Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1979-03-08 Minutesr•. CITY OF MIAMI, DI STR t M UTED : COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 8. 1979 CONTINUATION OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1979 (PLANNING AND ZONING) PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC CITY HALL RALPH G. ONGIE CITY CLERK ci4 ITEM NO, SIEJECT itiOLUTION NANCE Oil MO PAGE NO. 1 2 (A) 2(8) 2 (C) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15.(A) DISCUSSION AND WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING AND VARIANCE: 3480 MAIN HIGHWAY FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORD. 6871, ART. XXVI, SEC. 2, PARA.43 - "SPECIAL YARD DISTRICTS" FIRST READING ORDINANCE:CHANGE ZONING AREA BETWEEN So. BAYSHORE DR. AND ALLEY BETWEEN So. BAYSHORE DR. AND MICANOPY AVE. FROM ALATKA ST. TO S.W. 17; AND BET. So. BAYSHORE & TIGERTAIL AVE., FROM S.W. 17 AVE. TO AVIATION AVE. FROM R-1 TO R-1B FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPLY COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT SPD-2 ON AREA MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN 2(B), ABOVE INSTRUCT PLANNING DEPT. TO INITIATE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON EXTENSION OF SPECIAL YARD DISTRICTS - SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR PUN DEVELOPMENT AT 1641 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE (A) ESTABLISH TRANSIT STATION INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT (8) FIRST READING ORD: APPLICATION OF TRANSIT STATION INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS TO CERTAIN AREAS SURROUNDING TRANSIT STATION SITES DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING: 1616-36 BRICKELL ABENUE FROM R-1 TO R-3A INSTRUCT PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE ZONING STUDY WEST SIDE OF BRICKELL AVENUE GRANT ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR OPENING IN WALL - CENTRAL SHOPPING PLAZA DEFER CONSIDERATION PROPOSED AMENDMENT SECTION 62-20 OF THE CITY CODE TO EXTEND TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY AND ZONING BOARDS DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR VACATION AND CLOSE OF N.W. 7TH CT. BETWEEN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE N.W. 15TH ST. AND N. RIGHT -OF-WAY LINE E/W EXPRESSWAY "BOAN SUB" APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE FOR OFF STREET PARKING LOCATED AT 1570 N.W. 26 AVENUE DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE OF REAR YARD SETBACK 2722 N.W. 5TH STREET AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11.1- "PRIVATE ROADS" FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 183-185 N.E. 80TH TERRACE FROM C-2 TO PR. DISCUSSION FIRST READING FIRST READING FIRST READING M-79-179 M-79-180 FIRST READING FIRST READING M-79-181 M-79-182 M-79-183A M-79-183B DISCUSSION R4-79-184 M-79-185 M-79-186 DISCUSSION FIRST READING 1-3 3-19 3-19 4-19 20 20-30 30-32 32-45 45-47 47-49 49-51 51-53 53-54 54-59 59-61 62 62-63 Page 02 27 18 19 20 20.1 11E/4 NI SUBJECT itilOLUTION INANCE OR RO. PAGE NO. 15(B) PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT: 183-185 N.E. 80TH TERRACE 16 VACATE AND CLOSE ALLEY E/W ABUT OTHER PROPERTY LINE OF TRACT A -TENTATIVE PLAT 1024 "HICKMAN PARK" ACCEPT PLAT: "L'HERMITAGE" ACCEPT PLAT: "DOUGLAS GROVE" APPOINT MEMBERS TO: "PARKING LOT REVIEW BOARD" CONSENT AGENDA WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF ART. V, SECTION 2-102 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) PERMIT BERNARD L. ROBERTS (PARK DEPARTMENT) TO PARTICIPATE IN CITY'S REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM 20.2 ACCEPT BID OF GARCIA-ALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO.INC. (BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT - PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS -PHASE III BID "A" 20.3 ACCEPT BID, GOLDEN EAGLE ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC. (BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS -PHASE III, BID "B" 20.4 ACCEPT BID-MIRI CONSTRUCTION INC. (BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS PHASE III BID "C" 20.5 ACCEPT BID-ROSSER ELECTRIC CO.INC. (NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOLFIELD LIGHTING) 20.6 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF TAMIAMI PLANT SYSTEMS,INC. FOR THE WYNDWOOD N.E. 2ND AVENUE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BEAUTIFICATION 1978 2ND BIDDING 20.7 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK-WILLIAMS PAVING COMPANY,INC.- GRAND AVENUE PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 21 APPROVE AMENDMENT N0.1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT:"MORTON,WOLFBERG, ALVAREZ, TARACIDO, SEIGLE & FRESE, INC." NEW STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT R-79-187 R-79-188 R-79-189 R-79-190 R-79-191 R-79-192 R-79-193 R-79-194 R-79-195 R-79-196 R-79-197 R-79-198 63-64 64 64-65 65-66 67 68 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 R-79-199 70-71 0' o MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 8th day of March 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 8:37 PM, by Mayor Maurice Ferre with the 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 1. Discussion and WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION for change of zoning and variance: 3480 Main Highway. Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, there is a problem of communication around here. Somebody came and told me take up 4 and 5 because they are going to be deferred anyway. Why didn't you tell me 9 (RESPONSE MADE OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: Well, I'll tell you, I'm going to go to the hearing doctor tomorrow because I did not hear that. Now, there is a motion to defer 4 and 5 by whom? Mr. Bob Davis: No, sir, if I may explain, Mr. Zelman, who is the attorney for Mr. Morello, the Applicant, gave me a letter this afternoon asking to with- draw item No. 5 because he has no more need for it. Now, he also asked me verbally that for the meeting tonight he wishes to ask for deferral on item No. 4. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, I would like to tell you, sir, that you did not say that to me. What you told me was item 5 has been withdrawn and.... (COMMENT MADE OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: What?...(PAUSE) Didn't you tell me that item 4 was the one where the majority of the people wanted to hear?...You didn't tell me that had been deferred. Does anybody have any objection to item 4 being deferred? (AUDIBLE OBJECTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE) Mayor Ferre: Does that give you an answer? Mr. Davis: Mr. Zelman also informed me that he wished to withdraw if you could not grant him the deferral. Mayor Ferre: He is going to withdraw 4 and 5? Mr. Davis: This is what he referred to me, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. ah 01 MARCH 8, 1979 Richard Zelman, Esq.: Mr. Mayor, at the request of my client, I've already withdrawn item 5 as the applicant in item 5 and the City's Zoning Department have reached an accommodation which would make item 5 virtually a waste of everyone's time. On item 4, my client has asked me to request of this Com- mission for a deferral and he has instructed me that if I am unable to obtain a deferral, to withdraw the application. I would like to address the issue of withdrawal if you think it would be appropriate. If you think it would be a waste of time then I won't. Mayor Ferre: Well, I cannot speak for the rest of this Commission. So, we'll have to wait. I would imagine -and this is just a guess on my part- that the majority of this Commission is not going to defer this item. Now, Mr. Manager... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, could you possibly explain to us what the agreement was with regards to No. 5? Mayor Ferre: You are asking me? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, I would appreciate it from someone if we could get this information. Mr. Davis: If I may read the letter, Mr. Mayor, I will give you a copy and you may read it over my shoulder while I'm reading it here. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right. Mr. Davis: "Dear Mr. Davis: Please be advised that the City of Miami Building & Zoning Department, and Francisco Morello, owner of the Barnacle Square Project, have entered into a covenant running with the land with regards to the off-street parking requirement for the above -referenced project. Further, this covenant at least 48 off-street parking spaces have been executed and recorded in the public records of Dade County Florida. I have been advised by Laura Butler, of the Enforce- ment Section of the City of Miami Building & Zoning Department, that the above -referenced lease/covenant are satisfactory to the City, that the off-street parking requirements for the Barnacle Square Project have been fulfilled in a manner suf- ficient for the City to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Therefore, because the owner and the City have resolved this issue to everyone's satisfaction, the owner wishes to withdraw his application for a variance from the off-street parking re- quirements, which such application, I understand, was scheduled to be heard on appeal by the City Commission this evening. I'm sorry to notify you of this withdrawal at such a late date but I was only able to verify the position of the Zoning Enforcement Division this morning with regards to the above. Thank you for your attention and your cooperation." In other words, what he is stating is that the variance has been determined by the Building & Zoning Department as no longer required for the Barnacle Square Project. This is in the covenant, I have not seen the covenant, perhaps... Ms. Joanne Holzhauser: Would it not have been necessary for that covenant running with the land to have come before the Zoning Board in ordinary Board..? Mr. Davis: No, Ma'am, that's a matter of....the issuance of permits is not required to go into a public hearing for any covenant. Ms. Holzhauser: When he got whatever it was for Serendepity it was not neces- sary to introduce this. Ms. Davis: Whatever is satisfactory with the zoning division to issue a permit, they can issue a permit. It does not have to go into public hearing. Mayor Ferre: All right, are there any further questions? Ms. Holzhauser: It just seems rather harsh that this something that we, in the Grove, have been concerned about for a year now, these 48 confounded parking spaces and I still say -why couldn't someone tell us some of us about this? Here is a guy that has property there, did you know about it, sir? mh 32 MARCH 8, 1979 (RESPONSE MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Ms. Holzhauser: This is what I mean, and he has got a place there. Mr. Davis: All I will state is that this is certainly a matter of public record with the Building Department. (UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER): Mayor Ferre. Mayor Ferre: You have to get up, go to the microphone, put your name into the record and make your statement. Mr. Neil Lowe: My name is name is Neil Lowe and I am the owner of the Main Lobster Restaurant in Barnacle Square. And I appreciate your concern as many of the citizens of the Coconut Grove area have of this matter, and I would like to know myself as owner of a Restaurant, here in Coconut Grove and supposed to have been provided parking spaces for my customers and other people who own shops in the Barnacle Square area, exactly -of course I under- stand that papers could be made out so that certain legalities of permits can be attained- but I'd like to know physically where are the parking spaces? Can my customers park there? The customers of the Serendipity Restaurant, can they park there? Mayor Ferre: Sir, let me interrupt you because I have been informed that we don't have a forum here, obviously, and everything that is going on is completely illegal because we don't have...this is not valid testimony before this Commission. Now, let me tell you that all that we can do now is...where is the attorney?.. I just...I'm talking about the attorney that was standing right here a moment ago. Oh, there you are! Now, the consensus of the Commission as I understand this is that we are not going to postpone this issue. Now, you have been of- ficially told. Now, you withdraw 5, what's your will on item 4? Mr. Zelman: Then I would, under instructions of the applicant of item 4, I hereby wish to withdraw it from this evening's agenda. Mayor Ferre: In other words, items 4 and 5 have been withdrawn. All right, sir, thank you. Mr. Zelman: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Now, ladies and gentlemen, those of you who are here on items 4 and 5 can now go home because they have been withdrawn. WHEREUPON the City City Commission went into a brief recess, reconvening shortly thereafter with all members of the Commission found to be present. 2(A). FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Ord. 6871, Art. XXVI, Sec.2, Para.43 - "SPECIAL YARD DISTRICTS;" a n d 2(B). FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Change zoning area between So. Bayshore Dr. and alley between So. Bayshore Dr. and Mica- nopy Ave. from Alatka St. to SW 17; and bet. So.Bayshore 6 Tigertail Ave., from SW 17 Ave. to Aviation Ave., - FROM R-1 TO R-1B• mh a n d 03 MARCH 8, 1979 2(C). FIRST READING ORDINANE:. APPLY COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT SPD-2 on area more specifically described in 2(B), above. Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, we now go back to the regular Planning and Zoning agenda and the first item to come before us is 1, we'll take 9 with because it is a corollary issue, is that correct Mr. Davis? Mr. Davis: Well, in the same area I wouldn't exactly call it a corollary. Mayor Ferre: All right. So, we'll take up item No. 1, a first reading ordi- nance, and then item B, and lastly item C. The Planning Advisory Board re- commended this 6 to 0. There was six objectors by mail, there were 11 ob- jectors present at the PAB, seven replies in favor by mail and one proponent at the PAB. All right. Mr. Davis: This was referred by the Commission to the Planning Advisory Board for study as the result of the hearings that had gone on of Bayshore Drive. The Planning Department subsequently brought this before the Planning Depart- ment -the Planning Advisory Board- with the results that you see and we'll make the presentation now. Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission,Richard Whipple, Planning Department. Approximately in June or July of this last year in con- junction with a proposal for a replat on South Bayshore Drive entitled "Bayview Sub", the Commission approved the plat for 7 new lots on So. Bayshore Drive on one of the larger estate lots. You approved this Plat based upon the determination that it was your authority to approve the ministerial functions of replatting pursuant to the laws of Florida as they are today. And you did so. However, in doing this, you requested the Planning Department to conduct a study and we've translated your request to preserve the character itself of Bayshore Dr. including visual ammenities, natural features -such as trees, rock outcropping, ridge lines and potential adjustment of permitted residential densities in light of future development. Pursuant to your request, we did do an extensive study, we defined the roadway area, particularly the zone's strip width of Bayshore Drive, we examined -if not physically- at least areal photograph -wise, all the setbacks of the structures that existed in the area. We defined the ridge lines, we defined the rock outcroppings, and we defined the natural features -particularly in Ugh': of the significant trees that we felt should be under consideration for prc servation in some kind of future legislation. As a result of this, and with the Planning Advisory Board's recommendation, we submit to you this evening three proposals. The first proposal is one that deals with the special Yard District, which was under extensive discussion by this Board in conjunction with the Bayview Plat. The existing special Yard District No.43 sets forth that all properties along So. Bayshore Drive on the northwesterly side, if you will, or the imminent side of Bayshore Drive should provide an average align- ment setback that average alignment to be bayfront properties and the existing structures within 200 feet of the northeast and to the southwest of the pro- perty under consideration. As we mentioned to you at that time we felt that the average alignment provision was not applicable. We felt that it denied a reasonable use of property on many properties on south Bayshore Dr. because of the varying setbacks that exist and the economic conditions that are forcing consideration of redevelopment from the estate areas to planned developments or developments of a planned nature. Mr. Plummer: What about the other side of the street? Mr. Whipple: The other side of the street does not have the special Yard District that applies to it nor did we suggest any other consideration for the other side of the street for a special Yard District. Mr. Plummer: No, I'm talking about a setback. Mr. Whipple: The setback along the bay side of Bayshore Drive has been mh 04 MARCH 8, 1979 consistently that which is set forth in the ordinance of the zoning with is a 20 foot front yard. Mr. Plummer: Are you applying to both sides of the street the same equity? Mr. Whipple: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: Why? Mr. Whipple: Because it has not been that way and there are two different conditions that are different on the bay side than there are on the in -land side. The bayside is primarily developed except for the properties which are currently under consideration. The park area and the everglades course are the only properties that remain that have not any developments which is sub- ject to current regulation, in which event, 20 feet or 15 feet..depending on whether it's a front or a sidestreet yard. Mr. Plummer: Doesn't it seem fair that when you impose a street width with dedication that you would take from each side equal? Mr. Whipple: We are not talking about the dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Plummer: Then what are we talking about? Mr. Whipple: We are talking about a setback from the zoned strip width, and that zone's strip width is established by the Public Works...by ordinance, as to where the widening of the street would occur if it were to occur. Our pro- position before you this evening governs the setback involved on the in -land side from that zone.strip width to the first structure of a dwelling -unit nature. Mr. Plummer: But it's not applied equal,..on both sides of the street. Mr. Whipple: No, that's right. It's not, it never has been. The average alignment provision that exists in the ordinance today only applies to the in -land side of south Bayshore Dr. and that has been since 1961 as far as I know. Now, what we are suggesting tonight is that rather than the average alignment as far as setback from the base building lines, the average alignment on the base building lines, that a uniform setback be established at 70 feet rather than 20 feet in one area and 240 feet in another area. We thought that was inequitable and was restrictive as to the development of these properties on that side. That's portion one. Portion No. 2. There was a concern... Mayor Ferre: Do you mean (B)? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. 0n (B) we suggest,..not suggest but we recommend along with the Planning Advisory Board that rezoning occur on these proper- ties northwesterly or in the in -land side of Bayshore Dr. from an R-1 zoning to an R-1B. I think you've heard us discuss this type of zoning before, the difference is that the R-1 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq.ft. and the R-1B requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. In conjunction with the potential redevelopment of the north side of the street -which has been before this Commission- in the past, we feel that a reduction in density as to the number of units a particular lot or site can accommodate either as a Planned Development or as a re -subdivision, should be reduced. The reduction in density would accommodate, in our opinion, the requirement for the 70 foot front yard requirement which we were just talking about in (A). What we are suggesting based on are research with respect to ownerships lot sizes, frontages, is that those properties which are primarily oriented towards south Bayshore Drive be rezoned from the R-1 to the R-1B. This will reduce density. We think that that was perhaps part of the question or the problem that the Commission was wrestling with with respect to the plat. They felt that the density -you felt, I think- that the density was too high. This will reduce the density slightly but it still provides for the redevelopment of the large estate areas while still preserving -if you will- Coconut Grove's -central Coconut Grove's- character. Number three.... Mrs. Gordon: The question now is would this prevent what happened before which was the concept of the private road and the facing on the side, and this and that, now you know, that was the problem and that's what is bringing about mh 05 MARCH 8, 1979 tonight's action. Mr. Whipple: All right, let me backtrack just a moment then. Let's go back to part (A) which has to do with the 70 foot setback. The wording is very spe- cific in the revised proposal. The existing legislation uses the term "front yard shall be" therefore plans came in and they refaced it on a private drive so that you had a side lotline of a lot which only requires 15 feet per ordi- nance now. When the ordinance which set a 70 foot front yard was very ambiguous it is very difficult...we feel legally unsound. The wording before you tonight simply says "a 70 foot yard" true, we don't care whether it is a front, side, rear or upper yard. It's a 70 foot yard and they can have a private drive, the can have a side lotline...whatever they want, but whatever is done has to be 70 feet of south Bayshore Dr. Mr. Plummer: From the center line. Mr. Whipple: No, sir, from the base building line, not the center line. That statement made in that letter which I read earlier is incorrect. Mayor Ferre: So the answer to Mrs. Gordon's question is 'yes', it would pre- vent what had occurred before because of a hiatus or an ambiguity in the law. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, now we are on item C. Mr. Whipple: Item C is recommending that you include the area for rezoning from R1-B in the Coconut Grove overlay district SPD-2. Now, it's perhaps a little com- plicated if you look at SPD-2 it talks about 4-story height limits and it talks about many things... Mayor Ferre: Would you show us on the map the areas involved? Mr. Whipple: It's a crosshatched area, sir. The same area that's recommended for R1-B. If I may make a long story short, what the application of this SPD-2 to this area means is that the Planning Department per the SPD-2 regulated would have site plan approval for any development other than R-1. There are a lot of other provisions in the SPD-2 but to look to the precise wording and we are not trying to hide anything from anybody but the whole idea is for site plan approval by the Planning Department. That's what the (C) item recommends. Mayor Ferre: Now, how many of you here are opponents to what's being proposed? Who is in opposition? (PAUSE) We have one opponent, you are the opponent. All right, I think...let's hear from the opponent and then if there is no fur- ther discussion we may see what the will of this Commission is. Are you an opponent?...We have two opponents. All right, you first and then you, Ma'am. Mr. Joel Jaffer: My name is Joel Jaffer, I live at 3268 Mary Street. I'm here tonight representing the Bayshore Alert Committee and I perceive what's going on as basically a threat. The question of the Plat with the 15 foot setback is still in litigation and the point is..that the law is ambiguous is something that the developers have forced upon the City. They say it's ambiguous and it still is in the court, so the court could rule against them and it could not be ambiguous. Mrs. Gordon: Are you against tightening and making...? Mr. Jaffer: I'm against that part (A) on the 70 foot setback. Mrs. Gordon: Are you for a larger setback or are you for not having any change? Mr. Jaffer: I'm for keeping it the way it is now or at least waiting until the litigation is finished. Mrs. Gordon: I see your point. Mr. Jaffer: It seems to me that the Planning Department is trying to conform the land to make the laws pretty instead of making the laws so that the land is pretty. You know, I'm sure there is people in offices with blueprints and drawings having these unique setbacks on every different lot is very ugly, and that they would want to see a unique 70 foot setback just for the purpose of clear the drawings. rah MARCH 8, 1979 f4 1 Mr. Jaffer(cont'd): That really isn't helping the community and that isn't the job of the Building b Zoning Departments, they are supposed to preserve the land,and it seems to me that the yard districts, the way they are now, pay more attention to the land than what they are proposing. That's my opposition to the 70 foot setback. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I have a letter, I wonder whether if I can read it into the record, from Frances Maclntyre. She is out of the City and she is in Tallahassee and the letter reads: "To the Honorable Maurice Ferre, Members of the City of Miami Commission: With regard to your consideration of a special yard district on South Bayshore Drive, I would like to point out the following facts: 1. Under the current zoning, the average front yard setbacks is 134 feet. 2. The width of the South Bayshore Scenic Corridor is based upon the existing front yard footages ---an average of 134 feet. 3. The proposed uniform 70 foot setback for South Bayshore Drive would cut the Scenic Corridor IN HALF! 4. The 70 foot measurement is taken from the center line of the road which would result in front yards considerably less than 70 feet." Dick, that's not what you said though, that's what her letter reads but I'm asking you, the measurement is from the property line. Mr. Whipple: That is correct, point 4 is not correctly indicated. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. "5. This section of South Bayshore is part of a State Historic Highway which provides protection for 100 feet on either side of the road. "The City of Miami is fortunate to have a scenic corridor and historic highway in Coconut Grove. We are all aware of its historic, geological and aesthetic qualities. It must not be allowed to become a sterile and ugly concrete corridor like US 1. "I urge you to continue your protection of this irreplaceable asset by maintaining the Special Yard District zoning and strenthening it so that there can be no more exemptions from the law such as occurred with 'Bayview Sub.' "If this is not possible, you must then establish a minimum 100 foot setback if there is to be any hope of preserving this unique feature of our commu- nity for the future. Sincerely, Frances S. Maclntyre." And I give this to the Clerk, for their records. