HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1977-07-21 MinutesCITY OF 'MIAMI
OF MEETING HELD ON JULY 21. 1977
PREPARED BY ME OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
RALPH GI OHM
CITY CLERK
•
s
Ii' U
IT�IS_OF REGULAR MEETING
COf"MISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
PAGE NO.
ITEM NO.
1. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF LICENSES—DANNY'S LITTLE
RIVER NEWS.
2. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF LICrdSES—DOWNTOWN TMEAT R 77-594 6-8
3. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF LICENSES —DOWNTOWN BOOKS R 77-595
4. CONSIDERATION OF INC. (PUSSYCAT I AND II) — CONTINUED OF STO COMMISSIONATREr
8-11
MEETING OF JULY 28, 1977. CONTINUED
5. REPORT BY COMMISSIONER J. L. PLUMMER, JR. ON SISTER CI PORT 11
PROGRAM, BOGOTA, COLOMBIA•
6. SPECIAL WORKSHOP ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
DISCUSSION 12-25
7.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE R 77-596
KAISER `TRANSIT GROUP REGARDING RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS. R 77-5977-598 26-36
8. NO BUILDING PERMITS TO BE ISSUED UNTIL FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND RECORDED. FIRST READING 36
9.
CONSIDERATION AND DEFERRAL OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF
ZONING FROM R-2 TO C-5 AT APPROXIMATELY 25 N.W. 34 STR. :1 77-5rj 36-
39
10. DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE
BY ALLOWING NIGWTCLUBS AS A PERMITTED USE IN CERTAIN 40
HOTELS AND MOTELS IN R—CB, R—C-1 AND C-1 DISTRICTS.
DEFERRED
11. INCLUDE ESCORT SERVICES WITHIN DEFINITION OF ADULT FIRST READING 40
ENTERTAINMENT USES.
12. AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PROFESSIONAL OFFICES FIRST READING 41
WITHIN R-5 DISTRICTS AS CONDITIONAL USE.
13. UPHOLD ZONING BOARD'S DECISION TO GRANT VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 4298 S.W. 6TH R 77-600 42-43
STREET AND WAIVING REPLATTING REQUIREMENTS.
14. DENI.AL OF APPEAL FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A DAY R 77-601 44-47
NURSERY AT 6784 TAMIAMI CANAL ROAD.
15. APPEARANCE OF SEVERAL PER'..JNS REGARDING REMOVAL OF ROOF DISCUSSION 47-50
SIGNS BY OCTOBER 19, 1977.
APPEAL TO PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE IN CON— DISCUSSION
lb.EFERRAL 50
NECTION WITH A BAR AT 6285 N.W.NW7TH AVENUE.
17. DRIVERS LICENSE FACILITY AT CENTRAL SHOPPING PLAZA.
DEFERRAL. 50
18.
PUBLIC HEARING: PERMIT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) DISCUSSION
SEE 420 51-59
AT 1809 BRICKEL.L AVENUM-UTD TOWERS.
19. EXTEND CONDITIONAL USE FOR ADDITIONAL 6 MONTHS, FLORIDA 59-60
EAST COAST PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 535 N.E. R 77-602AR 77 6028
15 STREET.
Q. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AT
1809 BRICY.ELL AVENUE, UTD TOWER', GRANT PERMISSION TO R 77-603 60-79
CONSTRUCT.
R 77-593
1-2
2-6
INDEX
CI;OQJ OF�MIAMI, FLDRIDA
21. DENY APPLICATION TOG D���NTAT02751-65 INITIATE•A,STUDY2 ��
D REQUEST PLANK
OF
I5 AREA.
22. GRANT PERMANENT WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT OF 15 OF 29 REQUIR
ED OFF-STREET PARKING
23
1ST UNIT AVENUE BETWEEN76 AND 77LSTREETSDING R
THE ELDERLY, N.W.
23. GRANT PERMANENT WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT OF 32 OF 52 REQUIR
ED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR 42 UNIT PROJECT FOR THE
ELDERLY AT 7820 N. NuAMI AVENUE.
24. GRANT PERMISSION TO NORTHSIDE BANK FOR INSTALLATION OF
V
OFFICE TRAILER
NDSCAPOIN0 GBANDOTFER EREERICT ONS .T
APPROVAL
APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE THE MIAMI FIRE PROTECTION AND
25.
RESCUE SERVICES MASTER PLAN.
26. ACCEPT PLAT - PORTO BELLO.
27. ACCEPT PLAT - LILLIAN SUSANA
28. DEFERRAL OF WORKSHOP SESSION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
M 77-604
M 77-605
79-91
R 77-606 92
R 77-607 92
M 77-608 93-94
R 77-609 94
R 77-610 94
R 77-611 95
DEFERRAL 95
WM
w-
4
L
MINUTES OF SPECIAL
COMMISSION MEETING
* * * * *
ON THK 21ST DAY OF JULY, 1977, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, bLORIDA MET IN SPECIAL SESSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS OF
PUBLIC IMPORT,
V CF-MAYOR (REV.) THEODORE GIBSON C
LLEDTHE
MEETING
UND TOBEOPORDENT.
ER
AT 9:1�4 U'CLOCK A.M. WITH THE FOLLOWIGMEMBERS
FComm.iss.i.onet Rode Gondon
Commiss..onet ManoZo Reboso
Comm-i.ss-i.onen J. L. PZummen, Jn..
Vice -Mayon. (Rev.) Theodo.te Gibson
ASSENT:
Mayot Maun.i.ee A. Pe-tte
ALSO PRESENT: Joseph R. G,tass.ie, City Managers
R. L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manage%c
Geotge F. Knox, City A.ttothey
Ralph G. Ongie, City CZen.fz
Matey H i.ta.i, Assistant City C.e'
An .invocation was deb.ve-ted by Reverend Gibson who then Led
those pees ent in a pZedg e o 5 a.�tegianee to .the SL g.
1, CONS
IDERATION OF REVOCATION OF LICENSES - DANNY'S LITTLE RIVER NEWS.
Rev. Gibson: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are to resume our hearings
of last week, a continuation of hearings concprning possible revocation cf licenses
parties here?
of bs theatres, addressrthe commissionre we otherbtha:ithe eall fact thatpyou're going
DoesLb eanybody? wantll to simple explanation. Since I'm going
to be heard? All right, let me make a very
to start the meeting off
and I incorrect. ZebelievesoureresponsibilityCisytotgetntwo
you will tell me if I'm
bits of information (1) Do you have a license or did you have a license in the City
you been taken to court and got a conviction? And after that
of Miami;ewe don't
Have ,�
I hope on't have what I saw last time even though I was a part of thewitp revidnce.
ing. We are not a court of law and we don't have to necessarily
deala
I think that the judge in the courtEither all
the
convictedeor you.
hwereer onotacon-
license or you didn't have one. you were
victed. Now I hope we would get that so that we would not be off the track and
all out in left field. Ok? All right, who are the parties?
Mr. Plummer: Father, let me just clarify one statement that you made. That is
that I hope I didn't understand tareut notlbound by thewant to rstrict proceduresit for the cofdevs.dence
. We
do deal with the evidence but we
as in a courtroom.
Rev. Gibson: That's correct, but I want to make sure that ... Because what they
wanted us to do apparently was to try the case and I didn't think it was our re-
sponsibility to try the cases, the case was already tried. Isn't that right,
council? Isn't that the understanding?
Mr. Steinfeld: Exactly.
Rev. Gibson: Ok. Call the first party or parties, please.
ces
Mr. Steinfeld: Import and Invest_mentInc.
Investmenta/ cServiceslbeenlseLr
national, is that setfor the 28th? Has Import and
over for the 28th?
Mr, Ongie: The only note T_ have is that all remaining cases were continued to
July 2lst at 9;00 A.M., today.
JUL 211977
.iV'eb News and they are no longer entitled to be a licensed establishment in the
City of Miami. I have prepared here a resolution so stating.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir. You've heard, what is the wish of the commissioh?
Any other matters?
Mr. Steinfeld: There's no other additional....
Rev. Gibson: Alright, what is the wish of the commission?
Mr. Plummer: I move that the license be revoked.
Thereupon the City Attorney read the title of the following resolution into
the record.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-593
A RESOLUTION REVOKING THE CITY OF MIAMI LICENSE ISSUED
TO LITTLE RIVER NEWS, 7839 N.E. 2nd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
(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: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ASSENT: Mayor Ferre.
Rev. Gibson: Anybody else?
Mr. Plummer: As of the rest of them for a period os 12 months.
Rev. Gibson: All right. Counsel, Mr. D'..ummer moved that the same period of
time, 12 months, be given them as any of he others. Do you have any objections
to that?
Mr. ;Steinfeld: I have no objection.
The preceding motion introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by
Commissioner Reboso was passed and adopted by a unanimous vote of the commissioners
present. Mayor Ferre was absent.
2. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATICN OF LICENSES - DOWNTOWN THEATRES.
Mr. Steinfeld: The next matter would be that of Downtown Theatres and Mr. Brad
Hinman.
Rev. Gibson: Is he here?
Mr. Steinfeld: Again, I'd have to look around.
Mrs. Gordon: What address is that location at?
Mr. Steinfeld: This particular one is 25 S.E. 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida. Are
you Mr. Hinman?
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir.
Mr. Steinfeld: Again it would be the city's contention that one continuance was
already granted and that Mr. Hinman could have gotten other counsel to be here
today and the city would recommend against any other further continuance.
I'm sure on the moneys that he gets from the establishment he could pay another
attorney.
Rev. Gibson: Alright, what is the wish of this body?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I think the record will
a continuance was granted, it was a matter of running
man has the right to have his day in court. This man
was not and I will move you that this be conilnued to
reveal I do not think that
out of time. I think every
is here, the other party
the next meeting of the 28th
Mr. Rlutniner: One of the companies at the very end, the man said he had a
problem and that he was going to continue it over and the Mayor granted the
request. Is that the one?
Mr. Steinfeld: I have no record.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Sterbenz is saying yes.
Rev. Gibson: How about the other party or parties?
Mr. Steinfeld: Danny's Little River News and Daniel C. Feshbadhr,
Rev. Gibson: Are those parties here?
Mr. Steinfeld: Would the commission like me to proceed?
Rev. Gibson: What is the wish of the commissibO Counsel, what can We do under
the law?
Mr. Knox: All right, the law provides that due process means that an individual
has a reasonable opportunity to be heard and if an individual does not wish to
be heard at the prescribed time and place then the commission could entertain a
request for a continuance. The commission is not bound to grant these requests
as they would be a matter of grace and having provided adequate notice to the
respondent in this case the City Commission could proceed if it desired.
Rev. Gibson: What is the wish of the commission?
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask the obvious question. Were they renotified of
today's hearing?
Mr. Steinfeld: Members of the commission, I have a letter dated July 18, 1977
where they stated that they did, in fact, know of this meeting but they claim
that their particular attorney will be out of town until August 1, 1977 and re-
spectfully ask that the commission and the City Attorney's Office continue this.
It would be the city's contention that they could have gotten ahold of additional
counsel and proceeded and the city would object to any continuance.
Mr. Plummer: What is your recommendation?
Mr. Steinfeld: My recommendation is that we proceed and that they, in fact, knew
about this; they have already been granted one continuance, that they could have
as I stated gotten additional counsel.
Mr. Plummer: Proceed.
Rev. Gibson: A11 right, is that the wish of the commission? All right, let's
proceed.
Mz. Steinfeld: I would first like to proffer to the commission a certified copy
of the license and application of Danny's Little River News, the current license
and application and the original application and license signed by a Mr. Daniel
Feshbach. The license number is 18125, the current license issued to Little River
News.
Rev. Gibson: May I ask a question? Would they be the same people that went to
court and were found guilty?
Mr. Steinfeld: Well, I am just about to proffer those convictions right now.
Rev. Gibson: All right, proceed.
Mr. Steinfeld: Why don't we make that one composite exhibit. I would next like
to proffer a copy of the arrest and conviction of one Maurice Goldring identified
on the arrest as a clerk doing business at 7839 N.E. 2 Avenue, the address listed
on the license for Danny's Little River News of sale and posession of obscene
material; the conviction of Edward Michael Raymond of the possession of obscene
material and the arrest and conviction of one Daniel Feshbach who was listed on
the application and license as the person making application for Danny's Little
River News. I think we ought to have these admitted as separate exhibits.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir.
Mr. Steinfeld: Based upon that it would be the city's contention that ordinance
30-11 has been violated by Mx. Feshbach and by the clerks working at Danny's Little
111) •
of July, same as what we did with the other one, whatever that first one was that
you called, we moved that to the 28th of July.
Rev. Gibson: Thee is a motion that this matter be continued to the 28th of July,
Mr. Reboso: Can we have it the 28th?
Mr. Plummer: We've got one already scheduled.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't know what we're going to accomplish by that because he Said
that he couldn't have his attorney before the 1st.
Mr. Reboso: That's right.
Mr. Plummer: That's giving him the opportunity to get another attorney, Rose, or
get his attorney back here three days early.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, why don't we ask him if he's going to do that, if he isn't
then we could hear it now.
Mr. Plummer: That's your option. ... That's the 28th of July, sir.
Mrs. Gordon: We can't hear you, please.
Rev. Gibson: Maybe that mike is not on. Is there a button there?
Mr. Brad Hinman: I have nothing to say, I'm not an attorney. My attorney is not
here, he'll be back August 1st. I think he would also like this to be heard the
other date this other gentleman is....
Rev. Gibson: Let me say this, sir. The other gentleman has July 28th. Now you
said to us in a letter, no you said to us standing there that your attorney will
not be back until August 1.
Mr. Hinman: I don't know what day that falls on, it might be a weekend.
Rev. Gibson: Well all right, we're not going to worry the day we're going to
worry about the date. We have a meeting here on the 28th. Are you telling us
that you are going to have that attorney back here or another attorney to repre-
sent you for the 28th? Now if that's what you're saying that's one thing based
on what Mr. Plummer's motion is saying. If you aren't going to have him here
what we're asking you to do is not to, you know?
Mr. Hinman: I don't know, I'm sorry.
Rev. Gibson: You don't know. Well, let me put it....
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me put it a little clearer. I'm willing to make a motion
to continue it to the 28th but I'm going to tell you with or without an attorney
we're going to hear it on the 28th if that motion is granted. Now that gives you
the opportunity to do one thing - to either move or get... You've got your choice
as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Hinman: Ok, we'll hear it the 28th.
Mr. Plummer: I've mad e the motion, we'll see what the rest of the commission
says.
Mrs. Gordon: Under discussion, I didn't hear him say he was going to have an
attorney on the 28th. I think that we didn't have anyone here on the previous
case and we proceeded on the two things that are before us (1) do they have a
license, (2) have they had a conviction and I don't see that the postponement is
going to bring about anything different.
Mr. Plummer: Except for the fact that the previous cases we heard didn't even
have the courtesy to show up.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, ok, go ahead.
Rev. Gibson: Before I call the roll so we don't interrupt the roll call, sir,
are you telling us now that if that attorney, that particular attorney is not in
town you're going to have one here on the 28th?
Mr, Hinman: I can't say anymore....
4
JUL 211977
Rent. Gibson: Well let me say this to you.
Mr. Hinman: ...and I haven't decided anything more than that.
Rev. Gibson: Well, sir, unless I get that commitment I'm going t6 be voting my
conviction. Ok? All right, call the roll.
Mr. Pluuner: Well wait a minute, I want an answer. Sir, do yu realize that
come hell or high water this is going to be heard?
Mr. Hinman: A:. day after August 1st is fine with me.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I withdraw my motion.
Rev. Gibson: The seconded withdraws? All right, call the roll.
Mr. Plummer: No, there is nothing to call, I withdraw the motion.
Rev. Gibson: All right.... Plummer moves, Reboso seconds, under discusSi6h,
call the roll. ... Is to try the case.
Mrs. Gordon: Do you have to have a motion? ....
Rev. Gibson: He's then denied. All right, let's deal counsel.
Mr. Plummer: This is Downtown Theatres?
Mr. Steinfeld: Yes, it is. I'd like to proffer into the record a certified copy
of the application of Downtown Theatres...
Mrs. Gordon: State the address when you speak of that because...
Mr. Steinfeld: Yes, I will try and clarify that, Commissioner Gordon,. 25 S.E. 1
Avenue. The application of 9/29/76 signed by Mr. Brad Hinman and the license
issued to Downtown Theatres, 9/29/76. I would next like to proffer certified
copies of the conviction of Downtown Theatre for the unlawful possession of
obscene material on July 9, 1976 and the conviction of Downtown Theatre for the
possession of the unlawful possession of obscene material on September 14th, 1976.
Mr. Plummer: I don't nave copies of that.
Mr. Steinfeld: Commissioner Plummer, did you say you did not have a copy?
Mr. Plummer: I do not have a copy, I was not furnished it.
Mr. Steinfeld: I have only got those particular certified copies.
Mr. Plummer: Would you show them to me, please?
Mr. Steinfeld: Certainly. ... For the record I would also like to enter in the
convictions of two employees at 25 S.E. 1 Avenue. Excuse me. Mr. James Allen
Peterson convicted for the unlawful possession of obscene material and Mr. Frank
F. Gunther also convicted of the unlawful possession of obscene material.
Mr. Plummer: Are they employees of that establishment?
Mr. Steinfeld: On
cashier and clerk.
Mr. Plummer: ...
over. If you look
taken to court and
license.
the arrest report they are listed, Mr. Peterson is listed as
Mr. Gunther on the conviction is not listed. ...
Let me tell you though what I'm just sitting here laughing
at these records, they pay S506.00 for a license and when they're
convicted the total fine is 450, the fine is less than the
Rev. Gibson: Four fifty what, what is the four -fifty?
Mr. Plummer: Four hundred and fifty dollars was the fine.
Mr. Steinfeld: That would conclude the city's case. That is that the Downtown
Theatre was issued a license, the Downtown Theatre and its employees or agents
were convicted of unlawful possession of obscene material and, therefore, under
city ordinance 3011 they are no longer entitled to possess a city license to do
business.
Mr: itheiXt Vide' -Mayor, for the record you might invite Mr. Hinman to proffer
any evidence or statements in his own defense inasmuch as he's present.
#eV. Gibson: Sir, would you like to speak to the commission? Let the record
reflect that he was given the opportunity and he says no. Am I right in that?
He bows his head saying yes that I'm right. One I thing I learned, that the
record can't, you can't read that. All right, what shall we do?
Mr. Plummer: Based on the criteria set forth in the memo of the City Attorney
establishing the two points, they have been established, I move for the revocat.
ion.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-594
A RESOLUTION REVOKING THE CITY OF MIAMI LICENSE ISSUED TO
DOWNTOWN THEATRES, 25 S.E. 1st AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
Reboso, the
Mr. Plummer: Same as the others, tweove months.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Attorney, so that you would know, Plummer moves for the twelve'
month period.
Mr. Steinfeld: I have no objection.
The preceding motion introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by
Commissioner Reboso was passed unanimously by those commissioners present.
Mayor Ferre was absent.
3. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF LICENSES - DOWNTOWN BOOKS,
Mr. Gene Steinfeld: The next case is Mr. Brad Hinman and R.I.C. Corporation
d/b/a Downtown Books, 7937 Biscayne Boulevard or Mr. Brad Hinman as Biscayne
Boulevard Corporation d/b/a Downtown Books, 7937 Biscayne Boulevard.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I will absent myself from this hearing, I own prop-
erty in the very close proximity to it.
Rev. Gibson: I can understand. Mr. City Attorney, did you hear what Mrs. Gordon
said?
resolution was passed
and
Mr. Knox: No, sir.
Rev. Gibson: She said she wants to absent herself in view of the fact that she
owned property in that area, in the close proximity.
Mr. Knox: Yes, sir, she has a right to do that.
Rev. Gibson: All right, proceed, sir.
Mr. Steinfeld: The first thing I would like to proffer to the commission is a
certified copy of license to R.I.C. Corp. d/b/a Downtown Books. Mr. Brad Hinman
has listed himself on the license, on the application, as president. The license
issued to R.I.C. Corp. and the history card kept in the regular course of bus-
iness by the City of Miami License Bureau that on 12/22/76 there was a name change
of R.I.C. Corp. to 7937 Biscayne Boulevard Corp.
Rev. Gibson: Proceed.
Mr. Steinfeld: The next thing I would like to proffer is a certified copy from
the Secretary of State of the State of Florida that R.I,C. Corp, was involuntar-
ily dissolved by the State of Florida on the 3rd day of September, 1976 for fail-
ure to pay and file its annual report. Therefore, R.I.C. is no longer entitled
tc do business in the State of Florida.
• •
Mr. plunmter: Why are we hearing the thing?
Mr. Steinfeld: Well, it was, in fact, one of the drawn charges. I don't think
it will be necessary for the Commission to withdraw the charge_on.R.I.C. Corp.
even though they originally asked for the license because it is now not entitled
to do business in the whole state and that is the reason why obviously, however,
the document speaks for itself that 7937 Biscayne Boulevard Corp. was incorpor-
ated as R.I.C. was involuntarily dissolved by the State of Florida. I woule
next like to proffer the certified copy of an affidavit under the Fictitious
Names Statute of the State of Florida filed and recorded with the Clerk of the
Dade County Court stating that the sole interest of Downtown Theatres, not Down-
town Books, is that of Mr. Brad Hinman and that Mr. Brad Hinman, and that Down-
town Theatre is an alias or fictitious name for Mr. Brad Hinman doing business
as Downtown Theatre. I will connect this up in just a second. ... That's
alleged to be a clerk of Downtown Theatre at 25 S.E. 1st Avenue. ... Is that
correct, 7937? ... No, it's tied to 25 S.E. 1st Avenue. Now, based upon that
it is the city's contention that Downtown Theatre when it was convicted was con-
victed in a fictitious name, that of Downtown Theatre and that it is nothing more
than an alias or fictitious name for Mr. Brad Hinman as proven by the affadavit
Mr. Hinman supplied to the Dade County Circuit Court and therefore, the convict-
ion of Downtown Theatre which was the last case that was considered is a convict-
ion of Mr. Brad Hinman because Mr. Hinman has stated that he in a sworn affadavit
to the Dade County Circuit Court, that he is the sole, he has the sole interest
in Downtown Theatre and therefore, as Mr. Brad Hinman as Downtown Theatre was
convicted, Mr. Hinman was convicted because the name Downtown Theatre is nothing
but a fictitious name for Mr. Brad Hinman and Mr. Brad Hinman has listed himself
as the president, as the sponsor and president of the corporation licensed to do
business at 7937 Biscayne Boulevard in the City of Miami. ... Well, actually you
could do both. However, as R.I.C. Corporation no longer exists you are revoking
the license of 7937 Biscayne Boulevard Corporation because of the history care
which was proffered showing that that R.I.C. merely changed its name to 7937 Bis-
cayne Boulevard Corporation. ... According to the history card you do. What had
happened was they were not issued a new license because the license bureau on the
card...
Mr. Knox: Mr. Steinfeld, would you provide copies of the history card to the com-
mission?
Mr. Steinfeld: All right, I sure will. It is the procedure where there is merely
a name change of a business and the business is of the same nature and the same
principle that it is just noted that the name change has been made, a new license
is not issued.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir.
Mr. Steinfeld: . That's correct. For the particular license number being
33835, so whether. that is, in fact, whether it was originally issued to R.I.C.
Corporation and now that they have changed their name to 7937 Biscayne Boulevard
Corp. Mr. Brad Hinman was, in fact, the principal of both corporations and,
therefore, as Mr. Hinmand through a fictitious name was convicted of possession
of obscene material it is, therefore, the City's contention that the corporation
of which he is the principal whether it be R.I.C. Carp. or 7937 Biscayne Boulevard
Corp. is no longer entitled to do business in the City of Miami under City of
Miami ordinance 30-11. I have shown that the license held either by R.I.C.
Corporation or 7937 Biscayne Boulevard and that Mr. Brad Hi.nman.was,the principal
in both and that Mr. Brad Hinman through his fictitious name was convicted of
posession of unlawful obscene material and, therefore, is not entitled to hold a
license in the City of Miami.
Rev. Gibson: All right.
Mr. Plummer: I don't know how to word the motion. I guess the motion has got to
be to revoke the license #33835 formerly known as R.I.C. Corp., presently doing
business as 7937 Biscayne Boulevard Corp. I guess that's got to be the motion.
I so move.
JUL 211977
the following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who toyed
its adoptions
RESOLUTION NO. 77-595
A RESOLUTION REVOKING THE CITY OF MIAMI LICENSE ISSUED TO
CORP., d/b/a DOWNTOWN BOOKS, 7937-41 BISCAYNE BOULE-
VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA (LICENSEE CHANGED NAME OF LICENSE HOLDER
TO 7937 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD CORP. ON DECEMBER 22, 1976).
(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: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. Gordon.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
Mr. Plummer: Twelve months as the rest.
Rev. Gibson: All right, twelve months.
The preceding motion introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by
Commissioner Reboso was passed and adopted by the following vote-
AYES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. Gordon.
4. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF LICENSES - GAYETY THEATRE, INC.
(PUSSYCAT I AND II) --(CONTINUED TO COMMISSION P'EETING OF JULY 28J 1977) .
Mr. Gene Cteinfeld: The Gayety Theatre, Inc. d/b/a The ?ussycat Theatres.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: My attorney is not here at the time. If you'll remember
he did ask for a continuance. He was the last one up here, he is in court this
morning and I don't know if it was granted or not.
Mr. Steinfeld: This gentleman's attorney did call me yesterday and ask for a
continuance, I said I had no power to give him such a continuance. He thereafter
asked that this particular case by at the bottom of the docket, the last case that
the commission considers. I have done that, this is the last case that the com-
mission is to consider. On that basis I recommend that no continuance be granted.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, I would like to ask for a contivance because we have
not had a continuance yet. I think we are entitled to one continuance.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I'll move that this... You say your attorney can
be here on the 28th?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: I'll move that this be continued as the other one was until the
28th with the full understanding that whether your attorney is here or not on
the 28th this matter will be heard.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We were here and ready to go last week because we do real-
ize that this is an emergency even though I don't know who the vicitim is in this
case and who is being hurt by ....
Mr. Plummer: Sir; we're not going into the merits of it now. You've asked for
a continuance and you appeared here this morning and as far as I'm concerned
we have already granted one, whichever one it was, the right of a continuance
over on until the 28th and I think we should afford you the same opportunity,
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
•
Mr. Plummer: I'll make that in the form of a motion.
infeld: I'd just like to state that the particular attorney
that e're
talking
Ste and end
talking about did go into Circuit Court to try
revoking the license and that such injunction was denied.
Mr. Plummer: I understand that.
Rev. Gibson: All right.
Mrs. Gordon: Is this the first and only case since the one i abstained fr
voting?
Mr. Ongie: Yes.
Rev. Gibson: All right, motion by Plummer, second by Reboso to grant a cont fl
uance until the 28th of July.
Mr. Plummer: Come hell or high water.
introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by
The preceding motion intro
Commissioner Reboso was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. RebosO, Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: TDE. Thank you, sir.
L'y,
CityAttorney, let me ask you something. I understand
Mr. cO. Now, o. resent will be wrapped up on the 28th. Is that cor-
all caasesses that yyou have tto p
rect?
Mr. Steinfeld: That's my understanding.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Now,
let me ask you another question. I think we've heard
seven different cases. Is that correct?
Mr. Steinfeld: That's correct. places doing Mr. Plummer: All right. How many more of them are there?
bus-
iness?
Mr. Steinfeld: There are two that were continued, therefore, as far as I under-
stnad those are the only two.
Mr.
Plummer: Alright, there are no other places in the city doing business, is
that correct? at this
Mr. Steinfeld: There are no others that we are contemplating revoking
time is my understanding.
Plummer: I didn't ask that question. Are
uthese?other places of business in
'
the City of Miami allegedly doing this same b
Mr. Steinfeld: I cannot answer that.
Mr. Plummer: You can't answer that?
Mr. Steinfeld: No, sir.
Mrs. Rockafellar, I don't want you to answer. I
Mr. Plummer: " ' , to you is if, in fact, there
you to answer it.sNow, allestionaghasto be why those companies are
places doing business my 4u
us.
Rev. Gibson: J. L., isn't it true that they must produce two evidences...
Mr. Plummer: Father,
they've got to produce convictions but why haven't the con-
Victions been made? That's the question.
don't want
are other
not before
are the Only
Mr, Steinfeld: Again, commissioner,
to my understanding theserareed before tus-
inesses where convictions were had and where we were able to p.
commission at this time.
UL 211977
M± p timinef: That didn't answer my question. ... Let me put it another way;
George. All I'm going to say to you, Mr. City Attorney -prosecutor, whatever...
Mr. Steinfeld: Assistant City Attorney.
Mr. Plummer: On the 28th of July I want you to come back before this conniissioh
with a full list of any other places in this community, this city of which we
have control that are in this same business that have not been covered under
those which have been presented whether heard or continued.
Mr. Steinfeld: Commissioner, if I understand you you want a list of all businesses
that are doing business in the city that are selling adult books, that are runn-
ing escort services or that are showing or selling films of an adult nature in the
City of Miami?
Mr. Plummer: Not adult nature, obscene nature. And then I'm going after somebody
for not doing their job.
I!�!!I�lI�RIl�!l�II41!!IIIII��I
Mr. Knox: Mr. Plummer, I just would indicate that these convictions are obtained
pursuant to an information arrest (1) the arrest is conducted by some police depart-
ment and (2) the prosecution is conducted by the States Attorney's Office and our
mission is administrative after there has been a criminal conviction which is
MEM
prosecuted by the States Attorney's Office. IfFeias
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox, if the shoe fits wear it. These places didn't go in bus-
iness yesterday.
