building Inspection Services as to that.
Mr. Luis Jimenez: My name is Luis Jimenez, I'm with the Fire Rescue and
inspection Services and we recommend denial for the same reasons that the
Planning Department has. This addition was totally constructed without any
permits or inspections.
Nir. Plummer: Questions to the Department. Are you indicating that, well, the
usual questions: I assume it does not comply with the regulations present.
Q3
rt
DEC 16 1982
% I
1t, Whipple.: that's tight, that's why they have to come and seek this
Vdt .andO
Mk, Plummer: Does it comply with the South Florida Building Code?
Mf, Jimenez: No, it .doesn't.
Mayor Ferre: Well, is there anything that could be done to faake it damply
to the South Florida Building Code?
Mr, Jimenez: With regards to the Building Code, we have made no inspedtioh
so whatever he has put out there would have to be ....
Mayor Ferre: All right, I would, therefore, move that this item be deferred
until we get a report from the Fire Department as to whether or not this
building can be made to comply with the South Florida Building.....
Mr. Jimenez: Excuse me, your honor, but I have an inspector that was out
there today and he could give you a report as to what is required.
Mayor Ferre: All right, fine, let's get the inspector here.
Mr. Plummer: For the record, if you would, please, state your name and the
Department you're with.
Mr. Thomas Bock: Thomas Bock, Building Zoning Rescue Services, Building
Inspector II. I was out on the scene and examined the addition, the set-
backs do not comply in the rear, the building has no inspections on it
whatsoever, foundation all the way through tie beam and it was built totally
illegally which is in violation of the South Florida Building Code.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the point I think that the Mayor questioned, and the
same one that I would ask, is there a possibility that it could be brought
into compliance with the Building Code? Because if your answer is no to
that I think we've got to look at things differently. If there is a possi-
bility that they could make the structure in compliance then I think we
would look at it another way.
Mr. Gary: Well, if I may, I think we're looking at a broader issue here
now and that is the indiscriminate illegal building within the City of
Miami. To permit an exception in this case, in my estimation, informs the
public and particularly those who are doing illegal construction that they
can make a mockery of our law. I think it is very important particularly
in view of the fact that this City Commission has gone on record by adding
additional inspectors, having us go out on week -ends to catch culprits who
are doing illegal construction. To do otherwise, to do something other
than what we recommended, in my estimation, lets people know if you can do
it, get away with it, you get caught, come before this City Commission and
we'll correct eve r-ything for you.
Mayor Ferre: I would move that this item be deferred and request that the
Department take a serious look in seeing if this building can be made to
comply with the required Code and if it can't then I think that puts a
completely different complexion.
.
Mr. Plummer: I think that was already your motion and there was a second,
=
am I correct?
Mr. Jimenez: I interrupted, excuse me, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Ongie, is there a second to the Mayor's motion?
a $_
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor..... $ s
_-
Mr. Plummer: Whoa.... Is there a second to the Mayor's motion?
dd
Ao
Mr. Perez: I second for discussion.
�
Mr, Plummer: Seconded by Perez, Mr, Gary, under discussion?
Mr. Gary: Excuse me. I have just been informed by staff that we may have
some liability if we send our inspectors out to inspect a building that has
already been constructed as opposed to inspecting a building as it is being
constructed. There are a lot of things that are hidden that we that we
cannot verify and if something happens later on we are liable. That is a
secondary issue as far as I'm concerned, the primary issue is what I stated
earlier.
94 DEC 16 '1982
Mk, Plummer: is there any further discussion?
Mr, Perez: Let me ask you something, Mr. Manager4 if this apPl datiofi ie h8t
approved will the owner of the property be required to tear down the Plofdd
room?
Mr. Gary: I'm sorry?
Mr. Perez: They would require to tear down the building addition?
Mr. Percy: If the variances are denied, yes.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let me tell you what my position is, all right? You
come back at the next meeting, your client, counselor, with a certified
letter from a competent licensed professional engineer that says that this
building meets all structural and all fire requirements and then I'll con-
sider it on that basis. Otherwise, no way.
Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Call the roll.
Tna following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre. who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 82-1160
A MOTION DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
TO PERMIT AN EXISTING FLORIDA ROOM ADDITION TO A DUPLEX
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 441-441� S. W. 35TH AVENUE, FOR
t.� INSPECTION OF SAID PREMISES BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Ferre: Now, let's make sure we understand each other. I am not deter-
mining whether I'm voting for or against it, I'm just saying the only way
I'm considering it is if you get a letter from a professional engineer that
is competent in his jurisdiction that says that that building is safe and
sound and meets the Fire Code.
Mr. Dawkins: And, Mr. Gary, could you have our staff come back and tell me
how this individual determined how much steel is in the footing and what have
you?
Mayor Ferre: He has to document how he comes to that, I just don't want a
letter. I want him to document for me whether there is enough steel and
there's enough structure....
F
DEC 16 1982
i f
Mr. Plummer: Item 37, Octavio Alfonso, the variances denied to permit an
existing retail warehouse addition under construction to an existing ware-
house at 774 N. W. lst Street. Mr. Alfonso, if you would come up to the micro-
phone, sir. The Planning Department recommended a denial, the Zoning Board
recommended a denial 7 to 0. Comment by the Planning Department.
Mr. Whipple: Again, we're dealing with an existing construction that was not
properly permitted, it violates zoning, they're seeking relief through the
variance process for their zoning violation, I believe the Inspection Services
also has a comment on this.
Mr. Luis Jimenez: Luis Jimenez, Department of Fire Rescue and Inspection
Services. We respectfully request that variance at this address be denied.
The building which is under construction presently has substantial differences
from the plans which we approved at the City. A second story addition has
been built to an existing building which is not reflected on the plans that
we have and a further allowance or granting of a variance to this particular
building would allow the continuances of the illegal construction that's there.
Mr. Plummer: Anyone else of the Deaprtment wishes to comment? Mr. Alfonso,
sir, you're the applicant?
Mr. Octavio Alfonso: My name is Octavio Alfonso, I live in 11921 S. W. 7th
Street but I wish one people the translation because my English is very bad.
Mr. Gary: Okay, Cesar, they want a translator.
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): I would like to ask a few
questions from the jury or Commission. If Mr. Jimenez has the authority to
take the plans who are my property?
Mr. Plummer: A question to the legal department. Does Mr. Jimenez of the
Building Department have the right to take this man's plans? That was a
question, not an allegation, a question.
Mr. Percy: I don't understand, to take them?
Mr. Plummer: Obviously Mr. Jimenez took this man's plans. Does he have that
right as a building official?
Mr. Jimenez: I requested the plans from him, I gave him a receipt and he
gave them to me.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, he has asked a question, now you can respond afterwards.
Does Mr. Jimenez have the right to take this man's plans?
Mr. Percy: I would say qualifiedly, Commissioner, yes, he would have to
take them to review them and to certify them as to compliance and conformity
with the Code. But as to keel)-ng posession of them, I don't know if that is
the question....
Mr. Plummer: Would you translate the answer, please.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: La repuesta con calificaciones es que si, pero eso no
le da derecho a maintenirlos por siempre, no le da derecho a quedarse con
ellos.
Mr. Plummer: Momentico. Mr. Jimenez, you wish to comment, sir?
Mr. Jimenez: I have his plans right here and any time he wants them he can
have them.
Mr. Plummer: Are you stating for the record that he gave them to you volun-
tarily?
Mr. Jimenez; Yes, he did, and I gave him a receipt with my name on it.
"Q6
rt
DEC 6 19OfN
"
Mfs 'Pi Ott And are you also statih4 far the tacofd that M1 did h8t MR*
fi§dAte such?
MY. Jimenez: I did not confiscate them.
Mr. Plummer: You will so translate to the gentleman.
(Translation by Mr. Perez-Lugones to Mr. Alfonso)
Mr. Plummer: okay, tell him to proceed.
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): Why if Mr. Jiiletez Was the
one who took the plans, why was he not the person who stopped the job?
Mr. Plummer: All right, Mr. Jimenez, answer the question.
Mr. Jimenez: My working title is Chief Inspector of Inspection Services and
I had the appropriate division inspector go out there and stop this job. 3
normally don't do that.
Mr. Gary: He delegated the authority.
Mr. Plummer: Translate the answer.
(Translation by Mr. Perez-Lugones to Mr. Alfonso)
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): In the week that he took
the plans to the date when the job was stopped I went to see Mr. Jimenez
twice. one of the times he told me that the lady who verified the plans,
who worked verifying plans was not there and the second time I went he told
me that he had to fire five persons, 2 Cubans and 3 Americans then when I
told him that was not possible then he stopped the job and this what I'm tell-
ing you here, if there is a lie detector I'll go through it to prove it and
he told me also that he was going to send five policemen to my house to in-
vestigate how I obtained the signatures that appeared on the plans. Then I
had the permit which was approved four parking spaces then afterwards I was
asked six parking spaces. I have a set of plans here which I gave somebody
also which represents the actual building there and it shows the four parking
spaces. And with respect to the 15 feet of setbacks that he is asking, I
don't know very well but if it is 15 feet from the wall to the sidewalk or
from the staircase to the sidewalk that is shown in the plan. In the lot
that I am building I have permission to build a residential unit, a house.
Why once I have finished that residence I cannot live there. Why 35 N. W.
which is a house which was built in 1952 I have that construction also stopped?
That house or the construction was stopped because the person who marked where
the electric pole was to be marked it in some way and then they stopped the
job and I haven't been able to do anything there for the last four or five
months and it is ready to be occupied, the place is ready to be occupied.
Then I consider that everything else would be the findings that the Commis-
sion and the Mayor will do of my plans.
Mr. Plummer: Does he have anything further to state?
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): No, what I have to say
is what is in the plans. If there are any violations....
Mr.
Plummer:
Does that conclude his statement?
Mr.
Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): Well, according to what is
said, the way
I am attacked then I may have to come back.
Mr.
Plummer:
We'll give him that right if necessary. Mr. Gary, you wish to
X ,
speak?
Mr.
Gary: Yes. I'd like to preface my comments on the fact that......
x
,
Un
Mr.
Plummer:
Mr. Perez, you will translate to the gentleman.
Mr. Gary: In addition to being a country of laws, we are a City of laws. We
have strict laws on the books in terms of zoning and Code violations, those
laws are being blatantly violated in this town, I constantly get not only
complaints from the City Commission but from citizens from illegal construction,
this is a characteristic example as the previous case of those violations of
the law and which I consider very serious. I would encourage the City Commis-
sion to support not only the laws but also the staff which is working diligently
to insure that this does not occur.
9,1 DEC 16 1982
May&t Perre after tha kind of a 9tatditent, f move that the.....,,
Mr, Plummer: Wait a minute, Mr. Mayor, we did give the gentleman the right
of a rebuttal and I think it is only appropriate that he should have the
chance for rebuttal after hearing the statments of the city Manager if he
wishes. Mr. Perez, did you hear the comments and translate them?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Does he wish to comment on those of the Manager?
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): I considered that if #
have an approved plan and everything has to follow the approval of those
plans and I have in here....
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I think it has never been conveyed to you clearly what
the violations are. I would like for Mr. Jimenez of the Building and Zoning
Division to explain exactly the violations that have occurred.
Mr. Jimenez: I have a set of plans if you would like to look at them while
I'm reading, you might have a better picture.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Perez, you are translating the comments, please.
Mayor Ferre: Don't show us the plans, just verbally tell us what the viola-
tions are.
Mr. Jimenez: He originally took out a set of, brought a set of plans to the
Building .....
Mayor Ferre: Look, let me simplify it becarise sometimes people have a way
of complicating things. It is very simple. The Manager gave us a very
strong statement. This man picked up a green paper and he says, I have a
permit to build this building. I'm asking you specifically who gave him a
permit, if he has a permit then what is the violation?
Mr. Jimenez: He has substantially deviated from the approved plans which we
issued.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Gary: The bottom line is he's not building what he has approval to
build.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: He would like for Mr. Jimenez to explain what the t
t(
deviations are. r.
j=
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Jimenez, for the record, explain what he has the permits
„f
for and what he is doing differently. .°
�4
1 .
Mr. Jimenez: He took out the permit for an addition to a warehouse which
warehouse did not exist. He installed a second story to an existing building
which he is not even permitted to install, nor has he had any engineer look
at it to see if the structure can support what he has put on top of it.
Mayor Ferre: Does he have any answer?
Mr. Jimenez: That's one of them. 4..
Mayor Ferre: That's enough. Does he have any answers?
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): He says that the addi-
tion was at 774 (whatever) and it was for an addition to a residential unit,
Mr. Jimenez: The residential unit which he is talking about was completely
demolished, it is no longer in existence.
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): He says that the residence
was not demolished because there is a wall which is adjacent or is a party
wall to the building next to it and he cannot demolish tha wall.
Mayon Ferre: He demolished everything but the wall.
Mr, Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): He says that the house had
rt 98 DEC 16 1982
A W&dddh daft he demolished and a stucco paft that he did h6t dftaligh.
Mf. Jimenez: Our tax records show that the entire bungalow was of ffa ea
Mayor Ferre: All right, go ahead, Mr. Pierce.
Mr. Walter Pierce: I was going to try to summarize it very briefly.
The property originally had, according to the tax records, two structures6
one of them was a frame residential building. That building was grandfathered
in to allow residential uses. Once that building was demolished there was
no right to have residential uses in that commercial zone. The building
permit was initially issued for a two-story structure which was to be offices
and warehouses. In looking back at the permit copies, it even appears that
after the permit was reviewed to do that somebody came back in a different
handwriting and wrote on there apartments and this is where that question
becomes muddy. There is a second story added to the original one-story
structure that was not demolished. There was never a permit issued on that
structure at all. One of the variances that he is seeking today is to waive
two of the required six parking spaces. Not only that, those four parking
spaces don't work - you can't get in and out of them with any ease. There
are all kinds of problems with this.
Mr. Alfonso (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugones): He says that the permits
were altered, that you people have to look for who altered the permit and
maybe send that person to jail.
Mr. Jimenez: One of the inspectors that made the inspections on that piece
of property has already been dismissed from the City of Miami.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Jimenez, do you recommend or do you suggest any way that they
can correct this violation?
Mr. Jimenez: On numerous occasions he has been into my office and I have
told him to come in with a revised set of plans and get himself another con-
tractor. His permit was taken out by R.G. Complemore and Complemore was
supposed to be the general contractor when, in fact, he is the one who is
building, the owner. There is no supervision by that contractor. We have
talked to him on numerous occasions and he persists.
Mr. Plummer: The question to you, sir, is there a possibility that he could
comply on what has been done?
Mr. Jimenez: There is a possibility but we can't......
Mr. Gary: There is a big issue here. Let me answer that question. The bigger
issue is that when they get approval to do something according to our laws
they should abide by those laws and we're either going to abide by the laws
or we're going to make a mockery of the laws and if he complies with what he
is permitted to do then he can do that, anything else I will recommend to this
Commission that we not honor that request. We have a very serious zoning
problem in the City of Miami.
Mr. Plummer: Further discussion?
Mayor Ferre: Move that we uphold the Zoning Board.
Mr. Plummer: Item 37 moved by Mayor Ferre that the Zoning Board be upheld.
Is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Seconded by Dawkins. is there any further discussions
none, call the roll.
tj i t
99 DEC 16 1982
A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING DENIAL OF VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE
NO. 6871► ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 4(b) AND ARTICLE XXIII,
SECTION 2(2)► 3(3) (b), 4 (25)(27), TO PERMIT AN EXISTING
RETAIL/WAREHOUSE ADDITION UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO AN EXIST-
ING WAREHOUSE USE ON THE N 100' OF LOT 10, BLOCK 8S, MIAMI
(B-41); LOCATED AT 774 NORTHWEST 1 STREET, AS PER PLANS ON
FILE, WITH A 3.67' STAIRWAY ENCROACHMENT ON THE SIDE STREET
YARD (5' REQUIRED), WAIVING 2 OF 6 COMBINED (RETAIL/WAREHOUSE)
REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, WAIVING PERIPHERY LAND-
SCAPING (5' REQUIRED) AND PROVIDING 21.98' ACCESS AISLE
TO PARKING SPACES (23' REQUIRED); ZONED C-4 (GENERAL COM-
MERCIAL).
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
Mr. Plummer: Inform him, Mr. Perez, that the application has been denied.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I must inform you, since the issue was raised, that
is we have an on -going investigation in the Building Department....
Mayor Ferre: You're talking about Item 37?
Mr. Gary: No, I was talking about what was brought up in terms of the
plans and persons being dismissed. And we do admit that we have some mis-
takes on our part and we are correcting those as a result of those investi-
gations.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: He has a question of what would be his next step, I'm
going to refer him to the Department.
Mr. Jimenez: His next step is what we've been telling him.......
Mr. Gary: No, he's going to come and talk to you, we're not going to talk
about that here.
Mr. Jimenez:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners.
DEC 16 1982
0
N
43. LONG DISCUSSIOLT A14D D-rFEP.''AL OF CONSIDE^ATION OF P.EnUEST FO__^.
VP1,'IANCES FOP. JACAPOL BAY CLUD LOCATED APP^OXT_'"ATELY
4865 N. W. 7 STREET.
Mayor Ferre: All right, take up Item 38. Proceed.
Mr. Richard Whipple: Did you want a full Commission, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: No, Mr. Plummer knows we're on Item 38. It is an appeal by
Sunset Villas Condominium Association of the variance granted to permit con-
struction of an apartment project, Jacarol Bay Club with variances for the
tower and parking structures and a variance to allow a Floor Area Ratio of
1.44. The Planning Department recommended denial, the zoning was granted
5 to 2. We'll hear the reason for the recommendation of denial by the
Planning Department. I assume we've worked out all the different problems
of definition as to who the owners are a,id so on.
Mr. Whipple: According to my file, yes, sir. Mr. Lugones could attest to
it but I believe in your packet you will find a letter as to the disclosure
form which was sent by Jose R. Garcia -Pedrosa to Aurelio Perez indicating
that everything was in order.
Mr. Plummer: Question, Mr. Whipple, it is stated here that the Zoning Board
granted as revised 5 to 2. Are we then considering this item as revised?
Mr. Whipple: Yes. There were some modifications of the plans as we were
going through the hearing and the numbers were adjusted. The last page of
the big folder, if you have it, which has the resolution of which is up for
your consideration, indicates precisely those items which were approved by
the Zoning Board.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask a question. Is the FAR as being heard under
this item 1.44 or is there a revised figure?
Mr. Whipple: It is 1.44, sir.
Mr. Plummer: As being heard tonight?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: And what is allowed?
Mr. Whipple: 1.1, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Okay.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission.....
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, where is the Mayor? Maurice, as I recall there
was a gentleman, now was that on this one or on the Coconut Grove?
Mr. Whipple: He's right here, sir, this is......
Mr. Plummer: No, was the one that had to catch a plane.
the Jacarol people?
Are you representing
Mr. Whipple: No, 'this is a gentleman appealing the Jacarol approval.
Mayor Ferre: Can you catch another plane? You're all set then for time?
We're not going to be through here by 6:10.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I have made alternative arrangements if that's
what you're asking.
Mayor Ferre: You're here on 38 as I recall.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir, that's right.
Mr. Carollo: If I may, before we proceed with the presentation that we're
about to see here today, if I may ask from the applicants just a very brief
question on the letter that we have before us, on the people having a
rt
101 DEC 16 1982
fihAft6ial ihtefest in the ptoject, if l thay, the infotMtion that we
have before us is that Keene Enterprises, a Panamanian Corporation, is
the sole owner of the property with the following individuals: Pablo
Gaspar Arozamena of Calle 39, Bella Vista #4-36, Panama, being the sole
stockholder, therefore, the owner of the complete project, is that correct?
Mrs. Carolyn Weiss: That's correct.
Mr. Carollo: Has he been the sole owner of this whole project from the
time that you placed the application or has there been any change in the
last week or months in ownership?
Mrs. Weiss: This has been the same people since the application has beefs
filed.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, this has been the same people since the application has
been filed.
Mrs. Weiss: That's correct.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. City Attorney, for the record, can you restate the penalties
that would be involved if there is any misinterpretation as to the ownership
of the project? In other words, if at any point in the future on this or any
other project that comes before us, if we find that the owners are others than
the people that have been represented to us, what penalties are there?
Mr. Terry Percy: If it is a misdemeanor, Commissioner, you're talking a fine
and jail time, a minimum of six months if it is a misdemeanor and a felony
both jail time and a fine is in excess of six months.
Mr. Carollo: I understand the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony
but that is what I'm trying to ask you, what will this be, a misdemeanor, a
felony, a fine?
Mr. Percy: I presume you're talking about the perjury statute?
Mr. Carollo: Well, I don't think there has been any sworn statements made
here.
Mr. Percy: There is an affidavit that is a part of the application process
where the applicant swears that all of the information submitted in conjunc-
tion with the application is done so under oath and we would interpret that
to cover any misrepresentation that might be submitted in conjunction with
it to bring into application the perjury statute.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, was that complied with at the time that this letter, as
to the ownership of this property was given to us?
Mr. Percy: Yes, sir, they met all of the requirements.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, very good. We can proceed then.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, for the record, let me understand and set the format here.
This is an appeal by the condominium contiguous to this property. Is that
correct?
Mr. Joe Matthews: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: And you as such, represent the condominiums.
Mr. Matthews: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: You are an attorney?
Mr. Matthews:
I am an attorney.
My name is Joe Matthews
of the law firm ofs
Murai, Wald,
Biondo & Matthews,
25 S. E, 2nd Avenue. We
represent Sunset
Villas, Phase
III Condominium Association
and ninety-one
petitioners who signed
the petition
to appeal. Do you
also yourself personally
reside there? I do
'
not, sir. You
do not. So, you
are representing them for
a fee.