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's now hear from the other lady who is an opponent. Ms. Nita Merritt: My name is Nita Merritt, 2467 South Bayshore Drive. I am also opposed to the 70 foot setback. I live on Bayshore Drive between Long- view and Bayview. My home is 250 feet from South Bayshore Drive. When we built our home we conformed with the regulations of not building in front of the houses on 200 feet on either side of us. I would urge the Commission, as Mrs. Maclntyre did, to make the setback much more than 70 feet to preserve the character of the Grove. If one person with one replat that is being currently challenged in court that has caused this uproar, that has caused this change from 70 feet up to 250 feet. Imagine what this is going to do all along Bay - shore. What you are doing in essence, if you remember a year ago or a year and a half ago, we were here fighting the Longview development. They wanted to go down to Bayview and Arthur Patton spoke on our behalf and said: "You cannot dis- regard this Yard District," and the Commission ruled that Longview could not develop the front part of their land -which they have not. Now, if you go ahead and say, all right, you can go down to 70 feet, these people aren't going to stay back where they are, it would be ridiculous for them, economically un- feasible. They are going to go down to 70 feet. They have no idea of doing that now Mayor Ferre: How far back are they now? Ms. Merritt: They are now...their house is going to be even with mine, the front of their house, the front of their first house. So you are saying, -okay, you use restraint and now I'm allowing you to go all the way down. So you are mh 07 MARCH 8, 1979 taking away the fight and all the work we did and your cooperation before, so it's undoing something. Also, for me personally, I am between the two. My property is in between the two and I want to put it on the record, that if the oru^' Sion go is ahead and approve this 70 feet and 10,000 sq.ft. from us, you are creating an economic hardship for my particular parcel in the middle of this. On one side, you have approved the plat all the way down to 15 feet from Bayshore Drive. On the other side, you said -stay back even with the Merritt property, and now you are saying -go on down. So, my taxes are going to go up, as it is I can't use the front part of my land. If you say go ahead to 70 feet then I'm going to be taxed for additional lot, and then we hve to go before the Tax Assesor and say - please don't increase my taxes, I don't want to use these additional lot. I still want it to be one lot. So I wanted to be on the record so that when I go to the Tax Assessor and say -the Commission created an econo- mic hardship so please, don't increase my taxes, and going to come back to this meeting and say -and I told them that at the time. Also, if you go ahead and I want to sell my property, which I don't, if I decide to sell my property to a developer, he would say -oh, well, today I can put you on 6,000 sq.ft., tomorrow I can only have..ah, ..you use 10,000 so I can have fewer units on your property so yours isn't worth as much. So, again, it is an economic hardship, if I wanted to sell. My main concern though, taxes going up on my property because I can have more houses on the land -which we do not want; and then also, undoing what we all worked so hard for before in keeping the setback where it was, and I would hope that you would try to keep the setback where it was and reword that the Front Yard District must be in line with the houses and the side yard, or whatever, so that nobody can come through with his little, tricky things and say,- it's a side yard instead of a front yard. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion? All right, on the Commission's side now. Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: I want the records to reflect that I live on South Bayshore Drive at Vista, which is approximately 19. I've asked the Attorney if I had to abstain from voting on the 375 feet surrounding my property which would mean, approximately 200 feet to the north and 200 feet to the south. He said - no, he didn't think I did, and so therefore I don;t feel I have anything to gain in this except the quality of the entire community, so I don't think I have to abstain. Mr. Plummer: May I ask some questions? Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple, looking at the..it doesn't have a number.... Mr. Whipple: Sorry. Mr. Plummer: ...I'm questioning down what would be the same as Aviation Avenue and Bayshore Drive. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Why is that not presently included? Mr. Whipple: The existing zoning of those properties that are excluded, at the corner which are developments down there, is either an R-4 or an RC zoning at the present time. We do not feel that because of multiple zoning that they have today and the way they have developed it was necessary to include this district at that point. Mr. Plummer: Next question. Why from Ah-we-wa north did you not include all the property back to Tigertail? Mr. Whipple: As I mentioned, also we are making it a part of our study which is part of your package and I would like to refer that for the record dated November 1978 South Bayshore Drive Development Study. The review of owner- ships in that area indicated that it would not be necessary in our opinion to extend it back along those sites. Most of them are either developed either as one lot or 1-' lot up and down that street facing on Crystal Court and backing up on Ah-we-wa whichever, we did not feel it was necessary to protect the south Bayshore Drive frontage, if you will, to include those lots. We are nth 08 March 8, 1979 trying to exclude those properties which are not specifically oriented -or not too much oriented- to south Bayshore Drive such as we didn't want to include those properties fronting on Micanopy, in the northern area, because that's not what this Commission or what the Planning Department felt was necessary to try to preserve the south Bayshore character that you requested us to do. Mr. Plummer: Isn't there the ever present danger of someone gathering up a number of properties? Mr. Whipple: Well, again, south Bayshore Drive, "The Corridor", we do not feel that even if they gather up those properties along Crystal or Ah-we-wa that it would have any impact or it would have any detriment as to the south Hayshore character or vision or the Scenic Corridor as we visualize it. Mr. Plummer: I'm concerned that you are not consistent, that's my concern. Mrs. Gordon: What, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: They are not being consistent, Rose. Mrs. Gordon: Well, let me, can I address that question? Because, if you'll note, J.L., the properties on south Bayshore particularly on the north side of south Bayshore are large, estate -type sites, which originally were single family estate areas. Now, the trend is to subdivide -either by platting or by planned unit developments- those sites into multiple use. Well, the idea behind this is to make it reasonable and not destroy a very beautiful area, a scenic area, and that can hardly describe it. And the recommendation that the Department is making that the R1B be utilized will not preclude any developments but it will almost certainly guarantee that you are going to have a higher caliber of development on those estate lots when they are developed. Mr. Plummer: I don't agree at all between Alatka and 17th Avenue. I think the ever-present danger there is simply closing of an alley, and you are back into the same jackpot that you are in today. I look immediately and bring to your attention if you can see where the corsshatching between Hallisee and 17th Ave. juts up and back down to the alley. The question was asked where did that imaginary line come from. Mr. Whipple: That line, as you've noticed was an alley to start with. Through replatting, that portion of the alley was closed and at that line that excludes the alley is the northern limits of the property that front on Bayshore. The ownership of the back property is just that, a different ownership. Mr. Plummer: But the problem that I'm bringing to your attention is that mere- ly with the closing of an alley, which as I recall was already the case of one hearing at the corner of Hallasee and Bayshore back to Micanopy, this would not apply. Mr. Whipple: To the best of my knowledge, as of, let's say, thirty days ago or something like that. The only ownership at Grant from Bayshore to Micanopy was the property we were talking about originally it is not now, to my under- standing. So what I'm suggesting to you..the ownership... Mr. Plummer: Is that the one with the imaginary line? Mr. Whipple: What I'm saying to you is that the ownership did not reflect the predominance of ownership that ran from south Bayshore to Micanopy. For that reason, we did not include all those properties. Mr. Plummer: Well, I know of one other that does. mh MARCH 8, 1979- 09 Mr. Whipple: That would be the one on the corner of Hallissee, yes, sir, I accept that. But that's not the predlminant situation. Mr. Plummer: But the point is that if an owner on Bayshore facing Bayshore merely has to acquire a piece of property on the back side the back side in this instance doesn't apply. It would seem reasonable. Look, this whole thing that you're putting before us this evening is preventive. Okay? Mr. Whipple: Well, I think it is more than preventive, sir. Mr. Plummer: It's preventive. Now, if you're trying to prevent which, in fact, keeps what we have as it is why would you not apply that same preven- tion to the back? Now, 2'm not saying, I don't agree on the other side of Micanopy. Mr. Whipple: Well, how do we clistinguisn the other side of Micanopy from one side of Micanopy though, sir? Mr. Plummer: Because it does not touch on Bayshore, I'll use the same rational that you did. Mr. Whipple: Thank you, sir. Mr. Plummer: Fine, now you just argued with yourself. Mr. Whipple: The objective of the study as I indicated and as you indicated, as this Commission indicated, I'm sorry, was for the protection of South Bayshore Drive or which to try to the best of our ability to preserve a char- acter of South Bayshore Drive. We feel we have done that. We had looked at the ownerships that went on back to Micanopy and if you'll look at the prev- ious chart we did include those properties that go back to Micanopy in our study area and we went beyond that. We went on the other side and looked at that also but the ownerships and things of that nature indicated to us it was not necessary to do that for the objective of the study. Now, if we're talk- ing about densities of north Grove or something of that nature then you might include the back properties on Micanopy or you could include all the propert- ies let's say from Bayshore on up to Dixie Highway. Mr. Plummer: Where does the C portion apply? Is it applied to everywhere that the R-1... Mr. Whipple: R-1B applies, yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Fine, thank you. 10 979 1 Mr. James J. Kenny: Mr. Mayor, I have one brief comment. My name is James J. Kenny. I live at 3305 S. W. 17th Avenue. Our property is the one that Mr. Plummer pointed out. That is it runs on 17th Avenue but up to Micanopy so that the dividing line between the two districts if this is passed without at least some slight amendment would be through a portion of our property, that is it would divide the ownership so that a small segment of our property which is on the Micanopy edge at 17th Avenue would be outside the new R-1B District whereas 90% of our lot would be within that new district. It is on the portion that's obscured over on 17th Avenue, it needs to be moved over to the left slightly. Mayor Ferre: Is that it? Mr. Kenny: Yes, right there. And the ownership line runs directly north from where the pointer is up to Micanopy. Mayor Ferre: Up to Micanopy? Mr. Kenny: Yes, it's primarily on 17th Avenue but it runs up north, there's a piece of a lot that was acquired 40 years ago to add to it. Mrs. Gordon: Do you have a house on it, sir? Mr. Kenny: Yes, it is. Mr. Plummer: Yes, a very beautiful house. Mayor Ferre: Are you recommending that we include the whole property? Mr. Kenny: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I am. I'm in favor of the proposal generally to make it R-1B but I think that the boundary line in accordance with the remarks that Mr. Plummer made should be Micanopy, that is all of Micanopy to Bayshore in that area between 17th Avenue and Alatka. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Anybody else? Mr. Waldo Ellison: I'm Waldo Ellison, I live at 1623 Micanopy Avenue. I concur with the previous speaker. Across the street from me a builder has built a townhouse on 6,000 square feet of land. There is absolutely no room to move around that townhouse. He's put a pool in the back yard, it's a mon- strosity to the area. You can see it from South Bayshore and I think the intent that Mr. Plummer had mentioned for the Planning Board was to make sure that the vista from South Bayshore would look as it should and this can be seen from South Bayshore and I think I definitely agree with the idea that Mr. Plummer brought up as to the fact that this should from South Bayshore through Micanopy from Alatka to really Coacoochee, cross over 17th Avenue to Coacoochee and then cut down Tigertail all the way down to Aviation to in- clude that total area. But if the Planning Board would like to see what has happened with this one piece of property at 1624, I think it is, Micanopy they will see the possibility of monstrosities developing there as a townhouse type of concept. Imagine what would happen if this big parcel of land on the corner of Hallissee between Micanopy and South Bayshore was redivided so that 10,000 square feet would be permitted on the South Bayshore end of it and 6,000 square feet on the Micanopy end, you'd have a strange looking community there and I would hope everyone takes this into consideration. Thank you. Mrs. Gordon: Dick, you know they have a very good point on that because the view is available from South Bayshore at that point, that place and the depth from Bayshore to Micanopy isn't all that much in that location. I wonder why you don't, it was in the study area, also consider extending it as J. L. sug- gested and see if people concur. Mr. Whipple: If this Commission wishes we'll be glad to extend it further but let me just add a couple of comments as to why we've divided it the way we have. We do feel there is a very distinct character change of the exist- ing development of that along Micanopy and that along Bayshore Drive and if you will for words, we feel that the development along Micanopy as they're shorter lots don't have as much depth and usually aren't of the size of those along Bayshore Drive. We feel that's an R-1 type zoning which if you have 6,000 square foot or a private lot as such you should be able to develop it as a single family. Mr. Plummer: And because of that you should see the bulk that he's talking about on that piece of property. That's what you're doing where if the R-18 was applied on that piece of property he could have never put it. rt 11 MARCH 8, 1979 Mr. Whipple: Mr. Plummer, that is incorrect and I'll respond to that. Mr. Plummer: I stand corrected, I don't mind that. Mrs. Gordon: Isn't it true that on a platted lot you can build your residence if it's a platted lot? Even if you change it J. L., it's a platted lot. Mr. Whipple: That's what I just wanted to relate to Mr. Plummer is that re- gardless of the size of the lot you may develop it or the zoning if it is a lot of record since September something or another 1946. In other words if you have a ten foot lot next door to you, sir, a man is entitled theoretically to develop it if he can under the regulations. Mr. Plummer: Except if it involves a replatting which this piece of property did. This was a second lot that was siphoned off and replatted and then was applied for a permit. I don't think that the law speaks to that because this lot did not become one until six months prior to them putting that piece of property on there. Am I correct? Mr. Whipple: But he had to meet the minimum sta:.Jards of 6,000 square foot to replat it. No, I don't know that situation. Mrs. Gordon: If you change it to R-1B he couldn't have done it though. Mr. Plummer: That's right. Mr. Whipple: Well that's true, then he would have required 10,000 square feet. Mr. Plummer: How about that? So I don't stand corrected. Mrs. Gordon: Right, that's what he's saying. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, but if there is a 50 X 100 foot lot, a plat of record at 5,000 square feet a man is entitled to develop that at 5,000 square feet. Mr. Plummer: Prior to. Mrs. Gordon: But he's talking about splintering off pieces of land from existing developed areas and if there happens to be 60 feet you know they can do it now but under the R-1B they couldn't do it. Mr. Whipple: Under resubdivision they would have to meet the 10,000 square foot requirement. Mr. Plummer: That's right. Mr. Whipple: Under existing platted lots it would be whatever that size of lot that they have. Mrs. Joanne Holshouser: May I comment on that? Mrs. Gordon: Sure. Mrs. Holshouser: I think one of the problems that we're going to face in the Grove more and more now is the stakes are going higher and it is going to get real tempting for people to buy some of these houses and put parcels together and this is how they're going to do it. I would love you all to apply this to this section and as much more as you can. I'm all for it be- cause you're going to watch them and they're going to start buying up let's say 100 X 100 foot lots, you buy six of those in a row with houses that may be pretty nice houses and if you've got 6,000 feet you can come in there with what, a 10? This is how we're going to get nibbled to death in the Grove is if we don't get as large lot size and as large use as we can. I know what you mean about if they've already been platted but what bothers me is they're coming in through the Grove now little by little. It's not in this area so much but protect this area now before they do and let's have 10,000 feet so it's not so tempting to developers to come in and buy up parcels of land, put them together and then come in here and say, "We've got 6,000 feet, we want it." Please, before they do that give us the 10,000 please. Mr. Joel Jaffer: I'd like to take issue with the so-called preventative nature of this ordinance, it doesn't seem to me to be preventative because instead of being nibbled to death we're going to have a big side -swipe taken rt 12 MARCH 8, 1979 out all at once. I want to go on record as saying it seems to me that every- one here in this room accepts the death of these large estates and I don't accept that, maybe there's something I don't know but it seems to me that it is very possible for them to still exist within the laws that we have now and if the Commission is truly interested in preventing any harm they should have just acted with some amount of special conscious in all these matters that have caused this whole problem. It seems the Commission is taking an active role in the degrading of this land instead of a preventive role. Also, the historical corridor really is 100 feet then aren't you breaking the law by only making it 70 feet? Mayor Ferre: Let's see if we can sum up so we can move along. Mr. Whipple: Could I comment on the last point, Mr. Mayor? The 100 feet in- volves any state assisted improvement, anything that is state or federally funded within 100 feet, cannot occur unless it goes through a certain process and it only involves those funds not private development or something of that nature. It involves City development if we're seeking funds from the State or federal government. Mayor Ferre: All right, now, I think it seems to me that the concensus is in favor, I haven't heard anybody speak against 1(b) and 1(c). The only ques- tion seems to be with regards to 1(a) which is the distance of whether it should be a 70 foot setback or a 100 foot setback with the exception of this young man I don't think we have any problems with anybody else. Is that cor- rect? So in other words everybody seems to be in favor of 1(b) and (c) so the question really is 1(a) and the question of setback (Inaudible Comment from Audience) Which is 1(a). (Inaudible Comment from Audience) Well, now you see I can't hear you and that's not on the record. Ms. Marilyn Reed: I'm sorry, Marilyn Reed for the record. I'm not quite clear on this 70 foot and what Dolly brought up in her letter that Commissioner Gordon just read. That bill doesn't only speak to state funds which is to prevent the widening of the road, I think it specifically said that. It speaks to a corridor of protection and I'm not sure whether you're in conflict with that or not. I'd like to have that looked at to make sure that you're not in the protection, the historical protection that the Act allowed for. Mayor Ferre: Well let me repeat what he said, I don't know whether it's ac- curate or not and somebody could challenge his accuracy. But what he said was that with regards to the 100 foot historical area that that only applies - you'd better listen to this, I want to make sure I heard what you said properly - that only applies to government or City projects, it does not apply to private ownership. Mr. Whipple: That is my understanding, Mr. Mayor, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Now is that wrong? INAUDIBLE Mayor Ferre: That's being questioned. Mr. Jack Luft: This historic district applies within a hundred feet and specifically provides that no action shall be taken within that hundred feet, that's public state or federal funds (inaudible) Mayor Ferre: So the answer is it does not apply. Mr. Luft: There are no provisions for dealing with actions of private prop- erty owners within that 100 feet. There is no review body set up, there's no legislation to control that. Mayor Ferre: Ms. Reed, that doesn't mean that we can't address it here it just means that that's not addressed in that particular... (INAUDIBLE). Now, what's the will of this Commission with regards.... Mrs. Gordon: I have one more question to Mr. Whipple regarding the 70 feet, that's an arbitrary number that you have selected, not for any specific reason, si that correct? Mr. Whipple: No, it's not an arbitrary number it's a very well founded num- ber after much research. If you would refer to the study, table II and III where we actually looked at all the setbacks, all the natural features, all the trees, the rock outcroppings and what have you, we did arrive at it based Illalllllllll 111111 IIII rt 13 MARCH 8, 1979 1 upon we felt this was a reasonable limit by which to provide a setback and preserve, I would just off the top say 90 or 95% of those things we felt ought to be preserved, the rock outcroppings, natural features, trees and things of that nature. So it is arbitrary in one sense that we're establishing but we found that 70 feet was an appropriate figure and we went anywhere from 20 to 100 feet and categorized each increment and we felt that the 70 feet was.... Mayor Ferre: Let me reverse the question, assuming and I accept that that you went through a logical process. Your conclusion was that 70 feet would accom- plish certain things, now you didn't conclude that 100 feet wouldn't accomplish the same thing? Mr. Whipple: Oh yes, sir, a hundred feet would but then on the reverse side what impact does that have on the development and the ownerships as we view them? Mayor Ferre: So that's the question, is what impact would 100 feet setback have on those properties. Mr. Whipple: We felt that as the setback increased actually it allows less and less use of the property. Now we felt as we have previously stated that there are economic considerations. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, I have trouble with your analogy because you're assuming that they have to have as much development crammed in there as possible and I find that hard to understand. Mr. Whipple: No, we're not assuming you have to have development, we're assum- ing there is going to be redevelopment, the question is based upon the owner- ships, the depth of properties and the setbacks that may or may not be applied is there a reasonable use of the property. And as you extend beyond 70 feet certain other criteria come into affect such as you had a plat before you which would remove let's say four units putting it economically if you went deeper than 70 feet or there wouldn't be room let's say to put X number of units under R-1B with the 70 foot setback. There are certain assumptions, one of the assumptions is that redevelopment is going to occur. The amount that occurs is based upon the regulations and the criteria which we're trying to establish here tonight. Mr. Plummer: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Harry Tabor: My name is Harry Tabor, I live at 2035 Tigertail. I'm speak- ing for the Tigertail Association but with respect to Item (a), you're talking about 70 feet and 100 feet and actually we know it is 20 feet right now because of Bayview. If someone comes in here tomorrow morning or started replats any one of those properties with a side yard, they can move down to 20 feet from Bayshore. Now 70 feet is an awful lot better than 20 feet and it is our under- standing that Item (a) with the protections that are built in in (c) will pre- serve the corridor, preserve the outcroppings, all of the trees, all of the particular special aspects of the terrain along there and basically speaking as I say it is 20 feet now if somebody wants to come in and replat and you can correct that and move that back to 70 by adopting (a), I think I'm right. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, it's 9:30 now and we've heard an awful lot and I think we're beginning to repeat a lot of things so I think really it is time for us to kind of move along. Mr. Jaffer: Can I ask you a simple question? Does the historical provisions insure that the street won't be widened by state or federal funds? Because it says 100 feet from the street but can you widen that street with state or federal funds? Mr. Whipple: In my opinion you may be able to widen it if you go through the regulations that are a part and are set forth in the Historical Highway Sec- tion. In other words there is a review process, certain things that may or may not have to be done. Mayor Ferre: All right, I think it is.... Mrs. Gordon: Joanne has something she wants to say. rt MARCH 8, 1979 14 Mrs. Holshouser: Mr. Whipple said the magic word and that's redevelopment. Dick, we don't accept the fact that we're going to have redevelopment on that street, I don't and I don't think these other people who live in that area do either. Mayor Ferre: Let's pose the question directly now. Would there be a lot of harm done if instead of 70 it were 100 feet? Would anybody oppose that? Mrs. Holshouser: That sounds like it's compliance. Mayor Ferre: Does anybody oppose that? Does anybody here oppose that? Other than you. Mrs. Holshouser: We urge it. Mayor Ferre: All right, would you be in opposition to it? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, it's not the word opposition, we do feel that we're encompassing the majority of the problems that exist and if we go to a hundred feet it becomes if you will an academic consideration. In other words, there are so few structures or so few things involved between the 70 to 100 that we just would have a little problem justifying it but if it is this Commis- sion's will to make it a hundred feet we have no opposition to it as such, it's just harder to justify. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fosmoen, do you want to address this point? Mr. Fosmoen: I guess the only cal.tion that I would raise to the Commission is that you don't want to create an ordinance that's unreasonable and be sub- ject to attack at a later point. If you want to go to a hundred I would urge you to build into the record your reasons for that so it is not subject to attack by someone who has a piece of property and wants to redevelop it and is going to claim that you were arbitrary.... Mr. Plummer: Well, but Mr. Fosmoen, you cannot this evening go and make it 100 foot this evening without sending it back. Mr. Fosmoen: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: It will have to go back to the Zoning Board. Mrs. Holshouser: Could I ask, we're doing this to protect the Coral Rock outcroppings, are we not, and the scenic nature of the road, is that not the purpose of it? (INAUDIBLE RESPONSE) Where is the Coral Rock outcroppings, that is say at 100 feet? Is there one that's 100 feet back? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, we have aerial photographs which have been developed in part by our Public Works Department establishing the zoned street width and noting by field observation and measurements the rock outcroppings and the significant trees. I'm sorry we don't have something that will project but it is all noted and all the setbacks of all the existing structures are noted on that. Mayor Ferre: Why don't you put it on top here and we'll maybe let it hang out. Mrs. Holshouser: Because if there's one at 100 feet or more that's the point, those are the ones we're trying to protect. Mrs. Gordon: I've got to ask you a question, Mr. Whipple because the state- ment was made that you would have to send this back to the Zoning Board and I don't think you would because what you would be doing would be more re- strictive than what you are recommending and consequently it is the opposite. If you wish to go to 50 feet you'd have to send it back. Mr. Fosmoen: Mrs. Gordon, I guess I would ask the attorney to respond as to whether or not we have to send it back. Mayor Ferre: Let's put that on the record. The question is are there any rock outcroppings that are not within the 70 foot distance that we're talk- ing about, would any of that be lost, any of it? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, there are some outcroppings that do occur beyond 70 feet, there are some ridges that do occur beyond 70 feet but they're of minor rt 15 MARCH 8, 1979 nature. There are two evaluations. There rock outcroppings and ridges which we cannot see today. We have marked them all with dotted lines, dash lines on this aerial. What we're suggesting by the 70 feet are those signi- ficant ones which are visible from the right-of-way and what have you, are included within this 70 feet. That does not include others that are back behind walls or back behind buildings or buildings are built on it or some- thing like that. The 70 feet includes 95% of what is visible on South Bay - shore Drive today. Mayor Ferre: Well Okay, I think the Commission knows all the facts now, I think we're just repeating things so what is the will of this Commission? Mrs. Gordon: The motion is to make this not less than 100 feet. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion to make this not less than 100 feet, is there a second? Mrs. Gordon: I would like her to answer me whether this has to go back to the Zoning Board or Planning Board. That would make it less liberal. Ms. Miriam Maer: I would still feel that it should be readvertised then go back to the board if you're extending it to 100 feet. Mr. Whipple: Commissioner Gordon, if I may add a non -legal comment, we are dealing with a situation which today requires greater setbacks than the 70 feet and in some areas lesser setbacks than the 70 feet in the proposal based upon the average alignment. I would have to concur with the Law Department that there would be some question about readvertising and for the protection to do what is this Commission's will I think it should perhaps be reheard and readvertised. I'd like to add just one comment if I may to the rest that was discussed with you this evening. Let's not forget point (c) of the agenda, that is site plan approval, review by the department. Now we feel that this is a very good instrument, we feel that we can pursue this Commission's wishes if this legislation is passed as an added protection. Mayor Ferre: We're not worried about this Commission's wishes, we're worried about putting it in so that it is so to speak chiseled into the stone and.... Mrs. Gordon: Would future Commissions be able to approve a plat like the prev- ious one that - I can't even think of the name of it, the one that's causing us all the problems? Mr. Whipple: In my opinion no, they could not have filed a plat in that man- ner. Mayor Ferre: I think what we have to do now, in my opinion if we could, is vote on 1(b) and (c) and then send 1(a) back for review and I think the legal basis would be this, that we would want none of the visible and known ridge and rock outcroppings to be destroyed and with that we would recommend that a hundred feet be considered. Mr. Ellison: Mr. Mayor, if send back part (a) could you send back part (c) to amend it so that it would include Micanopy Avenue, the total of Micanopy and not just the second half? Mayor Ferre: That's the next subject is that we want to include, couldn't we do that now without having to go back or do we have to go back on that too? Mr. Plummer: No, it's got to back. Mayor Ferre: All right, well then I guess the motion has to be that the whole item go back. Mrs. Gordon: Well, we could approve the part that we have before us and then the part we don't have before us could be advertised. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mr. Kenny: Mr. Mayor, would it be possible, what some of our concerns are is what can happen in the time that intervenes between your sending it back and.... rt 16 MARCH 8, 1979 Mayor Ferre: Then let's do this, suppose we adopt 1(a), (b) and (c) and then ask that (a) be revised to the 100 feet, in the meantime we know that we have at least 70 feet. Now, does that make any sense? Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, there is something here that I really don't under- stand quite well. The question of the 70 feet versus the question of the 100 feet, now we come into the eternal question here of private property, the use of private property, of course, under controlled situations. We have here a recommendation by the staff that has studied the area and has come to the con- clusion that 70 feet is a reasonable setback. 70 feet quite frankly I do feel is a reasonable setback. We come to the question of the ridges and we have that 95% of those ridges are within the 70 feet setback. Now we say here arbitrarily after these people have gone out there and have made their re- search and have made a recommendation we sit here and in five minutes we de- cide to send this back for 100 feet, why not for 150 feet, why not for 180 feet? Because the question here is to what extent we are going here to con- tinuously put limitations in the reasonable, and I say reasonable use of private property by the people. I understand the concerns of a neighborhood as nice, with so much quality as Coconut Grove, I realize that and I do feel that it is the responsibility of this Commission to keep the integrity of the Grove. Now, what is reasonable? What is reasonable to me quite frankly here, I cannot agree more with the research done by and the recommendations by the staff. So now we have objections and we sit here and we try to please the objections and we say arbitrarily 100 because 100 looks good, 100 is a round figure. So I say why not go for 120 and completely destroy the philosophy and the concept of what should be a reasonable use of private property because to me quite frankly 70 feet under those circumstances is more than reasonable. Mayor Ferre: Well, the answer, Commissioner Lacasa, would be two -fold, first of all that it would be in compliance with the historical setback which is already established for that road and secondly because as I understand the concensus of this Commission it is the interest to preserve 100% of the ridge and not 95% of it and I think that that would be accomplished if you did that, I think. Now that's why we have to send it back so that we can have a good legal foundation to go upon and readvertise and give all the property owners the opportunity to object and you may not have any objections to it, it seems that way anyway. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, don't let some of my comments be misconstrued to lead you astray here. There's a distinguishing factor between the ridges and the outcroppings. Ridges are one thing in some areas and the outcroppings of rocks are another. My reference to the outcroppings was that it was in the 90 percentile. The ridge, however, occurs as deep as 290-300 feet. Mayor Ferre: Well I realize that we won't be able to save that, we can't go that far. Mr. Whipple: I just wanted to make sure you understood what my remarks were. Mr. Plummer: Would you consider stopping at South Dixie Highway? Mrs. Gordon: Dick, seriously have you considered that instead of what you've recommended to us here of a yard of not less 70 feet, had you considered that you could just change the wording of the present one so that no portion of a property shall be less than the - how does the ordinance read now? Instead of saying front yard just say any yard shall not be. Mr. Whipple: That is our proposal, ma'am. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but you're including 70 feet and I'm not saying that. I'm saying in the present provision which provides that the property shall be developed not less than the average of the surrounding property. Is that the way it's worded? Mr. Whipple: That's correct, yes. Mrs. Gordon: That you should say in that, you just amend the wording in that tat not only the front yard but any yard shall not be less than the setback of the average whatever. Do you understand what I'm saying? Mr. Whipple: Yes, ma'am, I understand that and it could be done, however, that is not our recommendation that it be done because we feel that the aver- age alignment is inequitable because it's at the discretion of the develop- ment that has taken place or the development that will take place in the fut- ure, the average alignment constantly changes the required setback area. We rt 17 MARCH 8, 1979 feel it is an equitable provision and, therefore, we have suggested to you that we establish a uniform provision equitable to everybody. Mayor Ferre: All right. All these thing have been previously said, we're repeating and retreading all of this. Now, my advice is, and I'm going to ask one more time. Is there anybody here present who objects to going 100 feet? All right, there are two people here who object to it - three. You want 200 feet. All right, let it be the way it is. Now, we have those vary- ing opinions. Now we can't solve our problem tonight, you've heard our City Attorney tell us that it must go back to be readvertised and go to the Plan- ning Board one more time. I would recommend that we move 1(a), (b) and (c) as they are tonight then instruct the departments to readvertise to go 100 feet and go through the process again at which time the property owners will have the opportunity to present their objections and what have you and it'll come before us again. And the second thing would be to include Micanopy, to expand it to Micanopy. All right, now, does anybody have any big problems with that? All right, who wants to move 1(a)? Mr. Plummer: Just for the record, Whipple, you know where I live, I'm not in any problem am I? Mayor Ferre: Not in any more than you usually are. Mrs. Gordon: J. L., you're in a problem if you have a financial gain. Mr. Whipple: I think Ms. Maer can quote, she's going to ask you whether you have any conflict of interest or not which you don't. Mr. Plummer: Just putting it on the record. Mrs. Gordon: On discussion with Ms. Maer because I consulted with the other two attorneys prior to her and both of them said if I felt I had no financial gain or there's no person gain to me in any way I would not have to abstain. Mayor Ferre: That's on the record. Mrs. Gordon: What is your opinion, Ms. Maer? Ms. Maer: My opinion would be that if you feel that your present situation will not impair the independent exercise of your judgement it would not be necessary that you abstain from voting in this matter. Mayor Ferre: Rose, you've already gotten that opinion from the City Attorney, it doesn't matter who is sitting on the seat it is still the City Attorney's seat. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHEN- SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY DELETING SUBSECTION 43-DISTRICT 43 OF ARTICLE XXVI, SECTION 2, SPECIAL YARD DISTRICTS, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SUBSECTION 43 TO REQUIRE A YARD OF NOT LESS THAN 70 FEET; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT, AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice . Ferre NOES: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public. rt 18 MARCH 8, 1979 2 (B) . CHANGE ZON I t A�3EIWEEN S. BAYSHORE DR. 6 ALLEY`-.TWEEN S. BAYSHORE 6 MICANOPY FRON'ALATKA TO S.W. 17 AVE. 6 S. BAY_ .iRE 6 TIGERTAIL BETWEEN 5. BAYSHORE 6 TIGERTAIL FROM 17 AVE. TO AVIATION FROM R-1 TO R-1B. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPRE- HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA BE- TWEEN SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND THE ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTh BAYSHORE DRIVE AND MICANOPY AVENUE FROM ALATKA STREET TO S. W. 17Th AVENUE AND TIGER - TAIL AVENUE FROM S. W. 17TH AVENUE TO AVIATION AVENUE, LESS AN AREA IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, FROM R-1 TO R-1B (ONE FAMILY DWELLING); AND MAKING NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON- FLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacase Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice . Ferre NOES: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public. 2(C). APPLY COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT SPD-2. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPRE- HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY APPLYING ARTICLE XXI-4, COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT (SPD-2) TO THE AREA BETWEEN SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND THE ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND MICANOPY AVENUE FROM ALATKA STREET TO S. W. 17TH AVENUE AND THE AREA BETWEEN S. BAYSHORE DRIVE AND TIGERTAIL AVENUE FROM S. W. 17TH AVENUE TO AVIATION AVENUE, LESS AN AREA IN THE S. W. CORNER AS SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF; 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 ARTICLE III, SECTION 2; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVER - ABILITY PROVISION. Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice . Ferre NOES: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public. rt 19 MARCH 8, 1979 3. INSTRUCT PLANNIF DEPT. TO INITIATE PUBLIC( :ARINGS ON EXTENSION OF SP ",IAL YARD DISTRICTS - SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. Mayor Ferre: Now Mrs. Gordon moves that the question of the additional 30 feet, that is from 70 to 100 and the question of including up to Micanopy in Item (c) discussed earlier this evening be referred to the Planning Board for.... Mr. Plummer: B and C. Mayor Ferre: ... B and C be referred to the Planning Board for a public hear- ing with all the due advertising and what have you and come back to the Com- missirn with their recommendation. Is that the way to put it? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. The followinc_ motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-179 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE EXTENSION OF SPECIAL YARD DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE A YARD OF NOT LESS THAN 100' ON SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE ALONG THE NORTHWEST SIDE FROM ALATKA STREET TO AVIATION AVENUE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Commissioner Armando Lacasa NOES: 4. DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR PUN DEVELOPMENT AT 1641 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. Mayor Ferre: We will now take up Item 9 which is an application by Dr. George E. Daviglus for a residential development of a Planned Unit Nature, PUN, at 1641 S. Bayshore drive consisting of five units in five structures. The depart- ment recommended denial, the board recommended approval on a 5 - 2 vote, there were 18 objectors by mail, 25 objectors present at the Zoning Board Meeting and 2 proponents present at the Zoning Board Meeting. Mr. Robert Davis: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to explain the recommendation of the Zoning Board. The original application in this matter was for 7 units in 7 structures. The application stands even though the Zontnq Board specifically does not want 7 units in 7 structures, they specifically did not want 6 units in 6 structures but they did pass as a recommendation to this Commission a residential development of 5 units in 5 structures. The applicant has stated to me that he wishes to carry forth to this Commission his plan of 7 units in 7 structures. The recommendation of the Zoning Board was for 5 units only, not for 7. Mrs. Gordon: Is this the 7? Mr. Davis: This is the 7 unit plan. Mayor Ferre: I count about 15 structures in there. Is that 7 or 15? I count 13 structures. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, they are attached structures, the area in between is part of the unit, the distinguishing factor of the primary use has been colored in and there are seven shown. On that structure, the lower center one is being proposed as a group attachment which is permitted under the Planned Unit Nature provisions, you can have an adjoining group provided there is ter, foot spacing. To add to what Mr. Davis has said regarding the Zoning Board, the Planning Department recommended denial because we felt that the site it's on and the placement of the structures was not specifically desirable, we have recommended the development be reduced to six units and that a greater setback be provided rt 26 MARCH 8, 1979- from South Bayshore Drive along with the removal of the pool area that was immediately adjacent to South Bayshore Drive. The changes that are before you this evening do include the removal of the pool area, the setback of the nearest structure to South Bayshore Drive is approximately 103 feet as opposed to the 70 feet being provided. However, they are requesting seven units rather than the six units that we recommended. We suggested quite simply that the two units in the lower center or the southerly side center be reduced to one unit. Mrs. Gordon: In an R-1B would this number of units still be permitted, Mr. Whipple? Mr. Whipple: Commissioner Gordon, I don't have the figures right at my finger- tips, they were at with our recommendation for six units, that would pro- vide one unit for approximately 7,900 square feet so a reduction to the Zon- ing Board level of 5 units would probably bring it up to approximately 10,000 per unit plus or minus. As proposed the development is 6,700 square feet per unit which is over the 6,000 R-1 minimum but not in accord with the proposal of 10,000 square feet. Mrs. Gordon: Has your department done a reanalysis of your position and are you still denying, or your recommendation for denial on the five units or is your recommendation for approval on the five units? Mr. Whipple: We would recommend approval on the five or six units. We have suggested six units which would meet with our approval not withstanding our studies, however, there has been an application and we felt due consideration was necessary. We felt that six units at just short of 8,000 square feet was a reasonable development particularly in light of the site design which you have before you. Mayor Ferre: So you're recommending that four or six units on a Planned Unit Nature? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, the existing law is 6,000 square feet per unit. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but what we've done tonight changed that, Mr. Whipple, and you know you're not even remembering that. Mr. Whipple: No, I am remembering that, I'm dealing with what we are working with today and we're working with a law that suggests 6,000 squre feet per unit. Mrs. gordon: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to defer this, I don't believe I can look at a map that shows seven clusters like that and imagine what they're going to look like when they have something other than that. I think this Commis- sion is obliged to see what it's voting on and I don't feel prepared to vote on this just listening to this recommendation and that recommendation and back and forth and nothing before me shows what actually is being proposed, nothing. Mr. Whipple: I'm not representing the applicant, the applicant is here if you wish questions or a presentation by him. Mayor Ferre: But I think a member of this Commission has as I understood it presented a motion to defer and she stated the reason why she wants deferral. Mr. Lacasa: Is the applicant here? Mrs. Gordon: That means that this has to come back to us with visuals that we can see and understand, not something that looks like this. Mr. Lacasa: I would like to see the explanation from the applicant, I would like the applicant to have an opportunity like anyone else here that comes here to explain his drawings. Mayor Ferre: Well I think before I ask for a second let the applicant have a few minutes to respond and then we'll... All right, do you have any objec- tions to this being deferred until the drawings are done so that it's in com- pliance with what you're requesting and what they're recommending? Dr. George Daviglus: Yes, I do. I'm George Daviglus, 1641 South Bayr`-ore Drive, the property that is in question. We presented this in detail co the rt 21 MARCH 8, 1979 - Zoning Board already and we're back here again and I have here my developer who will answer any questions that you have. We would like it not to be deferred. Mayor Ferre: Dr. Daviglus, let me ask you, is this what you're asking for right here? Dr. Daviglus: Yes. Mayor Ferre: This one right here? Dr. •Daviglus: Yes. Mayor Ferre: All right, so in other words there are no changes, this is what you want in this particular plan with the seven units. Dr. Daviglus: This has been revised three different times. Mayor Ferre: So this is what you're asking for tonight. Dr. Daviglus: That's right. Mayor Ferre: And what's before us is what you want. Now that's not what the Board is recommending , I mean what the department is recommending. Dr. Daviglus: They're recommending one less. Mayor Ferre: And the Board? Dr. Daviglus: Two less, I'm sorry. Mayor Ferre: The Board is recommending two less. Mr. Davis: If I may, the Zoning Board recommended five units, the Department recommends six units. Mayor Ferre: So what is being recommended and what is before us is not this, is that correct? And yet you want us to consider this, is that what you're saying" I just want to make sure I understood you properly. Mr. Bruno Carnesella of 2461 South Bayshore Drive and the architect for the project appeared before the City Commission on behalf of the project and stated that the proposed project had a setback of the 100 feet that was being proposed for the R-lb classification and that the comparison of this project to a development that had taken place in an R-1 area of 6,000 square feet with a very large structure was unfair because likewise a very large structure could be placed on a lot within an R-lb zone which would cover a proportionately large amount of land. Commissioner Gordon stated that in her opinion the Commission had to have a site development plan before them in order to approve the application which contained specifics. Mr. Waldo Ellison restated his interpretation of the Zoning Board's concerns and recommendation and recommended that the application be either deferred or denied. Mr. Jim Applethorpe appeared in opposition to the application and stated that he and several other people had met with Dr. Daviglus and that there were several persons who would like to speak on this application. Mr. Jim Kinney stated that five units and certainly seven units would be in excess of what is permitted under the R-lb zoning which was adopted on First Reading earlier this evening and that only four units would be permitted under a replat. Ms. Carmen Casal of 1632 Micanopy Avenue, Lots 19 and 20 appeared in opposition to the application and submitted a petition to the Commission. Whe urged the Commission to consider the character of South Bayshore Drive. Mr. Arthur Rabe of 1633 Micanopy Avenue and said that the neighborhood was again being threatened by a development which was not in keeping with the neighborhood and why should a person have to live in Coral Gables where there is strong zoning in order to be safe from this type of intrusion. 22 MARCH 8, 1979 Ms. Lucia Hartog of 1639 S. Bayshore Drive whose property is adjacent to the subject property appeared in objection to the proposed project because she would be looking at the rear of two or three homes if this were permitted. She said this development would destroy the neighborhood. Ms. Jane Dewey of 1645 South Bayshore Drive appeared before the Commission but her presentation was inaudible because she was not speaking into the microphone. Mr. Kenneth Shanklin of 1651 Bicanopy spoke in objection to the project. Ms. Lucia Hartog stated that she had not been contacted by the developer. Mr. Harry Hague of 1635 South Bayshore Drive appeared and requested that the Commission keep in mind the 10,000 square feet required under R-lb and a significant setback from South Bayshore Drive. Mr. Joel Jaffer appeared and said the entire Planned Unit concept had been a total failure in his opinion and sited Longview as an example. He stated that it did not fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Carnesella: I think at the present mcnc,nt I noticed that some neighbors mentioned that they were not contacted before, we don't want to make and I think that the request by Commissioner Rose Gordon to have more illustrations, indication about exactly how it would like, the units so maybe at this moment we can go along with her suggestion, Mrs. Gordon and defer the item. We would like to ask that you take into consideration the fact that this petition was presented when the R-1 zoning was in effect and we will make our best effort to contact the neighborhood and come the next time to this Commission with recommendations of the Planning Department and we hope also with some of the approval of the neighborhood. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think you've got a problem. You should have followed Mrs. Gordon's recommendation you know, but now that you've let this thing go and these people have spent 15 minutes talking I don't know how you're going to defer this item. I mean I'm perfectly willing to take any motions, if you want to make it, Rose or whoever wants to make the motion. Mr. Lacasa: I'll make a motion to defer on the basis that if the developer wants to go back to the neighbors and discuss this with the neighbors.... ( Dissention from the audience) Well, let me tell you I've been here many many times and I have seen over and over and over again the question of this discussions after one and two hours and even three hours send back for dis- cussion at the neighbor's request so I don't see why this should be any dif- ferent. Mayor Ferre: That's true. Mr. Lacasa: Joanne, over and over again you have requested this and many times the Commission has complied with your request so I don't see why we should deny this now to the developer. Mayor Ferre: All right, now we're going to get to that in a second, I'm going to let Mr. Kenny make a brief statement and then I'm going to - which is really unfair because we have a motion on the floor but I'm sure you'll let Mr. Kenny make his statement and then I'm going to call for a second. Go ahead. Mr. J. Kenny: Mr. Mayor, we have not been here nearly as long as the Commis- sion has but we have been here a while and the when the question of the de - feral came up the applicant didn't want a deferal, it's on the record (INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Okay, we have a motion for deferal on the floor, is there a sec- ond to the motion? It's a motion for deferral, is there a second? Is there a second to the motion for deferral? All right, hearing no second.... Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, since there is no second I'll offer another motion. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mrs. Gordon: This application that's before us tonight is a seven unit appli- cation and I move for denial. 