Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1979-06-26 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI C • MMISSION MINUTES Planning & Zoning OF. THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL. RALPH G. ONGIE 16. CI 'Itw SUBJECT rINANCE OfiL SOLUTION MO. PAGE NO. NE 1. 2. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WYNWOOD PROGRAM FOR1HE:ELDERLY AND URGING HOLY CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO ALLOW PROGRAM TO REMAIN TEMPORARILY FUND "IMPACT" PROGRAM FOR ADDITIONAL 307pojgitlopi: 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS 4. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION 160-180 S.W. 11TH STREET FROM R-4 TO GU 5. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION APPROXIMATELY 2401-2421 S.W. 4 STREET & 310 BEACOM BLVD FROM R-1 AND R-2 TO GU SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORD. 6871, ART.XXV, BASE BUILDING LINES CHANGE ZONED STREET WIDTH N.E. 1 CT. BETWEEN 51 STREET AND 52nd STREETS FROM 20' TO 50". 7, SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION PROPERTIES ABUTTING S.E. MICANOPY AVENUE FROM R-1 TO R-B 8. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY ARTICLE XXI-4 COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT (SPD-2) PROPERTIES ABUTTING AND ON S.E. SIDE MICANOPY AVENUE R- 79-465 R- 79-466 79-467 M- 79-468 Ord. 8955 Ord. 8956 Ord. 8957 Ord. 8958 Ord. 8959 1-2 2-8 9-12 12-17 17-18 18-19 19 20 20-21 9. DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BY CHARLES GOTTLIEB TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION CORNER OF M- 79-469 21-28 VIRGINIA AND OAK STREETS FROM R-2 TO C-2A Deferred DISCUSSION AND WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FROM GOOD - YEAR CORPORATION TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - Discussion 28-31 UNPLATTED PARCEL ABUTTING SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ACCESS ROAD VIRGINIA KEY - R-1 TO WR 11. GRANT APPLICATION FOR PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD)- 39 STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE-254 DWELLING UNITS- 2 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE 12. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION PARCEL SOUTH OF 36 STREET INTERCHANGE, N. CENTER LINE N.W. 37 STREET AND WEST OF 5 AVENUE FROM R-4 TO C-4 13, DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING - 129 S.W. 36TH COURT FROM R-2 TO C-5 14. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION S.E. CORNER OF INTERSECTION N.W. 54TH STREET AND 15 AVENUE - FROM R-3A TO C-5 15. REQUEST PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO STUDY PLAT PROCEDURES CURRENTLY IN USE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE M- 79-471 ACCEPT PLAT: "KUMQUAT VILLAGE" M- 79-472 R- 79-470 32-45 First Reading 46-47 Discussion 47-50 First Reading 51-52 52-54 54-55 Continued Discussion 55-56 First Reading cif IAMI, ORID4 ITEM NO, SUBJECT 92INANCE0B sOLUTION MO. PAGE NO. 17. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 129 S.W. 36th COURT FROM R-2 TO C-5 18. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION 62-20 OF THE CITY CODE -EXTEND TERMS OF PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS TO MAXIMUM OF THREE (3) YEAR TERMS, NOT TO EXCEED ELEVEN (11) YEARS OF SERVICE 19. APPROVE ISSUANCE OF PERMIT: NORTH BISCAYNE BAY DEMONSTRATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT - FISHING PIER AND ARTIFICIAL REEFS - PELICAN HARBOR - 79th STREET CAUSEWAY 20. ACCEPT PLAT: "BRICKELL KEY ON CLAUGHTON ISLAND SECTION 1" 21. ACCEPT LETTER FROM GOODWILL INDUSTRIES AND AGREE TO ASSIST THEM IN ACQUISITION OF BUILDING UPON RECEIPT OF OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO. RISKS, ETC. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA' (Planning 6 Zoning) * * * * * * * *. On the 26th day of June 1979, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 6:25 P.M. by Mayor Ferre following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ALSO PRESENT WERE: Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager R. L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager. George F. Knox, City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Reverend, Gibson who present in a pledge of allegience to the flag. 1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WYNWOOD PROGRAM FOR THE ELDERLY AND URGING HOLY CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO ALLOW PROGRAM TO REMAIN TEMPORARILY. Mayor Ferre: Good evening ladies and gentlemen this is a formal City Commission meeting for Planning and Zoning. Before we get into the regular evening agenda there are a few items that we have to take of from yesterday and in addition, we have Ms. Carolyn Wilder, from the Wynwood Elderly Program, who is here. Ms. Wilder has asked to be recognized and I told her that I would not do that because of the constraints of time, but we all have a copy of her letter and basically, has happened was that the priest at Holy Cross Episcopal, Rev. James L. Gilmore, has requested that they leave previous to the agreed to time which is November, so they've asked for the Wynwood Elderly Program to leave July lst, five months prior to when the agreement was made. I think what we need to do is two -fold. I think we should pass a Resolution here in support of the Wynwood Elderly Program and beseech the Holy Cross Church and Rev. Gilmore to let them stay there through November and secondly, I'm going to give you his telephone number and I'm going to ask each and every one of you in the Commission to call Father Gilmore tomorrow and try to see if he would let them stay another four or five months. In November, they will be moving into the community building and the problem is solved, so it's just a matter of months. I would hope that he would find it in his heart to have a little Christian charity and extend it. Okay, is there such a motion? Mr. Lacasa: I move it. All right, it's moved by Commissioner Lacasa... Second. Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: ...seconded by Commissioner Gibson, further discussion on the request of the Rev. James L. Gilmore with regards to the Wynwood Elderly Program, Inc.. Call the roll. • mh 0i June 26, 1979 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who moved its adoptions RESOLUTION NO. 79-465 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE STRONG SUPPORT TOF THE REVERENDITY COMMISSI N FOR THE WYNWOOD ELDERLY PROGRAM AND H GILMORE, JR., RECTOR OF THE HOLY CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO ALLOW THE SAID PROGRAM TO REMAIN THE THECHURCH PROGRAM ISNSCHEDULED9TO,BES PREVIOUSLY AGREED, AT WHICH TIME CTING THE CITY MOVED TO THE LITTLE HAVANHEREINNITY CENTER RESOLUTION TOETHE REVEREND CLERK TO FORWARD COPIES OF THE GILMORE AND TO THE VESTRY OF THE SAID CHURCH. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner (Rev.)Gibson, adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, J Mayor Maurice A. Ferre None. the resolution was passed and Mayor Ferre: Now, let megive you the names, if you would all. Rev. Gibson Mayor Ferre::::, Rev. Gibson: I would like to''suggest that the letter be sent to the Rector. of the Church,' Gilmore, and the Vestry. Ma or Ferre: Mr. Clerk, when the motion is made would you -and I'm going to submit y the motion should be sent to'. this into the record, so that you have CrossEpiscopalChurch, 123 --- 36th St., the Reverend andethe•Vestry Gilmore, Jr., Y Miami 3313 014 MAYOR FERRE STATES THE CALL AT WHICH TO CALLV. GILMORE SO THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY FOLLOW THROUGH UPON HISREQUEST). 2. FUND "IMPACT" PROGRAM FOR ADDITIONAL 30-DAY PERIOD. Mayor Ferre: We have also the extension of the "Impact Program" for 30 days, and er t.1e City Co imissio:l's xe.i.+ee'. as d Alebui�li:iuu tAtClluilly file contract attached g+ f']' ��,,, a.+a+.+!.onrl+ F+.•^.e ,,erio'. wit'. monies `.rom nerioA. to July 10th, for $2, 50 .„ to fifth year Community Development Block Grant fund. Mr. Bond, Ms. Spillman, are you here? All right, Mr. Bond, would you address this issue and tell us what this is about. This is item 20, from yesterday's meeting. At yesterday's meeting, the Commission instructed the staff to bring thatMr Jack Bond: At p _ back, piece of legisogram, lation isaa Countyck to , for . Its period endation was 30-daysthat theu Impact h time of mendatuntil to fund ms"ActionlProgramd be "iwhich is aewed, at ecommunitast, y based organiza. The staff's - tion was to thesir. in that area of the City, Mayor Ferre: A11 right, now, Mr. Blanco, do you want to speak?. vio Blanco: Yes, Mr. Mayor• First of all, I don't know why the -Commission', Mr. Octa mh June 26, 1979 has to investigate anymore when for the second time this year, the audit that the submit, to check into the program, and they haven't found the records. Maybe they do the work they say they do, but they don't have any records at all. According to the records, these people have been moving two or three persons a day. Mayor Ferre: These are people in the Allapattah area. Mr. Blanco: In the Allapattah area. Mayor Ferre: Are you moving these people or who is moving them? Mr. Blanco: Well, we do have 470 people that we are moving down in;Allapattar but we never wanted to get involved in that area there because Mr. Urra, the Chairman of Allapattah talked to us and to Dena Spillman to see if those funds can be transferred to Action because... Mayor Ferre: I see. Are you recommending this, Mr. Bond: Yes, sir, that was our position last evening.. Mrs. Gordon: Well one remembers. Mayor Ferre: Wel Mrs. Gordon:' ; Oh let me explain why we have this in front`,of us, in case no Mayor Ferre: I left early a Mrs. Gordon: Okay, fine. The Impact Program is a program which offers the elderly more than just transportation, they offer them an Outreach Program and I said that I would like to see this program in action since that program in already servicing this population and asked that they only be funded for the one month to give me ample time to go there, inspect it and see what they are truly delivering by way of a service to the community. I think this is a fair request and I would hope the Commission would continue what they did yesterday which was take that route, permit- ting the funding for one month. Mayor Ferre: What's your recommendation, Mr. Bond? Mr. Bond: Sir,`I would organization. Mayor Ferre: Why? everybody that I would, by 5:00 o'clock. recommend: still that we would go with the community -based Mr. Bond: First.of all, they have a proven track record. They operate exclusively in the target area. That is something that the Impact Progratn does not do, and... Mayor Ferre: That who doesn't do? Mr. Bond: The Impact Program which we are partially funding...it does not do that. That can provide us potentially with an audit exception when we recapitulate at the end of the year, or whenever HUD wants to come in and look at our books. They do operate outside of the target area, while this organization operates inside. It has a proven track record and the community seems to want "Action". Mayor Ferre: Who is this "community"? Mr. Bond: The people who are served by Action. Mayor Ferre: In order words, you went and asked the people who are being served, is that what you are saying? Mr. Bond: 'Yes, sir. Mayor ,:Ferre: or whatever i Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Bond: Isn't there a CAA Board, 's called? Was there a meeting of that Board? Did they discuss it? I cannot answer that I do not know, sir The staff did, I didn't personally. or a CD Board there? An Allapattah Board mh June 26, 1979 Mrs. Gordon: I would appreciate that we continue with what we did yesterday, which was to allow an inspection if it needs to bem one prios to visit tor to the he if you need it prior to the eleventh I'll make ity the program, and see whether we are goingtotcut off t are services which eing served already in effect that will damage these old people an Outreach Basis, do you understand what I mean by an "outreach basis"? let me answer. Those monies they are using, they are Mr. Blanco: Mr. Mayor, of service, but using only for transportation purpose. They have another typee�of gotemonies mixed the $30,000 they are using, they were paying to drivers, Dade County and now even they want to move one other bus and leave Urra with with only one bus to give this type of service. Mayor Ferre: Urra? What does Urra have to do with this? Mr. Blanco: Urra is the Chairman of Allapattah. Mayor Ferre: Was he involved with this? Mr. Blanco: We met five times with Mr. Urra and.... Mrs. Gordon:- How about the Committee too? Anybody except you sole unilateral decisions? Mr. Blanco: No, no, we met with the whole Committee on Allapattah. Mayor Ferre:. IIow many people were in attendance? Mr. Blanco: With the. Director they got there, it was about five the last time that we met. Mayor Ferre:<.The Board. Mr. Blanco: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Blanco: Yes. And.they all agreed to this? They all agreed to this. Mayor Ferre: And yours is a City -sponsored thing... Mr. Blanco: Mayor Ferre: ...while the other one is a county thing. furthermore, and the record proves, that last year, Blanes:ar, the yearr before AndMr.they Mayor,have $30,000 they only presented expenses for 7 000. This year they haven't presented any so the Program is i suc bad money? shape that I don't know how they can move people without costing from Development that last year, Who is paying for that? You can askhaV�uticlaimed a penny yet. the $30,000 they got allocated they be updated. We have in the past day or two received Mr. Bond: And that stands toyour pleasure $30,000.e If it's billings something, g,thcounty consider...wetotalling �did mak000 of e a commitment to the staff mem- bersto do something, you �Y might be appropriate if you are of the Impact Program yesterday. It think- ing about changing that in any way, to at least consider that. Keepin indtthat you did indicate to them that they would retain...that you would approve month of funding. If you want to dthat, timet andlalltofutheir billings tmust expenditure rate is so low at th present be in by.... youoor Ferre: Well, what are you saying, because you've got me confused. Are saying that we ought to fund.them for a month and then for the rest of the •. year. Mr. Bond: We dohave , the money to do that which would allow a smooth transi i tion, a phase dowm and a phase up.f you want to do it. or is -he making ,the Strictly the City Mayor Ferre I Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I was one of the Commissioners who insisted that this ram not be abandoned at this point in timeoonluchy with ecause te heple fe two enhthat camehere - alleged ed that they atried get e mh 04 June 26, 1979 and that the people of the City did not want to meet with them or did not meet with them and then I learned afterwards that that was not true and all we were doing web... Mayor Ferre: What do you mean, that they didn't meet? Rev. Gibson: Yes. What happened was that the woman in charge of that program did not come here now. What she did was she sent her assistant who could afford to say that -well, you know, I hadn't talked with you. So I'm saying to you go for 30 days and then clear the matter up. If we find out that they lied to us and I told them to make sure that that lady comes here at the next meeting so if need be, and I made the statement- we'll put her under oath and if weren't getting the truth we will get the truth, one way or the other, so let's go for 30 days with the understanding that nobody knows...that they aren't for sure they are going to be keeping that program. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, so what's... Mr. Blanco: Father Gibson, let me tell you, our records can prove that we are serving more people in Allapattah and we don't get money from Allapattah. Rev. Gibson: I understand, you know, if you are ahead, let me give you a bit follow me? of advice, you better quit while you are ahead. You are ahead right now, you:. Mr. Blanco: I don't believe so. Rev. Gibson: You are ahead, just trust us, 'man. .I because I just don't appreciate, those two men came Ms. Spillman's integrity. I don't like -that. . So I and I want their boss to come and tell me that what which I know what she said is true. Mayor Ferre: All right anybody else? just don't want them to say, here yesterday and challenged want to give them 30 days, Mt. Spillman said was not true` Mr. Blanco: I would ask you, Father Gibson, to check to see how many people we do move in Allapattah, and then if.they move .•more than we do then... Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: o nobody is questioning that... not questioning it. Mrs. Gordon: Your program is not being challenged, what is being questioned is whether'. there will be a severe impact upon elderly people whose services, now received, will be cut off, and I wish to make a personal inspection. Mr. Blanco: -I think that for more than 10 years I've been telling you the and I can tell you that we have a better, better service. Mrs. Gordon:; No dispute on the subject. Just an investigation. Mayor Ferre: All right, Commissioner Lacasa wants to say something. Mr. Lacasa: I understand the question of the 30 days. Mr. Bond, I do believe that what you are looking for is what an smooth transition from one program to the other, from Action to Impact, that we are assured that we are having a smooth transition in a 30-day period. I, myself, had a tremendous experience with this particular program in the area of Little Havana and I know for a fact that the impact of the program was much greater than the Little Havana area. These people have been serving the Allapattah area also for years and in spite of the fact that Impact was supposed to be serving Allapattah they had to go in and subsidize the services that Allapattah was receiving because those of Impact were not good enough. I made a point of checking on this today and I am ready to introduce a tiohn ehpt we rovisoothatcontract givethe 30services with to Impact with the to implement a smooth transition. wip So I move. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferree Mrs. Gordon: I don't see any need for an investigation then All right, motion on the floor. Yes, I second the motion. All right, further discussion.; s there a second? if that's the case, nth June 26, 1979 Just use the $2,500 for the transition because if you are precluding any reason for making an investigation...it doesn't make any sense to me. Rev. Gibson: Those people came here and challenged the integrity of Ms. Spillman, you can't afford to do this. Just to take the program does not solve the problem. We need to let people understand that when they come to that mike either they are going to tell us the truth or they aren't going to tell us the truth and we are not going to tolerate people coming here and lying. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think we should ask her to come here anyway. Rev. Gibson: Right, but Mr. Mayor, my concern is if you make the decision that you are going to terminate the program now, you would have done it behind the back of those two men and it would be somewhat like what we are trying to pour out in the first instance. So 30 days won't hurt. Mayor Ferre: Well, what's this doing before us anyway, that was decided yesterday.. Rev. Gibson: I don't know, sir. Mrs. Gordon: abeyance. Mayor Ferre: Well, why did you bring The only thing that was decided yesterday was to hold that item in it up today,. Mr. Bond?, Mrs. Gordon: Because the issue that came up yesterday was to do of what those people alleged was taking place. Mayor Ferre: But why is this issue before us now? Mrs. Gordon:.` $2,500 to fund. Mr. Blanco: Mayor.... Mayor Ferre: Well, wait a minute, because what an investigation'; would Mr. Bond • Because they need additional funding, the program . this month,sir. Mayor Ferre: I see, so in other words, we have to vote for the money, otherwise... Mr. Bond: Or they will get no money after June 30. Mr. Blanco: In the Resolution it doesn't say when the investigation has to be concluded? Mr. Lacasa: Well, let's go a little bit further than this. The investigation is for a question here as to whether or not the staff was telling us the Completelytruth ts far as the question raised by the gentleman from the Impact Program. independent from that, my feeling is that we have an opportunity here to use a community -based organization regardless of whatever happens in the process, we have the opportunity to use a community -based organization funded by C. D. funds and there is no reason why if these people are as able as their track record has proven before the count de whentheCitye rvices, that we of Miami can doshouldgo job od continue giving our funds t Mrs. Gordon: The only thing about everything that we are doing today ste peopleat e didn't do yesterday is that we are not keeping our word. Now, if were sitting in this room right now and this decision was brought to the table that you are asking us to make, that would be a different story, but since they are not here today and since they were here yesterday and you were not here yes- terday for your impact on us, I believe that this whole thing ought to be brought back to us on the llth if that is agreeable and that nothing be done other than to fund it from the 1st to the 12th, a half a month -that would be the 15th, and we'll try to get out there and look things over quickly, okay? And if that's the way your would agree to I would go along on that. I find a real need to inspect the facilities that are presently operating and I need to see whether or not there will be an impact upon a lot of old people. If there isn't, fine, great. Mayor Ferre: I think the way to do then, let meseefIcan come up wisth ato compromise that might make sense to everybody. What's really before fund these people for $2,500. Now, I think if we pass Lacasa's motion, seconded by mummer, I skithat°thisare thingletting be scheduled forwhat furtherdirection discussiongoing Julyand llth then I would ask end the:30th of mh 06 June 26, 1979 the position if you've we are going, and then and then we can get into it again, if you want to reverse got time but I think that way you let them know which way schedule it for discussion on July 11. R ev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to say this, I will not a ante mY i time fudiscussing it on July llth, if you make a motion and that motion p ses,e. Mrs Gordon: Absolutely, I won't either. Rev. Gibson: I think what you ought to do is to go on and give those people that money. They know right now the fact that we are debating, that they are on the hot seat. Mr . Plummer: Let me, while everybody is doing their rargument and 1 always sit down here by myself. Two points I want for the reian terminology of an investi- s make the record very clear. I never heard yesterdaY Gordon would like to look at the pro- gram see what's going gation. I heard the terminology that Mrs. on and that courtesy was extended, which is, in my estimation ion far from an investigation. An investigation has overtones and innuendos so I hope the record is clear that there is a differenceoira what Sin fact nd Mas. Gordon requested, which was to go out and look at the p g going to put right up front how I feel. I haveto beaconsistenothert Cand ssihave r, b amn g g onlyfor myself not for or against been one here speaking Community Development monies are very clear, it's Federal guidelines, and they e say the community shall make the choice. Theunless munitysshCall haven the right toeat, o say what they feel is best for the community gone pretty basically right great problem of the idea, thatthink the communis �itysion wantshas itthat's what we want for down with the philosophy is that this has been brought before the community. Now, the testimony here today a different the community has had the right to express themselves that they wantg I'm different rent to go situation, and I for one, unless haslrequestedsomething whateverradically the outcome today, along with what the community . I feel it's fine, but I want to tell you that's the way Mayor Ferre: Further discussion. youMrswere present yesterday when this subject came up. You knowJ . thatGordif there that there was any intention to tonight.e Ihfeel it's touthof order otoachange, , have asked those people to come back hereour word. That's all it is. it's a matter of honor, it's a matter of keeping It's a matter of honor. reciate last evening, and I wasn't Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you what I didn't app now we are laying going to get into any hubub or any rowel over the thing but, but to I found it very, very insulting, not to me personally, the table.mRose, really, in fact, if you want to know the truth, this Commission that those people, . stood there at that microphone first 8llWhen Fatherand were ewastpinningtedown they Deceptive, m not saying anything other than decePtivethe made accusations that Dena never returned callsttolthe phwomanone athataworksrunder this natter, yes, Dena returned the phone man, that's deceptive, at best. Mrs. Gordon: He said...I heard him say that the woman made the phone calls, the woman Mrs. Kramer did not receive return calls, they said it, I have no knowledge of any of this eo le. Rose, I that Mr. Plummer: Well, they don't talk to their own paople.d was the point,Ifoundude they deceptive, but the point that I found very, very kt her they were somewhat threatening this Commission and I found, youin well, justyou didn'tknow, feel those people were dealing fairly with me when they that if in fact you take away the transportation it might have an impact of n other programs we furnish to the City. And I'll tell you something, in fact what that man said or the innuendonnthat the made was in fact true, I find that very objectionable, I really do. please, Please, Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, may I be the clergyman in this instance. Larko go for the 30 days. You have the votes to take that program away. lyLoog, Look , ahead for the 30 days because, I was incensed, I don't like people Lacasa, go for 30 days, look they can't come here and say, -look,-.you -know.:•• Mr. Lacasa: I withdraw my motion. Mayor Ferre: Since obviously, I'm going to be the swinging vote one way or the y mh June 26, 1979 other, let me express to you, Mr. Blanco, so that you don't have any questions. Unless something very, very dramatic happens here, on the llth of July I'm going to vote for what you are requesting, and I think that's what I read the majority und of this Commission tosay, illsthentrequestow thatther thisGmattersbeoput onvice and the Agenda leave s e it that way. for July llth, is that all right? Rose, that gives you time. Mrs. Gordon: Fine, perfect. Mr. Plummer: Well, just to get the record clear, it was put over to the 23rd because Rose did not feel that she could get out there prior to then. Mrs. Gordon: I'm going to make a special effort. Mr. Plummer: All right, so I think.in all fairness then, if you are going to bring these -people back they are under the impression: of the 23rd that they should be notified. tell them that it's July llth, bring them back and have;"to wait, until then, in the, meantime, we -have to Impact Program for 30=`days or otherwise.we are.. Mayor Ferre: You have to Blanco, I'm sorry, you'll pass a motion to fund the Mrs. Gordon: All right, Mayor Ferre: All right, there is.a""motion by Mrs. Gordon seconded by Father Gibson, further discussion. Call the roll. ng resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who move RESOLUTION NO 79-466 A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CONTRACT PERIOD FOR THE METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY ELDERLY SERVICES DIVISION/IMPACT PROGRAM/ALLAPATTAH ELDERLY SERVICES UNTIL JULY 30, 1979, AND ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 TO FUND THE ADDITIONAL TIME PERIOD WITH MONIES FROM FIFTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. ,(Here follows'body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon, being seconded by Commissioner adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, J Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. June 26, 1979 1 1 1 .1 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, I would like to bring up something for reconsideration. Mayor Ferre: All right, I'll recognize Commissioner Lacasa. Mr. Lacasa: I want to bring up for reconsideration the question yesterday before us'concerning 'putting on the ballot for November the setbacks on the waterfroflt properties of the City of Miami. Mayor Ferre:, All right, and I guess. under our rules you voted with the majority so you are entitled to bring that up. What's your position then? Mr. Lacasa: My position is this. Yesterday, we discussed this at. length. My position was. that I' would go for an ordinance regulating the setbacks on the waterfront in order to preserve the waterfront for the people of the City. I have done some research today..'