Mr. Matthews: I need to clarify that, sir, I did, in 1977.
d 102
DEC 16 1982
You previously lived there.
Mr. Matthews: Yes, I have not resided there since 1978.
Mr. Plummer: How many people in the audience wish to testify in behalf Of
the condominium. Would you please raise your hand? The record reflects) tth-
less my views are blocked, only Janet Cooper has indicated, and of course,
you guessed. How much time would you require, sir?
Mr. Matthews: I would like to have approximately ten minutes for my affirma-
tive presentation and five minutes for a rebuttal, if it is possible.
Mr. Plummer: Janet? ... a minute and a half? Delightful! Mr. City -Attorney,
it is my understanding, since they are the applicant, they go first, is that
correct?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The appealants, yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: And of course, Mrs. Weiss will have the second shot and then
they will have rebuttal. Sir, if you will step forward on behalf of your
client, state your name once again and your address and proceed. Set the
clock at his own determination of ten minutes.
Mr. Matthews: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice -Mayor and Mr. Mayor and members
of the Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, does the Department wish to have any further comment
at this time?
Mr. Whipple: We would like to comment at the appropriate time.
Mr. Plummer: And you don't feel that is now?
Mr. Whipple: Whichever pleases the Commission.
Mr. Plummer: I am giving you the opportunity to decide.
Mr. Whipple: Let thew go ahead, I'll go second.
Mr. Plummer, Fine, sir.
Mr. Matthews: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the Commission,
my name is Joseph Matthews with the law firm of Murai, Wald, Biondo &
Matthews, 25 S. E. 2nd Avenue. I am here as I indicated on behalf of, as
attorney for the Sunset Villas, Phase III Condominium Association and ninety-
one people who assigned the petition to appeal the grant of variances by
the Zoning Board. I apologize. I don't know how many months ago it was,
because it has, as you pointed out, been before the Commission twice where
it was stalled by virtue of a procedural impediment. I am here in the hopes
that by presenting a brief indication of the project involved, I can stop
the City from making quite a mockery of its zoning ordinances by giving
extraordinary privileges to someone who has the political savvy to attach
some currently magic words (middle income rental housing) to a project. If
I may very briefly describe to you the proceedings in the Zoning Board
and before the Zoning Board and the property involved, I would like to point
out to you - I apologize that it is not very artistic, but it came from your
City building file - a master plan dated 1972, which was the original master
plan which encompassed my client's property, Sunset Villas, Phase III and the
property that is the subject matter of this variance back at a time when
Jack and Carolyn Weiss owned a company called Intercontinental Engineers
and developed this project, or submitted this project for development as a
group. I will not go into the history before you today. I have presented
an extremely long memorandum, setting forth the history of this property
and showing that it basically presents a textbook about every developer
abuse that ever arose out of the condominium phenomenon in the early seventies.
What occurred and what is before this Board is the grant of variances to what
is referred to as seventeen acres, which is actually twelve acres of upland
property and five acres of submerged land, the five acres submerged, of
which has an easement in favor of my client's property, so that it cannot
be used for any purposes whatsoever. My client has an non-exclusive right
to use the waterway over which that five acres of submerged property exists.
The project teat they are requesting to build...
Id 103 DEC 16 1982
Mr. Plummer! $xeUse me, would you repeat your last statement for the City -
Attorney?
Mr. Matthews: I will. The five acres of submerged land that is included in
the over all seventeen acres upon which the density has been based to permit
the nine hundred and eighty units is submerged by the code and my client,
Sunset Village, Phase II concominium Association has a non-exclusive easement
for the use and enjoyment over and upon the water that fits over those sub-
merged lands. I know Commission does not want to revisit and argue the sub-
merged land issue. I have preserved that right. If the Commission wants
to discuss that, I would be most happy to, but I would have to ask if I could
increase my time. I certainly object to the density that the Planning folks
have agreed to on the basis that I think it is improper to include those five
acres for purposes of computing it, but I don't want to wast this Commission's
time analyzing that. Now, I know you have been through it adnauseam in the
past, but it has been raised. I raise it again now and I certainly incor-
porate all of the ground that I have presented in my memorandum before. The
project involved, as you can see from the schematic, proposes the introduc-
tion of seven seventeen story towers into an area where the largest building
height in the immediate mile or mile and one-half vicinity is ten stories.
It also includes the construction of an eight and a four story parking garage
in a zoning district which does not permit multiple story parking garages,
and which of course, would provide that a parking garage in the area is
going to exceed the vast majority of the buildings in height in the area.
Originally they requested five variances of the Zoning Board, including
setback, height, parking, space between the building and, as you pointed
out, Commissioner Plummer, the very substantial F.A.R. However, the file
indicates, and it shows very clearly that at the hearing before the Zoning
Board, right at the hearing, there was a change, in fact, two substantial
changes made to the variance request and if you take a look at the resolu-
tion that was passed, I think basically the only to describe it is, the
moving individual said "Give them what they want. I move they give them
what they want", because nobody at that meeting knew for sure what F.A.R.
was being requested. Apparently at this point, the Planning Deparment
accepts and is going to hold them to a 1.44, but the plans that were sub-
mitted, it is my understanding, won't work with a 1.44. Nonetheless,
whatever the case may be with respect to that, my point as an objector
was, that I went into that Zoning Board meeting not knowing that there had
been changes made in the request for variances and not having any opportun-
ity to prepare and address those alterations. As this Commission is well
aware, what occurred prior to this evening, was a series of hearings where
the failure of the applicant to tell you who it was that was applying pre-
cludes them from presenting their., position. I am here and Commissioner
Dawkins, I don't know you, but you have radiated integrity every time I have
seen you and I am here in the hopes that the statement that you made at the
last time this came before when you voted for it or when you moved its
approval and that you will be willing to listen to my four or five reasons
why this project should be rejected on the merits, not based on who is sub-
mitting it or anything else, but because it is a terrible project and be-
cause it doesn't do what you indicate you thought it would do in fulfilling
your campaign promise. Basically, there are five reasons why we object to
this. The first reason is, that the procedure that I just described to you,
where there were three delays before the Zoning Board; two of them at the
time of the hearing, when we had busloads of objectors present is a complete
affront to any concept of fairness on the part of any adjacent property
owner to represent his interest before the proper Zoning Boards. As I in-
dicated, the major changes at the Zoning Board were procedurely just totally
unfair to have to be dealt with. The second basis why we believe this
project should not be approved, or the variances should not be granted, is
that the applicant is talking, although it is not the purpose of this Com-
mission to be concerned with terribly, talking about putting seven seventeen
story towers right next to the airport, in an area that is medium density
and has been consistantly medium density. The third reason, and without a
doubt the most important reason that we have for objecting to these variances
and hoping that this Commission will not affirm the recommendation of the
Zoning Board, is that this applicant makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever
to satisfy any of the requirements - to even address any of the requirements
for granting a variance. You must have a list that was prepared that sets
forth the standards for granting a variance. Not once was any of those
standards addressed before the Zoning Board. Special conditions and cir-
cumstances existing, which are peculiar to the land - no mention made, whatso-
ever of that - that the special conditions did not result from the applicant's
10 104 DEC 16 1982
0
Id
otft actions. Well, Mr. & Mrs. Weiss, as the original developers of this pro -
petty were talking about doing a condominium project not only on the properties
before you now, but the property where four hundred and forty units already
exist and the total of those two was less than nine hundred and eighty, and now
they are talking about putting nine hundred and eighty units on less than half
of the total master plan that was already submitted and approved. They have
not even begun to suggest that the variances, the minimum necessary and reason-
able to make a reasonable use of the property. In addition, they made no
effort whatsoever to address the impact of this on a neighborhood that is
totally inconsistent with such a high density, high rise project... in essence,
against the objections of staff, strong recommendations, Commissioner Plummer,
that this project should not be granted. Basically, under the guise of middle
income housing, these folks are being permitted to take a high density, high
rise, residential project and parking project and plop it down in the middle
of a middle density consistently contained, middle density neighborhood, and
there is simply no reason given for the grant of such radical privileges,
other than this vague reference to middle income rental housing. Lastly, the
last round I had, as to why they should not be granted is, that if, and I
think your City Attorney will tell you that the desire to have middle income
housing is not a sufficient basis for granting variances, even if that is the
only basis that you are going to do it. I pointed out to the Zoning Board
that there is absolutely nothing to insure that that is what is going to take
place on this property... in fact, quite to the contrary, the architect for
these folks came before the Board of Directors of my association and told us
that - that this is going to be a luxury nroiect and as soon as the economv
turned around. it would be turned into condominiums. The history of this Dro-
iect. in fact. this DroDerty is such that there has been a comDlete disregard
for the loss of this community. In fact. I think vour zoning enforcement DeoDle
will tell you that when this application was filed. this DroDerty was being used
for a commercial enterprise. in violation of the zoning- ordinances and it was
during the process of this application to the Zoning Board and only at the
insistance of the zoning code enforcement officials that they were forced to
close that down. That is the kind of conduct that this DroDerty is being
utilized for at the same time that thev are coming in here and asking for
extraordinary variances to Dlace the DeoDle in the immediate area in a situation
where the narking garage on this Droiect exceeds the height limitations of their
own buildings, and I would suggest that on that basis as well as the basis tnAt=
I have underlined in my memorandum that was submitted and all the arguments tnar
I presented before the Zoning Board, which I would of course, like to incorporate
here that it is absolutely improper for these variances to be granted, that it
would be a travesty to do so, and that the people of this community deserve bet-
ter than to have this type of thing foisted upon them without any of the city's
normal processes even being dealth with. Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: How many minutes did he take?
Mr. Matthews: My apologies.
Mr. Ongie: Thirteen minutes.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple ... oh, first let's get an answer from the City Attorney
as to the underwater property. Mr. Percy, you heard the question?
Mr. Percy: Yes, I did.
Mr. Plummer: Would you address the question, please?
Mr. Percy: Mr. Matthews suggested that the submerged land that was counted as a
part of the F.A.R. for this project was not owned by the applicant and we were
just reviewing the file. The technical staff will review the application to
determine what the number should be, would have some evidence of ownership and
we were just now researching to find a survey of those documents of ownership.
They have not yet located them. Consistent with earlier interpretation of
Brickell Avenue properties with the inclusion of submerged lands as a part of
the lot area, is part of the reason that this application has gone on as long
as it did under that notion, but they have not yet confirmed with a document
the evidence of ownership of the submerged lands.
�i
F
105 DEC 61982
1
Mf. Plummer: Well, are you saying then, that you feel that the owhefs dt
the agents must produce proof that they do have the right to include that,
is that what you are saying?
Mr. Percy: Well, that presumptuously, Commissioner, has been done already.
You know, this application has been around for a while. Mr. Matthews, I
believe, indicated that his clients has an easement which would also... is
a property right which would encompass that same area that they claim ownership
to. I'm not sure that, that exclusive easement, since it's not being build
upon would be frustrated by this project should you decide to grant the
variances.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, so you are further researching?
Mr. Percy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, Janet Cooper?
Mr. Janet Cooper: Janet Cooper, 1901 Brickell Avenue. I have been present
at the hearings on this item and I fully support and adopt everything that
Mr. Matthews said for Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. and myself as well. We
are opposed to the inclusion of submerged land in the calculations it results
in tremendous over building on the upland property and would incorporate
by reference all the arguments previously made on the inclusion of submerged
land in the hearings on the Santa Maria Project. I urge you to reject this
development. Thank you.
Mr. Whipple: Commissioner Plummer, Commissioners. This item has many
ramifications as has already been indicated. First off we did recommend
denial and do recommend denial of the project and therefore, in favor the
appeal. And the first basis for this denial is the lack of a hardship. and
although you have heard me say it before I believe it needs to be repeated.
We find it impossible to have a hardship and come to this Commission or to
the Zoning Board and ask for more than what the ordinance permits. A hardship
is something of which you are being denied use of your land or reasonable
use of your land and the case in this instance is, they are in fact asking
more than what they are permitted to have, particularly in the case of
floor area ratio 1.1 permitted, 1.44 being requested. I might also point out
that this floor area ratio is tantamount to a change of zoning. A RC district
for instance is a 1.5 floor area ratio. A R-5 is a 2.0 where beyond the
intensity and density of an R-4 district and this in the guise of a floor
area ratio variance and other variances is tantamount to a change of zoning.
At the Zoning Board level many questions were proposed and perhaps relating
a few figures as a result of the Zoning Board's questions would enlighten
the City Commission. It is a fact that there are 5.116 acres of water being
included in the lot area for the computation of the proposed variance and
in the calculations of the project. 11.91 acres is land. To emphasize
that you are taking five acres of water of which you might have normally,
let's say two hundred units or in this... yes... say two hundred units on
it and you are taking those two hundred units that would normally be in the
water area and you are setting them up on the land with the other four hundred
seventy-four units, getting up to what would normally be permitted of six
hundred seventy-five units if you were sticking to a floor area ratio of 1.1.
Now, that is a tremendous impact. It's just, you know,... I think as you
hear the project why you will understand what we are trying to get at. I
did all the calculations with respect to the different floor area ratios and
the floor area ratio we are at now 1.44, assuming the unit size is kept on
the average that the drawings that we initially started with is the same.
This would permit eight hundred eighty-three units and if the project was
reduced to the permitted floor area ratio of 1.1, they would be permitted
six hundred seventy-five or a needed reduction of two hundred eight units
AR
by virtue of the floor area ratio on translating the average unit size down.
Of course, units could be made smaller if that was the desire and you could
compensate and work with the number there. Again, we are talking about
eight hundred eighty-three units, six hundred twenty of which would be
attributable to the land area and two hundred sixty-three of which would be
attributable to the water area. So, without burdening the Commission too,
much further those are our basic reasons. We think it's tantamount to the
change of zoning. We have a problem with the calculation of the water area,
even though this is at this point a legal item. It is an impacting item,
particularly on top of the variances being requested. The variances for the
106 DEC 16 1982
gi
3ethacks of the parking structures can have an impact upon the abutting area
Ahd... but we find that the real culprit here is that of the floor area
tatio and the method in which it's calculated. So, we would support the
appeal opposing the development as has been submitted.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, are you ready to speak to the water area
yet?
Mr. Percy: The determination hasn't been made. They haven't discovered
or furnished us with the documents of proof. Initially, Commissioner, when
this application was taken, when the thought of including the submerged land
the surveys would show that the property was owned by the applicant along
with the rolls of tax record. This is the determination that the planners
used in calculating the floor area ratio. Should this matter be acted favorably
on we could certainly make that subject to that verification or that it
would not frustrate the easement of the appellants.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Matthews, are you prepared to proffer at this time any
documentation showing what you have stated that you have right to that
and they do not?
Mr. Matthews: I'm sorry, Mr. Commissioner Plummer, no I didn't say that we
are entitled to it and they are nQt. What I say, sir, is that whoever owns
that property and I'm sorry, I do not know who owns the property underneath.
If they say they own it... I'm not challenging that they own the deed to the
property underneath. What I have represented to you, sir and I apologize.
I do not have a copy of the easement with me, but I can have it to Mr. Percy
or to you tomorrow morning. My client has an easement which consists of
water rights, to use and enjoy the water. In fact, if you will notice the
schematic where they show the marina little boat docks and things, my client
has the right to use... I'm sorry, it's on their schematic, in their plans.
You know, they just pictured some boat docks along the property way there.
I do not know, sir and I'm sorry if I misled you. I did not intend to
assert that my client owns the underlying property in that cove, that 5.11
acres that we are talking about. What I said is my client has an easement
right over those. Now, I didn't want to, you know, to litigate that issue
here. I know that your Citv Attorney has given you an opinion and it's been
fought over in the other case on Brickell Avenue as to the incorporation
of those submerged lands. My position here is that to the effect that the
existence of that easement in favor of my client alters the facts from the
Brickell Avenue submerged lands. Then I, you know, I wanted that pointed
out. I want it preserved in addition to, you know, being in opposition to
the inclusion in the first place. I think it's even worst in this circumstance
because of the fact that my client has an easement to use that water.
Mr. Percy: Might I response?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Percy.
Mr. Percy: Ok. So long as that easement would not disturb the feet which
we presume is in place, then Mr. Matthew's clients would not be prejudice
since there is no proposed development over and around the area where that
easement would lie assuming it was exclusively over the entire submerged area.
So, we don't have a conflict is what I'm saying.
Mr. Plummer: Well, then let me understand. Mr. Matthews, it was my understanding
of what you stated that said that it precluded them from using that water area
in their configuration based upon an easement that your people have. Is that
you contention?
Mr. Matthews: My position, sir, is that, that should... in addition to the
position that the submerged land shouldn't be incorporated in the first place
which in addition to that my position is added on that the easement that my
clients have is further reason why they should not be permitted to compute
that because if I can carry it through my argument is very simply that it's
going to increase the number of people who are going to be able to... that they
are going to be able to put on the twelve upland and are therefore, going to
infringe upon our easement rights over the use of the water. That would be
MY arguement, sir, I didn't... I know that's an arguement for the court, not
for you, but that is my feeling in truth also, that this property was never
meant to handle nine hundred eighty units. In fact, and the proof of the
pudding is that it was originally the entire property, mine and theirs included
was only going to have eight hundred sixty units.
gl 07 DEC 16 1982
i
Mr, Plufthat: you got any futthet statements Mt. Matthews? Mrs. Weiss, i
$ssiu"[ie you are representing as agent. For the record about how long do y6u
thing you will need to make your presentation with all of your people?
Ms. Carolyn Weiss: There is eighteen persons here to speak on behalf of this
project. I, myself, I don't think I'm going to stretch it beyond half an
hour. I'm going to try to make myself as brief as possible.
Mr. Plummer: We would appreciate your trying to be as brief as possible,
Mr. Carollo: Can we see the hands of the people that came here in favor of
this project? I count twelve there.
MS. Weiss: May be someone has gone home.
Mr. Carollo: Ok, are these people neighbors or are they going to be contractors
and people getting jobs because of the construction there?
Ms. Weiss: Yes, I will say that most of the people here are people from the
Builders Exchange Browhill, Central Bank, union workers, Broward Builders
Exchange, Allstate Plumbing, Whirlpool Corporation, HRD Security Company,
BNG Electric, FBI Electrical Contractors, Riteway Kitchens, Epicure, Honeywell,
Milton Cons truc tion,Delta Contractors, Domino Construction, Associated Builders
and Contractors, etc.
Mr. Carollo: Ok, for the record, let the record show that all the people
that are here besides the individual speaking representing the project are
all people that are hoping to derive some income from the project, therefore,
people that have a conflict of interest.
Mr. Plummer: For the record, so that we have it clear and there is no popularity
contest later. Mr. Matthews, is there anyone here from your side, sir, besides
yourself? Is there anyone in the audience from the condominium who in fact
supports your side?
Mr. Matthews: No, sir. The record reflects that there were, I think, ninety-one
petitioners who signed it. There were thirty-five, I believe, that showed
up there on the fourth time when it finally was heard. Those were evenings.
If I had known it was going to come up at 6, I can assure you there would
be some here, but unfortunately they are working folk and they...
Mr. Plummer: But for the record, you have none with you this evening?
Mr. Matthews: No, sir. To my knowledge, no, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Ms. Weiss, if you will for the record state your name,
your mailing address and proceed.
Ms. Weiss: My name is Carolyn Weiss, President of Intercontinental Properties,
INC., 701 Southwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33135. Mr. Plummer, I would
like to clarify as to the ownership of what is held under title. In April
I submitted a copy of the title itself, warranty deed together with title
insurance policy, a survey and tax bill which is documented by the City
Clerk here where taxes has been paid on this property since 1979. So, as
far as the ownership, I think it explains and if it is necessary I will be
very happy to leave same again with the City Clerk.
Mr. Plummer: Who did you surrender those documents to at that time?
Ms. Weiss: At the Zoning Board hearing in April.
Mr. Plummer: Alright.
Ms. Weiss: And it's actually marked by the City of Miami as part of the
exhibit April 19th.
Mr, Carollo: If I may, these documents show again, what?
Ms. Weiss: It shows the total acreage under title and it shows Central
pank and Trust Company and the survey here reflects what properties under
title together with the title insurance binder.
Plummer: If you have a spare of those I would suggest that as art exhibit
g1 108
DEC 16 1982
Ms. Weiss: I will be more than happy to. I would like to clear for the recordo
Mr. Matthews before, previously and now is circumventing the actual facts and
issues involved in this presentation. And from the dating of the print that
he is showing from the City of Miami and also the Planning Division by Mr.
Whipple, which is not reflecting that at the time that this plan was implemented
that the owners would have been in entitled if it was zoned at that time R-4
the complete acreage which was thirty-five acres, if it was R-4, but at that
time it was R-4, R-5 and C-2, but I'm going to give you the hypothetical. If
it was R-4 the total complex would have been entitled to two thousand seventeen
units. If we were to take into consideration the four hundred forty units of
Sunset Villas and what Jacarol Bay Club is asking for this comes up to fourteen
hundred sixteen units. When this project was implemented we were the first
developers on Northwest 7th Street and the first project we did a hundred
fifty-nine units and there was no other development between 57th
Avenue and 42nd Avenue. So, we were the first developers and we have built
in that area in excess of fourteen hundred unit. What I would like to show
here that if we were allow, to build what the City requires under the density
program, we would be allowed to build nine hundred eighty-two units. We are
not asking for nine hundred eighty-two units, we are asking for nine hundred
seventy-six units. The problem here is not what the developer is doing from
the point of FAR. I think the present zoning in itself is a hardship to the
developers, because the density that is allowed is not in correlation with the
FAR. If we were to allowed the FAR in correlation with the density your gross
units would be eight hundred thirty-seven feet, which would include your
corridors and your stairwells, common area and lobbies. And everyone knows
that nineteen percent of this would go for common area and therefore, that the
average unit would be in relation to the density approximately six hundred
seventy-eight square feet. The average unit here is eleven hundred ninety-
nine square feet between the one, two and three bedrooms, taking into consideration
on the net of the apartment itself would come up to nine hundred eighty-two units.