23 MARCH 8, 1979 Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion that the application before us be denied, is there a second to that motion? Mr. Lauredo: (INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: You have to come to the microphone, identify who you are and make the statement into the record, we can't have anonymous statements. Mr. Luis Lauredo: Luis Lauredo, 1641 South Bayshore Drive. A point of inform- ation, if you make a motion to deny, does that preclude us from coming on a subsequent appeal to the City Commission? Mayor Ferre: Would you clarify that? Mr. Davis: If the Commission denies this matter the applicant cannot come back before this board and the Commission for a period of I think it's we months with another petition of this nature. He does, however, have the opportunity of appealing it to the court but not back to this Commission. Mr. Plummer: Can he come in with less? Mr. Lauredo: I obviously know we have remedy in the courts but would you be speaking specifically to the seven units or to the subject property involved? Mayor Ferre: I think the question is can they come in with an appeal for five units not seven units. Mr. Plummer: Well that's just exactly the question I was asking. Mr. Lauredo: Yes, because she's making a motion for the denial of the seven units. Mrs. Gordon: You would have to start from scratch, Mr. Lauredo, with a new application. Mr. Lauredo: And my second question would be if you are going to move obviously on the subject I think it would only be fair that you hear the pro side.... Mayor Ferre: Of course, what he says is that he would want that the other side be also heard because what happened is that Bruno here got up and asked for a deferral and he didn't get it and he says he'd like his 15 minutes in court you know. Mrs. Gordon: Fine, I'll withdraw until you talk, that's what we did before. Mayor Ferre: You know you can't deny them their 15 minutes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER IN AUDIENCE - INAUDIBLE, NOT USING MICROPHONE. Mayor Ferre: Yes. Listen, there is nobody more interested in getting out of here than me. but you know if they want their 15 minutes I'm not going to deny them that right. Now the question is that we have a motion and they've requested 15 minutes to make their presentation, now if that's not what you want to do.... Mrs. Gordon: I thought they made their presentation, Maurice. Dr. Daviglus: I'd like to know if we can come back again with a new appli- cation for six units and.... Mrs. Gordon: I'm going to speak for myself and I can't speak for anybody else, doctor, but I'll tell you six units Dr. Daviglus: Then can we get the opinion of the attorney? Mrs. Gordon: I'll tell you my opinion. I don't want six units on that prop- erty, I'm going to tell you now I will not vote for six units. I don't care what they tell me I will vote no. I think six units in this neighborhood will destroy it because it doesn't belong here - it doesn't. I believe that you could have a reasonable use of that land and even a replat of that land but you would not be able to put six units on it. 24 MARCH 8, 1979 Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, if I may suggest, if the Commission so desires to have a lesser number of units perhaps they could indicate that number if there is a number and then defer and request that the applicant come back with that number shown on the plan. Mr. Lauredo: Again, Luis Lauredo, 1641 S. Bayshore. Commissioner Gordon, I don't fail to be perplexed by your point of view here tonight but, of course, I'm a little surprised by it because I would assume that the good faith, the first motion was, and maybe a little more dialogue would have come up with a more reasonable proposal in your view in any case which at this stage we acceded to and now all of a sudden basically your point is to deny, there seems to be an incompatibility of behavior there but anyway we'll put that aside. Mrs. Gordon: I would like to clarify my position to you so you may under- stand why I am speaking the way I am. Prior to hearing the neighborhood's position with regard to what they feel is an intrustion into a single family low density developed area I was willing to permit a review of a lesser density to come back to us for consideration, I did not say I was going to approve it but I certainly was going to be able to at least examine it. I cannot examine anything that comes to me with this in front of me at all. Mr. Lauredo: I understand, the point is that as well as the neighbors have rights to property, and very eloquently expressed, the subject property also has an owner who has property rights that are being addressed today and that includes the right of usage of that land and I thought that the first motion was reasonable and that we could come to a reasonable agreement and what would be a proper and reasonable use of that land but obviously that wasn't the intent, it was basically to deny it. But anyway, I'll get into the sub- ject matter for whatever it is worth at this point. Mr. Plummer: Do I recall correctly, there is a motion or no motion on the floor? Mrs. Gordon: I remove the motion to give them an opportunity to complete their conversation. Mayor Ferre: Let's get on with it so we can get out of here. Make your statement. Mr. Lauredo: Mr. Mayor, I think there are two basic issues here that are going to keep coming back to you and you don't want to discuss it today, one is that Commissioner Lacasa addressed in his previous presentation, that is the Planning Board recommendation and it referred to property rights, what degree the people have the right to use their land and when does it come into conflict with community concerns and how we can reach an agreeable mid- dle ground and the other one is the question of growth on South Bayshore Drive. You cannot assume that there is going to be no growth on South Bayshore Drive rt 2 MARCH 8, 1979 Mr. Lauredo - cont'd because the starts that boosted the reality, and tell you that there is a lot of growth, and there is a lot of bad growth on S. Bayshore Drive, for some reason or another has already taken place. What I think the petitioner is trying to propose is a good quality project that will not destroy the integrity of the neigborhood and at the other hand will guard his privilege and right to use his property. Now let me clarify a couple of misconceptions that previous speakers brought up. First of all it is unfair to leave you with the illusion that the property could not be subdivided into 5 lots. I want to remind you that I may be corrected, but the property is 47,000 sq. ft. and under present law, we need a density of 6,000. That leaves close to seven, --certainly five.They made illusions that we got most to four, using as an argument that you passed on first readina a plan that you did in the previous item and obviously we will be grandfathered in,..well in any event its not a standing laws, so its unfair to be discussing something that may be happening in the future. As of today that property can be subdivided into 5 single-family units, and could really, if you wanted to do it that way and really be destructive, you could build those kind of units to legally destroy the spirit of that neighborhood. The intent of the property owner is then to develop it in a way, that is the whole purpose and intent of a Planned Unit concept, so that it will not disrupt that integrity. I want to remind you that voluntarily you were discussing today very heatedly the proposal for announcements of setbacks of 100 ft. We voluntarily already acceded to a 100 ft. setback. There's a whole South Bayshore area including the existina ate he ' aoina to be left alone. Sr it is nrocPQR of give and take and I .7 think it is unfair to simply go by the emotion of the people who show up and perhaps the property owner and developer has been not dialoging enough with the neighbors. And that was the intent of possibly proposing, not that we oppose your motion on it merit at the first time, Mrs. Gordon. Its that every single one of obviously, --their strategy was, every single one of them said that they had not been con- sulted, therefore we said that is obviously their single most often mentioned objection, then they think it is an incumbent right and maybe we should postpone it and go back to them and then come back with the thing. I also want to state for the record, that the language of the petition that was brought forth to this commission signed by all the neighbors. A11 of the language verbatim does not negate the whole concept of what's being tried to do. It is a single-family unit development and it is properly landscaped and last but not least I want to mention to you that the Planning Department has recommended the passage of 6 units. Okay. Make sure they understand that. They have sent to the Zoning Board hearing a revised plans that call for further concessions, --very substantial concession on behalf of the developer, and they have now as I understand recommended the development for 6. Thank you. Mrs. Gordon: I call your attention to the frontage and depth of the property being the front 135 with a street dedication running through that property. I don't see how in the world you could develop 5 lots, on a 375 ft. depth. The size of your lot, --yellow up there,--135 by what? Mr. Davis: The square footage of it Mrs. Gordon,is 47,000,... Mrs. Gordon: Sir, would you answer my question? What is the front and what is the depth? Mr. Davis: Three -fifty by one, thirty-five. Mrs. Gordon: That's what I said. Now if you are going to put a street what't the minimum dedication for a street? Mr. Davis: For a private street is 25 ft. ma'am. Mayor Ferre: Are there any other statements that the proponents want to make on their time other than what you've male? You will have time for rebuttal later on if we get into a discussion. rn. zs MARCH 8, 1979 - VAR _ 8 fg7g Mr. Bruno Carnecello appeared again in favor of the project and stated that it was first class, and would be in a high class neighborhood and would blend with the rest of the community. Mayor Ferre: Thank you. Now, Father Gibson. Rev. Gibson: Sir, you go ahead and talk. I'll always have a chance. Mr. Applethorpe appeared in opposition to the project. (Mostly inaudible) Mr. Lacasa: Tonight previous to this we passed on first reading a resolution changing the zoning there from R-1 to R-18. This is on first reading. What is precisely the status now of zoning in this particular area? Mr. Davis: R-1 primarily. Mr. Lacasa: Its R-1? Therefore they are not limited at this point to the 10,000 sq. ft. Mr. Davis: This application was made on the basis of R-1 sir. Mr. Lacasa: Which is the present situation. Mr. Ellison: Waldo Ellison, 1623 Micanopy, I think that Doctor Daviglus and Mr. Carnecello are bright people, that were quite aware of what they were doing tonight. They knew well from the Zoning Board Meeting, --the Zoning Board went along with 5 units. But they wanted to take a gamble. It reminds me of an individual who commits a crime, and goes to court and there is some type of bargaining that is made, --either plead guilty or not guilty and take the consequences. Mayor Ferre: You want me to cut him off? Is that what you want me to do Mr. Lauredo? You want me to deny him his right? I hear your comments and I am going to give you the right to make them public in moment. Mr. Ellison: I think I made mention that I thought you people are very bright, however I also recognize the fact that I look upon this as gamble that you took, that you blatantly disregarded what was asked of you from the Zoning Board, the day before the Commission trying to place a facade over the situation. I think by the response you got from the people sitting in the green seats here, and some of the questions mostly by the Commission I think it has become quite aware that the facade has been lifted. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Now in response. Mr. Carnecello: I would like to ask the gentlemen, what is your present address please. Mr. Ellison: 1623 Micanopy. Mr. Carnecello:Okay. What is your lot size? Mr. Ellison: 10,000 square feet. Inaudible. Mr. Carnecello: What is the approximate value of your property? Inaudible. (MR. CARNECELLO's STATEMENTS UNINTELLIGIBLE) 27 rn. bAR 8 1979 6 0 Mayor Ferre: You want to add something? Mr. Lauredo: Mr.Mayor I want to apologize to the Chair if I insulted you. Mayor Ferre: You didn't insult me. Mr. Lauredu: : :+as referring to,..the gentleman has a record of being very derogatory .And I was opposed to the practice of grabbing the micro- phone,....and continue to use words that I thought were derogatory. He did it at the Zoning Board. I think the spirit of this controversy,..we need not get emotional personally, and I think the neighbors,..we live together,...the lady,where is she,..she plays tennis at our house, and we are very good friends. So the spirit of a neighborhood is not as bad as reflected. Mayor Ferre: I don't think so at all. And I want to say Mr. Lauredo that you shouldn't feel bad because if you think what he said was derog- atory, you ought to hear what we have to put up with. Some of you are the cause of some of the things we have to put up with. Mr.Plummer: That's only you from the morning,... Mr. Lacasa: Let me ask something from the developer here. We have that you applied for 7 units. The Department recommended 6 units. And the Zoning Board recommended 5 units. Would you be willing to live with 5 units? In response to Commissioner Lacasa question, Dr. Daviglus stated he wanted to go for 6 units. Mayor Ferre: The question was, would you accept the recommendation of the Zoning Board, which was 5,--not the Department. The answer to that is no. Dr. Daviglus: We felt that 6 units on the Court,and what I feel I could do with the piece of property, I feel this would be the proper number. Mayor Ferre: In other words your answer is you want to stick to 6,--you don't stick to 7, to go to 6,--but you won't accept 5? Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor I'd like to move denial of this application. Mayor Ferre: There's a motion to deny the application. Is there a second? Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor I want to second the motion so I could discuss. Mayor Ferre: All right there's a second. Rev. Gibson: I wasn't able to get in. Mr. Mayor in the heat of discussion sometimes it pays to listen. I'll tell you this. I raised the question before you started about whether or not this was properly before us. Remember that? All right. What disturbs me is evidently you thought it was property before us. At that point you took the next step. The next step was to make a presentation as if you would now rest on the decision. Isn't that the way it was? That's the rule of the game. Mayor Ferre: Yes. Rev. Gibson: Right. After you took step one and step two, and now you are strp three, you want us to undo two and one. That bothers me. Rose Gordon made a suggestion and I'm going to tell you how I am about it. Rose Gordon made a suggestion to defer. Let me tell you times gets to be awful healer. That's all I sell to people. That's all I sell to people, and sometimes you'd better listen to me. Rose Gordon offered to defer. If you had deferred my brothers, --I'm talking about two-four over there,(and sisters), --if you had deferred, you had an opportunity to come back here opposing. If we don't give you the right to come back, at no circumstance could you come back in less than a year. Now, let me say the other thing. I ask, --I want to ask Mr. Davis, --Mr. Davis what do they have the right to build there now? How many units, if any? rn.' 28 MARCH 8, 1979 MAR 8 1979 Mr. Davis: With no public hearing Father Gibson, they would be allowed to build two units, one on each lot. Rev. Gibson: All right. You see? Mr. Davis:Whatever else they could plat into, --without platting you could build two units. Rev. Gibson: Listen to this, the most you could get is four. Inaudible. Rev. Gibson: Sir, let me tell you something. I sat here an awful long time listening and I was figuring up here, you know. You didn't see me to this. But if he says all you could get would two structures, and maybe if you plat, four.Did you hear it? Okay. You see, if you'd taken Rose Gordon's suggestion and deferred, you would have got five in all probability. Okay? I just thought in an effort to discuss I would second the motion so that I could put on the record some certain pertinent facts that are just as clear as night follows day. Now, once you take steps one and two, you put me in a position that I either don't know what I want to do, or I must violate the rules. Now I hope somebody will get me off the spot so I don't violate the rules and that nobody would think I don't know what I want to do. Mayor Ferre: We have a motion and a second, so really under the Commission rules now, this is Commission discussion now. Mr. Lacasa: After having listened to Father Gibson, I'd like to make a substitute motion to defer at this point. Mayor Ferre: We have a substitute motion to defer. Is there a second to the substitute motion? Hearing none, it dies for the lack of a second. We are back to the main question. Mrs. Gordon: Call the question. Ms. Hirai: On the motion for denial. Roll Call. Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mr. Plummer on roll call: The motion is predicated upon seven units. It was asked if the developer would consider five. The answer was no, even though somewhere obviously there was a concession at the lower level to five units. The same consistent vote of mine will apply here as it did in the previous application further north. A P.U.N. development is not by chance a conditional use. It is by design,and I sat here when the P.U.N. and the P.U.D. were put into effect, with the thinking that there are certain areas in which the P.U.N. and the P.U.D. when goodly applied would upgrade an area. I do not feel that it is the case here on seven units. Unfortunately the developer has the right in which to force the issue and based upon the seven units I will vote with the motion and that is to deny. Mr. Lacasa: We have a motion to deny seven units as Commissioner Plummer says. Quite frankly I don't see seven units there. I would have seen six, probably, and for sure, five. Seven I have to move along with the motion and move for denial. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, in light of what we did earlier by way of passing zoning, you know, in lot size and all that business, I find it difficult, and I thought most of these people were here and overheard what we did. I thought they would have been smart and accepted Rose Gordon's deferral and got that thing together and come back. I regret that you must wait a year. I don't know how you can avoid that. ra. 29 MAR 8 ‘979 Rev.Gibson: But one thing I like about the orderly process, I 've said this before on this Commission. I had a roommate from the Virgin Islands in my first three years in college. He taught me this, a law that works for you, will work against you. And if you don't adhere to the procedure, man we are going to be in trouble. I hope this is a lesson all of us will learn, sometimes in your passion and fit of anger and zeal, you'll listen to some of the old coons up here and defer. With that in mind I have to vote with the motion. Mayor Ferre: The vote at this point is 4 for denial. Now, before casting my vote I want to express my opinion on the record. I think that a request for seven is unreaonable. I think a request for six would be unreasonable and I would vote against it. I think a request for five however would be reasonable. That's not before us. I think there's no choice as Mr. Lacasa says but to vote in favor of the denial, but I want to make mention of the fact as to what my position is.I am sorry it came out this way. I think Father Gibson's statement was one that made a lot of sense and I am sorry that it didn't go that way. I have no choice but to vote with the motion. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-180 A MOTION DENYING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT NATURE (PUN) AT 1641 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 5(A) ESTABLISH TRANSIT STATION INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT: (B) FIRST READING ORD: APPLICATION OF TRANSIT STATION INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS TO CERTAIN AREAS SURROUNDING TRANSIT STATION SITES. Mayor Ferre: We are now on item #2 which is first reading of an ordinance Planning Department application to establish transit station interim zoning district. Is there anybody here on item 2A? Are you in opposition? All right, go ahead and present your,... Mr. Davis: The Planning Department will make this presentation. Mr. Plummer: Is there anyone here on 2? Mr. Jack Luft: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the ordinance that you have before you is an interim zoning district, designed to provide for limited controls around the transit stations for the period during which plans are being prepared for the transit station areas. Simply put we've got a process that is going to take about a year to complete the plans some 10 stations in the City. Its is hoped those plans will address a variety of problems and opportunities in those station areas. While we are preparing those plans, its the concern of the Department that development that either would be inappropriate or conflicting with the transit station on the transit station in return it, be somehow averted. Now this ordinance does not prevent things from happening. It does not stop development from occuring, it changes no zoning. The only thing it does is require site plan review by the Planning Department so that we may confer to the property owner, the developer and advising of the con- ditions that are going to be applying because of the existence of that rapid transit station. rn. 30 Mrs. Gordon: We understand. We've had this kind of situation before. I would move appoval to A. Mr. Plummer: I second it. Any further discussion on 2A? Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS "TRANSIT STATION INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT" AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE IV, GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 39 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 6871; REQUIRING THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT IN SAID DISTRICTS, WITH THE EXECPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE R-(1) (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS) AND R-(2) (TWO FAIILY DWELLINGS) DISTRICTS BE SUBJECT TO SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS BY THE ZONING BOARD PER ARTICLE IV, GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 41, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 6871; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND CON- TAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Absent: Commissioner Gibson . The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Com- mission and to the public. Mayor Ferre: Now we are on 2 B. You want to be recognized in opposition? Go ahead. Mr. Jahn Griffin: Mr. Mayor, Jahn Griffin, I am a real estate broker in the City of Miami. I do business here. It's possible we don't have a con- flict and trying to work it out now. My question was whether a certificate of use would be denied also in this interim zoning district? Mrs. Gordon: What do you have in mind? Mr. Griffin: Certificate of use. Let's say an individual leased a property in the interim zoning district and went to apply for a certificate of use. Would that certificate of use be denied? Therefore the landlord's right to lease his property would be suffering a vacancy during this entire year due to this ordinance. Mrs. Gordon: I don't think so but I'll ask the department to put that in the record. r Jack Luft: The effect of the district is that all buildings, structures or parts thereof shall be no existing applicable zoning regulations except that properties not zoned R-1 or R-2 must receive site and develop- ment review before issuance of building permits, that's provided in Art. IV Sec. 41, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Gordon: What you are saying is any redevelopment, in other words, if it is changing it in any measurable way? Unidentified: Right. rn. 31 IAAR 8 t979 Mrs. Gordon: But if he wants to rent the store to someone, they have to go for an occupational permit? Unidentified: No. Mrs. Gordon: There's no restriction? Unidentified: No, we would not become involved in that. Mrs. Gordon: All right. Mr. Griffith: Then there is no conflict and I will withdraw my opposition. Mrs. Gordon: You are not opposed? I'll move approval, 2-B. Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Mr. Lacasa. Moved by Mrs. Gordon. Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BY APPLYING TRANSIT STATION SITES, SUBJECT TO A ONE YEAR LIMITATION, SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS, AND BY REFERENCE THEREOF MADE A PART HEREOF; AND BY MAKING NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT, AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVIDION Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Com- mission and to the public. 6. DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING: 1616-36 BRICKELL AVENUE FROM R-1 to R-3A. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 3, on first reading, an ordinance application by Carlos M. Mendiola for a change of zoning on Brickell Avenue from R-1 to R-3A. Mr. Davis: Mr. Mayor this was before you sometime in April last year. It was deferred by the Commission in order for two things to occur. One, for the applicant to get together with the neighbors I think it was, and the other was for the Planning Department to take another look at our 3-A for that district and revise their recommendation if they felt it was for a good purpose. Mayor Ferre: Let the record reflect that I own property across the street and,...I don't know. I don't have a beneficial interest one way or the other. It doesn't affect my property. rn. 32 Mr. Davis: I don't think you're within 375 ft. Mayor Ferre: Sure I am. I'm in lot 48 and 47. Mrs. Gordon: You'd have to have a beneficial interest. Mr.Davis: Forty seven doesn't, Mayor Ferre: Forty eight and forty seven,..well I don't have a beneficial interest one way or the other I guess. Is that correct? It doesn't affect the value of the property across the street,..in my opinion,.... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, since the Mayor and I are vitally affected, is it City business if we both get sued for divorce? Does the City Attorney defend us in this action? We've got two wives that met today somewhere and I want to tell you they are definitely planning and plotting against us. Mayor Ferre: My wife just told me that the trouble is that you and I, this is what Carole said, don't stop at home long enough for them to give us our divorce papers. Mr. Plummer: That's all right. Knox will defend us. I don't know that that's a good deal. Mayor Ferre: We are on this case and I guess I can vote since I really don't have any beneficiary interest one way or the other. So let the record reflect my opinion on that, and let's proceed with item #i3. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor you've heard the Department speak to this item before. Let me just pick up where we left off on the deferral of this item where you asked the department to review the R-3A recommendations. You have a memo in your file dated February 28 of which we did review the R-3A zoning regulations pursuant to your request.As we pointed out we have no specific changes to bring before this Commission which we feel would respond to your camp as we understand it. We have noted several items which can do administratively under the provisions of the site plan review, that is empowereed to the Planning Department and set forth in R-3A zoning district. One is that we pay more particular attention to the landscaping along the fronts of the property in the R-3A district, also to provide better screening of the off-street parking in the R-3A locations, and continue the Department's policy rather than the minimum parking re- quirements that are set forth in the ordinance, that a minimum of two spaces be provided for each unit located in the R-3A. Notwithstanding the suggestions made at the last meeting, we feel that the R-3A is a sound, proper district. We feel that a relaxation of the existing regulations which would allow greater height, greater floor area ration, greater lot coverage, does not satisfy the intent of maintaining the integrity of this area,therefore we did not make any suggestions or recommendations along those lines, and we have nothing further other than those administrative positioi, to put before you this evening. So this item is back and we would still as we did previously, recommend the change of zoning to R-3A as we have done on previous studies and reports and in accord with our comprehensive planning efforts. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Davis, would you clarify for me, --you know when I see the Zoning Board vote unanimously on something, or 7 to 0, I need for you to explain why did the Zoning Board, --I don't have the transcript. Mr. Davis: I have the Minutes here, Mr. Chairman. Its been a long time since it was before them. Mayor Ferre: What exactly was the logic? Why was it unanimous 7 to 0? Mr. Davis: There were rather organized neighborhood objections to it primarily Mr. Mayor, plus I think there is some doubt in the Board's mind about the R-3A zoning itself. These two combined, particularly I would say in my memory, was the neighborhood objections. Mr.Plummer: Well, in reality also Mr. Davis, you know, and I am not rn. 33 speaking, because I just ask a question. Going south, where is the closest R-3A? Mr. Davis: I don't have a zoning atlas here sir, but I am guessing it is right around 17th Road. In other words, close to the eastern boundary of this map. Mr. Plummer: Well are you talking about 300 ft, 500 ft.,... Mr. Davis: At least those lots,..small lots, are 50 ft. Mr. Whipple: I would guess about 1200 ft. Mr. Plummer: About two city blocks? Wouldn't this in reality be spot zoing? Mr. Davis: I don't know. I am not going to answer that. I would say that this area was recommended by the Brickell Study originally as all being R-3A. I can't say what spot zoning is,..or not, because it is a matter of,... Mayor Ferre: Spot zoning is when you rezone an area different from the surrounding area,and it is surrounded by other than the same zoning. Now if this zoned R-1 at the present time, and you rezone R-3A and it is surrounded on all four sides by other than R-3A that is spot zoning, I think. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor under your definition of spot zoning I would have to agree with what you say, but I do not agree with your definition per se. Number one, the zoning is pursuant to studies that have been made, not only the Brickell Study which was done in the 70's in which the department recom- mended R-3A consistently continuously, I should say from l5th to 25th Road, and also the Comprehensive Plan that we are working under currently also recommends the same consideration. Before the Zoning Board Monday night, we have an additional 300 ft. immediately north,if you will, that have also requested an R-3A zoning. So the spot is now 600 ft. if you will,... Mr. Plummer: What was the result of that application? Mr.Davis: Deferred. Mayor Ferre: In other words, the definition,..if you have 600 ft. then it is less of a spot. Is that it? Mr. Plummer: No, its a bigger spot. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor can I kind of put this whole thing a perspective that we can analyze. Its not on spot zoning, or not spot zoning because in my opinion it is not. Do you recall the other side of Brickell, the side that you reside on, there was a time where there was one lot zoned R-5A and one lot zoned R-1, and so on. That was because the plan was to change the whole area to R-5A but there were owners who didn't want to be taxed on the higher basis. Mayor Ferre: I was one of them. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. So you understand. Now on the side we are discussion now. The same situation in a sense has been existing and people haven't wanted to change it. They weren't ready to redevelop or develop their property. But the Plan has been, as long as I can remember, from the time we developed the Comprehensive Plan to have that side of the street R-3A. As far as I feel I don't even think we need to have a whole lot of discussion because I'd be ready for a motion now. Mayor Ferre: I'll recognize you in a moment. I might point out that I was one of those affected. You're right about R,... but you are wrong about what side I was on. I was on the opposite side. I was one of those that wanted to stay at R-1. Mrs. Gordon: I know. rn. 34 ,MAR 81979 Mayor Ferre: I didn't want to go to R-5A. Mrs. Gordon: There were people that didn't want to and you were one of them. Mayor Ferre: I was one of them. And I think the point,...my position in this from what I've heard of in the past, and we are going to listen in a moment to Mr. Rice and attorneys and others that want to make this presentation, is that I think that it is spot zoning number one, and if we are going to rezone, we've got to rezone the whole area. And number two, I think R-3A, judging on what we have got, is a monstrosity. Now knowing Mr. Barroto and Mr. Lee who happen to be one of the best architects in this community, whatever they come up with would not be a monstrosity but that is because they happen to be capable architects. My problem is in the assurance that something like this would be done and not something that has been done in the past. And my further problem is that obviously if we do it for this property, Mr. Barrotto and Mr. Lee and the owners can guarantee what will happen on this particular property, but cannot guarantee what will happen on the property next to it, or next to it, or further down, for so many blocks down and what -have -you. And that's what my problem is. Mr. Plummer: Well let me tell you how that can be corrected. And I think it can be corrected very easily, because we can trust in the integrity of these as you say, but who comes next we don't know. And that is what we did at the corner of 25th Road and Brickell Avenue. But we allowed them to put in a Planned Unit Development, and they can do the same here. Planned Unit Development, take site approval and conditional use by this Commission. Mr. Davis: It was a Planned Area Development. Mr. Plummer: You've got so damn many initials I can't keep up with them. Mayor Ferre: J.L. can you do that with R-1? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Can you do that with an R-1? Can it be done on this piece of property. Mr. Davis: Yes,sir. Unidentified: There's your answer. Mr. Barrotto: Mr. Mayor I think that it will be very interesting if we were to make a presentation. We have been discussing something that nobody has seen. Mayor Ferre: Make your presentation. Mr. Barrotto: Mr. Rice, please. Mr.Rice: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. What we would like to first call to your attention apropos the comment about spot zoning, before you on the easel is a drawing that shows the zoning that exists between 15 and 25th Roads along Brickell Avenue. You'll notice on the bay side that its all R-5A. On the west side about 60 percent of it, and possibly more, is already R-3A. What we are talking about is rezoning that one section that one section that's crosshatched, this one right here. I suppose if there is any spot zoning here, its what's left here as R-1 because it's become a spot. In respect to the plan that we have put together here, we operated within the parameters of R-3A but I must tell you that we did not take advantage of many of the things that one could do in R-3A. And I think to not take too much of your time, I'll turn this meeting over to Mr. Barrotto who will show you this plan. Thank you. Mr. Barrotto: For the record I am Alfredo Barrotto,architects Barrotto Architects and Planners, Cornelia Drive in Coconut Grove. We were given the task to look at this piece of la -, and find out what was the best possible use of it from an architectual point of view, and from a planning point of view. The first thing we did was to go to the site and rn 35 find out what were the parameters, what were the factors that are affecting whatever plans we come up with at the site. We found that across the street we have R-5A zoning, which allows for high rises such as Brickell Bay and Brickell Towers. We have a high -traffic street which is Brickell Avenue and then to the rear we have single-family homes that are separated from our property by an alley, that is, I think it is a 225 ft. alley which is already a buffer zone, separating from the rear of the property. We went to the planning department and we did check in the books and we found that there was a study made in 1970 and I believe it was approved but not implemented to rezone the entire street facing Brickell and west of Brickell to R-3A. Knowing that we went into the books to find out what R-3A meant and R-3A seemed to be that it was created as a transition zone from a high density district to low density district, being much more closely related to a low density district than a high density district. It has some incongruities in it I agree, that it allows for a fairly high number of units for low density. In our property it would allow for 30 units, however it has some other restrictions that are very, very tight. So then what we did was try to follow the restrictions, the tight restrictions, and not necessarily follow the neighborhood restrictions that it had. We also looked at the site and we found that a good portion of it, or a third of it is totally wooded. It has something 40 or 50 trees in there, so then taking these factors into consideration we took the task of finding out what could we do with this site that would keep the trees, that would not violate the character of the neighborhood and it will be a transition between the R-5A and the R-1 zoning to the rear. And we ended up with the conclusion that what we should do is to have single-family attached homes. Not condominiums, not apartments. We thought that one of the things that might affect the area is the type of use that you have on the land, not necessarily how we designed it. If you go with apartments in an area that residential is something else. We are not proposing apartments. What we want to have is single-family homes, attached. That each of the units will have its own private patio, will have its own parking,... each unit, will not have any kind of parking structures. We have the parking limited to the units and will create a very high class area,... if we also look in to the fact of what is R-1. R-1 allows single-family homes. Single-family is a very liberal zoning classification. The floor area ratio of a single family home classification is much higher than R-3A. You can have only setbacks and build the rest solid wall-to-wall. Here we are having larger setbacks than you will have in a single family district. We are having more area use to allow for cars to come in and for building on the site, so the end result is a project that has even a lower type than a single family home. Single family homes,... 35 ft. high. We could not have 35' high. So what we are trying to do is not to come in and change the neighborhood but we are trying to accommodate the neighborhood and improve on it. What is happening in that area, that strip of land on Brickell Avenue is that the single family homes are being dilapidated. People are moving out. The traffic situation in quality is very bad. The buildings that are happening across the street are totally out of character with the single family neighborhood, so it has been abandoned. It is slowly,-- not becoming a slum but it is not being used. So we think that the best possible, --probably best use that we can have at this site is what we are proposing, which is a group that we can have at this site is what we are proposing, which is a group of attached single family homes, separated by a buffer from the rear which is single family, separated by the large areas of greenery and fences, fron-- the rear and the front, because of the traffic creates a noise problem. We have created berms and we have to create the wall to alleviate in some manner that problem. So what we are proposing is a group of 17 single- family, attached homes in this area. We have been working pretty closely with the Planning Department. We have been following all of their recommendations. We think we have a very good project. We think that not only our piece but the entire strip of land should follow the Planning Department recommendation of 1970. Thank you. Mr. Rice: We also would be prepared to accept this as a P.A.D. and use this as the plan. Mr. Barratto: Let me say something else. One of the reasons of goind to the single family homes is that it allowed us the site flexibility so out of the almost 50 trees that we have on that site, planing wise, we are saving all but one. MARCH 8, 1979 36 Mr. Barratto: (cont'd) And if we have to, during the construction, to take any down, we will move them to the rest of the property, because they are very nice trees. You could not do that with anything else, but by having all those possible designs, I have 10 more boards that we could show you of the steps we have taken so we can save those traes that are there, and are going to be the main asset, the sane thing as in Coconut (rove. This is what we have,... preserve the trees. We want to save them. We do not want to go over them. We don't want to take them down. We want to work around the trees and that is why we have designed these homes that are quite different in character, one from the other,... because we want to save the trees and create a good enviroment. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Rice let me understand. Tou said you'd want to go to a P.D.D. You are talking about P.A.D. under R-3A. You are not talking a P.A.D. with R-1. Mr. Rice: No, sir, I'm talking about doing this in a manner that it'll fly. Mr. Davis: If I may Mr. Mayor this piece of land could not be applied for un P.A.D.It does not comprise 3 acres, which is one of the requirements. Mr. Barratto: However let me say something. You still have two more restrictions or controls over what we do. If this property zoned R-3A, we still have to go to two Boards to get approval. The Zoning Board will have to hear this case, and there you probably have no control if you zone it R-3A, and then just leave it like that. But if this is made into part of the record, and we are made to follow this plan, you control to the Zoning Board. Inaudible. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor is there anyone here in objection? Mayor Ferre: Are the objectors here? All right, let's hear from the objectors. Please step forward. State your name. How much time did they take more or less? I'm sorry I didn't ask you to time them. I assume it was about 15 minutes, or 20 minutes. So you'll have about the same time. I'd be very grateful if you could keep your comments as short as possible. Let's say that they have 20 minutes. Mr. John Lucas: Mr. Mayor my name is John Lucas. I live at 1665 S.Miami Avenue.I doubt very seriously that I can say everything that is pertinent to be said on this issue in 15 or 20 minutes. I know the hour is late, and I appreciate your staying here as long as you have. If we are to conclude our testimony in 15 or 20 minutes after waiting a year to get back here, your honor, I would suggest that we defer this to another hearing, start us out in the middle of the after noon because we lave a very great issue here and I would hate to be put under the pressure of trying to convince this body of the problems that are created in this neighborhood in 15 minutes. Mayor Ferre: You stet on with your presentation, sir. You've Rot 15 minutes. MR. Lucas: Especially in view of the honorable Mrs. Gordon's remarks and she's ready to take a vote now. Mayor Ferre: I am too. Mr. Lucas: Now, a year ago, the good Father said in his great wisdom, for which I thank him, 'lets defer this item so that these men can get together and come to some point of a solution', which again tonight, The Reverend, you remarked upon. And Mrs. Gordon very wisely at that time went along with that motion for a deferment and says I instruct the Planning staff, you words to the effect were post haste, forthwith, to meet with the individuals of the proponents for this Boning application, the Planning Director's Staff and the citizens out there who wish to pro- vide input into this issue and see if some resolution can be made. Mr. Mayor, members of this Commission, that vas April 27, 1978. We are almost in April of 1979. I have yet to receive the first inquiry or invitation to a visit rn. 37 MARCH 8, 1979 'MAR 81979 0 / 4. to discuss this issue, either by the City or by the applicant or by anybody else in eleven months, except Mr. Barrotto's kind invitation to me yesterday morning to come to his office to look at some plans for development if I'm interested. I thank Mr. Barrotto and I notice that here tonight there are plans. Mrs. Gordon and gentlemen of the Commission, I remind you however that this agenda advertises a hearing of a zoning change that was deferred, --not a site plan approval. To wait an entire year and present plans a day before a hearing on a zoning change I don't think is what Mrs. Gordon and Father Gibson had in mind. Now I don't think that we as the neighbors in this area have adequately treated in this one year lapse for this to come before us. Knowing that the Mayor has requested me to limit my remarks to 15 minutes I will therefore save an awful lot of time. I will ask that the Clerk then, so that I won't have to repeat everything that was said before the Zoning Board who in their wisdom turned this down unanimously and before this Commission last year, I will offer into the record these various exhibits and I'll just discuss them as I ask the Clerk to read them. Exhibit One will be a composite exhibit of 17 photographs that I provided to the Commission at the last hearing, in color, that's objector's exhibit 0ne. Objector's exhibit Two, is a composite exhibit of seven 8 by 10 photo- graphs along Brickell Avenue showing uses in the existing R-3A district. Exhibit No. Three is a composite exhibit of six8 by 10 photographs along S. Miami Avenue, to the rear of the proposed site sought for rezoning. For the record, these are marked with a sticker which reads the date of this hearing, City Commission Agenda No. 3 and objector's exhibits. Number Five is the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan which is a study prepared by, and on behalf of the City, entitled 'The Technical Report.' Exhibit Number Six is the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, 1976 to 1986, Technical Appendix,,,,(pardon me, economic). Exhibit Seven is the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, and Eight, is Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Sub Study, Planning District Fee for Brickell. Number nine is a copy of the Excerpts of the Minutes of the City Commission Meeting of April 27, 1978, relative to Item 9 which is the subject property on that Agenda.Exhibit Number 10 is the Excerpts of the Minutes of the City of Miami Planning Board, March 6, 1978 in which this item was heard and unanimously recom- mended for denial. Eleven is the Brickell South existing Zoning Map, Map (/6 prepared by the City of Miami Planning Department. Twelve is a zoning fact sheet of two pages showing the subject property and immediate surrounding neighborhood. Number thirteen is the courtesy notice, Miami City Commission meeting for today of this item. One other item is 15 which is a composite of three exhibits showing the property subject of this application. Now very briefly I will attempt to address myself because there are other in the audience who wish to be recognized and speak on this issue. May I say Mr. Mayor and ladies and gentlemen of this Commission, that since we were not invited to the meetings in which the Planning Department would have discussed zoning, or would have discussed things that might be done with respect to this application, or this district, we, meaning property owners and myself, might suggest certain things might possibly have been done and what you might do. The study on which the recommendation was based is contrary to the recommendation. The general finding of the City of Miami Planning Department's study of the Brickell Area was that this area more than any other in South Florida possessed ingredients essential to a desirable urban community. The South Miami Avenue neighborhood which includes a row of single family residences fronting on Brickell, was found to be a nigh quality, low density and stable neighborhood of large homes with high incomes. Across Brickell Avenue is a bayfront neighborhood which consists of high rise residential apartments and condominiums, whose residents for the most part are professional employed and of high income. Between these two high -quality neighborhood is Brickell Avenue, a wide well -landscaped street, retaining both historical structures and environmental areas representative of Miami. Mayor Ferre: Would the Clerk tell Mr. Lucas how such time there is left of the 20 minutes, so that he'll be aware of it. Ms. Hirai: A total of nine minutes. rn. 38 'MAR 81979 Mr. Lucas: Are you suggesting that the time that I use will also be applied to whoever else may wish to speak? Mayor Ferre: That's right. Mr. Lucas: May I register then an objection to the limitation of the time. with which we are permitted. And go on to say this then. Mr. Plummer: John, use the other microphone. That one's for the recorder. Mr. Lucas: Thank you sir. I wish to take exception to the limitations placed on time, and summarize very briefly so that other may speak by saying this, we cannot rely on the altruistic motives of a developer, we cannot rely on this type of improvement or whatever else is suggested for this evening to continued throught balance of the district, and in fact Mr. Mayor my next exhibit suggests what I am talking about. This is Exhibit Number four which is a composite exhibit of three photographs taken of the Interterra property subject of this hearing this evening, evidencing the fears that we have. I hope I don't get emotional again tonight. These these two signs posted on these two properties, if you will look at them say 'Interterra 358-5888.' These are commercial signs in a single-family residential neighborhood that I suggest are there illegally, and I also suggest that if they are not illegal in the R-1 Distirct representing a sheer disregard for laws, that they are suggesting a development sign, because the bottom sign on that picture is the exactly the same configuration sign which appears on the Interterra Development at 25th Road and Brickell Avenue. Either this applicant is so sure that there are those ready to take an instant vote because they can't understand why the Planning and Zoning Board in their wisdom would recommend denial, that these signs indicating the development are already in place prior to this hearing on this property. Now Mr. Mayor, I have my final exhibit, Exhibit Number Fourteen, which consists of 14 pages and these letters addressed to you, members of the City Commission, dated March 7, 1979. 'The Honorable City of Miami Com- missioners, City Hall, Miami Florida, --Dear Commissioners as an owner of property in the vicinity of S. Miami Avenue and Brickell Avenue, please be advised that I am opposed to the proposed rezoning of the westerly side of Brickell Avenue from single family residential, to R-3A multiple family residential use. Respectfully sumbitted.' The first letter is signed by Dr. Gerald Ross, 1877 S. Miami.The second letter is signed by the Honorable Irwin S. Christie, 1710 S. Miami Avenue. The next is Hilda Mae Young, 1565 S. Miami Avenue. The next is Mrs. Leona M. Skilling, 1805 S. Miami Avenue, the next is Mrs. Nandez McLeod, 1835 S. Miami Avenue. The next is A. Richmond Pollick, 2011 S. Miami Avenue. The next is Mrs.Glennis Head, 1601 S.Miami Avenue. The next is Lilly Sand, 2311 S. Miami Avenue. Next is Dr. Rosen, 2255 S. Miami Avenue. The next is Mr. Espinosa, 2295 and an owner at 1625 S. Miami Avenue. Barbara Nixon, 2055 S. Miami Avenue. Dr. Dearman, 1895 S. Miami Avenue. Selma Alexander, 2322 S. Miami Avenue, and Dr. Garcia, 2223 S. Miami Avenue. I would like to recognize Mrs. Alex- ander, Mr. Puyanic, Ms. Lydia Fernandez and any others in the audience who may wish to address this Commission with respect to this item. Mrs. Selma Alexander requested deferral of the item, hopeful that the Planning Department would come up with a plan that would satisfy the developers and provide for good development. Mrs. Lydia Fernandez, 1642 Brickell stated she questioned the good faith of the developers, and requested the City Commission to preserve this area of Brickell Avenue. She requested the matter be deferred and hoped the Planning Department would come up with a better plan. Mr. Max Puyanic, 1820 S. Miami Avenue, appeared for the first time on this matter. He stated he was not anti -development. He agreed with the Mayor in recognizing the blight R-3A has caused on the west side of Brickell and thought it was not consistent with the east side projects. 39 rn. lip 81979 Mayor Ferre: Thank you. We have now been here 15 hours ladies and gentlemen and I think we are all kind of tired, so I want to thank you for your patience. We've heard both sides and I'll lead off by making a simple statement into the record. And I'd like to mention to the members of the Commission that the very same considerations that we in play in S. Bayshore Drive are in play here. The people of South Bayshore Drive want to protect that street and their neighborhood. I think you see the neighbors of this area wanting to do the same thing. Now there's no question that this particular piece of property, that little green piece surrounded by yellow speaks for itself. The color around it tells you exactly what it is. It's spot zoning. Now it doesn't matter whether or not the Planning Department recommended that whole strip be zoned R-3A. That's not before us. Now, I might take a different approach if the whole thing were R-3A. I think that we cannot inadvertently, because we have a very nice picture before us, take this type of a spot zoning posture. Now I think the best statement made so far is Selma Alexander's which is that I hope we take rational approach, not the hamper the proper development of the area, but that it be uniform and that it be a protective device. With regards to R-3A I will say on the record what I have said many times before, it is a monstruosity. Now for- tunately is has not been applied as a monstruosity here, but what we are faced with is not this project but the other projects that will follow it and that may not have the capacity of architects like Barrotto and Lee,it may not have the sensitivity of Mr. Rice and Mr. Morley and the other people that are involved whoever they may be in this development. I would therefore recommend that we approach this somewhat differently. And I certainly am voting no today,tonight,--whatever. I'll move it if somebody else doesn't. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Whipple would you come to the mircophone and give this Commission the benefit of your professional opinion on this item. Mr. Whipple: Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Mayor, I thought in my opening remarks that I had indicated to you the Department's position, and let me just quickly do it again. In several studies, going back even prior to 1970,1970 happened to be the Brickell Avenue study where we talked about the R-5A, the north Brickell and South Brickell and things like that. The Department feels that the R-3A type of approach to zoning as a if you will, buffer zone between the high-rise and high -density zoning that exists on the bay side and the very high class, low density residential that exists on Miami Avenue with the R-3A zoning, is a proper zoning,providing a reasonable and economic use, providing a development which would maintain, which does maintain in our opinion, as opposed to some of the opinions on the Commission. The character that exists on Brickell, there is one development in my opinion that we keep pointing our finger at saying that this is the instant alum, therefore all of the R-3A zoning is bad. With all due respect to this Commission, there are approximately 6 or 7 R-3A development that are built, and out of those one is still under construction, not counting the Interterra as a Brickell forest, which we feel are reasonable and basically 000i development. Mayor Ferre: Let me understand that again. You say that you think of the seven that are up, many that are good, I want to tell into the record that I know each one and every one, and have walked every one of them. In my opinion all of the are monstrosities except the one that is now being developed by Mr. Green. They are all absolutely horrible. Mr. Whipple: There are designs in there Mr. Mayor that were done by other good architects in my opinion. Wayne Williams for instance, who did one. Now it may not be our particular taste, but in my opinion, these are the proper developments save the one that was the first R-3A development that occured in that area.And since then, if you may remember, we have modified the R-3A zoning district two different times to accomplish many additional things that weren't being accomplished when R-3A first went in. So the Department's position is we feel that the transitional type of approach to a zoning between high density and low density is appropriate, to the bebt of our ability we think the R-3A is doing it and we would be rn. 40 'YAR 81979 0 glad to entertain any other ideas and suggestions that this Commission,has. Mayor Ferre: Why don't you institute a departmental proposal to rezone the whole area R-3A? Mr. Whipple: Sir, we did that and this Commission declined to initiate or take our recommendation to rezone it, or we would not be here this evening. Mayor Ferre: I might point out to this Commission that there occasions I respect a professional opinion that, Mrs. Gordon for example, doesn't pay attention to the professional opinion that we've just requested for example. Professional opinion was to go to 70 ft. I might remind you, that you were rather strongly opposed to the professional opinion on that particular instance. So you know, we have our differences. We all are entitled to them. Mrs. Gordon: Oh, Mr. Mayor, come on, don't make personalities a thing for this hearing. I have my feelings and Mr. Whipple has his feelings and you have your feelings with regard to the 70 foot. If you want to go back to that hearing I am willing to start that one over again. But if you don't want that one, and you want to talk to this one we are on right now, let's continue. Mr. Whipple I want to ask you a question. In order to be able to try to control the type of development that is going to be applied if the zoning does change into a uniform zoning, could we figure that you might develop some kind of overlay which then would r'quire site approval or plan approval? Mr. Whipple: In discussing this with Mr. Reid this evening, there is that distinct possibility. The suggestion was made. Mrs. Gordon: I didn't know you talked to Mr. Reid, so you and I have not talked about this. Okay. Mr. Whipple: We were just discussing it as matter of fact. His suggestion was made pursuant to some of the comments that the Commission made that perhaps we could ask the Urban Development Review Board to be a review body on all development in the R-3A district. In other words,the present time the site plan approval by the department, if you wanted to consider legislation that would make the Urban Development Review Board respond to site plan review and approval, this would be an added perhaps safe- guard if you will. And with perhaps more expertise with the architects, and landscape architects that we have on board. This could be done, yes. Mrs. Gordon: This is an instance Mr. Mayor where we have to try to find a proper kind of solution to the problem. And the problem is that the kind of development that has been taking place is unsatisfactory to you and the neighbors of the area. Not that then are opposed to uniform zoning,... they're not. I don't think they are. They are scared of what might be developed on the property. I would not want to see us deny this because I think that would be a promiscuous denial. I think we need to go forward in a positive way and we have to provide for safeguards and we have to provide for either Urban REview Board recommendations or an overlay or a mechanism that will control the development in the future. And Mr Mayor I haven't heard a motion on the floor, but I'm going to move one. And I would move for approval on this site. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? Is there a second to the motion? Father, go ahead. Rev. Gibson: I guess I have to second in order to get it, --get to discuss? Mayor Ferre: Well, you can do anything you want. But I think you are for approval, then I recommend that you second it. If you are not, then I'll recognize you after the motion dies.Its up to you. Rev. Gibson: I want to make a comment so you all go ahead. rn. 41 ! UAR 8 1419 Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? Bearing none, the motion dies. Rev. Gibson: To the developer. You too, Mr. Barrotto. You too, sir. What I really don't understand is I thought we were getting together to have citizens come to us after approximately a year, --not quite a year, April to April, is that the way it is? Eleven months. Okay. And to tell us that you all didn't see fit. If I'm wrong, you tell me. You all didn't see fit to call these peop:,• together and to talk with them, and when you left here you gave us that assurance. I don't understand. The least,..let me tell you something, --you know what's wrong with Egypt and Israel today? Tell them I told you this. I was in Israel. You know what's wrong there? Nobody wants to talk. And my brother if you ever stop talking you are in trouble. As long as you are talking, the likeliness is you may solve the problem. Mr. Rice: Father Gibson I don't have total recall but I've got a pretty good memory, and I had hoped that we were going to be able to have a transcript of the meeting in which you made your fine suggestion, that perhaps if we would get together and talk perhaps this could all be worked out. Mr. Lucas at the time said that he felt such a meeting would be useless, that his objection was not what kind of R-3A zoning or what parameters would be established, but rather that he thought that the property that we were trying to rezone should be retained as single-family residential,and he felt that that was the only way that he would ever accomodated in any discussions with us. I complimented Mr. Lucas on his intellectual honesty and you will find that in the meeting transcript. And I again compliment the man for his intellectual honesty. But pursuant to your recommendations we very quickly talked to the Planning Department and asked them if they wouldn't come up with some new recommendations for R-3A zoning. We were advised over some period of time that they were studying it. I spoke to Mr. Whipple. I'm sure he'll confirm what I said and after some period passed he said that really they had not been able to come up with anything and they really felt that the R-3A zoning as it was then constituted was the way that it should stay and that it was working well and could be adjusted to produce the desirable projects. We have doing a lot of work in this City and I am one of the people that does that work. I have had several discussions with people that try to find the architect that could be sympatico to the environment that they are trying to maintain on South Miami Avenue and not create something on Brickell that would do violence to it. Its been just a few months ago that I talked to Mr. Barrotto about this project, and at the time I gave him the survey, and I told him the background of our meetings and I said please, you go out and design some- thing. I think that it was last week that I saw these plans, --last week. I advised him of Mr. Lucas. I said this gentleman has said that he didn't care to see anything, that he wanted R-3A but please do him the courtesy of calling him and letting him see what we are planning to do so he'll know what he's opposing. He is not opposing this plan. He's opposing numbers. He's opposing R-3A, R-5A,--intangibles, abstractions. And I think we've really cooperated with the spirit of what you wanted us to do. Mr. Barrotto: Mr. Gibson I finished these plans today and we have been working overtime, day and night for the past week. And one question I would like to ask from Mr. Mayor, as a planner, I'd like to know because I do not know, if this property which I think cannot remain R-1, it cannot be R-5A, what is it going to be? Mayor Ferre: R-3A you mean? Mr. Barrotto: R-3A, that's what we are requesting. Mayor Ferre: You said R-5A just a second ago. Mr. Barrotto: I am saying it cannot be R-5A, obviously. It cannot be R-1, what is it supposed to be? Mayor Ferre: You're asking an opinion? Mr. Barrotto: I am asking your opinion, yes. rn. 42 'MAR 81979 Mayor Ferre: I think my position is that we have to approach that whole strip as a unit. I think we have to safeguard that the projects that go on that particular strip be of a high quality. R-5A has shown time and time again that it does not have proper safeguards built into it, and I beg to differ with my colleague over here. He and I went to school together and we went to the same school, to many of the same classes together, and I guess the things that I learned than what he learned might be different. I don't know. But I don't see that R-3A has been a success. I think it has been a dismal failure. I think there isn't a pretty building there with the exception of the one that is being built now by Mr. Greene, who I think has a chance of being a nice project. I just think it would be really a detriment to the welfare of the neighbors and the community and they are entitled to the same consider- ation that the people along South Bayshore Drive have gotten tonight for the exact same reasons. I would use the same arguments that were previously used on South Bayshore, both the 100 ft. setbacks and on that property that that Doctor wanted to develop, I would use it on this. Its absolutely the same argument. Rev. Gibson: Let me ask this. Again, there is no question, --I don't think you question the desire. Do you sir? Mr. Lucas inaudible. Rev.Gibson: Let me say this. You see it and I see it. You saw it about the same time as I. What I am trying to get you all to see is, --you know you fool around here, --don't do what the other group did now. I hope you don't force this issue that way. I suggested that you all talk. You also heard the developer say that there was an effort made. At least it showed you,.. Mayor Ferre: Don't interrupt. Rev.Gibson: Go ahead dear. Mr. Hernandez: I've been jumping in my seat because I would like to take exception to Mr. Rice's comment. I was here at the meeting a month ago. I gave my name and address. I am not invisible. I am not Mr. Lucas. I own a separate piece of property. I am right next door to the development. I was never contacted. Mr. Lucas is one property owner.There's many property owners that are opposed to this. Mayor Ferre: Look, let's cut through all this. Mr. Plummer, wake up, here's the gavel. I move that the Zoning Board be upheld. Mr.Lacasa: Second. Mr. Plummer: Further duscussion? Hearing none, call the roll. Don't call the roll. Rev. Gibson: You were talking about the Review Board and some things that may go into this business,..this zoning, overlay business. What I'm trying to avoid, I think the developers have a right to develop. I believe the neighbors have a right to protect. If you were smart you would want to go back with the full understanding that either you are going to alter, have that Review Board make some changes so that you could live, or you will get a denial, and in order to be heard again you'll have to pay that fee. If you postpone and go back and talk, and hopefully come to an understanding, you'll aave money. Okay? Otherwise you are in trouble. Mr. Rice; Father Gibson,.... Mr. Plummer: Are you speaking to the motion? Mr. Rice: Yes. Mr. Plummer: A motion for denial. Rev. Gibson:Let him speak to the motion. rn. MAR 81g79 Mr. Rice: I am speaking to it Father Gibson. Mr. Plummer: Father Gibson request you speak. Speak. Mr. Rice: Father if you could determine whether these people would be agreeable to a multiple -family zoning, how do they feel about that? If they say if all they are interested in is R-1 Single-family, then I sub- mit there is no basis for us to talk. If they do feel that they would be compatible with 12 multiple -family zoning, I would welcome the opportunity to talk to them,and have a deferral. Mayor Ferre: Mr Rice I think Selma Alexander was speaking, and if she wasn't , then stand up and say so, for the neighborhood when she said that what she was interested in was a logical, reasonable approach to the development of that whole strip rather than a single approach. Now isn't that what you said Selma? And I subscribe to that theory. Now you have a different opinion. Mr. Lucas: Mr. Mayor I was just going to respond to Mr. Rice's remark is all. No, I am in accord with you that this area needs some special treatment, but through the finesse, we the property owners who asked only to be left alone are now suggested by Mr. Rice to be the proponents of things. What do they want to do? What we want to do is to be left alone of course. But we know that you are going to have to have something. But Mr. Rice, please don't tell us that now we should come to set up meetings with you as to what to do. We just want to be left along. Rev. Gibson: Look. Listen to this. If I remember correctly, please somebody correct me, when we were getting this zoning in that whole strip, I want you to know why I am taking your time and trying to make you talk. The people came to us. I think I was on the Commission at that time, and they said to us, okay, you could have that zoning. That's all right. What is it, R-3? But make sure, we don't want you to put it on ours because we don't want that kind of tax. Wasn't it something like that? Now listen, if you were smart, you go back, follow Mrs. Alexander's lead, let us postpone, and you know what, so you can save some money. I like to offer a substitute motion, and the substitute motion is, I give you 30 days at the most, to get these people together. And my brother, it isn't if you want to meet. Now if you don't want to meet you tell us now so I don't have to waste that time and I don't think none of us need to start going into any of these meetings with our minds closed before we open the door. Now if that's the case, then we are wasting time. Let's answer. Mr. Plummer: Is there a second to the substitute motion? There is a second to the substitute motion. Does anyone want to speak to the substitute? Mayor Ferre: Call the question. Mr. Plummer; There has been a request to call the question on the sub- stitute motion first. Motion understood. Call the roll. Mrs.Gordon: Repeat the motion. Ms. Hirai: To extend thirty days so that both groups can get together. Rev. Gibson: Either fish or cut bait. Ms. Hirai: Roll call. Rev. Gibson? Rev. Gibson: Yes. Ms. Hirai: Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Ms. Hirai: Mr. Lacasa? Mr. Lacasa: No. 44 rn. -_ %AR 81979 Mayor Ferre on roll call: I think that we have to approach this in a different way and I don't think 30 days or speaking to four neighbors is going to solve it, and therefore I vote no. Mr. Plummer on roll call: Look I've been consistent all the way down the line. I am totally opposed to the R-3. I vote no. The original motion, a motion to deny. No further discussion call the roll on the original motion. Rev. Gibson on roll call: My brethren, I am going to vote no because I still believe as long people talk they'll settle their differences. Mr. Plummer: We sent Billy's brother over there to talk. Rev. Gibson: Yes, but Billy's brother doesn't have the same thing at stake as these people have at stake. And maybe the mentality may not be the same. I don't mind if that gets in the record either. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-181 A MOTION UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZONING BOARD TO DENY APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSI- FICATION AT 1616-36 BRICKELL AVENUE FROM R-1 to R-3A Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Lacasa and Mayor Ferre. NOES: Mrs. Gordon and Rev. Gibson . ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 7. INSTRUCT PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE ZONING STUDY WEST SIDE OF BRICKELL AVENUE Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor I make a motion at this time that the Planning Department be instructed to adopt a new study of the Brickell Avenue, on the north side, that this Commission has pretty well expressed its opinion that we are unhappy with that which exists. We feel that there must be something that is compatible between the two and we ask the Planning Department to report back to this Commission within 90 days. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor I am going to second the motion only because I thought, the motion I was making might have accomplished the very thing you are doing. Mayor Ferre: It wouldn't Father because it spoke to only one piece of property. That's not the way to approach it. As Mrs. Gordon has said on many and many occasions, we've got to approach this from a community viewpoint. Selma Alexander spoke very eloquently to the issue. If we want to approach this we approach the whole area. And that way- we don't get into spot zoning, and I think that is wise way to approach it. Furthermore I think 90 days gives you enough time so they can do a thorough job. And Mr. Whipple I want again to reiterate to you, I think the majority of this Commission is not happy with R-3A. Now I hope you understood that clearly. If not, you want me to make a motion so that you understand the policy of the majority of this Commission? Mr. Whipple: If the Commission has any specific suggestions. We under- stand your unhappiness with it. If you have any other particular problems, we'll be glad to,... 15 rn. ma 8 t979 Mr. James Reid: I think that is a key point. I think it would be useful to understand if its the buffering from the street, the way the parking looks, the basic building design, architectural height, bulk, --the specific way in what you wish might be accomo dated. Mayor Ferre: Why don't you on an interim basis between now and the end of the 90 days come back with specific recommendations on a discussion basis, at both the Planning level and at the City Commission level and we will be happy to guide you along. I won't have any problem with that. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor let me ask this. Again, --you know I would have been glad to make a motion for 90 days to do all of this and yet not deny those people so that would have saved them. You would have done two things, you would have saved them money and plus, what really bothers me,... Mayor Ferre: If we rezone, they can come up right away. If we rezone that whole area to whatever it is that we are going to go to, they can come up immediately on that,.... Rev. Gibson: Here's the thing Mr. Mayor, I say this to you all as I said about another thing, if those people were really determined, and I am sure they want to be friends, they'd go to court. Mayor Ferre: Oh, but I am sure they won't because they have not finished thier administrative remedies here. We are about to look at that whole area and come up with a solution. See what this Commission has done since you brought that point up, is we are not saying that this may not be an acceptable solution. What we are saying is, that we want it applicable to the whole strip in a uniform logical, reasoned out way, rather than in a strip zoned way. I doubt very much if they could carry this to court if we are being reasonable as I think we are by getting a review in 90 days so that we can approach the whole strip uniformly. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor I believe that if your argument is to hold any water if it went to court, I believe you would have to have something specific to direct to the department because what you are saying to them is very nebulous. And they don't know what you want them to do in 90 days and you are not all specific. You want more density, less density, no density. What do you want? Mayor Ferre: I think as we indicated, it's 12:24, and I don't think this is the occasion for that, and I said that I would ask that you come back to this Commission and to the Planning Board and discuss with both of us so that we can direct you as you go along before you make your conclusion in 90 days. There a motion, and a second. Mr. Rice: Mr. Mayor is there any possibility that we could be protected from the eventuality that the Planning Department does nothing in 90 days? Mayor Ferre: I think this matter will come up before this Commission in 90 days and we will discuss it at that time. Mrs. Gordon: He's saying why don't you keep everything alive in deferred status. Mayor Ferre: Rose, I have already taken my position and this Commission has voted on it. Now if you want one of the members who voted on the prevailing side,can move for reconsideration. Aside from that, the decision stands. Now is there further dsicussion on the motion? Its been moved and seconded. If not, call the roll. Mrs. Gordon on roll call: I'm not sure that the motion tells me what is being deferred. To study what? Is it for a new zoning classification or a restudy of the R-3A in itself. I'll know how to vote if you tell me what I am voting on. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon I think the thrust of the motion is exactly the same as when we told the Planning Department to restudy certain parts of rn 46 VAR 8 1979 Coconut Grove. I might remind you that at that time we did not tell the Department what to come back with or what to conclude. What we told the Department is that we were not happy with a status quo. Now I don't see that, --I know how interested and involved you are,and I know how knowledgeable you are over your many years of experience. I don't think that this is any different in any way than what you voted for on many occasions in Coconut Grove, other than the difference in an area. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-182 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE A STUDY OF THE WEST SIDE OF BRICKELL AVENUE IN AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ON THE SOUTH AND S.W. 15TH ROAD ON THE NORTH WITH A VIEW TOWARD DEVELOPING REGULATIONS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ABUTTING AREAS Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 8. GRANT ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR OPENING IN WALL -CENTRAL SHOPPING PLAZA Mayor Ferre: We are now on item 1/6 which is a review of City Commission resolution 78-75 adopted January 24, 1978 which permitted an opening in the wall along N.W. llth Street. Does anybody have any objections to the opening of the wall? Mr. Davis: The Building Department has inspected this property prior to the meeting. Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody opposed to it. Are you opposed? Okay, tell us what your problem is. Mrs. John Gentry: I am not opposed to this as such. Mrs. John Gentry, I represent Grapeland Heights Civic Association. There are certain conditions I'm opposed to. I saw George's pictures (inaudible) but what he doesn't is that the gate is not closed. In December it was open 24 hours a day. (Inaudible) and just since the time these notices went in the mail have they been closing at 5, We are very opposed to that. Rev. Gibson: We'll ask him to make sure to close it. Mrs. Gentry: Either that or give us the key and we'll close it. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gentry, I'll tell you what. You come back in the main meeting,-- we are now in March. The first meeting of May and I'll take you up the first thing in the morning. If that gate isn't closed properly you let us know. Mrs. Gentry: I'm sorry that the other members of the Board couldn't wait (inaudible) Mayor Ferre: I don't blame them. rn. 17 'MAR 81979 A Mrs. Gentry: But they keep a lock on it, and it's not just something that I'm tell you. We are opposed to that and we wanted to request that they close it and put the wall back the way it was. Mayor Ferre: Is that what you are requesting, you want to close it? Mrs. Gentry: I'd like you to consider that. Mayor Ferre: In other words what you are saying you want it closed now. That's what the Association wants? Mrs. Gentry inaudible. Mayor Ferre: Can you do that George? Mr. George DuBrieul: Mr. Mayor for the record, my name is George DuBrieul, I represent the Shopping Center at Central Shopping Plaza. The Building and Zoning Inspection Department has recommended for a one-year,...this was supposed to come back to make sure,...Rev. Gibson requested at that time that all the lines be put in. We have installed it. That's what the pictures show. We have been abiding by it in every way. Now, the State,.. there is now built in the back there a complete practice area in the back which the pictures will reflect. This is training area, that they now do now have to go out on the streets. You see by the pictures also that the signs were lowered so no trucks could go in or out. So the State was to make sure, and they agreed before this Commission that they would have the keys and see when they left that that gate was locked and so on. Excuse me Mr. Mayor. I know its late, but I've been here since 6 o'clock too just to hear this. Mayor Ferre: You've been here since 9 in the morning. Mr. DuBrieul: I know it. Anyway, I was not aware until Mrs. Gentry told me about this tonight. We've repaired it 3 times since we put it up. Some vandals have broke it, but we will see, and Dorothy we will give you a key, and be happy to provide the Grapeland Heights, or the neighbors there at any time,..but I will see, and before this Commission Dorothy,..I've asked you before. I know you are busy woman as President of the Grapeland Heights Association,but also we'll work with you in every way at any time if that is not closed. If you will let me know we'll correct it immediately. By the pictures you see, we've provided everything. Instead of us having to come back every year Mr. Mayor for one-year extensions on this, you have an inspection department, your Building and Zoning, at any time, if we are not living up to the variance that we agreed upon, that's what I would like to have approved. Mayor Ferre: George I'll tell you, I'm sorry, these people in Grapeland Heights are like the Northeast Improvement Association, people that are fine and dear to our hearts. And I'll tell you, as long as they have these kind of problems and they sit and wait here for hours and hours to speak up on it, I've got a problem. My problem is this. I'm willing to go for another one year, and I would give Mrs. Gentry the opportunity or the neighborhood to come back and if they are not locking that place by May then I would want to reconsider this whole thing. Otherwise, we will just give them another year and hopefully by next year, they've been good fellows perhaps we can give them a little bit longer than one year next time. Mr. DuBrieul: We think we have. We've tried, because this isn't only just for the people in the area. This affects everybody in the City of Miami. Its the only driving test area. We went two years of this and I know its late but at least we are trying to live up to do everything that we agreed upon. Mayor Ferre: You are doing a good job and I hope that next year get the Civic Association to come here and all these nice things and agree with you. And I think you are going to be able to do that. Thank you very much Mrs.Gentry. Is there a motion now? Mr. Plummer moves, Father Gibson seconds, call the roll. rn. 48 'BAR 8 1o79 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-183-A A MOTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF PERMISSION FOR AN OPENING IN THE WALL ALONG THE N.W. 11TH STREET SIDE OF THE CENTRAL SHOPPING PLAZA SUBJECT TO REVIEW IN ONE YEAR Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 9. DEFER CONSIDERATION PROPOSED AMENDMENT SECTION 62-20 OF THE CITY CODE TO EXTEND TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY AND ZONING BOARDS. Mayor Ferre: Grace we are going to take your item up. I know you have another thing you have to go to.