.' Mrs. Gordon: Are'you talking about the private property or amendment? Mayor Ferre: 'Amendment No. Mr. Lacasa: Amendment N Mrs. Gordon:. Well, it was. named No. 1, , it is now namedat 2, the. eh .numbersalking have ch raged, but the point that: is important is that e are talking about'the. regulations and the criteria for development of.private pro- perty which included a setback -of `not .less .than .50 from the waterfront. Mr. Lacasa: Correct. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Lacasa: The question here is that I do feel that we do have a responsibility to preserve the waterfront properties in a way, that the people are assured of the enjoyment of the bay. The question from the legal standpoint of view is whether an ordinance or to put it on the ballot would be better. Yesterday, I was consider- ing the question from the legal standpoint and aftershavinggtalked to developers if we put it as an ordinance. After due research,. on the issue and seeing that the attitude is an attitude of going to court on this, I'd rather see it on the ballot Mrs. Gordon: Fine, very good, I'm glad yousee the light. You also are going to take the same position on the leasing to private developers of the public's land? Is that one also going to be one you are going to go along with? To go, on the ballot? Mr. Lacasa: On that second issue, Commissioner Gordon, we voted yeseraytoo` refer the question to the Waterfront Board, the one that we have appointed, I would like to wait until that Board comes back to us with their recommendations. Mrs. Gordon: That one only? But this one you don't need any recommendation. Mr. Lacasa: ,We don't have any one to 1AWke any untilcwe�havetaorecommendationto us on sfrom. So I'd rather go with this one now and wait the Waterfront Mrs. Gordon: How do we handle that now? Mayor Ferre: Well, he is making a motion for reconsideration vote and anybody cansecond it. June 26, 1979 Mrs. Gordon: How did that vote go? I'll have to ask the Clerks to refresh us on that yesterday. Mr. Plummer: Three to two, for the Mayor Terre:. You' made the motion, Mrs. Gordon,... :;ems. Gordon:I `don't have .that here. Mayor Ferre I.have it here. You made the motion, I seconded jt, it was put to a vote it was defeated three to two. The motion read as want' I'll just read it into the record: to guarantee open "In order to preserve the City's natural scenic beautyand to protect the spaces for light, air, and significant visual access, anything ecology of the waterfront on Biscayne Bay and othe Miami ami to the contrary River, nyth in this Charter or the ordinances of the City notwithstanding neither the City nor any of its agencies eis shall issueture e building permits for or permit any surface parking ngaor enclosell tedto ducks .(except structures not in excess of 500 sq. ay, Government and structures at the Port of Miami) outh�totthe SouthBiscayne MiamiBAvenue Bridge:- Cut, or the Miami River from it 1. Which is not set back at least. 50 feet from te ulkheadoline roseas` wall, whichever is greater, except that theThe City less than 150 feet the setback anall be 25% of the exception to thislsetback require - after public hearing may gr ant meet if the landowner or theCity dedicates a permanent public right7 . n 25 average ptkand at no -way, along the 20rfeet in° widthsandaprovidestacceptableelandscaping no thanpoint.less.--20 feet and maintenance for such right-of-way; or Which at ground level obstructs the public's vieewrofetBisca neoBay', water Government ; Cut, or the Miami River by,occupying frontage of each lot or tract on which the. listr ctcueaisotomeasuUi1t. The frontage -shall be -computed by a straight The ,City- in . its'_zoning�code may,. grant the major public -right-of-way. � floor areas ratio and height bonuses for observing such property oc-, cupancy limits." Mayor Ferre: Are you making that motion? Mr. Lacasa: I'm making that motion. Mayor Ferre: All right, thereis a motion on the floor. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Lacasa: motion. Out of order. Well, we have tovote first on the reconsideration and Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion that was defeated. Is there the motion for reconsideration, Mr. then onthe. motion for reconsideration.on the previous. a second for reconsideration?...I'll second Plummer. Mrs. Gordon: Let the Clerks find out where we are sowe know what we are doing. m~doing. Mayor Ferre:. Well, I know what I' Mn ie: Mr. Mayor,,, the _one- that you read waS 1 have ththere the exact toxt of tsat buutt that. . . .the hat....the one that failed, would have acty put that °correct? Mayor Ferre: That's correct. and then the same one that you read actually passed later inin. Oa idiie: Okay,,rection.to the City Attorney to draft the proper ordinance... Sir, that is not up for reconsideration;because that one passed. Mayor Ferre: . Ongie: Mrs. Gordon. Well, ..but the other one failed so... straingthen that up ,so he knows what you You've got to are re mh 1.0 ���.,o ?A. t q7q considering. Mayor Ferre: Sir? Mr. Ongie: The one that you aretalking-about failed. Mayor Ferre: Yes, there point.... Mrs. Gordon: There is no reconsideration then, he is Mr. Ongie: It Mrs. Gordon: were two motions with regards to that particular, saying, because "it'failed,. failed." ..there, is no reconsideration. There is none Mr. Ongie: Just Mayor bring it up again. Ferre: .Oh,.Isee, so: he then is ateliberty to move that as a motion. Mr. Ongie: Yes: Mrs. Gordon: es, so therefore you just, proceed. Mayor Ferre So we don't need to reconsider anything. Mrs. Gordon: '-Yes, _..that's why I asked the Clerk to give us the information correctly, so we know what we are doing and not shooting from the hip. Mr. Lacasa: So`then,, Mr. Plummer: : Well, it another Motion..` s the motion "in order'?, is not a motion of reconsideration, you are just making Mrs. Gordon If you make it in a"motion, then you would have to have a reso effectivelution drafted to mak.e it because the motion in .:itself = won't :mean, anything. Mayor Ferre:In effect what you are doing then is you are moving this placed on the ballot for November`6th, is that correct? Mr. Lacasa: Correct. Mayor Ferre Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: No, go ahead. Mrs. Gordon:...you can second it, I Mayor Ferre Those!.things :don Mrs. it. Is there a second to that motion? I thought you wanted to second it Mr::Mayor... enjoy that. t make any difference, Rose to be Gordon: That's all right, Mr. Plummer, has the gavel and you can second Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: I've "got the gavel right here, and I'm going to hold on to it too. The question is does. he who has the gavel wield_tne: power. . There is a motion on the floor.- Is there a second? If this one dies fromlack of a second I'll tell you... Mayor FerreIs there a second?...All right, I'll second the motion. I second the motion. Mr. Plummer: Motion made. Motion understood. Call the roll. Rev. Gibson The motion is... Mr. Plummer:,The motion is to place on the bailot that, which was. presented ,. yesterday which failed, the motion now is to put it on the ballot, in reference, Plummer,.; ■ ■ ■ mh 11 June 26, 1979 Father, to the setbacks. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-467 A MOTION INSTRUCTING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT THE PROPER ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1, HEREINBELOW QUOTED, AND REQUESTING THE ADMINISTRATION THAT SUCH MATTER BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE JULY 11TH CITY COMMISSION MEETING, PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1: "IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE CITY'S NATURAL SCENIC BEAUTY, TO GUARANTEE OPEN SPACES FOR LIGHT, AIR, AND SIGNIFICANT VISUAL ACCESS, AND TO PROTECT THE ECOLOGY OF THE WATERFRONT AND BISCAYNE BAY AND THE MIAMI RIVER, ANYTHING IN THIS CHARTER OR THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING NEITHER THE CITY NOR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES SHALL ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS FOR OR PERMIT ANY SURFACE PARKING OR ENCLOSED STRUCTURE (EXCEPT STRUCTURES NOT IN EXCESS OF 500 SQUARE FEET EACH RELATED TO DOCKS AND STRUCTURES AT THE PORT OF MIAMI) LOCATED ON BISCAYNE BAY, GOVERNMENT CUT, OR THE MIAMI RIVER FROM ITS MOUTH TO THE SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE BRIDGE: 1. WHICH IS NOT SET BACK AT LEAST 50 FEET FROM THE BULKHEAD LINE OR SEAWALL WHICHEVER IS GREATER EXCEPT THAT WHERE THE DEPTH OF THE LOT IS LESS THAN 150 FEET THE SETBACK SHALL BE 25% OF THE LOT DEPTH. THE CITY AFTER PUBLIC HEARING MAY GRANT AN EXCEPTION TO THIS SETBACK REQUIREMENT IF THE LANDOWNER OR THE CITY DEDICATEDS A PERMANENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WATERFRONT NOT LESS THAN 25 FEET AVERAGE DEPTH AND AT NO POINT LESS THAN 20 FEET IN WIDTH AND PROVIDES ACCEPTABLE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE FOR SUCH RIGHT-OF- WAY; OR 2. WHICH AT GROUND LEVEL OBSTRUCTS THE PUBLIC'S VIEW OF BISCAYNE BAY, GOVERNMENT CUT OR THE MIAMI RIVER BY OCCUPYING MORE THAN 75% OF THE WATER FRONTAGE OF EACH LOT OR TRACT ON WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS TO BE BUILT. THE FRONTAGE SHALL BE COMPUTED BY A STRAIGHT LINE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM THE MAJOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE CITY IN ITS ZONING CODE MAY GRANT FLOOR AREAS RATIO AND HEIGHT BONUSES FOR OBSERVING SUCH PROPERTY OCCUPANCY LIMITS". Upon being seconded by Comissioner (Mayor) Ferre, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Commissioner Rose Gordon NOES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.* ABSENT: None. *Mr. Plummer: I will try to be as brief as possible. My vote has not changed ON ROLL CALL: from yesterday. First and foremost, I want it to be understood that I do stand committed to putting a question relating to setbacks on the ballot. I'm all in favor of that. I think Charter changes are something that need a lot of 'COT1Si- deration. I think this one needs consideration as others and I just feel that the proper way of doing it is to consider it then draw the proposal, then offer it to the voters. I am committed to putting it on the ballot but I want to do it in what I consider to be the proper form. Because of that, I have to vote against the motion. Mrs. Gordon: I would suggest, Mr. Ferre, that the title for what we have just done not be referred to as "Amendment No. 1 and2" any longerbecause they have been reversed, so that the one you just passed is no longer No. 1...I suggest you just deal with the private property setbacks on the waterfront and title it that way. Mayor Ferre: All right. 1111111111111111111111111111111 nth June 26, 1979 Mr. Plummer: May I also, Mr. Mayor, maybe for my standpoint but I think for the good of the community, I'm speaking against my vote, but I do recall some very serious and very important discussions yesterday relating to the Convention Center that is incorporated in that Amendment as presented.. Now, you try to modify it and did modify it and it failed. Now,... Mayor Ferre: No, sir, no,no, no. Let me be very specific. Mr. Plummer: Mayor I'm just bringing up for, your point of Mayor Ferre:. I don't know where it Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: view, okay..; is, I had it in my hand.` You will recall a discussion in reference Let me clarify it for you. No, clarify it for the record, not for me, I understood the motion as presented. it. Mayor Ferre: All right, the following words were added: "or the City" and that clears the Convention Center. It now reads: "The City after public hearing may grant an exception to this setback requirement if the landowner or the City dedicates a permanent public right-of-way along the waterfront....", and since the City has dedicated that right-of-way then we are legally...that will permit the James L. Knight/City of Miami -University of Miami Convention/Conference Center to proceed as it has been drawn. Mr. Plummer: . All right, sir, as long as that is in there, because I went by', there today and they are sure pouring concrete and steel. Mayor Ferre: this item. Mrs. Gordon: I'd like to move you that thesecond amendment, the one dealing with the leasing of private property also be placedon the ballot and I would like to read that. "That effective immediately upon its adoption by a majority of the electors voting on this proposed amendment the Charter of the City of Miami shall be amended as follows: "Anything in this Charter or the ordinances of the City of Miami to the contrary notwithstanding, until such time as the City has proposed standards governing such leasing and contracting which have been approved by the voters of the City of Miami the City shall not lease to or contract with private persons for the use or management, for a period in excess of 3 years, of any of the City's property along Biscayne Bay, Government Cut, the Miami River or Rickenbacker Causeway or on Watson Island or Virginia Key without first submitting such lease or contract to the voters of the City for approval or rejection, and any such existing lease or contract shall not be modified or extended by the City without first submitting such modification or extension to the voters of the City of Miami for approval or rejection." I so move. Mayor Ferre: All right, now, technically, that motion was previously moved and never found a second, now what you are doing is you are reading it again to give us the opportunity to second it, so I will now ask if there is a second to that motion.'' Mrs. Gordon: I'm suggesting that the two amendments together present a package of protection for the City, that one without the other does not accomplish the same job. Since Commissioner Lacasa changed his mind, I'm asking him to make the proper consideration in this case which deals with anissue far beyond the one that we dealt. with prior. This one affects the future heritage of the City of Miami. It allows the voters of the City of Miami to decide what kind of City they want, whether they want the public's land used by private developers or not. That doesn't say that it couldn't be, it simply says that the people shall decide and not five people up here how the public's land should be used, that's all it Is. Mayor Ferre: All right, we have a motion, do we have a second on that motion? Is there a second? Is there a second on the motion? Let me... -since there is no second- I'll state it again into the record that I am committed that once the Waterfront Board comes back with their recommendations on a very complicated issue that, at that time, is the proper time to discuss this and deliberate and then place that on the ballot on November 6th following their recommendations and after we have a public hearing. This is a very complicated issue. The setback of 50' and the 257 see -through provision is a fairly simple thing to understand. on this, is there any further. discussion 13 June 26, 1979 MW mh The ramifications are relatively simple even though'I might point out that it took two days of discussions and..,over this weekwend, with the proposer of this, Dan Paul, to amend this to a point where it wouldn't completely emasculate a whole series of things including the Convention Conference Center. This other item dealing with leases, is a very complicated, complex matter. As Father Gibson very well pointed out yesterday, if we create Boards, they should serve their purpose. We created a Board, the Miami Herald -and God knows I don't agree with most Miami Herald editorials- but on Sunday they recommended that we do just that, that we let the Waterfront Board deliberate on this and recommend. That's what they are there for. When they come back this matter will come back and at that point we can deliberate and either put or not put it on the November 6 ballot with their recommendations, and that's something that we will discuss in the future. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Planning Board and a member and zoning matters, setback that Planning Board. Ferre, I'd like to remind you ,that we do have a of the Planning Board is sitting on the last row matters, customarily, are matters that come from, 14 June 26, 1979 Mrs. Gordon: (Cont'd) ... since you and Armando Lacasa choose, and I'm not faulting you, I'm in accord with you at this time, to proceed with any recom- mendation from a duly constituted board, the Planning Board, it seems rather strange to me that you would want to exclude the public lands from the people's choice and not the private land which normally goes through the Planning Board for a recommendation. Mayor Ferre: I'm not excluding anything, I just choose to follow the Herald's recommendation in this particular case. Now, with regards to whether or not the Planning or the Zoning Board wish to deliberate, I might point out, Mrs. Rockefeller, I think she was naming you in her statement, that if you have any input between now and 45 days before November 6th with regards to what we're putting on the ballot I want to tell you that this may not be the end of it, I'm sure that there may be some other modifications that will come out. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, once this is finished I have a motion which I would like to make before this Commission and I don't want you to preclude my motion by your comments, which you're doing. Mayor Ferre: No, you are certainly entitled to that and I would say that all we're doing here is showing, as far as I'm concerned, the intention and the good faith of this Commission of putting this on the ballot. Now how it will be changed is certainly subject to a lot of discussion and I'm sure that be- tween here and mid-September,which is how long we have to change this again, there will be plenty of deliberation. Mr. Plummer: What is the present posture of the motion on the floor? Mayor Ferre: There isno motion. Mr. Plummer: All right, then I', would like to make a motion. Mayor Ferre: Do you'want tolet Grace Rockafellar say something?` Mr. Plummer:, Well, it might preclude her comments. Let me try. Mr. Mayor, I would ].ike, even though I was on the other side, I would like to make a motion at this tixne that both of the matters be subjected to the Planning, the Zoning, the Environmental Boards to the Administration and to the Law Department. All we have heard at this point is glowing terms - to see if, in fact, there are any existing problems that could be existing or #2, that this Commission should be made aware if, in fact, there are any apparent dangers contained in what we might be doing. Now, and all I'm asking then is to. review, to look at it, to come back to this board (1),and say there is nothing wrong with it, go with that which is proposed or (2) we say these changes should be considered. I make that in the form of a motion that it go through all of that process. Mr. Lacasa: Second. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion and a second. Under discussion, Grace, g ahead. Mrs. Grace Rockafellar: Mr. Mayor, I'm Grace Rockafellar. I live at 814 N.E. 71 Street. I am a member of the Miami Planning Advisory Board. I was in the Commission Chambers the day that the Waterfront Board was appointed and I think you have a very very intelligent group of people that you have assigned to this Waterfront Board and since this is a waterfront matter I follow your suggestion that I think you should wait for the recommendations of the Water- front Board because this is what they're going to solely concentrate on not the entire planning for the City of Miami. That's all I have to say. Mr. Plummer: And I also, of course, that was brought up yesterday but I would incorporate that in my motion that the Waterfront Board give consideration to both. I just asked a question, Rose, for example that couldn't really be answered. The question is of that which passed today in reference to setbacks Would that in any way affect private marinas? Not a City -owned marina but"a private man who has a waterfront whatever and wants to put a marina. Would that affect him? And the answer is, "We're not sure." Mrs. Gordon: Which.oneare. you talking about, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: The first one, Rose, the one in reference to setbacks. Okay? Would that affect a man - let's say for example, hypothetically, Tibor Hollo June 26, 1979 rt who is building the Plaza Venetia who is proposing a marina, a private develop- ment and it has nothing to do with a City lease. Would that provision affect that man? Would it preclude or prohibit in the future that from happening? and the answer was "we're not sure". So I'd like to take the "unsure" or the un- certainty out of it and let's get answers so that we know exactly what we're dealing with. (BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: Armando, Im only bringing that up as one thing that came to my mind. Okay? And when people comeback and can't tell me "yes" or "no" and they're not certain, that's why I„feel my motion is very much in order. Mayor Ferre: Well, let metell you, Mr Plummer, that I spent an hour dis- cussing this with Dan Paul on Sunday and that's why you see that 500 square feet provision in there, see? "..or enclosed structures" and then in parenthesis, "except structures• notin excess of 500 square feet, each related to docks", that's how that got in there. But see, that does not exclude a marina, as I understand it, but I think your point is well taken, that George Knox and the Law Department has really got to investigate this thoroughly. Mr. Plummer: I'm saying that I think any Charter change, unfortunately, we don't have the Charter Revision Committee "inforce, I would hope that that would have been the case but ifit is not then of those existing; boards and thoseexisting, experts in the field 1 want them all to look at this matter and report back. Mayor Ferre: -I think all we've done here today, basically, is to say that something -is going to be on the ballot;'. on November the 6th. and I'm sure that between now and theri it will be amended depending on if this thing passes. and I'm sure there will be a lot of input by, a lot of people. All right, there is a motion on the floor, is there anything else on this motion? Mrs. Gordon. Repeat your motion, please, J.L.,-please. Mr. Plummer: Rose, my motion'simply says that"both of .:these items'which"are, up for consideratiofl for the ballot"be exposed for consideration and .review by the Planning,Board, the Zoning"Board, the Environmental-Boar"d and theWater oth the Administratio Board and b n""and the Legal=Department."