Rev. Gibson: Sir, you wanted to say something? Please.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, since I'm not an attorney I can't defend myself. I
don't understand waht happened. Could I have the opportunity of getting another
lawyer to defend me the 28th?
Rev. Gibson: I didn't hear you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Since I'm not an attorney I can't defend myself. Can I
have an opportunity to get another lawyer, pay another lawyer to defend myself
on the 28th of this month?
Rev. Gibson: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't understand. I can come back the 28th of this month
and defend myself?
Rev. Gibson: You come back on the 28th We tried your case....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I would recommend that you let the City Attorney
answer that but I would assume from what I read in the paper today that the police
will be to see him tomorrow. His case was not...
Rev. Gibson: Counsel.
Mr. Knox: Now you would have an opportunity, the case has been heard, the revocat-
ion has been authorized pursuant to resolution. Now the City Commission specific-
ally gave Mr. Hinman an opportunity to have this matter continued until the 28th,
specifically gave him the opportunity to proffer any evidence or statements in his
own defense. However, if you would now choose to continue this matter until the
28th you could amend your resolution in such a manner that the effective date
would not take place. ...
Rev. Gibson: Well counsel, you told us that you, we said that we would postpone
until the 28th if you promised us that you will have an attorney here. You told
us in no uncertain terms. You remember what I said to you? I said if you tell
me yes, I told you sir, that if you tell me yes....
Mr. Hinman: We were speaking of two days, I didn't think two days would make that
much of a difference.
Rev. Gibson: Well, what we were telling you, that two days, if he wanted to
represent you he'd get back here in two days. That's what we were saying and
you did not give us a commitment. You said that you would postpone, you wanted
a postponement until the 28th. We wanted to know what would be different on the
28th that is not evident now. That's what we said. You did not give us that
assurance. So since you didn't say that we're going to have, I'll be here with
1.0 JUL 2011977
an attorney which would mean you would come here on tproceeded. you haves nod attorney
We
and we'd be spinning our wheels. You know, so we just
wanted two bits of information (1) a certification that you had a City ofuMiami
license to do business; (2) that based on that you have been convicted, j
two things; that we were not trying the case that the judge had already tried it.
That's where we are.
Mr. Hinman: Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, it has been brought to My attention for the edificat=
ion of the City Attorney -prosecutor.
Mr. Steinfeld: Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: The motels that are also showing these kind of things
should
obethe
included in the next hearing or in that list that you're going to proffer
28th.
Mr. Steinfeld: Alright, Mr. Plummer.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Manager, so that the people would know why don't we make those
two cases the first item on the agenda so
There doesn't
ehave
s toesit
emen,
here and wait through the whole thing. areonly
those of you who were interested and are interested in the hearings, we have
agreed that on the 28th, next week at 5:00 O'Clock this matter will be heard for
the convenience of you the public and the persons who are involved so that anyone
who wants to come can arrange his or her business to be here. We hope it wouldn't
take too long, hopefully.
Mr. Grassie: I understand, Mr. Vice -Mayor, that Mayor Ferre has left his office,
he is on the way and we can begin
Theteupon he City Commission .recessed at 10:00 A.M. and neconv2,i.ned at
11:. 5 A.M. with Mauot Fette Absent.
5, BRIEF REPORT BY COWISSIONER J. L, PLummER, JR, ON
SISTER CITY PROGR 1, BOGOTA, COLOMBIA,
Mr. rrassie: I understand, Mr. Vice-Mavor, that Mavor Ferre has left his office
and he's on the way and we can begin Whenever you decide that we should.
Mr. Plummer: That's his office in Caracas, Venezuela
and ua a hetpll lane
biis unningtimeet
three hours late. Ok, Mr. Vice -Mayor, justuse
me make a very brief report which I think you will find interesting and a few of
the local TV stations have carried. As you know, I am your representative to
the Sister City Program, Miami -Bogota. We just made a very successful trip to
Bogota with 22 people in the group at which time we brought back with us a young
child nine years of age who we had been informed had the availability of free
open heart surgery and free hospitalization. Unfortunately, when we brought the
child back with us on the trip we found that the offer of free doctor still exist-
ed and that the offer of the hospital was non-existent. I would liketoeendeavor-
report this commission through the efforts of the Miami Herald that thheyuart of grow-
ing to raise the money to see that this child is afforded the opp and at this
ing up to be a normal child and he will have the open heart surgery
present time it is my understanding that better than 80% of the money needed to
provide this operation has been contributed through the efforts of the media and
we are hopeful that anything tha_ the media can do to further get it over that
20% so that we can return this child back to Bogota to live a normal and happynt-
life will be done. This is just one thing that I wanted to bring
to ion that is being done through the Sister Cities Program of which this city has
been very deeply involved in for the past three or four years. I just throught
you all would like to know that.
NOTE: Mayor Ferre entered the meeting at 11:50 A.M.
11111
NOM
MiNif
romm-
foremm
job
mr
JUL 21197
SPECIAL WORKSHOP ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
Mayor Ferre: Goodmorning, ladies and gentlemen, my apologies for the delay this
morning. At this time we are in a special workshop. !:r. Grassie, if you +adu1d
give us the information as requested we'll get into the discussion.
Mr. Joseph Grassie: Yes, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, this
workshop will attempt to initiate a dialogue with the City Commission on the
various aspects of the City's Affirmative Action Program. Before I ask Robert
Krause to report to you on four major aspects of Affirmative Action and the Con.-
sent Decree I want to respond to one specific question raised by a member of the
City Commission the last time we talked about this and it had to do with the
City's record in the last year with regard to what I would call top level and
executive employment. We have gathered a record of new hires for all positions
paying more than $17,000 and I would like to distribute that to you now not be-
cause it is a major part of what we're going to be talking about but I think this
sort of thing has to be on the table and cleared up so that we can proceed to an
analysis of the serious problems and policy considerations that we have when we
talk about the Consent Decree and the City's Affirmative Action efforts. I don't
want to dwell on this, Mr. Mayor, but I do want you to have that record available
to you. Basically what you will see from it is that in terms of the top level
appointments the city has made in the last just under a year
Rev. Gibson: Let me put this in the record, Mr. Mayor. I don't want Mr. Grassie
to think now that you know you're answering the question. You don't have a thing
to do with Knox. You don't have a thing to do with Knox's appointees. Let's
strike those right off. I mean I don't want to argue I just want to make sure
that we know where we're going.
Mr. Grassie: The list seems to be complete, Commissioner, and certainly you can
use it any way you like.
Rev. Gibson: You know I just don't understand how you expect to serve this com-
munity. You don't appoint Knox, you don't appoint his staff. We're going to
deal with what has happened so that everybody knows where I'm coming from and I
hope that is where the commission is coming from because all of us are under the
Consent Decree and Affirmative Action. I'm concerned with what you have done
where you have discretionary powers, I'm concerned with how it has affected
Civil Service and I want to make sure the commission knows where I'm going - I
want bottom line. Percentage doesn't mean one dog -gone thing to me because I
happen to know what could happen. I've been waiting and dealing with percentages
for 62 years of my life. Ok? Let's make sure we've got that straight.
Mr. Grassie: There are no percentages in that tabulation as you can see, Commis-
sioner, we're talking about names. You asked for that information and if it is
more inclusive than you wanted, you know
Rev. Gibson: No, no, no! I'm concerned with your part. We.... Well look,
strike these names otherwise you give the wrong impression. We appointed, the
City Commission, the City Attorney. You didn't do that, you didn't appoint his
staff either. Let's make sure we understand.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, this is a question of the City's record. I trust
that we're on the same team.
Mayor Ferre: Well look, I think before we get bogged down on semantics about
this it is very simple. Out of the 17 names that are presented here there are
two that are City Attorney oriented.
Rev. Gibson: Right.
Mayor Ferre: And the City Attorney was appointed by the commission and the
Assistant City Attorney was appointed by the City Attorney. That leaves 15 so
I mean you know we're talking about that. Ok?
Rev. Gibson: Right.
Mayor Ferre: Out of which as i count anyway there are eight that qualify as
minority appointments out of the fifteen remaining, iS that correct?
Mr, Grassie: Nine,
12
JUL 211977
mayor Fette: Well, but you see you can't count the City Attorney...
Mt. Grassie: I'm talking about the one on the side which says Spanish female.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I underFtand. The people that I see that the administration
has appointed are Howard Gary -black male, Gerardo Salman-Spanish male, then the
Assistant Director of Management Services... What does "A" stand for? Asian
male. Carlos Garcia, Assistant Director of Finance which is Spanish male, Mr.
E.W. Murphy which is Assistant Director of Management Services, black male;
... Yvonne Santa -Maria, Affirmative Action Officer -Spanish female and Newell
Daughtery, Assistant to the City Manager -black male and Ronald Daniels, Admin-
istrative Assistant to the Director of Management Services -black male. So I
count eight out of 15. Where is Carlos Arauz? Oh, I beg your pardon, I missed
Carlos Arauz. That makes 9 out of 15 appointments. Is that correct?
Mr. Grassie: That's correcc, Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Now on the other side there are two additional but that's City
Attorney oriented and that's the City Commission. All right. So what we're talk-
ing about is out of 15 new hires from August - stop me if I say anything wrong
now - from August 1st through June this year in the salary ranges from 16 to 42
thousand. You have appointed 15 people of which 9 classify as female or minorit-
ies.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct, Mayor. I don't want to emphasize that, that's
simply a piece of information that was asked for. What I'd like now, Mr. Mayor,
is to get into the substance of what Affirmative Action is about and particularly
our dealings with the Justice Department on things like the Consent Decree and I
would like to asic Mr. Krause to start by describing the four major areas of con-
cern and work that the city is into right now in this area.
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir.
Mr. Robert Krause: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, my name is
Robert Krause. I'm the Director of Human Resources and also the Executive Secre-
tary of the Civil Service Board. I've prepared a discussion paper which Mr. Arauz
is distributing at this moment. I don't expect to go into it ...
Mrs. Gordon: We can't hear you very well.
Mayor Ferre: Speak closer to the microphone.
Mr. Krause: This is just simply a discussion paper which kind of hits the high-
lights of the current status of the AFfirmative Action Program. It is not my
intent to read it this morning but simply to discuss it and respond to questions
that members of the commission may have. The first thing of major importance
affecting affirmative action in the City of Miami is the Consent Decree as you
well know. That was issued on the 29th of March. City officials have been work-
ing with the Justice Department since that time to take steps to implement the
Consent Decree. We've worked, our department with the City Manager's Office with
the Law Department and with the Justice Department. There have been three separ-
ate memorandums of understanding that have been signed, one fairly early in the
game back in April which was a joint agreement to help us define specifically
which employees in the City's service were members of the affected class and,
therefore, had rights under the Consent Decree. The last two were signed just
last week by Mr. Knox and attorney Squire Padgett for the Justice Department in
Washington with input from our office. One of those two that were completed last
week resolves the issue of promotion of black police officers to sergeant which
was a matter of concern and discussion before your Commission Meeting back in May.
The second document will have more permanent status during the five years of the
Consent Decree and it involves a number of interpretations and applications of
some provisions of the Consent Decree that were a little confusing, ambiguous,
in some cases apparently contradictory but not actually so and that document helps
to resolve those issues. That is the major document, the Consent Decree and the
subsidiary memorandums of understanding, are the major documents affecting the
City's efforts in Affirmative Action in the next five years. Now we're also pre-
paring an Affirmative Action Plan which goes beyond the Consent Decree because
the Consent Deuree as important as it is it places us in a position where we are
complying with an order of a judge rather than taking the initiative to do things
voluntarily in the area of Affirmative Action. So we are preparing an Affirmative
Action Plan to set forth the good faith efforts of the city to voluntarily com-
ply or achieve a fair representation in the work force at all levels of women and
members of minority groups. We have a staff of, not a separate staff but we have
13
•
eight people assigned either full time or part time to work on this. Major
sections have been completed in first draft, just today we completed calculat-
ions on promotional goals and hiring goals under the Consent Decree. We still
have a few more sections of the Affirmative Action Plan to prepare in draft form,
those should be done within the next week or so. We expect at that time to work
with the City Manager's Office and with the City's Affirmative Action Advisory
Board to get their input into the Affirmative Action Plan and then finally sub-
mit it to the City Commission for approval. We have been working quite closely
with the Affirmative Action Advisory Board since May when the Affirmative Action
Office was consolidated with the Department of Human Resources. One of the things
that the Affirmative Action Office has been doing on a recurring basis is compil-
ing data on minority employment in the city's work force and minority employment
in the city's labor force as a basis of comparison. I don't want to give you a
lot of figures but there are some that I think are kind of significant because
I view the first of this year as kind of bench -mark date for us to measure
achievements and compliance with the Consent Decree over the period of the next
five years. So at the end of last year there was 461% minority employment in
the City government of which about 29% was black, 161% Latin and .9 represented
other minority groups. The data also shows that minorities have been tradition-
ally under represented in top level jobs. Under the Consent Decree this is bound
to change even in times of fiscal austerity because the Consent Decree itself
establishes minimal goals each year for promotion of women and members of minot-
ity groups. We would expect also that with the adoption of an Affirmative Action
Plan we could go beyond the minimal requirements of the Consent Decree. We've
also looked at some trend data for the past ten years that may be somewhat inter-
esting. In 1966 25% of the new hires into the city government were members of
minority groups, 22% black and only 2.7% Latin. Five years later, new hires had
increased to about 41% minorities which was composed of 28% black and still
only 13% Latin and last year new hires had increased to almost 70% minority, that
is 69.7, composed of 35% black, 34% Latin. I think it should be noted, however,
that a lot of the new hiring last year was done under the C.E.T.A. program which
was not under the city's classified service and was under certain specific guide-
lines of the federal government with respect to income and other qualifications
for employment which gives us a better record than would be true if we were count-
ing only those people hired in the city's classified service. ... Yes, sir, it
does. It is specifically provided in the :memorandum of understanding that C.E.T.A.
employees will be treated as regular employees of the City and entitled to what-
ever benefits the Consent Decree provides for them. ... The Law Department and
the Justice Department.
Mr. Plummer: Without any approval of this commission?
Mr. Krause: That's correct. ... It is my understanding that it's legal but I'm
sorry I should not speak to that point.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox.
Mr. Knox: As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Plummer, the memorandum of understand-
ing was mandated by the federal court to the extent that there were problems that
existed in the interpretation of the provisions of the Consent Decree and because
the Justice Department has the right and a priviledge to go back to the federal
court at any time if they feel there has been a violation of the Consent Decree
it was the decision by the City Attorney in conjunction with Mr. Krause that one
thing that could be done was to spell out exactly what everything meant to avoid
the possibility of Miami being subjected to a lawsuit or a reappearance in court
by the Justice Department alleging that we violated some term in the provisions
simply because there was a misunderstanding about it. And again, there is noth-
ing in these memoranda or understanding that does not appear upon the face of the
Consent Decree and we just elaborate upon the requirements that the city has
under the Consent Decree.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Knox, I understand, I really have no serious opposition
but I just want it fully understood as Mr. Krause is down here and espoused that
this thing with the six black sergeants last year was at a public meeting of this
commission but I don't want anybody to go away from here thinking under a miscon-
ception this commission although we asked in our intent of the manager, had noth-
ing whatsoever to do with those appointments nor in any way was this commission
consulted. If you read this paper here it would give the impression that it was
done with the blessing of this commission and I don't want any misunderstanding
that this commission is making these decisions because it becomes rather obvious
to me as we proceed through these things that there are certain things here
directed that it is with the City's consent. Now in my understanding normally
the city's consent is approval of disapproval before this commission and I'm hear-
ing of all kinds of things that are going on that I'm hearing for the first time
that are being done that i for one do not know about so I'm making the record
14 JUL 211977
vet i cleat that you and Mr. Krause are acting on your own without commission
approval or disapproval or commission action. I want that very clear.
Mayor Ferre: I don't want to in any way dispute that because 2 think you're
right. However, I think it is important to point out on the record that the pro`-
ceedures with the Justice Department due to the various acts of congress that
govern on this matter have not been altogether clear and the administrative prior-
ities and the range in which the Justice Department has functions under have had
great latitude through administrative presumption on the part of the federal
government. I myself in the beginning of this whole process with our foster City
Attorney and our former City Manager went up to Washington on two different occas-
ions which has been reported to the commission and is on the record, at the request
of the Justice Department in the attempts of negotiating these things. What I
learned during these meetings was that the federal government takes, and has to
take, and I agree with that, certain liberties. These things have been challenged
on different occasions by different cities or different groups throughout the
United States. I might point out that the City of Miami is not by any means the
only government agency that has tangled with the Department of Justice. I might
say that for my part, and I will admit it again and as I have on the record, that
I certainly looked upon the involvement of the Justice Department with pleasure
because I figured that it would be the only way that we could get off of dead -
center and if I am to blame for that I want to on the record assume that respon-
sibility and take that blame. I told Mr. Squire Padgett two years ago that as
Mayor of the City of Miami although I only have the one vote on this commission
the Justice Department would have somebody who would lock upon a Consent Decree
favorably and I might say that that was the statement also made by Mr. Paul
Andrews, the City Manager and by John Lloyd the City Attorney even though John
Lloyd on several occasions said that it went against his legal training because
there was a lot of uncertainty as to what in effect the distinction was between
quotas in Affirmative Action and targets and that this was a very very large grey
area. But due to the fact that there has been little progress made for whatever
reasons it may be in the hiring of females and minorities that we had to use all
positive tools available to us including the Civil Rights Commission which came
down and had a full hearing in Miami including the Justice Department and includ-
ing these negotiations that have taken a year and a half to finalize. So, I might
for my part, J. L., point out that even though I do not speak for the City Com-
mission I certainly as Mayor of this city have been a friend of the court so -to -
speak, a friendly participant in the elaboration of these things to this point.
That does not mean that I was involved in any of the discussions or agreements
or debates that finalize with the Consent Decree that was signet' by the federal
court on March 29th of this year but it certainly does mean th we have not been,
the City of Miami has not been an unfriendly participant. I .ght point out again
for the record that Mr. Squire Padgett, the attorney for the :atice Department
handling this thing on several occasions has commented that a.. awful lot of how
much progress is made on these matters is dependent on the attitude of the city
or the government that they're dealing with; that if the city or the government
becomes not only offensive or aggressive and goes to court on these items that
it steps up the level and changes the attitude of the Justice Department. Mr.
Padgett on several occasions mentioned to me that we were not unique, that there
other cities that wer acting in the same way, that he was happy to see that the
City of Miami was certainly not an antagonist in this whole procedure and, there-
fore, I think the implication of that was extreme and I want to put it on record.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have no objections with what you say. Let me read to
you from this paper which was handed to me which this is a misnomer. In Article II
it said the City... Well, let me read the whole thing. "Resolving the conflict
surrounding six promotions to police sergeant were made at almost the same time
this Consent Decree was signed." Further reading, "The City Commission has been
involved directly in this issue" is a damned lie.
Mayor Ferre: And I would like to remind you that we had a public hearing and it
was put to a vote, excuse me, and the vote was three to two.
Mr. Plummer: And what did the vote say?
Mayor Ferre: The vote said that the City of Miami took a very specific position
with regards to the promotion that Mr. Grassie had made on those six sergeants...
Mr. Plummer: And nothing was done.
Mayor Ferre: No, sir. And in effect, there was a basic disagreement between the
policy as established by this commission and the posture as taken by Mr. Grassie
through administrative mandate, and furthermore, I want to make it very clear
that 1 personally as Mayor of the City of Miami wrote a letter to the Examiner
r
i� JUL 211977
•
in Tallahassee and went on the record sending a copy of the resolution as drafted
by the Law Department and pased by this commission on a 3-2 basis which in my
opinion clearly establishes the policy of this commission.
Mr. Plummer: All right. Mr. Mayor, I have no truck with that. What I do is,
and I will recall to your memory, and I'm sure Mr. Knox will repeat, that this
commission could not get itself directly involved. Am I right, Mr. Knox?
Mr. Knox: In the promotion of the six sergeants.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Ok? This thing here says that we were directly involved,
This is not true!
Mayor Ferre: No, what this says is....
Mr. Plummer: Read it, it's very clear.
Mayor Ferre: The City Commission has been involved directly in this issue and
held a public meeting on it.
Mr. Plummer: The City Attorney told you that particular day that this commission
could not involve itself. It was an administrative procedure and that we could
do no more than express an intent.
Mayor Ferre: And so we did.
Mr. Plummer: But that is not direct involvement.
Mayor Ferre: It certainly is.
Mr. Plummer: Direct involvement is we say to the manager if it was possible,
"Mr. Manager, you do this and this." We could not do that.
Mayor Ferre: Look, what I would agree, we're getting into semantics now, what I
would agree is that we can not usurp under the Charter our authority and super-
impose upon the administrator of this city our will on this matter. However, it
was established that we could and have stated our philosophical position which is
a statement of policy by this board. Now that does not translate into a mandate
because by the Charter we are precluded from mandating the City Manager what to
do but we can express an opinion and we did so. Now, the importance of it is
that this matter... You know I think I'm confusing two things, I may be wrong,
Plummer, you may be right. You know what I got off on? I was thinking about the
question of the Sanitation workers where we did....
Mr. Plummer: That's a different ball game.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but we did get into a discussion in this commission and Father
Gibson brought the matter up and as I recall it was taken to a vote.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me just conclude by saying this: All I'm saying for
this record if nothing more, you know when they served those papers on it it had
J. L. Plummer, Jr. on those papers as one of the parties involved and I just don't
want these kind of papers being issued stating the city's position and the city
is doing this and the city is doing that and I don't know what's going on. Now
you can send all the memorandums of understanding you want but I want it made very
very clear that this is something that is unilaterally being done by you and by
him, that the commission has never been consulted. I read of in the paper of
where they're going to promote other sergeants to balance it out, I don't know
that I have any objection to that because I don't have the particulars. But I'm
just a little sick and tired of reading of what the city did and this commission
who is supposedly the final authority not even knowing much less take an action.
And the way I read this here it is wrong - this city commission did not involve
itself directly in that issue, it was an administrative procedure, we passed the
policy and the manager saw fit that under his purview, and he had every right to
do it, he did not conteract his order even though we asked him to. That's all
I'm saying.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Plummer is right. The vote was taken on the Sanitat-
ion issue and not on this. I pointed out at that time, and I want to point out
again it was significant that these promotions were agreed upon and made the day
before the commission met and all they did was report to us. After they reported
to us we raised some questions, I was very angry about it, and we set a polio, i
thought we did for the benefit of the Manager with the full knowledge that we had
no authority nor right to tell the Manager about promotions but that we were
16 JUL 211977
giVin. an indication of what direction the Manager should follow. And I agree
With hi.M# to write this is a misnomer. I want everybody to know this is not
Gibson's position cause I didn't do it.
Mr. Krause: Mr. Mayor, may I speak to a clarification of this matter? The senor
tence that has been referred to is on page 1 under a heading or a sentence which
begins, "Special problems included" then we wez:e reciting three special problems
that we had with the Consent Decree. One was identifying members of the "Affected
Cla:.a", one was resolving the conflict surrounding the six promotions and the
commission was involved in the problem, not in the solution. The commission held
a hearing on the problem, various people came and spoke to you. Then later on
the document says "We have now worked out three separate documents recording
agreements" and it says that they were signed in Washington last week. It does
not say that the commission participated in the solutions because obviously the
commission did not. It was intended to be written very carefully to distinguish
between the problem and the solution.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Krause, if the Justice Department comes at you in two years or
three years and says to you, not you, to the City, "You have not acted in good
faith", are they going to look to you or are they going to look to these five
elected officials?
Mr. Krause: I guess they will look to the elected and the administrative ....
Mr. Plummer: You guess or you know?
Mr. Grassie: Ninety percent of the time, Commissioner, they're going to look
the administration to answer their questions and to resolve any disputes.
Mr. Plummer: That's right.
to
Mr. Grassie: Now if it gets to the point where they decide that they have to
take us to court then the City Commission will be the embodiment of the community
but in terms of all of the dealings with these people we're going to have to solve
their problems if they can be solved.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, all I'm saying to you and that I'm saying to Mr. Krause
and to Mr. Knox, if my name is on the line and it is from the very beginning, and
remember a Consent Decree is a two-way street. There was never as stated in the
Consent Decree a finding of fact.
Mayor Ferre: A three-way street.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, a three-way street. All I'm saying is when you start putting
out papers that say that the city did this and the city did that I'd better be
informed because I want the right to approve or disapprove of what's going on if
in the ultimate end my name is going to be on the line.
Mayor Ferre: Wel. I think that the reason for all of that, J. L., well not the
reason we've been through all this before. Let me remind the commission where
we've had the same conversation before. Mr. Paul Andrews was the City Manager
then and the discussion was about three years ago and it was in reference, Jessie
McCreary was sta.ding here and he was saying "You are not complying with the Cohen
Consent Decree" and we then issued a mandate to the Manager to comply because the
Consent Decree specifically said "The Manager Shall" and don't you remember we
got into that whole hassle?
Mr. Plummer: I very well remember it.
Mayor Ferre: And the problem is that we have a government where these things are
not completely that clear cut specified. In other words, we have a City Manager -
Commission form of government and the chief executive officer of this corporation
is the Manager not the commission. So since the Justice Department is dealing
with something which has to do wtih an application of things that have been agreed
upon they're going to look to the chief executive officer who is the manager.
Now unfortunately what happens is when there is a lawsuit the corporation gets
sued and, therefore, the chairman of the board and the board of directors are the
ones that are named in the lawsuit and when the newspaper stories go bad or when
there are problems with the community or when the Police Department protests then
the problem deals with the City Commission but we're not the only cnes that are
involved in this process. I want to remind you that besides us we have #1 the
employees and their representative groups #2 we have the community at large as
represented by different segments of the community, #3 we have the Civil Service
Board who has a major part to do with all of this, #4 we have the administration
and #5 we have the City Commission. So it is not a unilateral thing where only
the City Commission is involved and we've been in this rigamarole and this
ter 'yzgo=round Many many many times and we're here again and we will be here again s
Mr6 grassier Shall we continue with the report, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Please.
Mr. Krause: Mr. Mayor and members of the commission, the fourth section of this
report deals with the subject of institutionalizing some of the changes that stem
from the Consent Decree itself. I think it is clear that the commission has it-
self taken some very constructive steps to help achieve an Affirmative Action
Program in the City of Miami. The commission itself agreed with the Consent Decree.
The Commission also adopted the Affirmative Action ordinance creating the Affirm-
ative Action Advisory Board and the Commission, of course, adopted the ordinance
that created the Department of Human Resources. These are very progressive steps
and they are in tune with what has been going on for the last 40 years in the
United States in terms of modernization of merit system practice but there are
still some steps that coule be taken that would help this process to move forward.
We have, for example, in our Civil Service Rules some provisions that extend the
time of hiring. It takes us two to three months to hire people under the provis-
ions that we have now. Many Civil Service Systems have established procedures
that can provide for same day employment when there is a necessity and can provide
for normal employment in two to three weeks rather than two to three months.
What does that have to do with Affirmative Action? Well, one of the things is
that most of the experts on Affirmative Action tell us that members of disadvant-
aged groups are less likely to be employed, are less able to wait the length of
time that it takes to complete a Civil Service exam and that this makes more dif-
ficult the process of achieving employment for members of disadvantaged groups.
There are also some provisions in the City Charter....
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, we're in the middle of a session and I would
be very grateful if we could keep order in the house. All right, please.
Mr. Krause: There are also some provisions in the City Charter which make Affirm-
ative Action more difficult and make compliance with federal regulations more dif-
ficult. The examining process, for example, is under the control of the Civil
Service Board and more specifically a Chief Examiner who is a member of the board
and is a lay person. I've been working with the board now for a period of approx-
imately three months, I find that as a board they are very conscientious, they
take their duties very seriously but they are a lay board and the federal require-
ments on equal employment opportunity on Affirmative Action, on employee selection
are increasingly mandating that selection be done by professional staff in accord-
ance with standards established by the American Psychological Association and in
accordance with standards established in testbooks and in periodicals authored by
psychometricians who are specialists in the field of employee selection. It leaves
us in the anomalous position where the City of Miami vests the authority in a lay
board and a lay Chief Examiner to comply with professional standards that are re-
quired by the federal government and that are set by professional associations
like the American Psychological Association. Changes that relate to these specific
kinds of problems would expedite the process of Affirmative Action and I think
would help to institutionalize it rather than leave it as it is at the present
time, a kind of a Consent Decree superimposed upon existing provisions of the
Charter and rules. Essentially that is the substance of this discussion paper.
Mr. Grassie: Now, if we have any questions from the City Commission, Mr. Mayor,
we would like to respond to them. I should point out that this is a workshop and
not a public hearing and if there are any questions that we can respond to on the
Consent Decree or anything of that type, it's application, it's provisions, both
the City Attorney and Mr. Krause are here to respond.
Mayor Ferre: You know, Mr. Manager, this city has always taken a position that
whenever citizens or affected parties want to speak to any subject if we can
within the limitations of time and what have you that we always permit people to
talk, so I would like to give the opportunity to both Mr. Naples and Mr. Thompson
if they would like to address the commission. Whichever one of you wishes to
speak first is alright with me.
Mr. Bruce Thompson: I'd just like to make for a point of reference that if this
is a workshop concerning Affirmative Action, as a representative of the Affirmat-
ive Action Board whether or not we have a gracious Mayor such as yourself that
would allow citizens to talk I would like to just point out that I think as a
representative and, in fact, Chairman of the Affirmative Action Board I should
be allowed to participate in this workshop to any issue that may come up.
