The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1977-06-16 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI OF MEETING HELD ON JuPE 16. 1977 . PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G. ONGIE CITY CLERK CIIY�i�' licIFTWETSRD E7" I NI, SIBJECT 1. MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT AUTHORITY -LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS. 2. REPORT OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS THROUGH COMMISSIONER J.L. PLUMMER, JR. FOR SUPERBOWL TO COME TO MIAMI IN 1979. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. PROPOSED ORANGE BOWL IMPROVEMENTS. PUBLIC HEARING -REMOVAL OF ROOF SIGNS. GRANT ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE FOR EXISTING MAUSOLEUM, 3260 S.W. 8TH STREET. DENY REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING, 5 N.E. 53 STREET PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY Z. ZILBER REPRESENTING TAXI INDUSTRY TO THANK THE CITY COMMISSION FOR OBTAINING SUPERBOWL IN 1979. ESTABLISH DEFINITION AND STANDARDS FOR "PRIVATE ROADS". I NANCE0fj SOUTTI ON MO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR TEMPORARY AMUSEMENT ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 500-400 N.W. 2 AVENUE FROM C-2, C-4 AND R-4 TO GU. ESTABLISH CITY OF MIAMI POLICY REGARDING APPLICATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR STREET NAME -CHANGES. DIRECT DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT- ATION TO MOUNT SIGNS AT FOUE CORNERS NEAR NORTHWESTERN HIGHSCHOOL DESIGNATION THAT BLACK AS "BULLS PLAZA". APPROVE APPLICATION FOR PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) AT 2475 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF STREET CLOSURE OF JEFFER- SON STREET BETWEEN SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WASHING - TON AVENUE AND NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CHARLES AVE. GRAND A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE OF A STORAGE AREA ADDITION AT 2234 S. W. 8TH STREET. GRANT PERMISSION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION OF WORK RELEASE CENTER AT 7121 N.E. 3RD AVENUE. ACCEPT PLAT (A) COSTA BELLA DEVELOPMENT SUB; and (B) ACCEPT DEED -COSTA BELLA CONDOMINIUM, IN PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF DR. ERNEST B RTLEY-PROPOSED CHANGES TO ZONING ORDINANCE, "PERMIT GRANTING PROCED- URES". DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDIN- ANCE (NIGHT-CLUBS AND HOTELS AND MOTELS). DISCUSSION DISCUSSION M 77-503 DEFERRED R 77-504 M 77-505 DISCUSSION 8662 8663 8664 R 77-506 R 77-507 R 77-508 DEFERRED R 77-509 R 77-510 R 77-511A .R 77-511B DISCUSSION M 77-512 PAGE NO, 1-17 17-18 18-22 22-29 29 30-31 31-32 32 33 33-34 34 35 35-36 37-38 38 39 39 40 40-45 45-52 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ******** ON THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 1977, THE CITY COMMISSION OP HALL,)5 UHQURVAN AMERICANIT; DRIVE,ILI1IAR AMI) MEETING PLALORIDACINREGULAR IN SESSION. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 1:15 O'CLOCK P.M, BY •VICE -MAYOR GIBSON WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE LOMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT: CommLaa.ionen Manoto Reboao Comm.i44 Loners J. L. Ptummen, It. Comm.iaa.ionen Robe Gondon Vice -Mayon Theodone G.ibaon ALSO PRESENT: Joseph R. Gnaa a.ie, City Managers R. L. Foamoen, Aaaia.an.t City Managers Geotge F. Knox, City At.tonney Ralph G. Ong.ie, City CZenk Ma.t.ty H.ina.i, Aaa.ia tan-t City Ctenk. An invocation was detLven.ed by Revenend GLbaon who then Led thoa a pnea en,t in a pLedg e o 6 attegiance to the 6Qag . A motion .to waive the nead.ing ob the mLnu.tea was .inxnoduced and seconded and was passed unan.imouaPy. MIAMI-DAIS TRANSIT AUTHORITY - LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS. Mr. Joseph Grassie: Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the City Commission, we have members of the staff from John Dyer's office here to make a presentation to the City Commission on their plans for the Mass Transit System. The initial comments and introductions will be handled by Helen Wacher of that office. Ms. Helen Wacher: Good afternoon, we're here again today with Kaiser Transit Group for the second update and discussion of the rapid transit program concerning station site selection and route alignment. In put into the entire decision making process comes from several sources; first the citizen committee recommendation; second the policy council review which has been attended by Vice -Mayor Reverend Gibson; the Tac , the Transit Advisory Committee which was attended yesterday by Dick Fosmoen, the Planning Director; City Commission resolution to the Board of County Commis- sioners; Kaiser recommendation; Office of Transportation Administration recommendat- ion and all these recommendations, all this input will be fed into the public hear- ing which will be held by the Board of County Commissioners. Now the Public Hear- ing review process concerning site selection and alignment allows for a 30-day review period following the recommendation by the Kaiser consultants. After that time the formal public hearing is held by the County Commission. Today we will focus in on three subject areas in the City of Miami. If you look at the maps that I passed out the first is the LeJeune-Douglas station site selection which is number 6 on the map. The public hearing on this station will be held June 17th, tomorrow, 9:30 A.M. at the County Commission Chambers. The second subject will be the group III stations which are at 27th Avenue, 17th Avenue and 26th Road on your map. The Kaiser recommendation will be out on June 28th, the public hearing will be scheduled for the end of July. The third subject is the Civic Center alignment. The Kaiser report is due out on July 14th and the public hearing will be held in late August or early September. Before introducing Gene Stann, the project director for Kaiser Transit Group who will begin the technical presentation, I'd like to mention two subjects: (1) the station area design and development program. We 'JUN 161977 will be getting underway with this program shortly. The county is in the process of contracting with the City of Miami to work along with a team of consultants, public departments and citizens to develop all activities from zoning to access around each station in the City of Miami. Secondly, at the request of your Plann- ing Department we will be making a presentation on the material discussed here today to the Planning Advisory Board on July 6th. We know that you have a full agenda and we have much information to go over, therefore, in the interest of con- serving your time we feel it would facilitate matters to have the full presentat- ion first and then open the presentation to questions afterwards. Now I'll intro- duce you to Gene Stann. Mr. Gene Stann: Good afternoon. One of the most significant requirements to be met prior to beginning the final detail design of transit stations and other elements of the system is establishing the precise and definite locations of the stations and, of course, of the route alignment. Now in the preliminary engineer- ing which was completed in 1975, just about two years ago, the alignment for the transit system was pretty well established. It was modified as the result of actions taken by the federal government in giving the grant to Dade County but only insofar as portions of the original alignment were cut out of the system. The station locations are also generally decided upon and were accepted and adopted by the County Commission but subject to further detailed study to determine precise station and station site location. This is what we've been doing for six months or more now and we're ready to present to this commission the results of some parts of that study. The process of station site location is one that affects very much all of the people of the county. Where a station is located affects not only transit riders because that's where the transit riders get on the station but it also affects other people who don't necessarily use transit. A transit station can have significant impact on a neighborhood and the impact can be good or bad depending on how well the station is planned. We hope that all the stations here will have a beneficial impact and that where desirable development, that is good economic development will take place around the stations and where it is desirable neighborhoods will be protected from development. This will be a part of the studies, the station area design and development studies that Helen Wacher ment- ioned. The importance of the station location to all of the citizens has caused the county and us to conduct a very intensive public involvement program in which we can discuss with the citizens of the county what our thinking is, get their in- puts and end up with their recommendations to the County Commission on where they would like to see the stations located. We have had numerous meetings, 24 meetings on station site location so far and we've only discussed seven station locations out of a total of 22. Before the next few months are over we probably will have had well over 100 meetings on just this subject, the station location alone. The 20 mile system from Dadeland to Hialeah has been divided by us arbitrarily into 7 station groups, 7 segments for convenience in scheduling both the design work and the construction. Station group one is the southern most and consists of two stations at Dadeland and Station Group Two consists of a station at South Miami, Coral Gables and one in the City of Miami. Station Group Three has three stations south of the Miami River in the City of Miami. Station Group Four are the stat- ions in and around downtown Miami. Station group five is the Civic Center stat- ions: Group six, model cities and group seven Hialeah. The City of Miami, this commission has, of course, a great interest in the station locations for groups 2,3,4,5 and 6. We have completed the citizen participation program for station group two and we are going to discuss with you the results of that with respect only to the northern most station of that group which is in the City of Miami. The other two stations at the University of Miami and South Miami, of course, are in Coral Gables and South Miami. Then we will discuss with you the three stations that were proposed in Station Group III at 27th Avenue, 17th Avenue and 26th Road and South Dixie. Another aspect of the studies that we're conducting now is to pin down the exact alignment. The alignments are relatively simple since much of it follows the Florida East Coast Railroad at least south of the Miami River. However, there's one significant part of the alignment that has come under some question as the result of the City of Miami's Neighborhood Plan for the Civic Center and after the preliminary engineering was completed by us in 1975 the City of Miami's plan came out and recommended using an alignment along 12th Avenue between Jackson Memorial and the V.A. Hospital instead of west of the Justice Build- ing and then continuing to 17th Avenue and continuing north. As a result of this concern expressed by the City of Miami Planning Department and its consultants we have made a very detailed study of the Civic Center alignment and this is the third topic to be presented to this commission this afternoon. To discuss the station locations in groups two and three we have with us Augie Fragala of the Kaiser Transit Group. Mr. Fragala: Good afternoon. As Mr. Stann pointed out this is just one station in Group II which is in the City of Miami. I am sure as you all are aware your Comprehensive Plan recommended a transit facility in this location shown here with rJUN 161977 the letter "G" and the purpose of that was to encourage residential development in conjunction with the proposed Rapid Transit Station and to maintain and to intensi- fy existing diversity of industrial, commercial and residential uses in the area. This is an architectural site plan of what the development of the site at this location would look like. If you follow with me I'll go around counterclockwise from the bottom. The site is bounded by U.S. 1 or Dixie Highway on the bottom, Douglas Road on the right, Peacock Avenue going up across the top, coming down on 38th Avenue and then the last little dog -leg section is bounded by Louise Avenue. This is an aerial shot of the site with the boundaries traced out in red. It will give you an indication of some of the uses that would be displaced by a transit facility at this site, again, of course, in conjunction with your master land use plan for the area. Now into station group III at 27th Avenue, before I continue I should say that the site I've just shown you on the LeJeune-Douglas combination was recommended by the Milestone E Committee at their hearing on April 26th as the citizens' preferred location for a transit facility at that site. At 27th Avenue again in conformance with the city's Master Plan shown here with the letter"H", a transit atop is proposed for this area. The purpose is to promote residential re- development of retail and moderate to high density residential uses with potential for air rights development in conjunction with the proposed rapid transit station. This is an architectural site plan of development of a transit station and I'll go around it in the same fashion counter clockwise - U.S. 1 or Dixie Highway runs diagonally along the bottom of the site, Turning up the right side of the site is S.W. 27th Avenue. Proceeding along the top is 27th Terrace and then coming down is 29th Avenue along the left side of the site. Again, here is an aerial of the site with the boundaries traced out in red to give you an indication of some of the commercial and industrial displacements that would be necessitated by the devel- opment of a site at this location. This is a little before and after shot we use Ok with the citizens. The photographer here is standing on the east side of 27th Avenue looking down 28th Lane and into 27th Terrace. If I can direct your attent- ion to the extreme right hand side of the picture you'll see a roof over -hang for a building and then just to the left of that a small home. As a point of reference, try to keep this in mind and we'll show you now an architectural rendering of how this station would fit into the area from someone standing at the same vantage point looking over to it. It's a three level parking structure. The Vizcaya combination site again is in conformance with the master land use plan for the City of Miami shown here with a letter designation "D". The purpose with having a transit stat- ion here would be to preserve existing residential neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed rapid transit station and also to promote redevelopment directly adjacent to the five points for residential, retail and office uses and provide pedestrian improvements and linkages. The citizens at the May 24th meeting chose this Vizcaya combination or 5-points alternative in lieu of two separate stations, one to be located at 17th Avenue and one that would possibly be located at 26th Road. This is an architectural site plan again of the five -points alternative. You can see it's bounded by U.S. 1 or Dixie Highway on the bottom of the picture, S.W. 31st Road on the right side, 2nd Avenue where it takes the dog -leg and becomes I believe 22nd Street and approximately 150' or so south of S.W. 32nd Road in and out behind some of the homes in that area. Mr. Plummer: Now what's your north boundary there? Mr. Fragala: The north boundary in this would be the right side of the picture, S.W. 31st Road. The top is 2nd Avenue coming in from the extreme right and then takes that dog -leg. I believe it becomes 22nd Street once it bends, otherwise it would just be 2nd Avenue projected. This is an aerial view of the land with the boundaries of the site traced out in red. Mayor Ferre: It's right across the street from the museum, isn't it? Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir, it's practically directly opposite the Vizcaya Museum and the Space Transit Planetarium. Mr. Plummer: That's all totally residential. Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: All low-rise. Mr. Fragala: The area is predominately single family, duplex or a few multi -family structures within the boundaries of this site. Mr. Plummer: ... Back up two slides. You're proposing that it go to residential, retail and office use? Mr. Fragala: No, sir, we're proposing a Rapid Transit Station... 'JUN 161977 Mt. Plummer: Yes, but I'm saying promote. Mt. Fragala: To promote redevelopment directly adjacent to the five -points area for residential, retail and office uses. This is the wording tight from your plan, that's not something we've thought up. What we're trying to do is pinpoint a locat- ion of a station that is compatible with the adopted plan for the City of Miami. This is a view, the photographer is standing on 1st Avenue looking in towards 32nd Stteet, 32nd Road. As a point of reference, the tree with the white Chevrolet parked under it on the right side of the picture and the 4-story structure in the rear will give you an idea and the next slide of how the transit facility with the parking structure would look from the same vantage point in this area. Mr. Plummer: Almost totally inaccessible from the south. You can't even get across that piece of Dixie now. You can't get across 26th Road. Mr. Fragala: The area is accessible, sir from those areas south as you indicated. I can answer the question now for you and then I'd like to.... The citizens in choosing the Vizcaya alternative in lieu of the pair of stations also stated in theirresolution that should the County Commissioners not opt for one station in lieu of the pair they did prepare a recommendation on the two other stations that would be built in lieu of the vizcaya combination. This is the S.W. 17th Avenue and Dixie Highway. This is an architectural site plan again of the site. Going around the site it's U.S. 1 or Dixie Highway on the bottom, S.W. 16th Court on the right side of the picture. Across the top would be if S.W. 24th Street were proj- ected across S.W. 17th Avenue and then down the left boundary of the site is S.W. 17th Avenue. This is an aerial shot again of the 17th Avenue site selected by citizens outlined in red to give an indication of the type of displacement the station at this location would require. This is a picture looking south on Service Drive between U.S. 1 and the 16th Court. In the right hand side of the picture you'll notice a masonry screen around the Florida Power and Light transformer stat- ion. This will stay the same and the architectural rendering which shows how the station on the left and the parking structure beyond the same masonry screen would fit into the general area. At 26th Road the citizens recommend this site, U.S. 1 on the bottom or Dixie Highway, The little area in the extreme right is the area underneath Interstate 95 overpass between 25th Road and 26th Road which would pro- vide some short term parking facility. The top boundary of the site is the bound- ary from the Florida East Coast right-of-way and the site stretches all the way down to S.W. 32nd Road. The aerial shows here that this site is located wholly within Florida East Coast right-of-way and/or right-of-way for Dixie Highway and would require displacements of no businesses or homes. This is another before and after shot. The photographer is standing on the fill section for Interstate 95 looking into the intersection and 26th Road right before it goes under 95. If I can direct your attention in this shot to the right hand side of the picture where you see the corner property and the one home on the corner of 26th Road and 1st Avenue we'll see how the station and the guideway would fit into this neighborhood. Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you a question because I'm a little confused. Are you saying now that the choice was between the station, the large station that we saw right smack in front of the museum or 17th and 26th? Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir, that's correct. Mayor Ferre: It's one or the other, and that the citizens committee opted for just one in front of the museum. Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir, that's correct. Mayor Ferre: Were the citizens made up of people from the neighborhood, the resi- dents? Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir, they were. The meetings were held in the Shenandoah Junior Highschool... Mayor Ferre: No, I'm talking about for here. Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir. Citizens were residents of this neighborhood and the other neighborhood as well where the combination site was picked. They were both pres- ent in the audience the night that the ranking of alternatives was formed. Mayor Ferre: And how many citizens participated in that? Mr. Fragala: Well, in that one meeting there were approximately 141 citizens,., Mrs. Gordon: How many could speak? How many did you let speak at the microphone? ,. Any? 'JUN 161977 Mr Fragala: Yes Ma'am, the opportunity was presented after we went through the presentation of the alternatives. There was a question and answer period followed by the citizens' scoring of the various sites. We came back to them the following week with the results of their evaluations and indicated to them that it was a close vote but there was a definite preference for the combination site in lieu of the two Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, a vote by the 141 people? Who voted? Mr. Fragala: Ok, 141 people approximated voted on the criteria. The committee itself was made up of 80 some people. Mayor Ferre: I see. Mr. Plummer: This committee is what you're calling neighborhood people? Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Would you send me a copy of the list of those people who are on that committee? Mr. Fragala: I believe we can from the Office of the Transportation Administration, yes, sir. Ok, that concludes my presentation and now Mr. McDonald will go over the Civic Center portion with you. Mr. Plummer: I didn't see on the 17th Avenue how many stories of parking is pro- it posed. Mr. Fragala: It's a four level structure. Mr. Plummer: Holding how many automobiles? Mr. Fragala: Holding 770 automobiles. Mr. Plummer: If you use the combination station how high is that? Mr. Fragala: That's a six level structure for approximately 1385 vehicles. Mr. Plummer: And the 26th Road? Mr. Fragala: The 26th Road would be a 21 level structure for 620 cars. Mayor Ferre: And what's the difference in cost between having one station and 1 having two stations? Mr. Fragala: The difference in cost would be slightly more for one combination station as opposed to the pair of stations based on the fact that the 26th Road alternative as chosen by the Milestone "E" Committee entails no displacements and no relocations but there are still station construction costs to be borne and there would be some savings in not building two stations as opposed to building the one. Mr. Plummer: Also 17th Avenue is mostly commercial. Mr. Fragala: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: And how about the operational aspects of it? Would it cost a lot more operationally to have one more stop? I imagine it would. Mr. Fragala: I can't speak to that with any real intelligence... I think if you're stopping twice it would cost more than stopping once. Mayor Ferre: I have one last question with regards to all these parking garages. What kind of a charge structure do you propose? No charge? Mr. Fragala: Sir, at this time that's not known. ... Mr. Stann; These gentlemen have to do with station planning but to answer that question, the county has not decided on the fare structure yet. We have a fare structure study that's just underway and it will consider a number of altern- atives of fare structures and also parking costs, prices. Mr. Plummer: Well, but the indication is or the question to be answered is there is going to be a parking charge. Mr. Stann; Not necessarily, no. You mean at the transit stations? No, that has not been decided. '_ II IN 1 g 1477 At. Piufer: There will be a charge fot the ridership.... Mt. Stann: That's correct. The transit station parrking May be ftee of it Miay hat be Unifotth.... No, we have a civic center presentation. The parking costs May vary through the county. For example, in stations close to downtown we May have parking charge and the ones outside not a parking charge, that hasn't been decided yet. Mr. PlUMMer: Let Me ask an overall question. At this present posture, what are you anticipating as subsidy on an annual basis to operate? Mr. Stann: Now we're into another area of someone else. That's the county's. Mr. Scott Case: I'm Scott Case in John Dyer's Office. Again, as with the park.