` That's all. Mrs. Gordon: That's fine, nothing wrong Mayor Ferre: There is a motion The following, = its adoption. and a second, further discussion, call the roll troduced by Commissioner Plummer,` who moved MOTION NO. 79-468 A MOTION TO REFER BOTH PROPOSALS IDENTIFIED AS CHARTER AMEND- MENTS NO. 1 AND CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, ZONING BOARD, ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD, CITY ADMINISTRATION, LAW DEPARTMENT AND WATERFRONT BOARD FOR STUDY TO DETERMINE(1) IF ANY PROBLEMS EXIST IN THE PROPOSALS; AND (2) IF ANY INHERENT DANGERS EXIST Ip THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS; AND REQUESTING THAT ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED BOARDS DELIBERATED AND DEBATE THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO THE CITY COMMISSION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was adopted by the following vote: AYES:. Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner. Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore.R. Gibson Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, ";'Jr.. Mayor Maurcie A. Ferre NOES: None. rt 6 June 26, 1979 Mrs. Gordon: I want to say that I'm glad that the issue of the Waterfront Board being used for what they were created to make recommendations is a mat- ter that you think is important because I don't think that they have been asked to make their recommendations known to this Commission on any prior items that we have dealt with on the water such as the Coral Reef Yacht Club, so this is good, we're stepping forward and asking these fine people to start doing the job that we appointed them to do. However, I would like to inform this Commission that knowing that there is liable to be a number of different changes taking place on both of the proposed amendments between now and the time that it would be placed on the ballot,that a petition drive will begin and is beginning anyway to insure the fact that it will be on the ballot in November. rt June 26, 1979 4. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 160-180 S.W. 11TH STREET FROM R-4 TO GU. Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now on the Regular Agenda and we are on item 1. Are there any objectors? Moved by Plummer, seconded by Lacasa, further dis- cussion, read the ordinance. (CITY ATTORNEY READS TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) 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 LOT 8, LOTS 9 through 12 LESS WEST 10 FEET THEREOF, AND NORTH 75 FEET OF LOT 13-1/2, BLOCK 85S, MIAMI HEIGHTS (5-29), BEING APPROXIMATELY 160-180 S.W. 11TH STREET/1105-1133 S.W. 2ND AVENUE, FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO GU (GOVERNMENTAL USE) AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY RE- FERENCE AND DESCRIPTION, IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY RE- PEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT, AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24, 1979, it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer,seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES:. NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 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. 5. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION APPROXIMATELY 2401-2421 S.W. 4 STREET & 310 BEACOM BLVD. FROM R-1 AND R-2 TO GU. Mayor Ferre: Item 2 on Second Reading. Anybody an objector to Item 2? All right, Mr. Plummer moves, Lacasa seconds, further discussion, read the ordinance. (CITY ATTORNEY READS TITLE OF ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPRE- HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 181 THROUGH 183 AND LOT B BEACOM MANOR 98-121), AND LOT 150 (PT. W. LF BEACOM BOULEVARD), KENILWORTH June 26, 1979 I'm REVISED (5-115), AND EAST 198 FEET OF RESERVED PLAT OF CENTRAL PARK (5-57) SOUTH OF BLOCK 14, BEING APPROXIMATELY 2401-2421 S.W. 4TH STREET/310-312 BEACOM BOULEVARD, FROM R-1 (ONE -FAMILY) AND R-2 (TWO-FAMILY) TO GU (GOVERNMENTAL USE), AND BY MAKING THE NECES- SARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IARSECTICLE ENISII,OR SESECTION TS THEREOF THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24, 1979, it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On°motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Lacaa,the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO The City Attorney -read the ordinance that copies were available to the members public. . 8956 into the public record and announced of the City Commission and to the 6. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORD.6871, ART.XXV, BASE BUILDING LINES CHANGE ZONED STREET WIDTH N.E. 1 CT. BETW. 51 ST. & 52ND STREETS FROM 20' TO 50'. Mayor Ferre: We are now on item No. 3. Is there anybody here in objection? Commissioner Lacasa moves and Plummer seconds, further discussion, read the ordinance. (CITY ATTORNEY READ ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPRE- HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY DELETING SUB- PARAGRAPH (73-C) IN ITS ENTIRETY, SECTION 1, BASE BUILDING LINES, ARTICLE XXV, AND INSERTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SUB -PARAGRAPH SECTION AS HPARTSAFTER THEREOFSET IN CONFLICT; AND REPEALING ORDINANCES, AND CONTAINING OR A SEVERABILITY SECTIONS PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24, 1979, it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Lacasa, 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 Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: SAID None.. ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8957 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the publicrecord and announced that copies were available to the members of the City., Commission and to the public. mh June 26, 1979 7. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION PROPERTIES ABUTTING S.E. MICANOPY AVENUE FROM R-1 TO R-B. Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody here on 4A? Mr. Plummer moves, Mrs. Gordon seconds. further discussion, read the ordinance. (CITY ATTORNEY READS TITLE OF ORDINANCE INTO THE 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 PROPERTIES ABUTTING AND ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF MICANOPY AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE, FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY) TO R-1B (ONE FAMILY); AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION, IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THERE OF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24, 1979,- it-was -taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed?and Adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre PUBLIC RECORD) ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE The City Attorney read the ordinance that copies were available to the members public. into the public record and announced of the City Commission and to the Y ARTICLE XI-4 8. SECONGROVEDOVERLAYGDISTRICT (SPD-22)LPROPERTIESXCOCONUT ABUTTING & ON S.E. SIDE MICANOPY AVENUE. Mayor Ferre: ordinance. (CITY ATTORNEY READS TITLE OF ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPRE- HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY APPLYING ARTICLE XXI-4, COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT (SPD-2), TO PROPERTIES ABUT- TING AND ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF MICANOPY AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE; AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN the Take up 4B. Mr. Plummer moves and Mrs. Gordon seconds, read 2C June 26, 1979 ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24, 1979 it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre WAS. DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8959 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. 9. DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BY CHARLES GOTTLIEB TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION CORNER OF VIRGINIA & OAK STREETS FROM R-2 TO C-2A. Mayor Ferre: Take up item 5. This item was deferred from the meeting of May 24. Planning Department recommended approval, the Board recommended denial. Are there any objectors present here tonight? Three present. Mr. Gottlieb, how long will it take you to make your presentation. Mr. Mayor Mr Gottlieb appeared in front of the City Commission outlining -all of his recent efforts to meet: all the objections to hisapplica- tions and to establish contact with neighboring residents. He stated basic change in his application was to withdraw approximately 2/3rds of the property in question from his application, so that he was only asking the Commission's consideration to rezone the 45 x 94 area outlined in the record plat (the hatch area). Furthermore, he stated he had submitted a tentative declaration of restrictions to the City Attorney (voluntary preferred deed restrictions) that would deed -restrict the property for R-3 purposes. Finally, he requested the Commission's favorable consideration of his new amended"Application. AFTER BRIEF PERIOD OF QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS APPEARED'IN OPPOSITION: Mr. John McDaniel (President of the Lemon Tree` Village Condominium Association) appeared.in opposition on the grounds that the proposal would double the density of the property, now zoned R-2. Also, on the grounds that the proposed covenant running with the land could turn out to be unenforceable and court proceedings could be necessary. He also stated his concern that if the property was rezoned property taxes for close residents, like himself, would be forced up. Requested denial of Mr. Gottlieb's application. Ms. Joanne Holzhauser (President, Coconut Grove Civic Club) appeared in opposition, basically on the grounds that the piece of property is beautifully wooded, a choice piece of property, and did not agree with cutting up the property or break it with covenants, agreements, etc. She stated that 9 units were just too many units for mh 21 June 26, 1979 that piece of property when in fact he was only entitled to 4-1/2. He requested of the Commission not.to consider request unless he presented a much lower density. Mrs. Gordon: I have a question to ask of Mr. Ferre pertaining to: the lot line of the property and the line of the application for zoning. Mr. Whipple? Where does the zoning begin, how far from the lot line? Mr. Whipple: I believe that it ,is his intent to'come 50 feet from his exist- ing property line which would leave him 45 feet;after_the required zoned street. with an additional 5 foot proviso` both` for Virginia and Oak, 35 ft. from Virginia and 95 or 93 for Oak. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, in neither case, neither on the south or the east is itgoing. directly tothe lot line, the ownership line. Mr. Whipple: The right-of-way line, yes. Mrs. Gordon: All right, the right-of-way line is for future widening, it's, still in title to him, right? I ask that for a very specific reason. I've always believed that if you have a zoning change, you have to have 200 front feet or be abutting the same change. I wonder where you have in the Ordinance's provision that -maybe it's there- that you can cross -bridge and pick up zoning from across the street if you have less than 200 feet. Mr. Whipple: This is considered abutting classification. Streets are usually center -lined, what -have -you, as to where the zoning line is drawn. Streets that basically are unzoned or an area which takes the abutting zoning so in the process of many zoning applications this is considered abutting the classification which they now require, the 200 feet or 20,000. Mrs. Gordon: Looking at the map the line of zoning change seems to take place in the middle of the street. Mr. Whipple: That's right, in this zone theoretically on that premise goesto the middle of the street, so it is an abutting classification Mrs. Gordon:. Mr. Mayor, do you concur in the legality of this? Do you concur on the legality of this application being abutting adjacent zoned property? Ms. Miriam Maer: Insofar as the application is concerned, yes, that's without passing comment on the proposed deed restriction. Mrs. Gordon: No, I'm talking specifically on the size of the application and its location being enough abutting the property, the real property, abutting the City's property but not the real property on the east side or the south side of.. the east side of Virginia or the south side of Oak. Ms. Maer: Well, that's something that I haven't researched at all. Mrs. Gordon: I think that you ought to research that because I believe that. it would be precedent setting application, and if it is not a precendent setting application then I would certainly request that you furnish us with the informa- tion of previously granted zoning applications such as this. Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker. Mr. David Tolthy appeared in frontof the City Commission in opposition on the grounds that the developer is merely asking for a rezoning that makes economic sense to him since, lacking such, the units would cost approximately $30,000 more each. Furthermore, he pointed out that Mr. Gottlieb is merely promoting this deal. He is not the developer, he is not commited to build it, and if this zoning does get passed, there is nothing to say that he will in fact get through with this project, and if he doesn't, then they will be faced with the prospect of fighting all the contingencies that are attached to this zoning change. He asked of the Commission to keep the area residential. Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody else who wants to speak? Go ahead. Mr. Ralph Aaron appeared in front of the City Commission in opposition to this application, basically on the grounds that it would mean for many, many people June 26, 1979 higher assessments in taxes all because of developers who are profit -oriented: and land -packagers or development -packagers who put the package together and then peddle it. He stated if his property taxes went up more he would be forced to move out. He requested the Commission to vote against the petition. Mayor Ferre: Does the applicant want to make any response? Mr. Gottlieb: Your honor, I submit that the application has very little to do with taxes. I submit that Mr. Acosta in connection with this plan, which we've been over is a good plan and does preserve the wooded area that everybody wants to preserve, for good economic reasons, we too want to preserve, and the plan does that. The question of property abutting, I think that the main body of experience in terms of Planning Board and Zoning Appeals Board personnel would indicate that the total experiences that even the line in that drawing is to the center of the street and that it's not really a legal question, it's been a matter of ram practice since I've been involved for at least 10 years, according to Mr. Aaron. the person legally entitled to apply for this rezoning whether I own the property or not. In connection with the Post Office, I think it's really unfair to bring up something that happened ten years ago in a fashion that would detract...that is a personal matter when the subject on the floor is one of what's good for the, City of Miami, what's good for that property, what's a good plan, what's good zoning. So with that, I thank you for your time. Mayor Ferre: All right, I'd like to ask now the Department to reiterate their recommendation. Mr. Whipple reiterated the reasons why the Planning Department recommended this application, especially in view of the changes. proposed by the Applicant. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Whipple, when was the comprehensive plan for Coconut by this Commission? Mr. Whipple: I'd venture to say two or three years`. ago. Mrs. Gordon: Would you beable to pin it down or three years? Mr. Whipple: Not off hand, no. Mrs. Gordon: It's important that we recognize that certainly plans, you know, change as times goes on, significant changes take place in areas to warrant changes to a comprehensive plan, that's normal. But this plan, if my memory serves me correctly, has not been adopted so long ago nor has there been any significant changes here, in fact there have been no changes, perhaps, from the time that the Plan was adopted. I find it very difficult to understand the recommendation of the Department. I ask you to tell me where is Mr. Jack Luft, who worked on the Comprehensive Plan for Coconut Grove? Is he with. your Department still or has he left for other places? Mr. Whipple: No, Mr. Luft is in the Department. He is heading up our Transit Division and both the Director and myself have consulted with Mr. Luft regard- ing this application in our discussions. One thing Mr. Luft and myself have agreed upon -that although there has not been any zoning changes as such; that type of change in this particular area„ there has since the plan was conceived and adopted and working, some changes in the actual use in develop- mental activity in the surrounding area, in areas that are zoned C-2A, in reasonable proximity, let's say within a block or two blocks along Oak or Virginia. There have been changes that have taken place, for instance, the change in additional commercial development that has taken place on the southerly side of Oak, west and east of the subject property there have been numerous commercial changes. We have constructed, for instance, a C-2A development of significant magnitude in the form of "Mayfair". Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but you are not talking about anything that is anywhere near this property. Mr. Whipple: But the point that Mr. Luft was trying to make and there are changes that have been made, not specifically zoning changes but changes in land uee, changes of character, and changes in intensity of development in the area. Mrs. Gordon: Would you state for the record that Mr. Luft approved the recommenda- moreas to Grove adopted. whether it was two. years 23 mh June 26, 1979 tion that you are making? Would you please put that on the record. Now, I ask you to do that because you are the one that talked to him. Mr Whipple: The answer i change of zoning. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Luft agreed that this is a recommended change, is that what you said? Mr. Whipple: Yes. Mayor Ferre: We have here from Ralph Aaron, he just gave me a note, it says: "We met with Jack Luft,' the Project Manager for the Coconut Grove Master Plan, he is opposed to it and refused to be present. The new Directors asked Lft why didn't you tell me you were opposed to the R2A zoning? Only Whipple en- dorsed it. yes, Mr. Luft had no problemwith the requested Mrs. Gordon: That's right. Mr. James Reid: (Director of Planning) Let me comment on this matter if I may, Mr. Mayor. Number one, Mr. Luft is in charge of the Transit Planning Section, he is not in charge of making zoning recommendations with respect to this parcel. Mr. Luft was consulted, Mr. Luft is very busy in terms of the Transit Planning responsibilities. He cannot be held responsible for this recommendation.thpeople This recommendation was prepared by Mr. Whipple and reviewed by me• to be held responsible, not Mr. Luft and his.... Mayor Ferre: Are you the head of the Department? Mr. Reid: Mrs. Mr. Mrs. That's correct. Gordon: How long have you been in.town,Mr. Reid? Reid: I've been in town just about a year. Gordon: That's nice. Mayor Ferre: Are you the head of.the Department? Mr. Reid: I am the Director of Mayor Ferre: As the Director of recommendation? the Department, that is the correct. the Department, have you reviewed Mr. Whipple's Mr. Reid: Yes, I have reviewed Mr. Whipple's recommendation and... Mayor Ferre: Do you concur with it? I'm not saying how I am to go on this but I think it's not fair to castigate people in this form. This man is a professional and I don't think anybody is going to question his integrity and I think it's just terrible to take people up and just whip them, you know, just because they happen to be staffmembers and they havecan't reviewedeasily thisrespond. yousdothe concurfact, with the record, you areethe Director, r, you recom- mendations. Thank you. Mr. Ralph Aaron: If you excuse me, I'd just like to make one more comment. I didn't bring this issue up a moment ago in my comments because I'm an acquaint- ance of Mr. Luft's and I wouldn't want to jeopardize his situation, certainly not his job in any way. I talked to Mr. Luft the latter part of this past week and he is not in favor of this zoning change and said that he would not come before this Commission and make this zoning change because it's contrary to the beliefs of the zoning that he has worked on for the Coconut Grove until now. Mrs. Gordon: I would like for the attorney to clarify the legal issue that I've raised prior, the legal issue dealing with the legality or the precedent setting application before us. Ms. Maer: Commissioner, without having reviewed the plan, I see no problem in the application as such. Again, I'm not passing on the validity of any particu- lar deed restriction, but as far as the application as it currently stands, it's just as any other similar applications which have come before this Commission, it's no different. Mrs. Gordon: The reason I'm asking the question of you is because this applica- tion is across the street, and I've asked respectfully for any other applica- 24 June 26, 1979 tions that we have dealt with anywhere that have been treated as abutting pro- perties which cross a dedicated regular street, not an alley, okay? Ms. Maer: Okay, off hand... Mr. Davis: If I may, Mr. Mayor,, Mrs. Gordon, it's rather unfair I. think to have Ms. Maer this because she is not sure.. Mr. Plummer: I think it's unfair that Mrs., Gordon is asking, a. question of the attorney and she is not allowed to answer, now, I'm sorry Mr.. Davis. Mr. Davis: I just wanted to add this point. I've been with. the Department for 10 years accepting zoning applications, traditionally, we have accepted the. zoning line as crossing the street, in other words, an abutting zoning crossing the street. In other words, I personally can't lay out the case histories for you tonight of which ones they were Mrs. Gordon, I'm sorry... Mrs. Gordon: We respectfully ask you to submit that to this Commission. Mr. Davis We will research it for you, Mrs. Gordon, as I said. Mrs. Gordon: In its entirety. Mr. Davis: But traditionally, this has been the effect. We have not even su witted it to the Law Department because it has been traditional. Mayor Ferre: All right, do you Ms. Maer: No, not really,. if your questionis whether or not the'application:is r` proper for a change of zoning merely because that change of zoning is for a par- cel of property abutting a dedicated street,-is`that what your question is? Mrs. Gordon: I'm asking whether it's proper to accept an application which is being accepted as abutting adjacent, zoned property which is divided by a dedi- cated street, I believe, now, I'm not the attorney, you are, that you would want to make a complete search into that as to whether or not there has been and if that is acceptable. And not an alley now, we are not talking about a small 10., foot alley or something, we are talking about a full dedicated street, okay? Ms. Maer: Okay. Off -hand I see no problem with the application, however, as far as precedent I would refer it to the Planning Department because off the top of my head I'm not familiar with all the different planswhich have been reviewed by the Planning Department and have come before this Commission for a change of zoning. /` Mrs. Gordon: Thank you I wouldrespectfully ask from the Planning Department. to give me a copy of the regulation, if they would, as it relates to the issue of abutting property. Mr. Plummer: I would like'to ask a think"I stated at the last meeting. is a nice looking project. My fear express it again. My fear is as to Is it enforceable, is it legal and,, question.." My fear, all the way along, I I think it is a good project, I think it is one that has been expressed and I will the legality of the voluntary covenant. you know, that's what I've got to know. Ms. Maer: Having researched that question, I will state the following. First of all, it's legal for the applicant to volunteer a covenant or a deed restric- tion which would encumber the property and restrict the use thereof. This type of restriction would not be enforceable by the City, it's a matter which would be enforced between private persons, the individuals living next door, let's say, owning the property adjacent to the property encumbered by the deed restriction. Mr. Plummer: All right, next question immediately has to be, does it preclude. the City from enforcing? Ms. Maer: I would have to say yes. Mr. Plummer:'. Ms. Maer: The City does not have the standing to involveitself in; private dis- putes. This would be a private matter between two or several, property owners, not between the City and a property owner. Mr. Plummer: But it would seem like to me that this Commission has the right 1 mh 9 June 26, 1979 accept and for some reason that this was not adhered to, that this Commission would have the right to go back in and enforce that which they accepted. Ms. Maer: If that were the case, then it would be proper for this Commission to require the applicant to submit this covenant prior to granting or approving a change of zoning. However, the case. law states that such a covenant can only be voluntary and this Commission cannot require such a covenant. Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute now, we are playing with semantics. understanding that this man has already volunteered such. Ms Maer• That's correct. This Commission however would be approving zoning, period. The covenant would then be recorded and would become running with the land Mr. Plummer:. Correct. It is my a change o a burden Ms. Maer: ...enforceable by adjoining property owners who have privity withthis particular, property. Plummer:Well,`is the hang-up with whether Mr. or not it's recorded? Ms. Maer: Well, recording is one thing, that's not the hang-up here, it would have to be"recorded-so,that everybody.. .subsequent purchasers:would,be on notice that the property is encutnbered by this restriction'. The pointI'tn .tryingto make is that the City;, isnot -as;a governmental entity- is not in a position to, enforce a private deed restriction. Ms. Maer: I would say, no. The city could not, the adjoining. property,owners could, you have. to have standing in order to enforce the deed restriction and the only ones that would have standing would be those who would, be directly af- fected by the violation of the deed restriction, such`as the adjoining property owners. Mr. Plummer: Ms. Maer: Who would enforce it. he adjoining property owners. Mr. Plummer Fine, but what I'm getting at -is this. ;As.the same rightsof the people that are abuttingproperty owners have.' today to go to court to enforce something this would -.be the same kind of amatter,--is that correct? ^; Ms. Maer: Oh, absolutely. The abutting, the adjoining property owners would have standing should this covenant beplaced on the land, be properly executed and recorded, the adjoining property owners would have standing to enforce that covenant in a court of law. Mr. Plummer: How does this City, how does this Commission finds whether or not.., okay, he volunteered, okay? Now, is there any inherent fear that it won't be recorded? The city records it? Ms. Maer: The applicant provides us with the covenant properly executed. The City -anyone- can take it over and record it for,$2.00 or $4.00 recording fee. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, what we have found is that it has to be abutting exist- ing property of the same classification, okay? Well, this application does not abut the existing zoning. The existing zoning is in the middle of the street and; this property has been advertised to the property line, it does not abut existing zoning. Ms. Maer:; It would not have to be enforced onlyby some property owner o with the same zoning. Mr. Plummer: Mrs' Gordon: But she is talking about a different matter now. The application, this application.... Mr. Plummer: She's going back to the original question. property mh 26 June 26, 1979 Mrs. Gordon: This application is for the change of zoning on the private pro- perty. The existing zoning is in the center line of the street. This pro- perty does not abut the existing zoning, it abuts a sliver of R2 zoning in the middle of the street. It's improperly before us. Ms. Meer: I'll have to study this particular section for a moment. Mayor Ferre: Well, while you study, it, we'll take a five-minute recess. WHEREUPON the City Commission went into a brief recess at 8:15 P.M. reconvening at 8:25 P.M. with all members of the Comrn ssi.on found •to be present. Mayor Ferre: All right, we re back in session, now, and we are on item 5. Ms. Maer: Mr. Mayor, it appears that Mrs. Gordon has raised a legal issue here that the Law Department would like to research. Mayor Ferre: In other words, you are not able to answer the question legally now. Ms. Maer: We have not had a chance to. Mayor Ferre: So the, I guess that that means is that we must continue this item. Mr. Gottlieb. Mr. Gottlieb addressed the City Commission expressing that on the basis that applications similar to his had been accepted by the Commission for years, by the Depart- ment's own admission, he urged the Commission to vote on this matter. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: The Planning Department, Mr. Gottlieb, has not beer: able to make a determination tonight, in their own words, of any other application to their knowledge that has had the similar treatment that you say they have done for 20 years. Mr. Joel Jaffer appeared and addressed the Commission accusing Mr. Robert Davis of having been negligent. The Mayor reprimanded hitn for his behavior alleging the Commission did not involve itself with personalities. • Mayor Ferre: All right, what's the will of this Commission? tog^ Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you know, I don't think anybody sitting on thisCorn- mission wants to proceed without having a good legal basis to proceed on. You know, I just don't think that could be asked of this Commission. I really don't. I'm not going to, I'm not going to, I'm going to put it that way for you, and as such I'm going to ask this item to be deferred and give the Legal Department the time to research this issue. I don't know how else we can do it. I don't think anybody else in this Commission wants to make a motion for or against, if we are not on legal grounds. I don't see any other alternative. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion for deferral to the Meeting of July 23rd. Is there a second? Mrs. Gordon: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on the deferral. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 79-469 A MOTION DEFERRING CONpIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING ON THE CORNER OP VIRGINIA AND OAK STREETS FROM R-2 TO C -2A IN ORDER THAT THE CITY OF MIAMI LAW DEPARTMENT CAN RESEARCH mh June 26, 1979 LEGAL QUESTIONS POSED BY COMMISSIONER GORDON IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: None. Commissioner Armando Lacasa- Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre 10. DISCUSSION AND WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FROM GOODYEAR CORPORA- TION TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - UNPLATTED PARCEL ABUT- TING SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ACCESS ROAD VIRGINIA KEY- R-1 to WR. Mayor Ferre: We are now on item NO. 6. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this item as an objector? Let the applicant... Mr. Joe McManus: Mr.Mayor, members of the Commission, Assistant Director of the City of Miami Planning Department. This item was deferred from your last meeting, at least partially, on a series of hearings and administrative de- terminations which this Commission wished to hear about. First of all, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has asserted that they have no jurisdiction in this particular matter. Secondly, last Tuesday night, the Florida Department of Natural Resources held a hearing on this particular site and whether the use of this site fulfilled the public purpose deed restriction conveying the land to the City,and that...the determination from the Department of Natural Resources is not expected until late July or early August. Thirdly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has exerted jurisdiction on this matter although the Goodyear people believe there is a basis for contesting that jurisdiction. It's currently our understanding that they intend to go ahead and apply for the 7)ermit from the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I would now like to introduce Mr. Mr. Plummer:. Could you briefly run through, says that they have no standing. Mr. McManus: DER says they have no jurisdiction, Mr. Plummer: Okay, Mr. McManus: Have held a hearing, they are going to decide on what their course of action will be in 1ate July or early August. The Corps of EngineerS has asserted jurisdiction and the Goodyear people, will probably apply for a Corps of Engineers permit. That's all. That brings us up to date. Mr. Plummer: All right,now, it was my understanding, at the last meeting that for us to take action prior to them going through these processes would be pre- mature. It was asserted that there was a certain meeting that was going to take place on the 19th, and it was my understanding, as one, that that would say "yes" or "no" from all of the people who have or might not have some control. In other words, I, at that time, and am now reluctant to change until I know that these people are in the driver seat, and from what you have told me this evening, they've only got one body that is saying -we don't have any jurisdiction. One is under advisement and two they are going to apply to. I then question why is this matter back before us this evening. Mr. McManus: Commissioner Plummer, of course you realize this is a scheduled agenda item and various people are here representing Goodyear and I'm sure that'. they will explain their position relative to the various hearings. Mr. Plummer: I appreciate your comments but'I also appreciate my own which obviously were not listened to, and that is that we should not cause these people any inconvenience and schedule it for an agenda until these other matters are resolved. I would like an answer, Mr. Grassie. mh 28 June 26, 1979 Mr Grassie: The difficulty Commissioner, and members of the City Commission, is that the Goodyear Corporation has some time restraints which they cannot avoid, so it is at their request that this item is in front of you. Mr. Plummer: No, that's not true, Mr. Mayor, and I'm sorry. I still think for this Commission to go And make a major change in zoning on that island...look, if we make a change in zoning tonight, hypothetically, the Corps of Engineers' or the Department of Natural Resources turn them down, I for one am going to im- mediately want to go back and turn that back to where it is today. Mayor Ferrel Fine, you do than. Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. McManus:` people.... Mr. Plummer: Sir, let me just state for the record, maybe it's a little deeper' than you people with the blimp.., whatever your name is. Look, it's deeper than that and'my objection is not to you in particular. It's to the fact that this Commission set a policy that has not been adhered to,that bothers me,sir. Not you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believe it has been, and I think I can demonstrate that. Mr. Plummer: Well, okay. William Walker, Esq.: My name is William Walker, I'm an attorney practicing law in the Southeast National Bank building. There were three permit problems which I understand were addressed at the last Commission meeting. The first one was the necessity of permitting by the Department of Environmental Regulation. They have, in writing, waived any jurisdiction over this matter. That leaves two remaining. The first one has to do with a deed restriction that was set forth in two deeds that were issued by the trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, I believe if I recall, back in the 1940's, limiting use of the property to public purpose uses. An application was made to the turstees very similar to the applications that were made with the Watson Island site in 1949 and 1956, that the trustees vote, approve the use as constituting a public use, and second- ly requesting that in any event they waive application of those restrictions. A hearing was held last Tuesday night before a hearing examiner of the Department of National Resources to consider what recommendations the Department would make. The only part of this entire site which is subject to those restrictions and is now before the Department of National Resources is this piece, marked in a red triangle, that property is in the county and is not subject to the zoning peti- tion which is before this Commission this evening. This is county property and. it is subject to the two deed restrictions, but is not subject to the petition tao before you this evening. Thirdly, there is a matter of a permit from the Corps of Engineers to perform some dredge and fill work which is only related to a proposed hangar site, with which I think you are all familiar, at the northwest corner of the property. That hangar site is also not part of the Petition that is before the Commission this evening. We would need a variance as I will get into later, in more detail,to build the hangar site. Goodyear has freely ad- mitted to the county and I believe before to this Commission, that it's present intention is that it will come in -if it gets the zoning at all- and apply for a variance for that hangar. It has not yet done so, there is no such variance application on file with the City. We've not proceeded on that basis. We have not proceeded in that regard and the question of that hangar is therefore not formally before this Commission this evening. So I think on all three basis I frankly think,if I understand your objection that the policies of the City really haven't been violated and that all of the necessary permits -the DER having waived jurisdiction, the only part of this property being subject to this petition being above the red line and the only part affected by the trust deeds being below it, and lastly the hangar not really being at issue this evening. I think we are complying with the statement as we understand it of the intention of this Commission. Commissioner Plummer, Mr. Mayor, I'd like tointroduce the Goodyear Mr. Plummer: All right, sir, you are blem with that, my problem was one of the Commission, sometimes we get them Now, may I ask which I'have requested graphs of other hangars. here, I'm going to hear it, I have no pro - instructions not from the City but from mixed and think they are one and the same. of staff, Mr. Fosmoen in particular, photo - Mr. Grassie: I thought Commissioner that that had been Provided to now but obviously since you are asking the question that's not so. June 26, 1979 Mayor Ferre: While you are looking for the hangar pictures, let me tell you about the hangar. This vote, no matter what we do today, isn't voting for any hangars. So I want you to understand that I have no problems personally with voting with the Petition as presented here from R-1 to WR. I have no problems at all with that blimp being out in that location, it doesn't bother me a bit. I think it's an important asset to the community and I think we ought to keep it here, and I'm perfectly willing to vote for the WR classification, we can always change it if we run into a problem with any other agency. 'I am not in favor of, will not be in favor of, and will vote against any changes that will require a 10-story build- ing otherwise known as a concrete, or steel, or any other kind of a hartof that magnitude in that location. I hope you can work out your problem by when is a storm flying over to Opalocka and locking it up into a hangar there, but that beach is not a location for a hangar, I just want to come straight out and tell you that right from the beginning. And if that kills Goodyear having that blimp in that location, I'm sorry, we'll miss you a great deal, I will, personally. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me say this for the record, and I want you to know that I feel somewhat like the Mayor does but, Mr. Mayor, I don't think you meant, to infer that there isn't room for possible compromise and I'd surely want to be one looking for a compromise.` Mayor Ferre: Sure, what's the compromise? Mr. Plummer: Well, the compromise is, and this is something in my own mind, that there was the possibility of purchasing or leasing another piece of land, not an hour away but adjacent where you could build this hangar that you say. need because as I, recall back and you correct me if I'm wrong, how long has that blimp been on Watson Island? Mr. Walker: On Watson Island, I believe, under the last lease,1929. Mr. Plummer: 1929? Mr. Mayor, I will respect your age and your birthday just passed but I don't want you to judge others by your hard life. Mayor Ferre: I choose not to answer that. Mr. Plummer: You are smart. Sir, you have been other there roughly 50 years. The point I'm trying to make is this, I can't ever recall of any problem or any damage to the blimp, and you've never had a hangar over it. Now, yes you had trouble, I think last year in Savannah and it was unfortunate but I don't think you've ever had a problem in your operation for 50 years at Watson Island, okay?. So I think there is a possibility if you feel and you assert that you need that for protection, that it could exist in some other location. Mr. Walker: I may be able to save the Commission a great deal of time and this may be a little unorthodox but let me make a brief statement and perhaps we may end this right here. We came tonight prepared with an architect who has done a substantial study of the site and rather than hide it here, we haven't got a ot it photograph of the hangar but that's what we are talking about, to scale. is the sense of the Commission that there will absolutely not be -at the sense of the City, that is- because of the variance application, we acknowledge, would not come back before this Board, it would go for the Zoning Board, if it is the sense of the Commission that there will not be a hangar site operated in con- nection with the Goodyear Blimp base on Virginia Key, do I gather that is the sense of this Commission. Mr. Plummer: Sir, I think you've only had an expression of two, and three consti- tute a majority. Mr. Walker: Well, it's somewhat the sense of the Commission. Mr.'Lacasa: Well, I, for one, would say thatthat's precisely my position. have no problemwith the Blimp on Virginia Key but I would be completely opposed to the hangar. Mr. Walker: Goodyearwithdraws the petition. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, because very frankly I do not think anybody up here would want the hangar that you are talking about putting out there. Mayor Ferre: What's` happened? June 26, 1979 Mrs.. Gordon: He withdrew the petition. Mr. Walker:Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company withdraws the petition forthe, rezoning. Thank. you. 31 11. GRANT APPLICATION FOR PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) - 39 STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE -254 DWELLING UNITS- 2 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE. Mayor Ferre: Alright, we are on Item #7. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: Alright, sure, sure,_ok. The lady says that she doesn't have an objection, but a concern. Since she has: to leave right now and she has got an emergency, would you mind"" Counselor` if she makes her statement first? (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Ms. Waldman: Thank you, very much Mr. Mayor. My name is Janet Waldman, I am the President of Save Brickell Avenue Inc.. which is a non-profit corporation representing approximately a hundred property owners in the vicinity of this property. I live at 1901 Brickell Avenue. We do not object to this development, it's a very lovely and we think, a very well -planned development. However, we do have one concern which has been previously expressed to Mr. Traurig and I would like to place it into the record, at this time for the consideration of the Commission. This project is planning to have two hundred fifty-four residential units and it is planned to have only one method of ingress and egress consisting of one lane going in and one lane coming out. The Department of Traffic and Transportation in their April 13th report stated that they believe this will cause one thousand five hundred fifty vehicles trips per day with as many as a hundred forty occurring during the peak hour. They have made some recommendations regarding moving median strip opening. Our concern is one of unreasonable traffic for, notforBrickell Avenue so much, but just for that one entrance lane and one exit lane especially considering that there will be a security gate there that will cause a lot of the traffic to stop many times. We are also extremely concerned about the possibility of any emergency vehicle having to get in or out of there when there is a stoppage there. We ask only that the road going in and out be widened to make it accessible to one car perhaps that would be there and an emergency vehicle and certainly that any planned landscaping be moved to allow for that with a second possibility which.I have been told is... Mayor Ferre: Counselor are you listening to this? Mr. Traurig: Yes, I am. Mayor Ferre: Because that's a very` positive recommendation "and "I think you ought to take time and.. listen to. Ms. Waldman: With asecond request, if it's at all possible, for another entrance on 15th Road, but we 1 think would be satisfied vith videning this one street. Thank you, very much. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, "just to make sure that we all understood your statement. What you are saying isthat you don't have any objections, but you do have a concern with ingress and egress Ms. Waldman: Correct. Mayor Ferre: And you are recommending that the entrance be widened so that there is one additional lane? Ms. Waldman: .Correct. Well, one additional lane hopefully in each direction. Asit stands now there isonly one lane open in and one lane open out and we don't feel. that's sufficient for two hundred fifty-four units with over fifteen hundred trips a day... Mayor Ferre gl 2 June 26, 1979 Ms. Waldman: Thank you. into and out of the project. And I appreciate Mayor Ferre: Alright? your -consideration. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor and Mrs. Gordon, gentlemen, my name is Robert H. Traurig and I'm an Attorney at Law, 1401 Brickell Avenue. I'm prepared to make a complete presentation; as a result of the hour though, and in view of the fact that Ms. Waldman indicates that the Save Brickell Avenue group has no objection except these, I wonder if anyone else has any objections or I should just address this one issue because we do have a recommendation of ". approval by the Urban Development Review Board, by the Planning Department,< by the Zoning Board. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Traurig: Good. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer.`: Alright, let me say that.I would, like to hear your presentation. Rose, I'm going to shoot you. She has got that right, she has got that right. Mrs. Gordon: Listen J. L. when you go outto talk to people about what you approved tonight you better know what you are talking about, I want to know what I'm talking; about. So therefore,... Mr. Plummer: Ok, Rose, I have read it. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Plummer:- The point,is I was:only going`to ask, is,it:possible...as.I understand., it, it;.was;this young lady.and Mr. Jaffer are the only ones that who want to make a comment:. Is that correct? Is there anyone else who wants to speak against this proposal?, "1 would just hope that Mr.. Jaffer could make his comments and, in your presentation„ tlr.raurig, address both; of them rather than to have Mr. Jaffer after you, you come':backand rebut:and:just make it even 1 onger: Is ,that"possible Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Yes, let's go. I'm pleased to do that. Go ahead Bob. I think it would shorten everybody's problem. Mr. Traurig: Well, I: had understood Mr. Plummer: to say let speak and then for to speak? Mr. Plummer: He'obviously has objections, Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: It` doesn't make any difference.. Alright. Mrs. Gordon: J. L. you are not ruling... oh, gee wiz, let's just hear the application is all about. I want to be able to talk about it. Go ahead, Bob, and make your presentation.': Mayor Ferre: Mr.Jaffer let him make his objections... what" Mr. Traurig: The subject property is the property generally described as the property that wraps around the Saint Jude Church property is property which has frontage on both 15th Road and on Brickell Avenue. In order to achieve the most logical siting arrangement, the applicant established as an objective to move the building as far away from Brickell Avenue as he could and therefore he has set the building back approximately three hundred thirty feet from Brickell Avenue so that the entire area from Brickell Avenue to eastward of where the church property is located is less in landscaping and driveway and there is no structure there. We therefore sited the building gl June 26, 1979 in the RU-SA Zone seeking a PAD which permits... Mrs. Gordon: What's that, Bob?. No, no that. What's that? Mr. Traurig: (Not using the microphone) . Ok, this is another structure.' This is tied in with this other structure. It's main structure and. this is a lower structure in a step arrangement. The reason for thatis to achieve a better relationship to adjoining properties. • Let me show ;. you what could have been achieved under; the present Ordinance. .This being Brickell Avenue we could have built a building that would have absolutely blocked the view of the public Mayor Ferre: Not anymore. Mr. Traurig: (Not using the microphone) Rather than that, we developed a plan which as a result of height created a great amount of open space and we had to separate them on our northerly boundary so that people who are within the properties across the street on the north side of 15th Road and as well as the people in the. Vizcaya North would not have their view of the bay because these tenants in the property of Costa Bella when looking south ward' would have been affected by the height of another structure that would have been built.._ that could have been built on that property. Now, that's basically the design exercise. We wanted to avoid an iTnpositiOfl upon our neighbors, we wantedto save all the trees on the Brickell Avenue side, wewill not be removing those trees. We wanted to create open space and we wanted it to setback fro m Brickell Avenue. Mrs. ordon: How much does it setback from the water side? Mr. Traurig: Now, from the water side technically' you will notice that the setback is only`22-1/2 feet, but it's 22-1/2 feet... Mrs. Gordon, let me say to you... Mrs. Gordon: Just looking at Mr. you know, to put something down. Mr. Traurig: •Ok. But it's 22-1/2 feet only back it getsdeeper and deeper and deeper. Mayor FerreWell, you are not going to be able to do that, with what's passed tonight. Mr. Traurig: Well, Mrs. Lacasa because he moved a motion tonight:. Gordon: Well,it's just a:motion that passed tonight. Mr. Traurig: If we receive the blessing of this Commission I can tell you that we are prepared to file for a building permit almost immediately. The ". working drawings have proceededto that extent. I would like you to know that the developer of this property is a very experienced .developer, _has sent a major team to Miami to work on this. project. He is Harry Helmsley' who among other projects owns the Parklane Hotel New York, is building the Palace in New York, has owned the Empire State Building in New York and isno stranger to development problems in cities all over the United States. Mrs. Gordon: Pardon me Bob, but may be your architect or you can tell me what is the width of the property of the development, the building across it's North, South... Mr. Traurig: Ok,.,I would like to introduce to you Mr. Hervin Romney from. Architect Tonica who is the principal architect on this project. Mr. Romney: My name is Hervin Romney, I'm an architect. My address is 1934 Ponce`. de Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables_ and I'rn the architect for this project. Your question was the width of the building? Mrs. Gordon: The question is what percentage of the lot does thebuilding occupy? Now, I'm talking about it's width, the north -south dimension. Mayor Ferre: Well look, let's make it very simple: What is the width of the land across going from east to west along Lots 41, 40, 39 and the little piece of 11? 375 feet, now what is the width of the building? Mr. Romney: The width of the building, I would like to preface the answer with the following note. You can see the unusual and irregular shape of the site, the width of the building or of the various components that make up the total project are geared to serve different functions and are adjusted to the various irregularities of the site. This building itself, the tall building is 243 feet from here to here. This.... Mayor Ferre: 240 out of 375. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. Mr. Romney:,; Actually, may I say this: This building sits in the projected area that reaches 15th Road and is, therefore, on a much wider part of the site and it has, therefore, responded to site characteristics.... Mrs. Gordon: In other words ence there of 135 feet. Mr. Traurig: (INAUDIBLE, Mrs. Gordon: It is less? Mr. Traurig: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Rose, they've and did their homework. Mayor Ferre: the water. of the 375 the building is 240 leaving a differ - AWAY FROM. MICROPHONE) ...75% done their homework.` The only place you get in trouble INAUDIBLE COMMENTS: They read yesterday' _s paper with is in your 20 foot from Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, it's 20 feet from the water but just forthefirst level, only at one point and perhaps Mr. Romney can explain his design tech- nique with regard to the water's edge. Mr. Romney: The building that is in close proximity to the water is so only at this location which is narrower if I may show you a siteplan, this being Brickell and this being the water it is only at this point that we come close. Elsewhere because of the natural configuration of the shoreline the space increases to several times that distance. Rev. Gibson: Go right on, we're listening. Go ahead. Mr. Romney: As to the previous question, I want to say that the tall build- ing sits in the projection all the way to 15th Road where the widthis far greater than the 375 that we were talking about. Mayor Ferre: Would you put that drawingdown there so we can keep on seeing the perspective drawing? Isthat a parking garage structure" that is: a square. structure where the pool is? Mr. Romney: Yes. Mr . Gordon: Where is the parking? Show me Mr. Romney:' The parking is not visible, it the parking. r' s covered. Mayor Ferre: No, the parking I would imagine isunderthat, pool. Mr. Romney: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: I'll show it It s under that platform where the pool sits. So this unquestionably violates both of those things. No, it doesn't. I'll show it to you very simply. Well, pass it up here and to you from here. No, the one on the bottom,: please. rt June 26, 1979 Mr. Traurig: The site plan? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Now, the point simply is that the ordinance, I mean the thing that's going to be voted upon which was passed tonight, Mrs. Gordon, would you look over here just for a second? The parking garage goes from here, here, here to here. Is that correct? Mayor Ferre: That is consideredstructure. one floor or one hundred floors. Mr. Traurig: It's structure if it is higher than 12 feet, if it is.only.12 feet it wouldn't be considered a structure for lot coverage purposes but we did go to 21 feet. Mayor Ferre: But you see, Rose, this is why this thing that we just passed is a lot more complicated..... Did you hear what he, just said? He said if it's not more than 12 feet it isn't a structure technically. Now how do you like that? Rev. Gibson: And let me say, I want to remind my fellow Commissioners when we were arguing yesterday and again today I pointed out to you that we had a board - the board, and you were going to let this Waterfront Board do its thing and then you want to pass a motion that no permit will be issued. Do you remember that? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Rev. Gibson: All right, and I said to you you ought to have the integrity to keep your word. I hope, I hold them to it. Nowlet me explain. I'm not opposed to the building, you know what I mean? I'm worried about them saying' 50 feet and what is going to happen is a lot of you people who got that land right across that waterfront are going to be hooked and, therefore, I believe that more consideration and more study needs to be given. I'm not so sure coming 20 feet isn't a good thing but that isn't what they said here yester- day and today. I just want to say that for your benefit. Mr. Plummer: ."Well _-let .me.`tell you one better than that that doesn't apply to this one. Somebody bettergive some serious thought to Claughton Island.: Rev. Gibson: Right. Mr. Plummer: If I were to apply this ordinance .to.Claughton,Island - --- Rev. Gibson: Ha-ha, I'm glad you came, you helped to substantiate my position. Mr. Traurig: There is another consideration, this is not the principle struc- ture, thisis an accessory structure. Mayor. Ferre: Father, I"hate to tell you this and. I;don't :want ".to deviate, from your presentation but let me tell you, do you know what they're talking. about? Mx. Traurig: I understand what they're talking about. Mayor Ferre: You see, what has been put on the ballot for November says that you cannot set back, you have to set back at least 50 feet from the bulkhead line or the seawall whichever is greater except where the depth of the lot is less than 150 feet, that doesn't apply to you. The City after a public hear- ing may grant an exception to this setback requirement if the landowneror the City dedicates a permanent public right of way which you're not doing. Mr. Traurig: But we're dedicating the 70 feet which will be the Brickell Avenue access road. Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about what this says. Mr. Traurig: I had the opportunity to read this a few minutes ago. Mayor Ferre: Then the other aspect of it is which at ground level obstructs the public view of Biscayne Bay by occupying more than 75% of the water front- age which this does because it says, it talks about construction, see. It says structure, that parking garage is a structure and the fact is that it goes almost the whole length of the width of that property. So what in effect rt 36 June 26, 1979 I guess I'm saying is that this plan, I'm not passing judgement on its archi- tectural qualities, it's basically in violation of what we're intending to. require for every property in the City of Miami on the water. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to call your attention to your plat. The bulkhead line is the bulkhead line which is at the easterly end of Mr. Howard's property and extends in a north -south axis. So we are set substantially more than 50 feet back from the bulkhead line. Mayor Ferre: Okay, you're all set on that one. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Traurig: the bulkhead more than 50 Say that again, Bob? Because we own the bay bottom between the actual shoreline, and line, since your language says bulkhead line we are set back feet from the bulkhead line. Rev. Gibson: Let me make this observation, sir, and please don't misinter- pret this because I'm on your side but it doesn't sound that way. They did not say bulkhead line, they said from the water. That's an altogether dif- ferent.thing and I think that before the City does what it has advocated the City ought to talk with men like you all who have land and who are experts in this business. I say that again. Mr. Traurig: The petition that was handed to me does, and maybe it has been;. changed, but this says, "...which is not set back at least 50 feet from the bulkhead line or seawall, whichever is greater." Mayor Ferree You're Okay on that one. Mr. Joel Jaffer: I was informed tonight that abandoned.... Mayor Ferree" Wait a moment, we're not running this meeting this way so you can sit down and 1111 recognize you when it comes time. He's got the floor.` You don't want to be rude do you? I didn't think so. Mr. Traurig: Well, obviously the reason for the parking structure is to avoid that kind of parking lot. image which major apartment complexes so often have by having parking at grade throughout the entire lot. By just raising this from 12 to 21 feet - the 12 feet would not have been included even as struc- ture for lot coverage computation - we were able to get all of our vehicles within this area. In addition, we were able to landscape the roof of the park- ing structure so that from Mr. Morley's property on the south and Mr. Howard's property on the north they look down on a landscaped area rather than the typical parking garage that you so often see such as our neighbor to the north. has. Our neighbor to the north has this structure with cars on the top and we've got landscaping on the top. We don't think that we violate the spirit. or the intent of the new proposed ordinance that you're going to submit to referendum and we think that based upon the very detailed study by the Urban Development Review Board and by your department and as a result of the unan- imous decision of your Zoning Board that this ought to receive your favorable consideration. I will make a complete presentation but I want to abbreviate." it because I know what your time constraints are. Rev. Gibson: I like what you did in that.... Mr. Traurig: Stepping down? Rev. Gibson: Yes. And it is very visible when you take that building, when. you take that picture. Yes, that's really when you see how innovative this other is because that's just one mass business and will cut off the air and cut off the view of the other people. Mr. Traurig: We think that the architects have done an outstanding design. And you know that these arenot variances, those are deviations as provided for in the PAD. Mrs. Gordon: Are you planning to fill out to the bulkhead line? Mr. Traurig: No, we do not intend, let me say we do not intend to fill to the bulkhead line, we haven't included the area that we own to the bulkhead line for our area computations in figuring FAR, we have not included the 70 feet that we're dedicating to the City up at the Brickell Avenue side as part of our area computations and we have this number of square feet with the FAR 37 rt June 26, 1979 Wait a minute, you re of 2.35 without counting either the 70 feet or that water area. And the result. of what we've done is that there are no cars visible, we've got all that usable open space on top of the garage, it has life, it has vitality, it is a far bet- ter plan from the standpoint of green, we have set back from Brickell Avenue and I can't see unless you feel, Mrs. Gordon, that there is some violation of something that hasn't yet been passed.... Mrs. Gordon: No, you can't say something that isn't passed, it's a law that has to come before the public But you know what I am saying, if I seem somewhat concerned, is because the Commission tonight took a position that is an approval of a procedure which you happen to be the first thing to comebe- fore us that is you know in conformance with the intent. Mr. Traurig: But let's look at the alternatives. Mr. Lacasa: Excuse me, but I brought this question for reconsideration tonight and I have no problems whatsoever with this particular situation at this point because what we are proposing is submitting to the consideration of the people in November a change. This hasn't changed now so now we have a set of stand- ards today, we rule here tonight by the set of standards that we have tonight. Mrs. Gordon: I've got about 20 years of experience in zoning so I'm - and Lacasa, I'm not trying to be facetious but the red on the map, is that.... Mr. Traurig: That's Mr. Hollo. And he's in objection to your application? Mr. Traurig: They filed an objection, I wasn't present at the Zoning Board hearing, it was my understanding that they had a question about whether or not people within the garage could look down on their property and the misread the plans. Those were merely ventillation openings and the absence of any of the people from Mr. Hollo's office tonight I think indicates that they have recon- sidered their position. I don't know that to be true, I called Mr. Hullo to- day, as of the time I left my office he hadn't returned my call. Mrs. Gordon: Is the other outlined in red also objectors? Mr. Traurig: The other is the Costa Bella Subdivision which is a condominium, I don't know who within that area has an objection or the basis for it. Mr. Davis: That's a condominium, Mrs. Gordon, and nine people sent intheir objections to the matter from the condominium. Mr. Plummer: Well didn't the younglady that appeared here say she was enting them? Mr. Davis: Not that one, she's representing1901 Brickell which 'is Brickell Place. Mr. Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry. Mayor Ferre: Brickell Place? They're notwithin the 300 foot.... Davis: No but she was aware and she keeps aware of the problems on Brickell Mr. Avenue. Mayor Ferre: All right, proceed, repres- Mr. Traurig. Mr.'Jaffer: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, first of all`.... Are you finished? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig: I can go on for half an hour but I would just as soon wait and let my good friend speak and then I'll rebut and that will be it. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Jaffer, why don't you tell us your name for the record and give us your objection. Mr. J. Jaffer: Joel Jaffer, 3268 Mary Street. First of all, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to welcome you back tonight, your absence was felt last night somewhat. You know it seems that the only guide for development in this town at the pres- ent time is how many hours in a day Mr. Traurig has to work on various projects and it seems we need some other guide to development here and it seems to me not Mr. Traurig are. you? IIiuIIIIiIL_ W June 26, 1979 that 15th Road was a good boundary for this high-rise development. You haven't even gotten all of Brickell yet, why do you have to bother across the boundary which was part of some Master Plan in Coconut Grove I under- stand and why can't you at least stay on the other, you know let us apply it on the other side of 15th Road first? And another thing that amazes me the people in Mr. Traurig's profession at any rate, they're in the business of saying no, they say no to me that I can't appear in court because I don't wear a coat or some other equally absurd reasons yet they don't understand the language that there can't be anything within 50 feet of the water and he says, "Well, it's only on this one point and it's only 20..." You know, all this garbage and in terms of the - I want to clarify the point about the bulk- head line. First of all, it has come to my attention that in 1975 the State of Florida by statute eliminated the Harbor Line and furthermore, the ordin- ance says the bulkhead line or the shoreline whichever is greater. Now you take a point on the land, say it is 20 feet from the shoreline and it's 35 feet from the bulkhead line, it's obvious that 35 feet is greater so you have to count it from the shoreline. Anyway, my committee and I, of course, are objecting to all highrises in the City of Miami and especially on this side of 15th Road which was decided after a great amount of discussion to be some boundary for the development of this site. Also, I was at the hearing where there the objectors, there were also the objectors on the other side of 15th Road not in the highrises that objected to the blocking of the view. Also, the business about the parking lot, I said it last night and I'll say it again, there's no. way that even a landscaped parking lot can compare with looking out your window and seeing a hammock of trees or one house in a nice lot. One more thing, I want to talk about the PAD and the zoning variances. You know this business about the irregularities in the building being a re quirement for zoning variances, in the 1940's a man by the name of Floyd I> think brought suit against the City of Miami because he didn't like a gas station on Biscayne Boulevard and the owners of that gas station said that because of the overhang over the pumps that they were, and thus the abnormal- ness of that building that they were entitled to a zoning variance and the. court struck down that reasoning. The court said that that item in the zon- ing ordinance only applies to buildings that are presently -there, that already have an abnormalcy in their buildings that would entitle them to a variance. It doesn't apply to buildings that haven't been built yet. So there are no grounds to grant this PAD, there are no natural boundaries, etc.'and there' is no reason to grant this. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I think before I wrap up that it would+probably please' this Commission if it could hear from ournearest neighbor, those people who have the most concern over what happens on their boundary and that would be the leadership of St. Jude's Church and.I know .that Monsignor Haddad is present, I know that Dr. Zada is here, I know that Richard Bassil is here and others and perhaps a spokesperson or maybe more would like to tell you what their reaction to this project is. Mayor Ferre: Father. Mr. Thomas John Zada Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Thomas John Zada. I am Chairman of the Parrish Council of St. Jude's Catholic Church, the most immediate neighbor on the north and west of this property and we are in favor of this project. Mr. Traurig: By way of summary, sir, we could have placed this structure 30 feet from the control booth, that is we are set back with our control booth for traffic from Brickell Avenue because of the 70 foot right-of-way that we are going to dedicate and we could have set back 30 feet from there. Instead, in order to create that 330 of landscaped area between Brickell and this prin- ciple structure we have set back 330 feet. We think that what we have accom- plished is an outstanding piece of landscaping and an outstanding siting of the building. It has been recommended to you by everyone who has reviewed . it on behalf of the City and we urge that you support your staff and approve this PAD in the R-5A zone. Mayor Ferre: All right, what is the will of this Commission? Mrs. Gordon: I want to ask some questions of the Planning Department. You know the applications that we received lately which are called PAD's, I'm not'. so sure I understand how you compute these things because they seem to be more of variances than part of a bonus system for a PAD. Would you explain your procedure? 39 rt June 26, 1979 Mr. Richard Whipple: Commissioner Gordon and members of the Commission, there is a complete article set forth delineating the procedures and processes, limi- tations and guidelines for granting of a Planned Area Development, specifically Article XXI-1 which is approximately 8 or 9 pages long. It has an intent, the intent being to allow flexibility in order to promote better design, better use of land or efficient use of land and provide a better project not only perhaps for the developer but in particular for the City. And part of the reason in addition to the written word that designs are submitted for review for consideration of this shall we say excellence or better use of land and what the routine regulations would permit, these designs are judged by a pro- fessional board which this Commission appoints made up of 3 professional archi tects and three professional landscape architects and again, this is a require- ment set forth in the regulations by which to offer their suggestions if any to better the development that is being submitted and also to further the in- tent of the PAD regulations. Within the scope of the regulations there are specific provisions as to what may or may not be done and for instance, read- ing in one of the sections indicates that the City Commission may upon submis- sion by applicants, recommendation by the Zoning Board and the Urban Develop- ment Review Board determine that certain rigid requirements that are normally associated with consistent zoning may be not set aside but may be adjusted in order to provide better and more efficient use of land and better development for the applicant and for the City. This is a very lengthy article, the rea- son that the petition is specifically written with the detail it is is so that this is not a variance as such but a statement of fact as to what the develop- ment is going to be in terms of setbacks, lot coverage or those things that may have been adjusted or been considered as part of a better design by the bodies that I previously mentioned. There is additional flexibility but basic- ally the intent of the Planned Area Development is to encompass the underlying zoning district but allow design flexibility for better development. Mrs.: Gordon: It appears that you and/or whoever feel that there are no limit 'ations whatsoever. Now I don't know what design characteristics you place so much weight on that give you such tremendous deviations from the allowed.. • Mr. Traurig: Mrs. Gordon, can I say that what was achieved here as a result of this is that the usable open space is 86% of the site. We are required to have 50,400 square feet of usable open space, we've got 192,184 feet without including the driveways and the terraces and the.roofs. So what we have,been able;; to achieve by this siting change is the creation of this open space `and , additional landscaping. Mrs. Gordon: But the lot coverage Mr. Traurig: The lot coverage for the principle structure is 12.1%, is 9.9% with 12.1% being allowed. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, what about the ground coverage, the lot coverage on the ground? According to the information supplied by the department, I didn't make this up, the permitted is 28.24% and the lot coverage provided is 44.46. I find so many, every one of these are above and beyond the required... Mr. Whipple: Commissioner Gordon, may I` use thatlast an an example of several things? Mrs. Gordon: Sure. Mr. Whipple: The coverage that is permitted for parking under the existing R-5A zoning district without getting into what the requirements are specifi- cally was quite restricted. If I may suggest to you that meeting those re- quirements in this project would have forced the green space which you see between the structure and Brickell and the recreational areas between the structure and 15th Road and the green area between the structure and the bay to primarily be used for surface parking, in other words car parking out on the lot. Now what is the alternatives if you will, to covering 100% of the lot so to speak or 90% say of the usable open space required with off- street parking and asphalt when, in fact, a better design might be to put cars within a structure and allowing a little more accessory parking struc- ture coverage than what the existing regulations allow. And that is devia- tion in the coverage. It does relate to the accessory parking structure if you'll read the provisions in the petition. Mrs. Gordon: I read that, Okay.. 40 rt June 26, 1979 Mr. Whipple: So that is one of the purviews and considerations in this type of review process for better design. We feel that the open space is much more valuable than surface parking. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. Now on the rear yard setback, required 90 feet, provided 22.5, explain that one. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Traurig I believe touched on that with respect to the par- ticular shape of the building and I stepped out of the room, I do not know whether he covered the point that they are leaving the water area unfilled, not that they could fill it but they would be entitled to apply and the bulk- head line is perhaps some 150 to 250 feet beyond the property line. As this setback, for instance, Plaza Venetia which if you'll notice is to the north did fill out the bulkhead, the applicants are not doing so and in not doing so are actually in essence providing a greater waterfront setback - I'm sorry, Vizcaya North, I apologize - are actually, therefore, providing a greater setback from the bulkhead line than is Vizcaya North. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Whipple, is the 90 feet that you write here then a 90 foot requirement from the bulkhead line or from the lot line? And I'm asking him. Mr. Mrs. Gordon:`" The lot line, 90 feet from the lot line, not the bulkhead Okay, you've answered it. Mr. Whipple: If the applicants were to own the bay bottom land then the bulk- head line would be considered the lot line,. I do not know whether they do or they do not. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: situation. Mayor Ferre: Do you own the bottom? Mr. Traurig: Yes. If they 'filled then the lot line would be the bulkhead line. Yes, but it's not filled so we're taiking now about a different Mr. Whipple: Again, this is an evaluation factor in determining whether it is a proper design and whether it has any iinpact oraffect upon abutting prop- erties or is actually better than what perhaps would be gotten otherwise. Mrs. Gordon: Side yard required 178.02, tion. The same reason? Mr. Whipple: Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Gordon: What is the reason? Mr. Whipple: The orientation of the building, if you want to take the souther- ly setback, you'll notice that a small width of the building because of the orientation and the angle of the building impacts the abutting property. If they were to, for instance run the building parallel to the southerly lot line the whole length of 324 feet or whatever it was so that it did block light and air or something of that nature we would have a concern with the setback but because of the orientation and the angle of the building in relation to the abutting property line the Urban Development Review Board and the department did not feel that that was detrimental to the abutting property or to the proposed development. Provided 64 and 78 - quite a devia- Mrs. Gordon: All right, I've asked all the questions I'm going to ask. Mayor Ferre: Further questions? Ms. Marilyn, Reed: Bob,."I need you to answer some: questions on this. interested in your project until I.... Mrs. Gordon: stateyour name for the. record. Mrs. Marilyn Reed: I'm sorry, Marilyn Reed, 3183 MacDonald Street, Coconut Grove. You're planning on developing the yellow area as marked on the wall, rt June 26, 1979 Mr. Traurig: Only the yellow area, yes. Mrs. Reed: All right, is it already seawalled or is it a natural shoreline? Mr. Trauri s It's already seawalled. 9 Mrs. Reed: It has a seawall And Dick just said if the wall is the same, did'I understand him correctly? Mr. Whipple: That is correct, that is why I.... lot line and the sea Mrs. Reed: Okay, now you're going to have underground parking? Mr. Traurig: Mrs. Yes, ma'am. Reed: How far back is that going to come back from the seawall? Mr. Traurig: How far will it begin? Mrs. Reed: Yes, setback from the seawall, the underground parking, just give me a rough guesstimate. Mr. Whipple: Roughly 25 feet, that is the closest point. Mr. Romney: < 20 feet and as. far as 80 feet. 20 and 80 feet, 20 feet on the =south end and 80 feet on Mr. Traurig: Between. the north end. Mrs. Reed: Well, I'm interested prixnarily on the bay side more than anything else.in this case. So you're saying 25 feet back from the seawall? Mr. Romney 20 feet at this end, BO feet at this end. Mrs. Reed: All right. Have you done any studies with your staff people as to how this underground parking, is going to affect the Biscayne Acquifer which lies very shallow in there, under the ground level it is very close. Up at Omni it is according, to the Dade County 208 Program only about 20 to 25.', feet down so when you start with underground parking you may puncture our only sole source of drinking water. Mrs. Reed: I don't know if this is a problem, I'm not saying it is, I'm ask ing you if you've done any studies to see = if. you're goings to have a:problem. there. . _. Mr. Romney: If I may answer that question, the existing grade at that point where we come close to the seawall is approximately plus 4, four feet above to waterline, the acquifer being underground. We are keeping the level of the parking structure at that point and this is a working combination with the natural slope and contours of the site. We are keeping it at slightly over that level. We are not, therefore, burying the building where it would come into and intrude upon the acquifer at that point. Mrs. Reed: Well, at that point in your studies you still haven't answeredmy question. Have you determined how far down the acquifer is from ground level? Mr. Romney: We have studied it, we know that we do not intrude upon it, I'm sorry I cannot give you a figure at this moment, I apologize. Mrs. Reed: I would like to know that because I do worry about our water sup- ply and puncturing the ground water, as you know. One thing, let me caution you and it's happened in the Grove consistently, when you have underground parking this close to the bay you're going to have a problem of water getting in your parking garage. It happenrs at the Coconut Grove Hotel all the time and it comes up over here at Yacht Harbor, it has to do with the tide and it does come in and they do have to use pumps. Mayor Ferre: Bob, how many levels of parking are there? Mr. Traurig: Two. 2 rt June 26, 1979 tt Mayor Ferre: So that parking structure starts at minus 4 feet to rise from the ground level to the height of how much? Mr. Traurig: Twnenty-one feet. Mayor Ferre:; So then it is considered a structure. thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: Well, what is the will of this Commission? Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, I believe that what we have here is a very well -planned project approved by the department, approved by the Zoning Board and as far as. the question that we propose to put on the ballot in November that is not in effect now, we don't even know if it is going to be approved and if it were, what we have is a situation where this project happens to comply with the set- backs that are being proposed, such an ordinance, therefore, I move that this be approved as presented. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-470 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A PETITION FOR A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), ON LOTS 5 THROUGH 11 AND PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND 13, GIFFORD AND HIGHLEYMAN SUB (3-38), AND. LOTS 40, 41 AND PORTION OF 39, BLOCK B, FLAGLER (5-54) BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A 39-STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE WITH 254 DWELLING UNITS, WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING R-5A ZONING DISTRICT: FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: A) SIDE YARD - 64' & 78' PROVIDED (178.02' REQUIRED) B) REAR YARD 22.5' PROVIDED (90' REQUIRED) C) F.A.R. 2.35 PROVIDED (2.2 PERMITTED PLUS .15 BONUS); FOR THE ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE: A) SIDE YARD - 20' & 51' PROVIDED (89' REQUIRED) B) REAR YARD - 22' PROVIDED (88' REQUIRED) C) HEIGHT - 21.03' PROVIDED (12' PERMITTED) D) LOT COVERAGE - 44.46% PROVIDED (28.24% PERMITTED) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, AS PER ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXI-I,' ZONED R-5A (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE). (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file, in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the and adopted by the following vote AYES: Mr. Plummer Mr. Lacasa and Mayor Ferre. NOES: Rev. Gibson and Mrs. Gordon. ON ROLL CALL: resolution was passed Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I'm not opposed to the project, I'm for it but we agreed yesterday and we agreed today that we were not going to, at least my understanding was that we were not going to accept or move on on any project that will affect that waterfront business until such time as we dealt with this business. I just, please understand I'm not opposed to the project, I think it is a darned good one, I like it but I want to keep that, I warned them for us not to do it but they went on anyway and I'm going. to vote no only because, and I want to make sure everybody understands that. I think that the Commission, I suggested to them that they not pass, make that policy but you made it anyway. Mayor Ferre: What we did was put it on the ballot for November the 6th. Rev. Gibson: Well, I understand. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, what I_wasjust checking with the department on as you know, I voted against the ordinance. It's; questionable whether or not the proposed ordinance, Rose. Mrs. Gordon: The one we voted to put on the ballot?. rt 3 June 26, 1979 'sr. Mr. Plummer: Yes. It's at best questionable as to the bulkhead line, it is my understanding and the way I feel that if that ordinance was in effect this would not violate it. I think it is a beautiful proposal, I think we all should re- call the days when not this Commission but a previous Commission because I didn't sit on there at that time, Rose and I were on the Zoning Board, that we felt quite proud of developing Brickell Avenue in a nice beautiful plan and we said at the time that we were going to change the entire area to something that we could all be proud of. Of course, Mr. Ferre at that time was not the honor- able Mayor that he is today and he said you know do it this way and so they listened to him. Do you remember that? Do you remember when they were going to change the whole area to R-5A and you appeared here and said please don't do it, and rightfully so? I think it is a beautiful project, I think a lot of imagination has gone into it, I compliment the architect and it's something that I think in the future that I can turn back on and say that I'm proud of and I vote yes. Mayor Ferre: My vote really has to depend on whether or not this project goes against the amendment to the Charter that we voted to put on the ballot on November 6th. I have no doubt that on Item #1, Mr. Traurig, that there is no problem because this is 50 feet from the bulkhead line so there I don't have a problem. Now in the second portion of it is where I have to really ask for some help from Whipple; it says, "...which at ground level obstructs the pub- lic's view of Biscayne Bay by occupying more than 75% of the water frontage of each lot or tract on which the structure is to be built." Then it defines: "The frontage shall be computed', by a straight line calculation measured from the major public right-of-way. The City in it's zoning code may grant..." well, that's not applicable. Now, my question to you, Whipple, is you under- stand that, does this structure cover more than 75% or doesn't it? Mr. Whipple: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'llbe honest with you I'm not sure that I can answer that correctly. We have not had a chance to thoroughly analyze this pro- vision. I would think that on the computations you went through earlier based upon the 375 feet being along the bay front and the fact that the building was 200 and some odd feet a quick calculation would show that the building length did not cover more than 75% of that 350. I would think that would make it. Mayor Ferre: The building ture that's the problem. length is not the problem, it's the parking struc- Mr. Whipple: The parking structure is the same length of just slightly over I believe, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: No, I' don't think so, I think you're wrong. See, and that's where the question is. As I sense it here you've got 51 feet and 20 feet which is 71 feet out of a total on a straight line basis of 375. One quarter of 375 is what? It's 90 some odd feet. Am I wrong? 94 feet, this is 71 feet. In order to comply it would have to be 94 feet wide of see through rather than what it is now which is 71 feet. That's exactly what the intention of this ting is meant to do is to prevent somebody from completely oblitering the view of the bay from the road, that's precisely the purpose. And if that's the case, Bob, I've got to tell you that I cannot violate on a matter something which I have voted to put on the ballot and which I'm for. Mr. Traurig: But can we review Mayor Ferre: Realism of what? the realism of this. Mr. Traurig: If you're talking about somebody'>standing on thepublicright-0 way which is Brickell Avenue and seeing the bay, there is no way to see the bay today with no structure there because of the distance, because of the line ofsite. Mayor Ferre: Bob, that's not being discussed now. That's something that you can vote against if you want on November 6th but the point simply is that what we're trying to avoid is another, and with all due respects, is another repeti- tion of what happened on Miami Beach which is a solid concrete wall from which you cannot see the ocean at any point. I think the intention of it is very valid and you know I really would be remiss in my duty if I were to vote for something on a petition that would violate what we just voted to put on the ballot. I'm waiting for the staff to give me an answer and I've got to base my position on the staff. June 26, 1979 Mr. Traurig: I would ask, you know, for some definitions. When it says, "...which at ground level obstructs the public's view", from what point? From what point? From the only point at which the public has the right to view the property which is the public right of way in the front. Mr. Lacasa: I think the spirit of this is the highrise but not at that ticular level where it doesn't violate the.... Mayor Ferre: No, I'm sorry. See, the frontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation measured from the major public right-of-way the frontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation - oh, I see, wait moment. All right. Yes, we do comply with it. No? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, if you want to follow our quick look at it, the major street, of course, is Brickell Avenue. The frontage on Brickell Avenue is 200 feet. Now if you run, and 75% of 200 feet is 150 feet. So if you run down to where you hit the building that building on the southerly side is set back 51 feet. Now. that is a way to look at it and perhaps that's the. intent of the regulation. So on that way it would meet it. Mayor Ferre: Do you see how full of holes this whole thing is? This really has to be rethought. In other words what you're telling me is that fromyour calculations this complies, is that correct? Well, just say it into the rec- ord, please, one way or the other. Mr. Whipple: On the method that I; just cited to you it complies, Mayor Ferre: Does that mean yes? Mr. Whipple: It means on that one analysis if that it would comply, yes, sir. sir. is the intent and. provision Mayor Ferre:.'In your interpretation this does comply, is that correct? .; Mr. Reid: Mr. Mayor, you're asking for an answer he can't possibly give •be- cause we haven't thought through the different: methods of applying this ordin ance In` terms of..... Mayor Ferree We're going to be in court before too so you'd better get your stories straight on this. Mr. long to try to defend this Reid: That's why I didn't want him to be put on the record as.... Mayor Ferre: The frontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation measured from the major public right of way. The major public right-of-way is Brickell Avenue. This thing is 200 feet on Brickell Avenue, is that cor- rect? Mr. Reid: If it is so -interpreted. Mayor Ferre: 75% of that is 51 feet and that complies.' Mr. Reid: If it is so interpreted in the administration of this ordinance that the method of computation is the length from the major avenue then yes, this project would comply. If you measured the length from the major avenue of the total bay frontage it would not, so.... Mayor Ferre: On that basis I've gotno problem voting I Mr. Reid: I just, want to make clear that we can not give a yes or no answer.; for this, vote yes. June 26, 1979 12. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - PA7STREETAND WEST OF5 AVENUE RUTRERFROMGR-4NTOECT4RLINE N.W. 3 Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now on item No. 8. Mr. Bob Davis: This is a petition for atchhe ange l of zTooning refresh 36oSt. mat the expressway which is shown on the mapion on ry, you just had a hearinga couple of asses thishs ago to close whole area, whichaispintblueoand,.which_ St. anddthe plat whhichch encompasses is in yellow, and which is now 37th St., will be owned rtyoo to arty.to maheyiare petitioning for a change in zoning on the northerly p a consistent area. Mr. Plummer: The blue is C5? possible. The Planning Board is there anyone in objection? is your application is true? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. Mr. Oh, okay. Let me try to shortcircuit this if it's is recommending, the Department is recommending, Sir, do you certify that everything herein 'contained Plummer:. For the record, your name and; address. �" � -�� Mr. Maximilian Feldstein: My name is Maximilian Feldstein, 19220 N.E. 20thCt., North Miami Beach. Mr. Plummer: You are the owner? Mr. Feldstein: es, sir. Mr. Plummer: I move the application. Mrs. Gordon: J.L., I want to ask a question. What are you going t sir? Mr. Feldstein: Rev. Gibson: Y Yes Mrs.? Gordon: A parking lot., it makes sense. All right. Mr. Plummer: Call the roll, I moved it, Father seconded. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE �FOR THEDCITYCE OFNO. MIAMI,IBYTHE CHANGINGETHESZONING ZONING ORDINANCE CLASSIFICATION OF THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF LOTS 20, 21, 22, 23 F &.24, BLOCK 49, OF BAY VISTA PARK AMINTERCHANGE,5-71)YING SOUTHHOF THE . SE'LY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE 36TH STREET ON VORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF N.W. 37th STREET ABUTTING THE sin ING SAID ET LOT LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 50, BY VISTA PARK AMD (5-71), LOT 1, BEING PROTLINELOCATED N,SWUTH 37th STREETF THE TANDTWEST OFET TNR W. GE, NORTH OF THE CENTER AVENUE, FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITYMULTIPLE)E TONINGO C_5 (LIBERALDISTRICT CCOMMAP EMADEAL); AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES 71 BY A PART OF THE SAID ORDNAN�EREOF68BY REPEALINGNAL ORDINp►NCESTICODE IN ARTICLE III, SECTION SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Was introduced by b title by the following vote: Gibson and passed on its first reading y put on it AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. P lummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre (VOTING CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) June 26, 1979 (CONTINUED VOTE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE, FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 13. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING - 129 S.W. 36th COURT FROM R-2 TO C-5. (See Label 17). Mr. Plummer: Item No. 9. Mr. Bob Davis: Item No. 9 is a petition for a change of zoning from R-2 to C-4 on a parcel located on the map in yellow. The Zoning Board recommended denial,5-2; the Planning Department recommended denial. This application was originally, received by the Zoning Department about a year ago, it was laid back and just came back to the Zoning Board again this year. Mr. Julio Gomez: May I please the Commission,, Julio Gomez, address 1401 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. My associate is Jorge Orta. I am the son'of 7.` the Petitioner, also his attorney.;. What we are asking for is that lot 4_ block 5, Kirkland Heights,. which is also known, as 129 S.W. 36 Ct. be changed from the present R-2 to C-4. If you.. look at the, map, on S.W. 36th Court, the last remaining lot which is for practical purposes an R-2 lot, is the lot in yellow,` our lot. Next to„ it, the two white lots, 5 and 6, of block 5, are the Church parking lot for Wesley Methodist Church. We own part of lot 6 which is C-4. We are asking this Commission to change;lot 4 in conformity with the rest of, the block. That particular area, S.W.'36th Court, consists of 9 businesses, one old house, which is not presently lived-in because the owner died, our particular lot rich we are trying to change its zoning, and the two Church parking lots. Across the street, is:,the the Ponce de Leon Blvd., which is a very unique area because if you cross the street you are in Coral Gables, consists of 14 businesses, as a matter of fact, that particular zone is known as the Coral Gables business district. The, principal argument as to why that lot should be changed to C-4 is that we are really not changing anything that isn't there. Everything but our lot; is C-4. The natural buffer zone for the residences in �` the area should be the two parking lots. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly in favor of this petition. Twenty are in` favor, nine are against. I should note that the nine that are' against, three of them are not even residents of the area and two of them are not even residents of Dade County. Our proposed use of the lot will consist of a; professional office building consisting of approximately 7,500 sq.ft., two stories. `Top story for professional offices, bottom story retail store. What we did in petitioning for a C-4 and the reason we did it was because everything else was C-4 anud we wanted to have the option of renting to tenants that would be of a C-4 natre. Obviously, we do not want a paint and body shop, we do not want a garage, we do not want heavy industry underneath a law office. One of the arguments proposed and one of the reasons for the nega- tive recommendation was that the area had changed since the last...there was one prior zoning change back in 1974 and the recommendation was denial because there is no change in the area, no change in the residences in that particular area. I would briefly like to rebut that in that since the last change of zoning was made in this particular lot back in 1974, which by the way, we did not own it back then, there was some residential left in S.W. 36th Ct. Since then there are no residential properties left in that block. All the old houses that used to be there in 1974 have either been arenowoperating from that lot down, ueuiltOur or they have been remodeled and businesses proposed plan, again, is to build a two-story building with a decorative wall, (PAUSE) in the back and keeping the trees that are presently in thebocaionth with parking in the back over the wall so that we won't have any problems answer with the neighbors in the back. That's our case and I'd be very happy to la questions. Mrs. Gordon: What's on the corner really in there? June 26, 1979 Mr. Gomez: Across the street is the.... Mrs. Gordon: No, right next door to this property. Mr. Gomez: Nothing, a parking. lot. Mrs. Gordon: Whose is that? Mr. Gomez: Wesley Methodist Church Mrs. Gordon: Where'is the Church to the... Mr. Gomez: Mrs Gordon changed that Mr.Gomez: Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Gomez: Wesley Methodist Church has been here ever since I can don't think.... Mrs. Gordon:.; No, I asked the question for information so we can make judgments based on knowledge. Mr. Plummer:` He is finished, Mr. James Felton: My'name is James Felton, I'm just speaking as a by-stander here and also as a member of Wesley Methodist Church. That parking lot was put there and quite a bit of tears and recriminations who worked with it,and planned ia lot of dollars where put into it` and I was one of people and originally it was to be an education building put on that piece of ground, which Wesley never developed in that respect to the requirement of having an edu- cational building there. It was then turned into the parking lot and has been taken care of and established and maintained in accordance with the proposal of the then -I cannot remember her name, who so much....in the landscaping, and that lot has always been maintained. What'sher name,s sheas wbas ain rmer meme and r of the Planning Board....Ms. Wainwright, y, anit was landscaped in accordance with her requirements at the time and has been maintained in that condition ever since. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, thank you for the history and the rhetoric. Are you saying in effect that you are opposed to this? just given a bit of history, she asked what was at the if this was The Church is that whole island there. Okay, I,just want to call attention to the fact that would``be permitted for an;'apartment house.. Well, I don't think Wesley..` Mr. Felton: Mr. Plummer: Well, my question is this, maybe of, the Department or you if you are...has the Church taken a position? Do you know if there was an objection or...? It would have a transitional zoning change.; go ahead, sir. remember, corner. Mr. Felton: Mr. Plummer: I -am not in a position t Silence. state that, I do not know. (INAUDIBLE COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: Or you mailed them that. Mr. Davis:. They are, within the district... Mr. Plummer: They are in the Gables. Mr. Davis:Yes, they are in the Gables. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple, let me ask you a question or whoever. You know, I know this area and...is your fear that zoning to C-4 possibly would go to some- thingother than what is being proposed? It just seems like to me, looking at the maps and property as I did, the natural buffer the lot 5 and 6 which is presently parking lot. Everything else on that block, with that exception, e isszoned what these people are seeking, so the question is, is the adverse recom- mendation a fear that what they say they might not do? The fear that.. mweetdon this,suponpresently beingused would enjoy if do then lot 5 of the Church which is p y They should have gotten a notice. mh 48 June 26, 1979 a transition? My only fear, let me express it, is not to the south but to those people who are to the east who exist in a residential setting, that adequate protection be afforded to those people. You see, lot 1 on the back side already abuts a C-4 and I'm at a total loss on...lots 3 and lot 2 also abut the C-4, lot 3 abuts it from both sides and you know, for me it looks like a natural continua- tion to close out with the buffer. Would you expound a little bit further? Mr. Whipple: Well, I think that the points that you have brought up are some of our fears. I'd like to continue one of the fears, not so much in transitional use per se but let's suppose 5 and/or 6 became motivated on the same basis as the applicant has for a commercial zoning and as this works its way southward you do have more and more of an impact on the surrounding residential area. The boundaries that exist have existed since I don't know when, not that tha t per se e on a complete basis, but I think the location of the property g offthe street of Ponce de Leon Blvd.... Mr. Plummer: So is 6. Mr. Whipple: ....the fact that a transitional use is presently available to this site in the form of an RCA use or a multiple family use, if you will, has permit- ted without any zoning change. An office use, part of which the applicants have indicated that they do want to put part of the building, the only question is one of retail and this suggested use that location wise this is not a good location for additional retail, in fact, we thought that the overall retail picture in the area we would submit that there is sufficient commercial zoning in the area to accommodate the overall needs of the community. Mr. Plummer: Well, are you saying that they could build under an RCA‘ Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, that's correct. Mr. Plummer:_ Excuse me, I'm sorry, can they build that they would like to accomplish? what they feel I -'believe.. Mr. Mr. Plummer: me, let me... Mr. Whipple: They are limited in the size of the building because the. RCA set- backs. take onresidential characteristics as opposed to commercial so:;that would limitthe floor area per house, and the fact that they'do'wish to have the 'alter- native' of a commercial development of which it could be a C-4, or a C-1 or C-2, or C-5, it would allow a C-4 use in addition to offices. Mr. Plummer: It doesn't seem fair to me.', Mr. Gomez: If can rebut a couple of points made by Mr. Whipple withall due respect. We worked that area and that's why there are so many green responses and there is not a single vacancy for rent,'businesswise, either from Ponce de Leon, on Flagler from 37th to 35th or in that whole block, with the exception of a little white house that's tied up in an estate proceeding and I would imagine that pretty soon it's going to be sold to somebody. Next door is a very ugly sight. It's a car tune up and repair place, a radiotor place called Gonzalez - Sanchez, which is essentially a warehouse where they repair cars. There is no place where we could build a three-story residential and hope to sell it or do anything with it unless we have some sort of retail business because that whole block through time has become that way. Mr. Plummer: Do you know what I think is the real parody here. If I were a neighbor. in this neighborhood and you go and you see wnat is there and what is being proposed and if`I had my choice between this professional office building and a disco.... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple: restrict the than what " is change of zoningas requested. Permitted in the C4 zoning. Mayor Ferre: Further questions.. We know which way you'd go. sure wouldn't be for the disco. One other point, Commissioner Plummer is the fact that we cannot We have no knowledge other (MRS. GORDON TEMPORARILY LEAVES THE MEETING AT 9:50 P.M.) mh June 26, 1979 Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect to the Department, I feel that this particular lot in the situation it is and looking just at the map, the C4 is not spot zoning, it is nothing but the continuation of what isalreaddo already there. As to the reservations Mr. Whipple expressed about what they twant attos is nthA ta zoning e building and the commercial use in the area, I would say at n consideration as far as this particular project is concerned and, therefore, I move that this application be approved. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Sir, let me ask you one question to alleviate':the give a five-foot strip on the what"I will call the'` the possible transition at a,later time. What?,.`.. Mr. Plummer: Yes, possibly. real fear would or could you south side- which would kill. I can't hear you. Mayor Mr. Mr. Ferre: Has to be voluntary. Plummer: No, no, withdrawthat five feet from the application.. Davis: Change the application so that it will be less the southerly 5 feet... in other words, that alleviates the fear of the transition. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Gomez: Sure, I think we can still build the same building with the current setbacks taken 5 feet off. s the people who live Mr. Plummer: Now, my next concern, as I've said before,. behind. What is the setback in the rear? (UNIDENTIFIED Mr. Plummer: UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER): Twenty. Twenty feet, and I assuming.. SPEAKER: Ten feetwith a wall. • All right, ten feet with a wall. What are you proposing building' Mr. Plummer:. wise? Mr. Gomez: We.are proposing to' have our parking in the rearoand en,not towhave et any parking in the front,_,of,course, it,depends on the typ for the bottom and have'the wall as high as the limit permitsus-becausenieallY, we don't want any problems with people crossing over toproperty roperty at ght, if that can be avoided. Mr. Mr. Gomez: Well, our building and the plans we discussed with the engineer wanted a wall painted the same col�ha�sWethe arebuilding planning toemodeleafter is.in. as a matter of fact, ` the building Coral Way and 12th next 1andiatathe same timeLarry itPsueconomicalpandn.• which is a very beautiful building functional, and it has that wall that looks good and at the same time permits us to keep the existing trees there. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Felton: Might I a wall ire you contemplating? Mr.'Plummer: Yes, sir, surely. of keeping the existing trees, you know the large shade Mr.;Felton:"As`speaking. tree that is in the middle of the property and that is one that was forced.to be left and lost two parking lots to the church. Now, that is the tree that 1 would just ask about Mr. Gomez: We Mr. Plummer: Mr. Felton: Well, this overhangs 4. are leaving the big trees there. Well, under the tree ordinanCe, they have to.; the trees space is in lot 5 but it just the thing Mr. Plummer:' You don't want them to trim i s that i mh June 26, 1979 Mr. Felton: I'm just asking. Mr. Davis: This motion, Mr. Plummer, is less the southerly 5 feet.' Plummer: Yes, Mayor Ferre: Well, we are going to, wait for the vote. Julio you want a favor and tell Mrs. Gordon that we are waiting for her to vote? MAYOR FERRE REQUESTS OF COMMISSIONER PLUMMER TO TEMPORARILY WITHDRAW HIS MOTION UNTIL THEY WOULD AGAIN HAVE A FULL COMMISSION. ON 14. FIRST CORNER gFDINTERSECT ONEN.WCt54GE STREETZONING 6 15AAVEFICATIFROS.E. R-3A TO C-5. Mayor Ferre: Item 10, on First Reading, that's an uncontroversial thing, isn't it? Are there any objectors here? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, sir, I'm here for it. I'm here representing Martha Perring's Company. Mayor Ferre: All right, change zoning classification S.E. corner 54 Street 15 Ave. from R-3A to C-5. Mr. Plummer: Move .it. Mr. Davis: To explain this, Mr. Mayor, 'for your ears back inaorderato�facil.itatezoning housing this was ,changed _to R-3A by. _you a, few y development which nevergot off the ground. Mayor�Ferre: All right, moved by Plummer, seconded by>Lacasa. Mr. Plummer: I just. want to remind this Commission and I don't even remem• b• er. how. I'personally voted'on the matter but boy,. let me tell you something, this.' Commission went: hrough holy hell on that, application, here we took. all kinds of heat and''.now it was; never used. Mayor Ferre: (THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE E ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) AN;ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8671, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 5 THRU INCLUSIVE, BEING THE SOUTHEAST FEET, BLOCK 1; FLORAL PARK FIRST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTHWEST 54TH STREET AND 15TH AVENUE FROM R-3A (LOW DENSITY APARTMENT) TO C-5 (LIBERAL COM- MERCIAL) AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF THE SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN CODE ARTICLE SECTION PARTSTTHEREOF BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,SECTIONS, IN CONFLICT; AND•CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. .Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner;' 51 June 26, 1979 AYES: NOES: : Lacasa and passed on its first reading by title by the following; vote: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.). Theodore R.,Gibson Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre None.. ABSENT: Commissioner Rose Gordon ABSTAINING: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into mthe puflic recordCammission and announced that copies were available to thees and to the public. 15. REQUEST PLANE RDEPARENT TO ECOMMENDATIONSSFOR CHANGE PLAT PROCEDURES CURRENTLY IN USE AND 16. ACCEPT PLAT: "KUMQUAT VILLAGE". Mayor Ferre: Take up item 11. Mayor Ferre: Would you tell us your name, for the record? Mr. Joel Jaffer appeared in front of the Commission and requested to know when had the Plat & Street Committee lookhaveed atthe P the abovat fileesomahe tter. Mr. Dai answer s informed the Commission .they did not the question., (COMMISSIONER GORDON RE-ENTERS THE MEETING AT 10:10 P.M. Mayor Ferre: Rose, we Passed item 10, do you have was non-controversial.:nobody objected. any problem withthat?t Mrs. Gordon: Well,' start at the next one. Mr. Jaffer, addressing the' Commission, continued, to object stating Com- mission without prior. Board (Zoning) apP. mission could no approve, rovals�. further stated there was no procedure for tentative plat approvals'. Mr. Davis: The Zoning Board approved this; by Resolution ZB 108779'dated May 1979. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer:. Mr. Lacasa'' Mayor Ferre: roll` Further objections to item No. 11? Is there. a motion Hearing no objections ,;"I trove it. Second There is a motion and a secon urther discussion, call the Mrs..Gordon: I have some real serious problems, you know, with the procedures that roving plats, and I've voiced this concern before that we have adopted for approving on the Zoning not just tonight. It used to be even worse, itdidn'tnco a upnonoth knewowhat agenda at all, it came up somewhere in the regular plats was happening. I believe that this Commission should uld setPlaa&policy lieet thataplats ittee before they come to us and before they get should have a public hearing at that level, because otherwise there is no way, absolutely no way, that the public's input will have any bearing what got to-, r on ou've in no. Nov, if I'm wrong in what I've just the Commission's decnoi• o hsaynsgructionc we receivedwere y approve it', we had way said, correct me. June 26, 1979 Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask this question, Rose, you know, I sat on the Plat Street Committee, okay? Mrs. Gordon: So did I. Mr. Plummer: And reviewing, as I always understood it, the Plat & Street Com- mittee was no more of a committee than to assure that the utility easements were not infringed upon. Then, when that was determined, that there was no infringement upon the utility easements, that there were no other problems from that area, it then goes before the Zoning Board, which in fact is a public hear- ing. Mr. Davis: No, sir. Mr. Plummer:. It is not? Mr. Davis: Not in this A Zoning Board is Gordon: They can object, if they object it doesn't Mr. Davis: The Plat & Street Committee was established as a committee of the Zoning Board. Its only legal status is as a committee of the Zoning Board. The purpose of the Plat & Street Committee is to make sure that the Plat adheres to all local and state law. To give the approval for this, the Zoning Board,upon the recommendation of the Plat & Street Committee, will accept that or not accept the Plat & Street Committee's recommendation. But that is not classed as a public hearing people are not notified. Public hearings are only held with Plats if there is some variance from the law to be considered. If they meet all the. law, the approval by the Zoning Board, as I've understood it, is to give the. Plat & Street Committee an official standing. Mr. Plummer: All right, then let me reverse it, Bob. Is it within the purview of the Plat & Street Committee, if all requirements are met, to deny? Mr. Davis:.. Yes, they can say, they can disbelieve their own committee and stating that there is something that is not according to the law. If they can show that it doesn't meet the law.... Mr. Plummer: I'm saying -maybe you didn't understand my question- my question. was if all requirements are met does the Plat" Committee:have;the right :to deny'.' Mr. Davis: The Law Department tells me no. Mr. Plummer: What would be accomplished by having that as a public hearing? Mr. Davis: That's why it's not a public hearing. Mrs. Gordon: Let me explain to you why the public has a right to be heard. What may be legally permissible may not be socially acceptable to a community, and the community should have the right to speak, they should be notified and there should be a public hearing, on Plats. There is no public hearing, there is no public input, there is a committee who are like gods and really we don't even have an authority to delegate our rights to an approval, and I remember distinctly and;; you do too, that weirdo deal that came in with a private road that wasgoingvtoe put up some building 15 feet from Bayshore Dr., we were told -you've got for it. I didn't it. Mr. Joel Jaffer: Although they can say they are hfollowing gitthe .law...buttthere is an extreme amount of discretion that goesinto a wire Florida Power & Light can say it's necessary for our light company to put irht hthath the madlthat'sthis withintree theand lawcut because thefeet Cityeach has aside contract�for wire on that tree, andfor him to put the wire through that easements but really that's not necessary tree. Likewise, we've seen an extreme aamount Department oftPublic1Works canng of isay tions on certain streets in the City nthe publid it's in our discretion if we nerealld this dedication need thatbut dedicationc sAlsodthere issome say over that whether the City Y does a lack of law in these areas, they are really not following any laws... Mr. Plumper: This Chair has been very indulgent letting you and Mrs. Gordon discuss this item. You are entitled to make motions in a moment. In the meantime, we are in the middle of a roll call, and I will ask the Clerk to finish the roll call. June 26, 1979 mh Mr. Plummer: I withdraw my motion. Mrs. Gordon: What motion? Mr. Plummer: To approve the plat. Mrs. Gordon: There's been no roll call though. Mayor Ferre: No, we were in the middle of it,:we were atthe beginning of `a roll call. Mr. Plummer: No, we had not started. Yesor no? Mr. Ongie: The motion was made and: seconded, we had not started the roll call. Mr. Plummer: Who is the second? Mr. Ongie: Mr. Lacasa. Mr. Plummer: Okay, do you withdraw your second? Okay now we are legal to dis- cuss the item. May'I ask this question, does our Charter mandate a Plat Committee Mr. Davis: No, sir, this is an administrative committee. Mr. Plummer: Will we then be appeasing every one, if we eliminated the Plat Committee andhad staff answer directlyto the Zoning Board?. Mr. Davis No, sir, I think the Plat Committee, as I understand it, is; required by the County` Platting Ordinance. You either use our Plat Committee or we use the County's Plat Committee upthen on the possibility of: advertising Mr. Plummer: So then really,� are we hung in a public meeting of the Plat Committee, is that where we are hung up? Mr. Davis: No,,sir, what 1 .think you are hung up.on.is the necessity for a hot public hearing. I'm not saying that the law shouldn'tbe changed to provide for this, but the present law does not in any respect. Its states certain laws that if the` platter keeps these, that's the answer, Mr. Plummer: I make a motion at this time that the staff of the PlannwighDepart- ment review, revise and recommend to this Commission, who are unhappy bathe ck to procedures presently usemendationsing forto Plats as soon as change. I make thatossible to in the formrofga motion. this Commission recommendations Mrs. Gordon: Second. Mayor Ferre: Okay, we have have a motion and a second, further discussion, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who' moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 79-471 -A,MOTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PART PROCEO SSING REVIEW EWAPROCOCEDLRES ES, CURRENTLY IN USE CONCERNING THE P E EXPRESSINGSSM REQUESTING EQUESTINGITHESOF THE PLANNINGCITY DEPARTMENTSTONWITH SUBMITTTHEIR RENT SYSTEM AND REQ COMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN THE PROCEDURES. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed adopted by the following vote: AYES Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre June 26, 1979 Mayor Ferre: All right, Plummer moves item 11, Lacasa seconds, further discussion, call the roll please. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer,' who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-472 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED KUMQUAT VILLAGE, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND ACCEPTING THE COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND POSTPONING THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED DIRECTING THEE ECITY�MANAGER NT OF PUBLIC WORKS; AND AUTHORIZING AND AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the resolution was'passed.and: adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre None. 17. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION at 129 S.W. 36th COURT FROM R-2 to C-5. Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now back on item No. 9. Mr. Plummer, do you want to move item No. 9? Mr. Plummer: I'm seconding the motion. Mayor Ferre: All right, moved by Lacasa, seconded by Plummer. on item No. 9, as amended. Mrs. Gordon:- How is itamended? Mr. Plummer: Rose, basically the amendment was the south 5' are withdrawn from the application, which eliminates_ the possible transition to the south. Go. on. Mrs. Gordon:`. (CITY ATTORNEY READS THE ORDINANCE -FIRST READING- INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING TEE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF LOT 4 LESS THE SOUTHERLY 5 FEET OF BLOCK 5, KIRKLAND HEIGHTS (3-214) BEING 129 S.W. 36TH COURT FROM R-2 (TA FAMILY) TO C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF THE SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND Further discussion Was Plummer AYES: DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. introduced by Commissioner Lacasa and seconded by Commissioner and passed on its first reading by title by the following, vote: Commissioner Rose Gordon* Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public recordand announced that copies were available to the members of the. City Com m. mission and to the public. ON ROLL CALL: voluntary *Mrs. Gordon: There was some discussion relative toDsome urestricttonsdo, that? restrictions you -wished to place on the property. i.. i n g to be, Mr. Gomez: Well, the use of the building s go Mrs. Gordon:` Yes," but accepting the fact that at some time you sell the building,; that someone' elsemay place.... Mr. Gomez Mrs. Gordon: force you or Mr. Gomez:' Mrs. Gordon: n the future, when.'. Sure, we are willing ; to do that. = . ...some obnoxious use, detrimental to the nei5hb0rh00d? We cannot require you,•this is a voluntary action on your part, and your answer t;certainly, once it's built we don't intend to knock it down. Most Okay, I vote yes.- 18. FIRST READING TERMS ORDINANCE: AMENDNADVISORYCTIOA 62-20 OF THE CITY BOARD & ZONING BOARD CODE EXTEND MEMBERS TO MAXI OF YEAR TERMS, NOT TO EXCEED ELEVEN (11) Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now on item No. 12. Mr. Bob Davis: Item No. 12is arrresolution rms whdichvformalizes your action taken at the last meeting on the Mayor Ferre: Okay, First Reading, who wants to move it? Mr. Lacasa: I move it. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Lacasa and second by.. Mrto.uPlummer:iprior Well, Mr. Mayor, I think proper' procedure would not to ask anyone tomoveit prto asking the person who wishes to speak to do such. Mayor Ferre I apologize for ,the late hour in the day or the night or whatever of an ordinance confirming motion 79-393 time it is and we are on first reading which was passed May 24th, okay?