(Namely to go home). Tell us what item it was. Fourteen? Appointing members of the Miami Planning Advisory, --is that what you wanted? Mrs.Grace Rockafellar: On Item 15 Mr. Mayor on the time of appointments, for the Board members. I am Grace Rockafellar, I live at 814 N.E. 71st Street, a member of the Planning Advisory Board. Now I've been concerned about the length of time that the various members of both the Planning Advisory Board and the Zoning Board have been permitted to serve. And as the ordinance is presently written, when the Boards were first split, the two Boards were formed, those that were appointed for 3 years could apply for another 3 years and then they were out. They couldn't apply for any more. But if you were appointed for two years, you could apply for two full-time terms, giving you 8 years. If you were appointed for 2 years and somebody resigned, you could be appointed to fill that vacancy giving you 4 years and you could still apply for 6 full years. Now I am not here just on my own. This was voted on by the Planning Advisory and a majority of the Board favored it, and I'm also representing them. I felt that the Zoning Board should be consulted since they are involved in this. And in December when I first proposed this, I contacted every member of the Zoning Board and they were very much for it. Now the way that Mr. Reid brought up the ordinance, my ordinance, --I call it an equal opportunity ordinance, --for each member of the Board would be given permission to apply for an equal amount of time. And that time,as Mr. Reid suggested was 9 years. We hope it isn't any less than 9 years, unless you want to make it longer, --that's fine with us too. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Reid did you say? Mrs. Rockafellar: Well, he wrote it up and presented to the Board. The Planning Department was not involved in this at all, other than that he drew up the ordinance. But the entire Zoning Board favored this. Their only remark was that they didn't think there should be any limit at all. And knowing that Rose Gordon was the mother of this ordinance, I contacted her first to see what she thought about it, and she told me she could live with it very nicely. And we've had quite a turnover on our Boards. When the two Boards were first initiated, we started out, we had 8 members, and at the end of 5 years we had on our Board,there were 3 of the original members left. Mildred Callahan who is now Chairman of the Zoning Board told me the other day that she didn't think that there's over one on the Zoning ,-- might be 2, but thought there was only one remaining of the original 8 that were appointed. And she also told me that she has served 511 years and she ra. 49 MAR - 8 1979 is still eligible to apply for two full terms, giving her 6 more years, because she was appointed, and appointed to fill-in and appointed to fill-in,but never appointed for a full three-year term. This is exactly what she told me the other day. So what we are requesting is that each member be allowed to apply for at least 9 years and the bottom line is this Commission always has to say whether any of us are reappointed or not. Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you Grace, I would subscribe to this on the following theory. You know this Commission has no limitation as to the terms that we serve and ,neither does the County Commission, neither does a member the State Legislature. I think 9 years is a reasonable figure. Mrs. Rockefeller: Vice -Mayor Plummer told me that he didn't think we should be restricted any more than they are. But when you look at it in his point of view, you people sit here because we vote you in, and you can sit here as long the citizens vote you in, and we can stay on the Board as long you vote us in, within the required length of time. And those that are opposed,... Mayor Ferre: And you go to bat every 3 years. We go to bat, --the Commission does, every four years. Mrs. Rockafellar: Now, if I were opposed to this ordinance,as opposed to the majority of the Board, then I could be satisfied by just not reapplying, for another seat.And I think that anybody that is opposed to it, they don't have to apply, or the Commission doesn't have to appoint them. But the majority of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, all the Zoning Board, are requesting that this amendment be adopted. Mrs. Selma Alexander stated the Zoning Board did not favor the proposed ordinance, and that it was good policy for a Board to have rotation. Ms. Marilyn Reed expressed the opinion that she would like to see the ordinance remain as it is, that the intent of the ordinance is well-founded and worthwhile and saw no reason to change it at this time. Mrs. Rockefeller made a short rebuttal. Mayor Ferre: What's the will of this Commission? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'm in a good position but a bad position. I am between two friends and I can go right down the middle and express my opinion, and I am going to say it very briefly. If I were to be bound by the rule that states a nine-year maximum, that means that this October 8 I have no choice. Come October 8th this year I would not have a choice of whether I wished to continue public service or not. I start my loth year. Now, that even precludes the term that I am serving in. I just simply feel that no Board that serves under this Commission should be bound by any more nor any less than what we are bound by. If I wish in October of this year to surrender my name to the public for a reconsideration of an additional 4 years, I personally feel I should have that consideration because the ulti- mate answer is not mine, its the people. And I just feel that a person is doing a good job should be allowed to continue a good job and that's also my belief that the public are smart enough if they are not doing a good job they will turn them out. Mrs. Gordon: May I say something? I did talk with Grace regarding this matter and I did say I could live with it. It was based upon having been involved right from the very beginning in this ordinance's redevelopment. I could live with an equalization of the amount of time that a person could serve. Now, in the original appointment, some people had a one year, two year and a three year, consequently its true that there are some people that are serving and could serve 8 years and some only 6,--I think if we cap it at 9 years, I can't find anything drastic or terrible that's going to happen, but at the other hand if we don't set a limit, we will then perpetuating ,;;pointments whether for whatever reason, political or otherwise. And I believe that it is a good thing for the Community at large to have an experience on these Boards. So therefore there would never be an opportunity 50 rn. MAR 8 1g7g w to have new faces, new talents. I don't think anyone really wants to serve more than 9 years. I would move 9 years to be the cap. Rev. Gibson: You know, Mr. Mayor, I don't understand why we make these laws in haste and then a year or two later we want to change them. You know, I am a part of an institution that believes in perpetuity of office. In other words once you get called to a church you stay there. You know what they did? They demanded that every vestry, that's the governing board, be on a rotating system, so as to get input, new knowledge, new vigor, new leadership. I want to tell you this. At one time in your life, you think you can't get along with the change. Once you go through the process, you ask yourself why in the devil I waited so long. I am not opposed to anybody that's on the Board, but it would appear to me, that when the ordinance was drafted the only people who should repeat themsevles and the exception should have been made, where it should have been the persons who got the one-year term. They are the only people who should have repeated. And they should have rotated off the others who had a two-year term and a three-year term, rotate off for one year, and they could come back, but they could not succeed themselves if they had a three-year term or if they had a two-year term. They had input for two years. Mr. Mayor I understand you. Look, I get up earlier then you, man. I just believe we ought make these hasty decisions. We passed these laws, --I remember when everybody wanted all this done, all this change, and now I want to offer substitute motion to defer the matter. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-183-B A MOTION DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 62-20 OF THE CITY CODE WHICH SOUGHT TO EXTEND TERMS OF PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS AND FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO STUDY THE REQUEST AND COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 0. DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR VACATION AND CLOSE OF N.W. 7TH CT. BETWEEN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE N.W. 15TH ST. AND N. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE E/W EXPRESSWAY "BOAN SUB" Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor there's a party I recognize back there who's been waiting all day on an item and I'm not sure which number it is but it is closure of a street. Mayor Ferre: Are you opponents? Mt. Davis: This Boan Sub which is item #13. Mayor Ferre: Is the applicant here,Mr. Boan? Why don't you come up and see,... Mr. Davis: There's a question that has come up today on this Mr. Mayor that we should address at this point. There's a plat involved in this which the street closure would be subject to the finalizing of the plat. The plat consists of properties on each side of 7th Court. We discovered late today the ownership of the lot opposite from Mr. Boan has changed ownership and that the new owner does not agree to the plat. Has this rn. 51 MAR _ 6 'gm been solved Mr. Boan? Mr. Jose Boan, 7435 SW 23rd Street. I applied,... Mayor Ferre: Don't you understand Spanish? Mr.Plummer: No, I don't understand,...in other words this property not where you live? Mayor Ferre: No. We asked him his address. Mr. Jose Boan: It is an empty lot. Mrs. Gordon: He owns one side. Is that right? Not two sides? Mr.Boan: No, the other,.. is Mr. Davis: The other owner is standing right behind me, and he whispered in my ear that hasn't been able to get together with Mr. Boan and would like it deferred. Rev. Gibson: Well, I move to defer. Mayor Ferre: There's a motion by Father Gibson to defer this item for the reasons expressed. Mrs. Gordon: Can I ask the opponent, do you want this deferred? Put your name in the record. Mr. Sydney Lerman: My name is Sydney Lerman, my address is 807 86th Street Miami Beach. If the Commission wants to go along with the deferment,.. Mrs. Gordon: I'd like to know why we are deferring it. Mr. Lerman: The subject property which contiguous on this proposed closure we purchased by me on January 4th. The first I heard of the proposed closure and vacation was yesterday when I walked over to the property and found a notice on the telephone pole advising everybody in the area that there was to be a meeting tonight. I was never notified by mail, not at the last meeting which was subsequent to the time I closed on that property. You folks had a meeting I believe on January 29,--22nd, and I have not been notified in the interim. Had I not gone by there yesterday, this whole thing would have been passed and I wouldn't have anything to say about it. Mrs. Gordon: I want to ask the Department, was this street included into the new plat? Mr. Davis: The Plat that Mr. Boan submitted includes the closure yes. Mrs. Gordon: The entire street? Mr. Davis: The part that extends to the Expressway. You see it in yellow. Mrs. Gordon: I realize that, but are you talking about the full width of that? Mr. Davis: The Plat includes properties on both sides of the street. Mr. Boan owns one side of it. This gentleman just purchased in January the lot comprising the rest of the plat on the other side of the street. So the plat was put in properly. Mrs. Gordon: In other words this gentleman's property was being repl&tted and he didn't even know about it? Mr. Lerman: That's for sure. rn. 52 MAR_81979 Mr. Davis: We we didn't know about it until late today. Obviously we never notified him because we didn't have any record of the change of ownership. Mrs. Gordon: The previous who sold the property was involved in the plat or not? Mr. Davis: Yes, he was involved in the plat. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. Mr. Lerman: All I really want is to be able to get down to the Planning Board, talk to them and find out what my rights are, find out what's involved. That's all. Mayor Ferre: There's a motion to defer by Father Gibson. Who seconds it? Mrs. Gordon? Call the roll. A motion to defer the matter was passed and adopted by a unanimous vote of the Commission. 11. APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. Mayor Ferre: Would somebody help me on the history of this. We had previously voted. There was a process that we voted on, we went trought the whold thing. The two people that were voted upon were Mr. Luaces who is here and,.. Mr. Davis: There were two gentlemen,..Mr. Rosichan, the top two which were selected.That only applys Mayor Ferre: That's what I'm getting to. See Martinez and Luaces were both here, were the ones who were selected but we couldn't put them in because they had only applied the day before, and what have you. So we went back and readvertised the whole process. Now they of course and many others who are entitled to apply have reapplied and I think whatever our positions are, I think we ought to go ahead and vote on these people. Mr. Davis: The positions that are open are ones shown here. Mayor Ferre: Are Mrs. Fernandez and Mr. Borja, who were previously before them, and I just,.. Mrs. Gordon: You know Richard Rosichan is an applicant because he wishes to be appointed to a regular slot which then would leave open the alternate slot. Mr. Plummer: What did we do before? I don't even remember. Mayor Ferre: We voted for, and Reboso was on the Commission and the vote was for Mr. Martinez and Mr. Luaces. If they had been proper applicants they would have been installed and it would have been all over. The problem was that they had applied I think the night before, and there was some question, I don't know what it was all about, but the fact is that there was some confusion so the Commission itself order that this thing be reopened and readvertised, and everybody reapply and we go through this process again. Am I correct? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. 53 rn. MAR a 1979 011 Mayor Ferre: And that's where we are. So get you got the list of candidates. I think we know most thing to do here is to put the names down of the be appointed and whoever gets the majority vote, get it. Rev. Gibson: What are those names? papers out and you've of them. I think the people you think should the top two vote getters Mayor Ferre: You've got it in your packet. Item #114. Ms. Hirai, Assistant City Clerk announced after the balloting the winners were Mr. Luaces and Mr. Martinez. Mrs. Gordon moves that the appointments be unanimous, and seconded by Father Gibson. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-184 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING LORENZO L. LUACES AND LOUIS MARTINEZ AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 12. DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE FOR OFF STREET PARKING LOCATED AT 1570 N.W. 26 AVENUE Mr. Davis: The applicants are here. This application is back for review at your request after a year of further operation after the requirements that you posted last year. The Building Department has a verbal report at this time, as well a written report which you have which will enter into the record. • Mr. Williams of the Building Department stated the problem was the size of the trucks which was a disturbance to the people in the morning and during the day, and if the problem of ti,e size of the trucks allowed in there was solved, maybe they would have something that would be compatible. Mr. Manuel Balado and Sergio Vidal, owners of the Shopping Center requested the Commission to approve the Conditional Use. Mayor Ferre: All right let's hear the objectors. Mrs. Elizabeth Kincaid, 1500 N.W. 26th Avenue appeared in oppisition to. the granting of the conditional use. Mr. William Wood, 1601 N.W. 26th Avenue concurred with Mrs. Kincaid in opposition. rn. 54 MAP 8 1979 Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Are there any other speakers in opposition? Mr. Vidal do you want to make your concluding statement? Mr. Vidal appeared again and requested the Commission to grant this conditional use. Mr. Plummer: Under questions, our professional people tell us that that which we the Commission tried to accomplish has not been accomplished. All right sir? Now, there is no question that the character of the street has changed. I was over there the other day and I thought I saw a bus cutting down 26th Avenue to get away from the traffic and then I found out that in fact it was the route of the bus. Now, I think it behooves you sir, number one, if there is a justifiable reason why that which the Commission recommended was not done. And number two, what do you propose for this Commission to consider other than the fact that the street has changed? Mr. Vidal: Commissioner Plummer we complied fully with all that resolution,..last year resolution, --for one speed bump, --we placed two instead of one, plus more than 10 we have in the Shopping Center.A large sign was installed April 20, 1978 saying no large trucks, which was knocked down the same day. He said it was raised and had been in position ever since. Mr. Plummer: Something else reminds me to the Department that there was supposed to be a bar put across the top limiting the height. Was that done? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Vidal: You have the picture over there. Mr. Plummer: It was done? Mayor Ferre: The picture is right there. Mr. Wood: Mr. Plummer it was done and like he said it wasn't up but a short while and the trucks couldn't get through it so they raised it a couple of feet now the trucks can drive through and leave the bar up. Before they were knocking the bar down. Mrs. Kincaid: May I speak to you on this point of ingress? Mr. Vidal said I have never objected to the ingress. Actually the very fact that a decision was made to allow ingress only was done as the result of a compromise by the neighbors because it looked as though you were going to approve the opening anyway, so the compromise was okay, use it for entrance only but no exit from the commercial property onto the residential area. (inaudible),...there is absolutely no control there. The speed bump was simply an additional control device to see whether it works. It's not working to keep people from driving out. It's become a through -way. The sign that used to be in there saying no exit have been vandalized, torn down or whatever. There's absolutly nothing there to keep people from going through. I don't think they have tried enough to do what they were supposed to do, because they don't want it that way. And furthermore when I say it ought to be closed up, all I am talking about is closing it to the vehicular traffic, not pedestrian because there's a lot of people from the low projects housing center on Musa Isle who do walk in there to the grocery store, to the drug store and what not. A lot of people on 26th Avenue use it, so there's no objection to pedestrian walk-through, but I do think it should be closed for the vehicular traffic. Mayor Ferre: What's the will of this Commission? Mr. Lacasa:Mr. Mayor I can understand the reservations of the neighbors on the area of 26th Avenue however this so-called hole has existed there for how many years now? Unidentifed person: Six years. 55 rn. MAP 6 19 Mr. Lacasa: Six years. So quite frankly I do not see why we should discontinue this situation at this point. I feel that it is essential for the Shopping Center,..I've been there many times and I know it contributes to alleviate the situation of the traffic on 27th Avenue. Therefore I move that this opening be kept in the same way that it has been kept for the last six years. Mayor Ferre; I think what you want is to grant a use to permit off-street parking at approximately 1570 N.W. 26th Avenue subject to the limitations that were previously moved. Is that right? Mr. Davis: And a review, or not? Mayor Ferre: What? Mr. Davis: With a review, or not? Mayor Ferre: He's the maker of the motion. You want a one-year review or not? The one-year review, is that the sense of the motion? Is there a second? No second. Who's next? Mr. Lacasa: With a 1-year review. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor how the hell do you be brief on a 6-year fight? Mayor Ferre: I can tell you. Mr.Plummer: How? Mayor Ferre: Just make a motion. Mr. Plummer: To what? Mayor Ferre: To whatever it is you are going to be brief about. You skip all the preliminaries and just give us the last two sentences and then make your motion. Mr. Plummer: I'll tell you how I feel. I feel this Commission has done every damn thing possible. I have come up with the idea of speed bumps, of treadle gates, of silent policemen, of bars across the top, and I tell you I think the shoe is on the other foot. Okay. Here's your motion. I give the developer, --I am going to put the monkey on your back, I'm going to give you 60 days,(I sound like a judge), --I am going to give you 60 days for you develop a plan to bring back to me that I think will work, and if you don't come back with a plan, --I tried. I'll give you 60 days, --I'll give you 90 days. You develop a plan to accomplish what this Commission has tried to do for 6 years. That plan is that opening is for egress and vechicular traffic and no trucks, and ingress only. Now, you know, we are trying to help you. God knows we've bent over backwards. I've got to go and let you get an engineer, develop a plan, bring it back to this Commission and this Commission says yes, we think its workable, or no, we are sorry, amen. Mayor Ferre: Are you trying to make a motion? Mr. Plummer: I'll make a motion, yes, sir,... Mr. Vidal: Commissioner Plummer, please. This is the Middle East. This gate, this hole, is the Middle East and you are President Carter right now trying to arrange the problem. Mr. Plummer: You mean Billy's brother? Mr. Vidal: I'll tell you what, in 60 days we are not going to find a solution at all, better than the one we have right now. If you keep that one in the way it is, in a 10 ft. opening, no large trucks can go in or out at all, --and 10 feet, --no trailer can go into a 10 foot openi::g. Any driver around here knows that. I mean a van or a large truck in regard of delivery truck, but not the big, boxcar truck. And if you want to close the opening that's fine with us Commissioner. Let's do it. Mr. Plummer: If that's what you want, all right. I'm trying to keep it open. I am asking you, since I have tried every damn way in the world to help you, help yourself. rn. MAR 8 1974 Mr. Vidal: We know, --we are working. We have communications,..you mean to you or to the Commission? Mr. Plummer: Sir, I only speak for one. I can't speak for others. I have a hard enough time,.. Mr. Vidal: Okay sir, I'll get back to you in 60 days. Mr. Plummer: As far as I'm concerned, I'll even go to the extent of 90 days. I am not trying to place an undue burden on you. But I guarantee you it might cost you a few dollars. Okay I understand that. This has cost you a few dollars. Get yourself a traffic engineer to design you a system to allow to keep that opening. And I think you can do it. I really do. Mr. Vidal: Commissioner Plummer, we consulted the City of Miami Police Department. We asked for consultants, we asked for engineers,..we have for everything,..nothing worked. Nobody respects signs anymore, Commissioner. You know that. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor,...I tell you, it just angers me because I know what an owner is going through in days like these. People just don't give a happy hoot. I want to tell you if you think you have,...even the church goes through that. You ought to see some of the gates we have, and you'd wonder if anybody respects anybody anymore. I wish I knew what would be the answer for the man. And I want to say this, if you have a Shopping Center it is virtually impossible to talk about in a day like this, where people move to close off an opening. People who shop will be very, very angry, so all I am saying is, Plummer whoever knows the answer, tell the man what the answer is. God knows its provoking. Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Kincaid, and Mr. Wood, since you are the only two that spoke, but I speak to the rest of you. Let me ask you this. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Carter. Rev. Gibson: Billy. Mr. Plummer: Am I the brother or the other? Rev. Gibson: No, you are the brother. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. I'll use the Wall. Let me ask you and please be honest with me. Is your objection moreso the truck traffic than the vehicle traffic? Unidentified person: No. Mr. Plummer: In other words you are objecting to the autos as well as the trucks? Unidentified: We want to minimize the traffic. In other words we expect cars to go up and dawn the road. Mr. Plummer: Not the road sir. I can't speak to the road. I can control the opening but I can't speak to the road. Unidentified: We don't expect this thing to not exist. What we are trying to do is not create another commercial thoroughfare in front of our front - yards. Mr. Plummer: What I am saying is, if you had no objection to autos_going in and out but prohibiting the trucks, I think that's workable. Unidentified: Personally I think if the traffic doesn't increase, we could live with the present. But you know .what is happening, when you let the automobile in, then trucks in. I've had semis backed up there clean across the street. rn. 57 MAR 8ig» Nothing can move either way while he is trying to jockey his way back to the gate. Its that simple. So yes, the vehicular traffic, by this I mean automobiles, bicycles, --we are not utterly opposed to this. What we are trying to do is minimize the heavy traffic on a very narrow street. As like he says, the bus is there. And every morning when I go to work usually I have to back off and give him the first 25 ft. so he get that bus around the corner. But I can't see putting additional on there. Mr.Plummer: I was thinking of a concrete arch sir. Mr. Vidal again appeard in favor of the conditional use. Mr. Plummer: My motion was very simple, as we said,..keep it simple. Give them 90 days and put the monkey on the developer's back and come forth with a proposal to this Commission if we find it acceptable or not. Mayor Ferre: There's a motion and a second. Mr. Plummer: Let me add one addendum to that, because I think if I sense Mrs. Kincaid and Mr. Woods, I think if you can give assurances that there will be no more trucks, I think you could even maybe convince this Commission to let the automobiles go both ways. Okay? I don't think they want that, but I think if they take the lesser of evils, the trucks is what they are really objecting to. Mayor Ferre: There is only one way you are going to keep trucks out of there and that is to put a concrete arch. Mr. Plummer: Then if that's the answer, so be it. Mrs. Kincaid: All right, what about the cars that come through from 27th Avenue. They make it a through street. It is not supposed to be a through street. But they do it. Mr.Plummer: Ma'am, I can tell you how to do that. You readjust the parking in the yard to where it is not a straight through. You have islands in there where they've got to do a zig-zag to get through and they won't do it. That's workable. Rev. Gibson: J.L. you know, --we live in times,..people aren't going to,.. Mrs. Kincaid again appeared in objection to the conditional use. Mr. Vidal: Mayor last year you said you would help to erect a wall again. Let's put the wall again and close the door. I am sick and tired of this every year. I know you too, and I know all the Commissioners,...no major accidents,..nothing happened in 26th Avenue for the last three years, and that means something to me. Right, Mayor? Mayor Ferre: We've been going around this thing for 6 years. Every year we come up, every year we have the same argument, every year there the same discussion, and every year there's the same vote. Now I don't know that this has changed at all. Ever. Mr. Vidal: We complied,...one year, less than one year,... Mayor Ferre: Look we have a motion that's been made by Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gibson. Now, there was a previous motion made by Commissioner Lacasa and nobody seconded his vote. Nobody here seconded the vote. Now, as the Chairman of this Board I have to accept the motions as they come, and when they have seconds, then they get put on. There was no second. Now we have a motion that has a second,and the motion is that you go back and you think this thing through, and you come back to this Commission with recommendations as to how you can best solve the problem. I don't know that that is the solution to it. Maybe next time in 60 days, somebody will second his motion, or maybe you'll come up with a solution and convince the neighborhood that you are dealing good faith and that what you are going to do is going to be functional. I don't know. I wish I knew the answer. rn, 58 MAR g 'qt9 Rev. Gibson:Mr. Mayor, I call for the vote to give the man even 90 days to try to solve this problem. Let me tell you, people today don't give a happy -hoot about law. I want to tell you this. And I sympathize with what you are saying. I live in a neighborhood that doesn't have quite the traffic,..and I just want you to know. I call for the vote for 90 days. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-185 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE APPLICANT FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF RESOLUTION 78-179 WHICH GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AT 1570 N.W. 26 AVENUE TO DEVISE A PLAN THAT WOULD PROVE TO BE EFFECTIVE IN ALLEVIATING CONTINUING PROBLEMS TO NEIGHBORS CAUSED BY INGRESS AND EGRESS AND TO SUBMIT SAID PLAN TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN 90 DAYS Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Ms. Anna Riviero: My name is Anna Riviero, I live at 631 N.W. loth Avenue. I happen to own two building in that place, in the Shopping Center. What would be the situation if I could prove to you that just a few people is against us.And I could bring you a lot of letter and a lot of ladies that live around the neighborhood that would be glad that the Plaza will be back,... Mayor Ferre: I think it would be very helpful if there are people who are residents of that immediate neighborhood,..I think you are entitled to bring people who live in that neighborhood and I think that is important. If these people obviously think enough of it to stay here until 2 o'clock in the morning, and stay here for 10 hours, then you know you have to be impressed that these people are very strong in their opinions. If you feel as strongly then I think you have to do the same thing, and bring as many, or bring the signatures of as many as you can. But they have to be people who live there. Now that doesn't mean that this Commission is going to vote on a popularity contest as to how many signatures you bring and how many signatures they bring, but I think it is always important to see the feelings of the community. 13. DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE OF REAR YARD SETBACK 2722 N.W. 5th Street. Mr. Davis: I wish to remind the Mayor and Commission on Item 8 that this variance was petitioned for as a result of the inspections which revealed an illegal building situation without permit. Mayor Ferre: All right. I remember that. Yes, the poor lady has been here all afternoon. Mr. Armesto you are the translator I assume. A11 right Mrs. Albo. rn. 39 Mr. Armesto: Yes, Mrs. Albo asked me to inform the Commission that she is going to obey the law and all she wants is that she be given about 90 days to comply with the law and she will make arrangements with the proper department to tear down whatever she did wrong. Mayor Ferre: Well, that's a nice concession. Can we give he 90 days? Mr. Davis: Well she doesn't need to come back if she won't need the variance. Mr. Plummer: If she is going to tear it down, there's no problem. Mr. Davis: The only reason she is here is to make the unit legal. If she is going to tear it down obviously she doesn't need the variance. Mr. Armesto: Okay, she changed her mind now, and she wants to hide. Mrs. Gordon: She wants to what? Mr. Armesto: To go ahead and ask you for the variance. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. I am going to move that we uphold the Board and the Planning Department. Mayor Ferre; There's a motion that the Department and the Board be upheld. Is there a second? Rev. Gibson: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion. Call the roll. Mr. Plummer: I hope the woman understands what she is doing. Mr. Armesto: That's what she said. She wants to take out the 7 ft. arch outside the land. Mr. Plummer: She wants to tear it down? Mr. Armesto: Its is 7 ft. only. Mr. Plummer: If she does that, is she in compliance? Mr. Davis: I am not sure what she wants to tear down, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Armesto: She was told by Mr. Perez or somebody else there that she has to take out 7 foot of property. Mr. Davis: I was just checking this. If she takes off the rear 71 ft. of this addition it would be legal. Mr. Armesto: That will be legal. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor I suggest she get a permit for this work. Mr. Armesto: That's okay. She will get a permit. Mayor Ferre: What is it we are going to do now. Mr. Plummer: The roll is being called to deny. Mrs. Gordon: Deny the variance. That has nothing to do with what she is going to do to make it legal. She can still make it legal. She has to make it legal. Mr. Davis: She has to have a permit to make it legal. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Williams, you are not going to expeditiously move on this particular item are you. You are going to give her some time to get the permit taken out and get drawings? rn. 30 -11111111111101=1.- Mr. Williams: When she gets the good for 90 days. At that point Mayor Ferre: Call the roll. Let' Mrs. Gordon; Mr. Plummer: give her the permit, and its accepted, that permit is I will expeditiously move. s go. It only hurts for a little while J.L. It's not a matter of that. I'd rather time. I vote yes. move to defer, and The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-186 A MOTION UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ZONING BOARD TO DENY APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF REAR YARD SETBACK ON AN ADDITION TO THE REAR DWELLING UNIT AT 2722 N.W. 5TH STREET. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Rev. Gibson. NOES: Mr. Lacasa, Mayor Ferre. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 31 �iAR 8 lye tape XXI - 3-8th Mayor Ferre(cont'd): All right, I hope they are going to give you some time to do this. (MAYOR FERRE ADDRESSES MRS. ALBO IN SPANISH TRYING TO CLARIFY THE COMMISSION'S ACTION ON THIS ISSUE: "En otras palabras, Senora, usted va a tener algun tiempo, no se que tiempo le dara el...(INDIVIDUO NO IDENTIFICADO INDICA QUE EL PERIODO SERA DE 90 DIAS)..okay, 90 dias para guitar los siete pies, okay?" All right, is there anything else that we need to do tonight? Mr. Bob Davis: There are several more items. Mayor Ferre: All right, so let's hurry up. 14. AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 6371, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11.1 - "PRIVATE ROADS." Mrs. Gordon: I move deferment on Agenda item no. 10, defer. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion to defer 10. Is there a second? Mr. Lacasa: Second. Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon: start one. Mayor Ferre: Why are we deferring it? Because I want to have a discussion on it and it is too late to There is a second, further discussion, call the roll. WHEREUPON, on motion by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the above matter was deferred by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Commissioner (Vice Mayor) J. L. Plummer, Jr. None. 15(A). FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Change Zoning classifica- tion 183-185 N.E. 80th Terrace from C-2 to PR. Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple: Mr. Plummer: I move approval on 11(A). any objectors? Second. The item has been moved and seconded, further discussion. Has this been through the Planning Board. The Planning Advisory, yes sir. What's the vote? mh 32 Mr. Davis: 5 - 0, on both items, sir. Mr. Plummer: How come it is not on the agenda? Mr. Davis: It is sir, it ought to be. Mr. Plummer: Oh. Mayor Ferre: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 183-185 N.E. 80TH TERRACE, UNPLATTED, BEING S. 61.6' OF N.226.6' OF E. 157' OF S.E. OF S.E. OF N.E. 14, SECTION 12-53-41, LESS E. 15' THEREOF, FROM C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO PR (PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL USE); BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE DISTRICT ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF THE SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Gibson and passed on its first reading by title 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. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Com- mission and to the public. 15(B). Permit construction of RECREATIONAL FACILITIES at: 183-185 N.E. 80th Terrace. Mrs. Gordon: I move 11(b). Rev. Gibson: Second. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, Mrs. Gordon moves and Father Gibson seconds, further discussion, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-187 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES PURSUANT TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XVIII-1, PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL USE, PR DISTRICT SECTION 4(1-3) ON SOUTH 61.6' OF NuRTH 226.6' OF 157' OF SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF NORTHEAST 1/4, SECTION 12-53-41, LESS THE EAST 15' THEREOF, UNPLATTED, BEING APPROXIMATELY 183-185 N.E. 80TH TERRACE PER PLAN ON FILE SUBJECT TO SAID AREA BEING REZONED FROM C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO PR -PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL USE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed and 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. 16. VACATE AND CLOSE ALLEY E/W abut other property line of Tract A -TENTATIVE PLAT 1024 "HICKMAN PARK." Mrs. Gordon: Move 12. Rev. Gibson: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, now we are on item 12, Public Works Department application, moved and seconded, further discussion, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-188 A RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY VACATING AND CLOSING THE ALLEY RUNNING EAST -WEST AND ABUTTING THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF TRACT "A" FOR A DISTANCE OF + 133.78 FEET AS PER TRACT "A" TENTATIVE PLAT NO. 1024 "HICKMAN PARK", BEING N.W. CORNER OF N.W. 7TH STREET AT 41ST AVENUE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was passed and 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. 17. ACCEPT PLAT: "L'HERMITAGE" Mayor Ferre: Accepting the Plat entitled "L'Hermitage" and so on...Agenda item 16, any problems with that? Mr. Plummer: What about 15? Mr. Davis: 15 has been deferred, sir. mh 34 Mr. Plummer: It was? Mr. Davis: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Well, is there any reason why we cannot approve the Plat? The Plat Committee has recommended it as long as the laws have been complied with and so forth. Everything has been complied with and we are all set to go. Who makes the motion? Rev. Gibson: Move. Mr. Lacasa: Second. Mayor Ferre: It's been moved and seconded, further discussion.... (INAUDIBLE STATEMENT MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Davis: Item 17 has been withdrawn, sir. Mayor Ferre: Sixteen, we are on sixteen, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-189 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED L'HERMITAGE, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICA- TIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER 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: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Mayor Ferre: Frank D. Hall... Mr. Davis: 17 has been withdrawn, sir, they got their building permit this morning. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mayor Ferre: Agenda item 18. Any problems on that? Rev. Gibson: Move. Lacasa: Second. Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson moves, Lacasa seconds, call the roll. mh The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-190 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "DOUGLAS GROVE", 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 AND LANDSCAPING UNTIL REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER 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: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else in the Planning and Zoning agenda? All right now, we re -open the Regular portion of the Agenda. WHEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION PROCEEDED TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING AND ZONING PORTION OF THE DAY'S AGENDA AND RE- OPENED THE REGULAR PROTION IN ORDER THAT THEY COULD COMPLETE SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Mayor Ferre: All right, now, on the Regular Agenda. I think we are going to defer all of these items unless it is an emergency and you have a problem, please tell me. We start with Item G, all right, tell us about item G. Mr.Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, there is a Citizens' Committee scheduled next week for your next meeting. We want to make the Commission aware of plans that are being presented for stationary development and next week the citizens are going to make a recommendation to the Board. Mrs. Gordon: I wish you would take this up tomorrow after the other meeting that we are going to be attending. (STATEMENT MADE OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Because I cannot listen to what you are going to have to propose to us now. Mr. Fosmoen: We already have told you what we are going to do. Mrs. Gordon: Tomorrow? Mr. Fosmoen: Tonight. Mrs. Gordon: Today, it isn't really tomorrow. Mr. Plummer: Well, Rose, just for the record now I must leave that meeting in the morning no later than 11:30 A.M. Mayor Ferre: Well, let's leave it this way, we'll take up as much as we can. Mr. Fosmoen: Can we review this with you individually before the meeting? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Now, is there anything else? m b 36 t.. Mayor Ferre: We have item 18, which Mr. Armesto has been waiting on all day, which is the appointment of members to the Parking Lot Review Board and there is a motion that Herb Lee Simon and Mr. Armesto.... Mrs. Gordon: How many do we have to appoint?..Three or four, don't we? Mayor Ferre: Five, no four, I'm sorry. Mrs. Gordon: And isn't there another guy called Carlos...something or other... Nunez? Mayor Ferre: Yes, Nunez. Mrs. Gordon: And I don't know who else is on that list. Mayor Ferre: There was a black... Mrs. Gordon: Somebody got the list? Mayor Ferre: Yes, I have the list, Fausto gave it to me and I had it all lined up here. We had a black gentleman and..(PAUSE) Herbert Lee Simon, Carlos Nunez and Eladio Armesto. Well, let's appoint those three anyway. All right, there is a motion by Rose Gordon that the following three be appointed: Herb Simon, Eladio Armesto and Mr. Carlos Nunez. Now, there is a fourth vacancy that we will appoint tomorrow... Mrs. Gordon: Billie Rolle. Mr. Lacasa: I second. Mayor Ferre: All right, and Billie Rolle, as the fourth member. All right, those are the nominees, those four, further discussion, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-191 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO THE PARKING LOT REVIEW BOARD. (Appointees' names contained in body of Resolution) (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: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. mh 67 20. CONSENT AGENDA (Regular Portion of Agenda) Mayor Ferre: A11 right, is there anyone here who wants to object to the Consent Agenda. If not Rose Gordon moves, Armando Lacasa seconds it, further discussion on the Consent Agenda., call the roll Mrs. Gordon: I don't know what is in the Consent Agenda. Mayor Ferre: It non -controversial. Mrs. Gordon: I don't know what's on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Ferre: We've been asking all day, Plummer has been asking... Father do you want to vote on the Consent Agenda? Mrs. Gordon: I don't want to vote on something that I don't know what I am voting for. (COMMISSIONER GORDON LEAVES THE CHAMBERS AT 2:00 A.M.) THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS, CONTAINED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA, WERE INTRODUCED BY COMMISSIONER GIBSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LACASA, AND WERE PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr. 20.1 WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF ART.V, SECTION 2-102 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) PERMIT BERNARD L. ROBERTS (PARK DEPARTMENT) TO PARTICIPATE IN CITY'S REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM. RESOLUTION NO. 79-192 A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 2-102 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY FINDING THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO PERMIT BERNARD L. ROBERTS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PARKS DEPARMENT, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY. 20.2 ACCEPT BID OF GARCIA ALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO.INC. (BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS -PHASE III BID "A") RESOLUTION NO. 79-193 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF GARCIA-ALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO.INC. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $206,922.20 FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DE- VELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS -PHASE III, BID "A" OF THE PROPOSAL: WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM THE 4TH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $206,922.20 TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST: ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $22,761.80 TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE: ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $4,138.00 TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATORIES AND POSTAGE: AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. GB 20.3 ACCEPT BID, GOLDEN EAGLE ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS,/NC. (BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS -PHASE III, BID "B" 20.4 RESOLUTION NO. 79-194 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF GOLDEN EAGLE ENGINEERING CONTRAC- TORS, INC. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $113,709 FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS -PHASE III, BID "B" OF THE PROPOSAL: WITH FUNDS ALLO- CATED FROM THE 4TH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,709 TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $12,508 TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE: ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $2,274 TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATORIES, AND POSTAGE; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. ACCEPT BID-MIRI CONSTRUCTION,INC.(BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS PHASE III BID "C". RESOLUTION NO. 79-195 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF MIRI CONSTRUCTION,INC. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $25,240.00 FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS - PHASE III, BID "C" OF THE PROPOSAL: WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM THE 4TH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,240.00 TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST: ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $2,776.00 TO COVER THE COST OF PRO- JECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $506.00 TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATORIIES, AND POSTAGE: AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SUCH FIRM. 20.5 ACCEPT BID-ROSSER ELECTRIC CO.INC. (NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOL - FIELD LIGHTING) RESOLUTION NO. 79-196 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF ROSSER ELECTRIC CO.,INC IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $105,375 FOR NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOL -FIELD LIGHTING; WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM THE 2ND AND 4TH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,375 TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST;ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $11,591 TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $2,104 TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATORIES, AND POSTAGE; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. 20.6 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF TAMIAMI PLANT SYSTEMS,INC. FOR THE WYNDWOOD N.E. 2ND AVENUE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BEAUTIFICATION 1978 2ND BIDDING. RESOLUTION NO. 79-197 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TEH COMPLETED WORK OF TAMIAMI PLANT SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE WYNDWOOD N.E. 2ND AVENUE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BEAUTI- FICATION-1978 (2ND BIDDING) AT A TOTAL COST OF $24,703.05; AUTHOR- IZING AN INCREASE IN THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT IN THE NET AMOUNT OF $124.75; ALLOCATING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $124.75 FROM THE AC- COUNT ENTITLED "3RD YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND"; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $2,582.58. 20.7 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK-WILLIAMS PAVING COMPANY,INC.-GRAND AVENUE PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 79-198 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COLLETED WORK PERFORMED BY WILLIAMS PAVING COMPANY,INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $163,575 FOR GRAND AVENUE PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - COURTS AND PARKING LOT; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYME"T OF $16, 267.50. 47 21. APPROVE AMEzDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT: "MORTON, WOLFBERG, ALVAREZ, TARACIDO, SEIGLE 6 FRESE, INC."- NEW STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT. Mr. Vince Grimm: Item 19 is the Incinerator. Mayor Ferre: Well, Plummer is against the incinerator,..Plummer...where are you? Mr. Grimm: I think I changed his mind, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Well, he has to mind and I'll vote with you. come over here and tell me that he (INAUDIBLE STATEMENT MADE OUTSIDE THE Rev. Gibson: I move. Mayor Ferre: All right, Commissioner seconds, further discussion, call the PUBLIC RECORD) changed his Gibson moves 19, Commissioner Lacasa roll on item 19. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-199 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ATTACHED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, DATED DECEMBER 26, 1978, BETWEEN THE CITY AND MORTON, WOLFBERG, ALVAREZ, TARACIDO, SEIGLE 6 FRESE, INC., WHEREBY THE FACILITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE WILL BE DESIGNED AS A NEW STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY PORTION OF THE SITE WITH A CONSEQUENT REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL PROJECT COST FROM $1,460,000 TO $1,100,000, INCLUDING REDUCING THE LUMP SUM FEE TO BE PAID TO SAID FIRM AND REVISING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, ACCORDINGLY, WITH FUNDS THEREFOR TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE POLLUTION CONTROL AND INCINERATOR FACILITIES BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. (Designated R-79-199. (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: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Rose Gordon. R. Gibson * (NOTE: Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, though not present on roll call, requested to be shown as voting "aye" on this issue). AFTER ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: Would you please, Ms. Clerk let Mrs. Gordon know what we voted on and.... (VICE MAYOR J. L. PLUMMER RE-ENTERS THE MEETING) Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: ..We just voted on 19, do you want to vote for it? For the incinerator? Yes. �0 Mr. Plummer: I am going to vote for it because this is for design. I am going to protest very violently the proposal which shows hot water running in the toilets which I think is an absolute absurdity, and I want to tell you some- thing, I will be watching at these bids come in. Are you aware, Mr. Mayor, that that is in the proposal? ...They have solar hot water running in the toilets. Read your proposal. Mayor Ferre: Well, you wanted to know how it got to be $1,000,000, now you know. Right? ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Commission, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 A.M. ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE City Clerk MATTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk mh MAURICE A. FERRE Mayor CITY OF IWAMI DOCUMENT INDEX MEETING OATS: March 8, 1979 ITEM N0 • DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION 1 COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT 2 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1 (6)(h) TO APPROVE A RESIDEN- TIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT NATURE ON LOTS 1 AND 4, PRICE TERRACE. 3 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPRIIHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIANII, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 25 THROUGH 30, BLOCK 55, FLAGLER MARY BRICKED. 4 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 74-970 5 APPOINTING LORENZO L. LUACES AND LOUIS MARTINEZ AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD 6 GRANTING VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3(3)(a) TO PERMIT ADDITION TO AND REMODELING OF THE EXISTING REAR IlWELLING UNIT ON LOT 10, BLOCK 3 GROSSE POINTE HIGHLANDS 7 CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES PURSUANT TO COMPREHEN- SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XVIII-1, PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL USE. 8 OFFICIALLY VACATING AND CLOSING THE ALLEY RUNNING EAST - WEST AND ABUTTING THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF TRACT "A" FOR A DISTANCE OF + 133.78 FEET AS PER TRACT "A" TEN- TATIVE PLAT NO. 1024 "HICKMAN PARK". 9 ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED L'HERMITAGE, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI 10 ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "DOUGLAS GROVE", A SUBDI- VISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. 11 APPOINTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO THE PARKING LOT REVIEW BOARD 12 WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 2-102 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI 13 ACCEPTING THE BID OF GARCIA-ALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $206.922.20 FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT - PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS PHASE III, BID "A" OF THE PROPOSAL 1411 ACCEPTING THE BID OF GOLDEN EAGLE ENGINEERING CONTRAC- TORS, INC. IN THE PROPOSED Ai4)UNT OF $113,709 COMMISSION ACTION RETRIEVAL CODE N0. 0022 0023 0024 R-79-183-A 79-183-A R-79-184 79-184 0025 R-79-187 79-187 R-79-188 79-188 R-79-189 79-189 R-79-190 79-190 R-79-191 79-191 R-79-192 79-192 R-79-193 79-193 R-79-194 79-194 DOCUMENT'INDEX CONTINUED IV NO. • DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION com Q5511N ACTION RETRIEVAL CODE NO. 15 ACCEPTING THE BID OF MIRI CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $25,240.00 FOR BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROTECT -PHASE III AND BUENA VISTA SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS -PHASE III, BID "C" OF THE PROPOSAL R-79-195 79-195 16 ACCEPTING THE BID OF ROSSER ELECTRIC CO., INC. R-79-196 79-196 17 ACCEYr1NG THE COMPLETED WORK OF TAMIAMI PLANT SYSTEMS, INC R-79-197 79-197 18 ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY WILLIAMS PAVING COMPANY, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $163,575.00 FOR GRAND AVENUE PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -COURTS AND PARKING LOT R-79-198 79-198 19 APPROVING THE ATTACHED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFES- SIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 26, 1978, BE- TWEEN THE CITY AND MORTON, WOLFBERG, ALVAREZ, TARACIDO, SEIGLE & FRESE, INC. R-79-199 79-199