- ing policy as with the rate structure of the fare for the transit system itself we have not come down on any precise figure until we can get same more precise figures for example on the cost of operating, the cost of utilities and we anti- cipate that a more precise figure on whatever the operating deficit may be will be forthcoming in about three to four months. Mr. Plummier: What's the ball park figure? Mr. Case: I'm sorry, I don't have that. Alan, do you have.... It's just a little too early yet to give you a really fine eyed answer, commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Maybe it's convenient that you don't have it. Let me ask you, and here again I'm not trying to say who the ball players are, I've just got the questions I'd like answers. Has there anywhere been developed based upon the com- bination station as opposed to the double? Mr. Case: Gene? Mr. Plummer: As to what the availability or whatever that thing you call it, a high priced word for how many people are going to use it? Mr. Case: The ridership. ... Ok, the Vizcaya combined station 8,600 per day. Mr. Plummer: That's each way. Mx. Case: Right. Mr. Plummer: That's not 4,300 each way? Mr. Case: No, that's total. Mr. Plummer: You propose 8,600 will go in and 8,600 will come out. Mr. Case: Total daily riders through that station; 17th Avenue about 4,600; 26th Road about 4,000. Mr. Plummer: A11 right. And you said the 17th Avenue was 6 stories proposed? Mr. Case: No, four. Mr. Plummer: Four stories and 700 cars? Mr. Case: Right, 770. Mr. Plummier: And the combination was 6s? Mr. Case: No, that's six levels. Mr. Plummer: I thought I heard 61. Mr. Case: No, it's two and a half at 26th Road. Mr. Plummier: Ok. And that's how many cars? Mr. Case; 26th Road, 21 levels, 620 cars. Mr. Plummer: And the combination? Mr' Case: Six levels, 1400 cars. 'JUN 61977 Mr. Pluimaer: Ok. Now, is there anyone here prepared to answer the one question that 1 have: If you go to the combination station without carrying tremendous loads of traffic through residential areas, how are you going to have access from the south over to the combination station? Helicopter, right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, I can answer the question. We project that obviously the one station will serve a combined of the two. The traffic coming to the south according to our traffic projections is desirous of going to the 17th Avenue stat- ion. There is no traffic from the south as near as we can project wanting to use the 26th Road station. The total vehicles accessing the 17th Avenue Station, 5% of that number would be coming up South Bayshore Drive and up 17th Avenue having to cross Dixie Highway, negotiate Dixie Highway to access the 17th Avenue site. That traffic if there is no 17th Avenue station if, in fact, one combination stat- ion was chosen could easily continue on up to Coral Way and make a right turn and just access the station from Coral Way down 32nd Road for the one combination station. Mr. Plummer: You don't really feel that's what they're going to do, do you? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't know how else they would do it. Mr. Plumper: Oh, I'll tell you how they'll do it. They'll go First Avenue. Mr. Dick Fosmoen: May I make a comment on that? In the specific station area design it is the design intention to protect that residential area by either a loop street or some other method from through traffic and to achieve access to that station principally off of Coral Way. Mr. Plummer: Well Dick, that's all well and good but the best laid plans of mice and men go astray and the streets of hell are paved with good intentions. I don't intend for the streets of Miami to be paved with good intentions. Mr. Fosmoen: Neither do we, commissioner. Mr. Plumper: You're going into a total residential area as opposed to a commerc- ial area, I don't understand for the life of me. Mr. Fosmoen: The 26th Road alternative is also a residential area. Mr. Plummer: That is correct. I have never necessarilyAelt mitnat there was a need for a 26 Road station and pretty obviously you know based upon 21 levels of parking at best they don't project the need to be that great either. Mr. Fosmoen: I think we need to talk about the function of those stations be- cause they are not necessarily origination stations. There aren't people seek- ing those stations to go downtown, that station is going to serve primarily traffic, as I understand it, that's headed for Key Biscayne and it is a transfer point for a lot of people and not necessarily serving the same function that a Dadeland station is going to serve which is going to be gathering people for a longer trip. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Fosmoen is correct. Also, if you recall, if you'd like I'll go back to the slide but as we invision the combination station now there would be no access from the left side or the south side of the station off U.S. 1. There is a proposed street closing in conjunction with site development in that area and this would force that traffic we feel to use Coral Way and then come down 32nd Road which would be the main access into that station. Mr. Plummer: What do you figure opposed to those people who will UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It varies of the station... in any station the precentage of pedestrians as come there by car? as Mr. Fosmoen was pointing out on the function Mr. Plummer: Let's use 17th Avenue, let's use the combination. Mr. Fosmoen: ...as he answers that I think we need to keep in mind, and one of our principal concerns in working with the KTG on station location is that we have a short term kind of ridership and a longer term ridership. The combinat- ion station has a much greater potential for redevelopment around it than the two separate stations do. The combination station in the short run may not have many people walking to it, in the long run there is a much greater opportunity for redevelopment at that'site. 7 'JUN 161977 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Fosmoen, what else in that area do yo know of that is six floors high? Mr. Fosmoen: I don't know of anything at this point that's six floors high. Mr. Plummer: You're right. Mr. Fosmoen: But I don't think that that's basis on which that decision should be made, commissioner. Mr. Plummer: No, it's just the start of a total destruction of a residential area. Mr. Fosmoen: That's one way of viewing it. You can also view it as a catalyst for redevelopment of that area. Mr. Plummer: For what? Mr. Fosmoen: As our comprehensive plan points out, we're nearly adjacent to Coral Way, there are major opportunities for redevelopment around that site. In the 17th Road station we're limited .... Mayor Ferre: Let's not kid ourselves now. The advent of a rapid transit system is going to completely change the future development of this community and that's not necessarily bad. Now I want to tell you that the experience where I've seen, maybe you've heard me say this before but let me repeat it. Kendall Drive when it was built was a road to nowhere. Everybody got very upset and I remember one time right here in this commission room somebody pointed out, they said, "Look, there are two theories on building roads: (1) You wait for the demand, for people to go into an area and then you have to build a road there. The other way to do it is you build the road to nowhere which is where you want the devel- opment to go and that road will bring the development': Now I'm going to apply that same logic to what's being proposed here. In thirty years you won't recog- nize what will happen to the blocks surrounding each one of these stations and the people who live in those residential neighborhoods... That's what we're dealing with right now. Wherever you put those stations, around there you're going to see a major change in the next 20 years. Now, I'm going to express my personal opinion.... Of Mr. Plummer: I'm waiting for an answer, Mr. Mayor.... Mayor Ferre: Well, when you finish you let me know. Mr. Plummer: I'd ask for the answer as to the percentage of walking people as to cars. f UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At the Vizcaya combination station there would be approx- imately 1,400 persons who would be walking to that. Mr. Plummer:. 1,400? And then the remaining 7,200 would be coming by car. Is that correct? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And or bus. W. Plummer: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: It's just an opinion, I frankly, I personally think that we're better off with two stations, one at 17th and one at 29th because I think there is a whole area there around the entrance to Rickenbacker Causeway along Brickell Avenue and up to Coral way which I think is going to have a tremendous impact on the future development, immediate future development of the area. I think as you get away from that intersection which is a major access point in Miami I think you are going to maybe long term wise have more impact but in the short term, by that I mean in the next 10 years, I think it would be more important to have two stations. Now the other thing is that if these stations are as successful as they may tend to be, that doesn't mean that they're not going to grow larger because as the demand grows for the station let's say on 17th and on 26th then the size of that station may increase. See, you have 212 levels, it may not be 211 levels someday and you probably might have to provide a foundation so that you Could go two more levels. Mr, Plummer: Well, based upon what they're doing right now my mathematics tells me that each car is going to have to hold six people. Each car that's parked in the garage of that facility represents 6 people in ridership in the automobile, 'JUN 161977 drilk .41 Mayor Ferre: Well, as 1 understand it all you're really doing here is you're informing us of the way this is going and the direction this is takingithe con4, elusions. We really have no authority over it, the final authority is the County COMMission. Now we can pass resolutions of recommendation if this commission So wishes. I'd like to ask one last question of you, Mr. Fosmoen. I'm sore our staff has looked at this, do you concur with these conclusions? Mr. Fosmoen: We concur with the combination station.... Mayor Ferre: Rather than 17 and 26? Mr. Fowmoen: Yes. And there are several reasons for that if 1 may. The 26th Road area in terms of redevelopment opportunities is less we think than the com- bination station. We understand that we have a choice- either it's two stat- ions or a combination. The 26th Road area is very sensitive to redevelopment. If we look at that area it can maintain itself quite well as a fine single family residential area but if we introduce a transit station in there it's going to change, there's no question about it and we'll be fighting the battle for years over redevelopment. That neighborhood is not going to accept redevelopment. Mayor Ferre: Which area are you talking about? Mr. Fosmoen: 26th Road, the northern two stations. Mayor Ferre: You're within two blocks of areas that already have high-rise build- ings. See, and as you get away from that.... Mr. Fosmoen: It is still a very fragile area and a very stable single family area. Secondly, of course, we're supporting the concept of the comprehensive plan which this commission adopted a month and a half ago. Mayor Ferre: The comprehensive plan, of course, as we've often said around here evidently unlike Metro's is not something chiseled in stone and it's a flexible document that we're going to be dealing with as occasions demand. That doesn't mean that's it. Mr. Fosmoen: We view it as a policy statement on the part of this commission. Mayor Ferre: It's a working living document. Mr. Fosmoen: Yes, sir. Ms. Wacher: Before moving onto the Civic Center alignment study you all ment- P' ioned the parking policy, a draft peper will be coming out shortly that we will ' be delivering for review by the policy council of which the Downtown Develop- ment Authority is represented as well as Vice -Mayor Gibson so it will be subject to review and discussion by the city too. And again, the public hearing on this entire process will be at the end of July, so if I can turn it over now to Jim McDonald for the Civic Center Alignment Study. Mr. Jim McDonald: Thank you. Rev. Gibson: May I ask a question before you proceed? I didn't hear the sense, you reported to the commission that you had these hearings and that any and every- body who wanted to speak could speak. Is that what I was told? That's what we were told? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In regards to station group III? - Rev. Gibson: Yes, air. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir. Rev. Gibson: All right, now let me ask another question. Did anybody speak? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir. Rev. Gibson: Ok, let me do another thing. I was told, there's a lady here who had wanted to speak and was not given an opportunity to speak. Why don't we let her speak now? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER; Well, I suppose you could. Would you like to go through this presentation first? 9 JUN 161977 Rev. Gibson: All right, I just want to put you on guard that we, this commis- sion lets every citizen speak who wants to speak - good, better, indifferent. Ok? Alright, I just want to make sure you understand. Mr. Jim McDonald: Ok, what we're going to be dealing with here is the Civic Center Study and I'd just like to go back here to a little point that was brought up at the beginning. The reason that we're doing the Civic Center Study at this point is by recommendation of the city with reference to the Neighborhood Compre- hensive Plan that wasn't adopted at the time that the County Commissioners had presently adopted what they call the preliminary engineering alignment. So start- ing in the Civic Center area which in the lower portion there labeled as segment one is the area that accomodates the medical and government complexes. This is the actual Civic Center study area reaching from llth Street to the south to 54th Street to the north, from 10th Avenue on the east to 19th Avenue on the west. This as you see here is the alignment that was originally approved by the County approximately a year ago during preliminary engineering. Those dark squares on there are the three stations that were recommended at that time north of the Civic Center area and one station there to the south which was also recommended at that time. ... along Wagner Creek here and then continuing on up 17th Avenue. In this area down here as you can see we just came in with a number of various altern- atives for getting back over and that's what I'm going to deal with right now. Because of the complexity and the different kind of land use that's accomodated down here south of 20th Street or the medical government complex area we dealt with this as what we call Segment 1 and because of the type of land use being residential, commercial and some industrial areas in the northern portion of the study area we're dealing with that separately and labeling that as Segment 2. So going into Segment 1 here again are all the alternatives that were originally lookedn the Civic Center Complex Area. We went through an initial screening process of all these various alternatives and found that the majority of them were infeasible to look at any further because of expansion plans at Veterans Hospital and some of the future projected land use plans at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Also the "C" alignement here was eliminated because it was defeating the purpose of trying to locate a station in the center of the complex area. It was propos- ing a station here again to skirt the actual demand point as was the original preliminary engineering alignment. These are the two alignments then that were considered and at this point has been voted on by the Milestone B committee which is a citizen group. It was an overwhelming type of vote in favor of the B align- ment coming across from llth street across the Women's Detention Center. Now at the end of the presentation I'll be getting into a discussion of this area but bear with me we'll run through this very quickly due to time. ... Ok, it's as was originally proposed and endorsed by the Milestone B Committee. It continues across the Women's Detention Center crossing the East-West Expressway across the County property up to the median of 12th Avenue continuing north in the median of 12th Avenue to a station that crosses over the top of where 16th Street and 12th Avenue intersect; this being Jackson Memorial Hospital, Veterans Hospital, Univer-, sity of Miami and the Cedars of Lebanon, 16th Street which is the main entrance to Jackson Memorial also the entrance point to Veterans. Ok, I'd like to just take you to a couple of shots showing, this is the station that was originally approved during preliminary engineering. This is the County Court, the Justice Building, Safety Building. This is 13th Court, the East-West Expressway where we're crossing under it. Just going very quickly, this is the point where we'd be crossing under the East-West Expressway. This is 13th Court, the County Justice Building being on the right. This is the approximate location of where the station would have been located. That street would have had to have been closed and then continuing on north through the residential district along Wagner Creek on up to 17th Avenue approximately at this portion where it is making its curve. There's a lot of disruption of existing property and so on with the original pre- liminary engineering alignment. Now, the alignment on 12th Avenue or the B align- ment as referred to and the station, this here again being Jackson Memorial, Vet- erans, University of Miami and Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, this being the govern- ment complex, 14th Street. This is where we're starting to make our turn into the median of 12th Avenue. This is the approximate location of where the station is to be located. This is 16th Street that goes in, it's the entrance to Jackson Memorial, Veterans Hospital, the main entrance into Veterans at this point. Here's just kind of a sketch of what the station is proposed to look like. It is a med- ian station, it is approximately 450' in length, projected length would be 600' down to approximately this point. This is the Cedars of Lebanon Building. It is an office -residential or residence and parking type of garage structure. This is the University of Miami, the Jackson Memorial and the Veterans Hospital over here on the left. What we're proposing is a pedestrian overpass over 12th Avenue with two verticle access points for the pedestrians on the east and the west side. These verticle accesses will be 16'6" passing over the top of 12th Avenue and the station will be approximately 3 stories in height. What we're also proposing, and we're dealing with the institutions at this point, is making a pedestrian connection 10 JUN 161977 between this pedestiran overpass and the actual institutions on each side. These verticle access points will have escalators, elevators, staircases and so on on each side. Just a quick rendering here of what the station will actually, is pro- posed to look like. As I said, there is three stories. This is approximately from the top of the rail to the ground about 30-32' in height. Here again, 16'6" to the first story passing over the top of 12th Avenue. Here again, I'd like to point out that this station being a median alignment station we plan to, all exist- ing traffic movements will continue as they are at present and all turning move- ments and so on. We're not disrupting any of the existing traffic flow systems. Now dealing with segment two which is that area north of 20th Street and that area, here again consists basically of a residential type of land uses, commercial along 17th Avenue and an industrial district here around the SCL right-of-way - railroad right-of-way there. These are the three alternatives for this area. This is the Civic Center Station that I have just shown you with Jackson Memorial, Veterans coming up, called the B-3 alignment, bends right past the city incinerator site across more city property up to the median of 20th Street, down the median of 20th Street turning into 17th Avenue. The B-5 alignment here again continues from the station up 12th Avenue bending along the south side of the airport ex- pressway and continuing along the south side in a westerly direction passing over the top of the airport expressway here again to 17th Avenue. Now the B-6 align- ment continued from the station directly north up to 54th Street where it turns and goes west along the south side of 54th Street. Those are the three alternat- ives for getting the alignement from the proposed civic center station back over to the original approved alignment which is the A alignment as shown here. This is what we call the B-3 alignment I've just shown you, the B-5 alighment and the B-6 alignment. Just very briefly I'd just like to point out some of the land uses in this kind of a summary map here. This is a result of studies that we attained from the Little HUD orgainization as far as the type of land uses that are occuring in the area, talking with other organizations and also dealing with the Allapattah Businessmen's Association. We found that south of the airport expressway along 17th Avenue is a commercial area that's kind of reviving itself at this point and it's going through a growth process that could become a viable neighborhood type of residential district. North of the airport expressway on 17th Avenue is a commercial area that's somewhat less desirable due to the amount of vacant open space that exists and the vacant structures that are existing. South of the airport Expressway along 12th Avenue is a residential area. The structures in this area and the type or the location of the structures are some- what undesirable due to the fact that when 12th Avenue was widened a lot of the side yards and so on of those structures were taken. North of the Airport Express- way along 12th Avenue is again a single family district that's a desirable type of area for single family homes because of the type of homes that axe existing there now, single family and there is very little vacancy existing. Now I also want to point out that there are very sensitive land uses existing that we're r trying to avoid at all cost, being schools, parks, churches. Here again, the park, YMCA, highschool and same churches that exist along 17th Avenue. Just quick- ly on 12th Avenue, this is the area that I was talking about as being some hous- ing that is less desirable than the housing which is north of the Airport Express- way, single family homes. 17th Avenue, this is the area south of the Airport Expressway that I was talking about as far as commercial starting to in -fill that area, kind of reviving itself. This is the area north of the Airport Expressway. As you can see there are some vacant structures existing, vacant land, pockets of land and probably a less desirable commercial area. This being the B-5 alignment which came out of the Civic Center to the south, Airport Expressway, this align- ment continues west in the actual right of way of the Airport Expressway. It would be right along the north side of 39th Street. In essence, we're not taking the road or any residential structures along 39th Street. This is a shot now. Right here between the road corridor and 39th Street is a grassed area. This would be the actual location of the guideway structure. This is looking west from 39th Street and the Airport Expressway. This is the alignment then that was endorsed by the Milestone B Committee at the meeting on Tuesday night and also on May 31st. It continues out of the Civic Center area, continues up 12th Avenue of the median to approximately 20th Street when it bends over and continues on north on the east side of 12th Avenue up to where it makes about a 900' radius turn to the Airport Expressway, continues along the south side of the Airport Expressway and turns over the top of the Airport Expressway and connects back into the original preliminary engineering alignment and that alignment continues on the east side of 17th Avenue up to approximately 48th Street where it bends over to the west side of 17th Avenue and it turns at the top into the south side of 54th Street. Now the reason for this switch over at that point is to preserve a church on approximately 51st Street up there which is located on the east side. Now the Women's Detention Center, what I have here is an aerial and I also have a drawing here which is the same as the plan that you see here. Now this is the original alignment that was just recently endorsed by the citizenry.... 