`Now',- who wants to talk on this? Ms. Rockafellar. Mr..Mayor,.I'm Grace Rockafellar, I live at 814 N. E. Ms. Grace Rockafellar:, I 71st. Street. I'm a member of the Planning Advisory Board. appearedhere before on behalf of the atnthis ResoluBoard t onrbeaad pted the a]Irtook itof tup, with Rose Planning Board members, asking .th mh 56 June 26, 1979 made no commitment. Gordon before I presented it to this Commission ans she said it was fine. When we first talked about it to this Commission meeting she said it was fine. At the last Commission meeting she said she was opposedtobit ttendr belieare iter tell'm l someone earlier this evening, when I give my word, you asking you on beaplannin eBoardZoning members,members adoptand thise Planning yo Board members, a majority of the8 Ms. Joanne Holzhauser: May I speak too, please? I'm Joanne Holzhauser, 4230 Ingraham Highway, Coconut Grove. I did not have a chance to speak at the time this came up previously. I was out of town and I did not know it was coming up and I'm under the impression that there are a number of other people who did not know this was coming up. As I said earlier, as far as I know the verbatim have not been done on this, I have not had a chance to read this, but I think this is a matter of great concern and I think that if the members of the Planning Board and the members of the Zoning Board are in favor of this, that they should have an opportunity to be here, to give their views for or against it. I have already expressed my views earlier. I was not here that time also, but I did express them to I believe Father Gibson and perhaps to someone else, and for the record I'd like to state those. With all dwedo needtobeadhing eehe lgteerrtoce someat Ms. rules about Rockafellar has given, I thinkthat this and I think that there are other people who need the training, who need the opportunity to give public service and I know that there are ppleainshe Ms. personal- Rockafellar's district who need her help, this is not suggesting ly is involved other than this is a spyoucial cathat havethe peoplelfromstheoPlanningcBoardlhere and I really ask you to wait until y to speak up for themselves, for the record, and identifying themselves by name before you vote on this. I believe that' Grace Rockafellar's comments require me Mrs.. Gordon: Mr. Ferre,support to say that she did speak to me but she led me to; belief thate sheBoahadd othemes siupport of the Board for this change, consequently, certainly, if with a recommendation and I would suggest that you bring this to the Board for recom- mendation, both Boards, because it fdissutettheBoards, recommendationboth of the Boardsbutoards concur, then certainly, I concur, I would notp apparently this is the difference you are not the total Board now, Grace, and.app Y right now.Ms. Rockafellar: Now, waita minute,and thiswe was put beforeBob the eisanlanning Advisory. Board which voted 4 to 2 in fa said..'.Bob, did you say?... Mr. Bob Davis: Ms. Rockafellar: ..no commitment, you didn't make any formal commitment but I questioned each one of those Board members. Theonly bet for said bthat because that make much difference was Mildred Callahan, but she Gort, Mr. Freixas, had 51 years she could still run for six more years. Willy Wllington Rolle, Pat Kolski, Alicia Borja and...it's been a long time; anyway, they were all for it, Rose, and you can verify that, they were all for it... Mrs. Gordon: Well, that's what you said, you said everybody is for it. Now, would suggest because it appears that maybe not all are for it but if they are, we ought to have it by a Resolution from them to us. 't talk to Ms. Rockafellar: This is what this lady said, but slady Rose didn of calling those people, I_did. I talked to them and you have theprivilege and every one of themand ask them if they told me to represent theta here tonight, because they did. Mrs. Gordon: No, Grace, I wouldn't do that, I don't go calling the Board members. is telling' something or not. asking them whether somebody please,Ms Rose, I've never lied to you and you and I. go. Rockafellar: ' Well, enthen, ahere and speak and speak for the members of go back a -,;long ways.,_ When:�I get up the Zoning Board, unless I've talked to them and gotten their permission to do so I wouldn't do it. Mayor Ferre: Nobody questions your integrity on this Commission. The fact is. that there is a divergence of opinion on this matter and that's another matter erthe that's something else, we are entitled to have...I mean, nobody denies people right to have a difference of opinion so I think the point here is, y let's get on with it one way or the other, we all know how we feel on it, I don't frankly remember...how did this thing get here, anyway, there was a Resolution that was... June 26, 1979 Ms. Rockafellar: Yes, you passed it as a Resolution and you voted 3 to 2. Mr. Lacasa, Mr. Plummer,, voted for it, 3 to 2. Mr. Plummer: No, I didn't vote for it. Ms. Rockafellar: You voted for it, yes you did. Mr. Plummer: -Ms. Well, let me put in the record, once again... Rockafellar: You voted for the motion there were three of you. Mayor Ferre: Somebody must have voted for it, I know voted for it, obviously one of you alsohad to vote. t passed three to two. Ms..Rockafellar: Mr "`Plummer You say Father voted against it? ou voted for it, Lacasa b I related the story about the vestry. Rev. Gibson: I voted against it, rememr•ust don't do that, you. can't perpetuate I said, Man,I live in a system where youj ourself. You need new life, new ideas, and Idmadehthethealawethathworkslfornyou, y 1 from a room-matethe best of mine from the Virgin Islands, will work it is to our ad g these Boards. That gives a lotP make sure everybody s, interest of this community against you. And I said that for of, eoplean. advantage to rotate gunderstands. opportunity to aspire for office, so I want to it. I didn't vote for it.Ms..Rockafellar: No, J.L. Plummer said, that there. was.... Mr.,`Plummer: Wait a minute, Graceyou know,'let.me just tell you what's been run- ning through my mind. :ObviouslY,.I'm wrong, if you will recall my stance from the Iwas opposed:to any.maximum of time•served.,, Now•, onset; from the beginni• ng,•••• to find a:compromise obviously, this:was a"muchwascthatbifklacouldrnotth igetethatiwhich I thought was and obviously<my • thinking•• and that's obviously right that I went with the best that was available, okay?, you know, where I was. I still strongly bersonalt at thgre iss hind beano limit..you know, the you.can argue both _way. but by p job, why remove that peth • r- argument; that I make is that if.a person -_is -doing a gooda bad job this Commission ern son? Now, that's my argument. If a person. is doing guess, withoutbto . •remove. that person, okay?" I`still feel that way.thinking referring as It. the minutes"that" Ivotedfor;this because it came as close to my g felt was going to be. possible.. Ms. Rockafellar: ,9 and ll year limit, �3 full terms, an eleven year limit. You rs Commissionedecide the:bottom line.` • Mr. PlummerJoanne° as,I.understand•your:-conc•ern it is• only that it.should be. r•un by both•"Boards, is that. correct? ` . > Ms. Holzhau: ser.,I would like.for'there to be a full opportunity for each.one of those Boards to have on their agendaitsand then forrwhatever theircvcan under- stand_that :the two Boards,.are doing Plummer. wally-flilly'to come then"before whoever. makes" the. decision, Mr. Mr. Plummer: Would you accept inan open and free discussion that itiistnnot t if ` what saying limited to that which is ,before_ -us? In other ords, what I'm that it is that, to it isto be discussedbefore bothBoards, in p the cap•. no maximum restriction. In::other words, removing . understanding ofthis is that Ms. Rockafellar Ms. Holzhauser:" Mr. Plummer,, m y that this:be changed. 'is• the only person who is asking.. Ms. Rockafellar I'm here representing. the members that I talked to.. : Please, I'm not asking who is right and who's wrong . You kn Mr. Plummerow, Joanne... - Ms. Holzhauser: I'm not either, to hear you but... Mr. Plummer: I sit here as an independent thinker..Look, what I'm saying is th is. Those people on the Zoning Board have their right and their independent thinking to recommend to this "Board uld want inputtfromsittherBoardas tmembersfinal asuweority and ;make .the final decision. I.wo, 'msorry, I'mnot feeling well and I'm trying W June 26, 1979 always have but I still will never relinquish that right of making the final decision. If this were to gebendrfreeediscussiona Ihveegotwas nohproblembwith ility that it would be a total, op that, but I don't want.•• Ms. Holzhauser: A free discussion of the whole'thing about terms, you mean,y. just this particular thing? Mrs. Gordon: No, he is saying everything. Mr..Plummer: As it exists today, there is no cap. Ms. Holzhauser:' 0h yes, sir, there is a cap, that's what I' mean. Mrs. Gordon: Oh, yes. There is? Mr. Plummer: Ms. Rockafellar:, Mr. Plummer,, last time, now, they talk about rotating the. Boards The Zoning Board has one original member, in, their seventh year, there has been a fast turnover. The Planning Board has three, and will have two more resignations at the end of this year, so that's on the Planning Board. Now,... Mr. Plummer: Yes, but Grace, I'm not speaking to the individual person. Ms. Rockefeller: No, but what I'm talking about is tr wor ds, You otni usad,er as you risstated before, the Commission is thebottom line,, in ofh times that anyone can come up for appointment,it actually, rests with this'Com- mission whether we are reappointed or ,not, whether it is,one year,: two, years: or three years, right? All right. You are~the"bottom line there, just as the voters. are the bottom line on whether you people return tooffice. If we:'think.you are doing a good job we vote you in. We canthey liaten,.let'scall serve, put tsnhen youendientbeonunder the November 6 ballot that two terms is all -they' the same restrictions.... Mrs. Gordon: Ms. Rockafellar: Pardon...? (IRS. GORD,ON REPEATS STATEMENT),.I think I would be.. doing a; lot of people a favor, -in some cases but'we could go out and get 12,000 signatures and put it on, the ballot. Mr. Plummer: Look, Grace, what I'm trying to say,''if I vote to send it;back.to both Boards, is it- with:the,.understanding that those Boards..are-free'to�recotnmend to this Commission the removal of the cap that presently exists? Ms. Holzhauser: That's not what we are iking about, I4r.gpthemer. correctere is words existing organized` set; of rules and regulations, Mr. Davis: The -Code at this point requires what -you've put into effect for...1974, which is three terms..the two terms available.afterlthe' ineitial l,term, which nc ild have been one,, two or three years. This is p Y ffect, you tcann and it, back, of course, ,to the Boards under any formyou_ want, yourse, but for- mal action other than thatmifuyounwishdMrate, of Plummereuwhatever you can send it back 'for further recommendation, wish. Ms. Holzhauser: My point is, that the ground swell ofchanging the rules and making a whole new ball;game -just isn't there, Mr. Plummer, this one request to do a spe cial interest thing for one person.... Mayor Ferre ve been talking this now for how many months?, Ms.,Holzhauser: I know, Mayor Ferre: No, no, I' this for the last six months. Ms. Rockafellar: This was voted ,on, .`Mt. Mayor, by the Planning Board when there were six members on the Planning Board, 4 voted for it and 2 voted against. Mrs. Gordon: ARe the samepeopleon there now, Grace? Ms. Rockefeller? , May`I finish? Then at the Zoning Baord.... and I'm sorry, Maurice,`I reallyam. m not talking about tonight. We've` been talking about June 26, 1979 mh Mrs. Gordon: Are the same people on there? Ms. Rockafellar: ...then at the Zoning Board level, they did not take formal action but I thought they had a right to voice their opinion. I contacted each and every member of that Zoning Board and as I told you what Mildred Callahan said, it didn't make any difference to her she'd go along with it but she's been 51 years, she can serve 6 more, giving her 111 years, so it really didn't affect her one way or the other, but she said she'd go along with it. Now, the last meeting that we had shen you took the motion there were going to be quite a num- ber of them down here and I told them that we probably wouldn't be heard until 8:00 o'clock or so, and it was all over before 7:00 o'clock, we were taken out uom of order. There were two or three here that night, there was Mr. Freixas, the Zoning Board; there was Mr. Martinez and Mr. Luaces from the Planning Board. Willy Gort had a class on Friday night and he was unable to be here. I talked to each and every one of them and they said they were for it, and for me to advise this Commission that they were for it. Now, I would have no reason to lie to you because any one of you could pick up the phone andcall them and say, -look, did you say you were for this or didn't you? Mayor Ferre: Ms. Rockafellar, we've been through this for an hour and a half. last time, I'11 give the gavel to Mr. Plummer and 1 move in First Reading the Ordinance of item No. 12. Mr. Lacasa: I second. Mayor Ferre: All right, call the question, we all know how we are going to vote on this. ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, CHAPTER 62,, SECTION 62-20 REAPPOINTMENT, BY DELETING SECTION 62-20 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SECTION 62-20 PROVIDING A MEMBER OR ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OR OF THE ZONING BOARD MAY BE REAPPOINTED FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO ADDITIONAL CONSECUTIVE THREE (3) YEAR TERMS, IN A MANNER HERE- IN SET OUT; BUT THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THOSE MEMBERS APPOINTED FOR ONE (1) OR TWO (2) YEAR TERMS, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1974, UNDER SECTION 62-17 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THAT SUCH PERSONS MAY SERVE THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE FULL THREE (3) YEAR TERMS THEREAFTER PROVIDED THAT NO MEMBER CAN SERVE MORE THAN ELEVEN (11) YEARS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THERE- OF IN CONFLICT INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT, AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Was introduced by Commissioner (Mayor)Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.* Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.).Theodore R. Gibson ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the.public record:and-;, announced, that copies were available to the' members of the City Commission and to'_:thei public: ON ROLL CALL: *Mr. Plummer: I'm.going to have to assume,the ,same :attitude ,.I cannot accomplish .obviously what I`want to accomplish so .then'I.will.have to go with as' much' latitude as I. think it is humanly possible and I will vote yes. Mr. Joel Jaffer addressed the City Commission.regquesstinthaemsnonh futuree stand s involving appointments to Boards should appear g gr not as partof the Consent Agenda. mh June 26, 1979 that not ;unusual. 19. APPROVE ISSUANCE OF PERMIT: NORTH BISCAYNE BAY DEMONSTRATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT - FISHING PIER & ARTIFICIAL REEFS - PELICAN HARBOR - 79TH STREET CAUSEWAY. Mayor Ferre: We are now on item No. 13. All right, who is here opposing? Joel tell us your story. Mr. Joel Jaffer: Well, I was at the Waterfront Boar oird Boa it'rdfuretingtherfilling they, did this and it seems that there is no need for of the bay and the only people who are benefiting are the people who need to get rid of.... Ms. Joanne Holzhauser: Joel, you don't know what you are talking about. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: You don't know what you are talking about. Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Jaffer: They said the only need for this project was the people who were supposed to furid the project. Mayor Ferre: Marilyn, is that right or isn't it? of the Committee o PUBLIC:RECORD) (RESPONSE FROM THE AUDIENCE NOT PLACED ON THE, Mayor Ferre: Well, he's got the right to object, he usually does, so Mr. Plummer: I think he just lost two of his Committee members Ms. Marilyn Reed: We just went through a"legislative session fighting for $800,000 to get this thing moving. Oh, come on, Joe... Mr. Jaffer: I must say that the only way this Commission ever does anything is if I oppose it. Mayor Ferre: Well, since you oppose everything I suppose that's true. Go ahead Ms. Jeanne Evoy: For the record, my name is Jeanne Evoy, I'm the principal planner with the Dade County Planning Department, JoelI'm saidProject this projectDirector has the supportBiscayne ofathe Planning Project and contrarya all of the State agencies, it has received Dvery careful scrutiny frrom people opinion, de e variety .R., D.E.R., a of of scientists, national marine fishericonsidered anion, they've worked with us the Rosenstiel School and it is their very carefully on it, that this project is a very small project, it's our first year project but it is the one that are using gotteno$950n000ch tforrtheorestorationeof,North and as Marilyn just commented, we havenow Biscayne Bay. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves, Lacasa seconds, further discussion on item 13, call the roll. The following resolution was; introduced. by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-473 A RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2FLORIDA,FLORIDA FORSTATUTES, CONSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO DADE COUNTY, NORTH BISCAYNE BAY OOT10HS��CT ECSOUTH SIDE OF PELICAN HARBRONTHE 9TREET CAUSEWAY, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file mh June 26, 1979 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the and opted by the following vote: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson.::. Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES:. None. and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Resolution was passed and Mr. Bob Davis: We've got two more items, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: No, we've got two more items, go ahead quickly. 20. ACCEPT PLAT: "BRICKELL KEY ON CLAUGHTON ISLAND - SECTION 1" Mr. Bob Davis: This is on your Supplemental Agenda which was placed before you tonight. It's the approval of the Brickell Key on Claughton Island - Section 1 Plat. Mayor Ferre: Whereis'that? Mr. Davis: s should have been placed before you, Mr. Mayor.•, Mr. Davis: Are youspeaking to the Commissionor are you versation? I'm trying to hear what you are saying., Mr. Davis: I've said. this Supplemental Agendawas presented t presented to the Commissioners or their secretaries on Friday. Mayor Ferre: Thisaccepts the Plat entitled "Brickell Key on: Section ?1",.;the Plat Committee recommends. Is there a motion? Mr. Joel Jaffer stated he was in, total opposition toanything; got a copy of this Plat? I` don't think I Mrs. Gordon:. Who's deliver this to us? Mayor Ferre: Is there Mr. Lacasa: Move. Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Second. Moved by a motion on item 14, please? Lacasa, second by Gibson, havinga private con 0 us late, was Claughton Island in Claughton Islan ever did. Did you urther discussion call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-474 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED BRICKELL KEY ON ACCEPTING ISLAND SEC. ONE, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND I`HE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT. (Here follows body yhof City Clerk), omitted here and on file in the Office of Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was passed and 52 June 26, 1979 adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson. Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. mh;. June 26, 1979 (Excerpt from the Minutes of City Commission Meeting of June 26, 1979). 21. ACCEPT LETTER FROM GOODWILL INDUSTRIES & AGREE TO ASSIST THEM IN ACQUISITION OF BUILDING UPON RECEIPT OF OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO RISKS, ETC. Mayor Ferre: Now, I'm going to read into the record the following letter from Mr. James Ryder, Chairman of the Board of Goodwill Industries. "Dear Maurice: This letter will serve to confirm our conversation relative to Goodwill Industries' desire to have the City of Miami bid for the Biscayne Annex Post Office facility on or before July 11, 1979. The desire of Goodwill is to acquire the Biscayne Annex facility and dispose of their facility at 200 South Miami Avenue. 'At this time we cannot identify all of the potential benefits to the City of Miami, however, the following possibilities could be considered: The Biscayne Annex is larger than Goodwill requires for the operation at this time, and insofar as the utilization is concerned, there are a number of possibilities including making a:portion of the taotheryneedsavailable eitherothe City of in a joist Miami for office space or owner- ship or lease arrangement; or leasing available space to interested parties; or possibly the sale of parcels adjacent. to the main building.' The present facility at 200 South Miami Avenue contains ap- proximately 58,000 sq. ft. of land which could be made avail- able to the. City under the Urban Development Action Grant for additional parking or other potential uses the City might en- vision.' 'Goodwill Industries, prior :to July ll, 1979, will furnish the City of Miami a bid of $2,250,000. The Post Office Department requires a 10% "deposit which Goodwill will furnish to the City of Miami, and all additional funds will be paid by Goodwill Industries. The additional bid will be with 10% cash, the balance to be secured by a two-year prime rate purchase money mortgage which is acceptable to the Post Office Department.' 'Congressman Claude Pepper contacted the head of the Post Office, :Department and it was; at their suggestion that the City of Miami this bid because they are, able to favor municipalities." Rose, that's the key to it.`' Mrs. Gordon: What? What's that? Mayor Ferre: That last sentence about Claude Pepper contacting the Post Office Department and it was their suggestion that the City of Miami make this bid because"they are able to favor municipalities. "At your convenience, we would like to .have a meeting...", and so on and so forth. I would like to make a motion at t.1is time, Mr. Plummer, that this letter be entered into the records here and that the City of Miami, provided counsel assures us that there is absolutely no risk, no, expense, no liability of any kind,. that we comply with the request that " this -letter outlines provided, as I said, that all of the money, that all of the insurance, all of the risks....that we be completely indemnified in every which way' -possible legally, that we help Goodwill Industries to do what they want to do here. And I so move. Mrs. Gordon: I'll second that, Maurice.. Mr. Plummer: Motion understood, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner (Mayor)Ferre 64 June 26, 1979 • its adoption. MOTION NO. 79-475 A MOTION TO ACCEPT AND MAKE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD A LETTER RECEIVED FROM JAMES A. RYDER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, INC., REQUESTING THAT THE CITY OF MIAMI BID ON THE BISCAYNE ANNEX POST OFFICE FACILITY PRIOR TO JULY 11, 1979; CONDITIONED UPON DELIVERY OF THE BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,250,000 TO THE CITY, THE FURNISHING OF 10% DEPOSIT TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CITY BY GOODWILL INDUSTRIES AND ALL ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO BE PAID BY GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, ADDITIONAL BID WILL BE 10% CASH WITH BALANCE SECURED BY 2 YEAR PRIME RATE PURCHASE MONEY MORTGAGE ACCEPTABLE TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT; ALL OF THE HEREIN AGREEMENT BASED UPON RECEIPT OF A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE CITY OF MIAMI WILL INCUR NO RISKS, EXPENDITURES, LIABILITY OF ANY KIND AND THAT THE CITY BE COMPLETELY INDEMNIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR DESIRE TO ASSIST GOODWILL INDUSTRIES IN THE ACQUISITION OF THE BISCAYNE ANNEX POST OFFICE FACILITY. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner Rose Gordon .Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice Mayor J. L, Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.: NOES: None Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: ADJOURNMENT Is.:there anything else to comebefore this Commission? There being no further business to come' before the City Commission, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55.P.M., ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE City Clerk MATTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk rr 35 June 26, 1979 CITY OF MPMI DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION min 1 COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT 2 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI 3 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI 4 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE;FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI: 5 AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, TER 62, SECTION 62-20 IN ITS ENTIRETY. 6 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI 7 EXPRESSING HCITYE COMMISSIONFOR THE WYNWOOD ELDERLY PROGRAM 8 EXTENDING THE CONTRACT PERIOD FOR THE METROPO- LITAN DADE COUNTY ELDERLY SERVICES DIVISION/ IMPACT PROGRAM/ALLAPATTAH ELDERLY SERVICES UN- TIL JULY 30, 1979 9 GRANTING A PETITION FOR A PLANNED AREA DE- VELOPMENT (PAD) ON LOTS 5 THROUGH 11 AND POR- TION OF LOTS 4 AND 13, GIFFORD AND HIGHLEYMAN SUB. 10 ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED KUMQUAT VILLAGE, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI 11 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 253, FLORIDA STATUTES, AP- PROVING ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO DADE COUNTY, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NORTH BISCAYNE BAY DEMONSTRA TION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PELICAN HARBOR ON THE 79TH STREET CAUSEWAY. 12 ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED BRICKELL KEY ON. CLAUGHTON ISLAND SEC. ONE, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI DOCUMENT MUTING DATE: INDEX June 26, 1979 RETRIEVAL CODE NO. COMMISSION ACTION 411 0022 0023 i