I would like to highlight that if we were to take into consideration because
it's impossible to relate nine hundred square feet or a thousand square feet
and I would like to run down real fast because we can visualize much quicker
the average two bedroom two bath, taking into consideration that at fourteen
by sixteen, twelve by fourteen for a second bedroom, living room is fourteen
by sixteen, dining room fourteen by fourteen, a kitchen of ninety six feet
a master bath of sixty four square feet and a second bathroom of fortv five
square feet, which would be the minimum. This brings you to nine hundred sixty-
five square feet for an average apartment and what we are implementing here is
nine hundred seventy-one square feet. I would like to go into the presentation.
When we originally filed this plan in 1981 there has been dramatic changes after
meeting with the Planning Board and as a hardship with the configuration of the
property and in setting out the building it makes it very difficult in laying
out the buildings and the only way they could be laid out is in the manner that
they are. Now, the reason that we have so many parking spaces and the parking
structures that are required, because the present code says that you must
have 1.76 cars for each unit. We are going slightly over that. If we were
to give to the density the amount of parking spaces required, then the whole
upland approximately twelve acres would be covered with parking. What we have
done here out of the hundred percent, we are utilizing nineteen percent which
includes all seven buildings, the club house, the parking structures as
construction on the land and the rest eighty-one percent is completely open
area and I...
Mayor Ferre: You mean by completely open, you mean no parking?
Mr. Weiss: No parking. The Structures together with the seven buildings
and the club house is utilizing nineteen percent of the overall upland. So,
we have here eighty-one percent of open area.
Mayor Ferre: That's excluding the water, Carolyn?
Ms. Weiss: Including the water.
Mayor Ferre: Includes the water?
Ms. Weiss:' Yes. We are planning to keep this as a water oriented community
in the area. I would like to highlight certain factors of this project.
That this is a water oriented community and that the areas that we had to
go for variances are the parking structures, because in Dade County, the
City of Miami and all municipalities any parking structure in excess of
twelve feet, you would require a variance. Also, the... three of the
gl 109 DEC 6
1 1982
vat ahees ate tot the patking 9tfudtutes and the aideyafd setback which f would
like Mt. Robett Vick to talk about this. He is much more proficient about the
calculation. The height of this project of all the buildings are within the
Code. The proposed density is within the Code. The opened space area is within
the Code. The landscaping is within the Code. The number of the units is within
the Code. The number of the parking spaces is within the Code and we are going
in excess of two hundred thirty parking spaces. The lot coverage with the
buildings is within the Code. So, the area that we really have exceeded over and
above the Code is the FAR. And the FAR is a result of the present zoning on
laws that exist. I think that if anything that needs to be revised is the
zoning laws and not the project what we are doing, because if I was to build
in relation with what the zoning laws allow, then my units would be about six
hundred square feet, which would make this area obsolete and would down grade
the area rather than upgrade the area and this project was meant to upgrade
the area and not down grade it. I think the projects on Northwest 7th Street
that we have built are still existing going back to 1969. And I'm sure you
remember Maurice, the first parcel, we coi=ldn't even buy it. We had to lease
it from Maule Industries. We have been developing there and that was the first
project, but no one wculd look at it and we were turned down by thirty-eight
lenders. So, we feel very strongly about the City of Miami and that we feel
that this project will be good for the City of Miami. It seems like when we
try to do a first class development for the middle income everyone tries to
shoot you down by saying what is middle income. Now, for the past seven
years there has been no rental property built in the City of Miami and this
will be the first rental property of it's size in excess of one hundred units
being built in the City of Miami. Now, the present financing structure on
this project is arranged by Shearson American Express and they were trying to
come down from Atlanta, Georgia, Gary Alex to reflect the facts that the
application and the financing that is already arranged, that this project
cannot converted for a minimum of ten years to condominiums and must
remain a rental, that twenty percent of this project would be Section Eight,
yes, but the balance of the project will be conventional for people earning
from fifteen to thirty-five thousand dollars and a rental rate for the one
unit from three hundred seventy-five to seven hundred fifty for your largest
unit. This building is going to have complete recreational facilities and
each building will have it's own environment with the landscaping and play
area, picnic area together with a club house of seventeen thousand square
feet which the people will have the right to become members to it and the...
I will offer now and I would be willing to sign to be part of the covenant
of this development that I will be more than happy to offer the Sunset Villas
development membership exactly like we did back then. In 1973 when we started
this development the club house facility was not part of the development. It
was surveyed separately and anyone who wanted to become a member they had the
right to become social members at fifty dollars per year. I would be more than
_
willing to still offer Sunset Villas the same. I have tried to meet with Mr.
Joe Matthews, the architect have, Sherri Wisenborne an attorney have and we
could not get any response neither from the association or from Mr. Joe Matthews
to negotiate to find out what his qualms are, what his reasons, all he has
did, he is opposed to the project. We have tried to speak to him. He
-
says well, he is short of parking spaces. What Mr. Matthews has failed to
tell you is that when he felt that there was parking spaces needed in the
Sunset Villas, that the parking spaces that they had at the time we were
developing was converted to tennis courts and recreational area. As a
result the parking spaces became short. Thereafter Mr. Matthews went and
sued Guardian Mortgage Investors for a hundred thirty-five parking spaces,
-
in February 28th, they settled with him for six hundred eighty -thousand dollars
of which he got forty percent. Mr. Matthews is not here because he loves
Sunset Villas or he loves the environment of the apartment. He is there
because he has to make a fee. I'm not putting down attorneys because my
husband is one and he is entitled to his own free enterprise, but when he
=
make questions about the project he does not give the complete facts each
=
time. He tells you shadowing the project what is and what isn't, but never
the facts what it really is. And he felt even as to discussion that he is
short parking spaces and I felt that I don't think that you can really collect
for something twice and Mr. Matthews, it seems like would like to get parking
spaces which he has already collected six hundred eighty -thousand dollars
from Guardian Mortgage and this is part of the public record. There will
be a large pool area which will be about three times the championship size
so that all the people in the seven buildings will be able to participate
so that the whole environment can be one and everyone can be part and parcel
~�
of the overall project rather than segregated. Each building is completely
self contained and self sufficient. If there should be power problems,
air conditioning problems in this complex only one building can go out. Also,
if there is a power failure on one floor it does not affect the complete
110
DEC 16 1982
6
building because the way the structure is made with electrical each building
is completely self-sufficient and has nothing to do with the seventeen floors.
From the point of energy saving, with the air conditioning system is a split
system as it is called so that there will be air conditioning generating hot
water which will be in each individual unit apartment since the utilities
in town is constantly going up and I think in order to make it affordable on
a long term basis we have been able to implement everything possible. From
the point of security we are implementing a complete keyless system and I
will have to say that this will be the first project in the City of Miami
that will be a keyless system...
Mayor Ferre: A what kind of system?
Ms. Weiss: Keyless. No keys at all. There will be controls by computer
cards and each apartment will be different and from the time they enter
the gate or the club house or the parking or the building. So, everything
has been taken into consideration to make this into a first class building
and not to get in and get out, because I don't think this is the intent here.
The financing speaks for itself. On each floor there will be a meeting room
so that since there is only one club house facility and instead of everyone
walking to the club house we have arranged that each floor will have it's
own meeting room, it's own laundry facilities and it's own environment without
complicating one building with the other and make it not sufficient. The
marina that we are intending is something down the road which have to be
filed with the Corps of Engineers, Yes, we would like to utilize the
water for the benefit of the people, but we have not made any plans, neither
have filed with the Corps of Engineers and this is something to be seen down
the road. If I'm not mistaken this property has a covenant that the water
itself cannot be used for a minimum or fifteen years from 1973 which will bring
it up to 1988 before you can even file an application to do anything with the
water area. I would like to say that there is sewer facilities already for
this location and this is a sewer line that we built back in 1969, because on
Northwest 7th Street there was no sewer facilities and we built the line from
43rd Avenue Northwest 9th Street to 57th Avenue. So, the sewer line that's
on Northwest 7th Street on the North side has been built and implemented
by us for all the development in that area. Now, if we were to chat about the
apartment situation in Dade County, we will note that there is in excess of
thirty thousand units that is in immediate demand. When I first made the
application and filed and came before the Zoning Board in April the figure was
twenty-eight thousand and when we checked with HUD and the different housing
agencies we have discovered there is thirty thousand much needed only in the
City of Miami and it's part of the record, the income bracket of each person,
but it all reflects from fourteen thousand eight hundred fifty to thirty thousand
dollars, that anyone now has to rent an apartment will have to go out in
Southwest Dade, travel nineteen to twenty-five miles and spend all that for
gas. This project is right off the East/West expressway and there is bus
transportation East/West on this project which makes it accessible for everyone
if they have to live there and travel without an automobile. The four variances
that we are asking, I would like at this time to ask Mr. Roberto Vick to point
them out on the drawing board, so that you can see that we are going under
four sections. We have paid a fee of a hundred thirty-one thousand dollars
for five variances, but after meeting with Mr. Whipple we have changed that
to four variances and I would like to ask Mr. Roberto Vick to point them out
on the board.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, for the record, your name and mailing address and if you
wish there is a portable microphone there which you can take with you to the
board.
Mr. Roberto Vick: My name is Roberto Vick, I am a registered architect in
the State of Florida. My mailing address, it's 2850 Southwest 139th Avenue,
Miami 33175. As Ms. Weiss has stated at the time of the application we were
requesting five sections of the Zoning Code for variances. The first one
was this... was the twin towers and that variance we eliminated from the
request connecting the towers together and creating one building including
five different towers. So, we are requesting now at this hearing for four
variances. The first one that we are requesting now is the setback from the
water which is Section 2 on the Zoning Code. One tower only. Tower #5.
Mayor Ferre: The other towers comply.
Mr, Vick: The other towers comply with all the distance required. We moved
the towers back as the result of one of the meetings with Mr. Whipple. So,
tower #4, 3, 2 and 1, we moved them back from the bulkhead line. Tower #6
gl g11 DEC 16 1982
and tower #1 complied with any setback because the Code as have been stated,
this is a private land. So, tower #6 and V , they don't need any vatiahtoa
froth water setback. So, the only one is tower #5 from the water. Even to
help that setback we'are eliminating two apartments on the bottom floor, so
are the human scales, whatever, the pedestrians are going to be on the
promenade, which is a continuous promenade all around the water. At the
pedestrian scale as I said there is no obstruction, so the promenade become
forty feet back.
Mayor Ferre: Does your property go all the way to the park?
Mr. Vick: The property goes all the way to the beginning of the Blue Lagoon
Park. So, our property and the Blue Lagoon Park abut one with the other,
which as a matter of fact and probably Ms. Weiss will state a little later,
we have been working close with the Parks and Recreation Department and we
have been working and developing plans to improve that park -in there.
Mayor Ferre: Ok► go ahead.
Mr. Vick: Ok, variance #2 that we are requesting is...
Ms. Weiss: Mr. Mayor, did you say when? I have made a commitment to the
Parks Department that the development of the park, which we have given them
a complete plan will be developed concurrently with the first phase of this
project and we made a complete commitment to them which...
Mayor Ferre: Which is the first phase?
Ms. Weiss: The first phase is going to be the parking structure, building
seven buildings, the club house and the environment of the tennis courts
with two levels of parking, which is already committed as the first phase of
financing. This is the plan that we have presented for the Parks Department
and have approved. We made several of them, met several with them and decided
that this is the best plan for the park and...
Mayor Ferre: Is that the park itself?
Ms. Weiss: No, this is the plan that is going to be implemented. Right
now there is only the royal palm trees.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, the plan. Oh, I see, ok. I understand.
Mr. Plummer: Question. That park, is that going to be for the public's use?
Ms. Weiss: It is a public park right now owned by the City, but because
there is no funds Mr. Carl Kern does not anticipate any improvement on it
for at least two to three years.
Mr. Plummer: So, what you are doing then, is... what you are saying is that
you are going to develop it for the City.
Ms. Weiss: That's correct, immediately concurrently with the development
'
and it will be exactly according with the...
Mr. Perez: You would donate the park to the City as a City property or
would it be apart of your own property?
Ms. Weiss: No, the park is owned by the City, but is not improved. But we
_
will improve the boat lift area, the club house facility itself with the
kitchens, but not furnishings, the outside decking, the parking and the
landscaping we would work hand in hand with the City of Miami Parks Department,
And the reason for this is because any improvement that is made on Northwest
7th Street will enhance and upgrade the overall development, because instead
a
of having this park which is people that are drunks, alcoholics, wayward
are sleeping and breaking down the door every time. We feel that if someone
driving on the street and the impact is the park it's going to enhance the
whole area and not just the park.
Mayor Ferre: Is that park structure... it says club house. Is that the
old Pan American club house?
Mr. Vick: The rowing club wants to get in there.
gl
112
DEC 16 1982
0
M Weiss: And this is the paved area that the City recently acquired this
year.
Mayor Ferre: So, it would include all three of those lots?
Ms. Weiss: That's correct. Mr. Roberto Vick, even though we have join the
buildings together, we have also join the parking lot together with the
structure, so that when you come into the parking structure you can go from
either building without getting wet and the club house is attached to this
parking structure and building seven is attached to this parking structure,
so as to make it completely convenient for people coming in and out, which
we have large scale drawings on this which we would like to show at this time.
If I may get permission from Mr. Joe Matthews to put my pictures over his
pictures temporarily. This large scaled area is the club house facility
that is being developed. We are going to start with building 5 and you will
be able to see exactly the environment for each and every building in relation
to the building and this is drawn exactly to scale. There is no misrepresentation
as to the scale of the building or the scale of the landscaped area. The
next one will be building 4, building 3, building 2... I'm sorry, that's
building 1, Roberto.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE)
Ms. Weiss: Oh, ok. Then you have 1, which is this angle here of the cove.
This is this point here that we are looking at. To building #6, which shows
this large scale area here next to the pool and this is the entrance where
these two buildings which you cannot really see it on the scale. And this
is the area adjacent to the parking structure looking at it from this point.
Mr. Vick: Ok, the third variance or the second variance that we are asking
is the setback of the tower from the adjacent property line. We are asking
for a setback on tower #5, which is the one closer.
Ms. Weiss: The reason for tower #5 is requesting a variance. We could have
turned this building around and we would not require a variance, but if we
did this, then we would be blocking Halfmoon Development completely and this
was the best configuration so that this view of this Halfmoon Development
will not be obstructed from the towers. I would like to point out that the
towers each one, one to the other is wider than our main thoroughfare which
is a six lane highway. It's easier to visualize it, we are in excess
approximately eighty-one and eighty-two feet between buildings. So, to
visualize it because we all can relate with a main thoroughfare the distance
between buildings is a six lane highway.
Mr. Vick: So, we are asking for one setback on tower #5 and we are asking
for one setback on tower V . The required one was eighty-one feet, we are
asking for a sixty foot setback and a thirty-six setback on tower #5. And
the parking garages, we are asking for a setback of ten feet around when the
required was twenty. From there on the same garages for the variances we
are asking on a height, you know, variance of height for the garage. In the
City of Miami twelve feet is the maximum that a garage is allowed. We are
asking for forty-two foot for a three level garage, fifty-two... I mean, I'm
sorry, thirty-two feet for a three level parking garage, forty-two for a
four level parking garage with the tennis courts on the top and eighty-two
feet six inches for an eye level parking garage. The last variance that we
are asking is the floor area ratio, which is the fourth one. As we have
stated 1.1 is the allowed floor area ratio on the R-4 zoning and we are
asking at this very moment for a 1.59 floor area ratio which is a forty-four
percent over the allowed area.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, excuse me.
Mr, Vick: Ok.
Mr. Plummer: You state that the ordinance allows a 1.1 and yoU are asXiA9
for a 1.59?
Mr, Vick: That's right, That's exactly correct.
Mr. Plummer: The application says 1.44.
Mr. Percy: Correct.
91
113
DEC 16 1982
Mrs Vickt Ok, can i ekpiain and theft Mt. *ipp a will State hit aWmahu
Mt, Percy: Commissioner, and since this is an appeal they ate lithited to
What they got below. They didn't appeal.
Mr. Vick: Can I go ahead.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, go ahead, sir.
Mr. Vick: At the moment of the zoning hearing back in April we were asking
for a million...
Ms. Weiss: One million one hundred eighty thousand square feet and that is
including the club house facility. The buildings themselves is one million
one hundred seventy thousand square feet eight zero five. We are still
requesting the same. And there was... how do you calculate the FAR and
how is the percentages related to what you are allow. We are saying that
you are allowed 1.1, so therefore, the excess that we are asking is forty-
four percent which brings it up to 1.59.
Mr. Plummer: That's not the point. The City Attorney is stating...
Mr. Percy: The board granted you a 1.44 and you did not appeal the board's
decision. The board's judgement is being appealed by your opponents and
your application on the review of the Commission is limited to what was granted
below. So, you can't exceed that at this time.
Mr. Vick: At the moment of the hearing we were stating that we were requesting
the approval of in square footage, which was what Ms. Weiss stated of a
million.
Mr. Plummer: Ms. Weiss, the thirty minutes that you requested has come to
a conclusion, about how much longer will you need?
Ms. Weiss: I have... Mr. Roberto Vick has taken part of my half an hour
Mr. Plummer, so I would say no more than fifteen minutes maximum,
Mr. Plummer: For the entire presentation.
Ms. Weiss: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Alright.
Mr. Vick: So, we were asking for the square footage to be approved at that
very moment as the misunderstanding and then we met with Mr. Whipple and
we accepted that we were computing or calculating the floor area ratio
wrongly. We went back to him and we agreed that we wanted the same square
footage as we applied for based on the way that it should be computed and
at that very point we are asking and we submitted revised computations that
instead of a 1.44 that we requested or that was the number that was computed
it was 1.59. We haven't increased the square footage, we have the same
square footage as before.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, that's not the problem as I see it. The problem exist is
that I asked Mr. Whipple in the beginning and he stated that it was correct
that we are hearing this application tonight at a 1.44. Now, the City Attorney
has stated that we are operating under a 1.44 which is what was approved at
the lower board and we cannot consider above a 1.44. Now, you all can argue
that out, Mr. City Attorney...
Mayor Ferre: What is it that they are asking?
Mr. Plummer: Well, the gentleman here states that they are asking for a
1.59 and it was his understanding in a conversation with Mr. Whipple after
reconfiguration that the 1.59 was what they were travelling under. Now,
Mr. Whipple, unless you are willing to correct your earlier statement, I
think we better have some clarification or Mr. Matthews is going to be right.
Mr. Whipple: My initial statement 1.44 stands, I did not advise them about
a 1.59. There was considerable discussion of this at the board level. There
was a miscalculation and that's why they board and the Department and the
Law Department were very specific as to what the board was granting which
was the 1.44.
g1 114 DEC 16 1982
Mf, Plufter: Well, what does that do, Mr. Whipple, very quickly? 1 Wbuld
assufne, Ms. Weiss's presentation has been presented upon a 1.59. That mould
be My understanding because that's what she has stated. Now, what does that
do to the figures...
Mayor Ferre: Including the water.
Mr. Plummer: Including the water, of course. What does that do to the
figures as what you are contemplating on a 1.44.
Mr. Whipple: Well, the difference in the figures as I have them a 1.44
represents one million seventy-six thousand seven sixty square feet as
opposed to their request which I believe was at one million one hundred
eighty-nine thousand nine hundred eighty-five square feet.
Ms. Weiss: Which is still the same, we have not changed that.
Mr. Carollo: Can you go over those figures again, Mr. Whipple, please? The
1.44 is how much?
Mr. Whipple: One million seventy-six thousand seven hundred sixty square feet.
Mr. Carollo: And the 1.59?
Mr. Whipple: One million one hundred eighty-nine thousand nine hundred
eighty-five square feet.
Mr. Plummer: Well, ok, then I will have to go back to the City Attorney.
Mr. City Attorney, you have heard the figures thrown out here in the millions,
what is your ruling, sir?
Mr. Percy: The application before this Commission is to consider what was
granted by the Zoning Board. So, the... Ms. Weiss and our team I believe
are attempting to maintain what was granted by the Zoning Board and not to
exceed it. I mean, that's logically what would flow. Any difference in
numbers would necessitate in my opinion a review by... a second review by
the Zoning Board. The numbers are altered.
Mr. Whipple: Ms. Weiss?
Ms. Weiss: When the confusion was taking place how you divide your FAR
from what you are allowed, when the conversation was going on some was
saying 1.59, 1.44, but always was maintained one million one hundred eighty-nine
thousand square feet. So, when it was approved by the Zoning Board, what they
said, -they still implemented the same one million one hundred eighty-nine
thousand square feet, the same seven buildings without any changes and this
is part of the record which starts on page 30... it starts about page 24 to
page 30 to reflect that what we are asking one million one hundred eighty-nine
thousand square feet.
(BACKGROLND C014MENT INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: Well, ok, Mr. Gary, that's fine, but you know, we are... at
least I am... I'm sitting up here trying to make a determination from what
I am understanding from the City Attorney that the best that she could hope
to get here this evening is the 1.44. She is predicating on a 1.59. If this
application were to be granted her understanding is that it's a 1.59, you
are not going to issue a permit on more than a 1.44 and we gone through an
effort in futility. Now, Mrs. Weiss, I strongly suggest this matter be
resolved before we proceed, because if in fact, Mr. Percy is correct and the
maximum that you can hope to achieve is the 1.44, we better understand that
so that we are all on the same wave length. Let me as this question may be...