11 JUN 161977 Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, isn't 46 the old City of Miami Police Station? Mr. McDonald: Women's Detention. Mayor Ferre: It looks like the Police Station. Mr. Mc Donald: This 47 here is the Law Enforcement Training Center. This 46 is the old Women's Detention Center... Mr. Grassie: That's the Police Justice Building, Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Well, this is the City of Miami's old Municipal Justice Building. Now I don't know, where does this Women's Detention thing...? Mrs. Gordon: It occupies a small area on the southern part. Mr. McDonald: Ok. Then 48 is the City and County distribution center for, and I guess it's street materials and so on. Also, in this building right here is the pumping station for the waterworks. It is a building containing a lot of computer type of systems. Over on this other side here is an apartment building and we have Wagner Creek continuing along the side there with residential type of properties on the east. Now.... Mrs. Gordon: May I ask you a question? Mr. McDonald: Yes. Mrs. Gordon: Will you tell me one good reason why your curve has to go right over that building? In every other area wherever you had to make a change of direction you made a change of direction on a much sharper angle. In this case, it looks like to me you have a deliberate attempt to remove that building by the very path that you have drawn for this alignment. ... Oh, that's nice. inr. McDonald: We weren't taking the incinerator, we worked this out with the Director of Public Properties and we have plans for the entire area and their proposed heavy equipment.... Mayor Ferre: Well, let me phrase it differently. If you make that curve maybe a couple of hundred feet over couldn't you miss that building? Mr. McDonald: Yes, that's something that we're looking at right now. There was an original proposal for making a turn up over this portion right here and the reason that we eventually went with this was for engineering purposes. We have a span here which is much larger than what our normal span is for the guideway. To span this we'd have to locate a pillar right in the middle of the highway here. Now, what we're doing in response to this building is looking from an engineering standpoint at the feasibility of coming across and preserving this building. Rev. Gibson: What happens to Holiday Inn? Mr. McDonald: The Holiday Inn? That's way down here. That's what I said, right here. This is the original preliminary engineering alignment here in the blue. What we're proposing is a turn somewhere in this area. What I have here is the actual engineering drawing like I've shown you at that point. Mayor Ferre: Say, we're beginning to run out of time, it's about 2:15. Mr. McDonald: Ok, I'll just very quickly explain here that this is the alignment that we're looking at right now in response to your desires on the Women's Detent- ion Center Building here. This alignment here leaves llth Street as does the other alighment that we had originally proposed. Both of them have a 750' radius turn which is the very minimum that we can make. Turning going north would require the taking of two or three buildings here in the distribution center and the Law Enforcement Building to the north and we would be required to either try and lo- cate a pillar in the middle of the expressway which would require approvel from D.O.T., the Department of transportation, or if we couldn't get that approval we would have to span about 220' which is about equivalent to that of the Miami River. So we come on up and then make our turn into the median of 12th Avenue. So from an engineering standpoint both alignments are feasible. I'd like to just point out one other thing that the alignment that was originally proposed is about 250 foot longer than this other alignment which amounts to about $350,000 as far as cost. However, the proposed alignment to bypass the Women's Detention Center has seven what we cal4traddle bands. That's to make a lot of these straddles to get back onto 12th Avenue up in this area. Those run approximately $54,000 each. So that's not considering what the span over the expressway would run as far as cost. ... The problem is this is a very intense area right in here as far 1.2 JUN 161977 buildings and we had a lot of proposals coming out of here but Veterans Hospital is proposing to utilize this entire corner up here and to try and bring this alignment, make this turn and cane back the curves would be too tight. We looked at that. Mt. Plummer: ... the more I think would be desirable to walk from the closest station over to the Orange Bowl. Mr. McDonald: Ok, we're talking here about 60O' approximately which as far as the distance isn't really that great as far as the difference between the locat- ion of the station here or here. There is a difference between the land use, this being the government center. You have a morning shift and an evening shift. Being a medical complex you have three and four shifts a day. You have constant in and out egressing of people. You have approximately 70% of your total patron- age up in this area. This is a very small number. This is a 7 day a week, 24 hour a day service. This is a five day a week eight hour service. Mrs. Gordon: What's the closest location then to be specific to the Orange Bowl? Exactly where? What street is it, the station? Mr. McDonald: There is a station right here at 7th Avenue. There is also a stat- ion when the alignment starts bending down at loth Street. So the Orange Bowi being approximately down here on 7th, here's 12th Avenue and then 7th Street is approximately right in here. This is llth so it's four blocks down. Mrs. Gordon: When it starts bending down, what do you mean by that? What do you mean when, where? Show me exactly. 011 Mr. McDonald: I mean 12th Avenue right here comes on down south, goes over the Miami River... You know where 12th Avenue goes over...? Ok, then there's Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Well, why can't you bring in a station somewhere down on the other side of the river? Mayor Ferre: I guess where the question that we're all going, where Mrs. Gordon is going is: Why instead of bringing it along that corridor north of the river when it goes from East to West, why didn't you bring it along the alignment of 7th Street and then go north up 12th Avenue? Mr. McDonald: Ok, the questions you're bringing up right now were questions that were answered about a year ago during preliminary engineering. The study that we're doing right now is merely to locate a station in the high patronage demand area. Now the Orange Bowl was looked at during the preliminary engineering and why it didn't go along 7th Avenue you can find in the document. I know one thing that to try and bend out of the City Government Center would be very costly and almost impossible to get over 95 at that point. That's one of the reasons that we're coming up to this point to serve this area. This was all explained I think during the preliminary engineering. Our study only runs from llth Street, this point where it hooks in up to 54th. Mayor Ferre: I understand some of the logic, one is that I know there is a trem- endous amount of vandalism that occurs to these units after games in cities where there is rapid transit like at Shay Stadium, I've seen it myself several times where it is unbelievable when all the people rush out and that type of thing. But let me ask you this, and the other thing, of course, is that your maximum ridership is going to be what, 14,000 and hour or 12,000 an hour? If you were to load up after a game, how many could you get out? If that station were right next to the Orange Bowl how many people could you get out in one hour's time? Mr. McDonald: At maximum about 20,000 people per hour. Mr. Case: But the thing you have to look at is the type of serviceothat the Orange Bowl isn't functioning the same as an area where you're bringing in resi- dents Mayor Ferre: I know, I'm not into that. You're off talking about Oranges, I'm talking about apples. Now, as I understand it's a limitation as to how many you could get out anyway in an hour and the point that you're bringing out now is that you only have maybe 15 or 20 uses a year and you couldn't justify the expense. But I question that because that area around the Orange Bowi is going to be a maximum development area as we move along because of the high rises and the sen- ior citizens and what have you. Mr. Plummer: .... the proposals in the Orange Bowl Improvements not necessarily that that would be agreed upon, was to put a parking structure there of about 13 "JUN 161977 1500 capacity and which it would be used for the Civic Center, that during the day it would be used by people of the Civic Center and they would need transport- ation from there over to the Civic Center plus at night it would, of course, be used for any activities in the Orange Bowl. So I think that has to have a bear- ing. Mayor Ferre: Well, there's another correlary point in all of that and that is I'm sure you're assuming a lot of people are going to go to the Orange Bowl, if we provide bus system for example from the Orange Bowl to the station that you're going to have 50 buses lined up just shuttling back and forth and that you will have use of that station. Mr. McDonald: Right, that's the ... Most likely it would probably be like the 7th Avenue station here. A lot of the questions you're bringing up I can't really address because I wasn't here during the preliminarlAngineering but most of those I think are probably answered in the preliminary engineering report, why the alignment doesn't go to the Orange Bowl. Mayor•Ferre: I don't mean to rush the commission but it is 2:25 and we've got a lot of people that are here on some other things. So how much longer do you have in your presentation? Mr. McDonald: That's it. Mrs. Gordon: I have a question to you, Helen, or to anyone you assign the quest- ion to. If I understand it there seems to be some problem with regard to your willingness to submit your plans to the Regional Planning Council. I would like you to tell me why. Ms. Wacher: I will assign that question. Mr. Case: Madame Commissioner, the unifying planning work program for example was submitted to the Regional Planning Commission. I think your point possibly goes to the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the role of the Metropolitan Plann- ing Clearing House. Now the clearing house in the Metropolitan Planning area, the clearing house of the Regional Planning Council, those roles have not been completely defined yet. AS a matter of fact, on May 15th we forwarded to Mr. Peterson a draft memorandum of agreement or memorandum of understanding which would help define the role between the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the South Florida Regional Planning Council. I think your question will be answ- ered as soon as we can sort out what is now a draft memorandum of understanding delineating who does what to whom. In other words what does the Metropolitan Planning Organization do, what does the South Florida Regional Planning Council do. I think the answer to your question will come up within the next 30 to 60 days as the two try to sort out by virtue or through the use of the memorandum of understanding what the proper role should be. Mrs. Gordon: For instance, station location and such alignments, you say you have no objection, everything is being submitted for review, correct? Mr. Case: No, I did not say that. You see, it is my understanding that we sub- mit to the Regional Planning Council those things of a regional impact. Now I don't see why a station location, for example, at Vizcaya, a combination station would have a real regional impact. Now that's why we do not at this time send such things as the station location, group II or group III to the South Florida Regional Planning Council for review. Now we have no objection to sending them for information. ... A Vizcaya Station. .... Rev. Gibson: Are you telling me that Vizcaya station or any other station in a system like this is not of regional importance? Mr. Case: It is, of course, of regional importance, Mr. Vice -Mayor, but as far as the County Commissioners, as far as the Commission of Miami making the decis- ion this is not of an affect on Broward County, for example, as the overall plan of the transit system. Now that was submitted to the Regional Planning Council back when we first made our grant application in 1975. That was submitted to the Regional Planning Council for their review. Mrs. Gordon: Was there an application for review of A-95 on the $575,000,000 grant? Mr. Case: That was the grant application which I'm referring to. Mrs. Gordon: That was not submitted. 14 JUN 161977 Mr. Case: Over two years ago, ma'am. Mrs. Gordon: As far as I know the Regional Planning Council never received a A-95 on that application. Mr. Case: If my memory serves me right it was in March.... Mrs. Gordon: We will check that then later, you and I. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, before we leave that young lady wanted to say something. Mr. Case: One final thing I would like to say if I may, and that is that the citizens' committee meetings, the citizens meetings that are held two or three a week are conducted by the citizens not by the Office of Transportation Administrat- ion, not by the Kaiser Transit Group. Rev. Gibson: We understand, but if a citizen wants to be heard and cares to be heard.on any circumstance certainly when they came here we want them heard. Come on up, madame. Mr. Plummer: Father, before she speaks I would just like to make a request. Helen, I would like a copy if you have, and I assume there are minutes of these meetings, are there not,the public meetings? Are there minutes kept? Mr. Case: Of this meeting or the citizen meetings? Mr. Plummer: The citizens meetings. Mrs. Gordon: Is there a record of who attended it and who spoke? W. Plummer: I would like anything that you have pertaining to that area of group three mainly how notification was given to the citizenry, (2) how many attended and (3) predominately what areas they came from and (4) the vote that was taken and the results thereof. I heard in the presentation some mention that some votes were unanimous and whether it was or by design or intent, other votes were not announced otherEis is the citizenry. I'd like those if you would furnish them to me. Mayor Ferre: Could that be done? Alright, thank you very much. Anything else? Ma'am, we'll recognize you for a brief statement because we're a half hour late now. 01, Ms. Linda Alger: My name is Linda Alger. I live in the 27th Avenue station area. I didn't attend the first meetings regarding transit because I knew nothing about it, none of my neighbors knew anything about it. I went door to door to find out if anybody knew anything about it or attended any meetings. I found out nobody had. I went to a meeting myself in the Allapattah area, I was not allowed to ask any questions which I have received an apology from the Transportation Department since then on that matter. I organized my entire neighborhood and we all went door to door and knocked and that's why at one meeting there was between 250 to 400 people there. However, when people were not allowed to ask any questions over half of the people walked out in protest. Until the meeting this past Tuesday night there has beers a complete lack of sensitivity as to how the residents in the adjacent neighborhoods feel on these stations coming into their neighborhoods. The question is not even asked, "Do you want this station in your neighborhood or not?". They say the purpose of the meeting is not to find whether we want it in our neighborhood or not but as to what street we want it on. Until this meeting Tuesday night we were really not allowed to express our opinion or given any type of a summary. The attitude of Kaiser Transit and the Transportation Department was that they could not waste time at every meeting informing the newcomers to the meeting as to what went on at previous meetings or what the purpose of the meetings were. Consequently, people come to one meeting, they get disappointed at the response they get and they leave and they don't come back to another meet- ing. The only ones that are allowed to vote are people that have previously attended one meeting. At this meeting that we voted on the 26th Road Vizcaya combination and 17th avenue stations, true there were maybe 100 people there but the vote was I believe 36-4 of the people that were allowed to vote, not 100 people as Augie told us because you're not allowed to vote unless you've attended more than one meeting they feel that you don't know enough about it to vote so if you've got nobody from the roads section attending the roads does get the station. Also, until this task meeting Tuesday night the City of Miami Planning Board was not allowed to give their opinion, as to what was going on. They were just put on the agenda this past Tuesday night because of continuous calls that I have made and addressing many people in the Transportation Department and telling them 15 JUN 161977 that I was going to come before the commission and that I was going to go before the States Attorney's Office and ask why we have not been able to speak at these meetings. Past Tuesday night they were sensitive to the people's questions, they did relax Roberts' Rules of Order and let us have discussion on areas. However, the voting has already taken place so the questions that we were allowed to ask were more or less after the fact. Mrs. Gordon: That's interesting. Mr. Plummer: What would you have this commission do if we had the power? Ms. Alger: Well, I feel that in order for the Transportation Department to meet their, the dates that they have to have their work finalized I don't know that they would want to back up and hold any meetings over and properly notify anybody other than a little notice in the Herald. I don't think that they'd be willing to back up and hold any meetings over again. I would ask that there be some sort of group appointed by the commission to audit future meetings of the groups that are going to affect City of Miami residents of which there are quite a few meet- ings coming up. Rev. Gibson: Pardon me, I promise you at the next meeting I will transmit to the policy committee your concern and what happened to you because that isn't what they tell us. Ok? The buck stops here. I'll make sure that the entire Metro Commission knows that you all aren't given, you know, the opportunity. Then.. they'll have to defend that. Make sure I get your name, address and telephone number before you leave. Ms. Alger: Yes, sir, I will. Thank you. Mrs. Gordon: Thank you. Jack Luft, did you attend the same meeting that this young lady attended? Were you allowed to speak? Ernie, would you just let Jack say yes or no into the mike? Mr. Jack Luft: Yes, I was allowed to speak. Mrs. Gordon: And that was the Shenandoah meeting? Mr. Luft: Yes, it was. I've attended all transit meetings. Mrs. Gordon: Ok. You were not held back on any conversation or any opinions or anything? Mr. Luft: No, I was allowed to speak. Mr. Plummer: Speaking as an individual or speaking as the City of Miami? Mr. Luft: I was representing the City of Miami. Mr. Fosmoen: That's correct. Mr. Ernie Fannato: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to speak for just about a minute. Honorable Mayor and members of the commission, Ernie Fannatto is my name, pres- ident of the Taxpayers League of Dade County. I think that the people in the City of Miami should have injected in the record what the various three routes, the routes they're talking about, the cost of the right-of-way property that's going to be taken off of the tax roles. I would also like to know that the station that's going to be three stories high, whether they're going to have an elevator there or how the people are going up and down. I'd like to have them answer that now and I'd like to know what the projected cost of the stations are going to be. I think the people of the City of Miami should have these here and as commissioners I think you should be the watchdog of the taxpayers and you should know the projected cost of the three different routes. I think these questions should be answered. Mayor Ferre: All right, for the record, and if you'd get Mr. Fannatto an answer to those three questions. Did you get all three questions? All right, that's something you can answer and perhaps submit to us in writing and to Mr. Fannatto Mr. Fannatto: No, I'd like it to be in the record, Mayor. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, if you have the answers now, I'm trying to save time. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER; I'm sure or. two of the questions, I'm not sure on the third. The first one on the cost of the station, it's estimated at this time each station 16 JUN 161977 would run in the neighborhood of two and a half million dollars for the station and platform itself. The method of movement between the first and second floors would consist of escalators, elevators and stairways ... the requirement that would provide adequate access for elderly and handicapped individuals. The third question? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The other question is how much right-of-way property is going to be taken off of the tax rolls, which is the most advantaged in your estim- ation and what amount? Mayor Ferre: In other words how will the tax roll be affected if the property is taken off of the tax rolls. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At this time the budget available for station development in the south section of the line is about $35,000,000. The north section of the line is about $12,000,000. The actual cost for the guideway segment itself I'm not certain of, much of it is in F.E.C. right-of-way at this time. I'm not sure Mayor Ferre: Why don't you have those figures available and submit them to us as far as what's involved within the City of Miami if you would, please. Alright, thank you, Mr. Fannatto. Any other questions at this time? If not, thank you very much. 2. REPORT OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS THROUGH COMMISSIONER J. L, PLU MER, JR, FOR SUPE7RBOWl. TO CONE TO MIAMI IN 1979. Mayor Ferre: Now, before we go on to the regulat agenda very quickly we're going to ask J.L. Plummer to give us a two minute wrap up of his successful trip which we're all very proud of. When I heard the news of his arrival I said to the press that I he was on my speaking list again, I had taken him off before but I forgive him and we're about to ground zero. You did a hell of a job, J.L., we're very proud of you. Can you wrap it up in a few minutes? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, as the report indicates I think probably has to be said was the cheapest committee we ever went, spent less dollars than we ever spent, made a 16 minute presentation to the owners in New York. Our presentation, Mr. Mayor, was, and as you know this was my fifth presentation, was about as well organized as I think possible. The questions which they asked were answered immediately and it is the only time that I can recall that, in fact, a presentation was given a hand and applause by the owners which gratified r.. us to no end. Mayor Ferre: Did you bow? Mr. Plummer: We didn't bow, we got it as we were going out the door. Mr. Mayor, we had some very stiff opposition from seven other major cities and seven other major bowls. I think that I should say one thing to this commission that didn't disturb me, in a way it did but in a way it didn't, much more consideration was given this year than in the past to moving out of the sun belt which they had done in the past. They used the terminology "Controlled weather stadiums" such as Pontiac, Michigan and Seattle. The request of those, of course, were that they be given the opportunity to see this event live rather than have to con- stantly be forced to watch it on TV. Other than that the only other significant thing that happened that is not in the record is the fact that Pasadena as we understand it made a proposal to the owners of a ten year plan of which they would be either the recipient of five of those years but if, in fact, they were given that guarantee that the Pasadena people would do almost anything they wanted in the way of improvements to their stadium. The big thing that we all fight is not something we can't do anything about, Pasadena, the Rose Bowl, seats 106,000 people and most other stadiums are in the neighborhood of 80 or less. Mr. Mayor, it is my recommendation that on•Tuesday's meeting that we, the commis- sion publically thank Mayor Steve Clark who went along, and I cannot say enough... Mayor Ferre:• You can do it now, make it in the form of a resolution. Mr. Plummer: Well, I'd like to make it to them in person on Tuesday. Mr. Mayor, I cannot say enough for Mr. Jessie Weiss of the T.D.A. of Miami Beach who after rehearsing his speech 87 times to hoan it to two minutes completely pushed it aside and gave about a minute and a half dissertation which I think was most crucial, the owners of the N.F.L. are always concerned that during Super Bowl there will be Super Bowl prices and they have had some very very sad experiences in some of the cities and Mr. Weiss went forth very strongly to give them the JUN 161977 assurances that this would not happen, it had never happened in Miami and it would not happen in the future. I think, Mr. Mayor, over all I would like to see commended at Tuesday's Commission Meeting Mr. Lew Price of the City of Miami Publicity, Mr. Jessie Weiss of the T.D.A. and Mayor Stever Clark who did an excellent job in assisting me in making this presentation. The report speaks for itself. Oh, let me just give you one other thing. Mr. Mayor, the night before the presentation we took time out to go to dinner and 1 want to tell you that I'm not one that's superstitious but we went to a Chinese restaurant and of the four people who re- ceived fortune cookies the other three received a fortune which had something to say about love or affection or something. I was the last to open mine and I figure boy, that was really going to be my day but I want you to know it was preordained. My fortune cookie read the night before my presentation, "A great fortune is or-_. dained for you, wait patiently" and twelve hours of waiting patiently it was a success. So I want you to know I knew in advance what was going to happen. Rev. Gibson: Thank you, commissioner. 