Mayor Ferre: All right, well while we have you here, Mr. Thompson, I'd like to
just ask you is the Affirmative Action Board meeting? Are you satisfied that you
are being at least listened to and that you have impact on the process?
18 JUL 21 1 7
•
tom: 'hottipson: We are meeting regularly. I am not completely satisfied that we
ate having the impact that I would like to have on the process, I think verbal=
ration of this in the last few meetings have led to some improved communidatioh
and input but it is not at this point in time in my opinion up to par.
Mayor Ferre: The officer, Miss Santa Maria, is she available to you, does she
answer the questions as you ask them?
M. Thompson: I would think so to the best of her ability. I think Mr. Krause
pointed out earlier that in May the City Manager has made new arrangements in
relationship to the organization of the City as it relates to Affirmative Action.
Affirmative Action is now under the umbrella of Human Resources so we are now
both relating to Bob Krause through Yvonne Lanta Maria so we do have those two
contacts...
Mayor Ferre: You do have access to Mr. Krause and to Miss Santa Maria?
Mr. Thompson: Right. I'd like to, however, just emphasize what I said earlier
that I do think it is improving, it's not where I personally think it should be
at this time, that improvement I personally believe has been the result of our
verbalization of what the problem has been. I think there is a hell of a lot of
ground to still be covered. I share some of the feelings of Commissioner Plummer
in terms of not liking to read about what is happening in the City as it concerns
Affirmative Action in the Miami Herald and since verbalizing that I think it has
improved somewhat, still not completely to our satisfaction but hopefully it will
be improving even more.
Mayor Ferre: One last question. Is the board being responsive? Are they attend-
ing meetings, is the attendance good?
Mr. Thompson: Well, I think it is true of any board you have that faithful crew
that's involved in all the meetings and we have a few that we will be making recom-
mendations to the commission and to the Manager concerning some of the employee
groups and some of the appointments by the commission who have not been attending
meetings.
Mayor Ferre: I think the point is this, that no matter who these people are,
male, female, race, color or religion that if they are not attendive and if they
do not meet then certainly there are a lot of people who are interested in parti-
cipating and we should make room for those that wish to be active and remove the
so-called deadwood.
Mr. Thompson: Right. I would agree with that, however, I think you'd have to
take into consideration the frustration that has been involved in this whole
process and until recently as I just pointed out we have been without staffing
so, therefore, a lot of the meetings were, if you will, put together and operated
by the board itself and it is obvious that we don't have all the resources that
would be necessary to carry out our function so we are, in fact, depending solely
on the City staff to provide us with the necessary information and information
about meetings and other things that occur in that concern to us. So as I pointed
out earlier this is in my opinion not up to complete snuff but I think we are
moving inthe right direction to alleviate that and hopefully with this dialogue
going on today it might improve or push us and even further to that goal.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. Now, ladies and tentlemen, I
would guess that the majority of you here are here on the U.T.D. application on
Brickell Avenue. That does not come on our agenda until later this afternoon at
2:00 O'Ciock, 3:00, excuse me. It is now 12:37 so you have a two and a half hour
wait. I just want you to know so that you won't become impatient. You're welcome
to stay here, we're always happy to have citizens watching your city government
in progress and you're welcome to stay here and listen but I just don't want you
to feel impatient with us because your item does not come up until 3:00. And by
the way, we have not broken for lunch so we will be leaving here in about 15 or
20 minutes to have lunch and we'll be back around 1:00, 1:15, we've ordered some
sandwiches upstairs. All right, Mr. Naples.
Mr. Gene Naples: Mr. Mayor and members of the commission, I'm Gene Naples repre-
senting the Miami Association of Firefighters. First of all, Mr. Mayor, I was
very happy to hear you reiterate a position that you took at some future date
that employees were to be involved in this process. Unfortunately, I was handed
this document by the City Manager prior to the meeting so we haven't had an oppor-
tunity to see it. As you might expect from some of our previous conversations
we are quite concerned about what has been happening as it relates to the Civil
Service and the Human Resources Department. I think that one thing that has been
done very effectively by the city is to incorporate the Civil Service Board, the
19 JUL 211977
f Mah Resources Department and now the Affirmative Action Committee under one
otgahization. Of course, you might expect also that they should be getting
together to discuss whatever each of those organizations is doing so that we
might come to an effective Affirmative Action Program and certainly we have
always supported the concept of Affirmative Action and reiterating once again
that we were the innovators of Affirmative Action in the City of Miami namely
the Miami Association of Fire Fighters in starting the first program. So it's
not a new concept to us that is just coming about. But we do take objection
to the fact that we have not been made privy to some of these things that have
been happening and I would like to ask a question of either Mr. Krause or the
City Attorney and since he has completed his report as to whether in their opin-
ion the fact that the Consent Decree has been interpreted by them to indicate
that they must take certain steps whether or not they feel that there has been
any violation of either Civil Service Rules or the City Charter and what has been
done to this to date.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, I see you're grabbing the microphone.
Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. I guess the position can be made on a general kind of basis.
Now in federal law, indeed a federal court in Jacksonville in a case involving
the City of Jacksonville the federal court was very specific and the language of
that court opinion was to the extent that any existing Civil Service Rules, Regu-
lations, municipal charters or even state laws conflict with federal mandate then
operation of those laws in conflict shall be suspended. Prospectively there could
be some deviations or violations indeed of the provisions of our Civil Service
Rules and Regulations or our Charter but again the federal mandate takes prece-
dence and a federal court has ruled on that precise question.
Mr. Naples: Ok, another question then to go into that thing, Mr. Knox, do you
think that the Consent Decree has mandated that these particular changes that have
been made? I understand the thing of setting the goals under the Consent Decree
but do you think that the courts have put out a court order that mandated some
of the changes be made that were made or they might have been done some other
way?
Mr. Knox: Well, what -changes are ycu referring to?
Mr. Naples: I'm talking about some of the necessary changes they feel have to be
made and some of the things that have already occured. Have some of the things
that have already occured in your opinion apparently since you have chosen to use
the language you did in answering my question, that there have been no violation
of either of these things to date, is that what you're saying?
Mr. Knox: No, I'm not saying that. I don't know whether there have been any
violations but I'm saying that if they have and prospectively if there are violat-
ions in order for us to conform to a federal mandate then our rules and regulat-
ions or our Charter or our ordinances are suspended as to that particular operat-
ion.
Mr. Naples: Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Lt. March.
Lt. Don March: Don March, Fraternal Order of Police. I'd like to direct a quest-
ion to City Attorney Knox concerning the statement he made. You said that these
memos of understanding, it's my understanding you said this was something that
was mandated by the federal court. I'm curious as to how it was that you chose
that sentence. Is this something that was required by a federal judge that the
city should involve themselves in a memo of understanding with the Justice Depart-
ment? How was it mandated?
Mr. Knox: Well, it was mandated in the sense that the federr.t judge did sign the
Consent Decree and had an expectation as to how that Consent Decree was to be
implemented. Furthermore, the United States Justice Department are the plaintiffs
in this case and they have access to the court anytime that they feel that the
Consent Decree is being violated. And a way to shortcut or circumvent any prob-
lems associated with the interpretation of the provisions of the Consent Decree
would be to have the parties agree as to what each provision in the Consent Decree
means and these memoranda of understanding again only represent an agreement be-
tween the city and the Justice Department as to what each provision in the Con-
sent Decree and provide the mechanism whereby we can implement the Consent Decree
and not worry about having an attack made upon our method of implementation by
the Justice Department because they have agreed to the plan that we've formulated
to implement the Consent Decree. To that extent there was a federal court mandate.
20
J�11977
The federal court mandate was to conform to the provisions of the Consent Decree
and the question of how that is to be done was a matter to be discussed between
the city and the United States Justice Department.
Lt. March: Well, I'm curious in that the decision as to what the Consent Decree
meant was in effect a process by which you engaged yourself in a discussion with
the Justice Department and that occured and in that that would affect in -hiring
policies and would for sure affect promotional policies, why is it that under the
collective bargaining laws of the State of Florida the employees weren't afforded
the opportunity to participate in those negotiations with the Justice Department?
Mr. Knox: I'll go back to my original statement about the scope of the federal
mandate, a federal mandate supersedes collective bargaining agreements, it super-
sedes Civil Service Rules and Regulations, it supersedes the Charter of the munici-
pality, it supersedes any state statute which is in conflict with the federal man-
date and since we are the ones who are primarily responsible for the implementation
of the Consent Decree and answerable to the Federal Court and the Justice Depart-
ment then to the extent that the Consent Decree conflicts with a collective bar-
gaining agreement that portion of the collective bargaining agreement is also
inoperative and that's the position that's been taken by the city and I might add
that that's the postion that's being challenged in the Appeals Court and we're
going to have to wait to see what the appellate process will reveal.
Lt. March: Thank you, Mr. Knox, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Naples: Mr. Mayor, just let me say that it appears to me that what Mr. Knox
is saying is that the end justifies the means so whatever you have to do to con-
form to that Consent Decree is perfectly alright.
Mayor Ferre: I don't think that anybody here subscribes to that and I would hope
that you don't subscribe to it. Is that what you said or what you meant, that the
ends justify the means?
Mr. Knox: Well, I'm saying that the end has been established by a federal court
and the the federal court has an expectation that that end will be satisfied and
it will allow a municipal, for example, to close itself in its own rules and reg-
ulations to prevent the implementation of the federal mandate.
Mr. Naples: So whatever it takes to do that can be done then. That's what we're
talking about.
Mr. Bill Smith: Mr. Mayor, Bill Smith, Sanitation Employees Association. If what
Mr. Knox is saying that the federal mandate supersedes our Civil Service Rules and
regulations then we have a problem. It's the same problem which I've been up here
before on and two years ago I was here with the same problem. We have eleven men
_ sitting on a promotional register. The Consent Decree states that the line of
progression that Sanitation Inspector I and Sanitation Foreman shall be filled
from existing registers within the Sanitation Department. On the 19th which was
Tuesday the Civil Service Board took an action by request from the department
director to hire a maintenance mechanic in the Police Department and promote him
to the rank of Sanitation Foreman. Now we feel like this is direct violation of
the Consent Decree and if what Mr. Knox is saying is true then I want to know
how can the city allow this to happen.
Mayor Ferre: Would you answer that question then, please?
Mr. Knox: I think Mr. Smith's specific problem arose at a meeting of the Civil
Service Board and I think Mr. Krause was in attendance in that meeting and Mr.
Krause would probably be in a better position to answer Mr. Smith's specific quest-
ion because I'm not familiar with the facts.
Mayor Ferre: Is that alright, Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: Perfectly.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Krause.
Mr. Krause: Mx. Mayor and members of the commission, there was a request submitted
by the Sanitation Director to the Civil Service Board having to do with an employee
of 31 years service who had been affected by roll -backs at the time the incinerator
was closed. This man had been rolled back I believe 6 or 8 different levels be-
cause there were no jobs in the incinerator because the incinerator had closed so
he wound up being returned to a mechanic's position I believe in the Waste Collect-
ion part of the Sanitation Department. At any rate he was on re-employment registers
21
1111 n. ar......
that the departMent believed were equivalent to Sanitation Foreman in Waste Col=
lection and asked the Civil Service Board tc allow his name to be certified from
a like or similar register. The employee was there and told the board about his
31 year career with the city and asked for their consideration. The members of
the board spoke to the matter of equity in this matter and felt that it was with-
in the rules and within justice and fairness to allow this employee to be certi-
fied from a like or similar register to a position of Sanitation Foreman. The
board did not ask me for my opinion but if they had asked me for my opinion I
would have told them that I agreed with them that I would have thought that the
interest of equity for an employee with 31 years of service would be well served
by the action they took. We discussed this yesterday at the Affirmative Action
Advisory Board and I made the commend to the board that I would expect that dur-
ing the next year the board and its hearing committee will probably have a number
of cases that will be based on individual allegations of violations of the Consent
Decree, that is that if an employee is promoted from a Civil Service Register a
member of the affected class can allege that he should have been appointed from
a seniority list rather than an employee being promoted from a register. If it
goes the other way around, a member of the affected class is promoted onthe
basis of seniority, I presume that there will be grievances filed by employees
on the promotional register alleging that they should have had preference. So
the Affirmative Action Board will be hearing a number of cases like this and we'll
be making a number of recommendations during the next year. I think it will take
us some time to sort out the various rights and privileges provided to employees
under the Consent Decree. One of the reasons for seeking to enter into a memor-
andum of understanding with the Justice Department was the fact that individual
employees and group representatives had come to me expressing their own inter-
pretations of the Consent Decree and I sought help from the City Attorney in try-
ing to clarify some of those conflicting interpretations. I don't expect that
it will be easy.
Mayor Ferre: I might add my two cents worth and that's exactly why we have a
Consent Decree and that's exactly why the federal government has had to intercede
not only ir. Miami but in thousands of other jurisdictions because you have this
maze of conflicting laws and regulations where you have city government, county
government, state government and the federal government and then you have the
legislation, you have the administration and then you have the federal courts and
what's happening here is that to solve all this maze of conflicts we've had to go
to the highest level which is the federal level and go to federal court so that
we can unify, simplify and get a clear-cut definition as to what we can and can-
not do. As you said, it is not going to be an easy task. Change never is easy
but we're smack in the middle of it and there's certainly no going back. Now
the question as to how we go forward is what, of course, we're all concerned with
including you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, the Consent Decree clearly states that in the Department
of Sanitation it sets the line of progression as far as promotion is concerned.
Mr. Krause at the meeting on Tuesday when I brought this issue up said that this
was not in the Consent Decree. The Civil Service Board members say that they
were not familiar what is in the Consent Decree. I can quote you from that para-
graph dealing with the Department of Sanitation where the Consent Decree states
the line of progression that these positions shall be filled from existing regis-
ters with employees within the Sanitation Department. It didn't say you can go
outside of Sanitation Department to do this and what Mr. Krause is telling you
is wrong. This man is not in the Sanitation Department.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Krause, the one thing that we have to be absolutely strict and
rigid on is that it has to be fair application in all cases and to all departments.
We can't do one thing one day and something else differently. Now, are you in
effect telling me, because we have a challenge here from Mr. Smith saying that
that's exactly what you're doing and that is not applying this matter equally
as I understood it?
Mr. Krause: Well, I have read the Consent Decree very carefully, I understand
that one section provides for certain lines of progressions within the Sanitat-
ion Department up to a certain point. I do not believe that the Consent Decree
says what Mr. Smith interprets it to say. What we have is a difference of opin-
ion over the Consent Decree which may very well need to be resolved by the City
Attorney's Office.
Mayor Ferre: Well Mr. Krause, then perhaps I might recommend this: Why don't
you then set an appointment with Mr. Smith, sit down and discuss this. If you
can't come to an agreement take it to the City Attorney and have him in writing
give us a reading as to the difference and then if you feel it necessary, Mr,
Smith, we'll take it up again on the 28th first thing.
22 JUL 211977
4 •
Matt. Gibson: Mf. Mayor, but there is one thing I hope we will do so we won't be
faded with the same kind of action as happened prior, that if there is a quest=
oh you don't make no promotion now and then discuss this thing after the fact.
You know what I mean? Do you remember that other matter Plummer just referred
to earlier? Remember that, Plummer? Don't make the promotion and then you know
get the interpretation. Make darned sure you have that interpretation before
you make that promotion. Ok? I want that to go for the record. Make sure that
the interpretation is had before the promotion. And Mr. Mayor, I see the Manager
Moving, I'm getting very very itchy. And you know why I'm getting itchy? I
think that this commission, I feel like Plummer, if we're going to set these pot-
ivies man we ought to set them. And I hope, Mr. Krause, through the manager
that there t'ain't going to be no promotion until such time as the interpretation
is given. ...
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, the point I wanted to make with you was that I don't
think that we can get the operations of government in the position where every
time somebody raises a question which has been already answered by a legitimate
arm of government, in this case we're talking about the Civil Service Board that
simply by the act of raising the question that person stops the machinery. Now
I don't think that we can be in the position. If the organization of government
provides legitimate alternatives, you know if there are legitimate alternatives
I don't think that we can say that simply raising a question about it means that
everything stops. Now you know we want to be responsive to any kind of reason-
able policy but I'm hoping that you will not ask us to do unreasonable things.
Rev. Gibson: Well, I don't think that's unreasonable and I hope that the commis-
sion will sustain my position and direct the manager because let me tell you
something. We direct the manager as to the policy. Let me tell you something.
We went through what Plummer said and for the public, the public didn't get what
Plummer was telling us I don't suppose. See, after the fact you come say, well
you know it's done Two wrongs don't make no right, man and I'd hate like
hell to see this government go down the drains simply because we don't want to
wait a day. And if they wanted to get the right interpretation they could have
asked the attorney long before now. I'll bet you this, nobody asked the attorney.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think where we're at is simply this, Mr. Manager. I think
that a question has been raised, it is a matter of policy and I think this com-
mission has requested that Mr. Smith meet with M.r. Krause to try to resolve it
and that if they can't come to an agreement go to the City Attorney for a legal
interpretation. Now beyond that the Charter is very specific as to what ycur
rights are and what the commission does. I would hope that because of the nat-
ure of this matter that we proceed very carefully in establishing - crossing all
the is and dotting all the is so that we're very clear legally as to what we're
doing.
Mr. Grassie: Well, I certainly agree with you on that last statement, Mr. Mayor,
and obviously anything that has to do with properly interpreting the Consent
Decree or any other rules around here is something that we need to be conscious
of.
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir.
Mr. Grassie: But it is not, the question of how the mechanics of the personnel
system operate is not a question of policy.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think to this extent it is - the Consent Decree is something
that speaks to a certain policy on Affirmative Action on the hiring of females
and minorities in the City of Miami and since this is a matter of a specific case
in which there is some doubt then I think there is no question that as a policy
matter this commission expresses its concern and wishes this matter be resolved
hopefully between Mr. Krause and Mr. Smith. If not, then we get a legal inter-
pretation on it. Obviously you would be bound by the legal interpretation on
the matter.
Mr. Grassie: I've already asked the attorney for that....
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just comment on this particular matter be-
cause in the letter presented to yourself and the manager as well as the other
commissioners it indicates that this matter was brought before the advisory board
on yesterday. At that time we did not have all the facts and Mr. Krause was pres-
ent and so was Mrs. Santa Maria and at my direction they are, in fact, compiling
the particulars to this case for our review. I beg to disagree somewhat with the
manager on this instance as it relates to these areas where there is no clear
interpretation. I would have to agree with Reverend Gibson at this point in time.
MEM
23
JUL 211977
-At
t would not to bog down in the mechanics of the city government but, however, with
the cleat cases where there's no definite direction particularly when we're deal-
ing with a situation where in certain instances the Consent Decree is going to
supercede the Civil Service Regulations according to what I understand and we have
put together a memorandum of understanding. It then appears to me that there is
no clear urderstanding on the parties involved of just what it is so I think an
interpretation from the attorney's office in order and if it has been done already
then it should be known to the parties involved.
Mayor Ferre: Very well, thank you. At this time we're going to break. 1 guess
we can eat in about 20 minutes?
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask, is Affirmative Action over?
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think, Father, we can extend it if you wish because....
Rev. Gibson: I want to make a statement before we move this audienr-e. I was
insistent that we have this business, the manager readily and gladly agreed to
it. (1) I hope that it would be the position of this commission to automatically
demand of the manager a report on Affirmative Action every three months - automat-
ically - and state the day and the time or which meeting because as long as I've
been here since we've been dealing with Affirmative Action we haven't been gett-
ing any report. So I want a report. I don't plan to leave it in the closet hop-
ing that they're going to do the right thing. Let me tell you why. You heard
some percentages here and I'm not convinced with the percentages, I'm not denying
them they're alright. Black and white don't lie, it all depends on getting per-
centages, who get them, what you're going to do with them and who are going to
interpret them. Now, I think this commission can in all honesty say that all that
we heard here percentagewise and report -wise has not changed this picture at all.
(3) I'm further convinced that they're playing games on this city and especially
on black folk. I had a meeting with the manager, I want to put this in the record
so that we could start looking and we could start feeling and we could start inter-
preting and so that we could get some sentiment around here. I had a meeting
with the Manager in his office, a conference. I accused him of a matter and he
was attempting to try to get me to understand. A very interesting thing, I had
talked with the Mayor and I felt that stronly aid I want to put this on the rec-
ord at the peril of everything. I told the manager before he came, and let me
establish this, the manag• .r cannot doubt my loyalty nor my sincerety for him.
Anybody will tell you, every member of this commission that I was the guy in the
hospital, got up out of my hospital bed, the employres here swore to got one of
the best speeches I ever made, I made it. I got up out of my hoppital bed to
nominate the manager. I wanted him, why? Because he spoke Spanish fluently and
he couldn't tell the Latins he didn't understand. Secondly, he was white and he
couldn't play games on white America because they were itchy and concerned. The
blacks said to me, Gibson.... I said look, man, I'm not going to worry about
what he's going to do for me, all I'm saying is if he interprets and understands
what those Latins are saying and if he treats white America right as the whole
thing comes up I hope I'll get a rung or two of the ladder higher. I said to
the manager, Mr. Manager if you were smart you'll hire you, I said Booz Allen, we
paid, how much did we pay Booz Allen, Plummer? How much? $280,000 to make a
study to restructure the governmental system. Booz Allen said get you five admin-
istrative assistants, Assistant managers. I said to the manager, you've got four
white, I said raised the same question with Paul Andrews. Paul Andrews either
accidentally or on purpose or otherwise appointed the Latin that we talked about
just before he left. I said to this third manager, as I said to Paul, when are
you going to give me that black? I told the Mayor that, I don't know if he wanted
me to say it, so the Mayor talked with the Manager. The manager then said, the
Mayor called me back and said "Mission Accomplished". Do you remember that, Mr.
Mayor? Right. When I knew anything the manager had appointed Mr. Daughtery.
Stand up, Mr. Daughtery so they could know you're black, as assistant to the man-
ager. You could stand up, I don't guess he'll fire you after today. ... As
assistant to the Manager and I wanted to know if that was a peace treaty. Now
the reason I'm telling all of this, this ought to let this commission and this
city know something. I said, "Is that the peace treaty, that you're going to
appoint an assistant to the manager?" I said, Mr. Manager, I want an assistant
manager who is black who will help to have some invluence on the policy making
of this city. He snapped back and he said to me anybody on my staff helps to
make policy. I said is that right? I said you think I'm a damned fool, don't
you? Ok? We went to the calmer area thing and he was... and I'll tell the peo-
ple they didn't get anything the other day over on that Culmer area thing. I
could now tell them now that it's all over. But listen to this, I said to him
since I may not be here after November I want you to make the commitment to some
citizens who will ride you to death even if I'm gone. So I selected two citizens,
Talmadge Fair and Athalie Range, the former commissioner. We met in Mr. Grassie's
24
JUL 21.1977
officer Otte of the questions I raised of Mr. Grassie was the need to appoint an
Assistant City Manager who was black, who can interpret to Mr. Grassie since you
have the ethnic problem here what this is all about. Let me tell the public what
Mt. Grassie said to me, this is the bottom line. He said I sit- here and I want
you to understand that I don't plan to tell you nor anybody else that I will
appoint an Assistant City Manager who is black. I told you that to give you an
indication as to what you can expect and what will be going down in the future.
Now all this rhetoric and all of this statistical jazz, all of this means nothing.
What takes precedence is the attitude and all you have to do is to do is to lis-
ten to what happens here right along. Listen to what happened. You know I just
wonder if anybody really wants to understand the problem. I know what I'm going
to hear, you saw what the paper said about me on the Sunday page 19. You know?
Ok. They '11 say this is political but man it's an awful thing to have to wait
all these years to have to come to this. No other manager ever told me, I'm sure
they acted it because they didn't do it but no other manager ever told me he
wasn't going to do that. Now I put this commission on notice and on God right
now as to the attitude of the Manager. Now, I went a step further. I said, you
know I don't understand how you have a Sanitation Department that is 90% black
and that you scouted the whole country and you couldn't find a black. I said,
Mr. Manager, you have the affirmative responsibility to take somebody there and
do the job. I plead to this community for the kind of an understanding I'm talk-
ing about. I just don't understand. I said before to this commission, I said
we need to set the policy and we need to sensitize the administration of this
city to the acute problem that we have. I'm the only one saying that and I hope
I'll get some of my fellow commissioners to join me, to have an about face to
turn this business around so that the manager, we can't tell him who to hire but
like my bishop said during the depression days when they were having the convent-
ion, say you can't take a horse to the well and make him drink,but he said but
some of the clergymen got up and said, and Mr. Mayor, I want to say this for all
of our benefit - but if you give him enough salt he'll be damned glad to drink
that water.
Mr. Naples: Mr. Mayor, if I may just one last thing, Mr. Mayor. The answer that
we got from the City Attorney and from the manager, the mechanics in implementing
the Consent Decree don't appear to be of any importance. They think that anything
that they have to do, we think that the city is going to have to obey its laws,
its City Charter and the provisions of the Civil Service Rules just like any of
do and we are not going to accept that. The fact that the City Attorney seems to
think he can do anything to comply with the Consent Decree and we're not going to
permit that to happen and go unchallenged.
Mayor Ferre: Gene, the procedure as I see it is this: (1) Hopefully a friendly
discussion between you and whatever groups are interested with the affected party
and Mr. Krause or whoever is involved in the department and the Affirmative Act-
ion Officer, if that doesn't work I would hope that the board, Mr. Thompson,
would become involved, (2). (3) If that doesn't work then I would imagine that
if it is a legal problem that we need to get a legal reading from the City Attorney.
If it is not a legal problem but an administrative problem then I think obviously
the man at the top of the pyramid, the manager, has got to make that decision.
Now, if it is a matter of policy then I think if you still can't agree then it
becomes before the commission. If it is not a matter of policy then the manager
has the last say administratively. If it is a matter policy then we will dis-
cuss it. Beyond that your normal recourse are the courts and ail I. can tell you
is I think you should follow the normal channels and hope that the problem will
work out at the lowest possible level.
Mr. Naples: Mr. Mayor, if you could open those channels to us we'd be very happy
to proceed along the guidelines that you just demonstrated or illustrated to us.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, do you have any objections in the process at all, on
the record?
Mr. Grassie: No, sir, I have no objections to what you've said.
Mayor Ferre: Ok.
Mr. Naples: And I agree with Reverend Gibson that you know it is sometimes better
to wait a few minutes than to get involved in a huge court procedings that's going
to tie up the city for a couple of years. I don't believe that's the way we
ought to go.
Mayor Ferre: A11 right, thank you, Mr. NaP .es, We will adjourn until 1:35, we'll
be back here in 20 minutes.
2
JUL 211977
Thereupon the City Commission recessed at 1:15 O'Clock P.M. and tecot eihed
at ltt5 O'Clock P.M.
71 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: £ rRO TRANSIT AUTHOR I Tr AND THE KA I sER TRANSIT GROUP
REGARDING RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS,
Mayor Ferre: This is on the 1:00 O'Clock agenda, as you know we're running behind
schedule so at this time... Who is going to represent? Miss Walker.
Miss Ellen Wacher: Due to the time we'll make it as short as possible, as short
as you would like, as a matter of fact. Today's presentation with Kaiser Transit
Groups marks the third update of stage one of the Rapid Transit Program particular-
ly the proposed station locations and route alignment. We're here today to encour-
age and solicit your recommendations on the subjects to be discussed. As you re-
call, input into the entire decision making process comes from several sources,
the Citizens Committee, the Policy Council, the City Commission's resolution to
the Board of County Commissioners, the Kaiser recommendations and the recommendat-
ion of the Office of Transportation Administration. Following consideration from
all of these sources the County Commission will make the decision. Again, I want
to stress the importance of input from the city. Today we'll review two upcoming
decisions on the subjects affecting the City of Miami. First of all the Civic
Center alignment question, although the Kaiser report will not be published until
the end of this month they will be able to make their recommendation today. The
public hearing will be scheduled for mid -September. Should you choose not to
pass a resolution on this alignment today we will be prepared to come back in
early September. The second decision relates to the Group III station locations
which concern possible stations at 27th Avenue, 17th Avenue and 26th Road.
Kaiser's recommendation will be discussed here in a few moments. The public hear-
ing on this question before the County Commission is scheduled for July 28th,
that's next Thursday, 9:30 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers. There will be
a Citizens' Committee Meeting on this subject tonight at Shenandoah Junior High
School at 8:00 P.M. As you all know by now your Planning Department and your
Planning Advisory Board as well as the Citizens' Committee have supported a com-
bined station location in the vicinity of 32nd Road. Kaiser's recommendation
does vary somewhat and will be discussed in a moment. The Office of Transportat-
ion Administration will come out with a recommendation prior to next week's pub-
lic hearing when all community input is in. And now for the first part of the
presentation I'd like to turn to Jim McDonald who will present the Civic Center
Alignment, the Kaiser recommendation.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. McDonald.
Mr. Jim McDonald: I just want to go over very briefly what we had gone over in
our last meeting here. We now have the Kaiser Transit Group recommendation on
the alignment and the station location in the Civic Center area. The recommendat-
ion of the Kaiser Transit Group is for the alignment to pass along llth Street
at the lower portion of the aerial there and to by-pass the old Women's Detention
Center.
Mayor Ferre: Does that mean that you'd go along the yellow route or you would
go along the dark red route?
Mr. McDonald: We'd be going along llth Street which is the red route. This is
the route that was originally approved. We originally pointee out at that time
two alternatives, cne which passed over the old Women's Detention Center Building
and the alternative which by-passed it and it could possibly be spanned over
the top of these two smaller like warehouse facilities here. This route is the
route that through analysis and so on we find is as feasible as the route in the
red. This is the route then that we're recommending, the route that by-passes
the Women's Detention Center. The costs are comparable between the two routes
even if we have to span the expressway. So we're recommending this alternative
coming up 12th.