Mr. Percy, if there is a discrepancy between the FAR and the actual footage,
which prevails?
Mr. Percy: The variance was for an FAR.
Mr. Plummer: Not for the square footage?
M.r, Percy: Correct.
Mr, Plummer: So, then Ms. Weiss, you have heard the comments of Mr. Percy
and I don't know if I'm the Chair or not, but the Chair would have to rule
that this is being heard on a 1.44 and that we do not have th opportunity to
gl 115 DEC 16 1982
efcceed that which the lower board and which the appeal is taken upon. So> t
think we better have an understanding at this point from you that you have is
travel under a 1.44 or the City Attorney has said you will have to go back for
a review, is that correct?
Mr. Percy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, so, I think you better have an acknowledgement on the
record at this point.
Ms. Weiss: I would like to bring Mr. Whipple's attention to page 33 when the
discussion was taken. Mr....
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Whipple, do you have page 33?
Mr. Whipple: I don't need page 33, I was there and I remember what happened.
Mr. Plummer: Proceed.
Ms. Weiss: Well, I'm reading from the copies I got from the City of Miami.
(AT THIS POINT MS. WEISS READ EXCERPTS FROM THE ZONING BOARD HEARING). And this
was going on back and forth and what we were saying, we were asking for seven
buildings seventh stories, one million one hundred eighty-nine thousand square
feet.
Mayor Ferre: Well, which is it then?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney?
Mr. Percy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Advise us, sir.
Mr. Percy: The Zoning Board granted a floor area ratio variance to the tune
1.44 for the subject project. That's variance among others was appealed to this
Commission. So, what you are reviewing is a determination by the Zoning Board
for a collection of variances. The one pertaining to floor area ratio is at
1.44, not with withstanding the discrepancies.
Mr. Plummer: So then let me understand...
Mayor Ferre: May I Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: See, Whipple, she stop reading because then it continues and then
it says (AT THIS POINT THE MAYOR READS INTO THE RECORD EXCERPTS FROM THE ZONING
BOARD HEARING).
Ms. Weiss: Are you on page 34, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: So, now, I am on page 34. (THE MAYOR CONTINUES TO READ EXCERPTS
FROM THE ZONING BOARD HEARING. So, what's the end of all that conversation?
Mr. Whipple: 1.44.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Ok, then Mrs. Weiss, it would be my understanding...
Mayor Ferre: And they are appealing that today, which you have got a right to
do
Mr. Gary: They aren't appealing.
gi
116
DEC 16 1982
Mr, Plummer: No, no, Carolyn, the problem is you cannot correct, That's what
the City... if you had taken the appeal, you could correct, but you are not the
person taking the appeal. Now, let me try to get somewhere here because I don't
want to proceed if we got a big problem. Mr. Percy?
Mayor Ferre: J. L., J. L., Percy here has clarified it for me. He came up to
me and he said look, it's all on page 36, the maker of the motion is Mr. Freixas
and he said 1.44. It's in the middle of page 36. (AT THIS POINT THE MAYOR
READS INTO THE RECORD EXCERPTS FROM THE ZONING BOARD HEARING). So, in other
words, the maker of the motion specified that it was 1.44.
Mr. Plummer: Alright.
Mr. Carollo: Well, the problem that I see is that the presentation that we have
been given up to now has been based on a 1.59 and that includes the hundred
thirteen thousand two hundred twenty-five square over what the Zoning Board
approved.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Mr. Percy, it is my understanding that from this point forward
or at least this application has to proceed upon a 1.44, that conversation or
presentation contrary to a 1.44 is not before us at this time. Is that correct?
Mr. Percy: I think the testimony and presentation that you have heard merely
supplements what the records were sent up from the Zoning Board. That record
contains a resolution and a transcript and approval for 1.44. So, any misconceptions
that they may have, I don't think will... should add or detract to the merits
of the application on what they had. That's my opinion.
Ms. Weiss: Ok, we will go with to keep going with the presentation, we will
leave it at 1.44.
Mr. Carollo: Now, the question that I have is that if you are going at 1.44
am I to presume that all the drawings that you have before us and the buildings
that you have on display and so on are going to be changed then?
Ms. Weiss: We will have to for the purpose of the presentation, Mr. Carollo,
I will say it's 1.44. What we have present all along and we have not made any
changes with the Planning Board or with our filing of the application, the
building exactly as they are and as the plans that is on file. And since there
is a confusion about 1.44 or 1.59 I will be willing to go along for the purpose
of this presentation to leave it at 1.44.
Mr. Plummer: Then the question has to be asked, how does that alter your
presentation previous. You spoke to definite figures and definite setbacks and
definite pretty much, but it was predicated on the 1.59. I think...
Ms. Weiss: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: My interpretation is that we go back now to the beginning of the
presentation and ask you to make a presentation on the 1.44 because the figures
are obviously going to have to be different so much to the so that Mr. Matthews
says that it won't fit. Now, I don't agree necessarily with that, but I think
that your... it is without question, it is going to be a different set of figures
as to the setbacks, as to the height requirements and all of that, it's just
got to be.
Mr. Carollo: I think it's going to be next to impossible to require all that
information to be given to us in a matter of half an hour to an hour.
Ms. Weiss: That's not possible.
Mr. Plummer: Well, that's her opportunity, you know, I'm...
Ms. Weiss: I mean, we are talking about a hundred thirteen thousand square feet
that is the difference, it would be impossible for us to sit down and modify
the amount of unit count.
Mr. Plummer: I understand that, ok, but...
117
DEC 16 1982
gl
Mt, Matthew: Mr. Plummer, I would only ask for a little bit of faithdaa td
dlients to know what's presented. I mean, I can't really address what's
being proposed. I understand yours.
Mr. Plummer: well, sir, you have to... no, sir, now in all fairness you have
to address the issue at the 1.44. That's what you have got to address it at.
Mr. Matthew: Right, but there is no plan at 1.44.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Chairman...
Mr. Plummer: The plan on file does not comply with the 1.44. Mr. Carollo?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Chairman, if I may at this point and time, I think it is the
best interest of this City for the following motion to be placed and that is
the motion to defer this item until the following zoning meeting that we have
to give the applicant enough time to get all the figures that we require on
paper, so that the person and the people that he represents that are appealing
can study it and so that our Planning Department can study it and finally that
this Commission can have a complete, true and accurate picture of what really
the situation in this project is. So, I make the motion that this item be
deferred for those reasons for the following Zoning Board meeting or rather
Commission meeting.
Mr. Plummer: There is a motion on the floor, is there a second? There is a
motion on the floor, is there a second? For the third and final time, is there
a second?
Mayor Ferre: I don't think we have any choice but to do that until there is
proper compliance.
Mr. Plummer: Is that a second?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Seconded by Mayor Ferre. Under discussion, Commissioner Dawkins.
Mr. Dawkins: we would have to come back, because as we say, we have been listening
to 1.59 and 1.44 and there has to be a difference in the number of units or the
number of towers and set PD. So, I would have to go along with the motion to
defer and ask that the owners return to the next zoning meeting in front of us
and to let us know exactly what they are talking about with the 1.44.
Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Mrs. Weiss, you are only at liberty to
discuss the motion, which is the deferral. Do you wish to speak to the deferment?
Ms. Weiss: I have no objections to the deferment, actually, if I had the
calculator in front of me I could calculate--- what is it, one hundred three or
a one hundred thirteen thousand is the difference to be able to come up, if I
have to eliminate one floor from each building or whatever it is, but leaving
the buildings exactly the same thing, because there is no way that the buildings
can be changed and this is what I was doing while you were talking about the
deferment. I'm sorry.
Mr. Dawkins: But the thing is that it is the custom of this Commission, that
if one Commissioner says to defer in order for them to have the information,
that we usually defer.
Mayor Ferre: But that's not what the case is Miller, this is a different...
Now, that is something that--- and it's not a written law, it's a tradition
that this Commission has had, that if a member of this Commission wants to
- defer for the purposes of information and studying the thing, that can be done
on... just for one meeting. But that's not what's involved in this thing.
What's involved here is that there is a difference in the calculation between
the 1.44 and 1.59 and therefore, the applicant has got to make the presentation
- based on the real figures rather than the previously assumed figures.
RE
ma Mr. Dawkins: And even if they made them, I was under the impression that
4
somebody here may want to look at them and study them, this is what I'm saying.
gl 118
DEC 16 1982
Mr. Matthews: Only, sir, that I be given an opportunity to see any revisions
before they are brought to the Commission. That's all, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Well, obviously, I mean, this is a public hearing and you have
got... as an interested party you have got that right and so do we.
Mr. Matthews: Well, no, no it's just a fairly unique procedure to... you know,
that they were going through and I wanted to make sure that, that was a part
of the motion, that's all.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, any further discussion to the motion?
Ms. Weiss: Yes, for purpose of clarification, we are being deferred so as to
clarify the 1.44? And the square footage...
Mayor Ferre: That's right.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, it is my understanding when you are prepared to
come back to this Commission, you will then be prepared to give the facts and
figures that applies to a 1.44, which cannot be ,exceeded which you were granted
at the lower level.
-Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. vice -Mayor?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: As a matter of clarification, you are saying when you are
ready and Commissioner Dawkins says next zoning hearing which is January 13th
and I need to know...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Perez, I would assume, you know, because it is not yet
determined when the next meeting is going to be, the next zoning meeting
that Commissioner Carollo as well as Mayor Ferre would assume the latitude that
this matter will come back up before us once they are prepared with those facts
and figures. Do you have any problem with that or are you putting a deadline
for them to come back on the zoning meeting of January?
Mr. Carollo: There is no deadline. If they are not ready, which I would doubt
by the next zoning meeting in January, then they can come back in February.
Mr. Plummer: To Mrs. Weiss, I don't think you were here earlier when it was
requested by me, that I have a conflict from the lath to the end of the month
and I requested consideration of my colleagues that the second meeting be moved
up.
Ms. Weiss: To February.
Mr. Plummer: No, no, up in January.
Ms. Weiss: But that's alright...
Mr. Plummer: We have not yet set the date, but it looks like it will be in the
week of the loth.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let's set the date right now.
Ms. Weiss: I will be ready whenever it is set and if we...
Mr. Plummer: Ok, in fairness to you, you are looking in the calendar that
shows the zoning on January 27th.
Ms. Weiss: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: And what I'm telling you is that predicated on something done
this morning that is not, hopefully, going to be the correct date. You follow
me?
gI 19
DEC 16 1982
Ma, Weiss: Yes, I follow you, but we can be available on the 10th of UhU&ty
if necessary because...
Mr. Mummer: I would suggest that you wait after the passage of this motion
and know the definite date.
Ms. Weiss: Ok.
Mr. Carollo: J. L., don't worry, I think we all know that they will be here
at midnight if they have to be on whatever date, New Year's.
Mr. Plummer: That's their prerogative.
Mayor Ferre: Well, we will set the date in a moment.
Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion in relation to the motion to defer;
Hearing none call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 82-1162
A MOTION DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PREVIOUSLY
GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE JACAROL BAY CLUB, LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 4865 N.W. 7TH ST. TO THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION PLANNING &
ZONING AGENDA, IN ORDER THAT NEW COMPUTATIONS MAY BE MADE ON THE BASIS
OF A 1.44 F.A.R.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Ferre, the motion was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
j 44. RESOLUTION CHANGING THE DATES OF CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING
THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1983.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Ferre, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -1163
A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION.MEETING OF
JANUARY 27, 1983 TO TAKE PLACE ON JANUARY 13, 1983, AT 5:00 P.M.
k
1
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
r ;
in the Office of the City Clerk.)',
,Von being seconded by Commissioner Perez the resolution was passed
t�
end adopted by the following vote- wK
AYIE5: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr,
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NQ95 ; NQno ,
MUM; Ngno,
9l
120
DEC 16 1982
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Agenda items number 39, 40, and 41 were withdrawn.
45. ACCEPT PLAT: "KAHN-CARL,IN SUB".
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Item #42, which is the Topeka Avenue and Bird Avenue
of Kahn -Carlin Sub. Is there a motion on that?
Mr. Carollo: Move.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Carollo, is there a second?
Mr. Perez: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Perez, further discussion, call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1164
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED KAHN-CARLIN SUBDIVISION,
A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND ACCEPTING THE DECICATIONS
SHOWN ON SAID PLAT: FURTHER, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PROVIDING FOR THE
RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
46. ACCEPT PLAT: "REVISED PLAT OF HANSON SUB".
Mayor Ferre: Take up 43.
Mr. Carollo: Move.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Carollo, is there a second?
Mr. Perez: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Perez, further discussion, call tie toil,
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
121
gl DEC 16 1982
(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 -
AM.. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
47. CODESIGNATE N.E. 69 STREET FROM BISCAYNE BOULEVARD TO BISCAYNE
BAY AS "N.E. 69 STREET/PAL:-1 BAY LANE". t.
Mayor Ferre: Take up 44. It's an application to codesginate Northeast 69th
Street is Biscayne Boulevard to Biscayne Bay is Northeast 69th Street -Palm Bay
Lane.
Mr. Carollo: Can we hear from the Planning Department as to why they are
denying the change.
Mr. McManus: Commissioner Carollo, we had recommended denial of the application
as presented and made a substitute recommendation and the substitute recommendation
was that there be a monument or a marker placed in the median at Northeast
69th Street and Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 69th and on that would be the
inscription "Gateway to Palm Bay". Now, the reason...
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, where is there a median on Biscayne Boulevard?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, there is on 69th Street.
Mr. McManus: No, no, in Northeast 69th Street.
Mr. Plummer: On 69th itself?
Mr. McManus: Yes.
Mr. Pierce: Yes, East of the Boulevard.
Mr. McManus: As you are coming East to the Boulevard. Now, there... going
through the reasoning for that on October 26th of the year the Commission
revised their policy on street name changes through Resolution 82-992 and the
two significant points here your policy now states that in preference to
street renaming or codesignation you would consider marker or plazas. The second
part of this pertains here is that numbered streets will not be codesignated
for merely commercial purposes, quoting from the Commission policy compared
to the Planning Department and the Planning Advisory Board that codesignated
as Palm Bay Lane was for a commercial purpose. So, working with the Planning
Advisory Board made the recommendation of a marker in the median of Northeast
69th Street with the inscription "Gateway to Palm Bay". Does not change ',-he
street name, address, anything like that, it's just a marker. Thank you.
�.22 DEC E C 16 1982
Mts Pluminera So, what you are sayin4 is add6tding to out policy we 6Ah't 6V6h
teally consider it? Consider this item as proposed would take a change of the
Policy of this Commission.
Mr, McManus: The quoted policy is numbered streets will not be codesignated
for merely commercial purposes.
Mr. Plummer: What's the other purpose is to being codesignated for?
Mr. McManus: And the corresponding part of that is to answer your question
Commissioner, numbered streets will only be codesignated if there is significant
historical, neighborhood, or community benefit to the codesignation.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, Mr. Luft are you standing up drinking that coca cola
for the purposes are being fortified or do you want to speak on the issue?
Mr. Feinberg, I assume as a expert on 69th Street and the historical value
of that particular area that you would like to address this august body and
in lieu and waive your right to the pornographic ordinance.
Mr. Eli Feinberg: Yes and I would like to change my hat from an historical
freedom tower to the historical Palm Bay Lane.
Mr. Carollo: What I would like to know is if the first lady of the Northeast
approves this......
Mr. Feinberg: As a matter of fact she doesn't. My name is Eli Feinberg,
I'm Vice -President of Venture Bay. The reason that we feel that we qualify
or fall under a codesignation, is it falls under a neighborhood or a community
benefit and our benefit is that we are landscaping that entire street, putting
in about two hundred thousand dollars worth of landscaping very, very similar
to what they did at quaside, very similar to what they did at Grove Isle. We
purposed the lots on the South side of Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 69th
Street in order to upgrade and beautify the area. Yes, it's true it's going
to help the marketing of our development, but the City does not have the
money to landscape the area, to beautify the area and we are doing that. And
like many streets in the Grove and the streets in California there is a sense
of neighborhood charm that comes with a codesignation. The Planning Department
sent out a questionaire and it's our understanding that six opposed and some
forty-seven approved. Thank you, Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Carollo: What is the opinion of our legal staff? Can we approve the change
under the present circumstances or not?
Mr. Percy: Could you repeat the question, Commissioner?
Mr. Carollo: Can we approve the street name change under the present circumstances?
Mr. Feinberg: Codesignation.
Mr. Percy: Ok, the substitute recommendation by the P.A.B. is not for a street
name change, but the placement of a marker...
Mr. Carollo: Right that's a codesignation.
Mr. Percy: ... which is, I don't believe is a... is contrary to the City's
policy.
Mr. Feinberg: What we are saying is to have Northeast 69th Street and underneath
Palm Bay Lane.
Mr. Carollo: I make a motion that we approve the request from applicant to
codesignate 69th Street.
DECgI
123
98
r
Mrs faroild, Codesignate Nottheatt tgth Stteet and Pa11ri My Lairs
Mt, Plummer: You are moving to approve?
Mr. Carollo: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Well, he is already on the record of spending a miniMUM 6f tWO
hundred thousand dollars as designated by the City landscaper.
Mr. Feinberg: No, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me.
Mr. Feinberg: No, no, we are doing this on our own. We are landsoapiitg the
median strip, which is City owned property and maintaining it.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Feinberg: We are going to be landscaping and maintaining the property
just north of our development which is about a seven house area and also curbing
the median strip. The plans should be on Mr. Cather's desk probably in about
a week.
Mr. Plummer: But you have indicated on the record Eli, that you are going to
spend two hundred thousand dollars to upgrade that area.
Mr. Feinberg: I believe that we have already spent close to sixty thousand
dollars in landscaping that a very small piece between us and the Palm Bay
Club. The landscape is already in there. And we have a contract with the
City where we are maintaining it.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Carollo: There is a motion is there a second?
Mayor Ferre: It's been moved.
Mr. Ongie: It's moved and seconded, we just have to call the roll.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1166
A RESOLUTION CO -DESIGNATING NORTHEAST 69th STREET BETWEEN BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD AND BISCAYNE BAY AS NORTHEAST 69TH STREET/PALM BAY LANE;"
REQUESTING DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE A ERECT
STREET IDENTIFICATION SIGNS; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FORWARD THIS RESOLUTION TO AFFECTED AGENCIES.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.) "y
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins,
passed and adopted by the following vote -
the resolution was
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES; None.
�ARFNT� None_
14
f(�r
tt 1
3 �'rti 'iII
Y 3
r �
DEC 161982
0
0
;Vl 1 II0N I ;., C I'I
Mayor Ferre: 1.1r. Plummer, we are on Item 46. Does anybody want to move that?
Off -Street Parking Authority...
Mr. Carollo: Move.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Carollo, is there a second?
Mr. Perez: Seconded by Perez, further discussion?
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, let me... you know,... yes, 1 got t6 ask awt
questions of Roger. Is he here?
Mayor Ferre: Of course, not.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the question is, they get all of the revenue from the thing
and we get nothing, yet that we are being asked to spend a hundred thousand
dollars to fix it up so they... And Mr. Gary, I'm...
Mayor Ferre: And they are spending two hundred thousand dollars.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but I'm also being told, Mr. Mayor, that they are cutting
down on the number of spaces.
Mayor Ferre: But the reason we have to pay is because it's our Orange Bowl
Parade or so on.
Mr. Plummer: Well, no one has indicated that to me.
Mayor Ferre: It's in the report.
Mr. Gary: It's that plus it's in our interest to move the Downtown People
Station located on Biscayne Boulevard closer in the median strip as opposed
to on the right hand side of the Boulevard and as a result it is...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Gary?
Mr. Gary: Let me finish first. It is relocating.. it's taking up some of the
parking spaces Downtown Off -Street Parking Authority. The hundred thousand
we are contributing will be credited against our contribution of the Downtown
People Mover. And Dade County is picking up most of the money.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, alright.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion?
Mr. Ongie: It's been moved and seconded.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, further discussion, call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1167
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN DADE COUNTY, THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI
OFF-STREET PARKING DEPARTMENT OBLIGATING THE CITY OF MIAMI TO
$100,000 EXPENDITURE FOR CERTAIN PARKING MODIFICATIONS IN THE
MEDIAN OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FROM SOUTHEAST 1ST STREET TO NORTHEAST
5TH STREET, AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOWNTOWN COMPONENT
OF METRORAIL.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the Cit1 Clerk.)
125 DEC 1 61982
g�
tpon being seconded by Commissioner Perez the resolution wag gasgad
and adopted by the following vote -
AM. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
i
i
49. CLAIM SETTLEMENT: SUTERRENO IN MIAMI, INC.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on 47. Do we have to do that Terry? Are we forced
into that?
Mr. Percy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question. How much was the total cost of that
property?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Almost a million dollars. Close to a million dollars.
Mr. Plummer: Is a hundred thirteen thousand dollars fee in the appropriate
neighborhood for a million dollar...
Mayor Ferre: No, but the judge makes that decision and they always do it
that way. It's called a lawyers relief bill. It's the biggest lawyers
relief bill there is. It's the biggest rip-off in the State of Florida and
its function and every time I see it, it burns me up and there is not a damn
thing you and I can do about it. It's set by the Supreme Court of the State
of Florida and it is a blight to humanity. It is one of the most unbelievably,
unfair things in legal procedure. Now, it has nothing to do with the amount of
money that it cost or per hour or anything else. It's done on an estimate
and it is unbelievable. It's the best way for lawyers to make money. Have
I answered it appropriately?
