Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1982-03-16 MinutesMarch 16, 1982 OF MEETING HELD ON (P & Z) (REGULM) �T E F- I C PREPARED BY M OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL - Sys .PH G.. ONG1 MiCROfIl A1G COMPLETED CITY CLERK „ . t _ t INV CRE-. S%gFfAF, &M ND, (P 6 Z) (REGULAK) �CT (MARCH 16, 1982) �INANCEpR� KEs=ION its eA� PAE 101 1 RESCHEDULE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1982 TO TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 1, 1982 R-82-246 1-2 2 EXPRESS GRATITUDE TO DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE, DEPT. OF POLICE, THE KIWANIS CLUB, THE JAYCEES AND OTHERS WHO HELPED TO MAKE THE CALLE OCHO FESTIVAL A SUCCESS - REQUEST APROPRIATE PROCLAMATIONS. M-82-247 2-3 3 OVERALL CITY-WIDE COMMISSION POLICY THAT ALL FUTURE BUILDING PERMITS, EXCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY RESI-)ENCES, WILL BE SUBJECT TO IMPACT FEES. DISCUSSION OF CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CBD-2(See label 3.1) M-82-248 3-15 3.1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AMEND 6871, ART. XV-1 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CBD-2 DISTRI (PURPOSE, LIMITATIONS ON USES, FRONT AND SIDE STREET SET BACK YARD, MINIMUN DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDING, F.A.R., PUBLIC AMENITY REQUIREMENTS. AMEND 6871, ART.. XXV, BASE BUILDING LINES, CBD-2 DIST.; REQUEST DEPARTMENT TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO COMPENSATING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO LOSE LAND DUE TO A CHANGE IN THE BASE BUILDING LINE. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, N.E. 17 TERR., N.E. 2ND AVE., N.E. 16 ST., N.E. 1ST CT., N.E. 15TH STREET., N.E. 1ST AVENUE., N.E. 14 ST., N.E. 2ND AVENUE AND I-395- N.E. 1 COURT, N.E. 17 TERRACE AND I-395 FROM C-1 C-3 6 C-4 TO CBD-2. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WEST FLAGLER STREET, I-95, S.W. 1ST STREET AND S.W. FIRST AVENUE FROM R-4, C-2 AND C-4 TO CBD-2. AMEND 6871 ARTICLE III BY ADDING MXD-1, MXD-2 AND MXD-3 AMEND 6871 BY ADDING NEW ARTICLE XIV-2, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MXD-1, MXD-2 AND MXD-3 DISTRICTS, PROVIDE FOR INTENT, USE REGULATIONS, ETC. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE MIAMI RIVER, METRORAIL, SO. 8TH STREET AND 190'WEST OF BRICKELL AVENUE TO MXD-2. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY S. 8TH STREET METRORAIL, S.W. 13TH STREET, S. MIAMI AVE. AND BRICKELL PLAZA FROM R-CB AND C-2 TO MXD-2. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY S.W. 13 STREET, METRORAIL, S.W. 15 ROAD AND S. MIAMI AVENUE FROM R-CB TO MXD-3. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY S.W. 9TH STREET I-95, S.W. 15 ROAD, S.W. 3 AVENUE AND METRORAIL FROM R-4 TO R-T. ORD. 9382 16-17 M-82-249 17-24 ORD. 9383 ORD. 9384 24-25 ORD. 9385 1 25-26 ORD. 9386 26 ORD. 9387 1 27-28 ORD. 9388 28-29 ORD. 9389 1 29-30 ORD. 9390 30-31 ORD. 9391 1 31-33 o ilk 1MI ND, ( P S Z )(REGULAR) SLIM (MARCH 16, 1982) 13 AMEND 6871-CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICTION OF APPROXIMATI 150' SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL OF SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET ON THE SOUTH AND RIGHT OF WAY ON THE EAST FROM C-4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. 14 CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY N. MIAMI AVENUE. N.E. 2ND AVENUE AND N.E. 41ST STREET FROM R-C TO C-5, (DECORATOR'S ROW). 15 AMEND 6871- ADD NEW ARTICLE XXI-6, DESIGN PLAZA OVERLAY DISTRICT (SPD-4), PROVIDING USE REGULATIONS, LIMITATIONS ON USES, YARDS, HEIGHT, FAR, BONUS, PROVISIONS PARKING. 16 APPLY DESIGN PLAZA OVERLAY DISTRICT (SPD-4) TO EXISTING C-2, C-4 AND C-5 ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS IN DECORATOR'S ROW AREA. 17 AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN TURNKEY CONTRACT WITH MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,660.00. 18 CLOSE CERTAIN STREETS FOR "4TH ANNUAL COCONUT GROVE BED RACE" ON MAY 23, 1982; ESZkBLISH PEDESTRIAN MALL, ETC. 19 APPROVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR ELIZABETH BUSH. 20 APPOINT OLGA CODINA TO THE ALLAPATTAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. 21 APPOINT INDIVIDUALS TO THE MIAMI AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY BOARD. 22 OPEN BUENA VISTA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PHASE I, H-4475. 23 ALLOCATE $1,300 AS CASH ASSISTANCE GRANT TO MIAMI JACKSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE "WASHINGTON CLOSE- UP PROGRAM" 24 CONSENT AGENDA 24.1 BID ACCEPTANCE: AMERICAN SEATING CO. FOR 1,000 STADIUM SEAT BACKS AND BOTTOMS. 24.2 BID ACCEPTANCE: J.B. FORBES PLUMBING AND HEATING FOR SHENANDOAH PARK SWIMMING POOL REPAIRS FILTERS. 24.3 DIRECT CKTY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTIO FOR POINT VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4309, BID. A. 24.4 BID ACCEPTANCE: S.I. NICHOLAS FOR THE MIAMI RIVERWALK PAGE # 2 IR�s�iorrOR I pa !p, ORD. 9392 FIRST READING FIRST READING R-82-250 R-82-251 R-82-252 R-82-253 R-82-254 R-82-255 R-82-256 R-82-257 R-82-258 R-82-259 R-82-260 R-82-261 1 33 1 34-35 1 36 1 37 1 37-38 38 39 1 39-40 1 40-41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 1 v 2 y m Nol I (P 6 Z) (REGULAR) SLBM MARCH 16, 1982 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.8 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORP. FOR TACOLCY CENTER EXPANSION ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF SUNSET ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR BELLE MEADE ISLAND BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS-1981. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF RUSSELL, INC. FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT, PHASE V- BID A. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF SUNSET ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR COCONUT GROVE MINI PARK. DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF ITEMS 45 AND 48. DISCUSSION OF PLAQUE COMMEMORATING FORMER CITY MANAGER MEL REESE. ESTABLISH SCHEDULE OF RENTS, RATES AND CHARGES FOR USE; OCCUPANCY AND SERVICES FOR CITY OF MIAMI NNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L.KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER. AMEND 9321 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SALARY AND OTHER COSTS DUE TO UNION -NEGOTIATED INCREASES. AMEND 9353 TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIRE TRAINING FACILITY AND CLOSE CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM; NOGUCHI EARTH SCULPTURE, CITY OF MIAMI/ UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER AND PARKING GARAGE, GOVERNMENT CENTER PARKING GARAGE, ETC. DEFERRAL OF ITEM 25 - COMMUNICATION PARTS AND OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE SERVICES. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH DEPT. OF OFF-STREET PARKING FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF CITY OF MLAMI/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER PARKING GARAGE. AMEND 9321 IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,847 TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF HIRING AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF BID ACCEPTANCE FOR 25 RENTAL AUTOMOBILES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. DISCUSSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE INSTRUCT CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDMENT TO ORD. 9382-SECTION 8(A) RELATING TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE CBD-2 DISTRICT. AMEND 6871-ARTICLE XI-2, (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE-R-CB DIST.) CONCERNING USE REGULATIONS, FAR, LOT COVERAGE, ETC. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY MIAMI RIVER, BRICKELL AVENUE, S.E. 8 STREET AND BISCAYNE BAY FROM RC-1 AND C-2 TO R-CB. PAGE 3 r PAS Wo MTUNIONV R-82-262 44 R-82-263 44 R-82-264 44 R-82-265 44 DISCUSSION 44-47 DISCUSSION 1 47 ORD. 9393 47-48 ORD 9394 1 49 ORD. 9395 50-51 DISCUSSION 52 R-82-266 53 ORD. 9396 54 1 DISCUSSION 55-57 DISCUSSION 57 M-82-267 1 57-62 ORD. 9397 ORD. 9398 1 62-80 80-81 0 - 0 �' r PACE c 4'0- fflff WfAF &DA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI$ FLORIDA * e * * * e * e On the 16 day of March, 1982, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session to continue consideration of those items not finished on March 11, 1982. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M., by Mayor Ferre with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner J. P. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Howard V. Gary, City Manager George F. Knox, City Attorney MAtty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk Robert E. Tingley, Administrative Aide ABSENT: Ralph G. Ongie, 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. RESCHEDULE REGUL0 COMMISEI074 MEETING OF APRIL C, 1982 To TAXE PLACE Oli APRIL 1, 19C2. Mayor Ferre: Good Afternoon, ladies 6 gentlemen. This is a continuation of the March llth formal City of Miami Commission meeting, Planning 6 Zoning Agenda. Are there any pocket items or issues that need to be brought before we get into the regular agenda? We have the decision to be made as to when we are going to have our April Commission meeting, because we have Passover and Good Friday and that creates a problem with the present date, and the question is, whether you want to accelerate it, or do you want it beyond April 6th. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I though we were talking about holding it possibly on April lot. Mr. Plummer: Well, April lot or 6th, that's what we talked about. Mayor Ferre: lst or 6th were the two days that we were talking about. Mr. Carollo: You recommended April lot, right, Mr. Manager? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: I think that would be a lot easier all around. Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable to you, Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Is that a Thursday? Yes, that is fine. MAR 16 198re Mayor Ferre: Alright, Commissioner Carollo moves that the April meeting be held April lot. Plummer seconds. Further discussion. Call the roll on a Change of the meeting date from April 8th to April let. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved Its adoptions RESOLUTION NO. 82-246 A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEET- ING OF APRIL 8, 1982 TO TARE PLACE ON APRIL 1, 1982 AT 9:00 A.M. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre i NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. AFTER ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: Now, the question of your review, Mr. Manager, should we do that in conjunction with April 1st, or should we do it on a separate day? Mr. Gary: Are you talking about the Zoning meeting? Mayor Ferre: No, I am talking about your annual review coming up. Mr. Gary: We had scheduled for April 1st. If you want another date,.that is fine with us. Mayor Ferre: I have no objections to it being April 1st. We are talking about the review of the !tanager. Mr. Carollo: That is fine, whenever. Is that convenient for you, Howard? Mr. Gary: Yes, air. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, did I... ? Mayor Ferre: Yes, the review of the Manager. April let. Okay, do we have anything else? Any other housekeeping items? 2. EXPRESS GRATITUDE TO DEPT. OF SOLID WASTE, DEPT. OF POLICE, THE KIWANIS CLUB, THE JAYCEES b OTHERS WHO HELPED TO MAKE THE CALLE OCHO FESTIVAL A SUCCESS, REQUEST APPROPRIATE PROCLAMATIONS. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just a very brief comment, if I may. I think that, you know, we are always very quick to criticize; we should be just as quick to praise. Mr. Mayor, I had the pleasure of attending the Calle Ocho Festival, as well as the rest, and I would like to express that I think that it was a tre- mendous, tremendous event, in which 500,000 people of all areas of our community could gather, have a tremendous day; we were blessed with good, typical Florida sunshine day. Even with the unfortunate incident that happened very shortly afterwards, I think Mr. Mayor, that we need to send to our people that worked so hard from within the City, namely, the Police Department and the Sanitation Department, who did an unbelievable job in representing this City in that festi- val. I want to tell you, Mr. Mayor, that immediately following, as I went to leave the festival, the Sanitation Department was already out cleaning the streets 02 MAR 161g62 the tollowing day, d$ i think it speaks well of City that we Marra that kind of capability do these kind of things, and the Cititeas of this comunity appreciate it. Likewise, I think that a special thanks Must go to the Kiwanis, who staged this event, who did more than Just say !,we are the head of this thing'. They actually got in there, and gave of themselves, and than did, and went a long way to monitor and keep dawn any problems that could or might arise. So, I would hope that this Commission would see fit to setid to these people that are involved a special thanks from this Commission for IOW - thing that I think that this community did well to have and send a message to the world that we would like to see. So, I would say to that, Mr. Mayor, whether it is in the form of 's motion, or how you want it, I would to move that this Commission go on record.... Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion and a second. I really think, Mr. Manager, we ought to really commemorate that by giving them a nice little plaque, rather than the traditional scroll, and I am talking about just the chairman of the various committees and the president of the of the J.C.'s. I mean, all of the people were intimately involved. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 62-247 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION CONVEYING A VOTE OF TEiAI•IKE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CALLE OCHO OPEN HOUSE CARNIVAL WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO THE CHAIRMEN OF THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES, ESPECIALLY TO THE KIWANIS CLUB AND THE JAYCEES; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE APPRECIATION PLAQUES IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE PRESENTED TO THE CHAIR- PERSONS OF THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. OVEFALL CITY-WIDE CCIT'ISSION POLICY "TAT ALL FU"'UnE B'JILnIIIG 3. PEP11ITS, ENCLUDII?G SIN17-LE FAP'_?LY Rr3IPEITCES, HILL BE S?JPJECT TO II -:.TACT FEES. PISCUSSICN OF CENTP.Al COIT_IET.CIAL C13D-2 (See label 3.1) Mayor Ferre: Alright, anything else? If not, we are on Item 55(a), which Is on second reading. The Chair recognizes you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I would like for Mr. Reid to explain this item. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reid. Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Joe McManus, Acting Director of the Planning Department. Mr. Mayor, this is a continued item from the previous Thursday. At that time I indicated to you that on the 3rd page of the agenda folder, there was a series of changes that were directed by this Commission, going from First Reading to Second Reading, specifically with regard to floor area ratio, the public community requirements, historic preservation, the zoned street widths of N. E. 15th Street, and again we had revisited the concept of the pedestrian connections that are shown the CBD-2 district and recommended to you that they stay substantially the some. Unless there are more questions from the Commission, that would conclude my remarks. Let me summarize, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. This afternoon, you are hearing a series of toning recommendations on Second Reading, which represent your policy with regard to the Brickell area, and with regard to Omni. I think that you ahould bear in mind that the toning recommendations contained in these ordinances convey to private property owners and developers substantial increases in in- tensity, that is, floor area ratio, so that, during discussion of these items, you will understand that there is some fine tuning going on here, but that basically the City's policy is for tiatantial growth in these areas. "i' t vo19Q[2. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, 1 will be speaking later, and I will abide by your thinking. I think, Mr. Mayor, somewhere along the line, we have to address and give some Indication to me, as to other members of this Commission - maybe you are aware, but I am not ... the kind of impact fees that we are going to be talking about for these developers. Marty Fine spoke to me before the meeting and I think he is taking a very fair approach, which I can live with. That basically, is an approach that says, "Fine, we understand that if we get the changes, that it will be stamped on our permit that it is subject to impact fees, with the proviso, of course, they are applied uniformly across the board, with the exception, of course, of single family residence and any primary homestead". Mr. Mayor, I have no idea at this point, as to what the depart- ments are possibly, conceivably talking about in dollars, in the way of impact fees. I am not asking them to give me $4,763.22, but I think, ballpark. Mr. Mayor, there is no question in my mind, that these developers, and rightfully so for the betterment of this community, stand today by virtue of the action that we possibly are going to take in approving this zoning. There is going to be enhancement to their area of financial resources, many, many fold, and there is nothing wrong with that - absolutely nothing wrong. But, in the same vein, the people of this community should not have to foot the bills for these de- velopers to develop. All I am saying is, that I think this Commission, as well as the public, need to know what in fact the realm and the possibilities of what impact fees are. Now, whether you want to discuss it now, or later in the meeting, I don't care, but before I vote, it is going to be discussed, and it is going to be applied, if I have my way to vote, so, I leave that up to you, sir. Mayor Ferre: There are three of us here, and obviously your vote and my vote and Joe's vote are all needed to get anything out of this session today, and I... Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, it is not my intent, in any way to hold matters up. Mayor Ferre: I understand Nobody is saying that you are. I think if you want to get into that, that is fine with me. I just want to say for openers, a couple of things. First of all, you know that impact fees are really not paid for by builders, because obviously, the builders are not going to absorb that, and they have to be passed on to the consumer. And I say this with all due respect to a lot of do-gooders that feel very strongly about...and it is a big, kind of a nebulous, theoretical feeling. I just came back from a luncheon with a group of citizens that work in one of our newspapers, and a lot of those fellows have a very strong feeling about the rape of the land,you know,and the builders, this kind of stuff, and the point is that is all very nice, but the fact is, that we don't live in utopian society, and this is a free country, and you don't expect for impact fees to be absorbed by the builder; they are just going to pass it on to the ultimate buyer. Now, Chairman Beech of the Broward County Commission told me on Sunday, when we met - you were there, J. L., on the question on the Sports Arena, that in her opinion, it was costing Broward Coun- ty $1500 per house. The consumer was paying $1500 per house for impact fees, so the consumer - the guy who is buying the house is paying that impact fee in Broward County. In their particular case, they raise about $5,000,000 a year on impact fees. It is just another form of taxation, and I just want to say that I have no problems with impact fees, but I look upon it a little bit differently than I think most other people. I look upon impact fees as just another consumer tax that is going to be paid for by the ultimate user. Now, whether we tax them through income tax, or whether we tax them through sales tax, or whether we tax them through real estate tax, or whatever you want to call it, it all comes out of the same pocket, you know, so when a family is think- ing about their budget, or when a corporation is thinking of their budget, you know, it is all dollars. A dollar bill doesn't have a name on it - "this is for impact fees, and this dollar bill is for real estate taxes and this is for documentary stamps". Doc stamps is another form of taxation, so I am for impact fees, but I think we have to understand what they are, and they are not a panacea. Now, you heard Commissioner Plummer, if fou want to start answer- ing, go ahead. ?lr.GeorQe Campbell: Mayor, members of the Commission, for the record, George Catup•. bell, representing Department of Public Works. We have somewhat looked into the concept of impact fees, and the realm that we are looking at is primarily in the infrastructure, that is, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and with the street pavement. You asked for dollars - it was 33C, not 32C - but in this area here, encompassed by this proposed CBD-2, we estimate at this point, and this is a very horseback estimate, approximately $1,000,000, eventually would ct 04 MAR 16190" Mr. Campbell: (con't) be required to upgrade the infrastructure. The impact fees, so called, as we see them, Would be a pro rata share, based on front foot of property along the street that would be improved which the developer would put up front. There would be a fund, or an account established to expend these funds on the street, for which we receive the money, not somewhere else in the City, but right there, so that it isn't that we are taking money from here'and going out in the west end of town and rebuilding streets. The streets, the sanitary sewers, and. the .etorrsewer improvements Mould all be rebuilding the Omni streets where thie money had been collected. That is it in nutshell. Mr. Plummer:. Question. Mr. Campbell: Yes, air. a Mr. Plummer: Would it be then, are your ideas for it to be established along a so rruct per front foot? Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Okay. The only question, you say you are in the neighborhood of $1,000,000 for that area delineated there. My question has to be, that this Commission passed, I think something in the neighborhood of $500,000 just for Omni alone. Yes, we did. Mr. Campbell: That is possible, yes. Mr. Plummer: Now, if it was just $500,000 for Omni, how could you conceivably take a total area and call it a $1,000,000? Mr. Campbell: As I remember that assignment of money for Omni, for the Omni area, included a rather major storm sewer redevelopment in there that was funded and then it was reimbursed, I think it was by the State, so that it wasn't, you know, a complete never -come -back expenditure. Yes, we funded the money for that, and then the State reimbursed us. Mr. Plummer: Okay. Mr. Campbell: Let me say also, you mentioned uniformity of application. This would be applied uniformly not just for CBD-2 area, but for other developments of this magnitude. Mayor Ferre: How do you define magnitude, $1,000,000, $100,000,000? What is this magnitude? Mr. Campbell: Well, the intensity of development. Mayor Ferre: Coral Way? Mr. Campbell: Brickell Avenue, along the CBD-2 and MXD, these are developments that are going in there that are greater than what is presently allowed so that this would put a strain, or pressure on the infrastructure that we woad not normally experience. •% ti Mayor Ferre: It seems awfully nebulous to me, this magnitude. Mr. Manager, I don't know what all that sand and gravel..is that our construction going on back there, but I mean, we seem to have problems.. Mr. Gary: That is the renovation of the Finance. I will try to get them to stop it until the meeting is over. It could be costly. Mayor Ferre: Okay.... Mr. Plummer: Well, my question has to be ... okay ... and I agree with Marty Fine. I don't agree that you delineate an area and you put an impact fee on that area. I think whatever your impact fees are, with the exception, as I said, of single family residents, and that which is a primary homestead have to be applied uniformly across the board, and I don't see how else you can do it; I really don't. It would seem like to me the only way you are going to be able to do it, is on a percentage basis whether it is a percentage of assessment it what formula you devise, that it has got to be uniform or it won't hold up in court. That is my opinion. 05 MAR 16 1982 Mr. Reid: Mr. Mayor, if I might, just in terms of a context for this discussion, Impact fees, as developers normally know them,have taken place in suburban juris- diction and have been for the purpose of recouping major public expenditures for adequate public facilities, including school sites, parks, roads and the like. The intent here, in the City of Miamif was much more focused and at a much smaller level in terms of initial conception - what we wanted to do, and basically the Idea is this: that there would be as a result of this development, sewer improve- ment, road improvements that are necessary to make the area work, the Omni area, and also probably subsequently in Brickell after analysis. And, normally, if the City paid for those developments, the abutting property owner would be charged a maximum of 25% of the improvement, if it was a road and the remainder would be paid, in effect,. by taxpayers of the City of Miami as a whole, and was really an attempt to find a way to shift that cost from the taxpayers of the City of Miami as a whole to the more immediate beneficiaries of the large increase in development authority that were generating this increased need for facilities. Mayor Ferre: That is why I am for it. Mr. Plummer: I am all for it. Well, when you say that it is the intent, I would have to ask you - whose intent? To my knowledge, Mr. Reid, this Com- mission has never spoke to impact fees. Mr. Reid: The intent in our recommendation to you is a matter of policy, which you would have to set, of course, in adopting the fees, and then if the intent of the Commission was different, we would follow that intent in the fees. Mr. Plummer: Okay, I just hope it is understood. Mayor Ferre: Alright, are there any other speakers on this issue. Do you want to reiterate your position.? As I recall, Mr. Fine on Item No. "e", you main concern was regarding the 80 ft. vs. the 70 ft. street. Is that "b"? Are there any other speakers on 55(a)? Okay, what is the will of the Commission? Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve. Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion on Second Reading for Item 55(a),Is there second? 11r. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. Mr. Percy: Mr. Mayor, before reading of the ordinance, at the last meeting on this particular item, Law Department recommended deletion of the reference to the Sears Tower. I want to make sure when the Commission is voting on this that that is the understanding, that the Sears Building has been deleted from this particular ordinance until such time as a public hearing and findings are made. Mayor Ferre: Are we talking about 55(a)? Is that in (a) or (b)? Well then, wait a minute; there are some people here that want to speak on that. Mr. Percy: I believe it is an (a). Page 13. Mayor Ferre: I know, now, I told some people that were here on the question of 55(a), on the Sears Building, that we would let,..... is it the Junior League or the Historic Preservation position? You represent the Historic, or the Junior League? The chair recognizes you if you want to make a statement. And let the record reflect that I have a statement here from Arthur King, Chairman of the Historic Sites and Landmarks Committee of the Black Archives and Arthur feels that in essence he recommends that the City Commission vote in favor of the public hearing for the Sear Building, separate and apart from the zoning aspects of it. Yes, Ma'am? Ms.Becky Matcove:Mayor Ferre, Commissioner, I am Becky Matcove,and I aw repre- senting the Junior League of Miami, which has 800 members who are active in Miami civic, cultural and business community. The Junior League of Miami has adopted an official position on historical preservation, which I have passed out to each of you. We believe that it is good business to preserve our past. We believe that interesting old buildings make a city landscape more memorable and attractive to tourists, more appealing for residents. A movie which was 06 MAR 16 1982 Ms. Matcove: (con-t) filmed in Miami, called The Champ, stsrrin$ Faye Dunna- way and John Boyd appeared on TV this past weekend. What places did the direc- tor choose to depict Miami? A hi -rise condo, a shopping center along Diytie't a strip of I-95? No. The shots were of Hialeah Race Track, with its floweri and flamingos and old buildings and Villa Viscaya. The old, historically interest- ~ ing structures give a city an identity, carve a niche in our minds. True, you Commissioners, and others, may not like the Sears Tower. And true, it is not Berkeley plantation. We are not in Virginia, or Boston, or San Francisco. Miami's history has been abbreviated, compacted, primarily into 20th century. So, that makes it even more important to preserve what is left of our early 20th century, so that our citizens will have some feeling of continuity, of community, of how we got where we are. You cannot build old. We urge 70'4,to give the Sears Tower, and all old historic buildings a (air chance to live. Give all, without exception, an honest, open, public hearing. You gentlemen have been entrusted with our heritage. You are the caretakers of our histori- cal heritage. Use your power with honor and intregity and remember, a genera- tion without history has no past, and no future. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: May I ask you a question? Ms. Matcove: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: You represent the Junior League, do you? Ms. Matcove: Yes. Mayor Ferre: This structure that you are very concerned about, as I recall was built in 1929, is that correct? Ms. Matcove: Yes, that is early art deco, right. Mayor Ferre: And, of course, as you said, it is part of our heritage. Perhaps that is not part of my heritage, or yours, but it is part of the community's heritage. There was also a hearing to preserve Booker T. Washington High School. Were you there? Ms. Matcove: I'm not sure when that took place; I may not have lived here then. Mayor Ferre: Last week. It has been in all the papers. It has been a major issue for the Black community. It is not our heritage, yours or mine; it is their heritage, but it is part of our community heritage. That was built 'in 1926, three years before the Sears Tower. Did the Junior League take interest in that particular building, also, of our heritage? Ms. Matcove: We were not informed of that, no sir. Mayor Ferre: It has been in the newspapers. It has been in the television cameras; it has been on radio. I saw it; that is how I knew about it. I saw it, so I would just like to make a little editorial comment. There is a little favorite saying of mine that somebody by the name of Demosthenes said 2500 years ago. He said "A just society is one in which those that are not affected are as concerned as those that are affected". I would feel a lot better about the Junior League's presentation before this body if you were equal in your con- cern for the preservation of Booker T. Washington High School as you seem to be about the Sears Tower. Ms. Matcove: Well sir, we would be delighted if you will keep us informed, and we will be there. Mayor Ferre: I have nothing to do with it. You seem to have been informed about this meeting today. Ms. Matcove: Well, this has received great coverage around this neighborhood. Mayor Ferre: And so has the saving of Booker T. Washington High School! Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, we are under discussion? Mayor Ferre: That is right. 07 MAR 16 1982 Mr. Plummer: Two things. My seconding of the motion did not include the change of the Law Department, which is not incompressed presently in the motion. Mayor Ferre: The what? The Law Department? Mr. Plummer: The insertion... Mr. Percy: Page 13 that I just handed to the Commission deletes the reference of the Sears Tower and it also includes a definition of economic hardship. Some discussion and debate ensued at the last meeting around this. Mr. Plummer: Second of all, Mr. Mayor, I would want incorporated by the Law Department, on, I think it applies to all of these ordinances, the wording necessary, that it is understood that this is being passed and all subject properties that are being upgraded, are fully understood that they are subject to impact fees at the time that it is determined by this Commission, and I want that incorporated before a vote is taken; I think it is only fair. Now, whatever wording that is, I think it is absolutely necessary to be put in there. Mr. Mayor, have you had the opportunity to look at this Page 13? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me tell you what I think is fair. As you know,_ I have been a long and a strong advocate, and will continue that the right of ownership of a piece of property is a man's right. A man pays his good money for that property and to within certain good bounds, has the right to do with that property as he sees fit, as long as he complies with the reasonable laws enacted. I am very much opposed to taking away that right of free enterprise, which I feel that a man now has to come before this Commission and justify that right. I will not take that away from an individual, his right to the right of ownership of property. I feel very strongly. Now, if you read this thing here, let me tell you where I am at so you will know, sir. And I will read what I am agreeable to. "Section 8, Historic Preservation A. No demoli- tion permit shall be issued by the Building Department for any structure of major significance in local history, or architectural history as determined by the Dade County Historic Survey, unless the City Commission has first approved _ such demolition permit following a public hearing." I will not, Mr. Mayor, incorporate the rest of the language and vote for it. It is then left to the complete wisdom of this Commission to make its decision as to what is signifi- cant and what is not. I think that is what this Commission was elected to do, and to take that right away from us is not in keeping, and I strongly, strongly, feel the right of an individual with his property to do as he sees fit. Mayor Ferre: Alright, I will tell you; we have a problem on this, because we have one vote, the three of us doesn't agree, and I don't know how Joe feels. I disagree with Plummer. I think that the second paragraph puts teeth into it, otherwise, what you are really saying is a very vague statement, which doesn't get to the essence of it, unless you say what the purpose of the public hearing is, and what you are in effect dealing with is something..... and I am not a lawyer, then we have had some problems about vagueness and constitutional questions, and it seems to me, if you put a period after the word "public hearing" and cross out the definition of the purpose of a public hearing, in effect you are really leaving something very vague. Now, I also believe in the right of private property; that is what this country is founded on. But also, I think that there has to be a public right, and there nas to be a trusteeship in certain things; in other words, if I own a property where there is a historic building, the building belongs to me as the property owners, but it also belongs to the community in a sense that it is a heritage of the community. Now, it belongs more to me than it does to the community, because I have fee simple to the property and I have a right to tear that building down if I want to, but I think there has to be a process that must be followed. Now, what this says is, that in the public hearing, we are teinsure that that structure of major historical significance is preserved for the health, pros- perity and education and welfare of the people, unless an undue economic hard- ship would result, which destroys all reasonable and beneficial use of the property! Now, I think it would become obvious that the Sears people, or whoever else would be discussing this would have to show us that there is an economic hardship. I personally don'tl think that is such a hard thing to do on a piece of property of that magnitude and that importance. Sure, it is an extra burden. 08 MAR 1 19�' V Mayor Ferre: (con't) We went through this with the tree ordinance, you lft w7 And, it is the saw theory. There are not that many big trees it Miami. `�f,.Y�"' have a property and I am going to put up a building, I have got to.•say that l e going to chop down that tree, and then there is a process. I want to see what "••�,. �'� tree in Miami that needed chopping to put up one of these buildings, likit an Brickell Avenue that hasn't been chopped! They have all been chopped, but 1;' think that those of you that have been through the process have got to agree that we have saved a lot of those trees too, because of that. And now,.,if out of i hundred trees we can save five, I think it is well worth having the long harangue that people have to go through. A lot of these builders have beta forced to move these trees from Brickell Forest to Brickell this, or Brickell that, and put'it in the middle median strip or put it over in one of outi,public properties and we saved some very substantial and important trees for our com- munity. That is part of the beauty of this community. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, so J. L., I respect... Mr. Plummer: I have no problem, if what you wish to do is setting standards in that second paragraph, but not incorporated as part of the motion. Now, if you want to call that the standards for the historic preservation, I have no problem, because it is merely then left in the hands of this Commission. Mr. Mayor, everyone looks at these things differently. What is an economic hard- ship? Mayor Ferre: That is for the Commission to determine. Mr. Carollo: Yes, but Maurice, what happens if this Commission decides and determines one way, then in the meantime. You have such an ordinance like this, and what happens if someone decides to challenge it, if they don't feel that the reason that was given was valid enough and if this Commission is wrong, and we are taken to court, then we are going to back again to point 1, like we have for many other things, if the judge rules against the City. Mayor Ferre: Well, we always take that chance with everything we do anyway. I mean, we are always taking a chance. That is not to say that we shouldn't try to uphold. Look, if we are able to save one building, it is worth the effort. Maybe we won't be able to..you know, there will be ninety-nine that we won't save, but if there is one building that will be saved, then it is worth the effort, and I don't think that it is such an onerous thing that these developers cannot live with this for those particular properties that we are talking about. How many are we talking about - 100? 50? Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, I think their original list that they came forth with, of historic sites was in excess of fifty. Now, they came forth for'purposes of getting a motion and an ordinance passed with buildings of convenience, such as publicly held properties of Jackson Hospital, Jesuit Church, not privately owned properties. Mayor Ferre: Don't we have an ordinance already in existence on historical preservation? But, it is for public properties, right? Joyce Meyers: The interim ordinance applied to the properties that are on the National Register, and the interim ordinance was limited in scope. Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that at all. I voted for it eventually, after I got it worded around. Look. May I ask of you please - if this was instigated, this wording here, in your estimation, how long could this hold the developer up? Ms. Meyers: For however long it takes you to schedule and hold a public hear- ing. Mr. Plummer: Is it only before the City Commission is proposed? Ms. Meyers: Yes. Mr. Plummer: It is not before the Zoning Board, or the Environmental, or the Economic, or any other board? Ms. Meyers: No. Mr. Plummer: So, what you are saying is, within a 30 day period. Ms. Meyers: Yes. 09 MAR 16 1982 V Mayor Ferre: well, I will tell you, furthermore...let me speak specifically to the Sears tract. Now, I don't, and this is just a personal opinion, I think it is an ugly building, and I would not be distressed to see it memorialized iti photographs. Mr. Plummer: Before and after. Mayor Ferre: Before and after. However, I do understand that that is a particularly important symbol of our history, and that a lot of people are concerned about it. If, however, I have to choose between Sears moving out of downtown, if that is possible and probable, and a major $200,000,000 shop- ping center in that particular area that would give to this City, what, $2,000,000 worth of taxes a year, am I right in my figures? Yes, $2,000,000 worth of taxes a year, and increase the well-being and the fiber of that por- tion of the community, then I must honestly tell you that I would choose for the development of that property, if those are the choices that I have to make. Now, if George Washington's house were there, and this were Mt. Vernon, or if this was the Boston Commons, and we had Paul Revere's house in Concord, or if it were a beautiful structure, then I think I would have more hesitation. I know that beauty has nothing to do with history, but I think that all of these things have to be weighed, and I just want to tell you that you are not going to count on my vote to save the Sears Tower, and I have said this publicly time and time again. Now, that is not what is before us at this point. What is before us at this point is whether or not we should have a public hearing to permit all of the people in this community who want to come and speak about the Sears Tower and whether they have a right to do that, and I have no problems with that, provided however, that I don't want this as a Sword of Damocles hanging over the Cadillac -Fairview and Sears people, and so if we indeed, leave that in, then I would insist that we have that public hearing immediately; not wait for the requested permit for demolition, but to have it within the next 30 days, so that we can get this on the record, and let everybody have their say, and then we state our position, whatever the majority of this Commission wishes to do. Yes, Mrs. Parks. Mrs. Arva Parks: I am very pleased, first of all, to see this understanding of what we have really been trying to say. I sense this generally that the people who have been interested in this from the beginning are really interested in having a fair hearing for this property and the other property. I'm a little concerned that we have been confronted with a lot of threats from people, like, "If I don't get my way, I am going to take my ball and go home". As a Miamian, that offends me. I think that the fairness issue is something that I am very impressed with everyone. On then other hand, there is one other question that I think needs just to be thrown out for thoughts. Why is it important for the City of Miami to stop and consider this preservation ordinance in the middle of CBD-2 ordinance? The Commission itself asked for public amenities. Now, this is in response, and I think this is...we were very pleased; it is interesting that the people concerned about this did not ram this into anything. We were very pleased at this rsponse that came from the Commission - the plazas, and the see -through corridors and all of these other things. Everyone accepts those public amenities and they give no economic benefit to developers other than making their property more aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand, the preservation of an old building, if they chose to reuse it - no one has ever said use every foot - if they choose to reuse it, it has economic benefits for them. There are statistics that say that reconstruction or restoration of a building is less expensive than starting from scratch. There are statistics that show that the Federal Government, right this second, if you reuse, your historic buildings, you get a 25% income tax credit. That is real money. That is the first issue. The second issue is why is historic preservation even considered a public amenity? Because you can read history, you can recreate it in film, but there is only one place in all of our society where you can really see it, and that is architecturally. Every generation leaves a piece of him- self through their architecture. That is really the only way that you can do it, where someone can see. A sense of history is a sense of place, and a sense of place is a sense of community. I have to answer the question that was raised about the Booker T. Tower. I want to point out to you what has happened here today.. Mr. Plummer: Not tower. Mrs. Parks: In the..tower...I've got tower on the brain, Booker T . High School. I think what you don't know is that the history of Miami has pulled this commun- ity together the diverse elements of this community together more -than any �0 MkR161982 r Mrs. Parks: (con't) other single thing. There has already been a bi-racial committee before the School Board, trying to save Carver. Perhaps you are hot aware of that, because Carver was threatened greater than Booker T. The Booker T. issue, this was a discussion on the use of a building, not a demolition of the building. Here today the Black Archives have come, because they support a community issue. It is a place; it is a place that belongs to all of us, not the Sears Tower, but the whole theory of places. I think this was no better pointed out than at Calle Ocho, which has been one of the better things that happened to this community. I happen to have been born in Little Havana. It wasn't Little Havana, and when I walked down 8th Street during Calle Ochoo I had something in common with every person that lives there now. I used to spend every Saturday morning at the Tower Theatre, and I know some other people that did too, and when I ate at the Garden Restaurant, I go there now to Centro _ Vasco and I am right back - I am surrounded by wonderful childhood'.memories and every person I meet that lives there now, we can sit down and talk about a place that we have in common. I hate to say this about Miami High School, since I went to Edison; anyone that is around here from the old days knows that is a terrible rival, but I went to the 75th anniversary of Miami High School, be- cause I happened to be married to someone from there, and I saw the whole his- tory of Miami in that building. I saw old timers, and we know that building has changed; the people in that building has changed. There was nothing but happiness that night; they were singing "Go, Stingerees" and everyone felt good when they left, because they had that building in common. I understand the feeling of private property; I really do understand that. All I am point- ing out, is when someone has that issue, is that we give trees a better shake, right now, the City of Miami, just as the Mayor says, then we do a building.. As lovely as a fifty year old tree can be, it is kind of hard to tell one from _ the other. If we wait fifty years, we will get another fifty year old tree. On a building, the people that built that building can never build it again, for the most part, on an old building. It is a common ground; we have proof of that. There are a lot of people here; if you don't agree with me, take your money from me and button up for five seconds, but there are a lot of people here today that came out - I want you to see the diversity, and I hate to quote myself, but in the beginning of the book Miami, The Magic City, my whole point in the whole book and the point that was in the introduction, is - the City belongs to all of us. It is our common ground. I think we demonstrated today that in this audience we have pulled people from all over Miami to stand up for Miami, because this is an issue, more than anything _ else, of people coming in from out of town and saying "I don't want to stop and listen to you, I want a clear site". Everybody would love to have a clear site. It is a lot easier to plan something on a clear site, then it is to consider a building or a tree or anything like that. What we are saying is, stop and consider what is sitting on your site, and try ... I don't have to tell you that if we don't require people to stop and consider, some people will, but most of them will not, and that is our whole point, so I think I have made enough of that. May I say just one more thing? Let me tell you what we really want. I am going to lay it all out. What we think will happen if this ordinance passes, and I think the economic thing that is in there is in there because it is lifted right out of the Supreme Court decision •... that upheld the right of a city to question this. The economic hardship takes you off the hook to a certain amount, because it gives you something to deal with, but you know what is going to happen 99% of the time before there is o• _ ever a public hearing? A developer will sit down with interested people in the community and they will have it all worked out. They will say "Okay, we will - save a building sometime; we will save a front door, a tower, or maybe we will only save a feature, or a piece of architectural style." That is what we hopd will happen. If we are unreasonable, then you all are the ones that decide. Thank Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Alva, I think this is all fine, but in the interest of time, I don't you are going to get the votes here, and I will be happy to put it to C a test, and ask, or I will move Item 8(a) on Page 13. Mr. Plummer: There is a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: I am sorry. What is the motion? Mr. Percy: The motion was to adopt the ordinance as included in your packet, Mr. Mayor, and I suggested that we adopt that motion as amended with the new Page 13, deleting the reference to Sears and expanding the notion ob economic hardship. 'II MAR 161982 s • Mayor Ferre: Okay, yell, I'll tell you. We do have a lotion then, that ib expressed... Ms. Parks: Mr. Mayor, can we request that he wait for the fourth Commis- sioner; I understand he is on his way. Mayor Ferre: Well, I'll tell you. -.I think this is an important issue, Marty, I know that and out of courtesy to them, I would extend the same courtesy to any of the property owners, so I think if they want to wait until....but I don't want you to tell me when the fourth Commissioner arrives that you want to wait until the fifth Commissioner arrives, because... Ms. Parks: I'd like to, but I won't. Mr. Plummer: That is what I am agreeable to. Okay, here is where I am now; this is what I am agreeable to. Mayor Ferre: But there is just no ending to all of this. We have got to get on with it. Now, I tell you; what I would like to do is vote on the other issues and leave that one pending until we have the fourth person, so.. Mr. Percy: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: Wait a moment, please. Alright. If the maker of the motion _. would delete Paragraph 8 in its entirety and we will deal with that as a separate issue when Demetrio Perez comes here and we can then vote the rest of it except for this. Is that acceptable to you? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Alright, do you have a problem with that, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: Let me look, Mr. Mayor. I don't think so. No, sir. Mr. Percy: Just taking 8 out - the whole paragraph. Mr. Plummer: We have got 8 in here. Mayor Ferre: All you are doing is, you are passing the motion except for Section 8, and then we will vote on Section 8 separately when Demetrio Perez arrives, in the meantime we will go on to the other issues. Demetrio should be here in an hour, or maybe two. He told me it would be 5 o'clock before he could make it, Arva. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor... Robert Traurig: Will I have a chance to address the Commission before you vote on Item 8, I mean on Paragraph 8? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Excuse me, but what I would like to do now is, see if the maker of the motion, which I think was you, Joe - is that acceptable to you? Mr. Carollo: Yes, that is acceptable. Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable to you, J. L? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, as it relates to Section 8, it is acceptable. I still want... Mayor Ferre: Okay, wait. Just so that we have the record straight, the motion, therefore on the floor is, the moving of this ordinance, with the exception of the full Paragraph 8 on Page 13. Okay? Go ahead, J. L. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I still want, before I vote on this one, or any other, the wording, whether it is in a separate motion, or attached to this motion - I think it would be better that way, but the Legal Department neces- sarily doesn't - the wording about impact fees. I want it there. I want these people to know - yes, we are going to give you that upgrading, but we want you also to know at that time - and I am talking about some wording with teeth - that if we grant them a permit and we level impact fees and they don't agree to pay it as outlined in the ordinance, then we can stop construction. 1.2 MICR 161982 Mr. Plummer: (con't) I don't want this business '"Well, we will argue about It in court. We don't think they are reasonable". I want that understood now, right up front. ` Mayor Ferro: Mr. line, are you going to speak to the subject? okay. Martin Dine: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, for a substantial part of this application we have been involved in meeting for one year. Now, the impact fee ordinance wasn't a proposed one - wasn't advertised today. 1 would suggest, Mr. Plummex, that what you might do in a separate ordinance, pardon s me, a separate resolution, or whatever Mr. Percy wants it to say :hat it is your intention that the City adopt an impact fee ordinance and ask your depart- ment to come back with pne and bring it to you. In the interim, if you want to protect yourself and give the City the protection that you seek, rou might say that they can stamp all building permits throughout the City, not just in this area - throughout the City, some evidence that the City is considering an impact fee. But there is, in my opinion, no legal way for you to put it in this ordi- nance, and if you begin the process of not passing the ordinance until you have an impact fee ordinance, then you'll just stop development in all of Dade Zounty, alp of Miami, in my opinion. Mr. Plummer: Well, Marty, you and I are not.too far apart, but we are apart. Okay? All I am saying to you, is, I am getting it up front, not as much as I want, because I would have preferred, had this thing been in proper proce- dure, that the impact fee would be passed first. First. Not hold you up, but pass that impact fee. Then, when you get your approval for upgrading of your property, you would know at that time that it is already in place - here is what you are going to have to pay. Mr. Fine: Mr. Plummer.... Mr. Plummer: Now, unfortunately, it is not that way, and I don't want to hold you up. Mr. Fine: I appreciate that, and I would beg you not to single this area out and to say, when you say "your property", you mean the entire City.' You are talking about Brickell and all those fancy buildings people want to talk... Mr. Plummer: With the exception of single family residences and primary homesteads. Mr. Fine: That is fine. Mayor Ferre: Well, if it is acceptable to you then, I will recognize you for that purpose, Plummer. Once we pass this, and you make a motion instructing the Law Department to come back with an ordinance specifically dealing with all future construction that it will have stamped on the face of it, a state- ment that we are studying an impact fee and that this will be something that will be forthcoming. Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, I apologize. I neglected to mention one thing - I think there was an omission of a word on Page 8 which deals.... Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, please. You are jumping to something else and we haven't finished with this other subject. So, I will recognize you in a moment, but right now we are still on the subject of iapact fees, and I am asking the Commissioner if that is acceptable to him to proceed the way you recommended. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, anything is acceptable to me, as long as we collect the money from the people who are benefiting. That is where I am at. Now, Mr. Attorney, you tell me where this Commission, or this City - where are we If we pass all of these ordinances today, with the wording; that says that we are going to consider, and you might have it in the future. I don't think that is strong enough. Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Attorney, the Commission is looking to you for guidance. Mr. Percy: Mr. Mayor, the Commission desires regarding stamping the building permits can be handled by a separate motion, or we can come back with a separate ordinance making it uniform and City-wide. Mr. Fine was correct in teat 13 MAR 161982 Mr. Percy: (con't) this ordinance cannot be so amended to include the refer- enced impact fees and we would suggest that you adopt it as is and we will come back with the appropriate legislation to satisfy the Commission's concern. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Percy, let me tell you something, sir. This Commission, you say, and rightfully so, should not hold up these ordinances and cannot stake this grant. Sir, this Commission doesn't have to pass them, either. Now, I am just telling you where I am at. Mayor Fevre: Well, I don't understand where you are at, so why... Mr. Plummer: Well, let me reiterate for you, sir... Mayor Ferre: Now, I just...very simple, J. L., do you want to insert it in this, or do you want to make it as a separate... Mr. Plummer: Alright, they are telling me now, do that motion to impact fees first. Give me the wording. Mayor Ferre: Alright, do you want to withdraw your motion? We have a motion on the floor. He withdraws..the second ... now we have no motion. Now, make your motion, Plummer. Mr. Plummer: No, I asked for... Mr. Percy: All right, as a condition of considering the proposed ordinances, the Commission would instruct the Law Department in conjunction with the building Dept. to stamp all building permits - future building permits with the notation ti,at those... Mayor Ferre: Other than single family... Mr. Plummer: Single family and primary residence. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mr. Mercy: That the public is notified that those properties, with exceptions as stated :night be subject to an impact fee ordinance. Mr. Plummer: And you feel that that would hold up in court? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: I so move you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion. Under discussion Mr. Fine: If I might suggest Mr. Percy, I think you oughi to eliminate the first sentnece. It has nothing to do with these ordinances. What you are really saying is an overall City-wide policy. Mr. Percy: There is going to be two votes, Mr. Fine. Correct. It is going to be two votes. Mr. Plummer: Two votes? Mr Fine: Your motion now, it seems to me, has nothing to do with these ordi- nances. What you are trying to do is adopt an overall City-wide policy that says you are going to have impact fees. Mr. Plummer: That is right. Mr. Fine: He started out by saying something about these two ordinances. Mayor Ferre: Marty, leave well enough alone, because..let me tell you why. Plummer is saying that he doesn't want to vote on this unless you insert that into this ordinance. Now you said, do it separately. Now, to satisfy Plummer we have done it separately. This is only a motion. By the time we get MAR 1619" Mayor Fevre: (con't) back to discussing it, I think we will have ale time to discuss that You convince Plummer that it doesn't SAke says sense to do it that way and if he wants to change it, he can change it. Vs' doing to Vote with him, you have my commitment to mote with you in the wow$ that you choose because I recognize parts of this. 5o I will go in with Y"., in any way you decide, but I think you have time and I think it's in the Inteest Of everybody to get this thing going now, O.K.? Mr. Plummer: Agreed. Mayor Ferre: All right, we have a motion on the floor. The motion has been read, and has been seconded, further discussion-- ; Mr. Carollo: Yes, Maurice, I seconded the motion and I agree with the main part of what J.L. is trying to do, but what I don't agree with is that while we are putting the burden on these people here, we're really letting off the hook a lot of other people in this town on the impact fees. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no... citywide. But Joe, everything but single family residents and primary homestead, everyone else from this day forward, or when this is adopted, will have their permits stamped. Mayor Ferre: That's why he is doing it this way. Mr. Carollo: O.K., so the way that we're going to be doing it is not how it's been discussed before; we're going to apply city-wide so everybody pays. Mr. Plummer: That's right, yes, sir, fair for all. Mr. Carollo: O.K., that's acceptable. Mayor Ferre: O.R.? Further discussion? If you have any problems with it, this will be comming back in a formal way, this is just a motion now. This will be comming as an Ordinance, is it? Terry? Mr. Percy: An Ordinance or a Resolution, we will research it and come back with the proper legislation. Mr. Plummer: At the next meeting? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION No. 82-248 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION STATING ITS OVERALL CITY-WIDE POLICY THAT, IN CONNECTION WITH ALL FUTURE BUILDING PERMITS TO BE ISSUED, THE CITY OF MIAMI TAW DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED TO PREPARE ALL APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION IN ORDER THAT THE PUBLIC MAY BE AWARE AND INFORMED THAT ALL FUTURE BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND PRIMARY HOMESTEAD, SHALL BE STAMPED WITH A LEGEND THAT WILL INFORM THE OWNER OF THE PERMIT THAT HIS PROPERTY MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO AN OVERALL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 15 MAR 1 61982 Al, -'END 6871, AFT. XV-1 CENTRAL COITEF.CIAL CAD-2 DISTRICT. (PURPOSE, LIMITATIONS ON USES, FnOYT AND SIDE STrEET SET BAC-.. YAU- S, Y-1m?UN 3.1 DISTAYCE BET14EE14 BUILDINGS, PUBLIC t'T:VTTY nEO1JIRF2-EVTS, ETC. Mayor Ferre: Now we're ready to make a Motion on 55-a. Mr. Plummer: Deleting number eight. Mr. Percy: Section S. Mayor Ferre: Deleting Section 8, is there such a motion? Mr. Carollo: Move. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion -- Mr. Fine : Mr. Mayor, one little item on page 8, I think your Planning staff will tell you that on 4 paragraph A, where it says: "On Biscayne Boulevard, 15th Street" they neglected to put the word "or 15th Street." Mr. Plummer: Page 8, Marty? Mr. Fine: Page 8 of the Ordinance. Mayor Ferre: 4-A. Mr. Fine: 4-A, which appears on page 8, so that it will read: itshallhave frontage directly on Biscayne Boulevard, or N.E. 15th Street or Flagler Street.* Mayor Ferre: All right, will the maker of the Motion accept the addition of the word on page 8, section 4, subparagraph A, third line, after the word Boulevard, add the word "or." Mr. Plummer: Question to the Law Department. Mayor Ferre: No wait, wait. Do you accept that? Plummer, do you accept that? Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Question to the Law Department. We in fact are deferring Section 8, we are not deleting. Mayor Ferre: Deferring for further action when we have the fourth member of the Commission here. Mr. Plummer: Okay. Mr. Percy: Correct. Mayor Ferre: Now, when we adopt it, should we adopt it at that time, then it will become part and parcell of this Ordinance on Second heading, is that correct, Mr. Percy: You could ammend that Ordinance before the effective date, since that subject matter has been published and noticed, we think that would be... in order. Mr. Plummer: We have thirty days. Mayor Ferre: Okay, further discussion-- all right, as a=ended and with the temporary deletion of Section 8, call the roll. 16 MAR 161982 AN ORDINANCE SNTInS 0 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 110. 68710 AS AMENDEDs THE COMPREHENSIVE ZgNING ORDINANCE 101 THE CITY OP MIAMI, ARTICLE IV -I, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CID-2 DISTRICT SY A. DELETING SECTION I. CONCERNING PURPOSE AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SECTION 1; 2- AMENDING SECTION 3 CONCERNING LIMITATIONS 019 USES BY DELETING PARAGRAPH (1) AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEU PARAGRAPH (1); C. AMENDING SECTION S, CONCERNING FRONT AND SIDE STREET SET BACK YARDS AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS BY DELETING PARA— GRAPHS (1) AND (2) AND SUBSTITUTING A NEW PARAGRAPH (1); C. AMENDING SECTION 5 CONCERNING YARDS AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS BY RENUMBERING PARAGRAPH (3) AND (4); D. AMENDING SECTION 7 FLOOR AREA RATIO BY AMENDING ITEM (a) AND DELETING ITEM (d) OF PARAGRAPH (1); E. ADDING A NEW SECTION 9 CONCERNING PUBLIC AMENITY REQUIREMENT; AND BY RE- PEALING 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 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 15, 1981 On Ordinance was ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9382 _ 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. 4. A__EFD 6871, ART. XXV, BASE BUILDING LINES, CBD-2 DIST.; REQUEST DEPARTMENT TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO COMPENSATING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO LOSE LAND DUE TO A CHANGE IN THE BASE BUILDING LINE. Mayor Ferre: Now we're on 55-b. Now, Marty explain to nee... I'm sorry, who represents Mr. Rollo on this? Explain to me the basic issue again about why the width of the street is a problem. Mr. Stanley B. Price:All right, Mr. Mayor,members of the Commission,my name is Stanley B. Price. I'm a partner of Fine, Jacobson, Block. Basically the point that we have made is that N.E. 15th Street, the Southeast corner of N.E. 15th Street, which is Mr. Rollo's property is the only corner of that intersection in which there does not exist a building which is subject to a long term lease going past a year 2030, that is not built to the base building line. Therefore, it would be a physical impossibility to require some type of dedication from Jordan Marsh which is on the Northeast corner, Jeffersons, which is on the Northwest corner, and the 1440 building, which is on the Southwest corner of that intersection. The professional... Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, the question is that we dedicate how many feet? Mr. Price: Well, it would require under the proposed Ordinance an additional ten feet on the Street sight -of -way. The only one who would have any ability to do that would be my client, Southeast Property. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, when it says ten feet it would be from both sides, so from your side, it would be five feet. i Ur_ Dr,*.+a* rtM„* 41k pfrar_ awenaa tee. it would be J�i feet additional on our side. Right now the dedicated right -of -nay is sixty feet, the staff is proposing that it go to eighty feet. The staff recommendations and Mr. Cather told you at the last meeting is that it should be thirty-five feet, so it would be an additional requirement of ten feet on that roadway. Mayor Ferre: Thirty-five feet, therefore it's ten, I don't follow that. Mr. Price: All right, excuse me. Right now the width of the street is sixty feet. Mayor Ferree Sixty feet, they're recommending eighty. _ Mr. Price: Staff recommendation is seventy. Mr. Paul at the last meeting said it really should go to eighty feet, and that was not based on any study, that was Mr. Paul's personal feeling. Based upon that, the Commission ordered the staff to change the Ordinance to eighty rather than the seventy that was recommended. we're asking that the Commission accept staff recommendations to go to seventy feet which is ten more than presently dedicated for that roadway. Mayor Ferre: Okay, let's hear from the staff as to why sixty, seventy, or eighty feet are important and so on. Mr. George Campbell: Well, when we started going over the street widths in this area, we looked at them from the standpoint of developing something more than a narrow canyon. Some of the streets were zoned for fifty feet, I believe 12th Street, which is included in the Ordinance; a portion of 13th Street, 15th Terrace, 16th Street were zoned fifty feet. N.E. 15th Street was zoned sixty feet, and of course 14th Street is zoned for seventy feet; and in looking at this we decided that a uniform minimum zoning of seventy feet for these streets because of the intensity of development, the increase in traffic, the increase in pedestrian... Mayor Ferre: But that's a major causeway going to Miami Beach. It isn't like every other street. Mr. Campbell: That's correct. East of Omni, the street width I believe is about one hundred feet, and then...' Mayor Ferre: Precisely, precisely. Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir. And then between Bayshore Drive and Biscayne Boulevard it's zoned sixty feet and I believe it's developed at least at that width and I'm quite sure that Jordan Marsh is set back about five feet beyond the base building line. Mr. Plummer: That's on the Boulevard side. Mr. Campbell: No, sir, on the 15th Street side, I believer and as I remember, the same thing is true about Jeffersons, there is a little set back on the northerly side. Mayor Ferre: Well, I tell you, I'm not as much worried on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard as I am on the east side from the causeway from the Miami Herald Building to Biscayne Boulevard, which is the area that I personally think that any feet that we can get to widen that is ... and you know, as far as I'm concerned on the property that Ted has, I don't mind giving him the benefit, from an FAR point of view, as if it were, what he has not, because that's only fair, why should we penalize him? So, now he's going to have to go a little bit higher. In other words, what I'm saying is if we take, we have to giver and I think what we give is give a little more FAR based on the property as he has it now. But on the other hand, I do think that both Ted Hollo and all the property owners there would be best served if we could widen that, if we could widen it a foot, you know, it's well worth doing it. It's too bad we can't go a hundred feet, like the rest of that street, but there's no way you can do that without wiping out the property. Mr. Plummer: What are you recommending? Mr. Campbell: May I add something to that, we would recommend the eighty feet. The seventy feet was given to the... im MAR 161982 6 11 Mayor Ferre: I thought you said seventy feet, Mr. Price. Mr. Campbell: Well originally we recommended the seventy feet, sir, but the Commission then, as I remember... . Mayor Ferre: Forget the Commission, What's your recommendation? Mr. Campbell: Well, let me go back to the discussion. Because of the DCM extention coming in there, and the fact that there is presently contemplated a station by the corner there at Bayshore and 15th Street, that would take about ten feet, which would be one traffic lane, and so, in order to compensate for that, the additional eighty feet was brought in. Mayor Ferre: Well, look... Mr.Campbell: I mean the additional ten feet. Mayor Ferre: My possition on that, I just wanted to tell Joe, I just want to tell you and J.L., that area there is such a congested area and is going to be such an important part of the downtown, and the weak point of the width of these streets, I wish we could do this all over Miami, but we can't; but this is one -area where we have an opportunity to do that. Now, I frankly don't think that the property owners, including Ted Hollo, are that hurt if we give them the FAR to compensate so that they can build the same amount of... but I think the wider we can make that street because of the People Mover coming through there, because of the tremendous projects which are going to be built with a very elevated FAR, the more we can give in street space, I think the better off we are going to be, especially if we don't penalize the property owner. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I can understand that, and I wouldn't be against it. You know the only problem that I have? Why do we have staff, staff that is paid so well, and they come one day giving one opinion ands overnight because some little guy here comes and yells, in this case Dan Paul, they panic right away; he says eighty feet, eighty feet. I think you gentlemen are intelligent enough, qualified enough to come to those conclusions without getting some outsider from Miami Beach to come here and tell you that's what you have to do. That's insulting to me. That tells me that my people from the City of Miami aren't doing their job. Mayor Ferre: Well I think that, I can't help but tell you that that's a valid comment. I mean if you feel strongly about eighty feet, why didn't you come up with it before? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I mean that, Mr. Manager, the comment, I mean, that's obvious. I mean if eighty feet is so good, then why didn't we come with that in the begining? I mean why do we depend on somebody from the outside coming in here to tell us that we should go another ten feet, I mean that is something that really ought to come from within the Department, with all due respects,3kay. Now, would the Law Department tell me how legally we can get that ten feet withoutpenalizing Mr. Rollo? Mr. Percy: Well, the property owners don't have any vested rights in base building lines. Mayor Ferre: I'm not asking you that,Terry, what I'm asking you is to give re the legal opinion or the legal language, so that if we take away this extra five feet from that side of the street, that they can figure their FAR as if they had it, that's... Mr. Plummer: No, the additional ten is already in the ordinance,lkay? If - you go to what Dan Paul said, to the eighty, that's where this comes into play. Mr. Percy: All right, you can leave it or delete it. Mayor Ferre: Sir? Mr. Percy: You could leave it in at eighty feet or roll it back to the original seventy. Mr. Plummer: It's in at seventy. 19 MAR 161982 Mr. Percy: It's in at eighty. Mayor Ferre: No, no, you don't understand what I'm baying. I want to go to eighty feet because we need the extra width on that street, but on the other hand I don't want to take away from the property ownbr the right to build to the maximum, and therefore I don't want to take away the FAR that he has on his property as it is. fe Mr. Percy: I follow you. We can possibly throw in some bonuses in another Ordinance, Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: I don't want to do it through another Ordinance. Mr.Joe McManus: Mr. Mavor.members of the Commission,we had earlier indicated to you that immediately on the South of Mr. Hollo's property there is an alley. Mayor Ferre: There is a what? Mr. Mc Manus: Immediately on the South of Mr. Hollo's property is an alley. Mayor Ferre: An alley? Mr. Mc Manus: An alley which we do not foresee as all that necessary for traffic circulation. What we would foresee would be the possibility of the vacation of that alley and reversion of rights to adjacent property owners. Mayor Ferre: Fine, that's fine, I've no problem with that. Mr. McManus....in which case, Mr. Iiollo might wind up with the same size property. mayor Ferre: Joe, I have no problem with any of that, I just want to do it now or I want to make a proviso for it and I don't want to penalize the property owners and chip away ten feet of their property and then penalize them on the FAR, that's all. Mr. Percy: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, do you have a solution to this? Mr. Price: I believe so, sir. I believe if you would just put into the Ordinance that these dedications or the base building line could constitute a hardship to the property; and I would recognize that Mr. Hollo can come back for a variance request at a later time. Mayor Ferre: I'd rather provide for it right now and say that this Ordinance, that the property owners whose properties are set back will be compensated as if they owned the property to the existing property line for all calculations. Mr. Percy: That's not the subject of this Ordinance, Mr. Mayor, that's the point that I was trying to make, that has to be dealt with, they could be compensated in terms of a bonus incentive through another vehicle and this Ordinance was noticed as it is with the adjustment of the base building lines and that's the content subject matter of this Ordinance. Mayor Ferre: Well. then I want to do it the same way that Plummer did his other one, Okay? Yes, Jack. Mr. Percy: Motion of intent will come back with the proper legislation. Mayor Ferre: Yes, Jack. Mr. Luft: One point of clarification, when you establish the base building line and we in effect take the five feet, he is not allowed to calculate that five feet in his FAR, and you are trying to give it back to him for the calculation purposes, but we are still going to have to buy that five feet from him, so it's Okay if you say... you don't want to make the.... we're going to give him the FAR contingent on him dedicating it? �� MAR 161982 Mr. Plummer: Are you saying buying, paying him dollars? Mr. Lufts Yes,.... Mr. Plummer: Oh no, no, no, no. Mr. Luft:...because we say that base building line is five feet over doesn't :Wean he has to give it to us, because if you're going to give him the FAR for it, then maybe you would want to include a proviso that he dedicate that five feet. Mr. Plummer: No, no that's cake and eating it too. No, no, no. Mr. Luft: Because if you're going to give him the FAR for it, then maybe you would want to include a proviso that he dedicate that five feet. Mr. Plummer: If he wants to go up. t Mr. Luft: If he wants the credit for the five feet in his FAR, then he has to dedicate to the City. Otherwise, you're about to give him the five feet in his FAR and we would still have to buy it. Mayor Ferre: That's fair. Jack. that's fair. All right, I'll make the following Motion, and I move to you the Chair, Joe, and make the following Motion. I would move that an Ordinance be created, or whatever legal instrument is necessary,so that with referrence to the Ordinance unnumbered, which is 55-b, that any property owner who will be giving up property and the base line is being changed will have the option in lieu of payment to receive an equal FAR and the other zoning amenities as if it were' the pr4erty as it exists today, as a compensation for that property. Further providing that if there are any adjacent alleys that are eventually closed and the property vacated, that the property owner if'the land were given to the City would receive equal amount of land taken from the alley or the propord6nate part of the alley that would correspond to the property without any compensation to the City. Mr. Plummer: Question, second the Motion, question, we have an alley let's _ say for argumentative sakes that is thirty feet wide. If in fact we have a Public Hearing and we close that alley. How wide is that particular alley that we're talking about? Because it's more than an alley, a typical alley. Mayor Ferre: That's the street right behind the old Red Coach, remember the Red Coach? Mr.Campbell: That is a street, 14th Terrace, and that is zoned fifty feet sir. Mr. Plummer: What is the actual width? Hr.Campbell: We have I think about thirty-five or forty feet dedication. Mr. Plummer: Question is that if we give, in using this as the argument, if we give Mr. Hollo, we take away from him ten, we give him ten. The other guy says, "Hey, I don't want to buy it." Where are we? Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Hollo gave us ten, so if we give him ten back, we're even. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but we're stuck with half an alley. Mayor Ferre: Well then, well then... — Mr. Plummer: Open space...? Mayor Ferre: Well then, in that case, if we're stuck with half an alley, we won't vacate that alley. See, all I'm saying is... Mr. Plummer: O.K., you're giving the and/or. Mayor Ferre: Yes, all I'm saying is, look, if you're taking ten feet away, you have to give the man the option to say, "pay me for it," that's one thing, or he can say, "All right, give me the FAR and the set back v� MAR 1 61982 eos Mayor Ferre: (can't) just as I had it originally, and that will be sufficient compensation for me, or, the third alternative is, if we have a public hearing and vacate the alley, we can give him ten feet back. So those are the three different alternatives that they would have, and that is the sense of the motion. Mr. Carollo: Roll call, please. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 82-249 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT AN ORDINANCE BE CREATED PERTAINING TO THE OMNI AREA THAT WOULD OFFER THREE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHICH HAD TO GIVE THE CITY A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH BASE BUILDING LINE CHANGES: 1. THE CITY WOULD PAY FOR THE PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY WHICH WAS BEING TAKEN: OR 2. IN LIEU OF PAYMENT, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD RECEIVE AN EQUIVALENT F.A.R. AND OTHER ZONING AMENITIES AS PERTAINED TO THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE BASE BUILDING LINE WAS CHANGED: OR 3. IF THERE WERE AN ADJACENT ALLEY WHICH COULD BE CLOSED AND VACATED, THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD RECEIVE A SHARE OF THE ALLEY PROPORTIONATE TO THE DEDICATED PORTION OF HIS LAND. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Ferre; Okay, now with regards to 55(b). Is there a motion, then, on 55(b)? Mr.Carollo: So move. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? And let the record reflect that we just passed a motion that speaks to, that is tried to, this issue and then we will vote on it on a more formal basis in the future. Okay? Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE XXV BASE BUILDING LINES CBD-2 DISTRICT SECTION I BY: A. INSERTING A NEW SUBSECTION (28-A) AND RENUMBERING EXISTING SUBSECTION (28-A) TO (28-B); B. BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (28-C); C. BY DE- LETING SUBSECTION (30) AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF, A NEW SUBSECTION (30); (D) BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (37-A); AND BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CON- TAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December. 15, 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: 22 MAR 16 SQL OO) 4 W # AYES: Commission J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Terre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANC8 NO. 9383 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. AFTER ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: Question of the Law Department. Mr. Percy.? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir? Mr. Plummer: None of this that we have done today in the form of ordinance becomes effective of Law for 30 days, which as I see it, would be the 24th of April or 23rd of April. Is that correct? Mr. Percy: 30 days is correct yes. Mr. Plummer: Alright. What is this Commission's right within that 30 day period to revoke that which has been passed on second reading. Mr. Percy: You can call the matter for reconsideration and if the majority of the Commission wills this, you could repeal this ordinance. Mr. Plummer: Okay. In other words, what I am getting at is simply this... Mr. Percy: Just like you would any other ordinance... Mr. Plummer: If we don't have what the Mayor has just proposed and what I proposed in reference to the impact fees, prior to the 23rd of April, I can then make a motion revoking the second reading on all of these ordinances - whether or not it passes, of course, is immaterial, but I have that right, that if these ordinances are not in place prior to the effective 30 days, any Commissioner has the right to bring it up, and to either hold it up, or what? Mr. Percy: Okay, there are a couple of logistic problems associated with this. If we bring you back a new ordinance, depending upon what impact that ordinance will have on the general land total in the City of Miami, there is a certain notice requirement that might preclude you considering that within the 30 day time frame. Mr. Plummer: Well, the Clerk can obviously be on notice as of today, that we want this to be considered at that April, the...well, we haven't decided, have we? Mr. Percy: We would have to redraft it, publish it in the newspaper and notify people within a 300 foot radius. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Alright. Mr. Percy, we are talking about the 22nd of April as our next Zoning meeting. Now, I would hope, as I see it, it becomes effective of law on the 24th of April, or the 23rd, which is the day after that meeting. Mr. Percy: There is a 30 day mail notice requirement prior to the considera- tion, Commissioner, the Staff has to get the notice out within 3U days. Of course, betwee now and... Mr. Plummer: Well, it can't be done. Okay. Mr. Percy: We will bring it back at the first opportunity consistent with.. our notice requirement. Mr. Plummer: Which is the first of April. You bring back the ordinance. 23 MAR 16 S002 Mr. Percy: I don't think we can do it and notice it properly. - Mr. Plummer: go, no. I didn't say notice it; you bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Percy: For discussion? Mr. Plummer: Yes, air. Mr. Percy: Yes, air. Mayor Ferre: Can we move along now? ' 5. C11MGE ZO:TING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA GUiLRALL !. NORTE BAYSHORE DRIVE, HE 17 TERR. , iTL 210 AVE. , ITE 16 ST. , NE 1ST CT. 11Z 15-LE ST. , HE 1ST AVE., HE 14ST. IiL 2AD AVL AND I-395- R.E. 1 COUPT VE. 17 TERRACE AND I-395 FROM C-19 C-3 6 C-4 TO CBD-2. Mayor Ferre: We are on 56(a). Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be only proper that you should announce at this time, just in case, that we did make a commitment to Senator McKnight - I think it is Item 60 - Mayor Ferre: That we will take up at 7:00 o'clock. Mr. Plummer: That we would take up at 7:00 o'clock, so if anybody is here waiting for Item 60, it will not be considered until 7 P.M., I think. Mayor Ferre: Alright, we are on 56(a). Mr. Manager? (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC KECOKU) Mayor Ferre: What? Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, 56(a), you are taking the ordinance that you have passed on second reading and applying it to the area shown on the map, naturally, mapping the ordinance. 56(b) speaks to a two block area immediately south of the Government Center. Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody here who wishes to speaefc to 56(a)? Mr. Carollo: Move Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion on _*)b(a)? is there a second? Mr. Plummer: I will second it for purposes of discussion. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer is recognized for discussion on 56(a). Mr. Plummer: Once again, I want on the record why you are not squaring that thing off, like N. E. 2nd Avenue. What is the justification of the department of not suaring that - I guess it is N. E. 1st Avenue - or at least 2nd Avenue. No, more so.2nd Avenue; I understand why Lindsey -Hopkins. Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. In mapping the western boundaries, the obvious boundary would be 2nd AyeAue, 1j.,E. 2pd_Avenpg, gggePA_ that looking at the density uses in the CBD-2 districts, it appeared that we should include Lindsley-Hopkins, which is an educational institution and offices for the School Board and they are currently conducting hotel education classes - all of those kinds of uses in the CBD-2 district. Also, on the block immediately north of 15th Street, is the Jefferson's Auto Store, which ties into the Jeffer- son Store immediately to the east. It seemed strange to divide the like owner- ships, is the only reason. Otherwise, we would have recommended to you the boundary right at N.E. 2nd Avenue. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Read the ordinance. 24 MAR 1619o2 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 140. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, N.E. 17TH TERRACE, N.E. 2ND AVENUE, N.E. 16TH STREET, N.E. 1ST COURT, N.E. 15TH STREET, N.E. 1ST AVENUE, N.E. 14TH STREET, N.E. 2ND AVENUE AND I-395 (SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND MAP ATTACHED), FROM C-1 (LOCAL COMMERCIAL) C-3 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) AND C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO CBD-2 (CENTRAL 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 RE- PEALING 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 Sept. 24, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 1981 the ordinance SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9384 The City Attorney read the Ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commssion and to the public. 6. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WEST FLAGLER STREET, I-95, S.W. 1 STREET & S.W. 1 AVE. FROM R-4, C-2 AND C-4 TO CBD-2. Mayor Ferre: Aow take up 56(b), wiiicii is the same thing for the little piece of property down in the south on Plagler Street. Is there a motion? Mr. Carollo-.rove Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? rir.Plummer: Second. 'ayor Terre* Further discussion. Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANEO 2- RDI� ,AMENDING ORDINANCE 110. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF ALL OF BLOCK 137 N, AND LOTS 1-5. 26-30, BLOCK 138N; MIAMI A. L. KNOWLTON (B-41), BEING THE AREA BOUNDED BY WEST FLAGLER STREET, I-95, S.W. 1ST STREET, AND S.W. 1ST AVENUE, FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) AND C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO CBD-2 (CENTRAL 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. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of Sept. 24, 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: 25 MAR 16196' 10 AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9385 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. AMEND 6871 ART. III BY ADDING MXD-1, MXD-2 AND MXD-3. Mayor Ferre: Take up 57(a). tyr. Carollo: Move Mr. Plummer: Second. '4ayor Ferre: Further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public on this issue, or from the department? Alright, call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III - ZONING DISTRICTS - SECTION 1 BY ADDING: MXD-1 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, MXD-2 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, MXD-3 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND BY REPEAL- ING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLADSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of Dec. 15, 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9386 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. 26 MAR 161982 0 S. AMEND 6871 BY ADDING NEW ARTICLE XTV-29 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MXD-1, KXD-2 & KW-3 DISTRICTS, PROVIDE FOR INTENT, USE REGU- LATIONS, ETC. Mayor Terre: We are now on 57(b). Do we have to do these separately now, Percy? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo : Move Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Read the ordinance. THEREUPON, the City Attorney proceeded to read the ordinance into the record by titly only. DISCUSSION ENSUES PREVIOUS TO ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: That was (c)? Mr. Percy: (b). Mr. Plummer: Hold up a minute. historic? You just mentioned it. Mr. McManus: Providing a bonus. What is it in reference there into the Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that. What is it? What item? Mr. McManus: Providing a bonus.. Mr. Percy: Page 17, Section 12. Transfer development rights. Mr. Jack Luft: It is transfer development rights, and then, in another section there is a .25 bonus for saving a building; that is all there is. Mr. Plummer: Well, question. Portion (b), where redevelopment cannot be _ carried out without the structure in place, it may be moved at the owner's expense to a site approved by the Planning Department....I understand what "may" means. Are you telling me that if a person has a historic site, and he can't build around it, that if you, in your great, infinite wisdom, decide to allow him to move it, that he has got to pay to have it moved? Ms. Meyers: This is only if he elects to take the bonus .25. If he does not choose to take the bonus, then he is free to do anything. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, Ma'am. I am all in accord. Mayor Ferre: Furtner discussion on 57(b), call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMDMED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XIV-2 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL-MXD-1, MXD-2, MXD-3 DISTRICTS, PROVIDING FOR INTENT, USE REGULA- TIONS, LIMITATIONS ON USES, FLOOR AREA RATIOS, SETBACKS AND MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS, HEIGHTS, PEDESTRIAN STREETS, PARKING RETAIL FRONTAGE, PEDESTRIAN SPACE THEATRE, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE, SIGNS AND SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL; AND 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 Dec. 15, 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: 2'7 MAR 161982 4 AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.* Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9387 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: 9. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA GENERALLY BOUNDLD BY THE MIAMI RIVER, METRORAIL, SO. 8TH STREET AND 190' WEST OF BRICKELL AVENUE TO MXD-2. Mayor Ferre: Nov, we are now on 57(c). Is there a motion? Mr. Traurig: May I speak on that item, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: We have to get a motion, first. You want to move it, Joe? Mr. Carollo: Move. Mayor Ferre: Alright, do you want to second it, J.L.? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Ferre: it has been moved and seconded.Under discussion, go ahead, Bob. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, my name is Robert H. Traurig. I am an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue, and I am here representing American Bankers Insurance Group. As Staff indicated when it was discussing the CBD-2 area, and talked about the Jefferson Store on the west side of 2nd Avenue being an integral part of one ownership. In this particular case, if the zoning were passed as proposed on that map, you would be severing the property that Ameri- can Bankers own. I have discussed this with Staff and I think that they sup- port the concept of moving the line very slightly to the west, so that it includes through lots 7 and 13 and block 107 south, which would then tie in the existing American Bankers parking lot with the existing building, be- cause to sever the two parcels and make one MXD-2 and RCB would mean that in any future redevelopment of the property, we would have two different sets of regulations that would be totally confusing, and it would really be in the best interests of the community, and I think Staff agrees, that this all be within one district. Mayor Ferre: Alright, what is staff's recommendation on this? Ms. Meyers: We can go along with that. Staff will agree to that. Mayor Ferre: Okay, can we then adopt that in the second reading? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. We will construe that as being not a material change in the title or substance of the ordinance, if we are going to move the boundaries just slightly. We would like the boundaries read into the record, so when the ordinance is read it will be as amended. Our title does not reflect that, currently. Mayor Ferre: Alright, then�as amended by the information that has come into the record. Are we ready to vote on itis now? Alright, read the ordinance. 23 MAR 161982 0 $1 THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY PROCEEDS TO READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE RECORD BY TITLE ONLY. Mr. Traurig: Okay. That includes the deletion of Lots 3 through 7 and 13 through 17 in block 101 south, which will remain BCB. Mr. Percy: Correct. Mayor Ferre: Is that right, Staff? On the record, Mr. Luft, please. Mr. Luft: Yes, those lots that have been described are the ones that we would accede to the boundary change. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI$ BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE MIAMI RIVER ON THE NORTH, THE RAPID TRANSIT (METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST, SOUTH 8TH STREET ON THE SOUTH AND A LINE APPROXIMATELY 190' WEST OF AND PARALLEL TO BRICKELL AVENUE ON THE EAST, EXCLUDING LOTS 3 - 7 AND 13 - 16 OF BLOCK 107 - A, MARY BRICKELL ADDITION, AMENDED, PLAT BOOK B-113, FROM R-CB RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, C-4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND W-R WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL TO MXD-2 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, 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. a Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of Dec. 15, 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9388 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. 10. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY S. CTH STREET METRORAIL, S.W. 13TH STREET, S. MIAMI AVE. & BRICKELL PLAZA FROM R-CB & C-2 TO Mn-2. Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item 57(d). Is there a motion? Mr. Carollo: Move Mr. Plummer: Second Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Read the ordinance 29 MAR 1 61982 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 AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SOUTH 8TH STREET ON THE NORTH, THE RAPID TRANSIT JNETRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST, SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET ON THE SOUTH AND SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE AND BRICKELL PLAZA (SOUTHEAST FIRST AVENUE) ON THE BAST FROM R-CB RESIDENTIAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO MXD-1 COM- MERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, 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. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of Dec. 15, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9389 1981 the ordinance 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. 11. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY S.W. 13 STREET, METRORAIL, S.W. 15 ROAD & S. MIAMI AVENUE FROM R-CB TO MXD-3. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 57(e). It has been moved; is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Move Mr. Plummer: Second Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COM- PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET ON THE NORTH, THE RAPID TRANSIT (METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST, SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD ON THE SOUTH AND SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE ON THE EAST FROM R-CB RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO MXD-3 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIRED USE DISTRICT, 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. 30 MAR 161982 Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of Dec. 151 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. . On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AM: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9390 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. 12. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY S.W. 9TH ST. I-95, S.W. 15 ROAD, S.W. 3 AVENUE A1TD METRORAIL FROM R-4 TO R-T. Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item 58; this is an Ordinance on second reading - Planning Department's application to change the zoning - the area generally bounded by S. W. 9th Street, I-95, and so on. Does anybody here wish to discuss that ordinance? Mr. Frances: Mr. Mayor, may I speak on this item a little bit? Mayor Ferre: Sure. Mr. Frances: May I speak on this item? Mayor Ferre: Yes, you may. Mr. Frances: Thank you very much. My name is Nicholas Frances of 1350 S. W. 2nd Avenue, Miami. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I am in favor of the proposed changes for ordinances as presented by the Planning b Zoning Board, but I, together with every property owner and a reasonable citizen of the City of Miami we resent in placing the Metroline as the boundary between the I= and the street with the residential area - as presented on your map there .... west of the Metroline marked as R-C and I think that is unfavor- able. That is strictly on policy, the use of property in that particular area. and looking at your map, you can see that that particular area is only two blocks wide, east of I-95, which is another major traffic artery in the area, and it is located between two major traffic arteries, which is limiting the use for no reasonable excuse. It is, as you can see, between the I-95 and the Metroline, as you called it that, a boundary. I think..it is my opinion that since the Metroline is an elevated traffic means for the people of Miami, that there is no reason to use the Metroline as a boundary between two strictly dif- ferently zoned districts in that particular area. Mayor Ferre: Do you want to answer that, Mr. Luft? Mr.Jack Luft:Yes.We have addressed this issue in the context of the city-wide comprehensive zoning change and the Department has agreed in those hearings that the intensity of this district along 13th Street could be increased in the RG-3/6 up to a 7, which would be equivalent to of about an F.A.R. around 2.4 to 2.5. Those lots are not very deep; this is not entire block redevelopment, and we think this in consistent with the sort of things he is saying, but does not go all the way to an F.A.R. of 7 on these narrow lots. We would not recom- mend an MXD, but we would recommend a general upgrading in the comprehensive zoning ordinance change. oil OR 16 ISM Mr. Frances: Okay, that is satisfactory, I would say, but let me bring to your attention another point here. Now, on your map, section 11, which is in the shape of No. 1 and is still marked as RC. It is bounded on both sides, if the ordinance is.passed today, on Commercial on the west side, and MXD on the east side. Now, leaving that particular two - block section as a block as it is, I think it would be a disadvantage for another major artery of traffic between Coral Gables and Brickell Avenue, and in general it makes a very famous street of the City of Miami. Coral Way is well-known, it's a well -developed parkway, it is Commercial and RC... R036 at least, from one into the next, and in that particular area it is still stays blank. RC is equivalent to... I don't know, maybe R036, but I think bounded between a commercial section and a mixed usage area, I think it should be at least M M classified itself. Mr. Plummer: Is that property you own, sir? Mr. Frances: Yes, air, I have some property in that area, but it looks quite inappropriate to have a commercial section on one side of Coral Way and MXD on the other side and keep that particular section dead and blind. I think it would be appropriate to be a transition between commercial and MXD. Mr. Plummer: Sir, I argued that same point to a certain degree of what you are saying. I think that what you are wanting is, you want it now, and I can understand that. Mr. Frances: Well, I wanted..... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, sir. Staff has said to you, that this City is into a complete recomprehensive zoning of the entire City, and Staff has said they will take that under consideration at such time as the total comprehensive is taken into effect. What they are saying to you is now sir, they are not going to do it now, and they are not recommending it now, but they will keep it in mind, because the comprehensive is 30 or 60 days before it is before this Commission. Mayor Ferre: Alright. Are we ready to go? Mr. Frances: Well, I believe you should give us some encouragement that that _ particular section will be properly rezoned, just for uniformity of..... Mr. Luft: We are on record; that is our recommendation. Mr. Frances: I would appreciate it. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. We are now on Item 58. Is there a motion? Mr. Carollo: Moved Mr. Plummer: Second 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 AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY A LINE 150' NORTH AND PARALLEL TO SOUTHWEST 9TH STREET ON THE NORTH; THE I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST; SOUTHWEST 15th ROAD, SOUTHWEST 3RD AVENUE AND A LINE 140' NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET ON THE SOUTH AND THE RAPID TRANSIT (METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE EAST FROM R-4 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE TO R-T RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT DISTRICT, EXCEPT FOR PROPERTY ZONED GU -GOVERNMENTAL USE AND PR -PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL USE DISTRICTS, AND BY MAK- ING 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. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of Dec. 15, 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. 32 MAR 161962 On Motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummerw the otditishee vas thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed - and adapted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre MOBS: hone • ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9391 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. ' j 1s. ArirL40 6671 _ Ci9A GE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 150' £OUT:: OF AND PA.'tALLEL OF SOUTHWEST OTE rTRrCT Oil T:= COU:': AND ( RIG':^_ OF tiA? 'N: ='- 7J-S. "^..C;' C-4 GENERAL COIRCRCIAL TO C-2 4 COMMUNITY CONCRCIAL DISTRICT. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 59. There is a motion; is there a second? Motion and a second - does anybody want to speak to 59? 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 AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY A LINE APPROXIMATELY 150' NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET ON THE NORTH: THE I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE WEST; A LINE APPROXIMATELY 150' SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO SOUTHWEST IERCIAL TO C-2-CM*W=, AND BY i..kICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871,'BY REFER- ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THERE- OF, BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SECERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of Dec. 15, 1981 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9392 The City Attorney read the Ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 33 MAR 161982 14. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY N. MIAMI AVENUE. N. E. 2ND AVENUE AND N.E. 41ST STREET FROM R-C TO C-S, (DECORATOR'S ROW). Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 61. Mr. Carollo: Move. Mayor Ferre: Is there any problem on the N. Miami Avenue, N.E. 2nd Avenue Mr. Plummer: Put it up on a map, please. Mayor Ferre: This is on first reading; you had better give us a review. Mr. Plummer: This is 61. Mayor Ferre: This has the full approval of the Department and the full approval of the Planning Advisory Board. Where is this now ? Mr. McManus: This is in the Design Plaza, Mr. Mayor Mayor Ferre: This is in the Garment District, isn't it ? Mr. McManus: Decorators' Row. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Ferre: I mean, Decorators' Row. Where is 40th Street here? Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, the (a) part of this changes the zoning on the north- ern section from R-C to C-5. The (b) part is an overlay district which raises the base F.A.R. 2. to 2.5 and through a series of bonuses you can go from 2.5 to 3. It has to do with amenities, parking, etc. The (c) part applies the overlay district to the area. This is in response to the need of the designers and decorators in Decorators Row to expand in that area, so we are allowing them ... we are recommending to you additional zoning to the north, going from R-C to C-5 to accomodate those kinds of uses. We are also recommending to you ■ an adjustment in intensity 2 to 2.5 in base and going to 3, through a series of = bonuses. Mr. Plummer: Again, why in the area that is marked witn the yellow are yuu not taking it up one more to square it off. Why isn't the yellow extended to 42nd Street.? You see, let me tell you what I am trying to say, Joe. The way that that last map and this map and all the rest of them have been presented today, I think you are encouraging a tremendous amount of activity before this Commission of variances, zoning changes - what is the justification of why you did not carry that up to the 42nd Street, and square it off? Mr. Manus: If we moved to the next street up,there are single family residences on both sides of that street... Mr. Plummer: So, you are saying it is a transition? Mr. McManus: So what we are'trying'to'do'is dfaw the line in that block, so we go.. (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: What does that got to do with it? Mayor Ferre: Well, didn't you hear Joe's speech a little while ago? Mr. Plummer: Well, yes. You know, I am going to go along with you. Alright? But, it just seems like to me that it should be an attempt at all times, in my estimation�to try to square these things off. The history of the Commission in the past has been that it is pretty defensible when it is squared off, but not such when you leave it chopped like it is here and in this one and other pictures that you have shown us this morning. 34 MAR 16 1982 Mayor Ferre: Joe, how such harm would be do those houses there by equating it off all the way up to 42nd Street? Eventually, it's going to happen AnYWAy, 1Wd you know it. Mr. McManus: Well, I think, that that was the approach that was taken a number of years ago When this same area was zoned from residential to R-C to give us some kind of expansionary .... What we would up with in there was a mixed bag of parking, residences and offices. Now, we are saying "Let's expand into that area and change the complexion entirely..get it over to C-5". Mr. Plummer: What is the zoning just to the north of 42nd Street? Mr. McManus: R-2. Mr. Plummer: Alright, so, in other words, will R-2 allow for parking as an accessory? Mr McManus: As conditional use. Mr. Plummer: As a conditional use. Mayor'Ferre: Ready? Is there a motion on 61? Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Mr. Plummer: That is 61(a), right? Mayor Ferre: (a), yes. Alright, read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 140. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA BOUNDED'BY APPROXIMATELY NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE AND A LINE + 104' NORTH OF, SOUTH OF, AND PARALLEL TO NORTHEAST 41ST STREET, FROM R-C (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE) TO C-S (LIBERAL COM- MERCIAL); 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 CON - FLICK AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Carollo and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 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 MAR 1619 t 15. AMEND 6871- ADD HEW ARTICLE XXI-6, DESIGit PLAZA OVEP.LAY DISTRICT (SPD-4)9 PROVIDING USE REGULATIOUSt LIMITATIONS DPI ' USES, YARDS, EEIGHT, FAIL, BONUS, PROVISIONS PARKING. � Mayor Ferre: 61(b) Mr. Plummer: Move it. Z Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion. Does anyone want to speak on this? Read the Ordinance. a AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XXI-6 DESIGN PLAZA OVERLAY DISTRICT SPD-4; PROVIDING FOR EFFECT OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, USE REGULATIONS, LIMITATIONS ON USES, YARDS, HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIOS, BONUS PROVISIONS AND PARKING: BY RE- PEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Comissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Carollo and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Comissioner J.L.Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commi-sioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 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. FOLLOWING ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: Show me where Miami Avenue is on that map, would you please? Now, where is the Holy Cross Church? That is in that district, isn't it? And, that Food Among The Flowers Restaurant is in there somewhere. So, I mean, that's within that district, so that is catty -corner to the FEC property. That is just south of it. Okay, and... Mr. Plummer: No, it is not adjacent to the FEC property, Mr. Mayor. I think more properly your terminology should be to the new dome stadium. Mayor Ferre: Or it was to be. Okay. Where are we? Did we read 61(b)? We haven't read it? ! Mr. Percy: Yes. `r F .t V V M MAR 161982 16. APPLY DES4 PLAZA OVERLAY DISTRICT (SPD-4`,!'0 1XISTYWO 0-2* C-4 MM C-3 ZM1114G CLASSIFICATI0119 IN D1;CORATOP' S P.OW ARri- Mayor Ferre: 61(c). . Mr. Plummer Move it. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Terre: It has been moved and seconded. Further discussion. Read the ordinance. Mr. Percy Resolution. This a resolution, Madam Clerk. Mayor Ferre: It says ordinance on first reading, 61 (c). Mr. Hirai: That is right. Mr. Plummer: Mine says "ordinance'- on the agenda. Mr. Percy: The agenda is not correct. The backup contains a resolution on 61(c). There is no ordinance. Ms. Hirai: Sorry. Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion for the resolution. Is there a second? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-250 A RESOLUTION APPLYING THE DESIGN PLAZA OVERLAY DISTRICT (SPD-4) TO EXISTING C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL), C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND C-5 (LIBERAL COKMERCIAL) ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS IN AN AREA�BOUNDED IRREGULARLY BY THE FEC RIGHT-OF-WAY, N.E. 36TH STREET, A LINE 114' WEST OF AND PARALLEL TO NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, N. E. 42ND STREET AND A LINE + 100' PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF N.E. 42ND STREET; AS PER THE ATTACHED. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. ITEMS 26 b 27 ARE WITHDRAWN. 17. AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN TURNKEY CONTRACT WITH MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE IN TV1 AMOUMIT OF $127, 660.00 Mayor Ferre: Item 30 - Convention Center parking garage. Okay, is there a motion? Is there a second on Item 30? Convention Center parking garage, $127,660. Call the roll. 37 MAR1619O2 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-251 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCREASE THE TURNKEY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,660, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT, FUNDS THEREFOR TO BE EXPENDED FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI CONVENTION CENTER AND PARKING GARAGE REVENUE BONDS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 18. CLOSE CERTAIN STREETS FORTH ANNUAL COCONUT GROVE BED RACE'ON MAY 23, 1962; ESTABLISH PEDESTRIAN MALL, RTC. Mayor Ferre: Alright is there a motion ... This is the 4th annual Coconut Grove bed race to be held May 23rd, muscular dystrophy, and so on. Moved by Carollo. Is there a second? Plummer seconds. Further discussion. Call the roll on 37. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-252 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE 4TH ANNUAL COCONUT GROVE BED RACE, WHICH IS TO BE HELD MAY 23, 1982, CO -SPONSORED BY THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION; CLOSING CERTAIN STREETS TO THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THAT DATE DURING SPECIFIC HOURS AND ESTABLISHING A PEDESTRIAN MALL SUBJECT TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS BY THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS; FURTHER AUTHOR- IZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SUPPORT AGREEMENT SETTING FORTH THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SER- VICE ASSISTANCE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 38 MAR 161962 At 19. APPROVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR ELIZABETH BUSH. Mayor Ferre: The one-year extension of Elizabeth Bush, Item 38. Plummer troves Item 38. This extends for one year, Elizabeth Bush. Second by Carollo. Further discussion. Mr. Gary: 31. Mayor Ferre: Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-253 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF EMPLOY- MENT PAST THE AGE OF 70 FOR ELIZABETH FUSH, AUDITORIUM MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF STADIUMS AND MARINAS.EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 9, 1981, THROUGH NOVEMBER 9, 1982, WITH THE PRO- VISION THAT IN THE EVENT OF A ROLLBACK OR LAYOFF, ELIZA- BETH BUSH RATHER THAN A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE WOULD BE AFFECTED. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commission J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. ierre None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 20. APPOINT OLGA-CODZNA+TO THE ALLAPATTAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. Mayor Ferre: We are on 39. Mr. Plummer: Vhat is 39? Mayor Ferre: They have recommended somebody to be appointed. The appointment is somebody to the ALlapattah Community Board, somebody, I don't know who it is. Nestor do you want to bring me all the recommendations? Sere it is, Olga Codina, recommended by Mr. Urra. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second on that? (inaudible response) Further discussion. Call the roll. 39 MAR 161962 0 24 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who Loved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-234 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE ALLAPATTAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. NOTE: This Resolution appointed Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Olga Codina to the herein Mayor Maurice A. Ferre vacancy. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 21. APPOI17T INDIVIDUALS TO THE MIAMI AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY BOARD. Q Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item 39(b), the Miami Affirmative Action Advisory Board. What do you have on that? Let me tell you the people that we have.... we have been through this so many times. Anita Cofino wants on. Who is Yvonne Garcia? And Henry Berger, and Laurastine Pierce. Somebody want to make the motion for those four? Mr. Plummer: Are the all residents of the City of Miami? Mayor Ferre: You know all of them. Mr. Plummer: So moved. Mayor Ferre: Laura is Pierce's wife, I mean Walter Pierce. Henry Berger you know.... Mr. Plummer: I have no problems. Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion that the following people be appointed: 1. Anita Cofino, Latin female 2. Yvonne Garcia 3. Henry Berger 4. Laurastine Pierce Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Cal] the roll. to MAR 161982 AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: none ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez The following resolution was.introduced by Commissioner Plummer, vho moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-255 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY BOARD. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: NOTE: Resolution 82-255 appointed th, following individuals: 1-Anita Cofino 2-Ivonne Garcia 3-Henry Burger 4-Laurastine Pierce 22. OPEN BUENA VISTA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PHASE I, H-;4475. Mayor Ferre: Okay, we are now on Item 41, the Buena Vista highway Improvement. (INAU'DIBLE COMMENTS) Mr. Plummer: I don't have a 41. Mayor Ferre: 41 says "Ordering Burena Vista Highway Improvement, Phase I", and designating the property against which special .... did we pass that? Mr. Gary: No, sir. Mr. Primmer: Move it. :4r. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on Item 41. We haven't voted on that, right? Alright, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-256 A RESOLUTION ORDERING BUENA VISTA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT - PHASE I, AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE FOR A PORTION OF THE COST THERE- OF AS BUENA VISTA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - PHASE I H-4475. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins MAR 1 �9s2 Commissioner Demetriu Perez, Jr.� 23. ALLOCATE $1,300 AS CASH ASSISTANCE GRANT TO MIAMI JACKS014 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE "WASHINGTON CLOSE-UP PPAGRAM". Mayor Ferre: We are now on item 43. Mr. Gary: That is for the school - Jackson High. Mayor Ferre: That is allocating $1300 for Miami Jackson, Washington Close-up Program. Mr. Plummer: I moved it before, I will move it again. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves, Carollo seconds. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-257 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $1,300 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS AS A CASH ASSISTANCE GRANT TO DEFRAY THE COST OF TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR YOUNG STUDENTS FROM MIAMI JACKSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE "WASHINGTON CLOSE-UP PROGRAM. (here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 24. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on the Consent Agenda or any items to be removed from it? Hearing none, is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Ferre: The Consent Agenda is comprised of Items 44 through 54 to be adopted. Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: No second? Mr. Carollo: Dies for lack of a second. Mr. Plummer: I withdraw my motion. Mayor Ferre: Well, pull out the items you want to pull out. 44 is one, right? Mr. Carollo: Item 44, and I would like to pull out in the meantime, Item 45 also, I have another question on that. Mr. Plummer: What you want to pull, 44 & 45? Mayor Ferre: 44 b 45. Are there any other items to be pulled? 4. MAR 161982 Mayor Ferre: (con't) Alright, Plummer moves Items 46 through 54. Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute Joe, if you are poina to null 45. 48 is the same thing. It is all part and-arcel. Mr. Carollo: Yes, you are correct in that. Mayor Ferre: Alright, pull 44, 45 & 48. Are there any other items to be pulled? Stadium seats, filters for pool, Point View Highway, Miami Riverwalk, Tacolcy, Belle Meade, Buena Vista, Coconut Grove Mini Park. Okay, we are ready to go then ? There is a motion and a second on every item except 44, 45 & 48. . Mr. Grimm: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Raasch would like to answer any questions Commissioner Carollo has on 45 & 480 if you care. Mr. Raasch is the Assistant Director of Building & Vehicle Maintenance. Mayor Ferre: Let us do this orderly. We have a motion on everything but these three. We can talk about these three. Further discussion? Call the roll. THEREUPON, The following resolutions were introduced by Commissioner Plummer, seconded by seconded by Vice -Mayor Carollo and were adopted by the following vote: ' AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 24.1 BID ACCEPTANCE: AMERICAN SEATING CO. FOR 1,000 STADIUM SEAT BACKS & BOTTOMS. RESOLUTION 82-258 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY FOR FURNISHING 1,000 STADIUM SEAT BACKS AND 1,000 SEAT BOTTOMS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND VEHICLE MAINTANCE; AT A TOTAL COST OF $22,473.00; BUDGET OF THAT DEPARTMENT: AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR THESE MATERIALS. 