Mayor Ferre: A11 right, what you want is a motion accepting this routing from
the City Commission?
Mr. McDonald: Yes we would. We'd like to have a motion endorsing the alignment
from the beginning of the study area at 10th Avenue approximately in this portion
here up to 54th Street, this being the B-5 alignment that Kaiser Transit had en-
dorsed,
26
JUL 211977
Miss Wa chef: #1 resolution to the County Commissioners before the public hearing
•
Mayor Ferre: Let me tell you where we are. This is not a public hearing, there-
fore, if there are any members of the public that wish to speak and address the
City Commission on this subject we'll have to put this decision off until the
first meeting in Septmeber. If, however, there are no people who wish to speak
here today then perhaps I think we'll see what the commission wishes to do but
what we cannot do is get into an open debate now because we have a very heavy
schedule and a lot of other things and you're only scheduled for discussion, not
as a public hearing.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, is it mandatory for us to have a public hearing on this
decision of which of the two alternatives, alignment route of llth and 12th?
Mayor Ferre: Well, as I understand it, Rose, there have been a series of public
hearings and there will be other public hearings and I wish to remind the commis-
sion that we are not the deciding board so in effect I don't think it is really
necessary for us technically to have a public hearing. However, if there are
members of the public, that is of the public of Miami, who feel that they should
address the City Commission on this....
Mrs. Gordon: We wouldn't want to prevent them we would want to encourage them
but you have a full attendance here today of people of the City of Miami...
Mayor Ferre: But the problem with that, Rose, is that if we have 10 or 15 speakers
or two speakers that are going to take up, you know how these things happen...
Mrs. Gordon: I don't know if anyone here wants to speak.
Mayor Ferre: Does anyone want to speak here?
Mrs. Gordon: Specifically on the Civic Center alignment.
Mayor Ferre: We've got two speakers and I think.... Does anybody want to speak
on this section here?
Mrs. Gordon: The Civic Center alignment.
Mayor Ferre: So I think we could if you want.
Mrs. Gordon: Can I make a motion?
Mayor Ferre: Sure.
Mrs. Gordon: I would like to move you that we accept the recommendation of the
Kaiser Engineers that the most easterly line, the one that is indicated in black
be the more acceptable line.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved its
adoption.
MOTION NO. 77-596
A MOTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF KAISER TRANSIT GROUP
FOR AN ALIGNMENT BEGINNING AT N.W. 11 STREET, CURVING NORTH
ALONG WAGNER CREEK BY-PASSING THE WOMEN'S DETENTION CENTER,
PASSING OVER THE EAST -WEST EXPRESSWAY AND CONTINUING ALONG
WAGNER CREEK TO NORTHWEST 12 AVENUE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, 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
JUL 211977
mr
MMyct 'ette: Alright, what is the neict subject you want to talk to us about nt
iS that it?
Mr. McDonald: Well, you also then endorse the station and the B-5 aiigfuneht,
Mrs. Gordon: I would also move that we accept the rest of the recommendation for
the extension from that point northerly and northwesterly,
Mayor Ferre: As presented.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, as presented.
Mayor Ferre: Up to 54th Street.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok.
Rev. Gibson: Were the people told in that area that that's what's going to happen?
Mr. McDonald: Yes, we presented this to what we call the Milestone-B Committee...
Rev. Gibson: No, I'm concerned about where B-5 goes... They were told?
Mr. McDonald: This Milestone-B Committee endorsed this B-5 alignment all along
the south side of the airport expressway curving back into 17th Avenue. Incident-
ally, that's labeled as the B-5 alignment.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved its
adoption.
MOTION NO. 77-597
A MOTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE KAISER TRANSIT
GROUP AND ENDORSING STATION LOCATION IN THE B-5 ALIGNMENT AS
PRESENTED THIS DATE.
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.
Mrs. Wacher: The second part of the dicsussion concerns the Group III station
locations at 27th Avenue, 17th and 26th Road. Now I must say, Mayor Ferre, that
next Thursday at 9:30 the County Commission will hold a public hearing on this
particular subject so I don't know what the legalities are with the City of Miami
or how you wish it to be but you might want to make some sort of endorsement or
etc. depending on the outcome of this particular presentation.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let's see what the will of this commission is after you make
your presentation. I might for the record say that I sat down with Mr. Fosmoen,
he brought me some of the drawings and after looking at these drawings and hear-
ing the logic I would concur with his conclusion and I just want to say for the
record than. I have changed my position since talking and studying this matter in
greater detail. I understand the logic of the recommendation and concur with it.
Mr. Mike Lambert: Jim, could you put up the 27th Avenue site -plan? My name is
Mike Lambert. I'd like to briefly review the Milestone E Committee's action on
station Group III. This committee was responsible for reviewing stations pro-
posed on 27th Avenue, 17th Avenue, S.W. 26th Road and in addition to that the
possibility of a combination station in between 17th Avenue and 26th Road. What
you see before you is the site plan for the 27th Avenue site which was recommended
by the committee and the Kaiser Transit Group. That site would require the dis-
placement of 13 bu: zesses, 12 homes, it is the smallest alternative the committee
evaluated. In preliminary engineering sites were determined to be possible to
the north of 27th, however, it was determined upon our first level analysis that
the station sites east of 27th Avenue were over budget and we could not afford
them and so what you see here is the site which is feasible within budget and
which both the citizens and the Kaiser Transit Group recommend. In that the last
time we presented this site to you there were no changes between then and now, if
it at your pleasure I'd like to proceed to the combination station site. Subsequent
28
to the determination of a combination station location by the Milestone E Committee
the Kaiser Transit Group met internally and evaluated the combination sites. What
you see there on top is the combination station site which resulted from that
evaluation. It differs from the combination sites which were shown to citizens
in two factors. One is that there is no take involved in land between 26th Road
and 28th Road north of S.W. 1st Avenue and the second is that there is a displace-
went of some dwellings abutting the site. There are multi -family dwellings, a
total of 22 apartment units and 2 duplexes which would be displaced by this alter-
native. The 5 points alternative was the one the committee recommended and is
located and centered upon S.W. 32nd Road. That alternative is one which was re-
viewed extensively by the committee and which was considered by the Kaiser Transit
Group in arriving at its recommendation. In the process of coming to the recom-
mendation which we have there have been five factors which were considered. The
first factor was land use. In looking at the two sites we did consider that the
five points alternative was slightly better in terms of land use than was the
site recommended by ourselves, the 26th Road alternative. Jim, could you set
the one on top of the other so we could see both? However, there are four other
factors which were considered to be essential in the functioning of any station
site - they are traffic, community impact, environment and site design. It was
on these other four factors which the five points alternative failed and which
the S.W. 26th Road alternative was considered superior. In addition to that, we
evaluated the cost implications of the alternatives. It was determined that to
develop the five points alternative, the one recommended by the citizens on top
there, it would cost a total of $10,680,000. For the S.W. 26th Road alternative
the development cost would be in the neighborhood of $7,390,000. This $3,000,000
difference in cost is critical to the transit system in the tight budget situat-
ion in which it exists. In addition it was found that the S.W. 26th Road station
site would allow state development. That tract of land in between S.W. 31st and
S.W. 28th Road need not be required at initial development. I'm referring to the
tract in here. It would be possible if the county so desires to develop the stat-
ion site up to approximately 50% of its ultimate demand requirement totally within
F.E.C. Right-of-way and at a later time develop this site. It would be possible
to acquire the development easement on the property at this time and leave the
people who are there at this point occupying the site as long as it is considered
necessary. This staged growth concept is not possible with the five points altern-
ative. We would have to acquire almost the total site for the site to function
adequately. This site can be made to work quite well without having this extra
piece in here that is needed to provide the parking that will ultimately be re-
quired but is not needed at initial start-up. We further in looking at the object-
ives of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan felt that both sides were cap-
able of helping implement that plan's objectives. We've done a small overlay
here to show what the recommendations of the plan are with regard to that site.
This is an enlargement of yn'.l- plan. The five points alternative is outlined
here in striped tape and the 26th Road station site is outlined to the east of it.
The existing development in the area is very close to that indicated in the plan,
The five points area here at the intersection of Coral Way and S.W. 3rd Avenue
is the area which is recommended in the plan for redevelopment. The site for the
transit station is indicated by the letter D in the plan which states that the
intent of that development area would be to preserve existing residential develop-
ment adjacent to this transit station and to promote redevelopment directly adjac-
ent to five points, this area, for residential, retail and office uses and to
provide pedestrian improvements and linkeages. The plan, therefore, was considered
in our recommendation but it was felt that although the site was slightly superior
in terms of its land use implications the other factors which we had to take into
consideration outweighed the advantages this alternative presented in terms of
land use. In addition to land use we evaluated the traffic implications and we
prepared a brief graphic here. The traffic that would be generated for the five
points alternative is shown in yellow. You can see here that on a daily basis
we'd be pulling in approxaimately 1200 cars down Coral Way, 620 down S.W. 31st,
1575 down S.W. 26th Road. This would create some intrusion of traffic through
this section of this neighborhood. In addition, we would have to provide a sig-
nalized intersection at S.W. 2nd Avenue and 26th Road to allow traffic to circul-
ate down S.W. 2nd Avenue into the station site. If we did not allow that the
additional impact on S.W. 3rd Avenue
Mayor Ferre: Could we have some order back there in the back of the room, please?
Mr. Lambert: The additional traffic impact, the traffic on S.W. 3rd Avenue making
a left hand turn at this point was felt to be objectionable and therefore, we
were recommending that the traffic be routed down S.W. 2nd Avenue, a road currently
under some improvement as part of a sewer project I believe. In addition for the
five points alternative there would be a shunt road developed here between S.W.
22nd and S.W. 23rd Streets and street widening would need to occur upon the extens-
ion of Coral Way and down 31st. A traffic intersection light would be provided
at the entrance to the station site, these two entrances in addition to the signal
on 2nd and 26th. There would also be a signal on 31st and 3rd. This intersection
vtou1d need to be widened. For the S.W. 26th Station site the traffic volume down
Coral. Way are slightly greater, almost 50%, in fact, Coral Way traffic then being
dp to 1830 but no neighborhood street traffic need intrude in this area. There
is no traffic projected to come down S.W. 32nd for this alternative. There is an
access point provided down on 32nd for the Kaiser Transit Groups recommended site
which would allow traffic from the west to come into that site down 32nd Road.
The traffic headed down S.W. 26th Raod would be identical in volume to that which
would have come for the five points alternative. 26th Road would need to be
widened, there would need to be some improvements at the intersections near the
station and in additional S.W. 28th Raod would need some improvement but likely
not widening. A light would need to be developed at S.W. 3rd Avenue and 28th Road.
We also recommend that if this site is selected by the County Commissioners two
streets would be closed. One is s.W. 1st Avenue, the second is S.W. 29th Road.
The intent of this is to prevent traffic from coming through this neighborhood.
It is not necessary for our site, that traffic do this unlike the five points
alternative and, therefore, we felt it would be desirable to prevent it. In re-
sponse to the concerns of the city with regards to access to the five points area
and to Vizcaya, we extracted from our modeling technique a projected number of
trips to these facilities. We project for Vizcaya on a daily basis there would
be approximately 253 trips made from our transit station whether it be the 5 points
or the 26th Road to Vizcaya. There would be a total of 315 trips made to the
area west of S.W. l2th and Coral Way and that would be approximately 240 trips
due west. The majority of the trips from the site then in terms of the adjacent
transit districts is farther west than the immediately surrounding development.
I've neglected to point out that there is an identical volume of traffic coming
from the Key Biscayne area to either of the two station sites. For the S.W. 26th
Road site this traffic would be able to make a left turn immediately into the
site whereas for the five points alternative it would be required to come down
S.W. 2nd Avenue or S.W. 3rd.
Mrs. Gordon: Would you tell me if the First Avenue closure would affect any resi-
dences because I would believe that therea are some on the westerly side of First
Avenue?
Mr. Lambert: It is possible to close these streets in this location without pro-
hibiting access to any lots. We'd be allowing access through the residences but
we would be prohibiting people from exiting our station and driving through the
neighborhood. They'd be required when they exit, when they exit at this point
they'd be required to take a right to S.W. 28th Road and then they'd take their
left.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but how about if they were entering to go their residences?
Mr. Lambert: For people who are coming in the area and trying to circulate into
the area if they come up 26th they can still take a left at S.W. 2nd and drop
down and in.
Mrs. Gordon: They'd have to go around severl blocks to get to their residence,
is that what you're saying?
Mr. Lambert: They may have to make a turn around the block but it was felt that
it would be more desirable to cont4ol the traffic in from of their homes and,
therefore, it was recommenced that the circulation area be restricted to do so.
There was one other factor which we've looked into since we originally had come
up with this recommendation. It was determined and was stated at one point that
the character of the neighborhood was significantly different between the five
points alternative and the S.W. 26th Road. In an attempt to determind exactly
what the nature of the sites is we went through the property tax records and
established that for S.W. 26th Road of the 26 residential units of which 22 are
apartments of 26 which would be displaced 3 are cwner occupied whereas for the
five points alternative there are 32 single family units displaced and of those
27 are owned and occupied by the same person so it appears from that information
that the area which would be impacted by the five points alternative is a stable
residential area which is predominantly dwelled in by people wh own their own
homes and occupy them whereas the residences which would be taken by the 26th
Road alternative, the vast majority of those residences are people who are rent-
ing the property.
Mrs. Gordon: A question on the land uses is one that I find a very important con-
sideration and if we selected, for instance or the County Commission selected 26th
Road wouldn't that have an affect of commercializing that area around 26th Road
which is totally residential?
J U L 21 1977
Mt, tatbert: One of the recommendations, the recommendation of the plan fat five
points is that adjacent development not be changed. The same could be done at
26th Road, the policy is very explicit. It indicates that existing residential
neighborhood adjacent to the proposed station be preserved. If it is possible at
this location we feel it is equally possible at 26th Road.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but sir, would you like to live next door to a Grand Central
Station? Be realistic.
Mr. Lambert: The basis of the redevelopment that could occur is one that I don't
think can be addressed off the cuff frankly But it is possible for there to
be
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, it is 2:15 and we've got other very important
things to take up. If we can come to a conclusion on this thing quickly then the
chair will recognize it, otherwise if we're going to get into a longwinded debate
we'll have to put it off until September. I will repeat my position. I am in
favor of the motion dated July 6th recommended by the Planning Advisory Board. I
think that represents the best interests of the City of Miami and I fully concur
with Mrs. Alexander and with Mr. Fosmoen and the City of Miami staff. Now I don't
know what the rest of you want to do, if you have a discrepancy we do have a div-
ision here express your opinion and if we need to continue this we will.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that statements we were making were in
opposition to your statement. I think what my statement was indicating was that
26th Road station would cause a disruption of the residential character of that
area.
Mayor Ferre:
I agree.
Mrs. Gordon: And I think Mr. Plummer's statement was to confirm what I was say-
ing.
Mayor Ferre: I agree and I think we're all in agreement.
Mr. Plummer: Well rcw, let Plummer say what he means. I agree with you to a
certain extent but I think you're going to have the same problem if you go with
the five points. That's why, I know it's going to be said that I'm selfish and
I want it near my house but 17th Road where it is proposed for 17th Avenue is all
commercial and it would seem like to me that you know commercial businesses exist
in and around mass transit.
Mayor Ferre: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: You go here and I'll guarantee you that if I lived at 26th Road or
if I lived at that other proposed site I'd hove because wouldn't want to be next
door to the thing.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, in just simple language, are you in agreement with the
motion passed by the Plannind Advisory Board?
Mr. Plummer: No► that's the combination site in the middle of a residential dist-
rict. I'm opposed to it.
Mayor Ferre: You're opposed to it. Are you for it Rose, or opposed to it?
Mrs. Gordon: Giving me only a choice of 26th Road and five points I prefer five
points. Mr. Plummer, however, feels perhaps that 17th Avenue is better than either
one of those two and I haven't heard any of the recommendations saying that 17th
would be the station and the other two not considered at all. Has that been a
consideration?
Mr. Lambert: The l7th Avenue station site was not capable of handling the volumes
that would have to be handled by a combination station.
Mrs. Gordon.: Then that takes care of it.
Mayor Ferre: All right. In other words, are you in agreement with the recommendat-
ion, Father Gibson, what is your position? And Mr. Reboso? You're in agreement
with the Planning Advisory Board. All right, Mt, Plummer, as I sense this the
consensus here is 4 to 1.
Mr. Plummer: Fine.
Mayot 'ette: Now should we put it on a motion or do we continue this until Septa.
eatbet for the debate?
Miss Wacher: It can't be continued until September since the County Commission
will make their recommendation next Thursday.
Mayor Ferre: Well this commission doesn't have to take any position.
Mrs. Gordon: Ellen, are they just going to be considering these two or are they
also going to be considering the 17th Avenue as the third alternative?
Miss Wacher: I believe they'll be considering the various recommendations from
the city, from the county, from the Citizens Committee, from all the various dif-
ferent sources. They can reconsider I guess as they will, as a matter of fact,
but I think the main emphasis will be for some station at 27th Avenue and a com-
bined station somewhere along the line north of that.
Mayor Ferre: All right, what is the wish of this commission then?
Mr. Plummer: You've got the wish, it's four to one.
Mayor Ferre: Do you want to put it in a formal motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Well see, I'm not in total disagreement with Mr. Plummer but I just
heard something that tells me that site at 17th isn't sufficiently capable of
handling the amount of traffic that is going to be needed there and if that is
a true statement of fact then I would go along and make the motion, in fact, on
the recommendation that we have being in concurrence with our Planning Board.
Mr. Case, would you reiterate. Is 17th Avenue in a location that could not handle,
is that what you're saying, the traffic that would be generated?
Mr. Gene Stann: Yes, I'm Gene Stann of Kaiser Transit Group. That is correct,
Commissioner Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: Then I move you that we uphold the recommendation of our Planning
Advisory Board.
Mr. Stann: May I makeone brief comment? I would like to emphasize a point that
Mike Lambert made. You probably have read in the papers and have heard through
briefings of the policy council that we're having considerable difficulty in
locating a site for the yard and the shop but that has nothing to do with this
particular poi:*
Mayor Ferre: Well then if it doesn't will you excuse me if we vote on this and
... unless what you're going to say affects this vote.
Mr. Stann: It does.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Stann: We find ourselves in a money situation which is highly critical. To
get access to an acceptable yard and shop site is going to cost considerably more
money than we had in our budget and we're looking at all the possible ways of
reducing costs and deferring costs until later if possible. I'd like to point
out, just reemphasize what Mike said about the cost of these two stations. The
26th Road station is $7,000,000, the other is $10,000,000 and that doesn't count
a difference of about another million or a million and a half in site development
and traffic improvements around the sites and that's why I'd just like to make
that point.
Mayor Ferre: That's like saying that because we don't have enough money to build
a carport we're going to kind of skimp on the fourth wheel of the car.
Mrs. Gordon: I appreciate the economic reasoning that you have but we, I, have
to look at the overall picture in the long range and I can't buy that as a reason
for changing locations at all.
Mayor Ferre: The motion is to uphold the motion of July 16th, the recommendation
of the Planning Advisory Board of the City of Miami I'll give it to you for
the record.
32
4l Iei IOIIPIPIIII�!I� �pl
• •
The following tictioh was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who Moved its
adoption
MOTION NO. 77-598
A MOTION TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
PtANNtNG ADVISORY BOARD IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR A TRANSIT
STATION TO BE LOCATED AT FIVE POINTS FOR VIZCAYA AS SHOWN IN
THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE N IGHBORHOOD PLAN, GENERALLY BOUNDED
BY S.W. 31 ROAD, THE F.E.C. RIGHT-OF-WAY, S.W. 22ND STREET
AND THE LOTS FRONTING ON THE WEST SIDE OF S.W. 32 ROAD.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Rev. Gibson and Mayor Ferre.
NOES: Mr. Plummer.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else you'd like to bring up?
Miss Wacher: No. You are welcome to come down in person or send any recoitttehdat-
ions you may have to the County Commission.
Mayor Ferre: I think it is important, Mr. Manager, that Mr. Fosmoen or somebody
representing the City of Miami be present at that public hearing. You recognize,
of course, that we are not the decision making board here.
Mrs. Gordon: What about the Station IV Group, do we have to take a position on
that?
Mayor Ferre: ... What this commission has just done, a vote of 4 to 1 is uphold
the naming Department and the Planning Advisory Board's recommendation. ...
The 27th Avenue location was not up for discussion today as I understand it.
Mr. Plummer:
Well, it's never been in controversy.
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Fosmoen tells me that this action by the Planning Advisory Board,
Mr. Mayor, speaks only to the two sites that you have been discussing most recently,
26th Road and five points. It does not speak to 27th Avenue.
Mayor Ferre: It does not speak to 27th Avenue.
Mr. Plummer: Well, to this point 27th Avenue has not been in controversy.
Mr. Fosmoen: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: It's been presented but we've never taken any position on it as I
understand.
Mr. Plummer: There was never any opposition.
Mayor Ferre: ... Well, you're certainly welcome I guess to express an opinion
on it but we're not voting on it today, it's not before this commission.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ... I think that we should have some discussion...
Mayor Ferre: I would like to recommend that the proper place for discussion is
before the decision making board which is the Metropolitan Dade County Commission.
The City of Miami has no position other than an advisory and recommending posture.
... I'll be happy to recognize you if you feel that it is appropriate to make a
quick statement. How long, Mr. Washington, will your statement be?
Mr. Tom Washington: Mayor, I will take two minutes and then we will hear a couple
of statistics. My name is Tom Washington, I live at 736 N.W. 45 Street, a resi-
dent of the City of Miami. The site on 27th Avenue and what's been happening,and
not getting into a debate on the issue, a lot of things have been happening to
our residents that the residents have not been informed. On the northwest corner
of 27th Avenue and Dixie Highway with an original site plan called 3-12 or station.
What they want to do now or what they would like to do is to move it to the south-
west corner disrupting residential single-family dwellings, moving it closer to
the Southwest Boys Club causing a pollution factor and having a parking lot across
the street from a residential neighborhood zoned R-1 and R-2. If Kaiser will
stick to their plans of B-12 ....
p
Mt, PlUMMet: Tot, are you talking about 27th Avenue?
Mt, Washington: Yes, 27th Avenue and Dixie Highway which they did hOtgt42 •-
Mt, Plummer: ...contemplating moving it to the southwest corner?
Mr, Washington: The southwest corner.
Mr, Plummer: Where the Royal Castle and the Gulf station ate?
Mr, Washington: No, that's on the southeast corner.
Mr. Plummer: That's southwest.
Mr. Washington: No, the Royal Castle is on the east side of Dixie Highway oiata
est to the ocean.
Mr. Plummer: All right.
Mr. Washington: And realizing that he commission does not have power related to
the final legislation but the resolution from this city body is very important
to any final decision and what we're saying is that the station should remain on
the north corner instead of moving the station to the southwest corner because on
the northwest corner there is vacant land. If you move the station to the south-
west you're going to remove a large number of residential tax -paying homes off
the tax rolls because everywhere that they stop and build a station that property
is moved off our tax rolls and we could not stand anymore of that inside the City
of Miami.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm not clear on where they're expecting to move it to. Are you
saying that it would be across Dixie Highway, the other side of Dixie?
Mr. Washington: Well, Dixie Highway and 27th Avenue, you have Royal Castle on
the southeast.... Dixie Highway runs north -south, right?
Mr. Plummer: No, 27th Avenue runs...
Mr. Washington: That's what I mean, 27th Avenue.
Mr. Plummer: Royal Castle is on the southwest corner.
Mr. Washington: You're right and I'm sorry.
Mr. Plummer: You're talking about where the antique store is.
Mr. Washington: Right. Now if they move it into where the antique store is then
the parking lot will be next to the single family residential neighborhood, closer
to the Boys' Club where a lot of kids play down to the Southwest Boys' Club, creat-
ing a problem, creating a problem on 27th Avenue of the slow up time going into
the station. What I'm saying is that on the opposite side of the same side of
Dixie Highway there is vacant land that will not be removing a lot of tax monies
off of the tax rolls.
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, excuse the interruption but we do have a prob-
lem. That secti'n up there is strictly for the press. Unfortunately there are
members with camera crews here that are supposed to be in that area and I'm going
to have to ask you, there are some seats here. Why don't those of you that are
not members of the press, even those members of the press, would you make room
for the camera crews so that they can be up there. There are plenty of seats down
here. There are six seats down here. Alright.
Mr. Bill Genna: Mayor Ferre, I just want to ask a question. I have not been re-
tained by anybody I am simply curious about this. My name is Bill Genna. I am
a private consultant, I've done urban studies for the last 15 years and I just
heard about this change of station location about four days ago and I was a little
appalled because what is going to be the net affect of it is that you're going to
be siping about four square blocks of single family homes in the process as oppos-
ed to a few rental apartments and some vacant land where the original site was
planned and I just can't understand it.
Mayor Ferro: Well, I recommend that we take the following position: That we just
pass to the County Commission a concern on this and then - I don't see that we can
do anything else. We're not in favor of it and we're not opposed to it at this
point. Is that correct? Mr. Fosmoen, what would you recommend that we do?
Mk& FosMoen: We've reviewed the changed location, the change came about in the
Original preliminary engineering and staff position is that we don't ha+re any
patticular problem with the northwest corner.
Mayor Ferre: What is the will of this commission?
Mrs. Gordon: I don't know, I don't find any problem with the area that t ha*e
seen presented unless there is something different than that that is being con=
sidered.
Mr. Genna: I can tell you very easily what the problem is. The problem is that
on the original site which was planned by Kaiser and then later for some reason
rejected, less than 50% of the residents of the area are Latin-American and there
are no black residents at all for example. On the new site which they're recom-
mending you've got 38 black families who are going to be wiped out and over 50%
of the area are Latin-American and they're all single family homeowners as opposed
to people who are just transient renters of apartments and I think this is appall-
ing. I think it is a blatant case of discrimination.
Mrs. Gordon: So we're talking about the same thing. The site that as I under-
stand it, the recommended site is the one where there is an antique shop on the
black facing 27th Avenue. Is that the same site you're talking about?
Mr. Genna: Yes....
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, facing 27th Avenue there's an antique...
Mr. Genna: It used to be an auction house or something like that.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, now it's an antique shop but now it's a recommended site and
you find objection to that?
Mr. Genna: Definitely, ves, because the neighboring area which is immediately
contiguous to this, as I say I've done studies on this, as I say I used to be
director of the Census Information Division at the university of Miami for several
years and I have written four books on the subject of Urban problems in Miami and
I've been personally fascinated by the ethnic mobility problem in Miami and you've
got for example 38 black families that have become upwardly mobile and have moved
out of the Coconut Grove ghetto and have now obtained single family homes in that
area and they're going to be completely creamed by this thing. I think it is
rotten. There is a Boys' Club up the street and this presents a traffic hazard.
Over 5O% of the area is Latin-American families in there, this is ridiculous. I
can't even understand the reason why the thing, the first site was rejected, it
was a perfect solution and originally apparently presented by Kaiser. I don't
know why Kaiser changed it.
Mrs. Gordon: Could we hear from the gentleman from the Transportation Department?
Mr. Stann: There are a few problems with the information that has been presented
to the commission namely first of all our site is two square blocks, not four.
We displace 12 families, not 38. We don't consider race when we're evaluating
displacements. The site which was considered in preliminary engineering was over
S2,000,000 over budget just to acquire the -land. In fact, that site does include
apartment structures and it would require a similar level of displacement. Our
recommendation and the recommendation of the committee was for a site which was
smaller, has less impact and is located on the west of S.W. 27th Avenue.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you this, when is this going to be decided, is it soon?
Mr. Stann: Thirty days, sir. Incidentally, we did have a letter we received from
the manager of the Boys' Club who endorsed the station site and said he thought
it was a positive asset.
Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, the Planning Advisory Board did not have a problem with
that site either. They reviewed that site at their June meeting.
Mayor Ferre: A11 right, further questions from the commission? Any other state-
ments you want to make?
MrWashing�on�,;st very simply this; it has been very clearly pointed out here re-
lated to the tax factor for the City of Miami related to our single family resi-
dences which we're very proud of related to an area that has a tremendous amount
of vacant land and the bottom line that wherever the station is at is going to
be taken off the tax roll and I say that single family dwelling residences should
be spared, what we need is rapid transit.
Mayor Ferret A11 right, is there any member of this commission who wishes to
ask any further questions? Ate there any motions at this point? Hearing none,
then I would assume that the commission is accepting the recommendation of staff,
Of the Kaiser Engineers and of the staff who has analyzed it and concluded in
favor of the Kaiser position and your next recourse which has always been your
recourse is before the Metropolitan Dade County Commission. Further discussion?
8. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: NO BUILDING PERMITS TO BE ISSUED UNTIL FINAL PLAT
HAS BEEN APPROVED AND RECORDED.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY DELETING SUBSECTION
(3) OF SEC^'IC' T 0 ANb cUB.gRCTInN (5) OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE IV,
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (3) TO SECT-
ION 9 AND SUBSECTION (5) TO SECTION 11 PROVIDING THAT NO BUILD-
ING PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL AFTER FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN
RECORDED AND BY DELETING SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 10 AND
SUBSECTION (6) OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE IV, GENERAL PROVISIONS
AND BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (5) TO SECTION 10 AND A NEW
SUBSECTION (6) TO SECTION 11 PROVIDING FOR THE PLATTING OF
LOTS IN TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVIS-
ION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Gibson
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Commissioner Rase Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
9. CONSIDERATION AND DEFERRAL OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R-2 TO C-5
AT APPROXIMATELY 25 N.W. 34 STREET,
Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor and mergers of the commission, the a.e^artmen*_
recommends denial of this item. I direct your attention to the map on the wall
and that the request of change of zoning is an extension of the zoning that exists
along Miami Avenue into the Wynwood neighborhood. The petition as you will find
out is an addition to a non -conforming use that presently exists across the street.