Mr. Garica-Pedrosa: Yes, sir.
1 t
d
S
1
1 4
406
D E C 16 1982
Iry
Mayor Fette: is there a motion on Item tittiber 47?
Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves 47. Is there a eedditd?
Mr. Perez: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Second by Perez. Further discussion. Call the roll on 47•
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1168
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY
THE LAW FIRM OF KELLY, BLACK, BLACK, AND EARLE, P.A., AS
ATTORNEYS FOR PROPERTY OWNER SUTERRENO IN MIAMI, INC., THE
SUM OF $113,810.46 FROM FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT FRANCHISE
FEES AS FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR RESULTANT COSTS AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES EARNED BY SAID FIRM IN REPRESENTING THE
PROPERTY OWNER DURING THE CITY'S CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
SECURING TITLE TO THE "BLUE LAGOON" PROPERTY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
50. SECOND READING ORDI:4ANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE XV,
FY CEtiTRU CO:L'.EF.CIAL C-3 TO ALLOW INTERIM PARKING LOTS.
�.r
t y
FLA
Mayor Ferre: All right, is there anybody here who wishes to speak to Item
number 48. If not, is there a motion?
Mr. Plummer: Carollo moved it before and Perez.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Carollo - do you want to move it?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, I will move it.
Mayor Ferre: And second by Perez. Further discussion? Read the ordinance.
Id
AN 'OAMNARCB ENTITLED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871t
AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
AMENDING ARTICLE XV, ENTITLED "CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL-C-3 DISTRICT," SECTION 2,
ENTITLED "USE REGULATIONS," SUBSECTION
(6-13), TO PERMIT INTERIM PARKING LOTS ON
PROPERLY ZONED LOTS OR PARCELS OF LAND ON
AND WITHIN 1500 FEET OF THE C--3 DISTRICTS,
SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ANNUAL
REVIEW AND INSPECTION UNTIL JANUARY 1,
1985; BY RESEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE
SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of November 10, 1982,
it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez,
the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by
title and passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9536
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: This looks like a ratification of FEC.
Mr. Plummer: I reserve the right to change my mind.
Mr. Carollo: I am glad we don't have to vote a third time on it. He would
probably vote "absent" on it. I vote "yes".
Mr. Plummer: I chose to do so. It is my perogative.
I
DEC 16 1982
T51.SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 9500, SCHEDULE OF
DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR CRD-1, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL PRINCIPAL USES
TO ALLOW FOR ITERIM PARKING LOTS.
Mayor Ferre: Item number 49.
Mr. Carollo: Moved.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Carollo. Is there a second?
Mr. Perez: Second.
Mayor Ferre: It has been seconded. Is there further discussion? All right,
read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500
(EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1983) THE NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH FOUR
(4) UNDER THE "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUC-
TURES" COLUMN, "CBD-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT: PER1,1ISSIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL
PERMIT" SECTION (PERMITTING INTERIM PARK-
ING LOTS ON PROPERLY ZONED LOTS OR PAR-
CELS OF LAND ON AND WITHIN 1500 FEET OF
THE CBD-1 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO DEVELOP-
MENT STANDARDS ON FILE AND ANNUAL REVIEW
AND INSPECTION UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1985) ON
SHEET FOUR (4) OF THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE
OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS MADE A PART OF
SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 320,
THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON-
FLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of November 10, 1982,
it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez,
the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by
title and passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9537.
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
s
DEC 16 1982
11
0
52. LONG DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION
OF APPLICATION TO CHANGE ZONING AT 2629-2645 SOUTH BAISHORE DRIVE
FROM R-4 TO R-C .
Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item number 2. Now, the reason we put it off,
is because there was a lady here this morning. Is she back now? Or did she
leave again? Did that lady leave again?
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Well, you know, she asked us to put it off until tonight se
she could get all the neighbors here. Now we have put it off, and she is not
here!
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS)
Mayor Ferre: Oh, you have somebody else? Okay. Okay, that is fine, That is
good enough, as long as there is a spokesman. Go ahead, Jack.
Mr. Jack Luft: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, at the last hearing
on this item which is consideration of the zoning change from R-4 to R-C on
Tigertail Aveue. Commissioner Plummer requested additional information con-
cerning the Administration's assertion that there were some significant im-
pacts that would be generated as a result of this zoning change. Let me just
remind you that this zoning change consideration for this one property is in
effect, in our opinion, a consideration of a policy that will affect all of
the property between Aviation Avenue and 27th Avenue. This is a precedent
setting case and I think what we are really talking about is the long range
impact of changing the R-4 zoning across the board along Tigertail. Now, I
have a memorandum that I believe is...
Mr. Plummer: Jack, excuse me. You know, let's both go down the same avenue
and talk on the same wave length. My understanding is that this request to
extend the R-C does not extend to Tigertail. It extends to 100 foot, or what...
Mr. Luft: No, it extends 'to Tigertail, but they are reserving a green space
of 100 feet.
Mr. Gary: It is still going to be Tigertail. They are going to dedicate the
first 100 feet from Tigertail.
Mr. Luft: From Tigertail.
Mr. Gary: They have got to rezone the whole area.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, but what is in effect is they cannot use that 100 feet, be-
cause they, at the last meeting, were going to voluntarily covenant that as a
park maintained by them for the use of the public. Now, am I on the same...
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Mr. Gary: Wait a minute, we need to clarify that, if I may. Are you saying that?
Mr.Milton Wallace: Well, we have designed it and it is open to the public It
is especially available to the public, yes.
Mr. Plummer: I am just repeating what I recalled from the last meeting. Hey,
he has to give a covenant. He is going to volunteer it.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMrNTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Okay, we will get to that in his presentation, but what I was
getting to was the point that you just made, that in effect, it will be rezoned,
but also impractical. It will not be used for that classification because it is,
in fact, going to be a dedicated park to the public use. Okay, so let's get on
the same wave length.
Id 130 DEC 16 1982
0
0
■
Mt, tuft: All right. The critical point here however, the zoning does extend
t6tigertail and purposes of development on that property, he is able to credit
that land all the way to the property and to the property line on Tigertail
towards his development envelope. Now, what our concern here is simply this.
If we accept the fact that this is a precedent and outlined in blue are the
development sites between Aviation and 27th Avenue.
Mayor Ferre: You are opening up pandora's box. There is no way you are going
to stop it from spreading. It is just like a cancer.
Mr. Luft: We understand that a zoning change in this location is tantamount
to policy statement that we are going to accept in principle the zoning changes
applications down that line. Now. it is the Department's contention that these
zoning changes (it is not a contention, it is a fact) that these zoning changes
in effect, increased by approximately 50%, the amount of land that can be used
for calculating the density or intensity of an office building - a 50% increase,
because the land that is now zoned R-4 on Tigertail can only be used for resi-
dential. In those cases along Bayshore Drive, every developer that has con-
tacted me or has expressed an interest there, his intention is to build an
office building, and this is precisely why the zoning change is wanted. be-
cause they do not intend to build residential. They want to count that land
to get a bigger office building, pure and simple. The question is asked, "What
is the consequence of those larger office buildings?" The reason we express
our concern is that we are looking ahead to understand what it means when
Bayshore Drive shifts from essentially a residential street to an office street.
Up until this point in time, Bayshore Drive has been by and large almost ex-
clusively residential - Bayshore Village, Jamestown Apartments, Waverly, the
Summer Hill Apartments. Office in the Grove is one of the few real offices in
there, okay? ... in that Aviation Avenue, 27th Avenue stretch.
Mr. Plummer: It is presently today zoned R-C, and as such....
Mr. Luft: That is right.
Mr. Plummer;.... they can today draw a permit to build offices there without
question.
Mr. Luft: That is correct. Now, what is happening is this. The nature of Bay -
shore Drive is now changing. It is embarking upon almost a certain course of
a major transition to high density office. That is permitted by the law. It
will happen, I believe. What -i_s the consequence of that? 27th Avenue is the
critical intersection - Bayshore Drive and 27th Avenue. The capacity of the
street, or any roadway in the city is not measured along the street, it is
measured at intersections. How many cars can get through an intersection.
The capacity of Bayshore Drive further to the north is limited by 17th Avenue.
That is the constraining point. Likewise, the constraining point here is
27th Avenue. Today, there are approximately 21,000 vehicles a day on Bayshore
Drive.
Mr. Plummer: That is an hour!
Mr. Luft: A day, on Bayshore Drive. That is one of the heaviest volume two-
lane roads taken in its entirety in Dade County. All right? Now, the critical
factor is not total daily volume, it is peak period volume and specifically,
afternoon peak periods - rush hour from 4:00 o'clock to 6:00 o'clock. In
that rush hour period, the traffic averages approximately 1200 vehicles an,
hour. 27th Avenue and Bayshore Drive, these are these are the counts. These
are numbers. What they mean is that Bayshore Drive is designed to handle two
lanes through about 1200 vehicles. That is 600 cars per lane. Today, we are
operating at about 100% of capacity. That means that its level of service
we are just about satisfying the demand that is there today. So, what
does it mean when we realize that the residential is converting to office? It
means that the residential development that is there now contributes very little
to the peak hour flow. People trickle into the apartment buildings over a span
of several hours and it really doesn't have that crunching effect. Offices,
on the other hand, discharge right at 5:00 o'clock, more or less, and then
tend to gush automobiles out, as anybody who is downtown at 5:00 o'clock
can tell you. A large office building puts a very big demand on the street
system at 5:00 o'clock, okay? Now, we know that the amount of development...
the potential that is there for office on Bayshore Drive and this is what I
13
DEC 16 1982
have listed in here, if the zoning does not change on Tigertail from R-4 to
R-Co it stays just the way it is, there is enough development potential in
those remaining parcels to increase the amount of cars dumping onto Bayshore
Drive at that critical rush hour period by some 949 - almost 1000 vehicles,
that is a conservative estimate. What that means is that 1200 vehicles that
is there now, is going to practically double. What you see happening at 17th
Avenue every night at 5:00 o'clock, where the cars back up and back up and
back up, and start cutting through Bay Heights and start cutting through
Alatka Street to get around is going to happen on 27th Avenue. What we have
before us here is a proposal to increase by 50% the amount of office develop-
ment on Bayshore Drive - in effect, increase by 50% that 949 figure to some
1500 cars and empty those onto Bayshore Drive at rush hour. We are looking
at a situation, if this is to be permitted, these zoning changes down Tiger -
tail - my prediction that we are going to be looking at upward of 220% of
capacity situation at 27th Avenue. The critical thing is, those are numbers.
What that means is that when the traffic congestion on 27th Avenue gets tnat
bad, the traffic will start diverting to the side streets. Where do they go?
They go to Tigertail; they go to Trapp Avenue; they go up 22nd; they feed off
of Aviation.
Mayor Ferre: I assume you are against it.
Mr. Luft: We are opposed to this application. What we are trying to say to
you, it is not a matter of 100 foot dedication or a green buffer on Tigertail.
We have a serious problem that we predict is coming down the pike and this
application will certainly lead to a worsening of the situation.
Mayor Ferre: Okay.
Mr. Luft: We do not feel that the benefits that are being offered here are
in any way commensurate with the problems we are looking at in the future.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much. Jim, you are not going to really add to
that, are you?
Mr. Jim Reid: I just want to make one sentence, Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: One sentence? Okay.
Mr. Reid: Maybe two. What you really have in addition to the traffic, which I
agree with...
Mayor Ferre: There you are! Two sentences!
Mr. Reid: This is still the first sentence!... is, really what kind of a Bay-
shore'Drive do you want? Do you want a Bayshore Drive that combines residen-
tial and offices, or do you want to go into a direction that is going to en-
courage extensive office development? That is the issue.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. All right, Judge.
Mr. Milton Wallace: Mr. Mayor, my name is Milton Wallace, 330 Biscayne Boule-
vard, Miami, Florida. It is incredible to me how emotional Mr. Luft is about
the issues here today. The issues that he talked about are totally unrelated
to this zoning matter. We are not rezoning Bayshore Drive. We are not con-
sidering what is going to happen when Bayshore Drive is developed. Mr. Luft
has totally mis-stated any number of facts. For example, he failed to tell
you that most of that block is the Naval Station. Now, that is not being re-
zoned for office space.
Mr. Luft: It is zoned for office space.
Mr. Wallace: All of the property right next ... well, it is the Naval Station.
Almost all of the blue space that he has marked on that chart is the present
naval station. Now, almost all of this property, the property that he says is
going to increase the use of office space by 50% on Bayshore is an existing
parcel that is zoned R-C. This is 20,000 square feet of an over 70,000 square
foot parcel. How that is going to increase the size of the parcel on Bayshore
Drive is beyond me. At the last meeting, when this matter came before the
Commission, the inference that I received from the attitude of the Commis-
sioners was that this was favorable and Commissioner Plummer asked me to pro-
duce the covenant that I offered and he moved to defer it.
132 DEC 16 1982
Mt, Plummer: No, no. I didn't ask you fot its
Mtt Wallace: I offered the covenant and you said; "Well, let's defer it and
We Will see if it is offered". Well, I would like to actually tendef the
covenant now. I have a covenant in recordable form. I would like to tendtt
it to the City Clerk - Mr. Ongie. Let me tell you what this does, Not with-
standing the horror stories...
Mayor Ferre: Is that done voluntarily, for the record?
Mr. Wallace: It is done voluntarily for the
Grove just as much as Mr. Luft does, but Mr.
would like to tell you what is there now and
few times that this Commission is ever going
a conversion of a fifty car paved parking lot
picture of it right now.
Mayor Ferre: All right Ma'am, all right now!
be orderly about it.
record because we love Coconut
Luft is emotional about it, I
this is going to be one of the
to get from the property owner
to a a park. Now, here is a
You will have your turn. Let's
Mr. Wallace: This property right now is a paved parking lot. Here is a pic-
ture of it. It contains fifty marked parking spaces for fifty cars and we
are offering to make this into a park, with nothing more than a driveway into
the adjoining property and not by zoning, but a permanent covenant - that re-
gardless of what the balance of the property is used for, this will be a green
area. Now, is it better to have a high rise to have a high-rise apartment
building here on Tigertail, because R-C permits an apartment building as
much as an office building, or is it better to have a high-rise or is it
better to have a park there permanently to replace the existing parking lot.
All right, Quentin Parker of Coconut Grove Architects has prepared this draw-
ing of exactly what this covenant contemplates, and I would like him to ex-
plain the drawing to the Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Name and address for the record.
Mr. Quentin Parker: For the record, my name is Quentin Parker. I am an archi-
tect with Alfred Browning Parker Architects, Chartered, and project architect.
I am project architect for this project, yes. Business address is 2937 S. W.
27th Avenue, Coconut Grove. I have basically three drawings on this one plan.
One shows the property in question , Tigertail, South Bayshore Drive and Darwin
Street. The Coconut Grove Hotel is right next to it right here. What we were
proposing in the covenant, is to take this 100 feet, which borders on Tigertail
with the residential area and make that 100 feet a park area with an access
road that leads through that to parking, whatever would happen back here. We
have not gone into those plans, because they are very preliminary. This 100
feet of the park area, the elevation from this side would look something like
that, and the only function of this is just to have a park. There is a buffer
zone between what exists beyond here and what exists on the other side of Tiger -
tail.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. Well, anything else?
Mr. Parker: The only thing that I would like you to do is compare this picture
with the parking lot there with a beautiful landscaped park from Tigertail, and
this picture is actually close to the building. This is the same distance from
the building back to Tigertail that is an all paved parking area right now.
Mayor Ferre: Any other statements? I think you have covered it pretty well.
Mr. Luft, do you have anything else you want to add?
Mr. Luft: I would address the covenant if we need to address the covenant, but,
well, let me just say the Naval Station is ... G.S.A. said they are going to sell
it when the Navy is done with it, okay_, so if we have to treat that is develop-
able parcel. The development at 27th Avenue, which is similar to this, came in.
This Commission said we want a 100 foot green buffer at that location. If you
will remember that it was expressly the intent at that location to pronibit
commercial office traffic onto Tigertail, okay? The resolution was made. It
limited the access to that property off of Tigertail strictly to service vehi-
cles - no direct connection to the parking garage. What he is showing you is
that the office traffic, office building will go onto Tigertail Avenue. That
is exactly what that does. Point number two - the covenant further states that
nothing here shall preclude them from digging out a hole and building an under-
ground parking garage in that 100 feet, which means that whatever park or green
133
DEC 16 1982
0
space will be on the top of the parking garage and trees will be itt pdtas There
is no design requirements on here. 'There is no specifications for trees. `There
is no specifications for plantings, no nothing! There is a promise to put a
'green space" with a parking garage underneath it. That is what we were get-
ting.
Mayor Ferre: The covenant doesn't proffer that you won't use it for parking?
Mr. Wallace: It says it cannot be used for parking. It can be used for parking
underground. It says at ground level it must be used as a permanent green space.
Mayor Ferre: Okay.
Mr. Wallace: I also would like to say, Mr. Mayor, that on the 16th of November
I tendered the covenant. Mr. Luft read it today and objected to the language
in the covenant today and I am willing between now and a second reading to work
with him to try to give him any additional language that will make him happy,
because it is our intent to make that a permanent green area.
Mayor Ferre: Any other questions from either the Judge or Mr. Luft?
Mr. Dawkins: I would like to make a statement to the Judge. Counselor, when
I said that you were being paid, I wasn't being disrespectful at all. I was
merely saying that it is a hardship on your client as well as it is on them,
because they have to pay you by the hour, and so I was saying that they had
to be here, so if you think that I was rude, or anything, I apologize.
Mr. Wallace: No, if I was rude ... my little boy had a party that I wanted to
go to and I apologize - I worked it out.
Mr. Plummer: Well, okay. Those two are finished. I assume you are going to
hear from the objectors.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I guess - of course.
Mr. Joe McManus: Could I make a series of comments on the covenant - to the
point of the covenant.
Mayor Ferre: Let's ... we have got a whole bunch of people. It is already
8:00 o'clock and we have got one hour to go. I will tell you for the record
so you understand ... I want to tell you so you understand where I am coming
from. Mel, you are a great guy and I have known you for a long time. Al
Parker is a good friend of mine. Quin is a great guy and Jack is emotional.
That is true. He got very emotional. He gets very emotional about Coconut
Grove. You know, that is fine, but I have got to tell you as much as I would
like to vote for this, and as beautiful as that is, and if Al Parker and Quin
have anything to do with it, I guarantee you it will be that beautiful. I
am not worried about you. I am worried about the guy next door to you and
guy next door, and the guy next door and I think the problem with this is and
if we vote to do this and change it to R-C. In my opinion, what we are doing
is, we are guaranteeing that Coconut Grove is going to totally change in
character, because that is exactly what is going to happen. Ten years from
now you will have a solid wall of concrete hi -rise buildings and office build-
ings and I just don't think that is the location for any further office build-
ings. Now, that is just one man's opinion, but you have got four others here,
so...
Mr. Plummer: But Maurice, the point that I made before, if the character is
to change to office, the way that it is presently zoned and Jack's own opinion
of the near future is it is going to be office!
Mayor Ferre: But it is going to be smaller, you see, if you limit it just to
the property that is presently zoned R-C, then the size of those office build-
ings will substantially be smaller. If, on the other hand they go all the way
to Tigertail, I guarnatee that you are talking about very large buildings.
Now, we just recently, this Commission, unanimously voted down on 27th Avenue,
okay?...at that corner where that station is and where my friend Rosenberg came
here with an application to put up a beautiful building - beautifully designed,
under utilizing the land. It was a first class thing, yet we voted against
it! Why? Because we wanted to say the character of Tigertail and there was no
4U66t16ti that that was going to lie a tip effect (No disrespect to Mt, Ripple)
and it would be a riptide effect and we are just going to take...now, don't
cote telling me that this isn't..Af I was sure, if I could be guaranteed that
by doing this we could assure that nobody else would do it, I wouldn't have
any problems, but that is not the way these things work and you know that the
moment they get it, somebody else will be here to get it and before you know
it, you are going to have a concrete wall along Bayshore Drive, bigger than
what we are going to have anyway. Now, we are going to have it anyway, you
are right, but I think that we have got to maintain the small character, and
the more we encroach on Tigertail, I guarantee you the bigger these buildings
are going to be and it is going to be another downtown Miami.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you a question, you know, because I want to tell you
that I don't necessarily concur with the Mayor. Based on the R-C that he pre-
sently has there today, that is zoned properly, what is the maximum height he
could in fact, go to?
Mr. Luft: It depends on where the building is located on the lot. If it is
right down on Bayshore Drive...
Mr. Plummer: If it is the most ideal to utilize to the greatest height, what
would it be?
Mr. Luft: The height is determined by the side yard setback, and he has got
two varying widths, okay? If he puts it on the upper part of the blue there,
he could probably go in the neighborhood of twenty, twenty-two, twenty-five
stories. If he moved it...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. That is under present conditions without any change?
Mr. Luft: That is right.
Mr. Plummer: So, wait a minute now. We are talking about he can presently
legally build twenty-two floors.
Mr. Luft: I'm sorry, I stand corrected. Richard points out that for properties
of that width, it is more like fifteen - sixteen stories.
Mr. Plummer: So, we are talking about sixteen stories, or one hundred sixty
feet, approximately. One floor is about ten feet.
Mr. Luft: Twelve feet, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Now, if he gets this change, what would he be allowed to?...
roughly?
Mr. Luft: The height would be the same.
Mr. Plummer: Where is discussion coming about the concrete wall?