24.2 BID ACCEPTANCE; J. B. FORBES PLUMBING & HEATING FOR SHENANDOAH PARK SWIMMING POOL REPAIR FILTERS. RESOLUTION 82-259 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF J. B. FORBES PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC. FOR FURNISHING REPAIRS TO TWO POOL FILTERS AT THE SHENANDOAH PARK SWIMMING POOL FOR THE.DEPARTMENT OF BUILD- ING AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AT A TOTAL COST OF $10,903.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE 1981-82 OPERATING BUDGET OF THAT DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PUR- CHASING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDER -FOR THIS SERVICE. 24.3 DIRECT CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO ACCEPTANCE OF COLLETED CONSTRUCTION FOR POINT VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-,4309, BID A. RESOLUTION 82-260 A RESOLUTION DIREFTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION BY T & N CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. OF POINT VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT IN POINT VIEW HIGHt+AY IMPROGEMENT DISTRICT•H-4309 (BID A - HIGHWAY). .3 MAR 16 1982 24.4 BID ACCEPTANCE: S. I. NICHOLAS FOR THE MIAMI RIVERWALK. RESOLUTION 82-261 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF S. I. NICHOLAS, INC. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $328,282, ADDITIVE ITEM "A".PLUS ADDITIVE ITEM "B" OF THE PROPOSAL, FOR THE MIAMI RIVERWALK WITH MONIES THEREFOR ALLOCATED FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE 9333, IN THE AMOUNT OF $328,282 TO COVER_ THE CONTRACT COST;-ALLOCA- _ TING FROM SAID FUNDS THE AMOUNT OF $2,100 TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUNDS THE AMOUNT OF ' 12,063 TO COVER THE INDIRECT COST; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. 24.5 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION COR. FOR TACOLCY CENTER EXPANSION. RESOLUTION 82-262 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AT A TOTAL COST OF $1,296,686 FOR TACOLCY CENTER EXPANSION; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE FINAL PAY- MENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,29B.60 WHEN ALL CONDITIONS ARE MET. 24.6 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF SUNSET ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR BELLE MEADE ISLAND BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS - 1981. RESOLUTION 82-263 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF SUNSET ENTERPRISES, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $39,478 FOR BELLE MEADE ISLAND BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS 0 1981; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $4,495. 24.7 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF RUSSELL, INC. FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT, PHASE V - BID A. RESOLUTION 82-264 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF RUSSELL, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $294,241.32 FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOP- MENT PAVING PROJECT - PHASE V - (BID '-A" - HIGHWAY); AND AUTHOR- IZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $29,424.13. 24.8 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF SUNSET ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR COCONUT GROVE MINI PARK. RESOLUTION 82-265 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK BY SUNSET ENTER- PRISES, INC., ON THE COCONUT GROVE MINI PARK PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO REDUCE THE 10% RETAINAGE ON THE PROJECT TO 1%. 25. DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF ITEMS 45 & 48. Mayor Ferre: We now are on Items 44, 45 6 48. Mr. Plummer: You are speaking to 45 b 48. Mayor Ferre: Alright, 45 5 48.., Mr. Carollo: On 45 & GR, ca- vo.i state for the record exactly what is this money RoinR to? '04 MAR 16 1982 Mr. wally Raasch: Yes, sir, it will be for parts for our M.D.T. I am Vall'y Raaach, Building 6 Vehicle Maintenance Assistant Director, and we went out for bids the same bids, and for parts and these parts are necessary for us to maintain M.D.T.'s in our police cars. Mr. Carollo: Okay, that is what I figured you were going to tell me, fnow my question... Mr. Plummer: Joe, let me..I am for it, but let me tell you what the truth of it is. The truth of the matter is they went out for bids, but that is a ioke. Do you know why it is a joke? There isn't but one ballgame in town. Mr. Carollo: Now you see why I am bring it up? Mr. Plummer: Okay, that ballgame in town is the shafting that this City has gotten from these mobile digitals that don't work. They are now going to start doing and repair in-house. These two items - one is for parts,so we can do it in-house; and two is for training of our people, so we can do it in-house. Mr. Raasch: This should save us money over what we are having to pay to send the units back to the factory to have it done. Mr. Carollo: My question is this, and when you have this for me, I think that it will clear up a lot of other questions -that I have. F.ow many of these computers did we buy altogether from these people and how much money have we spent up to now, the time we have them, which hasn't been a heck of a lot. Mr. Raasch: They have been under warranty for the first year, and we had to pick it up after the first year. Mr. Carollo: I realize that, but for the time that we have had this, how much, or what percentage of the times have these computers been down? Mr. Raasch: We have had some problems with them, but I really can't speak to that issue at this time, because they had been under warranty and they had just been installed; we have had them for that period of time. And all I can say is that now that we.. Mr. Carollo: What I am trying to find out is that fine, they have been under warranty for a year, but if they have broken down 40 X or 50% of that time. that tells me that, if that is the first year, the second year should be even greater, and we should try to take a stance now; if need be, sue these people or whomever the responsible party was. Mr. Plummer: Well, I have been saying it for years. Mr. Raasch: It is our position to say to you, that we are going to attempt to maintain the M.D.T.'s. No. 1. The other is a processor we are asking for. Forty-eight is for the processor in which we are asking for a contract. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Raasch: The processor in which we are going to train our people in this period of time, where after this first year, in which we have this $42,000 contract, our people will then be able to maintain the processor as well as the M.D.T. Mr. Carollo: What I am getting at is the following. I will be ready to vote for this when you have provided the information I have requested - what percentage of the time are these computers down, because if it is a consider- able amount of time, like I think that it is, then I want to consider suing these people for giving us machinery that is not working properly. Mr. Cary: Mr. Carollo, before you take that position, can I ask him a ques- tioll? Mr. Plummer: Joe, in the Fire Department, the M.D.T.'s, they are down 100%, because they have never worked. Mr. Carollo: Maybe we could combine the lawsuits. 45 MAR 16 1982 Mr. Plummer#. Same company! Mr. Carollo: Same company. Mr. Plummer: Sure. You see, you are scot-free. Maurice and I are banging. Let me tell you why. This Commission allowed E-Systems, who is a company who went through I think two or three 'bankruptcies - am I out of the ballpark? Mote or less. You know, after the first bankruptcy, more or less, right? They developed a system for the City of Miami only on our money. If it Iforltid, they were the only ones that could collect royalties. I fought them tooth and nail and lost. They have now developed an offshoot of the police system that doesn't work for the Fire Department that they can't even get to work! We have been had. Mr. Carollo: Well, there is only one way to resolve that. That is in the courts. Mr. Glummer: That is why I brought up at the last meeting about the contract with Booz Allen. A part of that contract is pouring money into that to try to get these systems to work, and it is throwing good money after bad. Mr. Carollo: What I am getting at is, J. L., here we are going to be approv- ing over $100,000 that is supposed to save us money, but it is not going to be, you know, even close to what it is going to cost us in.... Mr. Plummer: This is throwing a lifesaver to a thousand people in the water to try to save them. Mayor Ferre: Well, what do you want to do? Mr. Gary: Can I ask that we, first of all, approve this, subject to us getting the information. Secondly, I have been told by the Law Department that by doing this it does not preclude us from sueing them, and I think we should look into that matter. Mr. Carollo: Excuse me - your Law Department said what? Mr. Gary: We are not precluded from sueing them, therefore if the City Commission directs that we can look into the matter in terms of.. Mr. Carollo: I realize that, but since the only way you get some responses around here is when you hold things up. I want to hold it up until I get all of the information that I requested and then we can reconsider everything. Mayor Ferre: Alright. Anything else on Item 48? That is 45 and 48. Alright, now do you want to talk about item 44? Mr. Carollo: Yes, I know there was a representative of the Police Department here, but ere they going to back now Howard,.or... Mr. Gary: They told me an hour and one-half. They should be back about 4:30. Mr. Plummer: Why don't you bring him back at 7:00 o'clock? Mayor Ferre: We are waiting for Item 44. Is there anything else, Mr. Manager that we can do while we are waiting for Commissioner Demetrio Perez? Mr. Plummer: Well, what are we waiting for? Oh! Mayor Ferre: We are waiting for a four -fifth, and we are waiting for Item 8, and we are waiting for the 7 o'clock meeting. Mr. Plummer: Well, why don't we just adjourn now and come back at quarter to 7:00 o'clock? Mayor Ferre: It is alright with me if it is alright with you. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: Anybody have any objections to that? We are adjourning now. We will be back in session at 7:00 P.M. - quarter to 7:00, is that what you said, J. L.? N Mayor Ferre: (con't) Wait a minute, before you leave. Mr. Manager, t would like to on the record, instruct you to put the matter of housing on the agenda of the 26th. Mr. Plummer: What is that? Mayor Ferre: The question of that housing - you know the 1000 housing units we are going to build? I want that on the agenda of March 25. Mr. Plummer: Is that a zoning item? Mauor Ferre: It is not a zoning item and that is why he has to be instructed. Mr. Gary: I think we can do that. I would ask that if all the information is not available for that deadline that we be allowed's lot of leeway there. Mayor Ferre: Try to get it on the 25th., and J. L., we have the question of that plaque for Mel Reese. Are you satisfied with this? 26. DISCUSSION OF PLAQUE COMMEMORATING FORIMEJ. CITY MANAGER MEL REESE. _ Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, it is my understanding of the plaque has been more or less approved by Mrs. Reese as to its type and to where it will be placed and whatever she wishes is surely within,my agreement. Mayor Ferre: That's .... me too. Whatever she wantB is okay with me. THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO A BRIEF RECESS at 4:28 P.M., reconvening at: 7:07 P.M. with all members of the Commission found to be present except for Commissioner ■ Dawkins. 27. ESTABLISH SCHEDULE OF RENTS, RATES 6 CHARGES FOR USE, OCCUPANCY AND SERVICES FOR CITY OF MIAMItUNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER. Mayor Ferre: The first one that we need to take up is Item 21 of the City Commission agenda of March llth. This is an ordinance establishing a sche- dule of rents and rates. Is there a motion on that? Mr. Plummer: I will move it, Mr. Mayor. Under discussion... Mayor Ferre: Alright, it has been seconded. Under discussion, Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, we have just, at the last meeting, taken on a very high priced consultant who is well versed in operation of this across the country. I am asking, has this consultant been talked to? Obviously not, be- cause this came from the same agenda. He was not hired at the time. Are these rates compatible around the country? Are they low? And the only rea- son that triggers that is that I understand that the rate of the Convention Center is the same as that of the auditorium, at Dinner Key Auditorium Key Auditorium, and to me, that is an inequity. Mr. Dean Hoffineister: Well, Mr. Commissioner, normally the square footage rate for exhibit space runs higher than that for meeting space, so the gross rental rate for the Dinner Key Auditorium priced on.the basis of exhibit space would be high, as compared to that of the Knight Center Auditorium. Mayor Ferre: Alright. MAR 16 1982 c Mr. Plummer: 1 just... Maurice, I don't want to see ourselves in a posture of where we possibly could be turning people away. Mayor Ferre: J. L., in the first place, we can change these rates... Mr. Plummer: Okay. Mayor Ferre: In a meeting's notice, and I guarantee you that if these Yates are too high and we are not getting in conventions, the Administration and the Hyatt people that just hired will let us know immediately. Mr. Plummer: Okay. Mayor Ferre: Alright, we have a motion and a second. Read the ordinance, please. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SCHEDULE OF RENTS, RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF AND THE SER- VICES FURNISHED OR TO BE FURNISHED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI NNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER; CONTAIN- ING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Perez, for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days by a vote of not less than four -fifths of the members of the Commission AYES: Commissioner Demwetrio Perez Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A.-Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Perez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9393 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Com- mission and copies were available to the public. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: AGENDA ITEM 22 WAS TAKEN UP ON APRIL 1, 1982. SEE ORDINANCE NO. 9403. MAR 16 1982 28. AMEND 9321 FOR -.THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SALARY AND OTHER COSTS DUE TO UNION -NEGOTIATED INCREASES. Mayor Ferre: The next item is an ordinance on the annual appropriations with regards to the.. Mr. Gary: Union negotiated salary increases. Mayor Ferre: increase on the union negotiations. Is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: I just gave him 23, didn't I? No, that was 22. Mayor Ferre: TLis is Item 23. Is there a motion? Alright, Perez moves. Is there a second? Carollo seconds. Further discussion on 23. Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 AND 5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 9321 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 24, 1981, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDI- NANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 309 1982, AS AMENDED; BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, UNION -NEGOTIATED INCREASES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,020,108 AND BY INCREASING REVENUES IN THE SAME AMOUNT FROM FY '81 FUND BALANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDING TO PAY FOR $1,020,108 OF ADDITIONAL SALARY, WAGE, AND OTHER COSTS DUE TO UNION -NEGOTIATED INCREASES WHICH WERE NOT ORIGINALLY BUDGETED FOR IN THE FY '82 BUDGET; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Carollo, for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter dispen- sing with the requirement.of,reading same on two separate days by a vote of not less than four -fifths of the members of the Commission. AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. _ Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Carollo, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9394 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and copies were available to the public. MAR 16 1982 29. AMEND 9353 TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIRE TRAINING FACILITY & CLOSE CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM; NOGUCHI EARTH SCULPTURE, CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER & PARKING GARAGE, GOVERNMENT Mayor Ferre: Alright, we are now on Item No. 24. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, this amendment to the Capital Improvement Budget, which allows us to appropriate the 10.4 million dollars that we just sold in revenue bonds for the downtown government center allows us also to take a 4700,000 credit from the Capital Improvement Fund for the downtown people mover to credit toward the construction of the Convention Center. It also allows us to appropriate $40,000 in parking revenues that we received Gould property for the Noguchi Center, which was part of the agreement which you made and the last, and not least, is the $125,000 for the modification of the Fire Training Facility which is to be bought in the Capital Improvement Fund and paid from the proceeds of the fire revenue bonds. Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there a motion on that? Mr. Plummer: Where are we going to get the money eventually? Well, go ahead and get your second. Mayor Ferre: Alright, it has been moved; is there a second? Carollo moves Item 24; is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second it for purposes of discussion. Where are we going to get the $700,000 to pay back for a commitment that we have made on downtown people movers? Mr. Gary: We appropriated approximately - this City Commission appropriated approximately $9,000,000 for the downtown people mover. Mr. Plummer: I understand. Mr. Gary: In that money was the provision for our contribution. Now, as a result of our constructing the Conference Center garage, we have a net budget of $700,000, which will be utilized for station over the garage. Mr. Plummer: No, no. Mr. Gary: We will be expending $700,000 in the parking - downtown Conference Center garage for the downtown people mover. And what we are saying now is, we are reimbursing the $700,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund back to the... Mr. Plummer: Oh, so it is not a loan! Mr. Gary: No, it is not a loan. Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there further discussion on Item 24. Read the ordi- nance. MAR 16 1982 4 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 9353, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 19, 1981. THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981-82; AS AMENDED; BY APPROPRIATING AN AMOUNT OF $1259000, AS A LOAN FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, FY 1982 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT FRANCHISE EARNINGS TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR PRO- JECT IX.B.(1).79.FIRE TRAINING FACILITY AND CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM; BY ESTABLISH- ING A NEW APPROPRIATION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENT FUND IN AN AMOUNT OF $40,000 FROM BAYFRONT PARK BANDSHELL AREA PARKING REVENUES TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROJECT IX.B.(i)12, NOGUCHI EARTH SCULPTURE; BY ESTABLISHING A NEW APPROPRIATION IN THE JAMES L. KNIGHT CONVENTION CENTER ENTERPRISE FUND IN AN AMOUNT OF $700,000 TO REFLECT A CREDIT FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROJECT X.B.I., CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI-JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER AND PARKING GARAGE; BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT OF $10,4009000 FROM THE 1981 PARKING REVENUE BOND FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT If XIII.B.(ii)1.9 GOVERNMENT CENTER PARKING GARAGE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS TITAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF TEE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. _ Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Plummer, for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days by a vote of not less than four -fifths of the members of the Commission AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Peres Commissionei.J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor -Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: , None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Plummer, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Cttc.issioner Miller J. Dawkins SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9395 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and copies were available to the public. MAR 16 1982 6 it 30. DEFERRAL OF ITEM 25 - COMMUNICATION PARTS & OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE SERVICES, Mayor Ferre: Take up 25 Which is the Building & Vehicle Maintenance Depart- ment, Heavy Equipment Maintenance Division. Mr. Gary: Commissioner Carollo wanted to have either further discussion or defer this item because it is related to the mobile digitals. Mayor Ferre: Joe, do you want deferment or deferral on Item 25, which is the Building & Vehicle Maintenance Department, Heavy Equipment Maintenance Divi- sion? That is $100,000. Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Do you want further discussion on that? Mr. Carollo: I don't think so. Mr. Plummer: No? Mayor Ferre: Do you have any problems with this now? Mr. Carollo: I don't think this is related to the other item. Mr. Gary: Mr. Carollo, I would be derelict in not telling you that is is related. This is the appropriation in order to fund to purchase of those parts. Mr. Plummer: 45 & 48. Mr. Gary: That is why I said, do you want to defer it, or do you want further discussion on it? Mr. Carollo: In other words, this is directly related to the other two items that we have? Mr. Plummer: This is the appropriation to buy the other two. Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion that Item 25 be Mr. Carollo: Defer that. Mayor Ferre: deferred. Is there a second on the deferral? There is a second. Further discussion? Call the roll on Item 25. THEREUPON, on motion duly made by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the City Commission deferred consideration of the above matter by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice-Ylayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins t_2 MAR 16 1982 31. AUTHORIZE CITY MAIIAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH DEPT. OF OFF- STREET PARKING FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF CITY OF MIAMI/ UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER PARKING GARAGE. Mayor Ferre: Item 32? Have we done 32? Mr. Gary: No, we need to do Item 32. Mr. Plummer: We did 32 the other day, but I don't mind doing it again. I know we did it. Mr. Gary: We went over with the City Clerk and she said that we had not. Mayor Ferre: Alright, well then do it again. Mr. Carollo: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to Item 32? Further discussion. There is a second. Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82-266 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANANCER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED HERETO, WHICH HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI DEPART- MENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PARKING GARAGE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurica A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 953 MAR 16 1982 c 32. A11E11D 9321 IN THE A1400T OF $21sG47 TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF HIRING'All ASSISTANNF CITY ATTORNEY. , w Mayor Ferre: 42 is the neat thing, which amends the annual appropriations by increasing the appropriations for the General Fund Law Department in the amount of $21,847. Anyone want to move that? Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mr. Gary: This is to fund the position that you authorized two meetings ago. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves; is there a second? Further discussion. Read the ordinance, please. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED- A1N EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2 AND 5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 9321, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 24, 1981, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1982, AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE GENERAL FUND, LAW DEPARTMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,847 AND BY INCREASING REVENUES IN THE SAME AMOUNT FROM MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF HIRING AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Carollo for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Carollo, adopted said Ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 9396 The City Attorney read the ordiance into the public record and announced that copies were available to members of the City Commission and to the public. 54 MAR 16 1982 Mayor Ferre: Now that ... with the exception of 44, which I understand you want deferred, right? Mr. Carollo: Well, no, I think we have a representative of the Police Department here. Mayor Ferre: Okay, would you step up? Mr. Gary: This is Major Gunn, and he would be happy to respond to questions from the City Commission. Mr. Carollo: Last year we approved 17 vehicles to be leased for undercover work at a cost of $400 a month; total amount is $48,000. This year the request is for 25 leased vehicles for undercover work at a cost of $425 per month per vehicle a total of $127,500. That is a large increase, granted it might be completely justified - but, it is a large increase. DO MAR 161982 Major Gunn : I can answer that, Commissioner. Mr. Carollo: Before you do, sir, I'd like to get to the main area that I'd like to have some answers in. When Chief Harms came before us on April the 9th of last year to request the other vehicles, one of the things that we inquired of him was how many vehicles were there that had been confiscated. At the time we could not get a precise answer from him, and we requested of him and of the Manager at the time to make sure that for the following year every effort would be taken to use confiscated vehicles for undercover work so we could save some money instead of having to go out and lease vehicles. Can you answer me how many vehicles that we confiscated, the Police Department is presently using since April of last year? Major Gunn: No, sir, I cannot. I do not have that figure. But I know the reason why... there's two reasons why we do not use confiscated vehicles to the extent that the city to save dollars might very well like. One of them is very difficult and very time consuming to get the confiscation procedure through, that's one. The second one is that after we confiscate the vehicles and put them in undercover use, they are readily identified by the criminal. element. Other than changing the paint and changing the color scheme on the car, we do not have the ability to change these vehicles rapidly, as do the criminal element. They can go to a rental car agency, and they do, and they use rental cars, and they change cars on us constantly. We need the same ability that they have. So there's two reasons why we do not use the confiscated vehicles to the extent that we would like. Mr. Carollo: All right, I realize that, Major. However, my point being was, I realized then and I do now that we would always need a certain amount of cars to lease out; but what I was trying to accomplish was to make that number a minimum, and twenty five does seem awfully high. I don't think we would be trading on and off twenty-five vehicles constantly. I think if we would have twelve, fifteen, twenty cars a year, which we could easily have that I think, confiscated and put into use, that we could cut that number of twenty-five vehicles a year maybe by half. Major Gunn: Well, that's why I wanted to explain about the twenty-five vehicles. The twenty-five vehicles, this is a contract that runs from April first of this year to April first of next year, it's a one year contract. It does not mean that we're going to be, number one, use all of the dollars that need to be appropriated for this. And number two, it will not mean that we will use all of the vehicles. Our Department is expanding and our operations are expanding, so we're trying to build in an increase for a possible use during the next year. Mow, we've actually only increased the vehicles during this year by twenty thousand, it goes from forty-eight to sixty in dollars that we need for this year, but in order get rental cars we must sign a one-year contract. It runs from April 1 of this year to April 1 of next year. That's the only way we can get this dollar figure of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450) and the ability to change the vehicles rapidly. These rental cars agencies do not want to rent to us hardly at all, and in order to get those deals we have to do that. Mr. Carollo: Now Major, if you could come back, or if someone from your Department, on the next time we meet, which is April the first, which is a deadline that you have to have this contract signed... Mayor Ferre: no, Joe, I recommend that you take it up of the 25th as a special item, that gives him a week. Mr. Carollo: O.R., that would be fine, just correct, the 25th. Mayor Ferre: Pick it up as a special item, so in other words, this item then is continued, can we do that? MAR 16 1982 Mr. Carollo: And what I want, Major, is how many cars were confiscated and what efforts were done to use confiscated cars for departmental use. That was to the Chief back in April of last year. Major Gunn: Yes, sir, I will. 34. DISCUSSION OF THE DrrARTMENT OF TRADE & COV211ERCE f Mayor Ferre: All right, we'll see you on the 25th. Now, Mr. Manager, as I see it, we've covered everything except the Mel Reese plaque, w};ich I think we're all in accord whatever Mrs. Reese wants is fine; and the Department of Trade & Commerce, and just for the record so that it's clear, I made a statement to you that we want you to put this back on the agenda for discussion on the April meeting and that I would appreciate your looking into and I mentioned two possibilities. One, was the merger of this Department with Metropolitan Dade County or a portion thereof, which would be a limitation for us just to get involved in the foreign trade and commerce aspects of the Department of Trade & Commerce. The second proposal was that we studied a possibility of creating an authority and having a consortium of some sort between Metro and ourselves, appointing a Board of Directors and running it as a quasi -autonomous operation reporting to us through staff, through you, and as I said, I discussed this matter with the County Manager, Merrit Stierheim was very enthused with the idea, thought that it would be a great improvement for both of us. I would like very much for you to make an appointment with Merrit Stierheim between now and the meeting in April and see if you can go into that, O.K.? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. THEREUPON, the Chair TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED THE REGULAR AGENDA, AND PROCEEDED TO TAKE UP ITEMS BELONGING TO THE FORMAL CITY COMMISSION SESSION PORTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA. -5. INSTR!JCT CITY ATiGRNEY TO PREPARE AN.ENnIMENT TO ORD. 9382, SECTION: 8 (A) RELF:TING TO HISTORIC P; £rERVATION IN THE CPD-2 DISTRICT. Mayor Ferre: On 55-a, Arvah Parks, whom I think is here, has regiested that a full Commission or at least four members of the Commission be present. So who wants to lead off this parade? (PAUSE) O.K., now we've talked enough about this, so we don't need any more statements that are repetitious about things that have been previously said, and I'm going to take the prerogative of the chair to just cut you off if you start repeating something that someone else has said. What's this a last minute consultation? Mr.Traurig : Mr. Paul is suggesting that item 60 be taken first since more people are here on item sixty... [Mayor Ferre: I have no problems but I think poor Arvah and the Historical people, Danny, have been waiting all afternoon and you're not about to do that to them. Mr. Carollo: Bob, is Mr. Paul, one of the attorneys for item 607 (LAUGHTER) Mayor Ferre: I think you said no too quickly there, Bob. Are we waiting for you, Bob? Mr. Traurig: I guess the answer is yes, but I had a few little notes that I wanted to find before•I start. Such short notice that I didn't realize that it was coming up today. - (LAUGHTER) Mayor Ferre: Do you want this item deferred for six months from now, while you find your notes? Mr. Traurig: Why don't I let someone else speak first and I'll be right hack. Mayor Ferre: O.X. All right, anyone else want to speak and give us your wisdom? Let me tell you where we were on this item. My position is that even though I am not in favor of the Sears Tower per se, I do think that we ought to have a Public gearing on it. And what I was recommending that we do is if this item will pass today, that we have a Hearing on the Sears Tower soon so that it doesn't act as a sword of Democles over this project and we can accelerate this whole process. Yes, sir? Mr. Lee: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Roswell E. Lee, I live at 630 Island Road, Miami, Florida. I have lived and worked in this area so long that I feel like I'm sort of an authority on it. My parents came here to Miami in 1920. !!y father purchased a little grocery store and living quarters diagonally across the street from Sears Roebuck. Mayor Ferre: Why don't you speak closer to the microphone. Mr. Lee: Closer? O.K., how about that? Did you hear my last statement? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Lee: Well, that soon turned into a tackle store and our business remained there for fifty-four years until I had to move away to get larger quarters. Now, I played in that area, I played with the sons of the people who owned the houses that were torn down to build Sears, that watched Sears go up, in fact I watched probably every building that is in that neighborhood go up and the ones that have come down. Now, I feel that Sears' usefulness is gone, I mean there is no large company that is going to move into that store. It's just too archaic. Now, it would be useful as a museum, if you wanted a museum down there. But what are you going to do with a museum? If this project that they want to build there is going to bring taxes, it's going to bring large employment, it's going to bring business to Miami, it's going to become an exciting area. There is nothing exciting about a museum. In fact seven blocks _ down the street you have the old news building, they can turn that into a museum if you want a museum. Right now we're going through kind of a recession here; and I feel like if you keep this Sears Tower up, it may be the excuse not to build this project and it's going to set the Omni area back maybe five years before somebody else is willing to come in and risk it. You know, we went through this with the port, people in the islands fought the port like mad. The port is probably one of the biggest assets we have in the city today. Right now, I noticed Keyes has pulled their sign down, they've backed off. Look at what happened... suppose your historical society who had come in, had come in and told the Herald, "you can't tear down those appartment buildings sitting down in the bay and build the Herald building." Mayor Ferre: They would have done us a favor. Mr. Lee: What's that? Mayor Ferre: They would have done us a big favor. Mr. Lee: Well, maybe you, (LAUGH) well, you'll have to admit that they are an asset to the city. Mr. Plummer: Who is? Mayor Ferre: I'll do no such thing. Mr. Lee: well, they employ a lot of people, that's a large building, and they're O.K. I ride to Coral Gables... Mayor Ferre: You can find better examples than that. Mr. Lee: O.K., I've a better one right now. I ride through the Gables all the time. They're tearing old buildings down in the Gables that are older 58 MAR 16 1982 Mr. Lee (CONTIPUMD): than the Sears building, and they are building large new office buildings that are full of people, creating business, pulling in corporations practically from all over the world. Mayor Ferre: We need to move along now, so wind up your statement. Mr. Lee: All right, well probably my last statement here is if you're wondering if I'm going to benefit anything with the Sears Tower coming down, year I think I'll benefit. I think everybody in this room will benefit, and I think Miami will benefit if the Sears Tower comes down to further this Omni project that's going along here. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you, sir. All right, now, the issue before us is paragraph 8, which is the historic preservation section of this Ordinance. We've voted the Ordinance out with the exception of this paragraph B. Mr. Plummer said that he was willing to vote for portion A in the first sentence, stopping at the word Public Hearing, that he is opposed to the following: "the purpose of such Public Hearing is to insure the structures of major historic significance are preserved for the health, prosperity, education and wellfare of the people of Miami unless an undue economic hardship will result which destroys all reasonable and beneficial use of the property. Now, J.L., in the interest of trying to reach harmony here, would you accept the following: "unless an undue economic hardship at the sole opinion of the City Commission..." Mr. Plummer: Say no more, that's acceptable. As long as this Commission reserves and retains the right to make the determination, I have no problem with it. Mayor Ferre: O.K. Is that a happy medium? Does anybody have any serious problems with that? Well, the matter of the fact is that the Commission is going to make that decision anyway, and the only problem is that there was some question about the legal impact of leaving it nebulous because then... but if we put in at the sole discretion of the Commission. Now, Terry, do you have any problems with that legally? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Ugh! George, do you want to hire two attorneys? Mr. Percy:The determination, ►v Mayor, is that we put in standards that are recognized by the courts that will guide this Commission. obviously the determination is yours, but you need a yardstick or some device to measure by and we want it on the face of the ordinance, and that's what we've done. I think that this is defensible. Mayor Ferre: Now, please tell me why legally, after undue economic hardship as determined by the City of Miami Commission, or... Mr. Percy: If you go on to say which would destroy the reasonable and beneficial use of property, that's the standard. Mayor Ferre: Fine, I have no problems with that. Mr. Plummer: As determined by the Commission Mayor Ferre: And undue economic hardship will result, in fact I'll tell you what, I'll put it at the end of the sentence, which makes it clearer, all reasonable and undue economic hardship would result which destroys all reasonable and beneficial use of the property, as determined by the City of Miami Commission. Do you accept that? Mr. Percy: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: I accept that. Mayor Ferre: Now, does anybody have any problems with that? Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I hope that I haven't lost the opportunity to speak. Mayor Ferre: No, you haven't lost your opportunity to speak, but I'm just.. Vg MAR 1 6 1�62 It 7 Mr. Traurig: I would like to speak for just a moment. You know, there are no villains here, and everybody is right, and i..Arva, my old dear friend and, a more sincere person I don't know. And obviously, it is very important to respect the old and to preserve those things that should be preserved in the City. The issue is not whether or not we ought to have a historic pre '• servation ordinance that would be applicable to all appropriate buildings in the City. The issue is timing. You are trying to impose, in one ordinance a historic preservation clause while it the same time you have pending before you the Heritage Conservation Board and the guidelines for determining exact- ly how other buildings throughout the City will be certified and will become part of the historic preservation effort, and this establishes the total criteria for determination by the City Commission in the future, regarding other properties. We think that this ordinance is just unready for your final action today. When Mr. Percy said to you "No, we have got to have in there reasonable and beneficial use of the property as an expression of, you know, for your guidance as to whether or not undue economic hardship exists", you take into consideration the fact that we are talking about just the facade facing the intersection of the boulevard at 13th Street, could that possibly have a reasonable and beneficial use? It is just a facade. It doesn't have a use. He is taking those... that expression from the Grand Central Terminal case, and they could use Grand Central Station as an office building, or for a dozen other, appropriate uses, so that had reasonable and — beneficial use. We are saying to you, no harm would befall the City of Miami if you took no action on this section tonight, but you addressed it when you address the entire subject of historic preservation. We are prepared to give you our covenant, either in the form of restrictive covenant, or our commit- ment now, that we won't touch this building until you enact this ordinance, provided of course, that you do it within a reasonable period of time - six months, eight months, whatever the time is. We think that it ought to be in the context of the total effort of the City, not just a scattered shot di- rected at the Sears building at the present time. We think that also when you have in this ordinance that the scale and the character of that tower has to be preserved, that it makes it very difficult for us to do the overall planning of other towers on this tract. We want to sit down with staff and talk about how we can make a compatible arrangement between the other develop- ment on this property and the tower which you want to preserve. We think there are insufficient guidelines; we think it is fraught with legal problems; we are not going to harm the City by a delay. We urge you not to take this action, but that you wait until the ordinance, which you say, you know, that you want to get back to you very quickly, is presented to you in its totality. We urge that you not take the action tonight. Mayor Ferre: Alright now, I will tell you, Mr. Traurig, as much as I respect your opinion, in this particular case, I do not agree, and I feel that it is time for us to make a statement. I am willing to give all the safeguards, and I would like to add, as a matter of fact, a simple sentence that clarifies the question of when the public hearing would be, because I am willing to vote on this without accepting the Sears Building. However, I do not want that as a Sword of Damocles, so I would want a ... Mr. Percy... a paragraph in here that would read something like this, it would say: "City of Miami Commission can accelerate the public hearing before the request of the permit by the owner of demolition, the demolition permit by the owner at its sole discretion, at his discretion". In other words, if the City...see what this says, is no demolition permit shall be issued, and what I want to insert in there, is that we don't have to wait for the permit of demolition to hold a public hear- ing, that the City Commission at its discretion can accelerate the public hear- ing on any particular building to determine whether or not it fits the...in other words, so that we do not have to wait until the demolition permit is requested. Mr. Plummer: The wording would be that the City Commission could initiate at any time a public hearing relating to an historical site. Mayor Ferre: Okay, that is fine. Mrs. Arva Parks: That doesn't bother us at all. I think that what we have set out to try to achieve is to have the City Commission sit down and decide that this is fairly for everyone, and I think what you are proposing is exact- ly what we hope will happen if all the buildings and not Sears, if all the buildings under this ordinance would get a fair hearing before you and we don't La MAR 16 1982 Id Mrs. Parka: (con't) have lawyers from out of town, and lawyers in town, but we have you, and that is who we will wait for. Mayor Ferre: And you see, this really shouldn't be a part of the zoning matter, as you said; it really merits a hearing all of its own. Mrs. Parks: I think the only question there, and we talked about this before, is that if all the City was zoned five times what it is now, then I think that would be a valid argument, but this is kind of a public tradeoff for a great windfall Rift for All the vroaerty owners in that area. I think that answers that why this shoulA he in the middle of this ordinance and I think that is why, because it is a public thought. Mayor Ferre: Alright, does anybody else want to speak on this issue? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to see inserted, and Alva brought this to my attention during the break, that it be mandatory whatever wording you want to use, that the developers must sit down with and discuss with the appropriate people, at least discuss. and we would hope that they could come out with some kind of a consensus, but if not, we make it mandated that one meeting shall at least take place between the developers and interested parties. Mayor Ferre: Why don't you incorporate into that paragraph which we just talked about - the Commission initiating. In other words, the Commission may initiate a public hearing, provided however, that the property owner, where the historic site is located, and the representatives of the public... now, how are we going to word that? Mr. Plummer: Interested parties. Mayor Ferre: That interested parties must have the opportunity to meet on the issue. Mr. Plummer: And Mr. Traurig should pay for the lunch. Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable now? Can we move along? As amended, will somebody make the motion? Is there a second? Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 82-267 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION INSTRUCTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY LEGISLATION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 9382 ("Central Commercial CBD-2 District - setback provisions, see -through corridors, landscaping, street widths and dedica- tions...") by incorporating therein a Section 8(a) with the following proposed language: side drop-off lanes are requested by private develop- ment, minimum setbacks and sidewalk development stand- ards shall be adjusted to compensate for the loss of sidewalk area. HISTORIC PRESERVATION (a) No demolition permit shall be issued by the Building Department for any structure of major significance in local history or architectural history, as deter- mined by the Dade County Historic Survey, unless the City Commission has first approved such demolition Permit following a Public Hearing. The City Commis - sion may at any time initiate and/or accelerate a Public Hearing on the approval of a demolition permit, provided that prior thereto the developer shall meet with and discuss the proposed demolition with all interested parties. The purpose of such f tq MAR 16 1982 :t Public Hearing is to ensure that structures of major historic significance are preserved for the health; prosperity, education and Welfare of the people of Miami unless an undue economic hardship would result which destroys (all) reason- able end beneficial use of property, as determined by the City Commission. The $uilding Depart— t shall record such structures on the official zoning saps • Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins AFTER ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: Now would you bring this back, Mr. Percy, in its final form... are you going to do it tonight? Mr. Percy: Yes air. For this page, yes sir.. Mayor Ferre: Oh fine, if you can do it tonight... Mr. Percy: We are going to add that to Sub -paragraph 8(a), the language that... Mayor Ferre: That is fine. If you can do it tonight, all the better. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At the end of the Commission Meeting and after a finding by Mayor Ferre that there was st.11 no consensus among the interested parties, Mayor Ferre indicated that the issue of the proposed language of Section 8(a) of Ord. 9382 would be continued to the meeting of March 25, 1982. 36. AMEND 6871, ARTICLE %I-2, (RESIDENTIAL OFR;l - R-CB DIST) CONCERNING USE REGULATIONS, FAR, LOT COVERAM, ETC. Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item 60. This is an ordinance on second reading. It is the Planning Department's application of Ordinance 6871, and so on, which was previously moved by Commissioner Perez and voted upon unanimously... seconded by Plummer, it was a•unanimous vote. We are on 60. Mr. McManus. Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, for the record, this Commission directed the Planning Department to undertate certain changes after first reading, and these have been accomplished at this second reading and are incorporated in the ordinance before you. Let me quickly run through this. On the use regulations originally contained a recommendation for a maximum F.A.R. of .25 for retail - that was increased.... Mayor Ferre: I didn't hear that Joe - 2.5? Mr. McManus: .25 for retail. That was increased to .5. This is in your agenda packet, Mr. Mayor, I think on two pages an the cover. In response to the Commission's concern..... it should be facing pages on 68. The second point is in response to the Commission's concern about the operations of bars and nightclubs, these were made conditional uses. The third point is that the original recommendations of Planning Department was an absolute maximum of F.A.R. .3. We changed this to allow waterfront property to ex- ceed F.A.R. if they provide the underground parking, they would qualify for certain bonuses. Mayor Ferre: If they had what kind of parking? �2 mAR 161982 [i Mr. McManus: Underground parking, or if they provide a baywalk, they could exceed that F.A.R. Mayor Ferre: In additon to the F.A.R. .5 retail? Or is it part of. Mr. McManus., In addition to. Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, the property in front of the Four Ambassa- dors, there. Okay, for example, if they want to put a mixed development, and they get all these bonuses, they could get up an F.A.R. of 3, right? For non-residential use, in addition to which they would have .5 for commercial? Ms. Meyers: Yes, and then other bonuses on top of that. Mayor Ferre: And then all the other bonuses. Mr. Plummer: But, not to exceed 4,000 sq. ft. on the retail, right? Mayor Ferre: No, no, they coulnd't exceed 4,000 sq. ft., of course. They have got .5. For example, a piece of property that has 200,000 - this is for argument's sake, I don't know if there is any such thing there, but... Ms. Meyers: Yes, the Four Ambassadors site. Mayor Ferre: Has over 200,000 sq. ft., so .5 would be 100,000 sq. ft. of... Ms. Meyers: 100,000 total sq. ft. of retail, but any one establishment could not exceed 4,000 sq. ft. Mayor Ferre: So, it would be limited to smaller shops. Mr. Plummer: Right, in other words, it is not going to be a major tenant like Sears or Jeffersons or.. Mayor Ferre: Yes. What would be the total F.A.R. if everybody got all the bonuses and did all the good things, and what have you? Ms. Meyers: Just about a 61. Mayor Ferre: So, it still would be under the Omni area that we just approved in density. Ms. Meyers: That's right. Mayor Ferre: But over anything else that's there. Ms. Meyers: Well over anything. Mayor Ferre: There is no 6 now anywhere on Brickell Avenue. Ms. Meyers: No, what's the highest, 2.8 or something like that? 3? 3.1 is the highest there. Mayor Ferre: O.K. Mr. Plummer: What concern should this commission have especially in the area of where the Mayor was just talking about, the Four Ambassadors, keeping in mind the development of Claughton Island. Ms. Meyers: Related to traffic? Mr. Plummer: Relating to anything for 'that particular area for this thing which is going to be impacted by Claughton Island. Now what concern should we have if any, as it relates to 7,000 or whatever it is on Claughton Island in and around 8th Street? Mr. Mc Manus: Mr. Commissioner, the original scheme on Claughton Island included somewhere in the order of 1.3 million square feet of office space. The developers have reshaped that project, and they're now estimating somewhere in the order of less than 200,000 square feet of office space. In turn they are going forward with their residential development. The difference there is that there is less peak power impact by work trips on the street system. e3 MAR 16 1982 16 4 Mr. Mc Menus: (CONTINUED) Now, we currently have of exiting vehicular cap on vehicles exiting Claughton island during the peak hour. The developers are aware of that and they are scaling Claughton island to fit that caps so that we know the exact number of vehicles exiting Claughton Island during the peak hour in the street system and we have been working on that. . Mr. Plummer: Joe, I guess my Concern is more about i►t the present time the Four Ambassadors, once they enlarge that ballroom, the parking situation even with that lot in question that the Mayor was just speaking of, we must -tow 25-30 cars a day Away from that given area. Now, i'f you take away that parking lot, you add to the problem of Claughton Island. I again ask my question: What should this Commission be concerned about for the possibility of going up to a six F.A.R.? Mr. Mc Manus: Commissioner, we have tried to look at traffic studies in relation to development somewhat under the six that We are talking about. on the other hand, it would surprise us if all of the Brickell area were developed at six. We think that it's more likely than on the average, it would be hitting three or four. From what we know now, we think with certain traffic improvements, the traffic can be accomodated. Now again, we are getting into a discussion there of respective impact fees to upgrade that infrastructure, as you recall this afternoon. Mr. Plummer: I very well recall but I also know that that's a private island. Mr. Mc Manus: Well, I wasn't speaking about the island, Commissioner, I was speaking about Brickell itself in the infrastructure. Mr. Plummer: All right, so you don't see any great concern? Mr. Mc Manus: Not in Claughton Island itself, but as we get out into the Brickell Street system, and as we are talking about the existing sewer system in the Brickell area, yes, we have some concerns, but we think it's within the scope of the next twenty years to accomodate them. Mr. Plummer: O.K. Mr. Mc Manus: Going on the fourth point, the Planning Department's original recommendation there was a bonus of F.A.R. 1, and then waterfront properties, F.A.R. 2 on waterfront properties. This has been changed to provide a maximum residential bonus of F.A.R. 2 on all properties, so we have that uniform now. The fifth point is that where bonuses are given for retail or residential uses, such space shall remain in that use permanently, in other words, you can't keep turning that over as you move along through time. Mr. Plummer: The Four Ambassadors was changed about seven times to accomodate the needs of the present. Mr. Mc Manus: There is concern about the residential area south of 15th Road, and we've added some public amenity requirements with regard to that and minimizing shadows In that area. The transitional area has been defined with a radius of 600 feet... Mayor Ferre: Is that the area that you were concerned and affected by? Has this been addressed so that you're satisfied on this, or are you against this? (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE) !Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, you're satisfied. Now, Janet, you're not satisfied. Now, let me... I'm sure we'll be getting into this when you get up to make your point, but yesterday or the day before driving on the expressway in the afternoon commting south I noticed on Nick Morley's building and the building on my sister's former property, that that building is so close to the other one that it cast a complete shadow on it on the side. And you know, it struck me, who in the world, I mean I hate to say this about my friend, Nick, but who in the world is going to buy those apartments that live permanently in the shade? I mean in the morning the sun comes up on the other side, therefore, they get no sun, and in the afternoon when they'd normally get sun, they are blocked by the complete building. Mr. Plummer: Think of how much they'll save on the air conditioning bill. V4 MAR 16 1982 Mayor Ferre: That's unbelievable. All right, go ahead on the other area. Mr. Mc Manus: The seventh point is that there is now a requirement of public access to be provided the first 20 feet of waterfront set back area and again that would operate with the City's Waterfront Charter Amendment. There has been a request that we look at further look at parking spaces in the mixed used credit. we are now permitting no more than 30% of the total parking spaces to be assigned to the mixed used credit for residential space has been utilized. Mayor Ferre: I don't understand that. You mean if you have a mixed use, 30% of the parking has to be reserved for the commercial portion of it? Mr. Mc Manus: It permits no more than 30% of the total parking spaces to be assigned. Mayor Ferre: Assigned to whom? To anybody? Mr. Mc Manus: To anybody, presumably the residents. Mayor Ferre: So, if I buy 3,000 square foot, I mean $300,000 condominium, I cannot buy a place to park? Mr. Mc Manus: That's right. It says only... Mayor Ferre: Unless I'm part of the lucky 30%. Mr. Mc Manus: It's only if they elect to credit, continuing on the line where the mixed use credit has been utilized. Mayor Ferre: Oh, only if they elect to credit. I tell you, I think the approach to that, doing it opposite may be a better way of doing it. That is to say that if you have 400 parking spaces, 20% are non -assigned, then I think you have a better chance. But to say that you're going to have... I mean I wouldn't buy a $300,000 condominium and not get a guaranteed parking space. Mr. Mc Manus: Mr. Mayor, let we conclude on two clarifying points that we've added under nine here. We've added a phrase regarding floor ratios provided the requirements of this district are complied with to further clarify that the intent of awarding of bonuses is not automatic; and secondly we clarified some distance requirements in the three block connection saying that it's no more than 300 feet in either direction. We think those are clarifying the language a little bit. Mayor Ferre: Explain that last part, 9-a I understand, 9-b I don't. Mr. Mc Manus: It was intent of three block connection regulations that pedestrians have to walk no more than 300 feet in either direction to reach such a connection. Mayor Ferre: I can read, I read that. Mr. Mc Manus: Therefore, the maximum distance between pedestrian connection has been changed from 300 feet to 600 feet. In other words, if you were exactly midway between two pedestrian connections, you would be 300 feet from either one, or the pedestrian connections themselves would be 600 feet apart. Mayor Ferre: Pedestrian connections between what and what? Across the street, across Brickell? Unidentified Speaker: From Brickell to Bayshore, from Brickell to Miami Avenue, east -west from Miami Avenue to Rapid Transit. Mr. Plummer: I had requested some clarification on restaurant and launges existing in these multiple use buildings. Mayor Ferre: Oh, yes, because of the Menage situation? Mr. Plummer: Well, that among others. g5 MAR 16 1982 4 Ms. Meyers: We inserted those as a conditional use so that any individual request comes to you with the particulars. Mr. Plummer: All right, I'm well satisfied with that. !Mayor Ferre: O.R., does that -conclude your presentation? Any questions? All right, let's see, who wants to speak from the public? Raise your hands so I can see how many public speakers we have today. one, two, three, four, five, all right, there is the microphone; I think there's not that many but we need to write theme down, so as you will. It's three minutes; does anybody need more than three minutes? I thought you might, Janet. Haw many minutes do you need, Janet? (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE) Mayor Ferre: Within limitations-- Now Scooper I'm not going to let you... (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE) Mayor Ferre: I'm glad to hear that. O.K., let's get on with the show. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Robert H. Traurig, I'm an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue. On behalf of several property owners on Brickell Avenue, I strongly urge you to adopt the ordinance that has been submitted to you with only some minor revisions. I wrote a letter to you, Mr. Mayor and to each of the members of the City Commission and I don't know whether or not you've had an opportunity to read it. I'll tell you the three points that we raised and we ask you to consider them among the things that you will be considering today. Number one, although there is a provision here to permit some retail space, there has been a limitation made of 4,000 square feet for any one establishment. We urge you to concider 10,000 square feet for a maximum number of square feet of any one establishment. I think it's been demonstrated that in major projects such as will occur on Brickell Avenue there may be one larger user and we want to have the opportunity to provide space for that larger user. Point number two, with regard to the parking issue, and the Hayor brought this up, there is a provision that if there is a mixed use that there can be a reduction of 30% of the required parking spaces; so for example, if under normal circumstances you needed 1,000 parking spaces,,theoretically you could get a reduction of 300, bringing it down to 700. We think that's great; but we would ask you that rather than concider that only 30% of those spaces can be assigned, that a larger percentage be permitted to be assigned and we suggested 50%. The Mayor raised the question about the man who bought a very expensive apartment, and who may not be able to get an assigned parking space. That concerns us because you are trying to encourage a mixed use. This is only applicable if you have a mixed use, so you will have some condominium and some hotel space perhaps along with the office and commercial space. And the condo buyer wants the assignment of a parking space; and the head of the security's firm or the mead of the law office, or the mead of the realtor firm that's in that building will probably want (or accounting firs) will want saw assigned parking spaces to the key personnel in that firm. So we urge you to-concider a higher percentage. And finally, the issue of the shadow requirements; you have a provision here, in lieu of a view corridor which is impossible to obtain. You have a provision which says that if you are within a prohibitive distance of the R-5, or R-5-A, or the R-3-B districts. Now, for your edification, R-5 would be South Bayshore Drive, R-5-A would be the east side of Brickell Avenue from 15th to 26th, and R-3-B would be the west side of Brickell Avenue. That there can be no shadows during certain prohibited hours, and that would be 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. during the Equinoxial period, that is March 21 and September 21. We think that the prohibition about shadows affecting the R-5-A and the R-3-B are absolutely valid; but we urge you to delete the requirements that there be no shadows on the R-5 area, which is the South Bayshore. And specifically because that property which is being pointed out on your screen couldn't possibly be developed any height of greater than 19 stories without casting a shadow on the R-5. We've already done the shadow studies. We're prepared to show them to you. So we urge you to be more liberal, and those buildings are in existence already, we urge you not to require that we put not put some kind of shadow on their garage or some portion of their public area because it is impossible to achieve that. WAAR 1 6198Z Mayor Ferret That's called the South Bayshore Drive area? Mr. Traurig: Yes, and that's the R-5 area. So those three points we would call to your attention and we would ask you to pass the Ordinance with ame minor modifications along those lines. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, before we proceed, what is the staff recommendations on the three points? In other words, rather than the 4,000, 10,0001 50% parking assignment rather than 30• and shadows. Ms. Meyers: On the first point, staff has no problems changing to 10,000 square feet. We think that is still a small store and not a department store. It protects the intent of the Odinance. Mayor Ferret O.K., let's see what the Commission feels because these will start accumulating in on us. I, for one, don't have any problems, but frankly the difference between four and ten thousand doesn't mean anything. If you're talking about 100,000 or 200,000 square feet, you're talking about a big store. But a 10,000 square foot store is not a very big store. Anybody have any problems with that? Mr. Plummer: I would prefer the four. Mayor Ferre: Four is a very small, little place. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, let's understand or at least what I understkia. We in no way are trying to promote Brickell area as a retail shopping area. That's not the characted of Brickell. Mayor Ferre: Understood. Mr. Plummer: What we're trying to do is to give as what I would assume and what I understood from the first go -round was we were basically going to appeal to accessory uses to the buildings;and 4,000 foot, in my estimation is adequate. Now, you start going and you start putting in... Mayor Ferret All right, Mr. Plummer wants to address the issue and I would like to note to all the speakers who come up, I'm going to limit you just to the issue before us, very briefly. Mr. Blumberg:: With your consent, gentlemen, my name is David Blumberg president of Plan Development Corp., which is the owner of part of the property affected. Mr. 'Plummer, gentlemen, when you talk about a 10,000 square foot store, you talk about a typical Liggets or a drug store of that size, just to give you a frame of reference, I'm not suggesting that that store would be a drug... if you want to develop what we call mixed use, and we're not talking about shopping centers because now you have to have a lead tenant of... and. the smallest department store I know is a 90,000 square foot store. But you just can't develop that much space with little 2,000 square foot stores. Mayor Ferret Is 10,000 square feet sufficient? Mr.Blumberiz: Yes, I think it is. I called Citycorp you know they have that great building in New York, and they have a little shopping area in their plaza. I called them to see what the largest store they had was. It was a gift store of 30,000 feet, so that's a frame of reference which you might want to concider. Mayor Ferret now about a restaurant, now, because 10,000 square feet for a restaurant is awfully small. Mr. Blumberg: Yes, it is and especially if you want to get enough seats for your liquor license. Mayor Ferre: So is there an exception here for restaurants? There is an exception. So we're talking just about stores, 10,000 square feet stores. O.K., I have no problem. Mr. Blumberg: We're talking about stores, yes. Mr. Plummer: But the restaurants are in the conditional use. 167 MAR 16 1982 A 4 Mayor Ferre: You. Mr. Plummer: I'm concerned where they are opened to the Public, rather than accessory use to the building. That's my concern, because that creates a parking problem. Ms. Meyers: O.K., restaurants lthd cafe* are not a omiditional use, -but night clubs, theatres and the kited of entertainment like Menage are a conditional use. Mayor Ferret O.R.? Mr. Plummer: Well, no, it's not all right. You know, if you put in a restaurant of such capacity that we look at a 10,000 square foot restaurant, you could be generating 100 to 150 more cars a night. Mayor Ferre: No, no, J.L., a restaurant. restaurant is a little hole in the wall. Mr. Plummer: It's 100 by 100. First of all, a 10,000 square foot I mean that4B not much of a... 3 `- Mayor Ferre: No, I guess you're right. You could get what, 200-- (PAUSE) It's also a night club, and it's also a disco, and it's open all night. Mr. Plummer: See, to me, when you talk about mixed use, to me that's a mixed use of living and office. That to me is mixed use. Now as I see it, we're trying to open the door to another mix of the use and that is retail. I don't think anybody here is trying to encourage retail sales in the Brickell area. Mayor Ferre: Well, Plummer, how do you want to limit it, so we can move along? Mr. Plummer: That's why I thought that it should be an accessory use to the building, now that's the fray most of them stand today. I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll split the difference with you. The difference between 4 and 10 is 6, and anything above 6, let them come in for conditional use. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Plummer, I just want to give you some comfort with regard to how much retail could be there. -There is a limitation of 2.5 F.A.R. for the retail in any one of these parcels. So, therefore, there is a limitation on the total quantity of retail. We just wanted to make sure that if we have a larger tenant that wants to be able to service a larger complex, that we have some latitude. Mr. Plummer: Bob, I have no problem with servicing of the building. My problem is when you start inviting the public and it generates more traffic and more cars. Mr. Traurig: O.R., one last thing, the restaurant is not an issue here. That's a conditional use, that has to be dealt with on its own merits in connection with parking, etc. when the time comes. 4. Mayor Ferro: O.K., Jack, do you want to add something? Ms. Meyers: Just to correct the record that you have a .5 total F.A.R. on retail, not .25. Mayor Ferro: .5, O.K., what's the will of this Commission? Mr. Carollo: Dan, do you want to add anything to that? Do you favor 10,000 or 4,000? U ADGHTER) Mr. Carollo: Who are you for this? Mayor Ferre: O.K., now, where are we? Is it 10, 4 or 7? Mr. Carollo: Maurice, you know, I like J.L., have some concerns on the parking, especially, well, you see how active the tow trucks are on a lot of those condominiums, but at the same time, I think that if we're really going to be fair C-8 MAR 16 1982 Mr. Carollos (CONTINUED) about those 10,000 feet, I think it is reasonable and something that we could live with, I would be in favor of 1o,000. Mayor Ferre: And you? Mr. Perez: Yes. Mayor Ferres O.K., what's the next? The next one is 50% parking. Ms. Meyers: Staff feels that we cannot deny the need to sell a with a condominium. However, this restriction only applies if thYdeveloper elects to build less parking spaces than he would otherwise be required to build; and we feel that there is a danger in allowing too many parking spaces to be assigned where the assigned spaces are ones that are vacated but are not available to the general public to use. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig is recommending rather than 30%, that you use 50%. What's your opinion on that? Ms. Meyers: We think that's a dangerously high number of spaces to assign. Mayor Ferre: That's too high, Now do you want to speak on that issue alone? Go ahead. Ms. Cooper: Janet Cooper, 1901 Brickell; when this item went before the Planning Advisory Board, the only thing that was in the Ordinance was a reduction of 30% on the number of residential spaces from the office spaces where there is a mixed used development. I suggested to the Planning Advisory Board that was not acceptable and gave them the reasons, they agreed with me, and they put that in the Ordinance as it came to you. When it came to you on first reading, Mr. Traurig got up and objected to that. I got up and gave my explanation again. He got up and said that after hearing my explanation he felt that it was reasonable (what I had said), and as I understood it, there was no change to be made. I don't know how another change came about between first and second reading, so I want you to understand the history on this. Now, it's not been explained to you properly what the proposal is. Talks about mixed used developments, where there's an office and residential, and the credit is not for 30% of the entire parking, but 30% of the number of the residential spaces would be credited towards the requirements for the office spaces. So, to give you a fair picture of what it is, it is something less than 30% of the total required, but it is still a significant number. Now, when we were talking about a similar issue on Claughton Island, there is a very interesting difference, and that is on Claughton Island there was a requirement that the structure for parking be the same structure, that they be available to both. In this instance there is no talk about it being the same structure, so it is entirely conceivable with the way the wording of this Ordinance is, is to have a separate structure for parking for residential and a separate structure for parking for office to credit from.. 30% of the residential into the office, just make a smaller structure on the office building parking and have no access interchange. That's the first defect in this Ordinance. Second defect is in the way that they talk about no more than 30% of the total number of parking spaces residential and non-residential are assigned during normal business hours,. Well, first of all, what normal business hours for one business is for instance, a bank, is different for another business that may operate 9 to 5 Monday through Friday, which is totally different from an office such as real estate which does a lot of business on the week -ends. So we're not talking about normal business hours in any definable sense. Second of all, when we were talking about Claughton Island having a maximum number or a maximum percentage of spaces that could be assigned, the Planning Department and the Zoning Department were up in arms saying: "how in the world are we going to enforce that they can only assign 10%, or 15%, or whatever the percentage is?" I find it phenomenal after that kind of lengthy discussion, to talk about enforcing not only a percentage but for normal business hours. This is totally un- enforceable. Now, as to the general concept of this, this is not a mandate in the reduction in parking, this is an option which a developer may choose to elect. He can assign all the parking spaces that he wants under the existing Ordinance for both his office and his residential if he provides the full complement of spaces. The whole theory of reducing the parking is that where spaces from one use will be available for the other, it's unnecessary to provide the full complement of both since there is some sort of overlap there. MAR 161982 Ms. Cooper: (CONTINUED) As it exists now, we have an average of 1 3/4 spaces required per residential unit. As I've told you on many occasions before, that's not enough. Because what happens is we get one space assinged per dwelling unit, and the rest of the spaces have to go to employees, second cars, visitors, all kinds of uses like that, and it's just not sufficient in a condominium.• Now to add an extra office use to that, allowing the assignment of spaces, it's going to be something that is not going to affect me personally, it's just going to be impossible for the people who are going to be utilising that structure.. So what I say is, if the developer wants to reduce the number of parking spaces, he has to give up that option of assigning spaces, because there is just no way that it will work. I see no difference between assigning a small percentage or a lesser percentage, it's going to amount to reducing the number of spaces available. So I suggest you just leave it the way it was at the first reading. Mayor Ferre: Do you want to answer her? She basically made three points. Ms. Meyers: Staff has proposed that this change to allow 30% in attempt to reach a compromise that the developers can perhaps live with. Mayor Ferre: Didn't ask you that. She made three points, why don't you answer them in the sequence that she brought them up. One was access interchange. Why don't you repeat your points. Ms. Meyers: O.K., whether or not access and interchange is available is something the Urban Development Review Board is supposed to guarantee. That's part of their job, to work out... Mayor Ferre: Why not chisel it into this? - Ms. Meyers: Well, we could, but, you know, there is a limit to what you can write in the ordinance and what you leave up.... Mayor Ferre: I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. Do you have any objections to that, Bob? Mr. Traurig: (INAUDIBLE, SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE WITHOUT A Mayor Ferre: No, of course, you don't. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE Mayor Ferre: That's not what she's talking about. She is talkir,j about the distinction between residential and commercial and that there is no interchange in access. The way this is written, I thick sLe is stretching a point but I think that is something that is reasonable and I don't see anybody having any problems in changing that. So do you accept that? DO you, Do yoi? Okay, so far so good, Janet, let's see how you do with the other two. Now the next one was the question of the business time. The next point I had here, you said regular business time is a very loose term-- inology because regular business time for a bank and the businesE of a baker; are all different. So how do you solve that problem? Ms. Meyers: If the Commission wishes to put in specific hours, we have no problem with that. Mayor Ferre: Acceptable? .... We're letting you have some points here, Janet, because the Herald is writing a big story about you, we want to show how effective you are. Okay, so you got that one. Now, what else? Well, the third thing that you had was the real bigger one and that is that she doesn't believe that there ought to be any restrictions and that there ought to be no assignment. Is that right? Ms. Cooper: My third point dealt with enforcement being impossible as this is written, but my fourth point which you were addressing was that the developer has an option, he can either build the full compliment for both and have all the assigned spaces he wants or if he wants the reductior. based on an overlap let him allow that overlap by not assigning spaces. Mayor Ferre: Is that reasonable? Mr. Herman Romney: Mr. Mayor, for the record, n-,,, riame .i s I'm an architect, I am familiar wit the area, having s 6 0 projects here, as an architect, I can say that the mixed use at the levels at which we're talking about in R-CB Mould justify that a discount be granted when more than one use is coming together on a site especially night time and day time such as..... Mayor Ferre: Nobody is questioning that. Mr. Romney: And I also think that it is important that assignment of one space per unit be allowed in a residential complex. Mayor Ferre: That what, assignment of? Mr. Romney: I believe that what I was trying to say was (1) that a discount should be allowed, (2) that assignment of one car space per apartment should also be allowed together with the discounting. Mayor Ferre: Does anybody else want to add to that? Mr. John Rice: I'm John Rice, Executive Vice -President of Interterra. We are building the Interterra Building at Brickell Avenue and Coral Way and we looked into this parking problem very seriously to the point of hiring Wilbur Smith as.an outside consultant, brought Apcoa in as a consultant and Meyers Brothers. Mayor Ferre: That's your first and second mistake. Mr. Rice: We were advised by all three of them that the operational capacity of a garage can be increased by about 30% if you do not assign parking, speak- ing for an office building. Mayor Ferre: Can be increased? Mr. Rice: Yes, sir, by virtue of the fact that when you go in there you don't see a space reserved for me and for everybody else in our office that isn't there and maybe the way you might address this problem is to give this credit in the event that there is not assigned parking for the office space because then you are truly increasing the capacity of the garage. Mayor Ferre: Let me tell you how I feel about this, this is just a personal opinion. With regards to office space, I think that the community is much better off if the office space garages do not have assigned spaces. And the fact is that at Southeast Bank, at One Biscayne and at Ameri First with few exceptions down at the ground there are no assigned spaces. There are a few reserved spaces and I think an office building is a lot better off, the moment you start assigning office spaces what is going to happen is this, that people are just not going to pay any attention like they do down at 27th and 7th at Carolyn Weiss's building, at the World Trust Tower. And all of these assigned spaces, what I do is I go about 100 empty spaces, it says "Do not. Park, Assigned", finally I get fed up around the corner, I say to hell with it an:? I just go park and I just look: for somebody that I know so that the anger will not be too ex- cessive so I just park anyway because you get to a point where you just don't pay attention to it. If you can't find a parking space and you've already gone in an-4 taken your ticket and what have you, so I think I agree with the premise that in an office building there shouldn't be any assigned parking. In a resi- dential building, however, that's different because if I come home atnight and I'm tired I want to just park and get to my apartment, I'm not going to start driving around and going in circles looking for a parking space because you're going to have all kinds of fights on that, you know, as to people trying to get.... I feel differently about residential. Mr. Rice: Well, I agree with you, Mr. Mayor, we don't have assigned parking in our office building for anyone and in our condominium we, of course, will have assigned parkin; because- you're quite right, you don't have to spend $30C,')..,0 fc.r an apartment, you might spend $50,00D and you're carrying in yo:r own groceries and yoj want to know where you're going to be any I think that the ap,.roa_h to the bonus might be better thought out as giving a credit again!;+ the cf:ice parking if, in fart, in that area they do not assigr: parking. Mayc.i Ferre: Okay, what is your reaction? Ms. Meyers: My reaction is still this: if you assigr, residential sl-aces those are going to be the spaces that are vacated during the day time by the resider,ts who occupy them but those spaces will not be available to the office woikt..•.s who area comii,g in trying to find parkin.;. Therefore, wu have a parking 'E 1 16 1982 problem - we have allowed the developer to build fewer spaces than he would otherwise be required to build for the office workers but those spaces are not available to the office workers. Mayor Ferre: so what you're saying is that if you're going to have a joint operation you've got to have open parking and you're willing to go up to 30% but that's it. Ms. Heyerst Beyond that, they're going to have to build office spaces# that's the best we can do. Mayor Ferre: Okay, I'll tell you - and Bob, you're not going to get your way on that I don't think. INAUDIBLE RESPONSE FROM AUDIENCE Mayor Ferre: Okay, is that acceptable to you? Mr. Carollo: I'd like to hear from Dan Paul for a second. Ms. Cooper: I just want to point out to you that this 30% is 30% of the total spaces both residential and office and it has been estimated that that would approximate 1 dwelling space per unit which would create the exact problem that Joyce has been concerned about, that I'm concerned about and that you, Mr. Mayor, are concerned about. I agree with you it is desirable to have an assigned space when your purchase an apartment but the problem with that is that it just doesn't allow for the use by the office people. Mayor Ferre: We're agreeing with you, Janet, but I think just so that there is a little margin of safety you've got to let these building owners have a little bit because you know they're going sometimes not be able to make a sale on a major office, you know somebody will come in and say, "Look, I"ll take 5:?,000 square feet of office space for Paul and Thompson but, you know, Mr. Thomason and Mr. Paul and so and so and 10 other people must have their parkir.a . Ms. well, the way that this is written will allow 100% assignment durin:, not normal business hours and 30% assignment during business hours. so if yc.a wart it to be 30% maximum at any time you should change it that way. Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable to you? Ms. Meyers: Yes. Mr. Ylununer: It's unenforceable..... Mayor Ferre: Does anyone have any problems with that? Mx. Plu=kr: Who is going to stand there and enforce it? Mayor Ferre: okay, we've got the last issue that you brought up, Bob, and that is shadows. 0 Vs. Meyc:s: Okay, the department feels that we have to be consistent with all of the residential areas that are affected by this. To exempt R-5 wouldn't be con:�,stent. Secondly, there cannot be any shadows cast to the south on P.-SA an R-3b. Shadows don't go south, they go north. Mayor Fe: re: Yes, but that's the point, is that on that circle there along the k-5 area where there is a curve it is impossible not to put up a build- ing ar;d not cast a shadow on the next building. Ms. Meyers: That's correct, however, the ordinance does not say that you cannot cast a shadow, it says that you are to work with the Urban Develop- ment Review Board to site the building so that it minimizes shadows cast. Mayor It. -re: Janet, do you want to talk about shadows? Ms. Cc,o:e:r: I need to talk about FAR because that's what this is in response to. I think you'll recall, Mr. Mayor, that when I was here on the first reading I suggested to you that your concept of a decreasing FAR from the center of downtown to the outskirts was not going to be accomplished by al- lowing a 6.5 or more FAR across the street from a 2.2 FAR which is the F-5A a:.: you instructed the Planning Department to go ahead and look into 'i 2 MAR 16 19BZ 0 It, reducing them and my suggestion was a reduction in the PAR between loth Street and 15th Street. Instead of that.... Mayor Terre: You mean so that it is a stepped down effect. Ms. Cooper: so that it is a step down, so that we would have less of an impact visually and so there would be a gradual decrease of FAR between downtown and the area where we turn into U.S. 1. Mayor Perre: Did we do that in Omni? Ms. Cooper: You had talked about it, Mr. Mayor, as far as going north of where the new CBD-2 District is. Where that has gone since then I don't know but you instructed the Department on the Miramar property, for example, as being immediately across the street to consider having an increased PAR so that it wouldn't be so drastic from 10 or 12 down to whatever the 2 or 1 or whatever it was. In response to your request, the Department came up with the shadows and with Urban Development Review and there are a number of problems with this. First of all, Mr. McManus, I have had, I must con- fess, no experience in dealing with this kind of restriction as far as shadows go so I asked Mr. McManus and he informed me that it would not have the effect of reducing an FAR, it would have the effect of making a shorter and wider building but it would not reduce the FAR necessarily. Also, as I understood it, the prime importance of what we were talking about was to re- duce the impact on the R-5A area south of 15th Road. What the shadow re- striction does is nothing to benefit that R-5A area, it seems only to hurt other areas. It doesn't seem to be of tremendous benefit at all or any benefit to the R-5A area. There is also no teeth in it because it asks them to go before the Urban Development Review Board to try to adjust cor- ridors and things but there is no mandatory requirements as I understand it and basically what I'm saying is the shadow requirement I guess helps some in that Mr. Traurig has indicated it would reduce the size of at least one building in height but it doesn't do what we were trying to accomplish and so what I'm asking is instead of this to please have a reduction in FAR between 14th and 15th Streets. I had initially asked for 3.5 FAR which is double what is allowed now of 1.5, more than double. And in a meeting with Senator McKnight and Mr. Traurig I went up to a 4.0 and I think that is reasonable for a step down for that one block and I would ask you to enact that. Thank you. — Mayor Ferre: All right, I'm sure that Senator Mc ]night or somebody wants to speak to that issue. Senator Robert Mc Knight: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, for the record I'm Robert Mc Knight, I'm Senior Vice -President of Planned Develop- ment Corporation. As Mr. Blumberg indicated, our company owns property that is directly affected. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I have personally spent _ a great deal of time on this ordinance on the issue that Ms. Cooper has raised, and if I could for just a second, as Mr. Luft and Ms. Meyers will tell you, this whole issue affecting our property that Mr. Blumberg and his — associates have conscientiously been acquiring for development, reverts all the way back, Mr. Mayor, to your suggestion that the Commission withhold consideration of completion of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan until the Brickell Station was completed. Again, to your credit, you have a very fine staff, Ms. Meyers and Mr. Luft, and I had a chance to attend most of the meetings spanning over three months, continued to discuss the concept of what should Brickell be, what kind of Floor Area Ratio should it be and again the Commission to your credit revisited the whole Omni issue, and Mr. Mayor, as you pointed out, there is a very interesting comparison between the more liberal proposal of the Omni development and what we are talking about here. But in any event, trying to work with your staff we not only reached a general understanding of what the staff recommendation was but frankly what a very affected property owner in this area would favor. We then went to the Zoning Advisory Board, I personally came down here, I worked very closely with your staff, when this issue that Ms. Cooper brought up, frankly I think the staff's reaction was that it was not a well-founded concern in light of all the safeguards in the proposal. I don't want to speak for them but I think that was their reaction. In any event, we again stopped what we were doing and sat down with your staff and tried to develop language which at least addressed both her concerns and something we could live with. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have spent a great deal of time working with you, we are asking for your cooperation, we think this language provides some concern, some addressing of the problem from Ms. Cooper and yet, frankly, does not inhibit and restrict us unreasonably. Thank you, sir. 73 MAR 16 1982 Mayor Ferre: Well, now; Senator, I'm sorry to bt! so obtuse, but does that mean you agree with No. Cooper's reco wndation of 4.0? Senator Mc Knight: Rio, Mr. Mayor, I was trying to make the point that we had worked with your staff on both the FAR provisions and throughout the entire ordinance. Mayor Ferre: Okay, well, you never quite addressed that point and I didn't know whether your last sentence there was that you had finally came to an agreement with Ms. Cooper. Senator Mc Knights No, sir, we are in agreement with -the proposal before you and we think it addresses her concerns. — Mayor Ferre: I only have one other question. This is not going to be called Dempsey Baron Plaza is it? Senator Mc Knight: I've got to go see him tomorrow morning at 7:30, I don't want to say anything bad. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Do you want to react to that, -to those two statements? Mr. Luft: I spoke, obviously, with Mr. Mc Knight, Senator Mc Knight and Ms. Cooper at length. From a professional standpoint I had trouble relating to a general concern of Ms. Cooper of sloping buildings. We have to be consistent and equitable in how we treat these districts and my question to her was.... Mayor Ferre: She wasn't talking about sloping. Mr. Luft: Well, she just did, she talked about sloping down or transitioning. Mayor Ferre: That's different. ' Mr. Luft: I asked her specifically what the impact of a building in that particular location would be on those properties to the south which was her primary concern. She suggested that the view corridors would be a problem, she didn't want to look at a big building. So I asked how does FAR affect that. We know that FAR, of course, provides bigger buildings but we also know that you can build a 50 story building with an FAR of 4, you can build a 40 story building with an FAR of 3. It didn't seem to us to hold up to simply say let's reduce the FAR and, therefore, we've solved the problem. It was far too simple because FAR does not easily translate into reducing buildings down, you can still build a tall building. The question was..... Mr. Plummer: What they spoke before was to height limitation. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but what she's saying, J. L., is that FAR in itself be- cause of the bulk obviously adds to the problem of height and Jack says not necessarily but, you know, that's an argument.... Mr. Luft: FAR as a control is normally used to protect against intensity levels that overpower a support system of a community trafficwise, sewer - wise and all of theLt. All we're saying here is that if you examine the view corridors you can identify the Brickell Avenue, the bayfront view corridor, the Miami Avenue view corridor as viewed from the south and safeguard against those with adequate design guidelines that we've attempted to write. In terms of sun and shade and shadows which is the real effect of tall buildings, we've written that in there in a fair way that we can give the Review Board enough direction that they can critically examine a project on Senator Mc Knight's property and offer concrete suggestions as to how to mitigate those impacts on those Pointview projects. Now, the simple fact remains to pick an FAR number out of the air, a 3 or a 4 is no assurance whatsoever that we're going to really solve these adjacent impact problems and we couldn't fairly suggest to you that we could honestly pick a number out of the air and say that was going to be it, that didn't satisfy us as a proper solution. Mayor Ferre: All right, one quick rebuttal and then we've got to move along. Ms. Cooper: I agree that FAR doesn't solve all the problems but it goes a long ways towards it and I think that added to what is in the ordinance it will be a great help. The other problem is without the FAR requirement there is nothing mandatory because all the language that was suggested to solve this problem is should and will try to and that kind of language and there is nothing mandatory about it. So there is absolutely no protection the way it is offered as is. e.} 1 ` MAR 16 1982 Mayor Ferre: All right, does anybody else want to speak on this issue? Questions from Commissioners? All right, what is the position on this? The question is whether or not we leave the FAR down to 15th Road the same as the rest of the area or do we step it down to a lesser FAR so that there is a transition between the area south of 15th Road, north of 15th Road. The staff is recommending that we not do that because it doesn't solve the prob- lem. what? well, they did agree that there is a problem, there is always a problem when you have one tall building next to anther tall building. Okay, where are we? Does anybody have any statements on that? I assume silence means that we then agree with staff's recommendation, is that it? Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with it. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any problem with it? Do you? So you're agreeing with staff's recommendation. Is that it? Does anybody else want to speak? (INAUDIBLE STATEMENT FROM AUDIENCE); No, on any point, we're about to vote. We're getting ready to vote now. There are two amendments, a series of amendments that have been incorporated so far. Mr. John Rice: Again for the record, I'm John Rice, Executive Vice -President of Interterra. our company is building an office building, it is under con- struction and uncompleted right now, which was permitted under the existing Zoning Ordinance and I see a problem developing for our company if this ordin- ance is enacted in its present form for ourselves and perhaps for other developers who will follow under this ordinance. It stems from the fact that you've created a bonus arrangement that is related to placing retail space at ground floor and ground floor to me means just that, it is the floor that is on the ground. Along Brickell Avenue, you have elevations that range any- where I guess from 8 to 6 feet below the flood tide and today to get financ- ing you have to have federal flood insurance. For me on Brickell Avenue, that means that my building had in effect, to be a vessel that was water tight up to 11.3 feet. Now you're got a varying grade between Brickell Avenue and S. Miami Avenue, take Mr. Blumberg's property there close to 15th Road, he is practically on a hillside and if he starts to place his retail area up there he is going to find that he is not entitled to the bonuses because he is more than 3� feet above sidewalk level. When he starts to put his plaza on top of that he is going to be denied the bonuses and everything else be- cause of that elevation. Mayor Ferre: Jack, Okay, you've pointed out the problem, now don't sit down before you recommend a solution. Mr. Rice: All right, the solution I suggest is that again I think developers are typically getting in trouble going for a variance against a very explicit and tight, rigorous dimension and that dimension appears in Section 13, Item 1(b) where it says urban plaza space shall be no more than 3.5 feet different in elevation from the adjoining public sidewalk for at least 70% of its total area. They address the flood zone, but I think the entire matter of the urban _ plaza space needs to be related to flood zone and you ought to leave it or establish a different parameter and leave it to the Urban Development Review Board to find what is appropriate for the flood zone elevation at the particular site involved and also to take off any indication that wouldn't leave the bonus for retail space to be solely if it is at ground level. I think it should be at a space that is accessible off the plaza or off the sidewalk, now honestly, our's is off the sidewalk. Ms. Meyers: I think there is a misunderstanding in the ordinance. The ground level would be the 11 ft. elevation. the plaza itself or 70% of the plaza can be no more than A feet above the adjacent sidewalk but specifically for the flood criteria, we allow 30• of the plaza plus the ground floor of the building to be at the ll� foot level. Mr. Rice: A point to her, if we, in fact, put our retail area at 11 feet, what do we do between 11 feet and 2 feet or 3 feet out at the sidewalk level? And if there is usable space in there does that still make that which is above it the ground floor? Ms. Meyers: The ground floor would be at the ll� foot elevation, between there and the sidewalk you have your plaza and you may step down that plaza through ramps or steps or any way you design it. Mr. Rice: Talking about the building, I mean here is a building that is coming up all the way from its foundation. Now, we've got a retail area that is inside the dimensions of tha% wilding that's up at 11 feet. What 00 MAR 16 1994 happens between 11 feet and 3 feet or 2 feet? to the builder putting some- thing in there and it can't be used? if he puts it in as usable space does that change this to the ground floor? Ms. Meyerss We're already, you're talking about 11 feet, we're talking about 11 feet above sea level, not 11 feet above the sidewalk. We're talking about a difference in elevation of three or four feet which can be accomodated through steps and tams. Mr. Rice: Excuse me, but believe me, if Richard Whipple is still here he will verify that our plaza is at an elevation of about 11 feet above the sidewalk. It's above the sidewalk. Ms. Meyers: Well, that may be but that plaza would not be allowed under the new ordinance, the plaza can only be 3 feet above..... Mayor Ferre: Joyce, I think he has a valid point and I think it is mainly one of language. I think you're not too far away in your ideas but I think it is a problem of semantics,I can see where there could be a problem in this, it seems to me. Can you improve the language? Mr. Luft: I'm confused by a point. The flood criteria is above mean high level, the street elevation in that area is roughly plus 5 or plus 6. Okay? Now, if we're talking about meeting the floor criteria we're only talking about 5 or 6 feet above .... Isn't that right, above street level? All right, I don't know why you would put your first floor 11 feet above the street level but you're only talking about a 5 foot difference. If our plaza level is at 3� now we're only talking about a 2 foot difference. Mayor Ferre: Suppose he wants to put his main floor up on 11 feet? Mr. Luft: Well, that destroys the concept of making the plaza an amenity for the public, reaching off the street space, we're going to build a big box along the street 11 feet in the air. Mayor Ferre: May have a series of escalators going up to it like in New York. Mr. Luft: You know, you're atteupting to extend the plaza as an amenity space off of the street, a transition between the street and the building, not like Tibor Hollo's Building at Rivergate where you've got a wall along Brickell Avenue. You can imagine, to allow them to build plazas at a plus 11 and get bonuses for it is to divorce that plaza from any relationship to the public amenity. Mayor Ferre: All right, Dave. Mr. David Blumberg: Dave Blumberg again. Mr. Rice, thank you for raising that point. Part of your point you're entirely right about and it is some- thing that I had intended to bring up and I really overlooked it. our prop- erty on the west side is on a cliff and I don't went to destroy that cliff, some of it has already been breeched and I don't know how we are going to treat that but I would like the urban plaza to start at the existing grade there which is probably 6 feet over the sidewalk rather than the 3.5. ...... In other words that can be done under this? Okay, then my point.... - Mayor Ferre: Well, it is on the record now and Jack Luft said that it could. Okay. Mr. Rice: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that I hope that we won't be victim- ized by the fact that there is a 3.5 dimension in this ordinance and we have a gentleman here saying no, we could do it at 6.5. Mayor Ferre: Jack, I tell you, I think that there is nobody smart enough to be able to totally predict the impact of these things that are very important and significant changes and I'm sure between now and the time this really goes into effect that Jack and Joyce and Joe themselves are going to be coming back here with recommended changes on things that perhaps they're going to need to tighten up or loosen up a little bit. I mean you know, I'm sure this is not the last we've heard of this. Ms. Cooper: Since the will of the Commission to go with the Planning Depart- ment on the shadows and the Urban Review Board..... Mayor Ferre: No, on the FAR. MAR 16 1982 0 0 No. Cooper: well, on the FAR but to go along with them on that in lieu of, I would ask that it be written into the ordinance that the Urban Development Review Board Meetings be noticed so that members of the public could attend and participate, that they be public hearings because we have been denied that previously. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections to that? Ms. Meyers: No. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections to that, Plummer? Perez? Ms. Cooper: And I would request all four types of notice as set forth in the Code. Mayor Ferre: All right, then let's add another section in here that will in- corporate - Terry, are you in agreement with that? Mr. Percy: No problem. Mayor Ferre: All right. Ms. Cooper: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Anything else? Are we ready to vote now? Are we ready to vote? Is there a motion on 60 A as amended? There is a motion, second. Further discussion? Read the ordinance on second reading. I assume that by the time you get this thing typed up that you will have to incorporate all of these changes that have been introduced into the record, is that right or do you want to hold up the Second Reading until we get all of these changes written? Mr. Percy: This is Second Reading, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: That's what I said, do you want to hold up the Second Reading until you get all of these changes typed up? Mr. Percy: No, we don't prefer to do it that way. Mayor Ferre: All right, I'll tell you what, the only condition, that I want is that I want all of the speakers that have spoken here today namely the 7 speakers that we've had and that are on the record, would all get a copy of this final ordinance and if any of you have any Froblems that are contrary to that of the will. of the Commission as expressed here in this meeting today you notify the Manager or my office and we'll bring this back for further dis- cussion. Okay? That way we can vote on it tonight. Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, as I understand it, the amendments only pertain now on Page 1 of the ordinance changing the 4,000 square feet of retail to 10,000. Mayor Ferre: That's one. Mr. McManus: And on Page 6 about the 6th line down pertaining to parking, striking "during normal business hours" and adding `and are interchangeable". Mayor Ferre: Well, no, I don't think that will do it. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE Mayor Ferre: Put it into the record, Janet. Ms. Cooper: I'm sorry, the point was that similar language to that in SPD-1 which requires that in order to qualify for the reduction in parking spaces the structure used for parking must be one available to both or used for both the residential and non-residential units so that you can't have separ- ate parking structures and unavailable to both. Mr. Mc Manus: The language "And are interchangeable" is not satisfactory? Mayor Ferre: That doesn't cover it. Ms. Cooper: Off the top of my head, no. Mayor Ferre: You work on the language, I think the purpose is very clear and that is I think it would be highly unusual but her point is valid, that somebody could build two separate garages, one to serve the residential and one to serve the office. �,,�.� h�r�,"l 16 19�2 Ms. Cooper: Ball Poi10 is a prime example that's undeconstruction right now, that is going to be two separate garages. Mayor Ferre: Okay. And there has to be an interconnection if you're going to do it that way. Okay, what else? Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, before you vote, may I inquire as to what action you took with regard to the shadow business and its impact on R-5? Mayor Ferre: None. In other words what we did is we agreed with staff's recommendation. Do you want us to talk a little bit more about it, Bob? Mr. Traurig: Well, I thought that at the very beginning of the presentation you were in agreement that because of the proximity of RC-B to R-5 and be- cause R-5 was for the most part fully developed and because it is an impossi- bility to avoid the shadow.... Mayor Ferre: Oh, yes. Mr. Traurig: ... That R-5 would be deleted as one of the protected areas. Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected, we did not talk about that. I expressed an opinion that I thought because of the curvature of South Bayshore Drive that R-5 really had a problem. In the first place, most of those properties have already been built along R-5. Mr. Luft: That's the point, they're there, they're affected. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but there are still some empty lots there and what you're doing in effect is precluding somebody from building something there because obviously there is going to be a shadow. Mr. Luft: No, we're saying that in the RC-B portion a new development must take into account, and the Urban Development Review Board must examine those plans to attempt to mitigate or reduce as much as possible shadow effects from that RC-B building on the existing residential in the R-5. That's what the ordinance says. Mr. Traurig: It does, but I call to your attention that under the present ordinance we would be limited to a 19 story principle building and a 4 story garage which is substantially less than the permitted FAR would allow us. So they are almost mutually exclusive. we ask you to consider that, if you feel that staff's position is sound, we nevertheless ask you to pass the ordinance that is before you. Mr. Luft: It says you should attempt to mitigate, it doesn't say if the shadow hits the building you can't build the building, it doesn't say that. Mayor Ferre: Bob, what are you arguing about? It doesn't say you shall, you should - that's like you may. I've been through that one before. Ns. Traurig: (INAUDIBLE, NOT USING MICROPHONE) Mayor Ferre: It doesn't mean anything, it says yo,: should, you know. Huh? Mr. Traurig: (INAUDIBLE, NOT USING MICROPHONE) Mayor Ferre: Wherever feasible you shall, you and I have been this you shall, you may, and you should. Ms. Cooper: And that underscores exactly the point that I was making that this is absolutely no protection at all for the neighboring residential prop- erties. Mayor Ferre: I think you're closer to the truth on that one. Ms. Coop(-r: And so I ask you again to please insert a FAR restriction between 14th and 15th in order to protect the substantial interests of the taxpaying citizens who reside there and who will reside there. Mayor Ferre: Where do you live, the Palace? Ms. Cooper: I live at Brickell Place, it will affect the Palace, it will affect Villa Regina, it will affect Imperial, it will affect every piece of property in that R-5A area. ON ^ S MAR 16 1982 0 6 Mayor Ferre: The sun doesn't shine, I don't think..... Ms. Cooper: It's not the shadows, that's why I'm asking you to put in the FAR restriction. Mayor Ferre: Oh, it's not the shadow, because I can't conceive of a shadow going on Villa Regina from anywhere. Ms. Cooper: That's why I was saying please give us the FAR because the shadow restriction will not help us in the least and we're going to end up with this terrible impact. Mayor Ferre: Staff is recommending that we go with it as it is so Bob, your recommendation is denied and it looks, unless somebody wants to add it... Ms. Cooper: Okay, and I would remind you that the other change was to add public notice of all 4 types for Urban Development Review Board, that wasn't mentioned by Mr. McManus, I just reiterate. Ms. Meyers: That's already in the ordinance, Janet, the last paragraph. Mayor Ferre: Okay? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just so that all of the people who might not have been here this morning, I think it is only fair to let them know that all permits henceforth will be stamped that this Commission is fully intended of passing impact fees and that you are subject to those impact fees. Mayor Ferre: Not if the Florida Senate has anything to do with it, locumentary stamps. But that doesn't look too good, does it, Senator? That ain't going anywhere fast, right? Mr. Plummer: That, of course, applies to the County accepting the money, it does not bind the City. Mayor Ferre: Oh, yes, it does bind the City. Mr. Plummer: We can take the alternate. Mayor Ferre: Now, Plummer, you shouldn't have talked, you're right,...... It says the City may at its option, you're right. Okay. Mr. Plummer: And we control impact fees, not the State of Florida. Mayor Ferre: Okay, what else have you got? Ms. Cooper: I need to respond to Ms. Meyers' comment, she said that it was already in the ordinance as far as notice goes? What is in the ordinance provides only for mailed notice to people within 375 feet, I'm asking for posting notice, publication notice and optional notice as well. Mayor Ferre: You've said that 3 times and we've accepted it 3 times, now I'll do it for the 4th time. She wants more than what you have here. She doesn't want only notice mailed to people within 300 feet, she wants it posted and she wants it advertised, published. Did I get it right? Ms. Cooper: Right. Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, could I for the record register the Planning Depart- ment's objection to anything other than mailed notice to property owners. Mayor Ferre: Okay, fine. what else have you got? I understand that the Commission accepts the posting, advertising and mailing. Further discussion? See, Janet, you got your way again. Mr. Traurig: Posting, advertising and mailing, how much notice are we talking about, the 15 day notice that the City would normally be required to give? INAUDIBLE RESPONSE Mr. Traurig: Ten day notice, fine. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? It has been moved and seconded. All right, read the ordinance. f1r9 MAR 16 1982 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE XI-2 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE-R-CB DISTRICT BY: 1. AMENDING SECTION 1 - CONCERNING USE REGULATIONS; 2. AMEND- ING SECTION 5 - CONCERNING FLOOR AREA RATIO; 3. AMENDING SECTION 6 - CONCERNING LOT COVERAGE; 4. ADDING SECTION 12 - CONCERNING PARKING; 5. AMENDING SECTION 10 - CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW; 6. AMENDING SECTION 3 - CONCERN- ING YARDS; 7. AMENDING SECTION 9 - CONCERNING STRUCTURE PARKING; AND 8. AMENDING THE PURPOSE CLAUSE; AND BY REPEAL- ING 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 15, 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 Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller Dawkins. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9397. 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. 37. CHAIIGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AREA BOUNDED BY MIAMI RIVER, BRICKELL AVENUE, S.E. 8 STREET AND BISCAYN BAY FROM RC-1 ANTD C-2 TO R-CB. 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 AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE MIAMI RIVER ON THE NORTH; A LINE APPROXI- MATELY 190' WEST OF AND PARALLEL TO BRICKELL AVENUE ON THE WEST; SOUTHEAST 8TH STREET ON THE SOUTH AND BISCAYNE BAY ON THE EAST; AND AN AREA INCLUDING PROPERTIES FRONTING ON THE EAST SIDE OF BRICKELL PLAZA (SOUTHEAST FIRST AVENUE) APPROX- IMATELY 150' IN DEPTH, EXTENDING FROM SOUTHEAST 8TH STREET TO 278' SOUTH OF SOUTHEAST LOTH STREET FROM R-C-1 RESIDENTIAL - OFFICE -COMMERCIAL AND C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO R-CB RESI- DENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT, EXCEPT FOR PROPERTY ZONED PR -PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION USE DISTRICT; AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDIN- ANCE 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SEC- TION 2, THEREOF; 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 15, was taken uj for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the Ordinance was � Ow MAR 16 1982 r� thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller Dawkins. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9398. 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. MEND ARTICLE III OF 6871 BY DELETING R-C-1 6 ARTICLE %1-3 AND BY RENU71BERING THE TITLE OF THE NEXT ARTICLE TO ARTICLE XI-3. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III - ZONING DISTRICTS - SECTION 1 BY DELETING: R-C-1 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE -COMMERCIAL Inv!EDIATELY AFTER "R-CB RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE"; AND BY DELETING AP.TICLE XI-3 RESIDENTIAL- OFFICE-COW-ERCIAL R-C-1 DISTRICT; AND BY RE -NUMBERING THE TITLE OF THE NEXT ARTICLE - ARTICLE XI-4 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-CC DISTRICT - TO ARTICLE XI-3 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-CC DISTRICT; AND 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 15, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Perez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller Dawkins. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9399. 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. MAR 16 1982 39. FURTHER DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITE14 55, HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION. Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else to come up before this Commission? Mr. Plummer: It's 9 O'Clock Mayor Ferre: we stand adjourned. Oh, wait a moment, Terry, do you want to get the wording on 8? Do you have it? J. L., look at this before you go. .... The City Commission may at any time initiate and/or accelerate a public hearing on the approval of any demolition permit provided that prior thereof the developer shall meet with and discuss the proposed demolition with all interested parties; The purpose of this public hearing is to insure....... This is not acceptable, this is not what we said. It says "All reasonable and beneficial use of property, as determined by the City of Miami Commis- sion", where is it? ...... Absolutely, the main..... Plummer's main con- cern here was that it was at the sole discretion of the City of Miami Commis- sion - at the sole discretion of the City of Miami Commission. All right, now as amended, with that addition would somebody move this 8(a) and (b) Mr. Carollo: Move. Mayor Ferre: All right, it has been moved by Carollo, seconded by Perez, further discussion? Call the roll. Ms. Hirai: Roll call, Mr. Carollo? Mr. Carollo: Yes. Ms. Hirai: Mr. Perez? Mr. Perez: Yes. Ms. Hirai: Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: (INAUDIBLE) Ms. Hirai: Mayor Ferre. Mayor Ferre: T vote ves. Now, Bob, did you look at that, is that Okay? Mr. Traurig: (INAUDIBLE, NOT USING MICROPHONE) Mayor Ferre: All right, now look, we have added "... at the sole..." That's wrong. At the sole discretion of the.... UNINTELLIGIBLE CONVERSATION, AWAY FROM MICROPHONE.`-'. Mayor Ferre: "...use of the property, at the sole discretion of the City Commission." UNINTELLIGIBLE CONVERSATION Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm afraid that then we can't resolve this today. This will have to come back then. I'll tell you, will you withdraw your motion, Joe? Mr. Cazcllo: Certainly Mayor Ferre: All right, the motion is now.... Sc) in other words there is nu motion, and I haven't voted vet. So there is no motion before us now and what we'll have to ao with tnis is reschedule this for the 25th. I am sorry I did not understand that and I think the attorney is completely right, that that was never brought up for discussion - you fellows, with all due respects to you, sat back there and never t,rought this out. .. It is the same language..... UNINTELLIGIBLE CONVERSATION Mayor Ferre: I'm not going to get into an argument as to whether youdiddid or Lti Iy,h'l 1 6 lyv2 You didn't have the argument, as far as I'm concerned this item is con- tinued until the 25th. You're talking about all reasonable and beneficial use of the property. INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION Os'F THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferres Look, it is late, we have people wandering out, I don't think we have a quorum, any► advice is that you take some time to think about this and come back on the 25th and we'll deal with it at that time. All right, now that's the only issue we're going to talk about on the 25th. Now, would you get together with the attorneys for the Heritage Trust, and Bob, would you get together and see if you can work out this language? Mr. Traurig: Yes. Mayor Ferre: All right, we stand adjourned. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the City Commis- sion, the Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 O'Clock P.M. MAURICE A. FERRE M A Y O R ATTEST: Matty Hirai Assistant City Clerk 1�� �1_ L ] / DOCUMENT 1 MEETING DATE: MARCH 16, 1982 COMMISSION I RETRIEVAL RESCHEDULE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8,1982 TO TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 1, 1982 R-82-246 82-246 APPLY DESIGN PLAZA OVERLAY DISTRICT(SPD-4) TO EXISTING C-2, C-4 AND C-5 ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS IN DECORATOR'S ROW AREA. R-82-250 82-250 AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN TURNKEY CONTRACT WITH MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES,INC. FOR CONVENTION CENTER PARKING GARAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,660.00 R-82-251 82-251 CLOSE CERTAIN STREETS FOR "4th ANNUAL COCONUT GROVE BED RACE" ON MAY 23, 1982; ESTABLISH PEDESTRIAN MALL,ETC R-82-252 82-252 APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR ELIZABETH BUSH. R-82-253 82-253 APPOINT OLGA CODINA TO THE ALLAPATTAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. R-82-254 82-254 APPOINT INDIVIDUALS TO THE MIAMI AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY BOARD. R-82-255 82-255 OPEN BUENA VISTA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PHASE I, H-4475 R-82-256 82-256 ALLOCATE $1,300 AS CASH ASSISTANCE GRANT TO MIAMI JACKSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE "WASHINGTON CLOSE UP PROGRAM" R-82-257 82-257 BID ACCEPTANCE: AMERICAN SEATING CO. FOR 1,000 STADIUM BEAT BACKS AND BOTTOMS. R-82-258 82-258 BID ACCEPTANCE: J.B. FORBES PLUMBING AND HEATING FOR SHENANDOAH PARK SWIMMING POOL REPAIRS FILTERS R-82-259 82-259 DIRECT CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION FOR POINT VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4309 BID.A. R-82-260 82-260 / BID ACCEPTANCE: S.I. NICHOLAS FOR THE MIAMI RIVERWALK. R-82-261 82-261 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK FOR L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORP. FOR TACOLCY CENTER EXPANSION R-82-262 82-262 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF SUNSET ENTERPRISES,INC. FOR BELLE MEADE ISLAND BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS 1981. R-82-263 82-263 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF RUSSELL, INC. FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT,PHASE V-BID A. R-82-264 82-264 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF SUNSET ENTERPRISES,INC. FOR COCONUT GROVE MINI -PARK. R-82-265 82-265 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH DEPT. OF OFF STREET PARKING FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF CITY MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT CENTER R-82_266 82-266 nAnVTMr GARAGE - -