We understand and recognize that the neighborhood and the community is somewhat
in favor of this, however, from a planning standpoing and a good zoning applicat-
ion standpoint we cannot recommend this change of zoning.
Mayor Ferre: All right.
Mr. George W. Peace: I'm George Peace, President of George W. Peace and Company,
the owner of the lots that we're trying to rezone.
Mayor Ferre: What is the intetnion of the rezoning?
Mr. Peace: Our intetnion of rezoning is to build a cabinet shop and offices and
showroom.
Mayor Ferre: You realize that you're surrounded by R-2 and, therefore, this would
be an island all by itself that would have C-5 zoning.
Mr. Peace: Pardon me if I may, I'd like to let Carl Decker.
Mr. Carl Decker: Mr. Mayor, I'm Carl Decker, I'm an architect which Mr. Peace
has retained for this project. In the blue up there you see where George Peace
Millwork Company is right now. Now they are presently in a non -conforming usage
in that area. That plant and facility has been in that location for over 50 years
and George Peace Millwork Company since 1923, George Peace Millwork Company took
over those buildings and have been in that location ever since. George now finds
himself in a position where if he like any other business wants to grow he has
got to find some way to be able to grow. The community I think you'll find is
36 JUL 21197h
MU -Oh in support of this application because George has been a good neighbor in
that community and has employed many of his personnel from that area. We have
representatives of the community here who are actually taking their time and
enetgy and effort to come here and support this application. As far as the archi
tectural elements intruding into this area, we will do everything we can and Mr.
Peace has charged me with the obligation of making sure that that intrusion if
it is any'is the least possible intrusion into the neighborhood.
Mayor Ferre: All right, questions from the commission.
Mrs. Gordon: First I'd like to know if anyone is here in objection.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any objectors present? All right.
Mrs. Gordon: Certainly I don't want to stop development but I do want to stop
encroachment of commercial into residential areas and I'm opposed to this appli-
cation because it begins an intrusion into a residential neighborhood. If, in
fact, this application should be granted then the entire area should be studied
to see if it is ready for a change of zoning but not in the manner that's out-
lined here and not on a piece -meal basis and certainly not even though you're in
a non -conforming use, that's exactly what you are a non -conforming use to be
phased out. I'm opposed to this change as you're applying for it.
Mayor Ferre:
Rev. Gibson:
might just as
possibility.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fosmoen, have you considered the area from the standpoint of
possible change or any indication of change that would warrant changing zoning
from a residential to commercial?
All right, other members of the commission? Further questions?
Mr. Mayor, I would think that in view of what Mrs. Gordon said we
well give this matter back to the staff and let them explore that
Mr. Fosmoen: We don't see any basis for undertaking a major rezoning study in
that area. The character of the neighborhood is obvious. There is a major street
with commercial zoning, you know the difficulty is that the individual is working
in the community, the community supperts this rezoning.
Rev. Gibson: I move that this matter be sent back for study.
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion on the floor that this item be sent
back to staff for study of the neighborhood to see if there is any need to change
the neighborhood from a residential community to C-5. Is there a second?
Mr. Reboso: Mr. Mayor, before you call the vote I see Mr. Menendez and Mr. Fred
Santiago here. They are from the neighborhood. Can we hear from them?
Mayor Ferre: Well, let's see if we have a second on this motion and then we'll
recognize the neighborhood for discussion. Is there a second for the motion?
Mr. Plummer: For the purpose of hearing them, yes.
Mr. Fred Santiago: My name is Fred Santiago, I'm from the Wynwood community. I'm
a member cf the Borinquen Health Care Center and I'm also one of the single most
or the largest property owner in the Wynwood community and I'm also involved very
much with the Synwood community itself. One of our main objectives is to be able
to keep the present employers or companies that we've got in the community, to
keep them there and to allow these to grow so that they could hire more individuals
from our community. Mr. Peace has promised us that he will hire people that live
in the immediate community to work in his plant thew•(: and also he has promised to
bring his present building, to remodel it or to repo:int it and make it a nice look-
ing building and I believe that the whole Wynwood community, you know we made a
research there and we talked with -lust about all of the other property owners and
they are 100% for approval of this zoning change. Now you have to take into con-
sideration that these wo vacant, that these parcels that we are asking zoning for
are vacant properties and these properties have been vacant ever since this world
was created and there ':asr.'t been any construction. There has never been any con-
struction there so let's allow somebody to utilize the land and let's not leave
it there vacant for the rest of eternity. I don't think there is anyone here or
anyone that I know that is willing to invest the money to build a residential house
right next door to a commercial building. I think Mr. George Peace should be
allowed to construct a r.uilding there.
37 L 211977
Mrs: Gordon: I would like to ask the applicant if he's searched the entire Wynwood
area for a commercially zoned piece of property where he could construct the build-
ing.
Mr. Peace: Due to the type of business that we have it has to be ih at area where
it is easily accessible to the business that we have.
Mayor Ferre: That wasn't the question though.
Mr. Peace: I understand this. I have not searched, there is, you know t don't
know but if there was I could not afford to move... I'm trying to expand my bus-
iness. If you notice the first two lots only are being rezoned, I own all three
lots. I'm leaving the buffer zone on the third lot.
Mrs. Gordon: That wasn't my question.
Mr. Peace: I understand this.
Mrs. Gordon: The question was have you tried to find available commercially zoned
property to construct your new plant?
Mr. Peace: No, I have not because it would not be feasible.
Mrs. Gordon: Why not?
Mr. Peace: Because I am right now, if you'll notice I'm in an area right there.
If I had to move down to say 29th Street I could not afford to build a building
there, I would have to go out into a different location.
Mrs. Gordon: Why wouldn't you be able to?
Mr. Peace: Because the type of operation I run I have to be there to supervise
it. I have to be able to watch all of my employees so that I know that things
are going out right and if I have two shops in different locations I can't afford
this.
Mrs. Gordon: You're not closing the one you're in and moving into a new one?
Mr. Peace: No, I'm trying to expand to employ more employees and do more, hire
more from the neighborhood and so forth.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Mendez.
Mr. Mendez: The question was not addressed to me but I will try to collaborate
to it. We are looking right now for scattered sites to build public housing in
the Wynwood area and it has been most difficult to find those sites. Now going
back to the original situation, we have in Wvnwood today one of the most indust-
rialized areas in Dade County in the City of Miami. Unfortunately not everyone
of those individuals that own thus, factories in the Wvnwood area go to the com-
munity advisory council and plan their staff and their development together with
the community. Unfortunately this never happens. Fortunately, Mr. Peace has
taken his time from the very beginning, not when he came down here to present his
application, but he went to the community task force and presented us with the
idea and this was something that was discussed in a community public meeting. It
was something that was brought up on the agenda of the community public meeting
and we at the community level accepted it. Ladies and gentlemen, let me say this
to you that if we can't get in the Wynwood community fifteen, and I can assure
you that we've got over a hundred, fifteen industrialists, fifteen factory owners
that feel the same thing that Mr. Peace feels about that particular community we
would have Mr. Mayor and commissioners, a place where we can employ the unemployed
and we will have to go to the need of community action agency, Community Develop-
ment or any other project that you can think of because the name of the game is
employment and this is what he is providing.
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask you a question? The property just east of your property,
what is on that corner? Where you're operating now, is it vacant, improved, what
is on the corner?
Mr. Peace: It's all commercial on that corner.
Mrs. Gordon: And is occupied, ok.
i . Peace; It's all commercial establishments and sc
j.tes.
ate night fActorgig €a -
38 JUL 211977
•
Mts, Gotdon: Mtn Mendez, if you know that the property in question now is a suit-
able public housing site, it's zoned R-2 but it has a transitional use because it
&butts on its side line to commercial property.
Mt. Mendez: Well you see, Rose, that's not the problem. I'm sorry, Madame Com-
missioner, that's not the problem. The problem is not that. The problem is that
Wynwood is a low density area. Besides being a low density area it is one of the
most industrialized areas today and what I'm saying to you is that as you go
around the Wynwood community you will find many hundreds of people unemployed to-
day and this is a source of employment for that particular community. That's the
way I look at it.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Mendez, I think the answer as I see it is this. Mr. Grassie
and Mr. Fosmoen, this area is zoned now R-2 and it is, therefore, a residential
area. However, it is a dying and decaying residential area. Now, therefore, it
seems to me that it would behoove and it would be in the best interest of the
city for us to study this area to see if we can extend the industrial, or the
commercial, excuse me, aspects of it; instead of doing is piece -meal on one lot
to make a survey of it. The reason is this: We all know that
this is basically
an area where people live in the low economic sector. I think modern planning
and sociology and anthropoligical studies have shown that the best way to develop
communities is as full communities where people can work, play, study and live
within a relatively close distance. It may be that there is not sufficient space
and, therefore, that's why the prices in the C-5 sector are so high and if we were
to create more C-5 it might perhaps then permit people such as Mr. Peace to go
ahead and build his cabinet shop or his iron welding shop and, therefore, employ
people in that neighborhood. So I think I would subscribe to Father Gibson's
position. I also agree with Rose Gordon's position as she stated it and I think
the best thing is to restudy this thing and see if we can find a solution for it
rather than to go on the piece -meal spot zoning basis. Is there further discuss-
ion on this item by the commission? If not, call the roll, please.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 77-599
A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF
ZONING FROM R-2 TO C-5 AT 25 N.W. 34 STREET AND INSTRUCTING
THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO STUDY
THIS ENTIRE AREA FOR POSSIBLE ZONING CHANGES AND SURVEYS OF
COMMERCIAL AREA.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed an
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Rev. Gibson, Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre.
NOES: Mr. Reboso.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Reboso: I'm going to vote no because I think the community has been
asked, they have been before the Community Development Task Force, people from
the community are here speaking for the same reasons that the Mayor stated, I
vote no.
Mayor Ferre: I vote yes and I would hope that the Manager would expedite
this so that these people if we are going to give them relief would have it soon
and I would recommend to you, sir, that you look around the neighborhood now and
see if you can find a properly zoned area across the street, for example, that
you might be able to afford to expand in. If you cannot do that then hopefully
it will find a solution but not on a one shot basis. I want to say that I've
been a member of this commission either as Mayor or as a commissioner going on
eight years and I have not yet once voted on a spot zoning and I certainly, I
understand what you're saying, I sympathize completely, I'm in total agreement
but I cannot, I have to go along with the majority of this commission and their
feeling and I hope we'll find a solution for you. I vote yes with the motion.
39
C17 7
tra
ti
101 DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE BY ALLOWING NIGHT"
CLUBS AS A PERMITTED USE IN CERTAIN HOTELS AND MOTELS IN KB, RtC411 AND •
C-1 DISTRICTS.
Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item #4.
Mr. Robert Davis: Mr. Mayor, this item was deferred at your meeting of it1he 16th
for additional information, also to make sure that the owners and managers of the
Sheraton Four Ambassadors were notified. They were notified by certified mail
and the Planning Department has a restudy of the item, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, is there anybody here to present a position?
Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor, we have here the attorney of the Four Ambassadors
and I have been in conversation with him this morning and both the attorney and
the department would like to request a deferral of this item. We believe there
is an opportunity to solve the immediate problem and would like that opportunity.
Thereupon a motion to defer consideration of this item at this time was
introduced by Rev. Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Plummer and passed by a
unanimous vote.
11, FIRST READING ORDINANCE: INCLUDE 'ESCORT SERVICES' WITHIN DEFINITION OF
"ADULT EYTERTAINMENT" USES.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE
,ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI► BY INCLUDING ESCORT
SERVICES WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS OF AND REGULATIONS FOR ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT USES, BY RENUMBERING THE EXISTING DEFINITION
OF "FAIRWAY" FROM SUBSECTION (26A) TO SUBSECTION (26-3) AND
PROVIDING A NEW DEFINITION (26-A) - ESCORT SERVICE - WITHIN
SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS; AND BY ADDING ESCORT
SERVICE TO THE USES ENUMERATED IN SECTION 44 OF ARTICLE IV -
GENERAL PROVISIONS; AND BY ADDING ESCORT SERVICE TO THE USES
ENUMERATED IN PARAGRAPH (35-A) OF SECTION 1, ARTICLE XVI -
GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-4 DISTRICT; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING
A SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Reboso
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
0
JUL 211977
1
12. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ZONING CRDINANCE TO ALLOW 'PROFESSIONAL
OFFICES WITHIN R-5 DISTRICTS AS CONDITIONAL
-- USE.
:sayer t+erte: Are there any objectors at this point?
M. Davis: This was before the commission some time back, referred
by forthis cortheY
Mission back to the Planning Department and Planning Advid sory
Board s it to ffuor in its
study. It was revised and the Planning Advisory
present condition.
Mayor Ferre: All right, and I assume that so does the department.
Mr. whipple: Yes, sir.
Mr. Reboso: Let me ask a question. How many lots are affected by this?
Mr. Whipple: As the Commission may remember we were discussing the R-5 zoning
district and one of the questions that the commission raised was the provision
we had in the previous recommendation which limited this development to major
and secondary arterials. We have reconsidered that and studied that and we have
eliminated that provision and by virtue of the fact that the use is a Conditional
Use we feel that that type of consideration can be done at that time without hav-
ing the restriction written into the provisions. Number two was some people sug-
gested that they wanted to locate a law office in an existing facility, we have
amended or suggested an amendment to our previous recommendation which would
allow up to 50% of the floor area to be utilized on structures that are one or
two stories.
Mr. Plummer: Dick, there was also some question about security in these places,
that people were paying extremely high rents to get good security and if they put
office buildings in there it somewhat eliminates the security. What was addressed
to that problem?
Mr. Whipple: We did not address that anymore than the way it was written before
which specified that the office and the residential portions had to have separ-
ated access. In other words you could not have an elevator serving half a floor
of office and half a floor of residential, it would have to be provided a separate
access point either by limiting elevator service or something of that nature, and,
of course, our position is that this is a matter of the residents and the managers
especially with respect to condominiums and condominium developments.
NOTE: Mayor Ferre handed the gavel to Vice -Mayor Rev. Gibson.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE S
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY ADDING A
SECTION (5) TO ARTICLE I��e�T�R�TICLESX,SECTION
HIGH DENSITY
AND BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH
MULTIPLE R-5 DISTRICT, SECTION 1, SUB -SECTION (6) TO ALLOW
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES WITHIN THE R-5 DISTRICT, UPON CONDIT-
IONAL USE APPROVAL: BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECT-
IONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERAB-
ILITY PROV*_SION.
Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Mayor Ferre
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Mayor Ferre and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: Mr. Plummer.
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the record and stated that copies
had been furnished to the commissioners and that copies were available to the
public.
41„
JUL 211971
Mr-
1
B. UPHOLD ZONING BOARDS DECISION TO GRANT VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 4298 S.W, 6TH STREET AND WAIVING REPLATTING REQUIRE"
MENTS,
Mayor Ferre: Are there any objectors present? All right ma'am. First of all,
perhaps we should hear from the applicant and then we'll hear from the objectors.
Thank you. Your name for the record.
Mr. Francisco Del Castillo: My name is Francisco Del Castillo. I live at 850
S.W. 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida and I'm a resident of Miami. The Planning and
Zoning Board recommended the approval of the variance, the Miami Zoning Board
adopted the resolution by a vote of 7-0. I just ask you members of the commiss-
ion to support this body. That is all I have to say right now.
Yolanda Menendez: Yolanda Menendez, 4289 S.W. 7th Street. We were opposed to Mr.
Castillo being granted permission to build on that site because it is a very small
site and when you buy into a subdivision and there are minimum requirements to a
lot you expect them to remain. There are other people with smaller lots also or
smaller pieces of land are left unoccupied on their own property that wish to do
the same thing, to build on less than one lot. This obviously brings down the
value of the property when you start putting houses where the tendancy is to
make bigger lots or platting of larger lots to bring in a house on a very small
piece of land of less than a lot. In other words we feel as owners of the prop-
erty right next to it that it would bring down the value of the property because
it is such a small piece of land on which to build. It's a corner lot also which
makes the easement even greater on one side.
Mr. Plummer: Well, what would you have him do with it?
Mrs. Menendez: Well, the thing is that he recently bought it, he bought it know-
ing that it was not a complete lot. I am willing to, we have the property right
in back of it and I have said that yes, he does not need to feel stuck with the
property, I will purchase it from him. I am willing to go ahead and invest in it
just to, I have two children. I can make it into something like a playground for
my children or something like that rather than have, as opposed to having .
We feel that, Mr. Del Castillo is a realtor... This is something that, how can
I explain it, that he would be looking into this as an investment and we want to
keep the neighborhood status quo.
Mayor Ferre: Look, we sympathize ... I'm sorry, go ahead.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. The question is to the department, how many
square feet are in the site that we are discussing?
Mr. Whipple: I believe around 4100, Commissioner, if you'll give me a second.
Mrs. Gordon: Is it a platted lot?
Mr. Whipple: No, this is a remainder of a portion of a lot. There was evidently
some deeding off or selling off at one time leaving this parcel. The only way
it could be utilized legally is to go through the platting process and they do
not meet the required size so they are requesting the waiver of the platting
process for the size lot.
Mrs. Gordon: Your department is recommending approval?
Mr. Whipple: We recommend approval based upon the fact that a structure has been
proposed that would meet all the setbacks not withstanding the size of the lot.
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, I know that some of you have been here since
noon and we're going to try to move as quickly as possible on the 3:00 O'Clock
agenda that most of you are here on and I will just make a ruling right now that
no matter what, on the other hand, these items were on the agenda before, we're
going to try to move as quickly as possible. If we don't conclude by 3:30 then
we will take up the 3 O'Clock agenda by 3:00 so we will be only a half an hour
late. I hope we can move that quickly now. All right.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Whipple, the variance request then is to which degree, to the
replattirg or what? Mr. Fosmoen, somebody answer it.
M. Fosmoen: It' s in the lot size, commissioner, to the size of the lot,
42
Ms, Gordon: That'S all you're asking of us? And we are not varying the set-
backs in any way at all?
Mr. Fosmoen: No, we're not Varying the setbacks on the structure-, its to the
size of the lot and the platting process.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok.
Mayor Ferre: All right, what is the will of this commission on this item?
Mrs. Gordon: There are a couple more people want to speak.
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion by Commissioner Plummer to uphold the
Zoning Board. Is there a second?
Mrs. Gordon: I'll second it but I just wanted to know whether the people stand-
ing at the microphone still wanted to be heard.
Mr. Del Castillo: Yes. Mrs. Gordon, she said as I realtor I want it for an in-
vestment. I told the commission ... that I want this for my living house...
Mrs. Gordon: You're not an objector, right?
Mr. Del Castillo: No.
Mayor Ferre: Are you objecting to this? ... Further discussion on this item?
Call the roll, please.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-600
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S GRANT OF VARIANCE
FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT 19 LESS S24',
BLOCK 2; TRAJUNE PARK (14-12), BEING APPROXIMATELY 4298 S.W.
6TH STREET, AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WAIVING REPLATTING REQUIRE-
MENTS; 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 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.
Mayor Ferre:While I sympathize with your concern and I understand completely what
you're saying, we live by rules and regulations. This matter has been taken by
the department and the department recommends that it is within the purview of
reason that a house could be built on that lot. It was then taken to the Zoning
Board and the Zoning Board granted it 7 votes in favor and 0 in opposition.
Therefore, I think based on those recommendations I would have to vote with the
majority. So thank you very much.
JUL 211977
14 i DENIAL OF APPEAL FOR PERM I SS TON TO CONSTRUCT A 14Y NURSERY AT
I84 TAMIAMI CANAL Rom.
Manor Ferre: Are the applicants here? You're the applicant. All right. How Many
objectors would like to speak? Please let me say to those of you that are objectors
that sometimes quantity does not in any way enhance or add to the argument, some-
times it lowers the strength so if you have spokesmen that are good clear speakers
that can speak to the logic of it I think you're much better off sometimes by hav-
ing less than more speakers. 0n the other hand I don't want to deny you your
right to speak. That's a decision you'll have to make but with that admonishment
let me now see many people would like to be spokesmen. Raise your hands. I see
5 speakers. All right, I would like to ask the speakers to limit, do any of you
need to speak more than two minutes? Can you cover what you have to say in two
minutes? Mr. Simpson, I've heard you speak many times right to the point so I'm
sure two minutes will do. And I would like to ask for you not to repeat what some-
body else has said, please. All right, we will let the applicant speak first and
then we will hear the objectors. All right, sir.
Mr. Jose Ramos: Mi nombre Jose Ramos.
Mayor Ferre: Who is going to translate now? ... All right, Mr. 0rfelio Ramos
because he does not speak English would like for this gentleman to speak for him.
Mr. Eddie Gonzalez: My name is Eddie Gonzalez. I live at 9940 N.W. 37th Street.
Before I start I would like to introduce 20 waivers from the 375' radius.
Mayor Ferre: How much time are you going to need to speak?
Mr. Gonzalez: A little while.
Mayor Ferre: Five minutes?
Mr. Gonzalez: It might be a little lodger because I would like to rebutt Mr.
Simpson.
Mayor Ferre:
I'm going to
Mr. Gonzalez:
six speakrers
I will give you rebuttal time but I will give you five minutes and
try to keep it even on both sides. You've got five minutes.
Well, that won't be even I think, Mayor, if they've got five or
Mayor Ferre: Well sir, the chair has the right to determine time. Under the
Charter I can give you five minutes. Now, I'm going to give the other, if they
force me I would have to give them each five minutes but out of fairness I'm going
to limit them to two minutes and I will give you the difference in time for re-
buttal.
Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you very much. There are 20 waivers in the 375' radium,
I've got in here 14 that they are out of the 375' radius and I've got 27 of the
mothers of the children who go there, they signed waivers that they plead to let
this guy have his day nursery in this location and ... signatures from the tenants
of the building at 6820, 25 and 75 West Flagler Street. Mr. Mayor and City Com-
missioners, this gentleman came to the last hearing with no help whatsoever. He
didn't present any plans, he didn't have the chance to talk to the neighbors be-
cause he was ill. I don't know if you read the minutes of the hearing. I believe
that some of the things that were said in that hearing because of his lack of
understanding of the English language and his lack of knowledge of the zoning
laws, etc. he could not defend himself. He asked for a deferral because he was
sick just prior to the hearing and he was denied the deferral. Now he just came
to me four days ago and asked me if I could please help him because he had a big
congretation against him. One of the reasons was somebody, and I believe that
that will be reflected, I'm not trying to accuse that particular person but some-
body misinterpreted the law and insinuated that if they are given the conditional
use that will make an open place for business zoning after that was approved. I
think that was a wrong assumption and this is why a lot of the neighbors voted
against him. He didn't really have the chance to talk to the neighbors, explain
to him and show him plans or anything like that. He didn't know that's what the
applicant was supposed to do. So right now I think that the best way, as you
said, I will let the opposition talk so I can rebut the points.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the opponents are over here I see. Mr. Simpson, I think
we'll start off with you and I think you'll set a good pace of high quality Argu-
ments,
JUL 211977
Mt3 David Simpson: Mt. Mayor and members of the commission, my name is David
Simpson. I live at 121 N.W. 68th Court which is just around the corner froth
the subject property which is located on the southeast corner -of 68th Avenue and
Pataiami Canal Road. First of all, let me rebut his statement of request for
deferral at the Zoning Board level and again today. I don't think there is any
doubt in the minds of the people in the area, they understand this is not a change
of zoning. They understand the conditions necessary for this commission or the
board to approve a change of zoning.So with that out of the way I would like to
state that at this busy intersection since the origincl development of this area
Tamiami Canal Road has been used as a relief for the Flagler Street traffic es-
pecially to and from the airport. They use 68th Avenue, they used 68th Court,
they use 69th Avenue. Since the area was annexed into the City of Miami in 1945
the property has been zoned R-1 and during the period of 1949 and 1950 it was
fully 100% developed into single family homes. Zoning wise this is probably one
of the cleanest areas in the City of Miami. In the 27 years that I have lived
in this location this is only the third notice of zoning..public hearing that we've
ever received and the other two involved business frontage along Flagler Street.
It doesn't directly relate to the approval or disapproval of this application but
it is interesting to note that the applicant presently owns property and is
operating a day nursery at 81 Grand Canal Road which is just outside the city
limits and adjacent to the south of the Flagler Street business frontage. I have
a few pictures here that I'd like to pass around to the commission.
Mayor Ferre: Dave, why don't you wind it up now because we've got other...
Mr. Simpson: I'll take their time if need be. Visualize, if you will, the sub-
ject property after it has been subjected to this type of use. Undoubtedly when
the county originally approved the nursery at the location that you're looking
at they required all three lots to be tied into this use. Now based upon the
applicant's statement for the record at the Zoning Board Meeting, he now wishes
to either buy or build on those three lots and then bring this use into our neigh-
borhood. He reflects in the file that he wants to bring 40 children into this
neighborhood along with the instructors. Visualize, if you will, the condition
of the lawn and the house and the traffic congestion at this busy intersection.
No one is opposed to children but it is different watching the children in your
neighborhood grow up rather than having 40 in a day nursery next to you and as
they grow older they are replaced by other children. So we find ourselves in a
position of looking forward to living next door to a day nursery with maybe 35
or 40 children every day for the rest of our lives. ....
Mayor Ferre: Dave, I hate to do this to you.
Mr. Simpson: I know that, Mr. Mayor, but I think it is most important. Alright,
let me get back to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and it's very brief.
Mayor Ferre: I don't want to cut you short but you see we have a couple hundred
people that are waiting here on another.
Mr. Simpson: They were here a lot earlier than we were and took all the seats,
we've been standing all the time, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Ok.
Mr. Simpson: The Zoning Ordinance does put this use in a Conditional Use category
in the R-1 District but it also puts safeguards, certain things that this commis-
sion must find prior to the granting of such an application - ingress and egress
for both automotive and pedestrian traffic, I've already talked on this. These
children will be loading and unloading at the peak traffic time, airport traffic
time at this location. Off -Street parking there is none except the driveway and
a normal carport; very important utilities, this commission must find that there
are adequate utilities. We're still on septic tanks, Mr. Mayor and members of
the commission, that were designed for the single family home with normal occup-
ancy. And then you must find that it is generally compatible to the area and re-
gardless to whatever map and signatures he's received this is the file. So con-
sidering all these points, it would be difficult to make a finding for anything
but deferral. We respectfully request that you uphold the unanimous decision of
the Zoning Board and deny it.
Mayor Ferre: All right. Now, do any of you feel that it is necessary to add
,anything to that very thorough presentation without being repetitious?
Mrs, Sarah Roberts: My name is Sarah Roberts. I live at 5830 Tamiami Canal Road
and I would like to speak on this matter from a different point of view. I ;:.m a
45
•
fott1er school teacher and I know what a nursery school needs and as far as I'm con-
cerned this house is not adequate. This is a project house; all of the rooms are
Very tiny, a very small kitchen, a very small dinette. Now you need large play
areas in a nursery school where the children can march and sing and dance. You
need areas where they can be fed because these children will be delivered early
in the morning and they will stay there all day long. They have to be fed lunch.
You need a place where these children can nap in the afternoon.
Mayor Ferre: Ma'am, I think you've made some very good arguments and why don't
you wind it up so we can give them a chance to rebut and then we're going to bring
it to a vote I think.
Mrs. Roberts: I would like to bring up one other matter. At the Zoning hearing
it was not understood whether there would be a family occupying this house and
so two of the members of the Zoning Board questioned the owner very carefully in
Spanish to resolve this point and he admitted that there was going to be a family
living there which would make much closer quarters. Now on Tuesday this man came
to my house and asked me to agree to his using the house for the nursery school
and at that time they tole me that no family would be living in the house, that
it was just going to be used exclusively as a nursery school. Well, in this case
it is just going to be used as a business but I'll bet you come January there
will be a request in for a whole new set of exemptions for this house.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Now we'll give you some time for rebuttal.
Mr. Gonzalez: Ok. Thank you, Mayor. Ok, with Mr. Simpson, and I quote from the
minutes of the hearing, "I don't think there is any question that any approval
of this will change the zoning in the area." I'm quoting from the minutes. Then
he said that we should consider the ingress and egress of automobiles and pedest-
rians. (1) It will be built a circle driveway and he has enough land to put three
parking spaces that will be more than over what he actually needs. (2) Most of
these kids right now and all over the Miami area, they have been driving there
by buses, small school buses where they take 10 or 15 kids. They pick them up at
the house. In the list that I gave before it shows that so many people bring the
kids all the way from lllth avenue S.W. 6th Street and it's on record. Being the
point of the circle driveway, it will no loading or unloading on the street. It
will be inside the property so there won't be any traffic backed up. He talks
about 68, 68th Court, 69th Avenue, how about 67th Avenue what's got a light on
Flagler Street so it will be no bottle neck? I think nobody wants really to take
a left turn where there's no light. Ok. Now, on her view of the size of the
house, she stated, Mrs. Roberts that most of these houses are built one single
plan, either two bedroom or one bedroom house. That house has right now four
bedrooms and t a baths. If you see up there the size of the lot it is the biggest
lot next to lot 9 on the whole area. They've got plenty of room to play and be-
sides that they have to bring this house into remodeling inside to bring it to
Code to be able to open. It was approved that way by the department that they
have to bring plans. He didn't know otherwise and he didn't know me at the time
otherwise I would have drawn the plans for him .... Another thing I want to show,
that from that hearing to this hearing, I can show you in here, the green areas
show the people in favor, the red areas the people against it. Ok? It has changed
quite a bit. Now, this is where Mr. Simpson lives. The playground will be built
in 68th Avenue so the people will come to Flagler Street most likely and go up
68th Avenue, go in deliver the kids and come up and go down N.W. 67th to take the
left at the light to keep on going downtown where they usually work. This is why
they bring them over here. The location is better and they're asking please to
let us do it in there. Another thing is that in the last hearing there was another
person who said that the kids will run in the street. Have you seen a five year
old kid, baby actually jumping a five foot fence, going into the street - a five
foot fence - going across the street, jumping another fence, going across there
and then going to a lake? I mean they're going to be watched. There is going
to be three people. .... they don't play at one time, when one is taking the
nap another is playing outside. When one is eating the other ones are doing some-
thing else. This property according to the Planning Department is enough to sup-
port 75 kids.