Mr. Luft: The point here is - down here (INAUDIBLE, OFF MIKE) .... okay? Now
we are talking twenty-five, thirty stories.
Mr. Plummer: How high is the Coconut Grove Hotel?
Mr. Luft: Nineteen.
Mr. Plummer: I think it is twenty. Nineteen floors plus the restaurant.
Mr. Luft: Well, yes, it sits on the hill, however you want to count it, but...
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but J. L., let me tell you, we ... because I voted for that
one.
Mr. Plummer: I did not.
Mayor Ferre: And we gave all kinds of...I don't think it was a three to two
vote, and we gave all kinds of variances,
Mr. Plummer: Seven, to be exact.
Id
DEC 16 1982
y t Vette: You know, see, what is going to happen by doing this, is the same
thiflg ,what happened on Brickell Avenue by counting the water, okay? When you
dount the water, which, what in effect you are doing - same thing you did with
Catolyn Weiss ,is you are increasing the density of the property, so by giving
the part that is now SPD-2, R-4, an R-C classification, there is no question
that the end result will be to make the buildings bigger along that Bayshore
Drive.
Mr. Plummer: You know, maybe I am confused, and maybe my thinking is warped,
but boy, you know, I remember so vividly what we paid to acquire park property.
You know, I even remember making the comment down here that there must have been
uranium buried there at the price that we paid for it. Now, you are talking
about a parcel of property that is going to be deeded for all practical pur-
poses to the public, ten thousand square feet. What in the God's name is
that worth? I don't know what a square foot over there is worth.
Mr. Luft: Probably $30 a square foot - $30 to $40.
Mr.
Wallace:
I would say it is worth $80 to $100.
Mr.
Plummer:
Well, let me get in the middle - $60.
;:E r
Mayor Ferre:
It is worth more than that...(INAUDIBLE)
Mr.
Wallace:
The purchase price on the property is $70.
i
r
Mr.
Luft: As
R-4?
tk
Mr.
Plummer.
Hey, is it worth $600,0007
Mr.
Luft: I
don't know.
Mr. Plummer: $500,000?
Mr. Luft: It is worth what is relevant... the trade off, Commissioner. What I
am trying to say to you, the trade off is the traffic impact. What is it worth,
if the traffic is going through the neighborhood to the north for two hours five
days a week?
Mr. Plummer: Jack, look. You know, this by the way, this covenant and this
plan does not concur with what I was promised. and I want to tell Mr. Wallace
that., because in effect, this is not a hundred by a hundred. It is eighty by
a hundred when you put a two lane drive down here, alright? And it was not my
understanding that there would be an exit onto Tigertail.
Mr. Luft: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, now I want to play this thing fair, but you know, let me
tell you something. If I am standing here at City Hall, and I am looking
across the street, am I with the naked eye going to really be able to tell the
difference between a sixteen floor story building and a twenty story building?
I also come to the point that says that on Tigertail, and most of the people
who have been objectors are residents and concerned about the residents, that
in fact, if I have got to look at the back of what existed at the Coconut Grove
Hotel, or look at a park across the street, there is no question which one I
would choose. I would chose the park. I don't want to look at those apart-
ments across the street if I live on what I consider the north side of Tiger -
tail. Now, here is an opportunity to number one, acquire a piece of park pro-
perty which God knows we have fought, and we have not had the dollars for.
Here is the opportunity to preclude...today he can use that back property, as
I understand it, to go onto Tigertail. Is that correct?
Mr. Luft: No, sir. Not for an office building. That is the point of the R-4.
You cannot exit a commercial property through a residential zoned district.
That R-4 is a buffer. It prevents commercial traffic from going out.
Mayor Ferr`: That is exactly why it is there.
Mr. Plummer; Okay, 1 stand corrected.
r
s�a t i
t �
0.
Mr, Wallace: Excuse me, could t intettupt for one second?
Mt, Plummer: Let me -finish, if 1 may. You know, the other area that t baking
is, is to what, if I lived on Tigertail, I would be looking across the street
at& t am going to be looking at a twenty story building, regardless: But, if
t lived across the street in one or two floor, I am not going to see it for the
trees.
Mayor Ferre: J. L., that is all fine and it sounds pretty, but let me tell
you what you are also going to be looking at, which you wouldn't look at
if you don't do this. You wouldn't be looking at all those cars coming out
of that building and spilling out on Tigertail and the reason why is a resi-
dential and R-4, SPD-2 area is because it is a buffer and what we are in effect
doing is, we are now making Tigertail into a access road to...
Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. That is what he is proposing. Now, let me revert
back to the meeting before.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, are you saying that you are going to put a park without
any wxit or anything?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Luft is the one who brought out that the developer
was going to take that area. Yes, he was going to leave it in trees, but, yes,
he was going to put cars underneath the trees and he was going to utilize it
for parking and it was the developer who said that the entire parcel would be
for a park. Now, that is not what I thought, and not what I agreed to, if it
is in fact is what I understood at the last meeting, a hundred by a hundred of
park - it cannot be used for access to Tigertail. Now, Mr. Wallace, maybe I
misunderstood, but I am telling you what I remember, a hundred by a hundred was
the park.
Mr. Wallace: I think that is what I said - that it would be one hundred by one
hundred for the park, other than ingress and egress.
Mr. Plummer: I don't recall that being said, sir.
Mr. Wallace: Let me tell you one thing that is interesting. We go to study
in how to utilize this property and in fact, with the utilization of this
property that Mr. Parker has studied on the rest of the property, there would
be fewer cars exiting on Tigertail then presently exits from the existing apart-
ment building, because the proposed format, which Mr. Luft I believe, is seeing,
is levels of parking - only the smallest level would exit on Tigertail, and it
has fewer cars exiting than what exits from the existing apartment building
that i$ there right now.
Mr. Luft: With all due respect, Judge, you are not a transportation planner,
and the characteristics of office peak hour flows are much different than resi-
dential.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Jack, look. All these people that have been here; they
all want to speak and it is already 8:10 P.M. and we have got to be out of here
in fifty minutes, so let's hear from the objectors. Could we get all of the
objectors to line up here and give us there ... or a spokesman, I don't care how
you do it. How many of you want to speak tonight? Five? Okay, will three
minutes do it? That will make it fifteen minutes total. You need more than
that? How much do you need?
Ms. Post: I guess three minutes, but I am very emotional, because I live in
the North Grove. I might take a little longer.
Mayor Ferre: I am going to give you ten minutes. How much do you need, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, five minutes will do. I don't need ten minutes.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I will hold you all to two or three minutes and she has got
tun minutes, okay? Let her do her talk now. Go ahead.
Ms. Norma Post: Norma Post, 2061 Tigertail Avenue. We all are very emotional
in the North Grove about this because we live there. We are not people who
Id
137 DEC 16 1982
liVd if1 sotfe other area that are coming in to develop it, The itiportaftt point
on this issue is not whether you build the Taj Mahal on this property, no mat-
ter how beautiful. What you are building, what you are doing is changing an
entire neighborhood, the north Grove. As soon as you are touching Tigertail
Avenue, you are making a change which can go all the way down Tigertail and
then there is nothing left of north Grove. The Tigertail Association is op-
posed to this. I have greetings from Rose Gordon, who couldn't be here. She
wanted you to know that she feels that this is worse that the property on the
corner of 27th Avenue and Tigertail where the gas station is, which unanimous-
ly opposed - denied....
Mayor Ferre: I wish you hadn't said that. (LAUGHTER)
Ms. Post: Well, she also lives in the north Grove and is very interested in
preserving the environment here and the ambience here and the free spirit that
we have in the north Grove that you don't find....
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you speak for yourself. I think you would get more
credibility if... (INAUDIBLE, OFF MICROPHONE)
Ms. Post: The change that you are making here, means that you are starting,
initiating something on the west - east side of 27th Avenue on Tigertail Avenue.
Something that, as Mayor Ferre pointed out, once you make that change, then
this can just ripple right down Tigertail Avenue and that is what we don't want
to happen here. There are other areas where you can build. There is no reason
why this should be destroyed and I am reminding again the Commissioners that
they voted - I assumed that was why they denied the petition at 27th Avenue and
Tigertail for the very same reason that that would have been the first step
down Tigertail with R-C zoning. Can you tell me, Commissioner Plummer, was
that your reason for voting against this, denying this on the corner of 27th
Avenue and Tigertail?
Mr. Plummer: That was one of the reasons, but you must compare apples with
apples. We are not talking about here of the R-C being utilized, okay? The
R-C on the front portion already exists. It is there and if tomorrow morning
he wants to pull a permit to put offices, he is well within his right to do
such.
Ms. Post: Excuse me, may I ask what you mean by the front portion?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Ma'am - that in blue.
Ms. Post: The one that is fronting on Bayshore Drive, in other words?
Mr. Plummer: That is correct.
Ms. Post: Well, I am concerned the portion that fronts on Tigertail Avenue.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Ma'am.
Ms. Post: And that is what we were concerned with there on the corner of
27th Avenue on Tigertail. It was the same thing, only this is worse, because
there at least it was starting from 27th Avenue. Here we are skipping beyond
Aviation and right in the middle we are changing the...
Mr. Plummer: Let me answer that by telling you this, and maybe then you will
understand where I am coming from.
Ms. Post: I will try.
Mr. Plummer: If this application stated before us that entire parcel was to be
rezoned to R-C and in fact, used as R-C, there is no way I would ever consider
such, but what is before us here this evening is to consider the entire parcel
to R-C, that the hundred feet would not be used.
Ms. Post: It would remain at R-4?
Mr. Plummer: No, Ma'am. It would be zoned in R-C, but a dedicated park to
the public. It would not be used for R-C. It will not be used for any building.
It will not be used for parking lots.
ld 138
DEC 16 1982
Id
Mr. Plummer: It is, Ma'am. Ma'am, please... okay? Developers are developers,
profit is not a dirty word. This man is not going to come in here, or any
developer, or any man in his right mind and offer to give a parcel of property
to the City for a park (it is valued at about $500,000) if he is not going to
gain something for it. He has never said "Hey, I am not going to benefit by
this". Sure he is going to benefit! But my question and my position is
predicated - is the public going to benefit by a park of ten thousand square
feet. Are the people on Tigertail going to benefit that they will look across
the street at a park rather than at an apartment complex. Now, that is my real
dilemma that I am sitting on here now.
Ms. Post: Yes, but those people that are directly across from there will be
looking at a park.
Mr. Plummer: That is correct.
Ms. Post: But the next property on either side, as you proceed down Tigertail,
those next properties, those developers are not dedicating a park, so everybody
else...
Mr. Plummer: Then they won't get R-C. That doesn't speak in this application at
all, Ma'am. There is no application presently before us. They might come
tomorrow. Then, as has been indicated, there might be a rash! But, now, then
again, I would have to equate - is one hundred foot park - a hundred foot of
depth of park on Tigertail from 27th Avenue to Aviation Avenue bad? Okay?
Ms. Post: May I say this?
Mayor Ferre: Hey, let her speak so we can get out of here.
Mr. Plummer: She asked a question, Mr. Mayor, and I am answering the question.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead.
Ms. Post: May I say, as I understood, I read in the paper that we had so
many parks in the City already that they were planning on selling some of
them. We can't afford to maintain the parks that we have. We have a beautiful
park along Bayshore Drive and I don't really think that we can afford any more
parks. I can't, so I prefer that you do not rezone anything on Tigertail to
R-C zoning and I rather not have the park because a park at this moment can
always be changed in the future regardless. It is the R-C on Tigertail that
I petition on just as eagerly as I did at the corner of 27th and Tigertail. It
is the same thing - we have R-C zoning and it is changing the entire area. You
are simply ... with this step you would simply ... we could just say "North Grove
is gone, we will just have one road down north Grove, which we can call Coconut
Grove and it will say 'at one time there was a little community here and it
is gone"'.
Mayor Ferre: And the next move is to four -lane Bayshore Drive.
Ms. Post: Yes, and Tigertail too.
Mayor Ferre: And Tigertail!
Ms. Post: Four -lane them all and name it Tigertail...
Mayor Ferre: Tigertail Association!
Ms. Post: Coconut Grove Avenue - there was one a street...Please don't change
the north Grove. Commissioner Plummer, you don't live very far away and you
are not going to be exempt eventually, if that goes...
Mr. Plummer: I am not exempt now! That is why I question Mr. Luft's figures
about cars, because I know what the intersection of Halissee and Tigertail
already carries.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, Halissee, let's go.
Ms, Post: All right, thank you.
139
' O EC 16 1982
6
W
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you vety much, Ma'am. Next speaket.
Mt, Ed Bowen: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Ed Bowen, 4195 Braganza
Avenue, Coconut Grove. As I drove here, coming from the south Grove, already
the traffic was unbelievable this afternoon because of one lane on Grand Avenue
now, instead of two, as it empties into Main Highway. I am sure they will find
out that it is that way in about week and will fill up Bayshore. I think traffic
is very much an important consideration in this and if you count all of the
other R-C properties that is already zoned - there is six hundred thousand
square feet unrented right now. I am a broker in Coconut Grove. By my cal-
culations over a million or a million and one-half square feet that can be
constructed in the future. What that will already do to the traffic without
increasing the R-C zoning and ruining Tigertail is incredible. I would hope
you would continue in your positive vote as you did on the other property and
not go for this. Thank you very much.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. Next.
Mr. Calvin Norman: Calvin Norman and I am speaking for the Civic Club this
evening. Address is 3740 Solana Road, 33133. And to prove that I was here
this morning, I want to comment on Mayor Ferre's prayer and also on Mr. Plum-
mer's sincere words, saying that (both of you) hoping that you would be doing
your best for the most people and I think denial of this request tonight would
certainly be doing the most for the most people. I know that these gentlemen
are very honorable men and have the great plans and the best intentions and
I sympathize with them in that respect, but the potential for turning something
loose here on Tigertail area is just too great. I think adding to the al-
ready enormous traffic that is around here on Bayshore and on Tigertail would
just be outrageous and I think there would be a lot of outraged drivers in-
volved too in a very short time. Thank you very much.
Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker.
Ms. Roberta Gross: My name is Roberta Gross. I live at 3120 Lucaya Street.
I have lived there for thirty-seven years and I have seen this area change.
Also, my family has been in Miami since 1902, so I know a great deal about
the area.
Mayor Ferre: How come you say Miami instead of "Mi-am-muh"?
Ms. Gross: Well, I say "Mi-am-muh" most of the time, but...
Mr. Plummer: Because she is not a native.
Ms. Gross: I am a native, sir!
Mr. Plummer: You said thirty-seven years.
Ms. Gross: I said I have lived at Lucaya Street for thirty-seven years.
Mr. Plummer: We will convert you.
Ms. Gross: I have lived in Miami for sixty-three years. I have seen enough
change already on Tigertail. We do not need any more. The traffic is horren-
dous not only on Tigertail, but on Lincoln, which parallels Tigertail, on Swan-
son which parallels Tigertail, on Trapp which parallels Tigertail. If you try
to walk your dog or take a walk, or anything else, it is almost impossible to
avoid being hit by a car and I think it is high time that this Commission took
some consideration of the people who live in that area and do as Mayor Ferre
says, and deny this change in zoning.
Ms. Charlotte Duvall: My name is Charlotte Duvall and I live at 1900 Secoffee
Street and I am here as the director of the Tigertail Association. We were
not aware, when this came before the meeting this morning that it included a
rezoning of Tigertail and since that time we have been in touch with a number of
our members, all of whom oppose the zoning change all the way through to Tiger -
tail. Because of the Christmas season we were not able to get more people here
this evening. We did have quite a number of people here at 5:00 o'clock, but
they have had to leave since then, but the Tigertail Association does oppose
the change of zoning and we will appreciate your not changing the zoning on
Tigertail and creating more problems for us.
Id 140 DEC 16 1982
Mai Hilda Abel: My name is Hilda Abel, 3080 Calusa. I only wanted to say
of to ask, rather, since when is a hundred foot lot a park? I have more A-
round my property.
Mr. Plummer: Well, if you are asking of me, you are fortunate. We have many
parks in this City that are referred to as mini -parks and this, I am sure,
would be in the same designation and there are just any number of mini -parks
in this City, for example, on Tigertail where the old fire station - I don't
think that is much bigger than ten thousand square feet.
Ms. Abel: It is.
Mr. Plummer: It is bigger than ten thousand?
Ms. Abel: Not ten thousand, but there is a difference between ten thousand
and a hundred feet.
Mr. Plummer: No, Ma'am. A hundred by a hundred is ten thousand square feet
and I don't think that parcel is more...Ms. Duval?
Ms. Duval: No.
Mr. Plummer: It is twenty thousand? Okay, it is open space is what I was
referring to.
Ms. Duval: I hope you will help us.
Mayor Ferre: All right now, let me understand J. L. - what you are saying is
that that paper that Mr. Wallace gave you would exclude that road?
Mr. Plummer: I have not received a paper. I said before, and I will say
again, that it was my understanding at the last meeting that that hundred foot
by a hundred foot would not be used for parking as Mr. Luft said it might be
and it was the proffering of Mr. Wallace and my understanding that that would
be a hundred by hundred foot park.
Mayor Ferre: No ingress?
Mr. Plummer: No road. No!
Mayor Ferre: All right, is that what you are proffering?
Mr. Wallace: I wouldn't want Commissioner Plummer to misunderstand me, so if
that is what I said, I agree to amend the convenant to provide that there will
be no ingress and egress and the entire one hundred feet would be used for
landscape buffer. I think, with all due respect to the objectors they really
are not gacing up to the fact that this property essentially can be used for
a large high rise development right now and by making that hundred foot buffer
strip, the reality of it is that it is only a hundred feet of property that
is effectively being rezoned and it...
Mayor Ferre: All right. This is on first reading, isn't it?
Mr. Wallace: We would provide an amended covenant before the second reading.
Mayor Ferre: Okay.
Mr. Luft: Mr. Mayor, I would point out one thing about this convenant.
Mayor Ferre: Quickly, because it is now almost 8:30 P.M.
Mr. Luft: The way the covenant is written, it is not enforcable by the City.
It would require a suit by local citizens to enforce it.
Mayor Ferre: Well then I will tell you - Mil, will you make it in such a way
that it is enforceable by second reading?
Mr. Wallace: Absolutely! Mr. Mayor, I said that I am asking if it was satis-
factory as to form. I would be happy to meet with the City Attorney and gave
him whatever form he wants. Our intent is to make it a hundred foot landscape
buffered area.
Id 14
DEC 16 1982
Mdya fette! Okay. Any other speakefs1 do ahead, Mir. Managet,
Id
Mr, Gary: Mr. Mayor, since this will probably be coming up for second reading,
1 think it may be important that you understand the implications of what is
being proposed today. I have had Staff calculate what would be the height in
terms of storage, assuming ten thousand square footage per floor - you are
talking about seven or ten floors. We are also talking about an increase as
a result of this rezoning of approximately thirty-three thousand square foot
net difference.
Mayor Ferre: And how many stories?
Mr. Gary: We are talking about seven or ten, but obviously, we know that they
will probably come in for variances to increase the height.
Mayor Ferre: You mean, it would increase it by seven to ten floors?
Mr. Gary: No. The current zoning will be about seven stories. With a com-
bined, it will be about ten. However, they will probably be coming back in
for variances.
Mr. Plummer. Whoa! Mr. Gary, Mr. Luft indicated fifteen to sixteen and if
in fact this were to pass, would possibly be twenty to twenty-two. Mr.
Luft is...
Mr. Luft: Depends on where on the property you are at.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, well then - I just didn't want to be traveling two roads
here now. Mr. Gary, I am going to simplify it for you, okay, because I want
to tell you something. I am not voting! Not tonight! Now, Mr. Wallace, I
love you dearly. I love all you people, but this is not my understanding. Now,
as far as I am concerned, I want you to go back and come back here on the thir-
teenth. You can bring a covenant, which the City Attorney finds agreeable.
It stipulates what I understood prior. Mr. Gary can get his facts and figures
together, predicated on what is there. I think you have raised a very legiti-
mate question, Mr. Gary - a question that has to be answered - that if, in
fact, that R-4 were to be utilized by the developer for R-4, how high can he
go on that parcel as it is in size and how many units can he put on it that
would be directly affecting the people on Tigertail? Okay? Now, what I am
saying to you is, there is just too much this evening that is up in the air,
and I am not prepared to vote. Now, you all do what you want.
Mayor Ferre: Is that a motion?
Mr. Plummer: You all discuss it. I've discussed it.
Unidentified Speaker: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Ferre: It all depends. If we have a motion on the floor, the answer is
no. If we don't the answer is yes. Is that a motion, Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: There is absolutely no ilLgress is exactly what the proffer that
you made that I understood before - it would be a one hundred by one hundred
park.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer, is that in the form —are you asking for a deferral?
Is that a motion?
Mr. Plummer: Let the rest of these Commissioners express themselves!
Mayor Ferre: Anybody else want to talk about this? Well then, I will accept
that in the form of a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: I second it.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion. All right now...the motion is, that is going
to be deferred until there is clarification as to the size of the building that
can be put on; the height; the square footage...
Mr, Gary: I think his motion was to continue for further information.
142
DEC 16 198G
nn�
S � t
Id
Mayot Petfei To continue.
Mt. Plummer: No, no► I want it understood, because I don't want anymore de-
ferrals, okay? Now, we have deferred him once, and we are going to defer him
a second time; three times, we are out. Okay, it is not continued, we are
sending it back for more information. And I want information, Mr. Gary, that
would tell me not only what he would gain by virtue of this as proposed, but
I think it is also fair to understand what is the maximum, if he built on that
R-4 in the back - if he could go up with, how high, how many units, what
F.A.R., how many people, how many cars, which all could be eliminated if it
was voted this plan here. Understand what I am saying? Let's play it fair*
can he go in the R-4 back there with a ten story building? Can he put...hey,
I don't know!