3, . DlscussloN OF PROPOSED ORANGE BOWL. INPRa1lFlWS, Mayor Ferre: I wanted to make one comment about this, if I may. You know a lot of people have the tendency to pooh-pooh the Orange Bowl and how bad it is and all of that and 1 want to point out just two things. One is that as you know on June 7th the people overwhelmingly, in my opinion, came forward saying that they're willing to tax themselves up to $15,000,000 or more actually because of the inter- est and all of that to improve the stadium. In this day and time when people are willing to do that it certainly shows a real solid support. You know there was very little campaigning, no advertising, very little news coverage of it, it was a real simple, true, honest to goodness referendum. Secondly, we got the last Super Bowl three years ago, I mean three years from 79 (1976). Previous to that it was four years so the cycle has been four years, three years, this will be the fifth Super Bowl. Now the conditions of that Orange Bowl have not changed very much really during this period of time; so it comes to show you that that stadium may be, and as hard as those wooden seats may be, obviously the owners as well as the people of Miami, the owners of the football leagues don't give it that much importance because if they did, obviously they'd be choosing all of these stadiums that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have all of these amenitities and yet evidently the location in Miami and the things that we've got to offer came to be more important almost than the conditions of the stadium and I think that point has not been made and I think it is a very significant point which tells a great deal about this. I just like to look at it this way, we have a stadium which could basically seat with improvements 80,000 people. We know that we can improve it for 8 or 9 or 10 or $15,000,000 depending how far we want to go, we can increase the parking maybe up to 5,500 at a reasonable price, we can for about $3,000,000 put about 50,000 chairback seats. The access couldn't be improved, we've got a major expressway but it isn't just the expressway, if the Orange Bowl had to depend on the expressway it wouldn't be very palatable. We've got Flagler Street, we've 12th and 17th Avenues, there are very few stadiums in the nations that can empty out 80,000 people in half an hour. As you all know from being there, the Orange Bowl does that. If you were to build a new stadium out in the Everglades you'd need - in Dade County or in Broward County - you'd need a 10 lane road to empty it out when it was finished. It seems to me that we really have got to make an appeal to the Chamber of Commerce and everybody in this community to get Mr. Robbie down to brass tacks to the reality of the sit- uation. There is no way that this community can afford a $50,000,000 new stadium and I think the repeated decision five times now of the owners of football teams around the nation certainly shows that the Orange Bowl as bad as it is is certain- ly acceptable and certainly would be acceptable if we go through with all of these improvements that we can do reasonably. Now I would like to ask the commission to pass a motion requesting Mr. Grassie to come back with these studies that have been underway now once again for the past couple of months, I think we ought to have that before this commission certainly before we go on vacation in August and I'd like to bring it up with specifics so that we can vote on it so that we can again go on record. I'd like for it to be in such a way so that we can then put it on the ballot whether it be November or whenever the opportunity arrises. I feel perfectly safe in putting it on again in November after that overwhelming vote we had this past June. Now this doesn't mean that if we can find an alter- nate wate of financing it that we shouldn't use the alternate ways but I think we've got to have that in hand. Now, I want to explain to the people who write editorials in our newspapers on the record that it isn't quite that simple that we go out and "Yes, we're going to go out and start spending $10,000,000 of tax- payers' monies and then find out that somebody does come up with a new stadium and what are we going to do with the Orange Bowl." This has got to be a problem that must be resolved jointly and that means it must resolved jointly by the users and the owner which is the City of Miami and the taxpayers who have expressed their opinion. Now I feel that we've just got to push this ahead and have 18 JUN 161977 everything ready so that if we do get a favorable vote in November, and I would like to recommend that we put it on the ballot in November with exact figures, with exact projections and exactly what we're going to do with estimates and the whole thing worked out to the en detail so that we don't have any of these editor,. ials of we don't know what we're voting on type of a thing. Then at that point I think I would almost personally have to make my vote subject to the Dolphins' concurrence that they're going to stay in that stadium because otherwise I don't see how in the world we can proceed with millions of dollars of expenditures if our main user is not going to be there. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I also would like to express an opinion and I think Com- missioner Plummer ought to have a vote of thanks from this commission because I think perhaps he is a super salesman that has something to do with the decision as well as the location of the Orange Bowl facility and I would so move that we thank Mr. Plummer officially on the record. Mayor Ferre: I think that we should have, if you don't mind the modification, that we should have a thanks to Mr. Plummer separately and then one for Jessie Weiss and Steve Clark and Lew Price and everybody and have it ready for Tuesday morning. Mrs. Gordon: All right. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 77- 502 A MOTION TO THANK COMMISSIONER J. L. PLUMMER, JR. FOR HIS SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO BRING THE SUPERBOWL TO MIAMI IN JANUARY, 1979. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Mrs. Gordon: Now, Mr. Mayor, I want to say what I started to say. I have a real hang up about the City of Miami taxpayers paying for the millions of dollars it is going to take to put this facility into the shape it has to be put into. I have no hang up whatsoever about the retention of the facility and the improve- ments that have to be made to it, that's not the point whatsoever. I feel, and I have talked to a great number of people who do not live in the City of Miami who are ardent fans of the Dolphins and ardent participants in the sports activit- ies of this community and I'm not going to suggest as I know you probably think I'm going to say it again that we should give it to Dade County and let them fix it up, but I do believe that we can work out some kind of a partnership arrange- ment whereby at least this referendum could come before the county -wide taxpayers and break down the load. Let's face reality, 550,000,000 anticipated revenue is not going to be retained within the City of Miami, there is no way we can retain it. It is going to benefit all of DAde County and really and truly all of Dade County ought to pay for it, don't you think so? Mayor Ferre: No, I don't. Mrs. Gordon: Ok, why don't you? Mr. Plummer: If nothing more, we established he can answer in one question. Mrs. Gordon: Why don't you feel that everybody should have a stake in this, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: Well, in the first place, Mrs. Gordon, here's perhaps the way I'd like to answer that. The people of Metropolitan Dade County had the opportunity to vote for $10,000,000 worth of housing which was very badly needed, in 1972 the people of Dade County turned that down. Then the City of Miami took up the challenge last year, 1976 and we passed not a $10,000,000 but a $25,000,000 hous- ing bond issue and the people of Miami accepted it. Now, I would like to remind you historically of what happened to the Spanish Armada. The Spanish Armada was a very big large invincible fleet. They were so large and powerful that they were invincible. They were called the invincible armada and yet the English with JUN 161977 these little boats, these little ships came in and defeated theta. The moral of the story is that sometimes big entities do not do what small entities can do and this is why the City of Miami exists. This is why the people of Miami overwhelm- ingly voted to keep the police and fire departments rather than to give it over to Metro and this is wny this Mayor of this city firmly believes that the Orange Bowl belongs to the people of the City of Miami who built it and who should improve it and who can keep it and who can make money by the way as Mr. Grassie will show when he comes back hopefully with his figures in a month. Now there are things we are going to have to do to amend it so that it will make money like, for example, we're going to have to sell beer. Now I happen to be a believer that most stad- iums around the United States serve beer now and I have no objections to that. But if we improve the stadium Mr. Robbie will be able to charge a dollar more which is reasonable and that money will be specifically earmarked, we will have an additional two to three parking spaces with which we'll make money and I think all of these things should be put together. I see no reason, I see no logic in why the City of Miami should turn the Orange Bowl over to anybody. Mrs. Gordon: You misunderstood me, Mr. Mayor, I didn't say that. I said that the people who reside in all of Dade County should pay for the rebuilding of the stadium. I would like you to ask our attorney, if, in fact, there is a legal mechanism that could be utilized whereby we could retain the "title" for whatever it might mean for the city and see whether or not the referendum could legally be placed all through the county. Mayor Ferre: Listen, I'm all for it and I would like to do it in Broward County too because after all 40% of the people who come to the Orange Bowl come from Broward County. Mrs. Gordon: Another thing you said is you anticipate revenue producing changes. Ok, fine, if you're going to have revenue producing changes you don't need an ad valorem bonding, a general debt service at all, you just need a revenue bond issue and that's all right, that's fine. Mayor Ferre: Rose, it won't be enough because the money that we're going to produce, that will be coming out of the Orange Bowl after it is improved will be sufficient to pay the interest expense and to pay for the maintenance and upkeep and there should be some money returned to the city but it will not be sufficient to amortize a 15 or a $10,000,000 debt over the next 20 years at this point. Now, furthermore, from what I understand of it the bond people will not lend us 10-15 million dollars unless we have a firm contract and a lot of other things which we're nowhere near having and even if we did have it it seems to me that the safest way of doing it, since the people in my opinion have overwhelmingly voted in a straw ballot for the improvements I think that is a mandate from the people of this community and I'm not going to fight it, I'm all for it. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, you analyzed the mandate and you didn't analyze where the mandate came from. You know there are a lot of poor people who live in this city and a lot of senior citizens who can hardly pay their taxes now and my God, we're asking them to, they probably never even go to a football game. There are a lot of people who go to football games that won't be .... Ok, well I've made my point. You've got a lot of poor people who live in the inner city and you've got a lot of senior citizens who live in this community that can barely make it and I think before we put an ad valorem tax issue of 15,000,000 or even 10,000,000 on the ballot we'd better explore every other way we possibly can. Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson, I turn the gavel over to you and I'd like to be recog- nized to make a motion. I move you, sir, that the City Manager be instructed forthwith to proceed in haste to put together a recommended package by staff that would encompass those improvements specifically outlined to engineering detail the costs, the benefits and separately the best way of financing taking into con- sideration (a) that we should try to spread the cost throughout South Florida if possible, throughout Dade County if not and finally the citizens of Miami as a last resort; (b) to find other than ad valorem tax sources to pay for these im- provements and (c) if these fail but certainly before November to go in the direct- ion of p.olcing on the November ballot a repeat of the June 7th straw ballot this time in more detail as spelled out so that the people of Miami who are the final deciders of These things to express their opinion on official public ballot in. the November ems. on. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. rayor, this was not an agenda item and we usually have 5-days rule and I call the -may rule on this item, you can bring it back on the 21st if you desire to do so. 20 JUN 161977 Mt. Plummer: Rose, you don't understand the Mayor's ulterior ±otive. ice's going to derive tevenue by giving away the beer and selling tickets to the bath Loom. Mrs. Gordon: What did you say, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you've got to take me off the hook. Rose, and if you call the five day rule I'll cut your throat. Mr. Mayor, I've got to make a motion at this time that the City Manager be authorized to negotiate and find a way if possible to spread the cost of reinstalling the bleachers in the east end- zone for Super Bowl which would bring us up to what I guaranteed the N.F.L. owners of 80,000 seating and I move that, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right, now since any commissioner is entitled to invoke the five day rule and Mrs. Gordon is perfectly within her rights I will instruct the Clerk to have in writing the statement that I just made and I will also request the Manager to put it on the agenda first thing on the agenda of the 21st and we will vote upon it at that time if I get a second. I will not recognize Plummer's motion. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 77-503 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DETERMINE A METHOD OF SPREADING THE COST OF INSTALLING BLEACHERS ON THE EAST -END ZONE OF THE ORANGE BOWL TO GUARANTEE NFL OWNERS AN 80,000 SEATING CAPACITY. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner J. L. Plummer Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Mayor Ferre: I would like to further instruct the City Attorney to prepare for me a revocation of the ordinance dealing with the sale of beer so that it will also be placed on the agenda, I imagine Mrs. Gordon will also invoke the 5-day rule, on the 21st so that it can be voted upon at that time and then put on for a public hearing if necessary in the future. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I never take the opportunity to refute articles that appear in the paper but I think that one that appeared yesterday was just totally wrong, it was out of character, an article which appeared in the Miami Daily News. Unfortunately the person who wrote the article did not take the time to do his research and I just want to once again reiterate on the record I have at all times stated I am for Orange Bowl improvements. I was opposed to the straw ballot only because it was not definitive and I want to tell you also that I read part of that article in which Pope Maurice the first and last indicated that if I would have changed my vote that I would have had the stadium named after me and I could not help but wonder if that was the same type of deal that you offered if I would drop dead by the weekend you would have named the Police Station after me. Mayor Ferre: Absolutely. Mr. Plummer: Maurice, I merely am stating on this record which I feel is my forum that that article was totally erroneous. It was an article which appeared that I was on your black list and I guess that's because I'm in the funeral business that I'm on the blick list. But it stated that I was totally opposed to Orange Bowl improvements - it has never been the case. Mayor Ferre: No, that's not what I said. Mr. Plummer: It's unfortunate that someone takes the opportunity such as that to state it. Mayor Ferre: Let me then, for whatever it's worth, correct and say what I was referring to, and I said it as a joke obviously. It was that when I had missed 21 JUN 161977 your vote to make this a referendum vote with teeth in it on June 7th I had put you on my black list but now that you had brought back the bacon from New York I was going to remove you from that and that you were a hero to me once again and that you were on my speaking list and I forgave you for everything and I do. Mr. Plummer: God forbid, I should have stayed in New York. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I've got to tell you one short funny story. I had the most unusual situation in New York, and I won't go any further than to say that I went to the theatre to see "Chorus Line" and in the middle of it a woman either died or was carried out and it was unusual... Mayor Ferre: Always looking for business. Mr. Plummer: No, I was totally out of it there. But the people in the theatre got upset because they were making so much noise and to me that was just unbeliev- able and I'm walking out scratching my head and I go to a little restaurant, Mr. Mayor, and I don't know if any of you have ever had the opportunity to be in a restaurant, the only patron there when a robbery takes place. These three people came in and completely relieved the owner of $2,500 and I'm sitting there, I want to tell you I never missed a bite of that sandwich. They were in and out in ten seconds and had taken $2,500 with them. Mr. Mayor, it was four blocks back to the hotel and I'll be damned if I would walk. I got in a cab, I rode the four blocks back to the hotel and took out a safety deposit box. It's a real weekend. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - REMOVAL OF ROOF SIGNS - ACTION DEFERRED UNTIL JUL.Y 21, 1977. Mayor Ferre: We will now take up item 1114. Mr. Manager? Mr. Grassie: This item is on your agenda at the City Commission's request, Mr. Mayor. You I believe know what the tradition of the background of legislation on this item is. You expressed a desire to have an opportunity for public sentiment to be expressed and that's what we have. Mayor Ferre: Before we go any further, I would like to for the record say that I received and I'm sure you all did a copy of a letter from Colonel Mitchell Wolfson who asked that this matter be delayed until he returned to the city since he is absent at this time. So I just wanted to point that out for the record so that you're all aware of it. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me say to you that my recollection is that when this thing was scheduled once before it was indicated, and I'm sure the record will reveal that it was withdrawn and I'm now wondering why it's appearing back on this agenda. Now all I can say is that was the information given to me, that this was requested as the Mayor said by Colonel Mitchell Wolfson asking for a public hear- ing which was granted by this body. At the time it came up for the public hear- ing it was indicated to us that this matter was withdrawn by Col. Mitchell Wolfson and that, in fact, it was over. Now, it is suddenly appearing again and I'm quest- ioning why. Mr. Richard Fosmoen: Our understanding is that it was deferred the first time. There was a public hearing before the Planning Advisory Board on this matter and the Planning Advisory Board is making a report to you. Mr. Plummer: Ok, if that's the case I stand corrected but I ask Mr. Ongie to go back and I think the record will reveal, if I'm wrong I stand corrected, that it was information given to this commission that this matter was withdrawn and I want you to research the record and send me a copy, please. Mr. Robert Davis: I have a copy of the minutes of that meeting December 15, 1976 in which your motion 76-1093 states, "A motion referring to the Planning Depart- ment the matter of which the roof signs provisions contained in ordinance 7338 which required the removal of said signs no later than October 19, 1977 to init- iate procedures to affect public hearings...." Mr. Plummer: There was subsequent to that a date set for the public hearing in which it came up before this commission and which we were told, if I'm not incor- rect that it was withdrawn, the request had been withdrawn. When was it scheduled for public hearing? That was the request, when was it scheduled? Mayor Ferre: All right, J. L., Father Gibson wants to ask a question. 22 Intl 1 A 1 77 Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, in view of the fact that the colonel hat asked that this matter be delayed or deferred I move, save some time. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Reed. Mr. Reed: I object to Colonel Wolfson delaying this meeting one more time. It's my understanding, and I'm not perfect in my law, he sold that company two times and no longer has ownership in the company that now is Outdoor Media. ... Mayor Ferre: George, I respect your first statement, the second statement has nothing to do with whether he sold it one, two or twenty times, the question is whether or not we should honor his request to delay it so he can be present. Now we can deny him that request. Mr. George Reed: I think you should Mayor, I think that he's had ten years to talk about it and it's time now to move forward. Mr. Bob Davis: To answer your previous question, Commissioner Plummer, this is the result of the Planning Department's study and .. back to the Planning Advisory Board and is now back at this board for public hearing. Rev. Gibson: I didn't hear that. We can't hear. Mr. Davis: I'm sorry, sir. This is the result of that motion which you passed in December. OF r► Mr. Plummer: Are you telling me this never came up subsequent to the December request? Mayor Ferre: No. Mr. Davis; That's correct. Mr. Plummer: You're wrong. ... Mayor Ferre: ... Here's where we're at. Col. Wolfson has requested to be pres- ent for the public hearing. We can do as I see it, one of three things. One is proceed with the public hearing, bring it to a head and vote. The second thing we can do is delay this until Col. Wolfson is here as a courtesy to him. The third thing that we can do is hear the people who have something to say about it and continue the hearing and give Col. Wolfson the opportunity to make his statement before we vote. I would recommend since I do think it is obviously an important matter and I do think that Col. Wolfson is an important member of this community that we proceed with hearing anybody who has a statement to make here and that we give Col. Wolfson the opportunity to make his statement and then we would vote, so that is my recommendation. You know you have Mrs. Wainwright, there are a lot of other people, how many people would like to speak on this to- day? How many people would like to speak? How many are proponents of the recom- mendation of the Planning Board and of the Advisory Board? How many here speak- ing as proponents? In other words that the ordinance as exists be continued? A11 right, we have five. How many are here (5) as opponents, who are opposed? We have four speakers. The question is do you want to hear them at this time or not. My opinion is that perhaps we should hear them but I also feel we should hear Col. Wolfson if that's his request. I have no objections to that. Mr. Reed, do you want to speak? Mr. Reed: Mr. Mayor, you're putting it right on the line. It's the people that are financially interested against the people who are financially disinterested. Mayor Ferre: George, they have a right. Mr. Reed: They have a right to be here at the proper time on the public meetings that are called for on the agenda on this City Commission. I find it irregular and not... Mayor Ferre: Not irregular, we've done this many times. Mayor Ferre: I find it reprehensible... for a person who knew about this meeting, had the right to be here, probably has many representatives in this audience that will speak on his behalf representing his financial interests. I think you can explain that to the colonel when you have an opportunity to see him but I think that this is something that the community has been aware of for a long time, I don't think the sign ordinance that's coming up is a surprise to these people, 23 JUN 161977 they're financially interested, they're here in numbers today and t think we should go ahead and get it over with. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Reed. Now, it's a question of what the will of the majority of this commission wishes to do. M. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, speaking to the motion which is on the floor, there is a fourth alternative which you did rot bring up. The fourth alternative as I see it is the fact that we listen whether we listen to it in its entirety today minus the one speaker or others and this commission as I understand it, the City Attorney would have to correct me if I am mistaken, that no action by this com- mission means that it remains as it is stated. Only an action of this commission would over turn the present posture. Am I correct, Mr. City Atorney? Mayor Ferre: The answer was yes? Mr. Knox: Yes. Mayor Ferre: I think out of courtesy to the eight or nine speakers that are here that we should extend that courtesy to them if they wish to be heard at this time. Mr. Plumper: Well, as I understand the motion it is to defer the entire.... Rev. Gibson: I want to withdraw the motion. I didn't know all these people were here for the.... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Sakolsky, you're protesting the fact that you're on Item #6, is that correct? And you feel that you should take precendence over these? No, we don't do that on this commission, Mr. Sakolsky. When we have a lot of people that are here on an important subject we usually do these type of things. My recommendation to you is to go and came back in another hour or so. I don't really know. Mr. Plummer: Well, why don't you tell him this, why don't you be back in an hour. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me ask this: Are there any objectors to item #6 present? This is something that the Planning Advisory Board recommended 7-0 and this is amending Zoning.... Are you here as a proponent or as an opponent? Absolute opponent. And how long will you take to make your statement? Well, we have a motion before the public. Do you withdraw the motion? Rev. Gibson: Yes, I withdrawing any deferring. I didn't know these people were here, no. Mayor Ferre: Item #6 .... Mr. Sakolsky, I would respectfully like to ask you to return in an hour because otherwise you're imposing, you have a right, I don't deny you that. Ok? Thank you very much. On Item #14 now I'll recognize the speakers, the proponents and the opponents. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, if ycu remember at the previous time that this matter came up I identified that I'm an owner of a property which has a condition such as the one that we're discussing and I felt that I should abstain from discussion in this item. We're on 14 which is the roof signs and as it does affect me and my property directly so I will abstain. Mayor Ferre: Unfortunately I'm going to find myself in that same condition. Mr. Plummer: Good, I'll make the decision. Mayor Ferre: If you have a property where there is a roof sign on it the quest- ion is you have to make a decision as to whether you're economically affected. Well, until this is determined I will sit here anyway and I'll get a legal read- ing on that. Mrs. Wainwright. Mrs. Gordon: I was so advised at the last time that I brought this matter up. That's why I didn't vote at the last hearing if you'll recall. Mrs. Alice Wainwright: Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Gordon and gentlemen of the commission, for the record my name is Alice Wainwright. Traditionally I do not appear before this body as you may realize because I have reservations about the appropriateness of a former commissioner coming before a board upon which he or she sat. I have 24 JUN 161977 not felt, therefore, that I should voice my opinion on city matters but I do feel so very strongly about this particular issue that I'm here today to speak on the sub- ject. As many of you may know, in 1965 when I was a member of the commission I sponsored this particular ordinance which waE enacted with the help of the Planning Department and with the support of the South Florida Chapter of the American Insti- tute of Architects. Now first of all I want to say that this was not a capricious ordinance, a great deal of study was given to it and the Planning Department held meetings with members of the industry and with members of the A.I.A. Some of the people that participated in those meetings are here today; Mr. Pancoast for one, you will here from him later. When the matter came before the commission we had five or six hearings on this particular ordinance, long prolonged discussions and we at the City Commission level made certain adjustments that we felt were equit- able. Everybody involved had notice as to the provisions of the ordinance and I do want to say that the amortization schedules that were adopted were based on those then in use in many counties in the State of California and they had with- stood the test of court litigation. We did not want to have a harsh ordinance, therefore, we confined the limitation to signs...well ground level signs to the more restricted commercial zoning in C-1. They were permitted in C-2 and C-3 areas. There was an amortization period under the ordinance for phase out of the ground level signs for five years and rooftop signs for 10 years. However, the matter has gone now into 12 years since the passage of that ordinance. The largest areas of the city, the C-2 and C-3, they may have another designation now, still were permitted under the ordinance to billboards and I want to make that very clear because I think the argument of economic hardship is a fallacious one. Why did we adopt this ordinance? Very briefly it was to attempt to preserve the er tropical amenities of the City of Miami which are an important factor in our tour- ." ism. I happened to drive down Biscayne Boulevard about a week ago from 79th Street south and I noticed how the area has continued to improve and now we have a very beautiful street there. I don't think those fine buildings would have been cons.xucted had the area not: been as desirable and attractive as it is not. Biscayne Boulevard is a very handsome approach to the City of Miami. Now what do rooftop signs do? They deteriorate from the adjoining neighborhood. They detract from the architectural beauty of the adjoining buildings and they add a note that is not completely in character with what we tried to have in our prime areas of the city, certainly Biscayne Boulevard is one. And I think had it not been for this particular ordinance which we passed in 1965 the condition of Biscayne Boule- vard as it exists today would be vastly different. I therefore, do urge that you not change the provision pertaining to the phase out period of the ordinance in respect to the roof signs or that there be a substantial change in the entire sign ordinance except for possibly later some minor clarifications that might be needed to remove ambiguities. Thank you very much. • Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Mrs. Wainwright. Next speaker. Ms. Kitty Roedel: Kitty Roedel, Director of Special Projects, Downtown Develop- ment Authority. We have prepared a written statement to read into the record. Mayor Ferre: Now Miss Roedel, you're here as a private citizen, as I understand? Ms. Roedel: The Downtown Development Authority. Mayor Ferre: Oh, you're here representing the Downtown Development Authority. Ms. Roedel: Twelve years ago the Miami City Commission adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance containing a provision eliminating roof signs as a permissible use in the City of Miami and established a reasonable amortization period for non -conforming roof signs. Today a public hearing is being held before the City Commission to hear arguments concerning the city's imposed deadline for rooftop signs. These arguments, however, must be put in perspective in light of the past record and policy of the City Commission and the Planning Advisory Board. In a similar case in 1970 proposed legislation was submitted to the City Commission to extend the five year amortization period for non -conforming outdoor advertis- ing signs. The City Commission by resolution No. 42058 dated December 10, 1970 denied the request for extension of time and expressed the policy of the City Commission that such signs be removed immediately upon expiration of the amortiz- ation period provided in the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This action was consistant with the intent of the ordinance passed by the City Commission in 1965. Further, at the direction of the City Commission the Planning Advisory Board conducted a public hearing to receive comments on the roof sign provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. May 18, 1977 the Planning Advisory Board recommended by Resolution No. 31-77 that the amortization provisions of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance be enforced. After consideration of the various issues involved in the roof sign question the Board of Directors of the Downtown 25 JUN 161977 Development Authority at its June loth Board meeting voted unanimously to support the City of Miami and the City Commission in its efforts to remove roof signs as required by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 1965. The Board also pointed out that the 12 year amortization period for removal of said signs was reasonable and should not be extended. The Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority strongly urges that the City Commission continue its efforts to enforce the roof sign provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as approved in 1965. Sincerely, Roy Kenzie, Executive Director Downtown Development Authority. Mr. Lester Pancoast: Gentlemen, I'm Lester Pancoast. I'm here as an independent citizen of the City of Miami but I've been here repeatedly over the years as you certainly know, trying to build an arsenal of ordinances in the city which would gradually make its environment better. We have several ordinances which cost money to the owners of the properties involved. One of them you might real- ize is the parking lot ordinance that requires trees to go in as part of their development. it costs money to put trees in parking lots so not all of the ordin- ances that do so much to make this a better place are free, neither is the one we're talking about today. It costs money to take down a sign let alone the money that originally put the sign up there but we submit to you that the reason- ing that we followed in putting this ordinance in, all of us together ten years ago is still just as valid as it was then. These are unsophisticated devices and I underscore the word unsophisticated, a word that we cannot apply to the City of Miami comfortably. We also think they are dangerous. I don't mean that you can't structure a sign way up in the that will sithstand 150 mile winds but very few of them are required to undergo wind tunnel tests to find that out. Sometimes the inter -relationship between that structure and the structure of the building isn't all that clear even to one designer to another. No alert American city we believe would reach out for the kind of permission that would allow what we're talking about today. I think that they are in Miami a left -over of the 1920's when a great deal of Miami was built. Many of those signs were put on the buildings, some of them are rather interesting but most of them are really dread- ful. We suggest that we are not against signs as a phenomenon but we are against certain kinds of signs and that this sign we're talking about today, the isolated rooftop sign that sticks way up above the profile of the city is one that we can well do without. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Next speaker. Mr. George Reed: Mr. Mayor and members of the commission, I'm George Reed, I'm an architect in Coconut grove. It was my fortune, I suppose, to be available on those evenings when Mrs. Wainwright originally put this sign ordinance together along with the members of the City of Miami Commission and I learned then the power that is invested in the people behind the sign ordinance and their clout, their ability to hire lawyers to maintain and mount campaigns in their attempt to subvert the interests of the community in the effect of signs. I think we are seeing the beginning of some of that structure today as evidenced by all of the attorneys that will represent these people here a little later on. 1965, that's quite a while. This city has been patient I think since 1965 because they believe in the structure of this city and the ability of its leaders to reason- ably phase out these signs, reasonably phase them out in a sense that the man that owned the signs could financially write it off fairly with his government, with his tax structure and with his sign people in ten years. The city has relied upon those processes. What we're being asked today to do is to extend a form of visual pollution. It is sky blocking, it is eye filling. It is a blatant intrus- ion upon the eyes of the passers-by, they didn't ask for it and they can't avoid it. It's there, they have to put up with it. In the early 60's the city went to court to cause a number of signs to be removed on the upper end of Biscayne Boulevard near Bicentennial Park. I appeared on behalf of the City as a pro- fessional witness at that time before judge Testa. He found that the City and, in fact, the aesthetic response of those signs was indeed correct, they were intrusions upon the community and they were not a necessary part of the commun- ity structure and the city did indeed have a right to cause them to be removed and they were removed. Boca Raton, if you have been aware of it or not has over- taken the City of Miami in this respect in a very dramatic way. They undertook a sign ordinance and they allowed 30 days, 60 days and 90 days for different classes of signs and they all came down and I think it is about time that we recognized that the Planning Advisory Board voted "No" to this amortization. The tir'.e is nat.?. I think the consensus of the feeling in the community is to begin to take these signs down now so that they will all be down at the end of the amortization period and I think the city is interested in the integrity of the words of its leaders. Thanks. Mayor Ferre; All right, next speaker. 26 JUN 161977 Mr. Jack Caesar: My name is Jack Caesar, I'm the vice-president and general Manager of the Donnelly Advertising Company and this is mighty new to me even though I've been in this business here since 1950. Yes, we do hire attorneys, we hire them to protect our interests, what we think is our inalienable right to do business in a business community. In 1965 if you rode from 79th Street, with all due respect Mayor, from 79th Street to 13th Street in Miami there were no signs. Admittedly the area is continuing growth and is becoming beautified. My office building is on that artery and I'm real proud of that artery but I don't think it was because of this ordinance that Biscayne Boulevard has been beautified excepting the area from 13th Street down to Flagler Street. The tropical atmosphere with the removal of units in C-2 ground locations my bus- iness was the only business that was eliminated in this ordinance. Welding shops, other areas that create much more eye pollution in my mind than my bus- iness are still allowed to operate in these areas. Safety, every roof structure that is built in the City of Miami or anywhere else in Dade County is built under the same code that any other building is built. There are engineering drawings submitted, if there is any question it is sent back by your people to the engineers that made the drawings and it is resubmitted until such time that it has been approved by these people. My only reason for being here really is that I know that the ordinance is passed, I know it's a law, you can implement it tomorrow if you so desire. The fact that the C-2 problem was implemented five years ago and has still not been resolved, it's still in the courts, the courts have not said that this is right and the only reason we would like to see this put off for a little bit, and this decision should be made shortly, either late summer or early fall, I think it would defray some extra litigation on the city's part,on my company's part. We're fighting for our business, we're fighting for our industry. We have to put our displays in areas where there is circulation. This is demanded by the clients. We don't basically determine where the displays go, they are determined by our advertisers. I seriously hope that you will con- sider the matter. Thank you, gentlemen. Mayor Ferre: I thank you, sir. Next speaker. Are there any other speakers? Mr. Ernie Fannatto: I'd just like to start off by saying, Mayor and Commissioners, where the economy of the city changes you have a right to revise your decision and think of the taxpayers. These are hard times for the taxpayers. They need money and need it bad. I also would like to say when taxable money is taken off of the tax roles that all the rest of the taxpayers have to help to make it up. In my estimation I think there is quite a bit of money involved here. This is a question I'd like to have answered. How many signs are involved and how much money is involved for the City of Miami? Mayor Ferre: How many signs and what's...? Mr. Richard Whipple: It is estimated there are approximately 150 roof signs involved. Mayor Ferre: Alright, and what is the tax impact on the City of Miami when they don't pay taxes? Mr. Whipple: I do not have that answer at this time, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Would you get that for us, please, an estimate obviously? Mr. Whipple: We'll see what we can do, yes, sir. Mr. Fannatto: Mr. Mayor, these are important decisions and these are things that they should have ready at these meetings because this is... Mayor Ferre: Well, I would guess, Ernie, I don't want to get into an arguement with you about this but I would guess that 150 roof tops will not have a major tax impact on... Mr. Fannatto: Well, how much money would.you say would be involved? Mayor Ferre: I certainly don't think it would be a hundred thousand dollars and I certainly don't think it would be $50,000 and I certainly don't think it would be $25,000 and if you asked me just a guess off of the top of my head you're talking about less than $25,000. Mr. Fannatto: Mayor, let's say it's $20,000, that's a lot of money. Let's start keeping money on the tax rolls, let's not take it off. I want to say this here, it's about time we remembered that we cannot go and say here this only costs 20 and this costs 15 and 10. I am here saying I don't think this business is a 27 JUN 161977 business that should be discontinued. I don't think it's that bad a business and I think $20,000 is a lot of money. I'm here to say let's extend it, the people need this tax money on the rolls and let's keep it on the rolls. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Next speaker? Are there any other speakers? Oh, there are two more speakers. Mr. Robert Korner: My name is Robert Korner. I would like to point out to you some issues that I think are germain to your decision here today. The consti- tution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Florida, the laws of the STate of Florida protect property rights. They say that you cannot take away a man's property without paying him for it. As far as I know there is no attempt in this ordinance or any other ordinance before the city of Miami to make compensation for the removal of any of these signs. Each commissioner here took an oath of office. He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Florida and the laws of the State of Florida and those laws require compensation to be paid when you take a man's property. I'd also like to point out to you that the laws of the State of Florida Chapter 479 says that when an advertising device is required to be re- moved that the municipality requiring the removal of that shall make payment to the owner of the sign. It also says that when those signs are adjacent to state roads, interstate highways that only the State of Florida has the right to re- quire their removal pre-empting this municipality from the authority to require the removal of signs adjacent to state roads. What is the economic impact of removing these roof signs? We've heard from one interested tax payer here who is interested in keeping them on the tax rolls. We must also consider the plants themselves, their economic impact on our community, they hire a lot of people. Those people have jobs in this community because roof signs are here. These roof signs require regular maintenance, they require re -copying, they are good employers in our community. Now there are other uses in our community that may not be aesthetically pleasing to the eye - junk yards, salvage operations, adult bookstores, used car lots, fruit stands, expressways, playgrounds - why aren't we talking about removing these unaesthetically appearing uses? We're not. We're singling out roof signs. Now again the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of Florida require that all businesses, all people be treated equally, that you not single out a roof sign industry as opposed to any other industry. What possible difference is there between the appearance of a sign on top of a building to the appearance of the same sign next to the building? We're not talking about roof signs that have general advertising on them only, we're talking about all roof signs. If a theater decides to put up a sign on their roof they can't do that now. If it's already there you're saying take it down. The same sign is perfectly legal out on their parking lot. People have to look at it there just the same as they do if it is on the roof. So what are we try- ing to accomplish here? I don't see where there is any public purpose in remov- ing roof signs. Also I'd like to point out that Mrs. Wainwright's remarks indi- cated that the patient is getting well, it's looking better now than it ever did. When a patient starts to recover I don't think that's the time to take the patient back to the operating room and amputate. In effect, the years of no more roof signs have created a condition in Miami that is in her opinion and in many opin- ions better than what it was before, it is getting better. Why now must we take out the ax and remove roof signs when the condition is improving? Now the pres- ent code requirements of the City of Miami require that signs be neat and orderly in appearance. This is all signs. So I assume that money that is being spent on sign enforcement, we have neat and orderly appearing signs. It is prohibited for your signs to have gross neglect, to be come dilapidated, to be less than well maintained so signs are well maintained. They're not neglected, they're not dilapidated. These are the same signs that now you would require the removal of. Now there have been many changes in our community since the passage of this ordinance. Mayor Ferre: You've now taken up the allotted five minutes that we usually per- mit here, how much longer do you have to speak? Mr. Korner: About one minute, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead. Mr. Korner: The whole idea of roof signs are a way of enticing people to do bus- iness in our community and at last analysis that was considered a desirable aspect of our commercial world. We have had unsophisticated ideas in Miami before. I think that a lot of things become out of date but let's look and see what kind of signs you have in London, in Paris, in Boston. These communities are not con- sidered unsophisticated and they have roof signs. I think that the other commun- ities in Florida are depending, their economy depends upon roof signs, This is 28 JUN 161977 the way to get people to know about a product, to buy the ptoduct and ehOaeje ih eammarea, YOU ate going to have a serious effect, a detritehtal effect oh the bu§iness Community when you take away all toof sighs 1 thank you. Rev, Gibson: Is there anybody else? Ok, sit. Mr. Donald mason: Mayer Ferre, members of the COMMissit5h, my nate is Donald Mamm# Vm an attorney for Donnelly Advertising Corporation of Florida, I'M here today to request this commission to delay on this ordinance Merely becaUse at thit time ih the Federal District Court the constitutionality of this ordinance is under attack by Donnelly Advertising. We expect a decision from the District Court ih late summer or early fall. We have trial dates set, they should go to trial. It is Out feeling that the constitutionality of this ordinance is in question and there is a reasonable expectation that it will be declared unconstitutional by the federal court. We request that this commission take no action to implement the ordinance while it is under attack on constitutional grounds in federal court for it would be folly if you implemented the ordinance and then were to find out early neXtyear that your actions were unconstitutional. So we just merely request that you delay any implementation of this ordinance at this time until the federal court can speak. Mayor Ferre: Any other speakers? All right, at this time this public hearing will be continued till the meeting of July 14th at which time we will hear from any other speakers including Colonel Wolfson. I want to repeat to you that to action is a continuation of the ordinance as it exists. Thank you very much. 5. GRANT ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE FOR EXISTING MAUSOLEUM 3260 S.W. 8TH STREET. The Mayor asked if there were any objectors to Agenda Item *11. wo objectors were present. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Reboso, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 77-504 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE-YAR EXTENSION OF THE BARIANCE GRANTED FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION $, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCT- ION OF AN ADDITION TO EXISTING MAUSOLEUM AT 3260 S.W. 8TH STREET, WOODLAWN PARK (44-70), WITH A HEIGHT OF 52' (35' MAXIMUM PERMITTED): ZONED R-1 (ONE FAMILY). (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 Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 6 DENY itoutst P0111 CHANGE OP zoN I No - 5 N. E, 55 STREETI Mk: Plummer: ...Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Mts. Gordon, as t recap When this its Carte up before you excused myself as I recall, that you have a client within the radius... I stand corrected. M. R. Fosmoen: I might remind the commission that when this item was up there were two people in the audience opposed and they indicated to the commission that they could not come back to this meeting, it was deferred previously. Remember the woman and the man who had a problem getting here for this meeting? Rev. Gibson: Yes, I remember that. Mayor Ferre: All right, your name and address for the record. Mr. George Deeb: My name is George Deeb, 12895 Griffin Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I have applied for a change of the zoning to put a grocery store on that lot which I own in the City of Miami and it is surrounded by C-5 as you see on the map and the west of it is C-5 and opposite me and to the north of me is C-5 which I'd acquired to put a small grocery store, it does not require a C-5 for it. So I'd like to know why .... for that purpose and since nobody objects in the neighbor- hood, only but one person. That is all. mr. Davis: The staff recommendation was for denial on this, the Zoning Board voted and recommended denial by a vote of 5-2. Mr. Fosmoen: Commissioners, there has to be a line drawn somewhere between resi- dential and commercial development. As you can see on this map the property that's being proposed for rezoning to C-5 is in a residential area. Now any line is possibly arbitrary but in this case there is residential development around this property, the properly faces westerly and south and there is residential properties across the street from it and we cannot recommend an intrusion of a commercial property into a residential area. Mr. Deeb: But you see on the west side is C-5, almost half of the block is C-5 and then the north of it is C-5 and we usually have a majority and if nobody objects I can't see why certain individuals they have to object to it. Mr. Fosmoen: I would remind the commission that the last time this came up there was a woman present who did not have her card sent in who lives across the street and was objecting. ar Mr. Deeb: All right, but we go by the majority, not by the one individual that's ill. I have seen that there is some six or seven objections and they overrule it and pass it. Mrs. Gordon: I move to uphold the recommendation of the department and the board. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 77-505 A MOTION TO DENY REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING AT APPROXIMATELY 5 N.E. 53RD STREET FROM R-2 TO C-5. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES; Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner J. L. Plummer Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES; None. Mr. Plummer: Mr, Mayor, he's standing there. The answer is, sir, that you were denied. That was the motion. Mr. Deeb: But the majority Mr. Plummer: By unanimous, sir. Mr, peeg: ... when we live in a democratic society like you were elected by the 130 JUN 161977 majority of the vote not by the minority of certain individuals, tight? Now, all the neighborhood, you sent theta those certified letters. Those letters, they must mean something for the people and those people, nobody objects you know for that and if they don't mean anything 1 don't see why the City of Miami, why it costs me money and the city to send those certified letters for the people if they don't want to them. Mayor Ferre: Well, I don't know how to go into an explanation of civics as to how governments are run but when you have rules and regulations we have a rule. The rule says that you live in a residential neighborhood that's zoned one way, you're surrounded in the rest of the neighborhood with the exception of the com- mercial section by residences and it's our opinion and it's a rule around here that we don't change residential zoning unless there is hardship economic or otherwise and you can get 50, 100 or 50,000 500,000 letters, we have laws here and that's what the law is and I think what happened was that the department and staff said they don't want to change the law and then the professional people said.the same thing and then the board said the same thing and then the elected officials unanimously agreed. Mr. Deeb: Well I agree with you, Mr. Mayor like that but why? I mean why they deny it? They deny it because to protect certain individuals and... because there is some land available over there for their use and they discriminate against certain people. Mayor Ferre: No, I don't think that was the reason. The reason was that this is a residential neighborhood and the property is zoned for residence and it's this commission's unanimous opinion that it should remain that way. Mr. Deeb: Ok, thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: Thank you. 7. FJONAL APPEARANCE- Z. ZILBER - REPRESENTING TAXI INDUSTRY TO THANK THE CITY COMMISSION FOR OBTAINING SUPERBOWL IN 1979. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Zilber, I'd like to recognize you because I know you've been waiting for some time. Mr. Zilber: Mr. Mayor and commissioners and Mr. City Manager, thank you. I'd like to come down here today, I'm usually down here yelling and screaming about something, today I want to come here to thank you all publicly for Superbowi. I think you all know what Superbowi means to this community but being in the taxi- cab industry it means to us the month of January 1979 is going to be a tremendous month now because of Superbowi. Superbowi gives us a week to ten days of prob- ably the best business our industry or any industry related to tourism gets in this town and I want to thank this commission and it's staff and the City Manager for what you all did,bring it back to us and I hope you can do it again. Mayor Ferre: Stand up Plummer and take a bow. Mrs. Gordon: Ziggy, I want to ask you a question. Do you live in the City of Miami? Mr. Zilber: No, ma'am, my father does, I live in Bay Harbor. Mrs. Gordon: Ok. If you were asked to vote on the ad valorem bond issue would you be willing to, you don't live in the city, if it was a county -wide vote would you be willing to vote for it to improve the Orange Bowl? Mr. Zilber: Yes, ma'am. I pay taxes in the city because our business is in the city and we have a piece of property. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but your business property is in the city but you don't vote in the city. Mr. Zilber: No, I don't vote but I would personally vote to improve the Orange Bowl where it is for two reasons: (1) from a transportation point of view which is my field... Mrs. Gordon: No, that wasn't my question, Ziggy. The question was if it was put on a county -wide referendum, you living in the county would have an opportun- ity to vote for it and pay part of the load, would you be willing? 31 JUN 1tig77 Mf, tilbet: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Ziggy, let the ask you a question, Would you Vote fot ilproveMent Or housing if you liVed in the county, if we put a housing bond issue would you vote fot improvettent of housing? Mr. Zilber: You're asking for Sigmund Zilbet's opinion oh that? Yes, it would be yes. Mayor Ferre: Did you vote for it in 1972? Mr. Zilber: Yes, t did. Mayor Ferre: But it didn't pass did it? Mr. Zilber: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: Alright, thank you. Anything else? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Zilber, would you vote if you lived in the county to eliminate all of the taxicabs in the county and only retain taxicabs in the city? Mr. Zilber: I won't answer that one, sir. Mr. Plummer: Ziggy, all kidding aside, I would like for you to come back if you can Tuesday morning at 9:00 O'Clock when the majority of this delegation, I'm only one - there were three others, will be presented by this commission with recognition and I'd like for you to make that same statement again here Tuesday morning at 9:00 O'Clock if you can be here. Mr. Zilber: It would be my pleasure. Mayor Ferre: When the TV cameras are back and Plummer has a tie on. 8. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH DEFINITION AND STANDARDS FOR "PRIVATE ROADS." AN o!nr.':AncE EnT/TLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY ADDING TO ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS, SECTION 2, A NEW SUB -SECTION (57-A) PROVID- ING A DEFINITION OF PRIVATE ROADS AND BY AMENDING ARTICLE IV, GENERAL PROVISIONS, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 11-1 ENTITLED PRIVATE ROADS, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 18, 1977, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. NOES: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8662. 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. JUN 161977 SECCHD READING ORDINANCE- ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR TEPPORARY ASS kTIVITIES AND EVENTS, AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPRE- HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE V, ONE FAMILY DWELLING, R-1, R-1A, R-1B DISTRICTS, BY REVISING SECTION 1, USE REGULATIONS, SUB -SECTION (6), PARAGRAPH (k), ENTITLED TEMPORARY AMUSEMENT ACTIVITIES OF A CHURCH, SCHOOL, OR PUBLICLY OWNED RECREATIONAL OR CULTURAL FACILITY AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDIT- IONS AND LIMITATIONS, BY DELETING SUB -PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (5) AND BY ADDING NEW SUB -PARAGRAPHS (I), (5) AND (6) AND BY AMENDING ARTICLE XII-LOCAL COMMERCIAL C-1 DISTRICT, BY REVISING SECTION 1, SUB -SECTION (2-A), ENTITLED AMUSEMENTS EVENTS, TEMPORARY, BY DELETING PARAGRAPHS (a), (b), AND (e) IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND BY ADDING NEW PARAGRAPHS (a), (b), AND (e); BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON- FLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 18, 1977, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. NOES: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8663. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 10, SECOND READING CRDINANOE - CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 500-540 N.W. 2ND AVENUE FROM C-2, C-4 AND R-4 TO GU. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZON- ING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 20, BLOCK 66N, MIAMI NORTH (b-41), BEING APPROXIMATELY 500-540 N.W. 2ND AVENUE, FROM C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL), C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO GU (GOVERNMENTAL USE); 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 THEREOF; BY REPEAL- ING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 18, 1977, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. NQZS; None, THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8664. 33 JUN 161977 The dity Attorney read the ordinahoe into the public tecord and ahhouhced At toles Wake available to the members of the City COMMission and to the public. Mr P6AMoen: Mr. Mayor, oh itetn'4 you thay reoaii that there was aothe debate about the wall around the post office. is the dot Mission interested it seeing the solution to that? Mr. Plummer: Well, did they take the barbed wire down? Mr. iosmoen: Yes, sir, Mr. Plummer: That's all we were interested in. Mr. Grassie: Would you like to see how it's going to look? Mr. Plummer: Are you satisfied with it? Mr. Grassie: Yes. Mt. Plummer: The barbed wire is gone? Mr. Grassie: Yes. Mr. Plummer: No, I don't want to see how it's going to look. 11. ESTABLISH CITY OF MIAMI POLICY REGARDING APPLICATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR STREET NAME -CHANGES. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved. its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 77-506 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY OF THE CITY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE NUMERICAL QUADRANT SYSTEM FOR STREET NAMES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES:, JUN 161977 12. DIRECT DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION TO MOUNT SIGNS AT 4 CORNERS NEAR NORTHWESTERN HIGHSCHOOL DESIGNATING THAT BLOCK AS 'BULLS PA." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 77,507 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION TO MOUNT SIGNS ON THE STREET SIGN POSTS AT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOL BLOCK, DESIGai MATING THAT BLOCK AS "BULLS PLAZA." (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 13. APPROVE APPLICATION FOR PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) AT 2475 So. BAYSHORE DRIVE. Mayor 'Terre: make up Item ?. Mr. Robert A Davis:This item was generated by the approval of this commission of the plat known as Longview which platted this area on Bayshore Drive into eleven lots. At the request of this commission, my namesake, Mr. Davis was requested to prepare a planned development of planned unit nature or a P.A.D. consisting of no more than eleven units and present it to the Zoning Board to see if it gained the approval of the neighborhood. Mr. Davis did originally propose a plan for eleven units in a planned area development, he got with the neighbor- hood and arrived at a compromise of ten units with certain other amenities and the Zoning Board recommended the ten units unanimously. Mr. Plummer: That was not the instruction of this commission. I'm sorry. I don't know why Mr. Whipple, is that who did it? I don't know why Mr. Whipple took it upon himself or whoever did to go out and compromise ten. Mr. Robert A. Davis: Mr. Davis (R.S.) did it. Mr. Robert S. Davis: I took it upon myself to compromise. Mr. Plummer: You're agreeable to that? Mr. R. S. Davis: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Fine, great. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 77-508 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE PETITION AS PER ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXI-1, TO PERMIT A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ON LOTS 3 THRU 8, BLACK 38, NEW BISCAYNE AMD (B-16), BEING 2475 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, AS PER PLANS ON FILE, CONSISTING OF 10 UNITS IN 10 STRUCTURES, SUBJECT TO A 15' SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE, A ROCK WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY, WITH EXTRA LANDSCAPING ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WITH PLANS TO BE APPROVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT; ZONED R-1 (ONE FAMILY). (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 5 JUN 161977 tipoii being seconded by Cotissionet Pluntier, the tesolutioh wa adopted by the following votes Mt: Rev, Gibson Mr, Flu►er Mt • feboso Mayor Ferre NOES: Mrs. Gordon Mr. Plummer: t want the record to reflect, I want to be truthful with you, sir, t don't like it. Ok? I like your plan here but t don't like what is going to happen to Bayshore Drive because this is just going to be the first step in the door but unfortunately you have the right to do it and I don't like the idea that it is going to spread right down Bayshore Drive and I want that for the record. Now, it was not directed to you personally, but to you personally on the behalf of this commission and I think I can speak, I want to thank you for being agree- able to go back and to do less than what you could have done under the ordinance. I think that speaks highly of you, sir, it is commendable that you have gotten together with the people of the area to try to compromise but in my estimation it is a bad situation at best. I commend you for doing so. Rev. Gibson: Let me add this. I hope other citizens would take after that example. There are too many of them want all of the grease out of the biscuit, you know. Mr. R. S. Davis: Thank you, sir. I hope that the project when it is over will be an example that everybody can be proud of and point to. The development of South Bayshore is something which we may not want to see at all but I think that having this as the first model for development will be a big step forward. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: I think that's right, I agree with that. Thank you again. ... Oh yes, ma'am, you certainly may. Ms. Maercks: I would like to thank the commission and to thank Mrs. Gordon espec- ially for, remember we were here when the gentleman wanted to replat and Mrs. Houston and I were here to object to the replatting in rows of eleven units and the commission in their wisdom said to the developer, "Go back and do a planned unit development, work with the people and see if you can't come up with some- thing better." The developer did reduce by one and he's also done 15' setbacks from the rock wall. That's in the other plan, right, not in this? Ok. So I want to thank the commission for having such foresight to say see if you can't do something better. This isn't ideal but it is much better than eleven rows so thank you very much. Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you this man is one in a thousand. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: you begin to Right. Unfortunately, he's one in a thousand. Well, we have one now hopefully we'll have two and that's the way make progress. Thank you. 14, DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF STREET CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON STREET BETWEEN SO. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WASHINGTON AVE. AND NO1 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CHARLES AVENUE. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item #10 which is a Public Works Department application to permit closure of Jefferson Street. The Board recommends 6-1, the Planning Depart- tent recommended approval. Are there any objectors present? What's the will of this commission? Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to call to the attention of the commission that you have a total problem that is not being addressed and the department knows how I feel. I told the department I would be objecting strenuously because you have Grand Avenue you must deal with and Washington Avenue you must deal with with all of those people that must be dealt with and until the total program is dealt with I am unalterably opposed. Mr. Plummer: What do you want to do? Rev. Gibson: I want to move to anything you want to do except pass it and my thing is they knew it, they know how I feel, I've told them, the people know and let me say for the benefit of this commission there were certain items raised that the department, the professionals never told the people. Mr. Plummer: I second the motion to defer. Mayor Ferre: Does the administration want to speak to it? Mr. Plummer: As the seconder of the motion, Mr. Mayor, I think, Father, that you could do tomorrow by memo of the ideas that I think that you want them to cover. You at least should set a policy for them. Rev. Gibson: Let me say, my brotheren, they know that policy. Mr. Plummer: Well reiterate it. Rev. Gibson: And they need, the commission needs to know that as they widen that street half of those people will be locked in. You're dealing with 25 foot lots but the total problem is not that. ... Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that Father, all I'm saying is when we defer we should defer for a reason and they should know what that reason is so they can go back and re -work it. Rev. Gibson: The reason is we want the total problem addressed and when you come back here you bring us a study showing what you're going to do as a result of the improvement of Grand Avenue. You remember the man that came here and wanted the change of zoning and I single handedly, I took more heat because of that position than any two or three commissioners ever have, and I haven't changed my position and I don't regret it. Mr. Fosmoen: In order to clarify what the commission is after I think I need to ask a couple of questions. Mayor Ferre: Well why don't you ask him and them bring it back since it is going to be deferred? Mr. Fosmoen: But I think we need to recognize that we are going to delay con- struction of the park at Old Smokey. We need to recognize that. Mayor Ferre: Look, why don't you sit down with Father Gibson, go over these objections, bring it back to the commission if you wish on the 21st and if not on the 21st then on the 14th of July. Ok7 Further discussion on the deferral? Mr. Grassie: The only other thing that I think the City Commission needs to understand is that part of the solution is not within our hands. Part of the solution is a county project and that really is our problem is getting that accomplished. Rev. Gibson: My brother, if the county knew that you were interested and if you were as vigorous as you can be and should be you know you'll help the project along. For instance, let me say to the commission there's nothing wrong, and those people have been asking you for years to improve the lighting on that park. 37 JUN 161977 od kfiowi if you ithproved that iighting you oouid be wotkihg On that bttt hc, man r We aref't about to $love. The pteceding notion introduced by kev. Gibson and seconded by Co issioief pluMMer to defer was passed and adopted by a unanimous vote. . GRANT A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE - STORAGE AREA ADDITION AT 2234 S.W. 8TH SamEr. Mr. plummet: Mr. Mayor and Mr. City Attorney, just so that the record will be clear, this is a hardware store of which I do business with and have a monthly account. Is that of any conflict? ... I know the answer, I'm putting it on the record. Do you find any conflict with that, sir? Mayor Ferre: How much of a discount do you get? Mr. Plummer: I get exactly 20% if you want to put that on the record, which I have gotten ever since the account has been open for over 20 years. Is that a standard discount...? If I can only get that same discount from Maule Industries I wouldn't Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: have any prob Mr. Alvarez: the other? Mr. Plummer: The answer is no. No conflict, alright. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: lem. Do you feel that it will affect the way you will vote one way or RESOLUTION NO. 77-509 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VARIANCE GRANTED FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXIII, SECTION 4(25)(27), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE AREA ADDITION ON LOTS 13 THRU 16, BLOCK 1; BRYAN PARK (5-69) LOCATED AT 2234 S.W. 8TH STREET AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WAIVING 22 OF 22 REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES; ZONED C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), GRANTED BY ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. ZB 187-76. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: iA 197? a 61 GRANT PERMISSION FOR CONTINUED oPERATION ot= WORK RELEASE CENTER /4 7121 N.E. 3AD Avt. Mr. PlU er: Have there been any problems with it? Mr. Davis: The Building Department, as you have a copy in your padkage shbWs ho problem in this area during the past two years. Mr. Plummer: How about the Police Department? Mr. Davis: No, no problems. The following resolution was introduced by COM issioner PlUMMer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 77-510 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION, AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 36(1), TO USE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7521 N.E. 3RD AVENUE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, DIXIE HIGHWAY PARK (4-103), FOR WORK RELEASE CENTER FOR A MAXIMUM OF 16 ADULT FEMALE RESIDENTS, LOT BEING 50.25' X 147.62.; ZONED R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) DISTRICT. (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 Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ACCEPT PLAT- (A) COSTA BELLA DEVELOPMENT SUB; ANDINIUh, INC, (B) ACCEPT DEED COSTA BELLA CONDOMINIUM, The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 77-511(A) A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT MENT SUB., A SUBDIVISION IN THE ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK ENTITLED COSTA BELLA DEVELOP - CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING TO EXECUTE THE PLAT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on in the Office of the City Clerk.) file Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None, JUN 161977 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who Moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 77-511(B) A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DEED FROM COSTA BELLA CONDOMINIUMS, INC. FOR OUTLOTS 55, 56 AND 57 OF AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW (2-93) . (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 18, PERSCNAL APPEARANCE: DR, ERNEST BARTLEY - PROPOSED CHANGES TO ZONING ORDINANCE - "PERMIT GRANTING" PROCEDURES. Mir. R. L. Fosmoen: ?We've asked Dr. Bartley and Free? Bair to make a.hrief appearance before you and give you a quick overview of some of the changes that you're going to look forward to in the zoning ordinance. You know we have them under contract to, in fact, rewrite the entire ordinance and there are some major changes that are going to be coming forth as a result of their efforts and we want to begin to alert you to some of these changes. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Fosmoen, Bartley has never been brief in his life. Mr. Fosmoen: Well, he's going to try. Dr. Ernest Bartley: That's alright, J. L., I saw you this afternoon in terms of Rose's ordinance or Rose's resolution say that you had a conflict of interest and put it on the record. We could draw up a rather interesting kind of argument as to whether or not in such an instance you really did have a conflict of inter- est under state law. Mr. Plummer: I just don't like filling out the papers. Dr. Bartley: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ernest Bartley, a planning consult- ant from Gainesville, Florida. Last night Fred Bair and I, Fred will be here in a moment, appeared before the Planning Advisory Board and talked with them at greater length, Commissioner Plummer, than I will talk to this group today about some of the major new elements that we were proposing. As all of you are famil- iar with, Bair and I did under subcontract to WMRT prepare a critique and evaluation of the existing Zoning Ordinance. I understand that there have been some problems with printing of this rather massive document but in any event that document is or will be available to you. For your benefit, in the front of that document you will find some four or five pages which summarize the major recom- mendations that we made. Since this document was submitted in May of 1976, some 13 months ago, as Mr. Fosmoen told you we, Fred and myself, have been under con- tract to the city to prepare a consultant's draft complete re -write of the exist- ing ordinance. This new ordinance will, of course, constitute one very important tool in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan on which I believe you took at least preliminary action some few weeks ago. There are several items that we want to point out to you so far as this re -write is concerned. The first of these is mechanical but even mechanics can be important and this one we think is quite important. Your present ordinance consists of two parts. You have a text in which you have incorporated the regulations for each of the individual dis- tricts. You have a zoning map or atlas. The new ordinance mechanically will consist of three parts, a text, general provisions dealing with administration definitions; the maps which you have them at the present time and the schedule of district regulations. Now I know that you're all very busy people but I would suggest to you that when you get your volume, it's a very massive bunch of mater- ial, that you notice that in the back of it that there is a little envelope. It contains a number of sheets. These sheets called a schedule of district regu- lations are prepared in terms of your present ordinance. We had to do this, Fred and me before we could even analyze your present ordinance. It was necessary to Q JUN 161977 lay this step out so that we could make comparisons very rapidly and I suggest to you that you look at that even a little bit. You yourself will be shocked at the number of ambiguities, contradictions and one thing and another that begin to leap out at you in a way that you can never get when you're going through the present ordinance. So the new ordinance mechanically will contain a text, a schedule of dixtrict regulations and the maps. The present status on these three parts in terms of.our present contract is that the text is probably 90% completed, it is currently being typed on mag typewriter in the Planning Department. The schedule of district regulations, the new schedule of district regulations, not the one that you have in your hands. The new schedule of district regulations has been prepared for the residential districts. Mapping, of course, remains for some time down the road. Now at this point I'd like to turn the account over to Fred Bair whom you all know and he is going to talk to you about some of the substantive provisions and then I have two or three other important items to add after he gets done. Mr. Fred Bair: Through the Miami Zoning Ordinance with gun and camera one of the things we're trying to do is simplify the permit procedure. The way things are now you have a wide variety of things that go as Conditional Use Permits, I've got a listing here of some 30 or 40 pages of them. Some of them are beneath the Zoning Board, some of them are beyond the Zoning Board and some of them could be handled without going to the Zoning Board at all but we've set up six classes of permits. You would no longer have to get a Conditional Use Permit for tempor- ary sign or banner or a church bazaar. It is a little out of the way to have to go through all of that procedure for that sort of thing. We have a class "A" permit which is handled by the Zoning administrator himself, it just requires a little extra work. You have a class "B" where there is a reference to another department other than the Planning Department. As things begin to get a little more complicated you have a class "C" then you get to a class "D" permit which is handled by the Zoning Board but without the necessity for public notice and hear- ing. This would be minor site plan review and that sort of business. Then you have what we call special exceptions which are what you have been handl- ing as Conditional -Use Permits and those would still require public notice and hearing but a great many things which are now required to go through that rig- marole, wouldn't have to do that anymore. And finally you would have what are called "Major Use Permits" which are permits affecting the city as a whole if you're getting a new stadium or you're getting something like that and these would be handled by the commission rather than by the Zoning Board. So we've spread the thing out six ways there. We've done three other things. One, we're suggesting that some of the permitting that's being done now through Zoning ought to be handled as licensing or something like that if it is the kind of thing where the Police Department ought to be handling it, if it is a temporary amusement thing for example where the major problem is likely to be a police problem why make it go through the Building Department, we're not talking about a building operation here. There are several things which we think we can put into the use by right column and take them out of Conditional -Uses. So we are trying to simplify the permit procedure. Then we're introducing the zoning techniques which you've used partially or haven't used at all. For one thing, we would allow transfer of development rights. What we're saying here is that if two neighbors get together they ought to be able to do anything on their land that they could do if the land was in single ownership. The city is not concerned really with the pattern of ownership we're interested in the pattern of develop- ment so that for example if you've got two adjacent lots and someone wants to build to the lot line on one of them and his neighbor is willing to move over far enough to leave the required spacing between buildings you can stagger your yards so that you now have two side yards in effect combined on one lot so that you've got usable open space. Mr. Plummer: I'm not really making any comment at this time I'm sure it's going to come at a later time, that sounds well and good and under most cases I would concur with it but you're sure not going to be an aid to controlling density when we have ordinances written in such a manner that you're governed by the square footage of space that you have. In a lot•of cases, using Brickell Avenue for example from 15th Road on down, you can imagine some of the height of some of those buildings if, in fact, you had two or three of those owners go together where today density is a lot determined and governed by the set backs and the square footage of land that they have. Let me tell you that one in particular you hit a soft spot on and I'm balking at that. Mr. Bair: All right, let's see what we're getting into here. You do have height controls on Brickell. Mr. Plummer: We do have some height controls, yes. 41 JUN 161977 Mr. Bair: So they would still apply. Mr. Plumper: WE also have the bonus probie s where we allow bonuses to be given in additional floors, additional heights for certain other amenities being given to the city. So you know I'm just telling you there are pitfalls there. Mr. Bair: All right. You've got two 200' lots let's say on Brickell Avenue and I own both of them. I can build from the outer limits of those lots, it's one parcel. Mr. Plummer: If, in fact, we change the plat. Mr. Bair: You mean if I've got a lot line in the middle I have to have a side yard? I own both of these lots. Mr. Plummer: As one site? Mr. Bair: Yes. Mr. Plummer: ... If that's the only portion of it we're addressing I've got no problems but I caution the danger of pitfalls that might else exist. Mr. Bair: That's all. Well, if we can find some let's examine them. Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm bringing that point out that let's say that I want you to make damned sure that it isn't. Mr. Bair: Well, I think we have. All we're saying here is that if I go and buy that I can do this if the neighbors agree between themselves you ought to be able to do anything that you could do if it was in common ownership. It just loosens things up. Another thing we're getting at is the application of a somewhat more coherent system of density control, open space controls and what not. You now have controls relating to residential floor area and you have controls on usable open space and you have controls on building spacing. These are elements taken from the land use intensity system approach. In a good many cases they have been fouled up in the adaptation so that for instance your building spacing formula left out one number and is, therefore, incorrect as far as the L.U.I.System is concerned but it is obviously derived from the L.U.I.System. What we're propos- ing to do is to establish the entire land use intensity system for regulating not density but number of square feet of residential floor area, the amount of livability space there must be which is your usable open space, the amount of recreation space and the amount of parking. This is a coordinated system which , has been very well tested and if you don't monkey with it by shifting formulas around it will work very nice. So we're proposing to do that. Now in order to do that we're suggesting that you divide the city into land use intensity sect- ions each of which will have its own sets of formulas and if you're in a general residential district and you're in this particular sector you know immediately what is required of you. It also has the effect that if there is a rezoning from let's say single family to multiple family the density is preset as you don't debate how much density we're going to get. That's all been set in accord- ance with the comprehensive plan which we'll do in sectors. Moving on from that, one of the things that we've suggested which I understand is coming up as a pre- liminary adoption, that is you're not going to wait for this, for the ordinance. There is what are called Special Public Interest Districts where if the city has a set special and substantial interest in a particular area it can superimpose controls over the underlying regulations now applying or it can supplement or substitute controls. We're carving down fairly heavily on what are called Planned Development Districts. In the past you've been handling some of these as Condit- ional Use Permits, you've been using a variety of devices. What we're proposing is that they become rezonings; that when somebody comes in with.a planned resi- dental development, a planned shopping center development, a planned office devel- opment, we'll have a whole series of these things, it is handled as a rezoning. At this point unless you have same questions I'm going to let Bart talk to you about some things that we're proposing should be eliminated. Mrs. Gordon: Just to clarify one thing on the transfer of development rights, Dr. Bair, is it your thinking that a transfer could be made from a remote locat- ion or must it be contiguous to the ... must the parcel all be contiguous? Mr. Bair: Development rights don't travel well. If you start preserving the north slope in Alaska by allowing increased density in Miami Beach there is a sleppage along the way some place, I think that the 42 JUN 161977 one exception to the requirement that the property be contiguous is in the case of historic preservation. Here you might set up a historic preservation district and say that this building shall be preserved if we can find any way to do it and we will let you transfer development rights from that land to any area within this relatively restricted historic district but you can't carry more than 25% to any one lot and you can't increase the bulk on any one lot by more than 25% so you've reduced the impact of it. Mrs. Gordon: Would it apply to properties across the street from each other for instance? Mr. Bair: No, except in the case of the historic preservation. Mrs. Gordon: Only there. Mr. Bair: That's the only one that we're recommending. Now it can be jiggered with in a variety of ways but the farther you carry development rights the more trouble you get into. You've got the impact on the receiving lot and you get into the sort of thing that you're talking about where, alright we're going to transfer from out here in the boon docks to downtown and you have to under -zone downtown to make it work. That is downtown will stand this much density then why didn't you zone it for that much density in the first place. Mrs. Gordon: Well, Dr. Bair, we had an instance a couple of years ago where a developer was putting up a building near Brickell and he, after building was al- ready under construction and everything was already laid out, had a request to add an extra story to the building and in return for the extra floor area ratio that he was going to receive he deeded to the city a mini -park right across the street which allows for a very nice park like open space in the vicinity and that was the reason for my question to you. Mr. Bair: I'm not really revolted by that at all, I think that might be an accept- able solution, as a general rule though I would hesitate. Mrs. Gordon: Yes. In some manner or another then you might consider that kind of an implementation as a feasible tool? Mr. Bair: Sure, but not from across town. Mrs. Gordon: No, this was directly across the very rather narrow street and so that it wasn't that far removed. Mr. Bair: Yes, that would work. One of the things I ought to point out before we leave this is that in connection with this land use intensity system we will be figuring lot area on a gross basis, that is whether it's open space adjacent to the lot and spread it into the base on which you compute your floor area and this is a much more equitable arrangement than the present system where you're just talking about the net area of the lot. Mrs. Gordon: What kind of open space are you referring to, public open space? Mr. Bair: As long as it's permanent open space, it can be street, it can be water area, a variety of permanent open spaces, a park. Mrs. Gordon: If one or more of the boundary lines abut a public area that they might be allowed an increased use? Mr. Bair: You'd get credit of half the width of an area up to a maximum figure because obviously you can't let them have half the Atlantic Ocean. Mrs. Gordon: Ok, that's very interesting, thank you. Dr. Bartley: There are a great many such matters, Commissioner Gordon, that we're only trying to hit just a very few high points today. My father, I think Rose has heard me tell this, but my father a long time ago believed that everybody ought to learn how to do something with their hands so he taught me and my younger brother carpentry and I learned pretty rapidly as a very young child that each tool had its uses, that one did not use a screwdriver for a chisel. My father taught me that by applying his hand firmly to my rear. The same thing applies in regard to zoning. The present City of Miami Zoning Ordinance is filled with all kinds of regulations that do not belong in a Zoning Ordinance. I have a list here of a dozen or so that I just picked off the top of my head. When you get into this report you'll find that we make any number of recommendations for types of codes and ordinances that either should be shifted out of the Miami 43 JUN 161977 Zoning Ordinance and placed elsewhere in the City Code or where the city present- ly lacks regulations on that particular subject, for example, the City of Miami as far as I know there's not another city the size in the eastern United States that has no subdivision regulations. I recall a sense of shock when I first found that out. That ought to be a separate code. It has no separate noise ordinance. At the present time on the other hand you have in your zoning ordin- ance a set of alcoholic beverage control regulations, the length of which tran- scends anything that Bair or I have seen in our 20 or 25 years in practice. That type of stuff belongs in a city alcoholic beverage code and then in the zoning ordinance all you'd have in your schedule of district regulations is the on -sale and off -sale establishments in the places that you want them to be located and the whole business of alcoholic beverage control is a separate ordinance. At the risk of getting myself clobbered here the same applies in this general area of regulating adult education establishments. The only thing that ought to appear in the zoning ordinance on adult education ... recreation, I was looking at Plummer and I knew he needed some. Education, J. L., not the other. This bus- iness of adult recreation entertainment, the districts that you want to permit that in, sure, show that in your zoning ordinance but the whole business or reg- ulating pornography by means of a code that speaks openly and honestly to this very real problem, much of the material you've got in your present zoning ordin- ance by amendment would be a part of such a code. The end result would probably be pretty much the same but it would be a separate part of the City Code and we could go on and on here with that kind of thing but we are making a number of recommendations of that kind. There's one last point that I want to make. We've touched very briefly here this afternoon on the major recommendations of the re- port and how Bair and I are presently drafting language in attempt to implement those recommendations. There is one last item of concern, however, when the 1972 Charter amendment was adopted changes in zoning administration were necess- ary and we made a number of those changes, you made a number of those changes I did a little bit of drafting for you. Now we have in preparation here the new Zoning Ordinance. That ordinance will incorporate for the first time a number of very modern sophisticated techniques. It will provide much greater flexibility in development than you have now. When you provide flexibility you've also got to have a rather sophisticated administration. Mayor Ferre: Doctor, if you'll forgive me, I have Rick Sisser from Tallahassee who is our lobbyist on the phone calling up and I think he has good news and I want to share it with the commission and I'm going to have to put him on a loud speaker. Dr. Bartley: Ok. Mayor Ferre: Rick, go ahead. Mr. Rick Sisser: I just wanted to report that three minutes ago the Senate has adopted the Tax Increment Financing and we can go ahead and redevelop our down- town areas and that the $150,000 was passed in the budget this morning in ... Item 201 for the Latin American Trade Fair. Mayor Ferre: Well, on behalf of all of us I want to thank you and congratulate you on the fine work, Rick. ... Just to reiterate that, he said that the tax increment financing has been passed by both House and Senate. Hopefully now the governor will sign it and I think this will be a major breakthrough and I hope that after you finish I'd like to make sure that we pass a resolution to the governor urging him to sign it as an important thing. The $150,000, of course, Charlie Crumpton, I know you've had a great deal to do with it and I know that the county has come forward with their $150,000 so I guess now hopefully we have over come a major hurdle and I think the hurdles beyond this are smaller and hopefully we'll have a successful trade fair here next year in March. Dr. Bartley: What I'm saying sort of pales by insignificance, Mayor Ferre. Well, we do have in preparation as I said the new zoning ordinance and Fred has already mentioned a number of the newer and modern. sophisticated techniques which will be a part of that ordinance and some of your present techniques we hope will be sharpened and improved by that ordinance all of which is to say something here that was not a part of our responsibility in preparing the critique and evaluat- ion of your present ordinance but something that's very important. It's going to be necessary to access to evaluate to the presently rather desperate character of Miami Zoning Administration. Functions relating to zoning at the present time are found in a number of different locations in the city administration. You have zoning functions in the Building Department, you have zoning functions in the Planning Department and you have zoning functions in the Department of Admin- istration for Planning and Zoning Boards. Bair and I as I said were not charged in our critique and evaluation with making any recommendations for changes in present zoning administration. The matter of reorganization of present zoning 44 JUN 161977 administration has, however, been discussed by Fred and me on numerous occasions in the work that we're doing at the moment, it was inevitable because the lang- uage that we used in relationships that we try to establish in the ordinance re- quire that. Though Bair and I are not prepared at this time with a specific recom- mendation we do want to let you know that some reorganization leading to better administrative integration of zoning administration is inevitable. In addition, this is the last point, for the commission's information let me point out that these new sophisticated techniques and changes in present techniques will require a higher level of training and ability on the part of some if not most the admin- istrative personnel involved in zoning administration. This requirement, I merely mention it at this time, obviously has budgetary consequences which will have to be faced at a future appropriate date. This last point on administrative re- organization and budgetary relationships to that reorganization I merely mention at this time. I am not really prepared to discuss them but they've come up so many times between Fred and myself as we've been drafting this thing here that I felt that I ought to make mention of it to the commission. I'd be glad to answer any questions any of you may have. I'm glad that that tax increment thing passed, I wish it had passed as a Constitutional amendment. Mr. Fosmoen: Let me make one additional comment. You know the Zoning Ordinance hasn't been rewritten as a total in some 17 years and we're going to be into a period over the next 12 months of some very very tedious work as far as the Plann- ing Advisory Board and this City Commission if we're going to rewrite a zoning ordinance and end up with a modern set of development data and it is going to be a long hard grind on everyone's part. At the end of 15 or 18 months we hope that we can be in a position to adopt a new ordinance and a map and a set of scheduled regulations. In fact, they're going to provide a great deal of flexibility to the development community but at the same time we retain enough control so that that development which is done is done in a good way and doesn't negatively impact this community. If we want to provide flexibility to development we have to use sophisticated techniques. It is not good enough any longer to rely totally on side yard, rear yard, front yard and height controls. That puts a box around what people can do and this Commission and the Planning Advisory Board are in for a number of long hours of good hard work. Mayor Ferre: Well, for that our thanks and our appreciation and if there are no further questions thank you and we'll see you again soon. 19. DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE {NIGHT-CLUBS AND HOTELS AND MOTELS). Mayor Ferre: At this time we'll take up Item #6 before the commission and first we'll hear from the administration and then from Mr. Sokolski who is an objector. Mr. Richard Whipple: To make it very short, it has been a matter of concern that there has been established and in existence some night club facilities in the city which were granted approval to exist by this commission which were, in fact, not covered by the zoning regulations as they exist today. In an analysis of the problem in one or two instances that this has occured and in looking at the types of districts and the location and the primary locations of our hotel -motel com- munity we feel and have recommended that night clubs be a part of large hotel and motel complexes and that we establish this in the zoning ordinance by way of re- quiring a minimum of 300 rental units prior to the establishment of a night club use. Mr. Plummer: Were you the applicant then as such? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Ok, just so we know who the dirty guys are. Rev. Gibson: All right, sir. Mr. Al Sokolski: Well, as you gentlemen know I've been before the commission before. I was on a board that Maurice had for the modification of liquor laws. When we had a meeting at the Baptist Church downtown the consensus of opinion at that time of everybody who was appointed by Mrs. Gordon, Rev. Gibson, Mr. Reboso, yourself, Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre was to make the liquor laws standard for closing. We moved it from 2:00 O'Clock to 3:00 O'Clock because there were a lot of objectors that didn't want a 2:00 O'Clock closing. In doing so, that commis- sion which I believe diligently served this city felt at that time that night clubs should have been encompassed in the act, that the night clubs should have closed at the same time because night clubs staying open until 5:00 O'Clock was 45 JUN 161977 leaving Pandora's Box open. In other words it was saying that if you had a mini- mum of 400 square feet of dancing area, if you had a minimum of so many square feet you could apply for a night club license and what would happen again is in- stead of having an organized closing that people would go ahead and try to comply with the ordinance and thereby extend liquor to 5:00 O'Clock which was against the intent of the commission, against the intent of the group that was appointed to do the study but then we were told that it would place a hardship on those night clubs which were now operating, Les Violins, etc. and we agreed that since there were only 17 or 18 clubs of that category in the City of Miami that it would be fine to keep the closing hours at 5:00 for the 18 existing clubs and had made a recommendation to this commission to grandfather that, even though I don't have a 5:00 O'Clock license, to grandfather that so that those licenses would remain with those clubs and not place a hardship on those people who have the 5:00 O'Clock license. Now we have an amended zoning ordinance which comes before this commis- sion which not only makes the law as existing on the books to increase to a 5:00 O'Clock license applicable to the ones that exist but opens up a whole new ball game. We say the hotel with 300 sleeping units, we say residential, office and commercial, we don't say what quality because quality cannot be judged evidently by a commission or a group of people. We don't say whether it's a luxurious hotel, if anyone wants to circumvent the fact he can take the building and cut it up into 300 rooms with 100 square feet each and put a 5:00 license in and we'd have a problem on our hands. I feel that when we pass this liquor ordinance which it isn't even a month and a half from the last reading we come back and find on this agenda before this commission a new law to enlarge the area in which a 5:00 O'Clock license can operate. It says hotels► motels, apartments; it says R-C residential offices, RC-1 residential ... And we're back again giving the people the right to apply and I realize that when Mayor Ferre asked that time about the Zanzibar in the Four Ambassadors they were operating on a special permit until 5:00 O'Cloc1, and as Mr. Ferencik said when he was standing here it was illegal for them to still be doing so, they had just made that application for the one time and they kept going. Mayor Ferre: Al, can I cut through on this and see if.... Mr. Sokolski: Yes, well let me finish► I'm just about finished. What I'm trying to say is that the 3:00 O'Clock closing for hotels, for restaurants with the ex- ception of the clubs that do have 5:00 O'clock is what we should try to keep on the books the way it is, Maurice. Mayor Ferre: Look, let me see if I understand this right. As I understand this this only affects hotels or apartments that have 300 units or more so the only ones that are affected are the Brickell Avenue area, as I read this memorandum which is in our packet, and the downtown area. The only hotels that are affected at this time are the Sheraton Four Ambassadors and the new one, the Omni Hotel. .... What? Mr. Whipple: Omni is C-3 and it is permitted in C-3. Mayor Ferre: That is permitted, so who does this affect before the Four Ambassad- ors? Mr. Whipple: No one that I know, sir. Mr. Sokolski: It's taylored to the Four Ambassadors... Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you know they have it, they already have it on a variance and I think what we're trying to do is put it into a standardized form. I hope that we're going to have toher hotels in the future in the downtown area that would have more than 300 rooms and this is just an incentive. This is no differ- ent than what they can do in Atlanta or New York... Mr. Sokolski: Well, it's changing the liquor laws again. I just want to make one statement, Maurice. The Four Ambassadors which was built by my friend Robert Turchin who had a piece of it at the time was never built as a hotel. It was built as a pure apartment building and because it did not work out as an apart- ment building it was turned into a hotel, it is still an apartment building. Mayor Ferre: Look, that's history and that's fine and Bob Hammerfield... Mr. Sokolski: I know about Bob Hammerfield. Mayor Ferre: And he was the attorney... 46 JUN 161977 Mt. Sokolski: How many apartment buildings do we have in Dade County or in the City of Miami with over 300 units because I just sold one that I owned? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Sokolski: Mayor Ferre: big town. Yes, but I mean they're going to put a night club in? Come on. But it says you're permitted to do by this. But you know if we're going to be a big town we're going to be a Mr. Sokolski: We are do have 17 clubs. a big town and we have got a 3:00 O'Clock closing and we Mayor Ferre: Hey, you've got yours and that's fine and you're happy. Mr. Sokolski: No, I didn't get mine and I didn't serve on a commission to get mine. Mayor Ferre: I know that. Mr. Sokolski: I'm telling you. Mayor Ferre: I believe that. Mr. Sokolski: I served on the commission because I really sincerely thought that if I was asked to do something that I had to forget about mine and I voted the first time for 2:00 O'Clock. Mayor Ferre: Al, who is this going to harm, would you tell me that? Who is this going to hurt? Mr. Sokolski: It's going to hurt to this effect, Maurice, it's opening up a gate- way to allow people to go ahead and apply for 5:00 O'Clock licenses. Mayor Ferre: I would hope that we'd have 20 people build 300 room hotels. Mr. Sokolski: They don't have to build them. Mayor Ferre: Well how many apartments do we have that have 300 units? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, let me clarify the point. We're not talking about dwell- ing units, 300 dwelling units. We're talking about 300 rental sleeping units or hotel or motel units. Now, if an apartment structure had the 300 rental units then yes they could have a night club but the objective and the direction here is rental sleeping units not apartment complexes. Mr. Sokolski: If the Zoning Department is to take a standardized view of what the zoning code reads and they make reference thereto it specifically states in the Zoning Code that a hotel room may not have a kitchen facility. Therefore, the Four Ambassadors is operating on a variance as a hotel because when I built my hotel I stood before this very commission and asked for pullman kitchens and I was told if I put them in I would not qualify as a hotel and I didn't put them in. Mayor Ferre: Look Dick, how strongly do you fellows feel about this? Mr. Fosmoen: Well, we're trying to correct a situation which exists at the Four Ambassadors and this would also affect the Regency Hyatt which is being talked about and several other hotels downtown. Mayor Ferre: Does the administration agree with this? You're recommending it? It would affect the Regency Hyatt? Mr. Fosmoen: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Look, I happen to be in favor of anything like increment taxes or anything that helps people who are on the verge of making major commitments to building new hotels and apartments. If this helps I'm for it. Mr. Sokolski: But wait a second, Maurice. It isn't a question of this helping or not helping. This is not going to preclude anybody from taking out a building permit. It's going to put a stigma on the community that will allow 2 or 3 hotels, a non competitive structure. Now you could take a hotel with 175 rooms and I will Ipll Al II IIIIIIII!II IlP IPIPl 1111 II1111A 47 JUN i 61977 talk about my hotel which 1 spent $4500 a room just to furnish where other hotels, and 1 will name the Sheraton which has a $900 budget which out near the airport, the same people did mine and you can talk about luxury. You can talk about the West Gate Plaza in San Diego which cost $100,000 a r000 or you can talk about a flop for $10,000. Mayor Ferre: Al, I'm amazed, I'm really... You sound like Dr. Willard now. Mr. Sokolski: I'm not Dr. Willard, Maurice, I'm just trying to say to you that what you're doing here is not helping out anybody who is on the Planning Boards because there isn't a mortgage company in America that's going to say, "We're not going to make that loan, that hotel is not feasible because we can't have a 5:00 O'Clock license". Mayor Ferre: Of course not. Mr. Sokolski: Well there's your answer. Mayor Ferre: Well, but the point is that it is just one of these small little items that added to the whole make it more attractive for people who are going to build large hotels. Mr. Sokolski: Well I build large hotels, do you agree, Maurice? Mayor Ferre: Yes.... Mr. Sokolski: And then I build large buildings. Mayor Ferre: I don't know why you feel so strongly about this. Mr. Sokolski: I feel strongly about it because we had a committee that sat down and met and now within one month you're changing the laws. Mrs. Gordon: Law by accomodation, I move to deny. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion to deny, is there a second? Rose is moving to deny it. The following motion introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Com- missioner Plummer to deny the above application was passed and adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer and Rev. Gibson. NOES: Mr. Reboso and Mayor Ferre. Mayor Ferre: The Item is defeated 3-2. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but let me ask the next obvious question. Since the depart- ment is concerned about a bad boy making him good, what can we do if anything else to so-called legitimize your concern? Now if you're truthful in what you said you want to legitimize a bad situation tell me how to do it without... Mayor Ferre: I don't really care so as far as I'm concerned I think you've made a mistake, I think you've hurt the community, one person came here... We've had this before the Planning Board, the administration.... Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, Maurice, let's not make a blanket statement like that. Let's make a statement that as far as I'm concerned I am not as an individual opposed if the Hyatt Regency House comes before this commission and presents a plan.... Mayor Ferre: Do it on a one to one basis every time somebody comes up? Mr. Plummer: You damned right I am. Mayor Ferre: That's exactly what we're trying to avoid. Mr. Plummer: Look. Maurice, if you've got a book and the book says what you can do and what you can't do then let's all go home. Mayor Ferre: Now you know what you're doing in effect, and I have no interest and could care less but what in effect you've just done, and I'm not accusing you, don't misunderstand, you've not limited the Four Ambassadors to shutting at 3;00 O'Clock. Is that correct? 48 JUN 161977 Mr. Sokolski: That was the intent of the law we passed. Mayor Ferre: Yes. So in effect what you've now done is you have hurt, Mr. Planter, I want you to hear this. ... Mr. Plummer: ...they're over there shaking their head that's why t walked over to find out. Mayor Ferre: Well, how can those people continue to violate the law? Mr. Sokolski: The Zanzibar Lounge at the Four Ambassadors is as Mr. Ferencik pointed out got one special extension from this commission for 5:00 O'Clock and has used that special extension which was supposed to be good for only one time, has used it Mr. Reboso; But that was eleven years ago, Al. Mr. Sokolski: Hut it wasn't passed for ever, it was only for one week and they've been using it ever since. Mr. Reboso: I agree with the Mayor at this point. This is an international city and either we move ahead or we're going to... Mr. Sokolski: May I say something, Maurice, that has nothing to do with this? May I ask this commission one other question? We use City of Miami Police Officers in their off duty capacity in our hotel to see that the public is safeguarded 4111110 with their belongings and to see that everything goes well and these people come to work in our hotels in plain clothes and we have them check the empty rooms at night because lots of times people come with a key that's a week old and go into a room. Well now somebody in the Police Department has said that these officers that we use that we pay the city I guess it's S or $9.00 an hour, must come to work in their uniform and this scares the guests when we have policemen walking around on the floors. Mayor Ferre: What does that have to do with this item? Mr. Sokolski: Well, I just wanted to know, they said we'd have to take it up with the City Commission if the police could come to work their in plain clothes. They've been doing it for four years and they've just changed it two weeks ago. Mayor Ferre: That's an administrative matter, the City Commission has nothing to do with that. Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, on the issue of the Four Ambassadors and the special permit that was issued I hesitated to read this because it was adopted in December of 1967, you authorized a special certificate of occupancy for the operation of a night club in connection with the Four Ambassadors subject to approval of the City Commission at a later date of an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami providing for a night club as an incidental use in R-C classifications for hotels with 400 rooms or more and authorizing and directing the Planning Hoard to hold a public hearing on such amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at the earliest possible date. Apparently this is the earliest possible date. Mr. Sokolski: It was never held, that was 1967. Mr. Grassie: It is now coming to you. Mayor Ferre: So in effect what these people have been going on a temporary per- mit which is now over with as of right now so they have to go back now to a 3:00 O'Clock closing. Mr. Plummer: Well, you know what surprises me? How come they're not here? If, in fact, their license is in jeopardy.... Mayor Ferre: I guarantee you the moment they know about it they're going to be here. This isn't the last time for it. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me make the record clear. Mr. Mayor. Ok? Because what I see happening here is the possibility of broadening this thing which I think is exactly his concern. Mayor Ferre; What's wrong with that, Mr, Plummet? 49 JUN 161977 Mk, Plummer: Because, Mr. Mayor, I want each one of those applications to cothe before this commission. That's what t'm here for, Mayor Ferre: That's like spot zoning. Mr. Plummer: No it's not! It's like a conditional use, like a variance, Now, if, in fact, what we have just done by our action is to close down an existing then Mr. Mayor, I for one will be asking for a reconsideration if that is the case. I am not worried about those, and I don't think Al is, that are presently operating. Mayor Ferre: Is that the case or not? Mr. Sokolski: I'm not worried a bit about those.,.. Mr. Grassie: If we enforce the ordinance yes,..,. Mr..Plummer: Then I make a motion that this thing be reconsidered, Mayor Ferre: All right! Mrs. Gordon: I want to know how came we didn't enforce the ordinance until today. Mayor Ferre: That's a good question. ... Ten years. Mr. Grassie: But the answer to your question is in the resolution that the Plann- ing Director just read. The resolution said that they had permission until such time as the City Commission had a public hearing and considered an ordinance chance That is what you are now doing it just happens that it is many many years later. Mr. Sokolski: I think you should have that public hearing then. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor.... Mrs. Gordon: Look, I've never seen a case before where we have continued the discussion and the attempt to change votes after it's taken as there is today now. I think it is time to go home unless we have some other business. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, any legislative body that I have ever heard of in a democracy has the right, a member has a right to ask for reconsideration under the Roberts' Rules and this commission has not been adjourned and Mr. Plummer has that legal right as does anybody and I would like to say that in the past there have been people who have moved to reconsider. He's got that legal right. Mr. Sokolski: Then under Roberts' Rules it has to be seconded by someone in the minority that voted. Mayor Ferre: No, in our case it does not work that way because we are a commis- sion of 5 and obviously... Mr. Plummer: Rose, you'll be happy with my second motion. I haven't a second yet, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Reboso seconded it but it doesn't mean anything because obviously when you have a commission of five under the rule as he can well point out you don't need it. Ok? Mr. Davis: Mr. Mayor, I wish to re-emphasize that this is a public hearing and has been duly advertised Mayor Ferre: Excuse me. Mrs. Gordon: This is the Mason's Rules of Order that we operate under and the rules of this body have been determined some time in the past that we need a second to every motion. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Reboso just seconded it. Mrs. Gordon; Yes, but Mr. Reboso was not on the affirmative side..... Rev. Gibson: Ok, I'll second it. Mayor Ferre: All right, now there's a second, call the roll on reconsideration and then we have an open question. 50 JU1N 161977 The preceding motion introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Rev. Gibson to reconsider the item before the commission was passed by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso, Rev. Gibson, Mayor Ferre. NOES: Mts. Gordon. Mr. Plummer: I now make a motion that this matter be deferred until the 14th of July at which time staff will have adequate time to provide us with additional information such as: (1) How it would affect the Four Ambassadors since that is their greatest concern. (2) How many other places would be affected that poss- ibly could file for this the day after it passes. (3) I want a clear delineation made as to a rental unit. Is this a hotel apartment, is it a hotel -motel, I would like a clear delineation as to a rental unit? I would move that this be deferred until the 14th of July for further imput. Excuse me, the 21st is the next Zoning Meeting. And excuse me, the final portion is that those parties, as I understand it at present it is only the Four Ambassadors, be in particularly notified that they appear here before a public hearing since it would or could affect them greatly. Mayor Ferre: Now Mr. Plummer, your motion, this is a public hearing, is that correct? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, this would be a continuation. Mayor Ferre: This is a public hearing because I don't want the legal aspects to get brought up at that time. Mr. Plummer: This would be a continuation for a specific purpose. Mr. Sokolski: I would like to say something at this time. That in 1967 when that was granted the public hearing must follow in that calendar year. You know your own rules, the public hearing did not follow in that calendar year, they've been operating for nine years illegally. Mr. Plummer: Al, that comes under the same category as when this commission, not this one - he might have been here but I wasn't, allowed them to build a model in front of the place and that was only to be until the place was occupied and they weren't supposed to get a certificate of occupancy until they removed it then comes the President of the United States who his Secret Service stayed there and they used that against us for all kinds of reasons why, in fact, they couldn't take it down. We had that fight for years. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 77-512 A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW NIGHT CLUBS AS A PERMITTED USE IN HOTELS, MOTELS OR APARTMENT HOTELS CONTAINING AT LEAST 300 SLEEPING UNITS IN R-CB, RC-1 AND C-1 DISTRICTS UNTIL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21, 1977, AT WHICH TIME THE CITY MANAGER IS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 1. THE EFFECT ON THE FOUR AMBASSADORS HOTEL COMPLEX; 2. DETERMINATION OF OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS POSSIBLY UNDER THIS ORDINANCE; and 3. CLEAR DELINEATION OF "RENTAL UNIT." Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner J. L. Plummer Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES; None. Mr. Sokolski: I really would like to make one last statement since the meeting is over. I really say Maurice, that I'm very disappointed that you were able to pull this thing around because you are just showing a hand that you're going for one building and I'll be here to object to it. I think it is wrong. 51 JUN 161977 Mt t PluMMert ass Mr. aokelski! t think that until this commission meets on this matter that they should be obligated to operate under the liquor license laws like everybody else not till five in the morning. They've been operating illegally for eight years and this eommission is adjourning and for the reeard allowing them to eontinue to operate illegally. Mayor Ferret Anything else/ Ok, Al, thank you, We stand adjourned. ADJOURNMENT: • There being h0 further business tb coma before the City Commis Jail the meeting was adiourned at S120 O'Clock P.M. MdUAIde A. FtAla • MAYOR krist't Ralph G Oitaie City Clerk Matty HiA44 Assistant City Clerk • ti3rai UN 1 6 1977 ■ R,,T wit- ■VO "8'7■e■■ DOCUMENT INDEX MEETING DATE: June 16, 1977 ITEM NO. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION COMMISSION ACTION RETRIEVAL CODE NO. 10 COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT GRANTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VARIANCE GRANTED FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871 ARTICLE V, SECTION 4, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDI- TION TO EXISTING MAUSOLEUM AT 3260 S.W. 8TIi ST AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871 ESTABLISHING A POLICY OF THE CITY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE NUMERICAL QUADRANT SYSTEM FOR STREET NAMES REQUESTING THE DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION TO MOUNT SIGNS ON THE STREET SIGN POSTS AT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOL BLOCK GRANTING THE PETITION AS PER ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXI-1, TO PERMIT A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ON LOTS 3 TURU 8, BLOCK 38, NEW BISCAYNE GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VARIANCE GRANTED FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXIII SECTION 4. GRANTING PERMISSION, AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 36(1), TO USE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7521 N.E. 3RD AVENUE. ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED COSTA BELLA DEVELOPMENT SUB., A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. ACCEPTING THE DEED FROM COSTA BELLA CONDOMIN- IUMS, INC. FOR OUTLOTS 55,56 AND 57 OF AMEND- ED PLAT OF POINT VIEW. R-77-504 R-77-506 77-507 R-77-508 R-77-509 R-77-510 R-77-511A R-77-511B 0020 77-504 0021 77-506 77-507 77-508 77-509 77-510 77-511A 77-511B