Mayor Ferre: Look, all of these things have been said before and are a part of
the record.
Mr. Gonzalez: Well, it's a part of the record...
Mrs. Gordon: You applied to the state for a license for this operation? Does it
meet the state's requirements?
Mr. Gonzalez: It will meet the state requirement because they're going to do it.
This is the only way they can do it but, of course, we have to get the variance
46 JUL 21197:
for the use so we can then start doing the work. This man, I'm sorry that I
interrupt you but this man put $4,000 down on that house when he put the con-
tract with no clause that he could back out of the contract if he would not get
the zoning. Then what I'm trying to say from the start is that the first time
when he went to the Zoning Appeals Board and he tried to get a deferral so he
prepare the case because he was sick they didn't pay any attention. There was
oof to them. I mean that is completely wrong. The man had the right, he had
the right to have a deferral so he could present his case to the neighborhood
and with that misstatement by Mrs. that the place would become com-
mercial because of that, that is completely wrong. That was misleading and it
got to the point where it is now.
Mayor Ferre: All right, now you've now taken equal time at this point so at
this point I'd like to see what the will of the commission is. Is there anybody
who wants to make a motion or ask questions?
Mr. Plummer; Mr. Mayor, the reason we put this as a Conditional Use is for the
discretion of the commission to hear what the neighborhood has to feel about this
particular issue whenever it's a Conditional Use. There is no question in my
mind that this established neighborhood which it is should remain such and I move
to deny.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-601
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO.
6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1(6)(j), TO PERMIT OPERATION OF
A DAY NURSERY ON LOT 11, BLOCK 3, PRINCESS PARK MANOR
(60-18), BEING 6784 TAMIAMI CANAL ROAD; 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 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.
15. DISCUSSION ITE: APPEARANCE OF SEVERAL PERSONS REGARDING REMOVAL OF
ROOF SIGNS BY OCTOBER 19, 1977.
'"or Ferree ''c'•' apntlemen, Col. Mitchell Wolfson has been very pat-
iently waiting here for about three hours. Col. Wolfson, if you would step for-
ward, and this will be the last item that we're going to take up before we go
into the C.T.A., I'm sorry, U.T.D. application - that shows you how far behind
the times I am. I would like very much, ladies and gentlemen, Col. Wolfson is a
man who has served this community with great distinction over the years, he's a
former Mayor of the City of Miami Beach and he is certainly an outstanding civic
leader and I would be very grateful if you would all be courteous to him and listen
to him. I might say that this matter was before the commission before this time
and Col. Wolfson sent a letter asking that the commission defer final action until
he could get back from the west coast and address the commission on the matter.
Col. Mitchell Wolfson: Mayor Ferre, members of the commission, first I'd like to
advise the commission that neither our company, Wometco Enterprises nor I person-
ally have any roof signs which would violate the provisions of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance. Further and however, as a concerned citizen we in Dade County
have the attitude too often of hurting business, of restricting business and par-
ticularly of not permitting business to operate and make a profit because of
someone's idea of beauty cr environment which certainly I believe that everything
I've ever done in the community has been to improve the environment and improve
the beauty of the city. I urge you to either repeal this ordinance or renew it
for an additional ten years. The reason I am making this advocation is because
I am of the opinion as a concerned citizen that these roof signs when located in
a commercial area do not harm the environment. They are as legitimate a business
as the signs which are located on the ground level in a commercial area. One of
47 JUL 211977
0
the objections in the past has been that in case of a hurricane the panels would
blow away and cause considerable damage. The roof signs today are so constructed
for economic reasons if for no other that the panels are removed in case of a
hurricane warning both for the protection of the sign owners property and public
safety. The major objection to these roof signs have come from competing media.
We are certainly in a competing media with Channel 4 but we have no objection to
roof signs in commercial areas, competition is good. And I believe the law pro-
vides that the city would have to pay the sign companies for the removal of these
signs under the federal act which was endorsed and promoted by Lady Bird Johnson,
widow to the late President Johnson. Many businessmen especially businesses who
need this type of media need this form of advertising to help their business to
promote their goods and services. We are in the sign business, we had roof signs
when we did, but they were only commercial areas. I think this policy is best
for the community and the City of Miami and I urge you to repeal this ordinance
or grant a ten year extension so that the sign people can recover the cost of
their investment without the city having to come up with the necessary funds to
pay for the removal of these signs. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: A11 right, thank you, Col. Wolfson. Mr. Feito of the South Florida
Chapter of A.I.A.
Mr. Jose Feito: Mr. Mayor and commissioners, my name is Jose Fei*3. I am the
President of the Florida South Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
I want to read this resolution by our Chapter: Mayor Ferre and Commissioners,
for many years the Florida South Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
has had a growing concern for the beautiful environment that surrounds us. Dur-
ing this time in concert with the City of Miami many positive steps were taken.
I know you are aware of our joint efforts for tree preservation, urban review
and incentive zoning concepts. Today. we find an opportunity to complete the
work begun 14 years ago on the City's sign ordinance. The architects beginning
in 1963 and ending with the passage of the ordinance in 1965 went along with you
commissioners at that time, many many long hours to see that .... was passed.
And since that time some of our members have appeared in court as professional
witnesses on behalf of the City to object to the visual blight signs. We want
to see the result of those 12 years in waiting take place and take place soon.
Accordingly, the Executive Committee of the Florida South Chapter of the American
Institute of Architects has passed unanimously the following resolution: Whereas
the City of Miami has passed the Sign Ordinance in 1965 for the gradual control
of signs throughout the City; and whereas in good faith the City and its inhabit-
ants have permitted the fair amortization of signs for the past 12 years and
whereas we believe the visual intrusion of signs constitutes a degrading image
of our tropical city and a lessening of the values of Miami as a desirable place
to live and work. Therefore, be it resolved the Florida South Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects urge the City of Miami to proceed with the Sign
Ordinance on its present state, do not extend any amortization period and further
instr.:ct its staff that all efforts be made to immediately implement the ordinance
when such time comes. It is the hope of the architects that we may soon see the
significant visual impact take place that the ordinance originally intended. It
can only make Miami a better place to live." Thank you.
Mr. Gerald Pulver: Mayor and fellow commissioners, my name is Gerald Pulver. I
am here on behalf of the Players State Theatre at the Coconut Grove Playhouse
which has just recently concluded negotiations to purchase the playhouse. The
building is equipped with a roof sign which has been part of that environment for
some 20 odd years to the best of my knowledge. It is the only means by which the
Playhouse is able to advertise its wares and it's the only position that we know
of where it can be announced, the performances that are going on. I know of no
objections by residents in Coconut Grove to the existence of this roof sign on
top of the Playhouse. It has formed a part of that environment for years beyond
memory and would work an economic hardship on the Players State Theatre if the
sign would have to be removed. We've examined it structurally, it appears to be
extremely sound, it does have removable panels as Col. Wolfson iterated and it
would be our intention to follow the procedure of the forcer management which is
remove any of those perils when any windstorm was eminent. I must say that the
Players State Theatre Board heartily endorses the remarks made by Col. Wolfson
and asks that the ordinance either be extended for a period of years or be stricken
from the books or if it is possible for establishments such as the Coconut Grove
Playhouse who uniquely have a need for such a sign be allowed to preserve that
type of sign. Thank you.
Mr. Ted Baker: Members of the Commission, my name is Ted Baker. I'm a landscape
architect and I'm here today to speak at the request of Dan Diamond, the President
of the Florida Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. I'd like
to read some brief excerpts from "Policy on Billboards and Roof Signs" which has
been in force at the national level of the American Society of Landscape Architects
for a number of years. Billboards differ from other forms of advertising in being
thrust upon a captive audience of passersby who cannot escape their even though
they may not read or remember what is on them. They are not merely unsightly but
they are of their nature dangerous for their effectiveness depends on distracting
the attention of passersby. That this danger increases with the number of cars
and their speed is evident. They are especially dangerous at bends in the road
or at intersections and these locations are often preferred by their owners. We
still hesitate to admit that annoyance through the sense of sight even though
accompanied by lowering of one's property values is a grievance recognizable by
law were it not for this inability to see the vital importance of the looks of
things in so many relations of life and the invasion of privacy, billboards and
roof signs could be controlled by every community under the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the police power. The fact that the aesthetic principle
is inherent in zoning under which billboards and roof signs may be controlled and
that this has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States seems to
have little weight. We are now to a greater or lesser extent protected by law
against offenses to all the senses excepting that of site alone. Yet, this is
in many respects more important than the others for ugliness is an offense against
the mind and has a subtle but very important effect on popular education and
happiness. billboards and roof signs are perhaps less necessary, less justifiable
and would be more easily mitigated or suppressed altogether than any of the things
that disfigure our open spaces were it not for the powerful lobbies which contin-
ually fight billboard and roof sign controls. We can only hope that as time goes
on it will become clearer to the state legislatures and the courts and this com-
mission which can control billboards and roof signs under the police power that
private enterprise has no right to inflict what it pleases upon the vision of the
community nor to expect the community long to endure it. Thank you.
Mr. Lester Pancoast: Mr. Mayor and commissioners, I'm Lester Pancoast, an archi-
tect in the City of Miami. With full respect to Col. Wolfson, there are a great
many of us who feel that too often in the City of Miami commercial permissiveness
has been allowed tc damage the fate of Miami to not help her but hinder this place
as a desirable destination for people to come. A great many people want to come
to Miami but it has unfortunately not a very sophisticated image. A lot of that
isn't Miami's fault. It is true that much of Miami was built in 1926 in a great
hurry. We had to hurry because we had to finish before the hurricane of that
year but it was all done and rapidly and unfortunately much of it cheaply. Now
why are these signs no longer appropriate? Were they, in fact, appropriate in
the first place? These are good questions for us to be asking ourselves as we
consider this ordinance. I have been invited to be a member of the new Coconut
Grove Players Theatre Board but I do feel that a theatre is probably the most
appropriate place for a rocf sign but that that roof sign ought to come off of
that theatre. I think it is time that we in Coconut Grove joined a more sophis-
ticated image as well. I think that you're heard pragmatic reasonings on this
subject before and I don't need to repeat them again but I wanted to say these
thoughts in response to Col. Wolfson's message. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Are there any other members of the public?
Mr. Reed.
Mr. George Reed: I'm George Reed, I'm an architect in Coconut Grove. Mr. Mayor,
I would sure hate to be here 10 years today and have to go through this one more
time because, in fact, I was here 14 years ago today. I was here in 1963, 1964
and 1965 when the City Commission hammered out in agreement with the sign people
that are today objecting the very ordinance which we are discussing extending
forever. We have seen this sign ordinance meet all of the tests of the court
and we've seen it go all the way to the Supreme Court and the City of Miami has
been upheld. We have demonstrated an extreme fairness to the sign people and a
fairness to the citizens to get on with it too. Ten years were extended now till
twelve. Still today we see objection by the sign people in taking down the vis-
ual intrusions, the eye catching view filling sky blocking traffic flow hazards
that exist throughout our community. I find this aesthetically objectionable.
There are many other commercial media for the merchants. I think Miami would be
a better place to live, a better place to work, a better place to travel and I
believe this commission is dedicated to those things. They should be working and
I believe they are working for the community, for its citizens who want to live
here. It should be amore desirable place to visit, a more desirable place for
people to ccme to. It is a matter of values for this community. I think we
should ask ourselves are we to be known for our sunlight sparkle, for our trees,
for our water, for our cleanliness or to be known for the ability to put a bill-
board on every empty corner with a shout message. There has been ample time. I
think t quite obvious that any businessman including even the sign people know-
ing that the amortization period was ten years has already amortized every sign
49 JUL 211977
1111111•1
1111
Welts talking about today. From here on in it's greed and profit the way I see
it. It's a disregard of the inhabitants, the very inhabitants expected to buy
the Message on those signs. It's unfair to the citizens who in good faith entered
this 10 and 12 year amortization contract and now are being expected to give more
than maybe even their lifetime.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much, Mr. Reed. Further discussion? All right, any
questions by members of this commission? Col. Wolfson.
Col. Wolfson: Mr. Mayor, commissioners, I would just like to say just one thing
in rebuttal. Everything that I've heard here is really anobjection
befoto billbuoard
oard
signs. That is not the question before you today. The question
is whether or not the signs just because they happen to be attached to the roof
are more ugly or less harmful to the environment than the ones on the ground and
I have proposed to you that since we are not talking about removing all the bill-
boards in the city which would be a tremendous cost to you I can assure you under
the federal laws, that we might as well leave those on the roof as well as those
that are on the ground. That is the only reason why I came here today because
there is no difference between an attractive billboard on a roof than one on the
ground and I think originally the ordinance was drafted because of the panels
blowing away and doing damage to other people which has now been resolved. So I
ask you gentlemen to either eliminate this ordinance until someday you want to
get around to whether or not you want to remove all billboards in the city and
leave the situation as it is presently. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Col. Wolfson. All right, are there any other speakers?
Miss Kitty Roedel: Kitty Roedel, Downtown Development Authority. I'd like to
remind the City Commission that the Board of the Downtown Development Authority
passed a resolution endorsing and supporting the implementation of the City Ordin-
ance.
Mayor Ferre: All right, what is the will of this commission? Mr. Fosmoen.
Mr. Fosmoen: It's not necessary for you to act. If you don't act the provision
of the ordinance will take affect.
Mayor Ferre: All right, then I'll do it in reverse. Does this commission wish
to do anything other than not acting which in effect endorses the position of
the administration and the ordinance as passed? Going once, going twice. All
right, at this time I thank you, Col. Wolfson, ladies and gentlemen.
16, BRIEF DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF APPEAL TO PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE AND
VARIANCE IN CONNECTION WITH A BAR AT 62285 N.W. 7TH AVENUE.
Due to the large number of people in attendance on Item 411 and the lateness of
the hour Item 49 was deferred until July 23th at 8:00 A.M. on motion of Commiss-
ioner Reboso, seconded by Commissioner Plummer by the following vote - AYES: Mr.
Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer and Vice -Mayor Gibson. ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
17, BRIEF DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF: DRIVERS LICENSE FACILITY
(AT CENTRAL SHOPPING PLAZA)
Agenda Item #13 was deferred to the first Planning and Zoning Agenda in
September, being the last item on said agenda on motion made by Commissioner
Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Reboso and passed and adopted by the following
vote - AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Reboso, Mr. Plummer and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
1
i8 LIC HEARING: PERMIT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) AT 1809 BRICKELL
AVENUE (UTD TOWERS), (SEE LABEL No, 20),-
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, I will excuse myself from hearing Item-#11
because I am the immediate adjacent property owner and, therefore, under the law
I have a conflict of interest. There is no way that in full conscience I can say
that what happens on Item 11 would not affect me - for or against since I am the
neighbor I am affected. So it would be against the law, and I have a conflict
as described by the law since the decision will affect me and my family directly
economically. For that reascr I cannot vote or be a part of the procedures. I
hope you understand. I apologize to you. I'd like very much tc vote for this
but I'm afraid that I just cannot.
NOTE: Thereupon Mayor Ferre left the meeting at 4:00 P.M.
Mr. Robert Traurig: Mr. Vice -Mayor and Mrs. Gordon and gentlemen, for the record
my name is Rotert Traurig. I'm an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue
and I represent U.T.D. Towers, Inc. which is the applicant in connection with this
matter. If you would give us a moment, Mr. Vice -Mayor, we would like to put up
exhibits. I'm going to do the best I can to keep the exhibits from obstructing
the view of people in the audience but we would like you to have the opocrtunity
to see what we're talking about.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Traurig, excuse me, sir. The Grapeland Heights, Father have
asked that this item on the hole in the wall be the last item on the agenda.
They're all working people, I think as a matter of courtesy that we should make
the hole in the wall the last item on the agenda.
Vice -Mayor Gibson: Mr. Manager, have the people notified because they're gone
and have them notified that it will be the last item so that nobody would say
you changed the rules on us. Yes.
Mr. Davis: I'll advertise it for 4:00 O'Clock.
Rev. Gibson: Let the record reflect the hole in the wall item will be the last
item on the agenda for the first Zoning Meeting in September. Alright, sir,
proceed.
Mr. Traurig: Thank you. I presume that if I have this behind me it's not really
visible too clearly to Mr. Plummer, I'd better move it. May I presume that we
have four people present? Mr. Reboso is....
Rev. Gibson: He's listening to you.
Mr. Traurig: The applicant before you is United Teachers of Dade. The property
which is the sutject of this hearing is its tract at 1809 Brickell Avenue. What
we're requesting is that you uphold the recommendations to you of both your
Plannirg Department and your Urban Development Review Board as well as your Zon-
ing Board, all of whom have recommended to you that you approve this application
for a Planned Area Development. I would like to point out to you that this is a
Zoning Hearing. There are issues which probably could become the subject of a
discussion at this meeting which are not related to zoning. I would urge upon
you, Mr. Vice -Mayor, that we confine our remarks today to the issue at hand and
that is whether or not the balance of the UTD tract be utilized for the PAD with
the building which we propose to have constructed on it rather than to permit
extraneous issues unrelated to zoning to be heard by this commission. I think
that that would save some time and would keep the record clean. It wouldn't cloud
the record, it wouldn't intrcduce extraneous irrelevant matters into the record
and I think that all of us who are in this room recognize the fact that the media
have reported certain things that are unrelated to zoning, all of which could be
the subject of discussion here and which I suggest to you are not really the proper
subject to be considered by this commission and we hope that you can keep us in
line so that we will limit our remarks to this zoning issue.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir, let me read for the record... (,Thereupon Vice -Mayor
Gibson read the title of the proposed resolution into the record)
Mr. Traurig: Fine, and that's what we're going to address.
Rev, Gibson; Only the U.T.D. Planned Area Development application. All right?
Mr, Zraurig: Yes, sir, You mentioned that that notice from which you read indi-
cates that we're asking for a Planned Area Development for 366 units and it is
51 JUL 211977
on the site which is reflected on this arial photograph from the bay to Brickell
Avenue notthward of the Brickell Place Building to this area which is in green to
the north of us. We presently have one building of 17 stories containing 266
units. It is our proposal that if the PAD be approved that we be permitted to
add an additional building with 11 stories and an additional 100 units for a
total of 366 units. We are in a zone which is R-SA. We are on Brickell Avenue.
You are aware that this commission has granted two PADs on Brickell Avenue, one
to Brickell Place and one to the brickell Bay Clut and they have constructed
massive developments to the credit of Brickell Avenue cn those tracts. I would
call to your attention that they did it as the result of the actions of this com-
mission which approves flc-or area ratios of 2.36 for those buildings and it was
those floor area ratios that permitted sufficient square footage of building to
enable them to construct what they have. I call to your attention that this is
R-5A and that we're asking for a PAD and I think it is very important fcr us to
spend one moment considering what a PAD is, what the legislative intent was as
expressed in your ordinance and what the criteria are for your granting a PAD.
I'll do it very briefly. You say in your ordinance that you can grant a Condit-
ional Use for a Planned Area Development where tracts suitable in location and
character for the uses and .structures proposed are to be planned and developed
as units. Suitability for the PAL: is based upon the character of the surround-
ing development. I say that to you because I would like you to analyze what is
the character of the surrounding development. Our immediate neighbor to the
south is Brickell Place which has been granted a PAD end you can see from this
aerial photograph that its northern -most building is practically opposite the
building which was initially built by UTD or by CIA at that time. So the char-
acter of the neighborhood suggests taht a PAD be permitted. The legislative in-
tent goes on to say that regulations intended to accomplish this are for the pur-
pose of creating an economical and efficient land use and improved level of amen-
ities, appropriate and harmonious variety and physical development, creative de-
sign and a better urban development. And it is the intent of this section to
promote and encourage development in this form where appropriate in location and
character. Now I was not reading the entire legislative intent but I read from
it and I'm suggesting to you that within the guidelines of that legislative in-
tent you have the right, the authority and I believe the duty to grant a PAD
consistent with the actions taken by this commission in granting similar PADs
south of this property on Brickell Avenue. A Planned Area Development, and I
think that this is a very important issue, has to take into consideration a num-
ber of major criteria. One of them is location, the relationship to major trans-
portation facilities and you are aware that we have a bus that stops in front of
our property; the relationship to public utilities, facilities and services and
you are aware that we have all of the urban facilities in this neighborhood;
the physical character of the site and we have a magnificent site with very inten-
sive vegetation on the Brickell Avenue side and the benefit of Biscayne Bay on
the east side. The ordinance which establishes standards then goes on to talk
about minimum area. Now they're going to raise the question as to whether or not
we qualify for the minimum area for a PAD and your ordinance says that we need
three acres and I'm telling you right now that we have 2.97 acres but your ordin-
ance doesn't say that if we don't have 3 acres you can't grant a PAD. Your ordin-
ance says that you have the right to grant a PAD, that the Zoning Board has the
right to grant a variance or overlook or waive the requirements for three acres
provided that all of the other criteria is examined by them and by you would war-
rant the granting of a PAD and it says it very clearly because it says that the
approval of an application for an area less than three acres shall be based on
the areas uniqueness and suitability for a Planned Area Development by virtue of
its historical character, topography, ecological natural or other unusual features
and we have so many unusual features. We have the benefit of one of the major
thoroughfares in Dade County, to wit Brickell Avenue. We have the benefit of
Biscayne Bay. We have the advantage of the transportation and communication fac-
ilities of the area. Furthermore we have the established character of the neigh-
borhood which as I have indicated is a PAD character. So I believe just as you
have provision in your ordinance for deviations from the permitted principle and
accessory uses relating to density, open space, FAR, etc., you have the right to
waive any requirements such as area and we point out to you that we've got a
little bit under 3 acres, we've got 2.97 acres. More than that, we think that
there is an unusual situation which suggests to you that it must be granted be-
cause this commission has established as its policy an obligation to the people
of Dade County to create housing for the elderly and housing for disadvantaged
and housing for other people who need the benefit of public housing facilities
or publically supported facilities. The program under which this property would
be developed is an FRA 202 Section 8 program. We have committed ourselves to
develop under that program and that the program with assistance to the elderly
and it being the announced policy of this commission to facilitate that kind of
development and that's demonstrated by your constant application to governmental
authorities, federal governmental authorities to assist you and Dade County and
Little H.U.A. of Dade County in the creation of these same kind of facilities.
It demonstrates then that you are sensitive to this and in view of the fact that
52
We alteady have a facility which has common space and common facilities available
tot the new residents of this tract to enjoy that you ought to permit them that
opportunity. So we suggest to you that under the guidelines and under the criter-
ia and under the standards of the PAD ordinance you have not only the right but
1 think an established policy of approval of this kind of an application. But
this kind of an application is not a common application in Dade County and you've
established an Urban Development Review Board to study whether or not the amenit-
ies that ought to be provided in this kind of a project are, in fact, provided.
I suggest to you that that board composed of outstanding architects and land
planners has given you its mandate, not mandate but its suggestion in unanimous
form that you ought to favorabely consider this because it is an outstanding
plan and we worked with them and with your Planning Department over a long per-
iod of time to refine this plan so that this plan would have all of the special
features that would be desirable for this neighborhood and for this community.
I would like to go into those so that you will be aware that we have not only
engaged in discussion with staff and have had positive reactions from staff but
that we have been sensitive to the environmental questions and that we have de-
signed something that's good. You will not that we have a building with a very
large parking lot. This is the present structure, this is an aerial photograph
taken very recently, a parking lot which at this point in time is not overly
landscaped. We have a magnificent landscape on our westerly boundary at Brickell
Avenue, sufficient that I venture to say that those of you who have traveled
Brickell Avenue every day and who have not made a special effort to go into the
UTD property probably don't know what it looks like because that landscaping is
so lush, that vegetation is so full that you probably have never been able to
pierce it visually and, therefore, we are proud that we have got that landscape
buffer on our westerly side. But we don't have the greatest parking area and I
think that what we're doing now will improve that substantially. I point out to
you and I have earlier in this presentation that we're immediately to the north
of Brickell Place. You see their first northernmost building here, the next
building would be located along Brickell Avenue several hundred feet from our
property and I'll go on into that in just a moment. What we are proposing is to
add this smaller structure as an addition to the PAD. It would be an eleven
story 100 unit building. You will hear from a number of objectors who say that
that structure will block the view of people who live at Brickell Place. Brickell
Place is a much higher building, of course, and the building in which most of
the people who will appear before you from the Brickell Place complex reside in
the building which is on the southerly portion of the Brickell Place property
and we're very proud that we had designed a site which is aesthetically pleasing
and has taken advantage of all of the natural amenities. The architect for this
project is Mr. Robert Canney West who is the architect for the Brickell Bay Club
and for the Forte Plaza and has done an outstand job in anchoring Brickell Avenue
with two very outstanding structures. Our objective here is to create that kind
of an ambiance with landscaping and with the kind of facilities and amenities
that you will see but in addition to create additional low cost housing units for
the advantage of the people who not only live in the first building but their
counterparts who are seeking to live in similar facilities throughout Dade County,
and also to create a structure which is compatible with the area. I suggest to
that this structure would be compatible with the area. Let me analyze some statis-
tics with you because I think that that's the key. I mentioned to you about the
size of the building. We would go to another 100 units and increase the total
to 366 units. They would be one bedroom units, very small one bedroom units.
These units are generally occupied by one person but they average out because
there are some two person units to an average of 1.2 people per unit. I call
that to your attention because it is a very significant thing. There are some in
this room who will suggest to you that we have too many units but units are not
the key, population is the key. We could take those units which are under 500
square feet and we could combine two units into one and have substantially less
units and there'd be no question about it but we would have more population in
the complex. We have 1.2 persons per unit for 366 units. That's under 450 people.
If we had only 300 units which we could have in R-5A without any PAD, without any
variances of any kind and we'd have on those 300 units an average of 2.2 people
per unit which is low for that kind of a complex on Brickell Avenue, we'd have
660 people. So we are proposing to you a complex whose population will be sub-
stantially less than comparable projects along Brickell Avenue on a per square
foot basis. We are only increasing the building area by 86,740 square feet but
the interesting thing is that we have less of our site covered with parking be-
cause we are putting the parking below ground, we have more landscaping we have
in the present building with the present site which has less than 45,000 square
feet of landscaping and we're going to have more than 65,000 and we have 48.2%
of our new site in landscaping versus 32.7% of the existing site. So on an over-
all basis as 1 pointed out to you when we talked about the standards for approval
i
of a PAD, we are creating a better amenity package than presently exists. We
have more parking than we need, we have more parking than the standards for
housing for the elderly suggests are necessary and we think that that parking
ahbtild remain there although we could convert even more of that perhaps into
additional landscaping, we don't think we ought to. Some of the issues that will
be logically raised are what are we going to do about our westerly boundary and
that landscaping and what about the requirement for a 70' service road along
Brickell Avenue. The answer is we don't intend to change the landscaping. We
think it is one of the nicest areas in Dade County, we think it ought to remain,
we think it is very easy to tear out trees and tear out natural vegetation which
has been growing in that location ever since Miami was born but it ought not to
be done and we have suggested to the Urban Development Review Board which has
favorably recommended it to you that rather than have our service road where it
might normally be which would not be in the best interest of the community, that
we have a service drive to the east of that and we have committed to that service
drive. I would point out to you that if we figured the 70' as part of our land
area our density per acre is lower than will be suggested to you by others but
we're not even talking about the 70' we're saying to you that we will count the
site as the 2.97 acres and we will dedicate to the city a service drive at such
time as it is required for traffic which is traveling along the apartment com-
plexes on the east side of Brickell Avenue. There are a number of speakers who
would like the opportunity to address you. I think that it is important for you
to note that many of the people in this room are here to support UTD. You so
often have a hearing in which people come to oppose and I would like those nice
folks from UTD who had sufficient inerest in this project to come here to inci-
cate to you who they are not by standing but by raising your hands. Thank you.