Mr. Luft: Four stories.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, four stories. How many units can he put in it? How many
cars will it hold? You know, a developer is going to utilize his property to
the highest and best use and if we deny him here the right that he asked for
here this evening, what is in fact going to happen on that back parcel? ... Be-
cause he is going to build. He is not going to give it to the City.
Mr. Gary: Four stories.
Mr. Plummer: He is not going to leave it vacant, so there is some misunder-
standing here by some people, that if we deny this here this evening, that
R-4 is just going to remain with nothing on it. No way! You are kidding
yourself.
Mr. Gary: We know.
Mr. Plummer: So I want that information when it comes back. I want that in-
cluded in the information. I'll tell you what else I want that is very miss-
ing from this packet that you gave us here this evening. I see no comment
from the Dade County Traffic and Transportation Department. Under normal
circumstances, their not commenting gives approval. The only thing I saw
here was about cub cuts as normally required by the City of Miami.
Mr. Gary: Maybe she didn't ask for that.
Mayor Ferre: Anything else?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Plummer, Dade County feels that they don't have the,
staff,to render any more opinions.
Mayor Ferre: All right, you want to add something, Ms. Post? Now, you are
speaking for yourself, not for Rose Gordon, this time.
Ms. Post: Is there any possibility that that beautiful hundred foot park that
is on Tigertail Avenue, if that little piece could remain R-4 and it wouldn't
hurt - the developer could still put his office building and he still could put
the beautiful park and that would be R-4 on Tigertail?
Mr. Gary: You can't do that.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think you can only do that in exchange for something.
Mr. Plummer: Ma'am, he is going to have to have some benefit to do that.
Ms. Post: But he is giving us the park at any rate.
Mr. Luft: Only if there is a zoning change.
Mr. Plummer: No he is not! Oh, no he is not! You are going to have an'apart-
ment house up there.
Ms. Post: Well, if he has the zoning change on the rest of the property...
Mr. Luft: No, he has already got zoning. It is already that way.
143
DEC 16 1982
id
Mt. Plummer: Jack, is exactly what they misunderstand.
Mr. Dawkins: We have thirty minutes here. We have got two items.
Mayor Ferre: All right, we have got to go. Further discussion on this?
Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who molted its
adoption.
MOTION NO. 82-1169
A MOTION CONTINUING CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONING AT APPROXIMATELY 2629 TO 2645 SO. BAYSHORE DRIVE FROM
R4 to RC, FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED, INCLUDING
THE SIZE, HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Luft: Mr. Mayor, I know you are in a rush - just one point.
Mayor Ferre: Very quickly, Jack.
Mr. Luft: As a Planner, I am very uncomfortable with the design of the site
by covenant. You cannot do it. This is the only area in Coconut Grove that
has no design review. There is nothing that he can put in that covenant that
will guarantee us anything except a concept of a park. If you are going to
go this way, ultimately we need to have design review on these properties.
Mayor,Ferre: Hey, look. I can read just as well as you can, okay? And I can
read what is going to happen and there is going to be three votes on this
Commission, so you do what you can, all right?
Mr. Luft: I am just saying, when we come back, if this Commission wants to go
this way, I am saying in the long run we need to have design review on all of
these properties, okay?
Mayor Ferre: Fine, then bring it back that way. Mr. Manager, then bring it
back that way. All right, in the meantime then, you get together. Hey, Jack, I
know this means a lot to you, but you have got to meet with the architect and
the property owners and try to work this thing out.
Mr. Luft: Oh, I will, sir. I mean, I have been here a long time. I've worked
a lot of things.
DEC 16 1982
0
Id
53. CAA -VAS RESULTS OF CITY OF MIAMI SPECIAL ELECTION HELD DECEM ER
14, 1932.
Mayor Ferre: There is a resolution declaring and certifying the results of
the special municipal election December 14th. All right, Dawkins moves.
Plummer seconds. Further discussion on the resolution. Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1170
A RESOLUTION DECLARING AND CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON DECEMBER 14, 1982 FOR
THE PURPOSE OF VOTING ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AUTHOR"
IZE A CITY 1C SALES TAX DURING 1983 TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION
OF SPORTS AND RECREATION FACILITIES; SAID ELECTION RESULT-
ING IN THE FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE THE SAID TAX.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
54. ACCEPT BID OF BOSTON WHALER INC. FOR FURNISHING ONE MARINE PATROL
BOAT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, are there any other items?
Mr. Gary: Yes, I need a decision on the Marine patrol boat.
Mayor Ferre: Marine patrol boat?
Mr. Gary: Right.
Mayor Ferre: Who held it up, Joe?
Mr. Gary: No, I want this. We brought it to you to award to the lowest bidder.
The lowest bidder is now telling us that he cannot meet specifications, so we
now want to go to the next best bidder, which is Boston Whaler. I might add..
no, this was not something that we had...
Mayor Ferre: I just kind of laugh about it. I don't question the legitimacy
of it.
Mr. Gary: Well, I need a vote, because the bid runs out this month.
Mayor Ferre: Well, tell me, just out of curiosity, what was the low bid, the
original low bid?
145 DEC 16 1982
9
L,j
Mt: 'ftrys. The low bid was Dusky Matins.
Mayct Ferre: How much was that?
Mr, Catollo: $19,550.
Mr. Gary: $19,500.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, what is the second bid?
Mr. Gary: Second bid was San Juan Marina.
Mayor Ferre: Is that the Boston...?
Mr. Gary: That was approximately $30,000.
Mayor Ferre; Is that the one you are recommeiiding?
Mr. Gary: No.
Mr. Eads: Yes. that is the one we recorziendee-.
Mr. Gary: That is the one we recommended that now says that they cannot meet
the specifications.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, so it goes from $19,000 to $30,000, but I don't know...
Mr. Carollo: I have the following questions and I don't give a hoot who this
goes to, I am just trying to save the City some money and use some common
sense. The Boston Whaler is going to cost $32,880 per boat. Dusky Marine,
at it
Inc. can build the
cabiname forboat $19,540tthe , almostcclosentoh$12,000oes lessopernclude a
boat.
fully encl
Mayor Ferre: You get what you pay for. The Boston Whaler is the real Cadillac
of...
Mr. Carollo: My question is this. Just how much do we need that fully enclosed
cabin? How much use are we going to put into it?
Mr. Gary: Well, if you assume that they are going to be out at night, day, all
types ofweather...they may have to arrest people. Obviously they need a cabin,
plus they have got to also store the equipment.
dy from the
Carollo: Onthe
ky haveafully, orshouldI sayapartial enclosedcabin,htheoteould eeoc De-
partment here..
or just what do they have in their boats?
Lt. Douglas Rice: They have what you would commonly referto
asa storage
front of
cabin or a cutty cabin. It is forward of the helmsman's position,
the steering wheel. The only thing you use it for is storage and it is rela-
tively small and constrained.
Mr. Carollo: So, we use the canopy then, on top.
Lt. Rice: Well, the boat they offered doesn't even have a canopy. From what
they offered us, they have an open helmsman site with a cabin that is directly
in front of the helmsman's position.
Mr. Carollo: Just one more question that I would like to ask for the record.
We don't have any powers to stop any vehicle out there unless there is a wake
that has been made, correct?
Lt. Rice: I frankly don't think that I am really qualified at this point to
speak about the powers we have to enforce laws on the waterways in and about
the City of Miami. I am not that familiar with the navigation of the water -
it
ways in that area and because we haven't had a Marine patrol to this point,
hasn't been our position or responsibility to enforce marine
e,laws
on
ntthe
waterhan routine
ways, so I can't really comment on what our exact powers
enforcement powers vis-a-vis the City code, Dade County Charter, State Statute.
klx, Carollo: I still think there is a way that
them thecan
Rolls Royceprice
whatdown,
heck.
if they want Boston Whalers, you know, give
0 DEC 16 1982
Id
r
a'
C�
' Fa
MAyot fette:
You say you age going to mdve it?
Mt. Catollo:
I'll move it, yes. Give them the
trolls Adyce.
F
Mayor Ferre:
Is there a second.
Mr. Plummer:
Second.
Mayor Ferre:
Okay, I will tell you, Joe...
Mr. Carollo:
Just make sure you have one that
is black and ane
that is white.
so that everybody is happy, right, Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: Do you make a Boston Whaler that speaks Spanish?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but let me tell you something. I'll tell you, now that you
have made the motion and all of that. This isn't really a Cadillac and a Chevy
argument. There is no other boat like the Boston Whaler. It is the safest,
best built, and I will tell you, if you are going to have somebody out there in
a boat at night or it is raining and you are talking about police officers and
a car fully equipped cost more than $30,000, doesn't it? How much is a car
with all the junk?
Mr. Plummer: Don't ask a driver of a Mercedes.
Mayor Ferre: No, no, no, I am talking about a police car with all the jur& we
put on it. How much does a car like that cost?
Mr. Gary: If I recall the figures, Mr. Mayor, it is around about $2,6t70,
$26,000.
Mr. Carollo: Is that minus the junk?
Mr. Gary: That is with all of the heavy duty equipment.
Mayor Ferre: So, you know, you are not too far from that. If you are going to
have a police officer out there in the water, I would rather have him in the
best, safest condition, and I have got news for you and I've got news for you...
you know, I think you are making the right decision, really I do.
Mr. Carollo: I would have felt better if we had had some expertise on boats.
You know, maybe we could have called Armando up at Grove Isle.
Mayor Ferre: All right, call the roll before he changes his mind.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1171
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF BOSTON WHALER, INC. FOR
FURNISHING ONE MARINE PATROL BOAT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
AT A TOTAL COST OF $32,880.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM
THE PRIOR YEAR RESERVE FUND; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND
THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THIS EQUIP-
MENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES; None
ABSENT; None
147
C
El
i:ST:1i3LISH Il';D `i0T TO EXCEED S10,000 -TO BE OFFERED AS A REWARD
FOR 111,*FOR_'t.%T1ON LEADING TO THE ARREST V;D CONVICTION, OF CILPRITS �
RESPONSIBLE FOR RECE"';-L ARSON'. A
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I bring up a subject?
Mr. Carollo: Well, we have twenty-one minutes!
Mr. Plummer: Okay, what I would like to proffer. Mr. Mayor, I am very con-
cerned about (this has nothing to do with you, Kenny) with the increase in the
rash of arsons that we have had in this City. The one this morning at 1:00
o'clock was probably one of the largest fires we have had recently.
Mr. Carollo: Where?
Mr. Plummer: At Dodson Tire, which is the fourth time that place has been
torched. Yesterday, the Gort Studios was torched. I have reason to be-
lieve that within the last two or three weeks, there have been two or three
others which have not received publicity. I am very, very concerned about
this matter. I would like to ask consideration of this Commission, as we have
done in the past, to bring forth the culprits and the... call them whatever you
may that are perpetrating these crimes of arson, which to this point we have
been very lucky. No one was in those structures at the time they were torched...
that this Commission create a reward for the capture and conviction of the
individuals who are perpetrating these very hideous crimes. We have done this
in the past. I remember very well in the death of the bail bondsman and also
in the same time I think Joe, the Cuban leader that was killed, that we also
likewise put up a $50,000 reward. I think it would be well within the purview
of this Commission to try and bring this matter to a successful conviction.
There is no question that crime tips where they offer a $1000 reward has pro-
duced unbelievable results.
Mr. Carollo: I make a motion that we offer a $10,000 reward.
Mr. Plummer: Do you think that is adequate to ... Mr. Mayor, basically, as we
did with the bail bondsman and others in trying to bring to conviction these
individuals that are perpetrating these arsons - Joe made a motion that we
establish a $10,000 reward. I'll second the motion.
Mr. Carollo: That is a life! That is a life! Add $25,000.
Mayor'Ferre: Further discussion on the motion?
Mr. Plummer: I would like to hear from Chief Don Hickman. Don, I didn't
discuss this with you and I should have - a reward for the capture and con-
viction of the arsonists of $10,000. Your opinion?
Mayor Ferre: He is for it. Okay, it has been moved and seconded, call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its
adoption.
MOTION NO. 82-1172
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
ESTABLISH A FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT T
TO BE OFFERED AS A REWARD TO THE PERSON
INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND C
CULPRITS RESPONSIBLE FOR RECENT ARSON I
MIAMI.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer,
adopted by the following vote:
1d
ITY MANAGER TO
EXCEED $10,000
WHO SUPPLIES
VICTION OF
THE CITY OF
the motion was passed and
f?
DEC 16 1982
q
Li
AYE: Commissioner Millet J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Pete2; Jt.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummet, Jt.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOPS: None
ABSENT: None
T.56.ALLOCATE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500 TO MIAMI NORTHWESTERN SENIOR;
HIGH COMMUNITY SCHOOL FOR CLOSE-UP PROGRAM.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, the Northwestern Senior High Community School
has a fund raising drive for the national close-up program for sixteen young
people to participate in the annual trip to Washington, D. C. and they are
asking us for $690, but we did give $500 to Jackson High School, so would some-
body make a motion that we give $500 to Miami Northwestern Senior High. Moved
by Carollo, seconded by... further discussion?
Mr. Plummer: Whoa! Clarification. Is I recall, that was $500 per student.
Mr. Gary: No, no. $500 total!
Mayor Ferre: No. $500 total.
Mr. Plummer: Fantastic.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its
adoption.
MOTION NO. 82-1173
i !
}
{{
r F 4
i
Y (
i
I
I
id
,.F
14,E
DEC 16 1982
Id
57. AUTHORIZE tVN-D APPROVE GRANTING OF CERTAIN SECURITY ItiTEP.LSTS
OF CABLF.TELEVTSION SYSTEM XND OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST OF
AMERICABLE ?fI.V-1T TELECOI•DIL7NICATIONS INC. TOGETHER DOING
BUSINESS AS MT_k?JTCART F CTSTnl�
Mayor Ferre: All right, we are going to take five minutes to read this thing,
so you had better read it, because this is an important document. The meat of
it is on Page number five.
Mr. Carollo: Now, Dawkins, Plummer - none of this now. You are going to get
in trouble with the Sunshine Law. In the mike. In the mike, discuss the
cable in the mike.
Mr. Plummer: (INAUDIBLE) to this with Mr. Meyers. I am more concerned in my
learned colleague in legal -beagle, what is your opinion and do you see any
pitfalls
Mayor Ferre: This is not a legal problem. This is a business problem.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, I am going to ask the same of Mr. Gary after I get finished
with Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa. I ask you once again. You have participated in
the drafting and finalization of this product. Do you find anything that is
detrimental to the City? Do you find anything of what we as Commissioners
should be concerned as it relates to a legal problem?
Mayor Ferre: Kenny, I am sorry. I've got to tell you, I don't agree with this.
Senator Meyers: Which ones, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Section six. That is the whole meat of the argument.
Senator Meyers: Section six simply says that any security funding under here
is subject and subordinate to any rights of the City under the ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: I understand, but does that ... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa and the scenario
of a...the scenario I want you to tell me about for the Manager's sake - well,
let's let the Manager finish reading it. Section six is the whole heart of it,
Howard. Mr. Manager, Section six is the whole heart of this document. All
right now, Mr. City -Attorney, for the Manager and for the Commission, I want
you to take me through the following scenario: The Bank of Montreal has now
loaned, has agreed to lend, $30,000,000. The first scenario I want you to
take me through is, as the monies are expended, how is the City Manager kept
appraised that those monies are going into the system? That is question
Number one. Number two. If, at the a junction in the future there is a de-
fault on the part of the borrower (the Licensee) and the City then has to make
the hard decision as to whether or not to purchase the system for the appraised
value as under the ordinance, but the monies loaned by the bank are more than
the appraisal. Now, what are the City's options at that point? Those are the
two key questions.
Mr. Dawkins: Can I add one more, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: And in the event that they default, who has option to acquire it?
Mayor Ferre: The City. That is already clear.
Mr. Gary; We have got to pay $31,000,000.
150
DEC 161982
fs bawkihs: We have got to pay $IlfW ,000, and then we.,,
Mt. Plummer: No, no, no. That is not the way business operates, ff they
hottow $31,000,000, and they default, we buy at appraised value and gd aftet
them for the difference.
Mayor Ferre: They have a shell corporation.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, no, no, no. They have a shell corporation as it relates to
this franchise. We can go after them individually, and corporately.
Mr. Carollo: Boy, I feel sorry for that poor lady that crashed into your
funeral place.
Mr. Plummer: You bet your bippy.
Mayor Ferre: In a little while we will hear from you. I have asked a question
and I want an answer, then I will hear from you, Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, your first question was, how the Manager is
kept appraised of the money going through the system, and that is found...
Mayor Ferre: No, I can read it. There is a quarterly report from the bank
and there is a quarterly report from the Licensee. That wasn't my question.
Mr. Plummer: Plus, there is a bottom line that within two years, they must
spend $45,000,000, so they are going to have to demonstrate the spending of
that money, that they did in fact...
Mayor Ferre: J. L., please, look. I will recognize you in a moment, but let
me go - I have got a thought process that I am trying to pursue and I don't
want to get off on a tangent, so let me just stick to mine, and then you can
do yours. I have a simple question. The bank of Montreal now is going to
lend $30,000,000. The bank is going to give the City a quarterly statement
as to how they are doling that money out, whether it is $5,000,000 or $2,000,000
or $30,000,000, okay? Then, the company has to give the Manager a report as to
how they are expending that money. It doesn't say in here whether that's...
is there an engineer that is certifying that that is being spent? Is there a
C.P.A. firm that is saying that that is being spent? I mean, how does the
Manager know, other than...is there a certified statement?...under oath by
the president? Does it say that here?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: All it says sir, is that the Borrower shall certify
quarterly the manner in which the funding had been applied to the system.
Mayor Ferre: I want there to be some legal document where there is perjury,
or something involved personally.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: They certify under oath.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. I would accept that.
Mr. Carollo: Ken, I have a question.
Mayor Ferre: Let me finish and then I will take all of your questions.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We can say by "under oath, executed by the Borrower's
chief executive officer, or chief operating officer".
Senator Meyers: No, no. You can't certify quarterly statements.
Mayor Ferre: Howard, if you get the chief executive officer to personally
certify, and he is going to jail, but, I want there to be a sworn statement
in there. You see, the accountant doesn't really solve my problems, because
all an accountant can do is certify that it was paid and that it was received.
The certificate that you are reading me, is it a certificate of a competent
engineer or someone that says that this money is being expended and not going
into a bank account somewhere. In other words, you want to make sure that
that money is being used to build a system.
Mr. Plummer: Well, of course you also...excuse me, can I...
Id 151 DEC 1 61982
}pA 'L C
t t$
Hay6t Petre: Ate we cleat on thatl
Ott. Gatcia-Pedrosa: No, sir. You want the eettifi.c&te under oath executed
by whom?
Mayor Ferre: No, sir. What I want is, I want the Licensee under oath to
certify that the monies he has received have been spent and specify how the
monies have been spent, and then I want him to provide a professional engineet's
statement that he accepts that those monies have been spent in that way, Do
you follow, Mr. City Attorney?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: How did that address of a contract in deed was made that is not
payable on monthly installments, but on a final conclusion of the contract?
For example...
Mayor Ferre: I just want to make sure that the monies received from the bank
are expended into the construction of the system, and I want you to specifically
put that in here and say the monies to be drawn from the bank will be spent on
the capital outlays from the construction of this system and they will be so
certified on a quarterly basis by the City, by the Licensee's chief executive
officer, under oath and by a certified engineer of the State of Florida.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me try this, Mr. Mayor. The application of funding,
by the way, is already in the ordinance. Be aware of that.
Mayor Ferre: I understand all of that.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let's look at Page five and I will just read to you what
I have penciled in, beginning three lines from the bottom:
"Lender shall provide to the City quarterly schedules of fundings
to the Borrower under the Loan Agreement and Borrower shall certi-
fy quarterly, under oath, executed by Borrower's chief executive
officer, the manner..."
Mayor Ferre: No, no, and...
Mr. Garcia-Pedorsa: Wait a minute. I will get to it. Give me a moment.
"shall certify quarterly to the City, under oath, executed by
Borrower's chief executive officer, the manner in which such
fundings have been applied to the system. Such certificate
shall have attached to it a certificate executed by a profes-
sional engineer that the fundings have been so applied."
Mayor Ferre: Registered in the State of Florida - "that the funding shall be
so applied". Okay.
Mr. Plummer: A concern. Mr. Mayor, you previously stated that it would be
for the purpose only of capital improvements. Are we going to strangle them
from operational costs? I just don't think you can do - if you can take every
dollar they are going to get and make them put to the capital outlay. They
have got to have operational money. They are also under a provision in the
franchise that says they have got to spend $45,000,000 in two years.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer, I accept it. I think you are right.
Mr. Plummer: My other concern in this particular area is, is a quarterly
report certified going to be revealing to this Commission, which in fact,
we would like to know, i.e., monies that are committed, maybe won't be spent
until the end of year contract and a quarterly report - I think if you place
in that quarterly report where the money has been spent and what committed and
restricted, it would be more of a...
Mayor Ferre: Fine! I accept that. All right, now the other thing. After
"a professional engineer certified in Florida", - "acceptable to the Manager".
Senator Meyers: May I suggest that the language should not be "registered
professional engineer", because they know nothing about the laying of cable
152
DEC 1 61982
Id
6
gyfteffia in the ground. A licefsed eiigifteering contractor that Vho lAy§
dAble systems.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. "A licensed engineering contractor, acceptable to the
Manager". I don't think that you are going to use his contractor to verify
that they are laying the cable.
Mr. Plummer: The fox in the henhouse.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You want him licensed in the State of Florida, though?
Mayor Ferre: Yes. In a moment I am going to get to you - let the Commission
get all this stuff over with.
Mr. Plummer: Isn't the bulk of the money that is going to be spent actually
being spent for laying of the cable?
Mr. Gary: It is for the system.
Senator Meyers: That is correct.
Mr. Gary: If I may again, I appreciate the additions you made to strengthen
this. I would add, Mr. Mayor, because you were going in that direction, is
that at the end of a fiscal year, that they provide us with a certified public
accounting.
Senator Meyers: it's part of it.
Mr. Gary: No, no. I am making a distinction as required in the ordinance.
I am also making you make it a requirement of the loan amount.
Mayor Ferre: I agree with that. Put it in.
Mr. Gary: To be not only by a C.P.A., but also signed and agreed to by the
chief executive officer.
Mayor Ferre: I accept that. All right, that is the furthest sentence. In
other words, after you get through with the engineeriperiod. "In addition
to which...".
Mr. Gary: "In addition to the quarterly, you provide an annual certified..."
Mayor Ferre: "There will be an annual certified by a C.P.A. and signed by
the chief executive officer under oath".
Mr. Plummer: I have one concern and I am going to take advantage of my vote
here to relay that concern. Mr. Gary, my colleague Carollo this morning
brought out something that triggered in my mind a concern. That is, that he
felt, or he had heard that one of the companies was possibly in arrears of
meeting commitments. I want into this document that at any time, whether
through the joint venture or however this franchise is handled, that either
or parties are in arrears of any kind, that the City must be notified
immediately.
Mr. Carollo: And for the record, T.C.I. acknowledged that in fact they had
been in arrears until recently.
Mr. Plummer: Maurice, I am concerned that one or both would be in arrears
in payment or commitments. Under the present structure, this City does not
have to be notified. I think that this thing is so important...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: That is right. Well, but you see, we are going to get an ad-
vance notice if they show default or nonpayment of the mortgage, or anything,
we are going to know about it early. I don't want to know about it at the
end of the year after they have missed twelve payments!
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We have a ...
id 153 DEC 161982
W MA
t mw t � t u r�
i
iFII t 7.
t
a
if.uier:
Not default,
c
Otto
Gary: Not
default.
Mt.
Plummer: No, no. He knows
the default we are $6ifig to haVaj That is gist
I am trying to
conclude....
Mr. Gary: Default is paying back the loan. He is talking about thight inerdase
fifty-fifty they would be putting in.
Mr. Plummer: .... no notice before default. Okay? Do you understand, Mr.
Pedrosa what I am saying?
Mr. Carollo: Nine o'clock.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. We can't take testimony from you off the rteard.
Let the Commission - are you finished now with all the stuff you o:ant in
there, Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: That is what I am concerned with.
Mr. Garcia Pedrosa: You would ask another question.
Mr. Carollo: Hey Ken, can you guys settle down with George Green and you
know, do something? You know, what is a few hundred thousand in a fifty
million dollar contract?
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Friedman, wait a moment. Let the Commission
finish. Mr. Manager?
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, there are two issues here. You brought the issue of
default, which adequately addressed on Page four, Section 2b. What Commis-
sioner Plummer is saying now is they have a fifty-fifty partnership arrange-
ment and they both are supposed to be paying one dollar for one dollar and if
one defaults on putting in his share, that we be notified. I'm not so sure
you want to put this in that loan document, versus putting that in the
ordinance that we have with the Licensee. Let me tell you why.
Mr. Plummer: Bottom line is I just want to know.
Mr. Gary: Okay, you can know that in the existing, but we can put it in strong
language. Let me tell you why here. Because, once this money comes to them,
they have got to certify that that money is going into the account, so it is
not the fifty-fifty deal, plus by putting it in here, the lending institution
and we audit it together, may feel that we are suspicious of them and they
aren't to be trusted, they may not loan the money. We can address this another
issue, and 1 would suggest you do that.
Mr. Plummer: I have no problem, as long as the bottom line is covered, and
that is, that we know when they know. But let me tell you what concerns me.
Mayor Ferre: You know, Gary, I've been dealing with these things for a lot of
years. You are a pretty sharp cookie!
Mr. Plummer: I tried to tell you that a year and one-half ago!
Mayor Ferre: You could be - you could make it the chief executive officer for
a nice, big corporation around here!
Mr. Plummer: No. He doesn't wear a bow tie.
Mayor Ferre: I am serious! That is pretty sophisticated thinking. He to
totally right and you know what he is telling you? You put that in there#
you are going to kill their loan for them. He is absolutely right.
Mr. Carollo: Don't let it go to your head, Howard!
Mr. Gary: 1 won't!
154
DEC 1 61962
Mt, plummet: Mr. Gary, let me tell you what bothered me in information that
carte to me, okay? Information that came to me said that these two partners
worked out an arrangement that this City, or I as a Commissioner were unaware
of, that one of the partners put up the two million cash, but it is the other
partner who is getting the commitment for the loan. Now, I want to tell you
something. In my estimation, that should have been brought before this City
and it was not.
Mr. Gary: And I agree, and they were supposed to according to the joint -
venture arrangement that you approved as a part of the ordinance, so really,
they were at fault and basically to a degree we are at fault too for not
monitoring them closely, but that provision is there, Commissioner Plummer.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa, would you give us the wording, and
then I am going to recognize a few speakers.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Here is what I have done on Section six again.
Mayor Ferre: Third line from the bottom - "Lender".
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: "Lender shall provide to the City quarterly schedules
of funding to the Borrower under the loan agreement and Borrower shall
certify quarterly to the City under oath executed by Licensee's chief execu-
tive officer the manner in which such funding had been applied or committed
to be applied to the system. Such certificate shall have attached to it a
certificate executed by a licensed professional engineering contractor li-
censed in the State of Florida and acceptable to the City Manager, that the
funding had been so applied. The City shall receive copies of all reports
required to be given to lenders under the loan agreement. At the end of each
fiscal year, Licensee shall also submit to the City a statement under oath
executed by the chief executive officer and certified to by a certified public
accountant as to the fundings received by the Licensee and the application of
such fundings to the system."
Mayor Ferre: That covers it. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Meyers?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now, I don't have your notice.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. The second question.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You had asked me, "If there is a default and the City
decides to purchase and the fair market value of the system as defined in
the ordinance, in that event, is below the outstanding obligation, what
happens". Is that basically your question? The answer, as this document is
currently phrased, is that the City would have to pay for the outstanding
obligation.
Mayor Ferre: I have no problems with that if you follow this procedure
outlined in six. I other words, in effect we are assured. But, now there
is one last question that I have that comes out. Yes, I have one last
question on this, Howard. Let me ask a question. What if, under this pro-
cedure you are not satisifed with what they are doing? Suppose they have
drawn $20,000,000 and they have only spent $5,000,000 of it in the system,
and they have laid aside $15,000,000 for working capital and then that gets
spent somehow.
Id 155 DEC 161982
0
0
(NAVD19LE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Speak into the microphone, Senator, into the record.
Senator Meyers: Kenneth Meyers, attorney for Miami Cablevision. Page sevdtE-
teen of of license ordinance protects you already and it provides specifically
that any funding the licensee receives from financing, must go into the eott-
struction of the system.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. I have no further questions.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I do.
Mr. Gary: I do.
Mr. Plummer: My question is simple. My question is, if we have to buy At
fair value and assume the obligations that are below fair value...
Mayor Ferre: You mean "above fair value".
Mr. Plummer: Above fair value, do we control their contracts? In other words,
what I am saying is, if they go out here for a mile of cable, and in fact, the
fair value under normal circumstances was $10.00 and because of whatever, they
pay $20.00, I don't think...
Mayor Ferre: Stuck!
Mr. Plummer: I don't want to be stuck!
Senator Meyers: Well, it is not a scenario which could happen.
Mayor Ferre: It could happen!
Senator Meyers: The equity holders are required in the loan agreement to
put in a minimum of $18,000,000 themselves, the investors. You have required
in your license ordinance a minimum investment requirement. That is being
put in, they have already put in $6,000,000 in cash themselves.
Mayor Ferre: For us to walk into their position, they are forfeiting their
equity.
Senator Meyers: There is no bank in America that would loan money to a system
with a provision that they be wiped out if somebody came in.
Mr. Plummer: Can we attach their equity?
Senator Meyers: Sure.
Mayor Ferre: Sure. Look, if they default in the loan agreement, the bank
forecloses... Plummer, follow me... they default, they go broke, the bank fore-
closes - they are going to take over the property. The City of Miami can step
in with this document, pay them off and we own the whole thing.
Mr. Gary: Let me tell you something, Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: At that point they have walked away from their equity.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest one more sentence. Let me tell you
why I would suggest it. If you know about banks, if you have a Mercedes-Benz
that you have and you paid $40,000 for the car - you put $20,000 down. If
you default on that other $20,000, the bank comes and gets your car and they
make a profit. What I am concerned about is, if they owe the bank $10,000,000,
the bank could come and get the system which is worth maybe $100,000,000 and
therefore, we had to pay them back to insure that we get our rights back and
the bank would have made a clear $90,000,000. Let me finish first. What I
would suggest is that a clause be put in there that says any outstanding
obligation, the City will honor that obligation to only equal the amount of
outstanding debt, as opposed to allowing them to take the whole right, and
therefore we have to buy equity rights.
V
Id
DEC 161992
Mayor Ferret Can't do it. I have been through this one enough times to tell
you there is only one way you can do it. You have to say that after after
proper... the bank must notice the City that they are about to execute and
then the City has the right to step into the Licensee's position and make the
payment.
Mr. Gary: You got it. That is in here. I will take that back. It is right
here.
Mayor Ferre: Is that covered?
Mr. Gary: Yes. It is covered on Page four.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa, on the record, in your opinion, if the
Licensee defaults in non-payment, is the City given the opportunity to step
in?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, that is in there, sir. What I was going to disagree
with Howard on is I think somebody must have ripped him off on a car loan, be-
cause what normally happens when you have a security interest and you fore-
close on your security interest, if the lender secured party realizes a sur-
plus after disposing of the collateral, that surplus goes back to the deptor,
so we would be able to get it back from the Licensee, if that should happen.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, are we ready now to listen to Mr. Friedman? All right,
Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Julius Friedman: Thank you. We have never intended to go into the merits
of the loan agreement, so we just ask that the Commission defer action upon
the loan agreement. We assumed that there was a loan agreement in existence.
I was quite taken back when I reviewed this ordinance that you are about to
enact.
Mayor Ferre: It is not an ordinance, it is a resolution.
Mr. Friedman: Resolution. In the first place, you are resolving certain
matters on an agreement that is not in existence, so how can you resolve any-
thing on that agreement. There is no loan agreement before this Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Not so. The loan agreement is in the hands of the City -Attorney
and he will, before we vote on this, say he has read it and that he feels that
it is reasonable for the City.
Mr. Friedman: Has it been executed?
Mayor Ferre: It can't be executed without this document. That is what we
are talking about.
Mr. Friedman: All the loan agreement... this is a commitment by a bank - a
foreign country bank that is not even subject to any jurisdiction...
Mayor Ferre: With an agency in New York.
Mr. Friedman: It is not in Florida, but anyhow, let me read you this Page
eight, Section eight.
"The herein approval is subject to the final review and approved
by the City -Attorney and City Manager of the final draft of the
loan agreement to be executed at the time of closing of the loan,
which notice of approval or disapproval shall be delivered by
telegraph, telex, telecopy or other written communication."
Now, where is there an agreement before this Commission? There is none.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa.
Mr. Friedman: Now, the City Manager said that we...
Mayor Ferre: You have asked a question and I would like an answer,
Mr, Friedman; All right.
157
DEC 161982
id
Mt, Cafcia-Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, the answer is, we have the agteement, and
this section that counsel has read is for the protection, further protection
of the City6 if they were to change anything, which would not be permitted,
we would be able to pick it up.
Mr. Friedman: Is there an executed agreement in your possession, executed by
the Lender?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, there is no executed agreement....
Mr. Friedman: Then you have no agreement.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa:.... because they don't have right to have it without your
approval.
Mr. Friedman: Oh, no sir! You have to have a commitment on your own ordinance.
You are talking about.."This is a country of law and this is a city of law",
quote the City Manager. Now, you prescribed the conditions for which this
Commission will act upon. You have no agreement, you have no commitment before
this Commission and I say it is entirely out of order.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Friedman. Sir...
Mr. Friedman: I suggest that...
Mayor Ferre: Sir, you a pose an important question of law and therefore, in
following the traditions of the City of Miami Commission, we turn to our City -
Attorney and ask his opinion whether or not he concurs with the statement just
made.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir, and the reason is that the ordinance in question,
which is 9332, which is in effect„ of course, provides in Section 204.d of
Page twelve, that a mortgage pledged or other incumbrance of the of the systems
equipment license or revenues or any part thereof for financing purposes or
otherwise, shall be made only with the prior approval of this City Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Which is what we are doing by this resolution.
Mr. Friedman: Well...
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Sir?
Mayor Ferre: Which is what we are doing by this resolution, so it is a
chicken - egg situation. All right, sir, Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman: Just a minute! You also by this resolution, which has not been
brought to your attention - that is a bunch of hogwash and I am only a Univer-
sity of Miami Law School graduate, Class of 1938. See, so I don't have this
Harvard background, or some other fine prestigious law school.
Mayor Ferre: Neither does the City Manager and neither do I.
Mr. Friedman: Let me read you another section. You can do what you want, but
let me read you another section here of this ordinance.
"That the filing of the uniform commercial code financing statement
by the Lender in order to perfect the above described security is
hereby approved."
You are approving documents, the mortgage, before it is even presented to you?
This is what this ordinance does. Now let me read you another section.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a moment.
"That if and when...."
DEC 1 61982
Mdydt Verte: All tight, Mr. City=Attotney, you answer to that statement,
Mt, Garcia -Pedrosa: This is a pre-printed form. I think it is UCC-10 which
is attached to the agreement, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman: The next one is, you are approving it before it even is pre-
sented to you.
"That if and when requested by the Lender the granting of a
first, second or third mortgage interest in the land and im-
provements owned by Charles C. Hermanowski, Trustee, includ-
ing a collateral pledge of stock of any corporate successor
in interest which lands and improvements are located at 1306
N. W. 7th Avenue..."
i imagine that is the Studio.
"Miami, Florida, used by Miami Cablevision in the operation
of this system is hereby approved as part of the collateral
security for said proposed loan."
Now, there again, you, by this ordinance are approving a non-existent docu-
ment and I submit...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. City -Attorney.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, this is with reference to property owned by
a third party, namely, Mr. Hermanowski and all that you are doing is, the
bank wants to string Mr. Hermanowski up further...
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, you are permitting that.
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir.
Mr. Friedman: I thought this was a joint venture and the Studio is part of
the assets of the Licensee. You mean, the Studio, the whole works there?
the whole hearts and guts of your Cablevision system is privately owned and
is not owned by the Licensee? That is not a Licensee's asset? Then the
the Licensee is definitely in disfault.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Friedman, I can't compete with you. Now, if you want to
just ramble on, I will let you ramble for another minute or two and then cut
you off and you want answers, then you have got to let me ask the questions.
Mr. Friedman: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mayor Ferre: All right. Now, you heard the question before he started to
ramble on with the next one. Can you answer that?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am not sure that I understood the question, but...
Mayor Ferre: The question is, is the property where the Studio is located,
sinced it is further encumbered in this document as a guarantee to the loan,
is that Mr. Hermanowski's to use as a guarantee, or doesn't it belong to the
system?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: One minute, Mr. Mayor. Let me check out if anybody has
that information.
Mr. Friedman: May I suggest as we suggested before this thing be deferred
for another time.
Mayor Ferre: No, sir, You may not suggest that. I mean, you may suggest it,
but I don't see anybody grabbing it. Let's move on so we can get over this,
Id159
DEC 161982
-A'
Id
Mrs Fiiedtian: I don't know what this big Push is about.
Mr. dafcia"Pedrosa: He also, I alit advised Mr. mayor, is Trustee Moir the system.
Mayor Ferre: All right, your next question, Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman: Well I think I have said enough. I think that this Commission
is remiss in its obligation under its own law and its own ordinance and the
agreement if it enacts this resolution at this time.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. ...
Mr. Friedman: I think that there is nothing before this Commission at this
time to resolve. There is no agreement before this Commission. There is no
loan agreement and there is provision - I don't want to take your time up,
but let me read you your own law.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Friedman, I think each one of those points that you brought
out has been systematically reputed by the City -Attorney and therefore the
Chair rules that... unless you have something else or new to put up. We have
already had a ruling from the City -Attorney, unless somebody in this Commis-
sion wants to over -rule, and that stays.
Mr. Friedman: May I suggest then, that perhaps advice of independent counsel
be obtained before you fellows go off on the deep end.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman: You do what you want. I suggest you defer this thing until
they present an agreement that you can act upon and not is something tnat
is something that is supposed to come into existence at a later date.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you, Mr. Friedman. Mr. City -Attorney, last
words.
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: On that point, which I am glad counsel brought up, it
is important. I should have mentioned to the Commission that all of the docu-
mentation, except for the changes that we just made here, obviously, which I
have read have been approved by Arnold and Porter, who as counsel to the
City - independent counsel with respect to this matter.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Is there a motion on the resolution as
amended? Is there a second? Moved by Carollo, seconded by Plummer. Further
discussion? Call the roll as amended.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner CArollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-1174
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE GRANTING OF
CERTAIN SECURITY INTERESTS IN THE CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM
AND OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS OF AMERICABLE OF GREATER MIAMI,
LTD. AND MIAMI TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TOGETHER DOING
BUSINESS AS MIAMI CABLEVISION, A JOINT VENTURE, WHICH APPRO-
VAL IS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ALL PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.
9332 IN CONNECTION WITH THE FINANCING BY THESE ENTITIES OF
CERTAIN SUMS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM
IN THE CITY.
(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 passe
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT; Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
160
DEC 1 61982
ee with Mr.
- Mr, Carollo: I want to a$q for the
irr�duateshat I aren�tave thetbestrlawyers around.
Friedman that some of the Harvard$ _
can think of ember. ButaI think thate thise
eHarvard graduatelosr, that will be ais oneof
loser, come Nov
the better ones and, I vote Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, and I thank you for your patience in waiting all day.
Mr. Plummer: I'd like to wish all my colleagues and everyone present a very
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
you. All right, is there anything else, Mr.
Mayor Ferre• The same to Mett�$er
and Mr. City -Attorney?
Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir.
Mr. Gary: No, sir.
ADJOURMENT :
iong
There being no ftudther seconded�,ess thetmeeting wasbefore
adjournedCity
ato9�:n22sP.M.
on motion duly made and
MAURICE A. FERRE
Mayor
ATTESTt
MPH G. ONGIE
City Clerk
MATTY HIRAI
Assistant City Clerk
I
t t
I
DEC 161982
.
MI -STING DATE:
r
ITEM NO J DOCUMVIT IDENTIFICATION
j
4
5
8
9
1(1
11
12
13
'IIiANS1,11" TO T.C.I. DI ELOPNENT COP, PORA'I'ION
Ol' R.(;.I./'IAF"I' (:A}3LI:VISION ASSOCIATES INTEREST
IN MIA: lI INC.
AL" l'llol: l 7.1: CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE S 15 , 000 FOR A
)'I:ASIBILITY STUDY MULTI USE PARKING FACILITY PI.AYER
STA"I'I: TIII:A"IR1:
I'PHOLD 111:COMMENDATION 017 "flit: ZONING BOARD TO DENY
PI:RMI"1' I'OR EXISTING RETAIL VAREHOUSE ADDITION Ti)
VAREHOUSE AT 774 N.W . 1st Street
RI:SOI.I'TION CHANGING THE DATES OF THI: CITY COM*1ISSION
�IEFTI NGS DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1983.
ACC1:1''C PLAT: "KAHN-CARLIN SUB"
ACCl'PT PLAT:"REVISED PLAT 017 HANSON SUB".
COI)I:SI(;NAI'E N.E. 69'1'11 STREET FROM BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
TO 131 SCr11'Ni: BAY AS "N . E. 69 STR1:FT/PALM BAY LANE".
AVTIIORI?l: CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ACRI'FIIIENT
Iil:T1�i:I:N OFT' S'1'R17ET PARKING AUTHORITY FOR PARKTNG
�101)1 FICATIONS MFD1AN BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FROM
S.I:. 1ST STREET TO N.Ii. 5TH STRI:E'I'.
CLAIM SVI"l'LEM1 "."I': SUTrRRENO IN MIAMI,INC
CA':VAS RESULTS OF CITY OF MIAMI SPECIAL ELECTION HELD
DI:CEMl!Z 14, 1992
;%cCi:PT BID OF BOSTON IdHALER INC. FOR FURNISHING
N,1 RINI'. PAT1101. BOAT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
APPROVE CRAN`1'ING OF CERTAIN SECURITY
O1' CABLEVI SIGN SYSTEM AND OTHER
INTEREST 017 AMERICABI.r MIAMI TELE-
�'O." .1UNICATIONS INC. TOGETHER DOING BUSI"LESS AS
'-11AMICABI.E VISION.
4
COMMISSION
R-8' -1153
R-82-1155
R-82-1156
R-82-1.161
R-82-1.1.63
R-82-1164
R-82-11.65
R-82-1166
R-82-1167
R-82-1168
R-82-1170
R-82-1171
R-82-1174
I
81-115 ;
82-1155
82-1.156
82-1161
82-1.163
82-1164
82-1165
82-1166
82-1167
82-1168
82-1170
82-1171
82-1174