I've asked them to do that so that you can see that these are people interested
in their fellow citizens. They've got apartments at UTD. They're here to ask
you to consider favorably those other people who are of similar age and similar
background who would like the opportunity to retire in the kind of atmosphere
that UTD offers. Who are these occupants? The people whom you see are people
from all walks of life. They are teachers but they are people from other pro-
fessions and other business and social composition. And these people are here
to say to you that they feel that this is an atmosphere that ought to be dupli-
cated. There are people in this room who will oppose this project and suggest
to you as they have done in fliers sent out all over the neighborhood that adding
more people like this will depreciate their property values and we suggest to you
that that is far from the truth, that Brickell Avenue benefits from the kind of
quality that these people have and have demonstrated in their public service and
in their acts as citizens. And if they weren't delighted with their life styles
they wouldn't be our principle proponents. Very quickly, a comparison of our
building and UTD and Brickell Place. Brickell Place complains of an eleven story
building and they have two buildings already constructed, one is 19 and one is
22 stories. They question such things as setbacks. Our setback from Brickell
Avenue is 131'8". Their setback from Brickell Avenue - 43'. They built a build-
ing 121' from our building. This building which they live in is 384'9" from the
building which we propose to build. They will question whether or not this build-
ing has too great a length. I will tell you that there are 33' in between the
two buildings. This is merely an overhang to protect these folks from the rain
when they drive in their cars. We have previously given to the, I presume it's
through the Secretary of the Zoning Administrative Board, Mr. Davis, petitions
signed by on I would say 250, 300 people. I know that other people go out and
raise petitions from individuals at supermarkets and standing on street corners
and so forth, our petitions are from people who live here who are asking you to
look favorably on this. Because I have already taken more than my time I would
like to call on a number of people to address you about what they have perceived
at the UTD Towers on Brickell and other people who are community leaders and who
have volunteered to come here to tell you what their feelings are about the kind
of service that is given to people at UTD Towers and the kind of service that
those people in turn give to the community. I would, therefore, first call on
Mrs. Jean Schwartz who is the President of the Activities ASsociation of UTD Towers.
Rev. Gibson: May I ask before you begin how many people are you going to call
on, counsel? Counsel!
Mr. Plummer: AS long as they're all limited to 10 seconds each there's no prob-
lem.
Mr. Traurig: Let me point out to you who they are. We can reduce the number.
There are three other people like Mrs. Schwartz who are residents of UTD Towers.
Perhaps their addresses to you would be redundant and we can reduce that number
and we'll discuss with them during that. We also have a number of very important
public persons why we'd like to have you hear from - Dr. Fred Sellickman who is
the Doctor of Comprehensive Health Care of the University of Miami School of Medi-
cine, Reverend Anderson who is the pastor of the Emmanuel Lutheran Church across
54
the Street, at least one person from United Way, Don Major who is the director of
the tedland Christian Migrant Association, I don't know if Alfredo Durand has
arrived here, he wanted to address you on this subject; one of Dade County's
great people, Mr. Ed Stevensoh who is on my right is the President of the South
Florida Federation of Labor and Mr. Tornillo would like the opportunity to address
you himself. We can reduce this number, we understand the time, Mr. Vice -Mayor,
and we shall reduce it.
Rev. Gibson: Please. How many on the other side?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We will have approximately
Rev. Gibson: Well, why don't we do this. All the
than you, sir, on your side and on your side we'll
son and since we must give them equal time I think
you'll have an opportunity to rebutt.
7 plus myself. ... Time?
people who are to speak other
give you two minutes per per..
that's pretty fair and then
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Vice -Mayor, we have an expert, an'architect who has
gone over these figures to a great extent and he won't be able to make his pres-
entation in two minutes. I think he could do it in four or five maximum.
Rev. Gibson: Well, let me say counsel I hope he will be as brief as he can. You
know what I learned? Sometimes you may over sell. Ok? All right, plese.
Mrs. Jeanne Schwartz. Thank you very much. I'm Jeanne Schwartz, President of
UTD Towers Activities Association, a volunteer group and I am indeed very proud
to stand here and with a great feel of pride to represent our residents of UTD
Towers. One of the ever increasing arms of UTD Towers is its activities govern-
ing body. This governing body is elected by the residents and meet regularly in
fellowship. The executive board of this body meets once a month one week prior
to the regular meeting. The fellowship executive board of directors are meeting
in plans for various programs that are conducted throughout the year. There are
also very many on -going programs throughout the year. Many challenges are offer-
ed to our residents - Spanish and French Classes, sewing and hobby clubs, creat-
ive writing, dancing, library hours, book reviews, operas, concerts and many
other cultural plans and programs to name but a few, a very fine choral group
made up of our residents who not only entertain us but many other senior citi::ens
homes, nursing homes and churches. We are very proud of our choral group. Our
Buddy System, a volunteer group that is comprised of neighbors on each floor who
are aware of the resident who is ill, who needs help and who is there to help
them, a feeling of being a family is deeply felt and appreciated. Many trips
are planned for our residents for a day or for overnight stay. To name a few,
there are trips to Homestead Air Force Base, dinner theatre programs, parties
that are planned for either day or overnight. I must stress that all of the
above activities and many many more programs are too numerous to mention in the
very short time allotted to me. All the work that is done by these people and
the residents of UTD Towers is on a volunteer basis. As you look around you will
notice that the fearing of keeping mind and body active and alert, keep the mind
and the body intellectually and physically strong. We are a volunteer group with
strong motivation. Our service hours in our community are many and run into the
thousands and thousands of hours. The residents many times spend money of their
own to furnish these services. To name a few other projects, we prepare Christ-
mas stockings for the children at Christman time, Easter baskets for children at
Easter Time. Skinny Books that many of you may not be aware of what they are
but they are for our underpriviledged children who have not the means of buying
a book. we prepare these books by the thousands and they are given to the under-
priviledged children to help them read and enjoy and know what it is to read.
There are dolls that a.e prepared, lap rugs that are made for the elderly. Cloth-
ing is distributed to various schools and orphan homes and many day care centers.
Many hours are given to hospitals, hear associations, Veterans Hospitals and food
coupons collected. The United Way is another way of giving; cancer associations,
tastes for the blind, we have a very fine able resident who does a great deal of
work on this phase, gives many hours to the tastes for the blind. The Red Cross,
we are indeed a very active and productive group. We have residents who are
foster grandparents and this program is a joy because those of us who are grand-
parents know the pleasures of grandchildren. So you see that the contributions
to our community is a very heartfelt one. The additional building will give us
the opportunity and the means to meet the needs of many many more people. Keep
Brickell Beautiful our neighbors are saying with their signs and their pacing
around in the area. What can be more beautiful than people who are a credit to
their community, who give up time, energy, love and meet the needs of the many
underpriviledged children and adults? We the senior citizens of UTD Tower are
beautiful people. We are one. We are great and we'd like to be helping others
who can do the same thing. Thank you.
55
JUL 211977
ReV4 Gibson: May I call to your attention she ran over 312 minutes.
Mr. fiaurig: We're going to cut several speakers out, Mr. Vice -Mayor. I would
call Mrs. Judy Dixon. While Mrs. Dixon is approaching us I will announce that
the next speaker would Maria Concepcion so if she would come forward she would
be ready as soon as Mrs. Dixon finishes. Let me point out to you while she's
approaching that I mentioned the 2.36 FAR of Brickell Place. I didn't mention
ours, it's 2.21 so we have a lower FAR then they have next door. Mrs. Dixon,
would you keep your remarks as brief as possible because we are going to run out
of time.
Mrs. Judy Dixon: I have spent a half a century in Miami and 35 years of it I
taught vocational and technical courses to students all over the world. My child-
ren were born, raised and educated in Miami and they are now well-known citizens
in Dade County. All these years I have paid taxes. Should they tell me where I
should live because I don't have enough money like you do? I don't consider my-
self unequal to any of our Brickell Avenue neighbors and neither do I downgrade
the neighborhood. UTD Towers uplifts the neighborhood with a well educated resi-
dency who contributes much to the well-being of Dade County. In my retirement
for the past ten years in this building I have been in charge of a hobby club.
Cur residents have made thousands of toys, articles of clothing and more for the
underpriviledged children in our schools, orphanages, nursing homes and we're
not forgetting the wheelchair veterans for whom we make bathrobes and other use-
ful items. What have they done for Dade County? What are they doing for Dade
County? That's all I have to say.
Rev. Gibson: All right, next, please.
Mrs. Maria De La Concepcion: My name is Maria De La Concepcion. It is easier
for me
UTD, I
myself
us the
needed
antly.
to speak Spanish but I am determined to speak English. The influence of
have lived at UTD Towers for the past five years among retired people like
in a friendly atmosphere which is directed by competent people who give
impetus to participate in charity balls and endeavors to make all feel
and worthwhile and encourage us to work and play to fulfill our time pleas -
I find my talents are not wasted since our contribution to the school
systems' needy children fulfill my life's career of teaching. If a new building
were to house more people that could contribute `.heir energy and talents to the
children and at the same time keep the people healthy and happy that in itself
would make it all worthwhile.
Dr. Fred Selickman: I'm Fred Selickman. I'm a pediatrician, psychiatrist, pub-
lic health physician and Associate Professor at the Univerisity of Miami School
of Medicine. I speak on behalf of the members of this group in three capacities•
first in my capacity as Director of the University of Miami Comprehensive Health
Care Program, second as a resident of Miami who lived in the neighborhood of these
members and third as a physician concerned with the welfare of special groups who
frequently are looked upon with bias. I've been directly involved with the resi-
dents of the United Teachers of Dade Towers through their volunteer services to
the Comprehensive Health Care Program. This program is a preventively oriented
totally free health program to low income children who live in the central city
area of Miami. We serve over 10,000 children and youth. 0n previous occasions
I've been before this commission seeking support for this program which we've
been appreciative for. The Tower residents have for more than five years served
as Foster Grandparents to the children in our clinic. As such, they've made over
2,000 stuffed toys at Christmas time. This has been extremely meaningful for our
patients, many of whom receive very few gifts at Christmas time. The senior resi-
dents have served as chaperones for our children when we've had our annual outing
for the circus. Yearly at Christmas time these seniors have wrapped more than
3,000 toys which we received for distribution to our patients. Two years ago our
clinic was almost forced to close. Many of our patients appeared at the County
Commission Meeting peacefully to show unity of purpose. The seniors, we had many
children who appeared and the seniors of UTD Towers made 1,500 sandwiches at the
time so our patients would have food. Each of these projects add up to a group
of people who are dedicated to bettering the community that they live in. They
have joined forces with the young to provide improved social conditions for our
low income children in the community. The greatest contribution that these sen-
iors have provided to our clinic has been by their work without pay to our women,
enfants and children feeding program which is sponsored by the Department of
Agriculture. This program provides free nutrition to 2,500 of our nutritionally
deprived children, many of which are undersized for age. They've prepared these
food packets, finances for which we don't have money to support. These seniors
have conservatively provided 300 volunteer hours to us monthly which at minimum
wagew would be approximately $700 a month. This is $700 that we can use for
•
SetVides for our patients. Personally I live a half a mile from this area. This
is a fairly peaceful area of Miami. None of these residents contribute to the
high speed traffic that is frequent on Brickell nor for the increasing crime that
is occuring in the area. Senior people are so little cared far in our culture,
the developed countries of western Europe have learned well how to integrate the
older citizen into the community. The residents of UTD have demonstrated their
capability of being productive integrated citizens of our community. It is only
when we successfully incorporate people of all races, all ages and all ethnic
backgrounds living and inter -relating together that we will achieve some of the
dreams upon which this great United States was founded and which is repeated in
miniature for many of us who have immigrated to Miami from foreign lands and from
other areas within the United States so that we can achieve in Miami the aspirat-
ions of our founding fathers. Thank you.
Mr. Traurig: I would like now to call on Mrs. Avelia Frances from Florida City.
Mrs. Avelia Frances: My name is Avelia Frances. I'm a Dade County teacher in
art and early childhood education. Presently I work with the Migrant Children
at the Redlands Labor Camp which often thought of as a forgotten community in
many ways. However, these wonderful people who live and reside at the UTD Towers
did not forget the people who live at the Redlands Labor Migrant Camp. At Christ-
mas time they made beautiful stuffed toys for each child, approximately 150 child-
ren. They knitted warm booties, 200 pairs for the 3 and 4 year old children. I
wish that it were possible for me to actually tell you how much happiness and joy
this must have brought to these boys and girls who received these, toys, dolls
and the knitted booties that these ladies made who reside at the towers. Each
year at Christmas time and sometimes at Easter time I found myself traveling over
to Miami Beach and in other communities to get toys for the children and other
items which the migrant children might use but this year I didn't have to do that.
I called down and these ladies told me that they had loads of things for these
children and I went down and picked them up. I would just like to say to you
that these ladies and these people who reside at the UTD Towers are wonderful
people. Let's give them a chance to show their love for others, let's give them
a chance to live because they're now at the stage where many of us will have to
go. Thank you.
Mr. Traurig: The next speaker will be one of the other neighbors of UTD Towers,
Reverend Paul Anderson who as I indicated is pastor of the Emmanuel Lutheran
Church on the west side of Brickell Avenue.
Rev. Paul Anderson: Thank you. The Emmanuel Lutheran Church was founded May 6,
1915 and has been a part of the Miami community for over 60 years. We arc very
grateful to our governmental leaders who allowed us to move to 1770 Brickell
Avenue in year 1961. I personally feel and my church council, my bosses agree
that the church must render service to the community to justify its tax exempt-
ion. We feel that we are rendering service to our community and we are anxious
to have friends up and down Brickell Avenue who are close to our church. We offer
our church as a community center to many fine community groups in the area and we
have a very definite relationship with many organizations including the United
Teachers of Dade. I first appeared before this City Commission about 10 years
ago, I had a chance to shake hands Mayor Robert King High and at that time we
took the same position as a church that we now take that we feel that here are
some good people who are doing some good things in a good community. I have
carefully thought during the past few weeks as to whether any of my good neigh-
bors are being seriously inconvenienced by anything that the United Teachers of
Dade are doing at 1809 Brickell Avenue and certainly we do not want to inconven-
ience our neighbors and I have yet to be convinced that anyone is seriously being
hurt by anything that these people are doing. I personally am speaking for my-
self and for the majority of the church council at the Emmanuel Lutheran Church
in heartedly supporting this addition to our community which I personally feel
will benefit all of us who have anything to do with Brickell Avenue. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Traurig: I would now like to call on Barbara Lennard who is the project dir-
ector of the retired senior volunteer program for United Way.
Ms. Barbara Lennard: Good afternoon, my name is Barbara Lennard and I'm present-
ly the project director for the Retired Senior Volunteer Program. We are spon-
sored locally by the United Way. My presentation this afternoon is going to be
very brief. The UTD Towers volunteers have been active with the United Way's
Retired Senior Volunteer Program since its inception 51 years ago and to date has
contributed over 9,000 hours of volunteer service. The 64 ladies who comprise
this very special group have been engaged in the performance of miriad assortment
of community service projects and are themselves a valuable community service.
JUL 211977
Under the able leadership of Mts. Bea Rosenthal these volunteers have coordinated
and successfully completed assignments in hospitals, convalescent homes, public
schools, orphanages, day care centers and congregate housing facilities among
others. The UTD effort on behalf of volunteerism has been outstanding having
given generously of their time and talents for the betterment of humanity and I
am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to attest to that fact here
today. Thank you.
Mr. Traurig: We only have two other speakers. The next speaker would be Mr. Ed
Stevenson whom I introduced to you before.
Mr. Ed Stevenson: Mr. Vice -Mayo, commissioners, my name is Ed Stevenson, Presi-
dent of the South Florida AFL-CIO. For the record our offices are at 244 Biscayne
Boulevard. Mr. Traurig has presented an excellent case in terms of this partic-
ular project. You and I know very well what is constructed on Brickell Avenue.
You and I well know that Brickell Avenue is one of the most beautiful streets in
the City of Miami. You and I also know that there is a place in this world for
senior citizens, not just affluent senior citizens. The petitions mentioned here
today I could have very well brought in 200,000 petitions but we don't believe
in that nonsense to the extent that we don't believe it's necessary. But we do
believe it is necessary to house people. According to your zoning map, you prob-
ably have them in front of you, this zoning is very compatible with that partic-
ular area. Even though it doesn't represent an affluent part of the community
it is designed to house people. Mr. Traurig covered the zoning matters in terms
of what specific location pertains to X apartment of X particular complex. He
did very well. You are certainly well aware of what exists now on Brickell Avenue
and to comply with Commissioner Plummer's request I know the name of the game is
brevity, let me leave you with this thought. There is a statue up in the Harbor
of New York. It says give us your poor and your tired. Well, those poor and
those tired came to this country from every nation in the world and they made
this nation the finest and the richest nation in the world. And who are those
descendants that today would oppose housing for senior citizens who helped make
this country? I urge you to adopt this resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Pat Tornillo: Mr. Vice -Mayor, Father and members of the Commission, there
isn't very much that I can add to what has already been said. I would ask that
you approve the project and that (Pat Tornillo, Executive Vice -President of the
United Teachers of Dade and I reside at 1814 Brickell avenue). I would ask that
you approve the project and that you approve the project only for the new build-
ing. As Mr. Traurig said, one of the issues that may be raised here is union
activities and our union offices. We have no problem in restricting that to the
new building but we do not believe it is fair as the Zoning Board approved the
recommendation that that also extend to our current building. We've been there
ten years, that battle was fought a long time ago and we would ask that you ap-
prove it with that restriction, that the restriction on union activities and of-
fices be restricted to the building that we're talking about and that is the new
building that we're asking you to approve. I would only ask to say one thing to
you in addition to that with regard to the comments that have been made relative
to the devaluation of the property. UTD Towers was put up ten years ago. I
believe that in those ten years that building is a showplace, a showplace that
we would put up against any luxury highrise apartment in the entire Dade County
as far as condition, as far as facilities, as far as anything. If UTD Towers II,
the second building is going to devaluate the property it is inconceivable to me
how the builders and constructors of Brickell Place would have put their building
right next door to it after UTD Towers had been built for ten years and how the
residents of Brickell Place would have paid the prices that they paid for those
condcminiums living right next door to a building that they now claim another
building will devaluate their property. I believe that is a false issue, it is
not the issue. It can't possibly be the issue. We have complied with all of
the requirements that you require for a building and I believe that the issue
still remains the two: Shall elderly people, senior Americans, have the privil-
ege of living on the shores of Biscayne Bay in the City of Miami and can we con-
tinue in the present building to have union offices? And I suggest to you that
the answer to both should be yes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Traurig: In summation, I would say that the purpose of this hearing is to
consider whether to grant the Conditional Use for a PAD and in your deliberation
you must decide whether or not this area of Brickell Avenue is a proper location
for a PAD and I think that that is a fact that has already been established.
We have suggested to you that there are irrelevant issues. We would like to say
to you that we think that the relevant issues are whether that PAD is proper,
whether the kind of programs that have been provided by the residents of UTD
Towers for the other people in this community as discussed here today should be
encouraged, whether the kind of people whom you have met today ought to be en-
couraged, whether we ought to provide for future generations of senior and retired
cQ 1111 9 1 1077
416
people in this kind of an atmosphere and whether or not the policy of the City of
Miami providing for housing for elderly people in good locations is to be contin-
ued. Thank you.
Thereupon the City Commission took a brief recess and reconveined with the
following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Rose Gordon,
Commissioner J. L. Plummer and Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson. ABSENT: Mayor Ferre
and Commissioner Manolo Reboso.
Rev. Gibson: Ladies and gentlemen, those of you who are here on the item we were
just hearing, we have a very short item we want to interrupt you for just one
minute.
19. EXTEND CONDITIONAL USE FOR ADDITIONAL 6 MONTHS FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 535 N.E. 15 STREET.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-602A
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 77-63(A) WHICH GRANTED A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION
OF ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 124-76 WHICH GRANTED THE CON-
DITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE XV, SECTION
2(8)(d), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING CONTAINING 299
DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS 12 THRU 16, BLOCK 1, NELSON VILLA &
GARDEN OF EDEN AMD (30-20) & PLA't r .D BEING APPROXIMATELY
535 N.E. 15TH STREET, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. LANDSCAPING & SITE PLANNING PORTION OF WORKING DRAWINGS
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
2. REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT BE EMPLOYED
FOR DESIGN & SITE PLANNING OF LANDSCAPING WHICH INCLUDES
THE 16TH STREET PEDESTRIAN MALL & THAT PORTION OF
TRINITY CHURCH ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT.
. PROPERTY BE PLATTED WITH DEDICATION OF 12.5 FEET OF
16TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE ZONED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE.
. 16TH STREET BE DEVELOPED AS A LANDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN
MALL & THAT THE DEVELOPER MAINTAIN THAT PORTION OF MALL
ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT.
. A CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPED PLANTER BE PROVIDED ON THE OFF-
STREET PARKING GARAGE & RECREATION DECK AS INDICATED
IN PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS.
. LANDSCAPE TREATMENT ON TWENTY-SIX FOOT AVERAGE WATER-
FRONT AREA & OTHER GROUND LEVEL AREAS BE PROVIDED.
. AN OPEN GROUND FLOOR VISTA FROM TRINITY CHURCH TO
BISCAYNE BAY THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL AREA BE PROVIDED.
• A SCULPTURED WALL & WATERFALL TREATMENT ON THE WEST
SIDE ADJACENT TO TRINITY CATHEDRAL BE PROVIDED; ZONED
C-3 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL).
(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 J.L. Plummer, Commissioner Rose Gordon and Vice -Mayor Theodore
Gibson.
NOES: NONE.
ABSTAINING: NONE
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre and Commissioner Reboso.
d-- '
•
1
the following resolution was introduced by Cornriissioner Plummet who moved
its Adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-602B
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 77-63(B) WHICH GRANTED A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION
OF ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 125-76 WHICH GRANTED THE CON-
DITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE XV, SECT-
ION 1(8)(a), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING GARAGE ON LOTS
12 THRU 16, BLOCK 1, NELSON VILLA & GARDEN ON LOTS 12 THRU 16,
BLOCK 1, NELSON VILLA & GARDEN OF EDEN AMD (30-20) & UNPLATTED,
BEING APPROXIMATELY 535 N.E. 15TH STREET, FOR 475 CARS IN CON-
JUNCTION WITH PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. LANDSCAPING & SITE PLANNING PORTION OF WORKING DRAWINGS
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
2. REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT BE EMPLOYED
FOR DESIGN & SITE PLANNING OF LANDSCAPING WHICH INCLUDES
THE 16TH STREET PEDESTRIAN MALL & THAT PORTION OF TRINITY
CHURCH ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT.
• PROPERTY BE PLATTED WITH DEDICATION OF 12.5 FEET OF 16TH
STREET ADJACENT TO THE ZONED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE.
• 16TH STREET BE DEVELOPED AS A LANDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN MALL
& THAT THE DEVELOPER MAINTAIN THAT PORTION OF MALL
ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT.
. A CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPED PLANTER BE PROVIDED ON THE OFF-
STREET PARKING GARAGE & RECREATION DECK AS INDICATED IN
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS.
. LANDSCAPE TREATMENT ON TWENTY-SIX FOOT AVERAGE WATERFRONT
AREA & OTHER GROUND LEVEL AREAS BE PROVIDED.
. AN OPEN GROUND FLOOR VISTA FROM TRINITY CHURCH TO BISCAYNE
BAY THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL AREA BE PROVIDED.
A SCULPTURED WALL & WATERFALL TREATMENT ON THE WEST SIDE
ADJACENT TO TRINITY CATHEDRAL BE PROVIDED; ZONED C-3
(CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) .
(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: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre and Mr. Reboso.
20. PIBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AT 1809 BRICKEL AVENUE,
UTD TOWERS AND GRANT PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT,
Mr. Brian R. Hersh: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Brian
Hersh. I'm an attorney with my offices at 19 West Flagler Street, Miami. I
represent a group of people collectively known by a corporate name of "Save
Brickell Avenue". The representation was made that the members of this group
are solely located in the buildings that are south of the proposed building. I
believe if you will examine the record, and we have over 600 opponents to this
new building, and let me state right at the very beginning that it isn't the peo-
ple that we're opposed to but we're opposed to the building itself in its present
form. I have a list of the various buildings that the people opposed to this
project comprise. The run all the way from 1642 Brickell Avenue, 2025 Brickell
Avenue, Bay Heights, just all over the place. We have put into the secretary of
this Commission 250 petitions opposed at the present time. In addition to that
your agenda will reflect the fact that there were 56 that had been received prior
to the Planning and Zoning Meeting and an additional 200 or so that were presented
at the time of the meeting. So for the record I would ask you to consider the
geographical make up of the opponents to this plan. I have discussed this with
Mr. Davis and if you care to ask him, I have asked him, he coincides with the
fact that the petitions are not just from the building immediate to the north.
Rev. Gibson: You may put it into the record if you wish.
Mr. Hersh: I do. Now I am certainly glad that when the presentation was made
for the applicant that all of the presentations were limited to Zoning matters
because I knew that those booties had to do with zoning. But I will start my
80 JUL 211977
ptesentation by going to the PAD Ordinance that we are all I believe obligated
to comply with. When the applicant's attorney, and an interesting point with
regard to the applicant, in your file the receipt for payment of the application
fee was the union, the UTD whereas this is supposedly a corporate entity, a non-
profit entity, the UTD Towers, Inc. There is a severe question as to who the
applicant really is. If you'll check the transcript you'll see that the attorney
misspoke himself when he made the presentation because of the fact that it is
the union that is pushing this and not that non-profit ownership entity. Now
going to the PAD regulations it clearly states that to qualify for a Planned .
Area Development application the tract of land shall posess not less than three
acres. That's where we start as a basic concept. This is a piece of land on
Brickell Avenue approximately 200' wide. That's what we're talking about. The
applicant whoever it is would have you believe that they have only 2.97 acres
and, therefore, they're just a shade under. There is a severe problem in their
computations. We have gone to great lengths to try to determine how this came
about. There is the issue of the 70' service road in front of the property.
That is 70' by 200', 70'wide by 200' and substantially reduces the size of this
parcel of land not to 2.97 or anywhere near that but rather 2.8 acres. So then
what we're talking about if we take the attorney's representation is 366 units
of living space on an area of land 2.8 acres in total area. I'll come back to
the point but the point I'm making is one of usable space, in a later time. Be
that as it may, at the present time we submit that on a clear reading of the
ordinance there is no way that this application should be approved. The ordin-
ance does allow and go onto say that in certain situations less than 3 acres
may be submitted where there is a distinguishable area that is made up by natural
or manmade barriers such as rivers, canals or other water areas. Now, there is
no river, canal or water area that would set apart this 2.8 acres from any other
2.8 acres, 3 acres, 4 acres or any other parcel on Brickell Avenue. That is a
parcel that has nothing particularly unique from the other lots that have had
construction on them so that we start off from a beginning point on this applicat-
ion that it just doesn't qualify respectfully by our calculations and by the
calculations of the people that we will have discuss with you this afternoon our
objections for this Planned area Development situation. Now again, the Planned
Area Development situation also requires that it be a unified concept. We have
done some homework, at least we believe we have, and we're going to enter into
the record the fact that there is no way that this particular building can be
financed under the present concept. The reason for that is as was indicated the
attempt will be made to get FHA 202 Section VIII funds from the federal govern-
ment Department of Housing and Urban Development or more particularly known as
HUD. I wrote these people on May 26, 1977 and they said, HUD said we're not go-
ing to qualify you and this project for several reasons but one of the problems
is we want a separate legal entity to own the building that you're proposing.
That's what HUD said', not the teachers union, not the non-profit corporation and
now owns the building, we want a separate entity for this new building. And that
letter I've just marked in and I hope you will consider it and consider it well
because on May 26th the letter summed up by Mr. Buz Kirk, the Area Director of
HUD that your proposal as submitted is not acceptable and you're invited to sub-
mit an acceptable preliminary proposal within , period not to exceed thirty days.
I will tell you that within the thirty days from May 26th there was no acceptable
proposal submitted and this afternoon at 3:00 O'Clock when we called Jacksonville
Mr. Buz Kirk told us that the status of the property is that his office has recom-
mended that the funds be allocated elsewhere. Nobody told us about that. The
attorney said, "Well, we're going to stick to solely zoning matters". Let's talk
about density for a minute. He said to you, and it's interesting if you want to
check the transcript, he said we're building an eleven story building. When he
came before the Planning and Zoning Board he said, "We're building a ten story
building." At that time I took objection to his statement and I said that's not
ten stories. There are two lobbies, a lower and an upper lobby. It is a twelve
story building. So now he says well Ok, it's eleven stories. The fact of the
matter is, and the plans are right here, it's a 12 story building. And what is
so important about the other two stories? The use of the two lobbies, there are
extensive areas in those other two lobbies where the rooms are marked for all pur-
pose rooms, maintenance rooms, you've got two lobbies of nothing but plain rooms
and the funny thing is that when we checked the plans for the original building
ten years ago that's the same way they marked those buildings before they moved
their union offices in there and then like topsy went on to the next floor and
the next floor or actually the two floors. They are running at that place right
now a four member law firm and a printing press day and night in the present build-
ing so now they say to you, Please approve us, we'll do our good works on the
upper floors but in the lower floors we'll have our four member union law offices,
we'll have our printing press. They moved out as we know the trailers. Another
thing that wasn't mentioned, very important I submit, the application is not just
for a building it is also to expand the auditorium. The plans for the auditorium
expansion are not specific. Are they building additional room, are they expand-
ing that auditorium for additional union meetings? If as we suspect it is fcr
JUL 211977
•
additional union meetings then why do they need the extra rooms in this new build-
ing? I did a little homework and I'm going to enter into the record... Let me
back up for a second. At the Planning and .Zoning Board one of the people that
testified or came in and taBed to the Planning and Zoning Board was the attorney,
Mrs. DuFrane and she said, well we have to keep four lawyers on the premises be-
cause - she told what she did - she said we provide a lot of services for the resi-
dents, divorces, house closings, and I_looked to her and I said - wills - I looked
at her, she stood right there at that podium and I said, "Well, people are divorc-
ing themselves so that you need three and four lawyers full time there?" And
house closings, if they're buying houses they don't deserve to be in that building
in the first place, and she didn't answer me. And she is strangely absent from
this hearing this afternoon.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I don't want to be discourteous but I thought we
were going to limit the discussion to the zoning issue rather than to the issues
that are being raised by counsel.
Mr. Hersh: I purposely did not say a thing about the items that came up and the
fact of the matter is, Mr. Tornillo opened the door on this matter, he's the one
that mentioned it and I think that this is as relevent and as material as the
booties were. In the period of time of 6 days on June loth to June 16th, 1977
there were six lawsuits filed from that law office over there and I don't want to
belabor the point other than the fact that four of them, five of them were dis-
solution of marriage suits and the sixth one was an adoption suit. Here are the
case numbers...
Rev. Gibson: Counsel, are we going to deal with zoning?
Mr. Hersh: Yes, we are, Mr. Vice -Mayor.
Rev. Gibson: Please, counsel.
Mr. Hersh: Now the attorney told us about well the 70' road that they were going
to dedicate if the city required it. The record is repleat with the transcript
when these people were represented in the past by Senator Haverfield, now Judge
Haverfield and at that time the City of Miami required that that 70' be dedicated.
Your file is repleat with the correspondence back and forth where the City Attor-
ney sent the deed for the 70', that they had already promised to give the city
and never did. And then Mr. Haverfield said, "Well we lost the deed." So the
City Attorney sent another letter and he said here is a duplicate deed, have it
executed. Now it is ten years later and they come before you and they say if
you require it now they'll dedicate the 70'. They didn't do it ten years ago
and this is an indication of the feeling for the management representatives over
there as the city government. The presentation was made to. you that we fought
out the right to have the union there - that's not true, it's in your files.
There was a small city court case that was dismissed on a technicality. You had
your Building and Zoning officers here who will tell you it was on the basis of
not having a search warrant that they were not able to testify about the union
activity and the zoning violations. So on that technicality the case was lost
at that first instance and the representative of the Zoning Department that was
before the Planning Board said that he continues to.recommend that that be a vio-
lation and it is a violation. But these people say let us build our new build-
ing, we promis not to do union activities in the new building but we're going to
continue to violate the law in the present building. The testimoney was or the
presentation was we have a magnificent building at the present time but nobody
can see it. Well, I submit to you and I'll ask that this be marked into your
record also, here is their building, everybody can see it. This is what is in
existence at the present time. That's the building. And, at a time if the build-
ing is constructed as indicated this is the view, the entire.front part from this
existing building forward that will be cut off by the construction of this twelve
story addition plus the auditorium. Now from a zoning standpoint one of the im-
portant concepts as I understand it, and it's right in your PAD Ordinance, is
the fact of open spaces particularly important, as I'm told by professionals,.
are the usable open spaces for elderly people because one of the things that you
do when you conceptualize a home for people of advanced ages is you try to get
them to move about, the idea being that when they move about they exercise so
therefore, you make it feasible for them to do it without realizing it. You put
your elevators perhaps at little bit further portions, etc. and you make them
walk, etc. Now we believe, and we'll have a presentation if the applicants will
let us use their pictures, that their usable open space will be so completely
curtailed that it won't comply with the R-5A requirement and that's what we're
talking about. The zoning in the map has been shut down. This is a very exclus-
ive area of particularly low density zoning that R-5A area, that part of Brickell
Avenue and the proposal is simply one to put high density with very low usable
space under the present plan as has been proposed. Another very difficult
62 JUL 211977
cofu e t has code about in this situation. The figures that everybody bases the
presentatioh on were first made to your Urban Development Review Board and the
figures that were used then do not jive, they are not consistent, they are not
explainable other than by obvious jimmying. What I am saying is that she Floor
Area Ratio, the usable open space, the various figures, and we'll hear about that
in a minute, are absolutely a jumble to a licensed architect, one who was involved
in the Mutual of Omaha Building here in the City of Miami, one who sat down to re-
compute these figures and could make no sense out of them whatsoever. We submit
that when one examines the entire concept it has to go back to be rethought out
because it is not a situation where we're opposed to housing for the elderly but
we are opposed to the building as presently proposed to be constructed if it were
ever to be constructed because it has no financing. Also, we have gone through
the HUD files as part of the investigation that's going on now with the management
there. They have no blacks living in that building according to the reports to
HUD. Now it is very interesting that we go through the record, originally the
presentation was ten years ago, well we're going to build a home for retired
teachers. And nobody has explained that this afternoon because that's not true.
It is for anybody, anybody that is of low income is qualified to live in that
building. But ask them, ask the people who control this situation what their
population ethnic characteristic is. According to the reports to HUD it is highly
suspect. Now, we're going to take a few more minutes and I have asked these peo-
ple to be brief, to make some presentations by some of the actual residents that
live around that area and at the end I will come back but I appreciate your attent-
ion as you've given it to me so far. Thank you.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir.
Mr. Hersh: Our first speaker will be Mr. Elmer Brigman.
Mr. Elmer Brigman: My name is Elmer Brigman and I am a property owner at 1901
Brickeli Avenue, Miami, Florida. Mr. Vice -Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the
council, we have here at issue a very major zoning problem. We are talking about
Brickeli Avenue, perhaps one of the most prestigious and well-known avenues in
all of Dade County. And the uecision which will be made by this council will set
a ;precedent as to what other buildings on Brickell Avenue may ask for and what
future buildings may ask for. Setting aside all of the emotional arguments that
we heard today, and many of *hem are valid, the key issue here is one of density.
How many apartment units per acre are allowable? The Zoning Code for this area
states that the sponsor is entitled to 288 units. They are asking for 1 addit-
ional units which would. put them 84 units above the allowable maximum. The petit-
ioner I am sure would not put before this council or before the Zoning Council a
request for an additional 84 units which amounts to 27% under a regular normal
zonni.^.g code. So what they have done is to try to come within the qualifications
of a Planned Area Development. Now we have heard the sponsors definition of what
a_Pianned Area Development is but I don't think that we've heard it in its entir-
ety. _A Planned Area Development is a very special ordinance with very special
qualifications which should be met if not in their entirety at least within reason
so this council can say it is'so close that we feel it should be granted. Let
me quote from the statu':e: "The land which is to be presented under a Planned
Area Development is to be under unified control planned as a whole." When they
say planned as a whole they mean as a whole, at one time in a single operation
or a planned series of operations. I sincerely say to this council how can a
building that was built ten years prior and one that is now asked to be built
ten years later be said to have been presented to this council as a whole in a
single operation? The sponsors also make mention of the intent of the statute.
The intent of the statute is that there should be a comprehensive plan, a unified
plan, a creative design. I don't think any architect can have a creative design
that he has done in one part or in two parts, r, 10 or less years later. The pet-
itioner does not meet the qualifications of a Planned Area Development and he
does rot meet it either as to the intent of the statute or the specific require-
ments of the statute. What they are trying to do is to take a parking area and
'develop another building. This would give them a piece of land at no cost for
which to erect a building. No one is condemning more units for retired teachers,
no one is condemning more units for elderly people, no one is saying that there
there is not a need in Dade County for housing that the sponsor is requesting.
What we are saying, must we break the zoning laws in order to comply with what
pade County needs. The answer, gentlemen, is in your power. This is not the
last piece of land in Dade County and this building can be built elsewhere.
.A new era is taking place in Dade County. We are now much stricter than we were
five years ago and ten years ago. We have a Master Plan for Dade County and the
councils throughout this county are doing their utmost to adhere to this Master
Plan. I emplore you, don't let us set a precedent, don't let us go backwards,
don't let us have other people come here after and say well you gave it to the
!til 21 1477
and we're entitled to it also. Let's keep Brickell Avenue; let's be admired
oh Brickell Avenue; let's adhere to our Zoning Code. I thank you.
Mr. Hersh: Mr. Brigman, I forgot to mention is a builder and his qualifications
are more to the specifics involved in the zoning. Our next presentation is by
Mt. William Hersey.
Mr. William Hersey: Vice Mayor, commissioners, thank you for the privilege of
appearing. I also want to thank Mr. Axelrod, the Executive Director of UTD Towers
for kicking me out of his place June 5th along with two others of Brickell Place
when we went over tv ask him pertinent questions which he thought were impertinent
about the physical characteristics and the management concepts of the building and
at that time I did not have any opposition to the new building. As a matter of
fact., along with many other people in Brickell Place I am in favor of housing for
the elderly. I'll make three confessions here to the board (1) I was involved in
public housing way back in the years immediately before and immediately after World
War II as research director for the Hartford, Connecticut Housing Authority. So I
am well familiar with the problems and the idea that Ok, put your housing in some-
body else's back yard and I appreciate that. I also must confess that I'm a former
member of a labor union, a New York Newspaper Guild, a good CIO affiliate so I'm
also somewhat sympathetic to the need for a labor union to be aggressive and to
provide things for its members. The third confession that I'll make is that I'm
very gullible. I find myself taken in along with several hundred thousand other
people in this area with the idea that the UTD Towers was a nice retirement home
for elderly teachers. Well, of course, as we know from statements that have been
made at Zoning Board Meetings and here tonight this is not the case. But I do not
feel badly about being so gullible, I find that the Urban Development Review Board
was just as gullible and in its recommendation as a final point it said, "This
project may utilize section 202,Housing for the Elderly Funds,and in any case will
and in any case will provide residential accomodations for retired elderly teachers
and thereby serve a social need." This is the actual language of the recommendat-
ion. The.need incidentally is probably very great, the need for homes for retired
teachers. However, I don't know what the latest figures are but I know reasonably
accurately that in 1968 of 265 units rented only 126, less than half were rented
to retired teachers. And incidentally, of the 265 apartments only 101 at that time
occupants listed Florida or anyplace in Florida as their place of retirement, that
they retired from. Apparently some of the advertising that the management of UTD
said was necessary from time to time really has paid off in securing tenants for
the project from way outside up into the northern parts of the country. Welcome to
Florida, I feel that they should all have the opportunity to :Hove down here and
live with us. As a matter of fact, in July 31, 1975 in an attempt to justify con-
tinued use by the CTA or the UTD Union of space in the present building Mr. Axelrod
wrote to the HUD people saying " Inflation and the current recession have virtually
eliminated our waiting list. We are forced to advertise periodically." I don't
think the 1971 period if it was a recession should have resulted in fewer people
having lower income. I think more people have lower income in a recession. Now
these are some of the problems that bother me and as I say I want to thank Mr.
Axelrod for booting us out because it really convinced me that there was something
that needed looking into there and I'd like to close with a commendation or a
recommendation to the commission. I don't thi:k there is enough local governmental
accountability in the 202 projects as evidenced by this project on Brickell Avenue.
If some way could be found for the City government to have a pattern of accountabil-
ity perhaps through more legislation of Florida of national I think the city govern-
ment would be well served and so would most of us taxpayers. Thank you.
Mr. Hersh: Next presentation will be by attorney Xavier Suarez.
Mr. Xavier Suarez: Lady and gentlemen of the board, my name is Xavier Suarez. I'm
an attorney. My offices are at 1699 Coral Way, Suite 315. I represent Mr. Jose
Alvarez Sterling who has two penthouse units at Brickell Place. He is from Venez-
uela. I also represent a corporation by the name of Western Hemisphere Holdings
of Panama, a corporation that owns four lots and 30 apartment units off of Brickell
Avenue at 14th Lane and.l4th Terrace. Both of my clients as is probably true of
all the Latin American investors in this area oppose this new UTD Tower. I will
briefly outline the reasons for that opposition. (1) There is the aesthetic reason,
the environmental reason and I don't wish to go into that except simply to say that
I don't think we want Brickell to be a major thoroughfare as council has stated.
That's not really what we want Brickell to be here in Miami I don't think. I also
won't go into the second reason which has been addressed repeatedly here which is
the million technical violations by UTD Towers in the past and the ones they plan
in the future as further applications. I want to go into another essential aspect
of our opposition to the new tower and that is the question of whether the applic-
ant merits any special treatment and related to that question is who is the applic-
ant. I want to give you some auotes and everything that I'm going to say here to
JUL 211977 '
MELT
47,
du► and it'll be brief Z promise, will be based on quotes by themselves by the
applicants and their attorney, the applicant I should say because it is really
a corporation and probably a union as far as we can tell. Item: 'Mr. Tornillo
at the Zoning Board hearing when told that the board would have to restrict both
the old and the new buildings by forbidding their use for unicn activities said,
page 93 of the transcript, "By doing that I'm telling you that the only thing
you do is defeat the building." In other words the new building and the old
building are both useless to UTD if it means that the existing building cannot
be used for a Union headquarters which, of course, is what the law states already
and they've been violating it for 10 years. Item: In July of 1975 when this
building was probably being planned, this new building, Mr. Axelrod said of the
existing building what you have already heard,once and I'll just quickly repeat
it to you, "Inflation and the current recession have virtually eliminated our
waiting list. We are forced to advertise periodically." In other words the
existing building must generate tenants and yet now they're claiming a need for
another 100 units. More likely there is a need for additional space for union
activities. Item: From an HUD memorandum written May 20, 1969 by Robert P. Ruff,
and let me tell you that the HUD files are repleat with these kinds of examples.
"The issue here is that HUD had informed the UTD that it could not approve Mr.
Axelrod's salary at $17,500 that that was excessive." Here is what answered:
"Mr. Pat Tornillo, Secretary for the corporation in a letter to this office dated
April 21, 1969 stated that they intended to pay Mr. Axelrod $17,500 regardless of
our wishes (that's HUD's wishes) and stated that he did not think that the govern-
ment had authority to prohibit this." Is that the elderly talking or is that some
one determined to do as it wishes regardless of the government even though the
government is approving and actually giving them all kinds of exemptions? Item:
A letter from Tobias Simon, attorney for UTD Towers dated September 3, 1968 to UTD.
"The issue here is whether the Towers can throw out someone that refuses to rejoin
the union," someone that was formerly in the union, the CTA Union at that time and
refuwed to rejoin the union. Here is what Mr. Simon says: "It is our desire to
give priority to retied teachers and to parents of CTA members. We have a situat-
ion in which we believe a teacher joined the CTA solely for the purpose of achiev-
ing this priority and establishing residence at the CTA Towers. Once his parents
are accepted as tenants this teacher refused to rejoin the CTA." How is that rel-
evant to anything? "We feel that this was an improper action on his part." Are
Are they judges of what is proper and improper for their tenants to do? At the
same time in April of 1973 the Herald reports three cases of people with high in-
come and who were never teachers, only one of them had some relation who had been
a teacher in Dade County at all, that wasn't even in Dade County, excuse me, who
had been a teacher at all. The Herald also reported there were no blacks. Does
this sound like a p1ac' for our poor senior citizens who are placed with the UTD
can exclude those that refuse union membership and give its friends a break on
the other side? And things haven't changed in the last year or so. Item: Novem-
ber 30, 1976; a local HUD letter requesting an audit of the UTD Towers written by
Mr. Mahonan, Elmer W. Mahonan to the HUD Office, the central office. Here is what
he says: "Members of my staff visited the project on November 2, 1976 to review
the books to satisfy questions reflected in the enclosed letter dated September 28,
1976, a variety of problems that they were finding in the management of the UTD
Towers. They requested all the project's books and records and were given only a
cash dispersement journal and general ledger. Listen to this one. ,"My staff re-
quested the checkbooks, check stubs and/or canceled checks and were given cnly two
canceled checks and were advised no more were available. The executive director
and his accountant were extremely reluctant to permit our. personnel to take notes
and continually interrupted my staff in their efforts to obtain information from
the books." That's what they do to HUD.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Vice -Mayor, we could spend three or four hours rebutting these
things if you would like us to do it but they're not really related to zoning.
Mr.Suarez: That's my last quote and I just want to say that the HUD files are avail-
able, we can give them to you, they are full of these kinds of examples of just dis-
regard for governmental authorities. I ask you as members of,the Commission to
determine for yourselves and to challenge these nice elderly people who are here as
to whether they are the ones that are speaking in these quotes that I've sited to
you. If you refuse to grant the PAD that they don't have qualifications for in
any event you will not be denying the elderly people of Dade County a thing except
a right to represent themselves. I thank you.
Me. Hersh: Next speaker is Mr. Loren Thompson.
Mr, Loren Thompson: MR. Vice -Mayor and distinguished commissioners, my name is Loren
Thompson and I reside at 1865 Brickell Avenue, My comments will be brief and they
65
UL 211977
Og
Et
M
MW
•
Will deal with the economi s as (elated to zoning, an increasingly important
pfobieiitfor zoning authorities and municipal authorities and governmental author-
ities everywhere in these United States. There has been much made of the fact
that people have the right to live on Brickell Bay. I live in Brickell Place. I
have no right to live on Biscayne Bay or in Brickell Place. I have the privilege
but not the right." The problem that we face is not to be in disagreement withour
splendid neighbors here, these very nice people whom we do not object to in any
sense whatsoever despite the attempts to paint us into a corner as being anti-'
senior citizens and anti -old people and particularly anti -poor people. We don't
look on them as poorpeople and many of them are not poor. We have our John the
Fisherman and they have their John the Fisherman and we frequently meet at the
seawall and discuss the problems and affairs of the world and we have no objection
to them whatsoever and we support them in their endeavors wholeheartedly and we
ourselves are engaged in public service on a very large scale. But none of us have
the right to live on Biscayne Bay and the way things are going in this United States
with rampant inflation I don't know how long I'm going to be able to have the
privilege to live on Biscayne Bay and in Brickell Place. My research has been dir-
ected at the moment to the question of the tax yield and the economic basis which
is such an important key to zoning and I will confine my remarks only to that. I
met with the officials of Dade County Assessors and the revenue authorities and I
have the printout, the computer printout which pertains to UTD Towers and then I
also have the facts on Brickell Place as Brickell Place moves onto the tax rolls
and begins to provide the enormously important revenue in very substantial amounts
without which you people on this very very difficult situation which you find your-
selves and Mr. Grassie as to where the money is going to come from, this is of para-
mount importance to each and every resident and citizen of Miami. Now I'll just,
and I have all of the supporting date here if there are any questions, I'll just
briefly allude to the situation with respect to UTD Towers. UTD Towers is in a
very favored tax position, no question and rightfully and we have no objection to
the building that is there but we say as a precedent, and by the way my profession
is in real estate economics, real estate acquisition, condemnation, testimoney in
court, advising investors in real estate. We have an absolute imperative that we
use and start now using our tax based real estate to its highest and best economic
use to yield a maximum tax benefit within the constraints of zoning and a good
planning and that is the basis. on which I say to you, gentlemen and Mrs. Gordon,
that we *Rust think ver► "!er ' hard ak,out-creatinc or precarience on -this mmst val-
uable stretch of real estate in that entire section of Miami within a residential
context at least. UTD Towers as a total assessment based on a replacement cost
because it is not an income property, so the assessors, the appraisers view it as
replacement cost, it has a total assessed value of $4,402,181.00, about four and
a half million dollars. Of that 41 million dollars $3,787,396 is totally tax ex-
empt. It yields no income to meet the needs of Mr. Grassie and you good people in
terms of funding this city and let's fact it, we have serious economic problems in
funding the City of Miami and Metro as well. Now the tax were given us in terms
of that portion of the assessed evaluation of UTD Towers, the tax were given us
amounts to $108,687 per year at the present time and it has been dropping which is
another disturbing fact as compared to ten years ago. And what has happened to
our dollar in ten years? The total dollars are dropping and the relative value of
the dollar received, relative dollars have been dropping. The total taxes paid
based on $614,785 of the assessed value that is taxable, the total taxes paid are
$17,642. The total taxes paid represent 13.96% of the total tax receipts that
would be available from the property were it on the rolls as fully taxes. Brickell
Place has just been moving onto the rolls especially Building "8" which is the
southernmost building and the people living in Building "B", Barbados will be fac-
ing higher tax assessments in the future but based on the values the tax assessment
people have placed on the Brickell Place property, the one which is most directly
comparable in terms of physical location and proximity to the UTD Towers the total
tax yield that will be received this year from this one project which is half fin-
ished on seven acres of land, and this is before Mr. Grassie gets through with the
necessities of perhaps adjusting the village rate, the total taxes that will be
paid from the portion of Brickell Place, the two buildings that are ther now will
be $913,435, almost one million dollars in those two buildings as compared to
$17,000 which is being yielded by United Teachers of Dade Building. Now again, I
say in conclusion we have absolutely nothing against these wonderful people; we
don't object to their existing building; we do say, however, that we cannot go on
proliferating and wasting our best tax assets in a continuation of this kind of
thing or we are going to be in worse difficulty than we are now. Mr. Grassie's
problems will be greatly compounded. A11 we're saying is there are many areas that
are -good areas for subsidized housing but I will submit to you as someone who lives
there only by privilege and perhaps with an unsure future myself as all of us may
be subject to the viscitudevicissitudes of the economic swings and with our grossly
increasing inflation I submit to you that this is the wrong place and the wrong
time to expand on this type of subsidized housing and I say it in all sincerety
without any spirit of recrimination, criticism, dislike or any feeling of adversity
towards these fine people that are here. If we don't get back to some sound
66
211977
2
economic principles in this country pretty soon like right now we are in extremely
setious difficulty. I thank you, Mrs. Gordon and gentlemen and I thank the audience,
thank you, Mr. Traurig, Mr. Tornillo, thank you very much.
Mr. Hersh: Mr.. Alan Kaplan will talk next.
Mr. Alan Kaplan: My name is Alan Kaplan. I am a property owner at 1865 Brickell
venue. It was interesting to hear Mr. Traurig waive the flag and talk about apple
pie. Who could oppose him? All of us approve of these things but that's not the
issue. The UTD has always done exactly what they've wanted with that property.
Mr. Tornillo is part of the record, indicated some ten years ago when asked if there
was any intention of ever building a second building stated "No, we're not going to
build another building." It's part of the record. Here he is again pleading that
the second building be built. We ask ourselves why. It is very very simple, he
needs more free headquarters, more space for his union to conduct its activities.
He is using these elderly people as a vehicle to create space for his union at no
cost to his union and its members. Within the confines of UTD presently and in vio-
lation of the Zoning Law they have a printshop employing several people. They have
a full-fledged law firm. They have an auditorium that is used for union meetings
to the extent that traffic policemen are employed off duty to conduct traffic, they
have so many people. They use the church acres the street, they use their parking
lot because they have so many people come to these meetings. Very very simply to
sum up, I as other members of my group and associates have no objection to the build-
ing as it presently stands used for residential purposes. We also would point out
that the 272 units there presently, 259 of them are occupied by elderly or senior
citizens. What are the rest of them doing? They're being used for union purposes
and that is the real story and that is the real reason why they want this second
building constructed. The Zoning Board at the prior meeting approved this project
subject to their being no union activity on the entire property. I would ask this
commission to address that question as well. Thank you.
Mr. Hersh: Next we'll hear from Mr. Luis De La Guardia, a realtor.
Mr. Luis De La Guardia: After all that has been said there is really not much to
add but I'm not going to miss my opportunity to address the City Commission of Miami.
True to my Irish blood if I try to talk I get a little emotional. My name is Luis
La Guardia. I am a realtor. My office is at 1757 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida
33129 and I have interest in Brickell Place. So I was saying true to my Irish blood
I tend to get a little emotional so I wrote down a few words which I will try to
read to you in the five minutes allowed by Father Gibson - 2 minutes. Vice -Mayor,
Father Gibson, commissioner Gordon, Reboso, Mr. Plummer, my presence here today is
due to my absolute total and unchangeable opposition,to the ill conceived idea and
plans of the UTD to build an additional structure containing another 100 apartment
units on the same: site where the UTD Towers are at present. My opposition is based
on the question of ecology, environment and what's more important to me as a realtor,
real estate value. Mr. Tornillo just said a while ago that since the UTD Tower was
built property value has risen on Brickell Avenue and I have to agree with him, it's
true it has risen in the past twelve years with the UTD Towers there but with the
UTD Tower as it is new - just as it is now. The building of another structure on
the same site of the UTD Towers will tend I am sure to, depreciate all the propert-
ies along Brickell Avenue. Twelve years ago.... No ma'am, not yet. It will in
the future if the other building is put up. Twelve years ago when UTD Towers was
built I was a realtor then. I've been a realtor for 25 years. I didn't raise my
voice against UTD Tower, I thought it was right, it was proper, it is nice, it is
proper as it is now. In today's Miami Herald there is an article quoting some of
the things that I have said before and one of them is that if Brickell Tower II is
permitted to be built on this same site of Tower I it will be the first step in
turning our beautiful unique Brickell Avenue into a second Collins Avenue. I still
feel exactly the same way. In that Herald article there is a statement by Mr.
Stanley Axelrod, Executive Director of UTD Tower and I quote, "The real issue in
the zoning debate is whether deserving retirees have the right to live on beautiful
exclusive expensive Brickell Avenue." I'm quoting the Miami Herald. To this state-
ment I'll say that I feel that is malicious and vicious lie. I for myself, and I'm
sure I'm speaking for all the others opposing this project, that we, in fact, feel
that they are really deserving beautiful people and they deserve the best and that
they have the best right now as it is, what they have now and they've been having
for the past twelve years. ....trying to obtain approval for their projects to
have more deserving retired elderly people to live on Brickell Avenue and enjoy the
beautiful exclusive atmosphere and location. For that purpose, Mr. Mayor and mem-
bers of the commission, in fact, all these people the retired nice elderly people
and their bosses who ride them down here to have their moral support to their proj-
ect claiming that it will benefit them to this I say - no way. Ladies and gentlemen
67
JUL 211977
of the coMMission, all these people sitting here now have now for the past twelve
yeats since UTD I was built, a nice looking building with ample and adequate open
areas, they have now a ... nicely landscaped resting area facing the bay where
they can sit under the nice shade trees and enjoy the cooling breeze of the bay.
How many residents are there now in UTD Tower I? If we take the 259 apartments
that were left from the original 272 apartments that were supposed to be occupied
by retired teachers and are now occupied by UTD business office it would these
259 apartments and multiply then by the average of two people we should have 118
people living there. Now they say that they only have 1.2 or whatever per unit
but that doesn't mean that the unit couldn't be occupied by two persons each
unit. Thereupon the UTD...suppose UTD decides all of a sudden which I don't
think so, to purchase an office building and move that office out of the build-
ing, reconvert the space into the original 272 apartments then we could have...
persons living in the present building. What I'm trying to point out to you is
that there are now maybe about 50 nice lounge chairs in the front yard of this
building which are shared by 444 people that means about 11 people are trying to
sit in one of those lounge chairs for each chair. If UTD II is built with an
additional hundred units it means that maybe another 200 persons will be clamor-
ing to make use of this present recreation area of the above mentioned 50 chairs.
It will elevate the number of people trying to get recreation area for themselves.
That will be absolutely overcrowded. So why are they today giving their moral
support to this ill advised project when they will actually be losers is beyond
my understanding. There is down at Brickell Place a beautiful tract of land
100 X 506 for sale right now, 50,600 square feet. They are for sale, :4r. Tornillo,
Mr. Axelrod, why not purchase that and build a beautiful building for the new
people that want to live on Brickell Avenue, new retirees, all the teachers?
I'd be more than happy to help you acquire that land and I would donate my com-
mission to the UTD to get the price down. In closing I want to say this, Mr.
Vice -Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Miami: For God's sakes don't let
UTD destroy Brickell Avenue. Thank you very much.
Rev. Gibson: Ladies and gentlemen, please, I understand. Anybody else to speak?
Mr. Traurig: Mx. Vice -Mayor, if I recall correctly they indicated they had seven
speakers and I think they have already used up more than seven.
Mr. Hersh: No, you apparently don't count too well. We're going to have two
more and then that will be... We cut our presentations to a bare minimum. We
didn't have the opportunity to ask other people to address you and even though
we limited the number of appearances we then reduced the length of their present-
ations based upon their representation that they were limiting their speakers
and they've already completed their speakers.
Mr. Traurig: That's not true, we've six people talk, we have the accountant and
one more resident and that's, .in fact, Nr. Suarez represents a different group...
Mr. Hersh: I'm delighted to have you do it because you're helping us win.
Mr. Traurig: I didn't realize this was a contest.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, are you running the meeting?
Rev. Gibson: Counsel, you have exceeded, -your side has exceeded the time five
minutes more than they. Now I just want to make sure that we all are conscious
of that light there.
Mr. Hersh: We will make our final two presentations as brief as possible.
Rev. Gibson: You want to take two minutes a piece? That will be four minutes
and that will even the time up.
Mr. Hersh: This is our next speaker, the architect Mr. O.K. Houston and he will
take about four minutes.
Rev. Gibson: That will be the time, counsel. All right, go right on, sir.
Mr. O.K. Houston: I'll try to hit my two minutes, sir. I see Mrs. Gordon is
not there. Mrs. Gordon and commissioners, I'm 0. K. Houston, Jr., architect.
My office is at 420 South Dixie Highway. I'm being retained by the opposition
as an architectural expert to review the plans of the particular planned build-
ing for UTD. My qualifications as far as knowing something about highrises, I'm
the architect of the Mutual of Omaha Building and two of the highrises in Coral
Gables, Franklin International Plaza and Ponce Plaza on Ponce de Leon Boulevard.
As fax as nursing homes or homes for the aged, my office is at the present time
68
doing a 600 unit in Fort Meyer called the Living Towers, a 100 bed nursing home
in the sae city, a 100 bed nursing home in Lakeland, Florida and an 83 unit for
the Baptist Church in Boynton Beach which is now out for bid. This is a differ-
ent type of building than an apartment building or anything else -and it's a type
Of building that we're going to see a lot more of in the future. There is not
too much research done on the particular requirements of these people, they are
an excellent group of people, their activities sometimes shame we who are younger,
they need space, they need things. Behind me on the board is the figures that
have been presented at various times to the various boards. They primarily show
one thing- there is an awful lot going on a little piece of land. If this were
-not a PAD you would have something like 7 or 8 variances, the only one you would
not have would be probably the parking. All this thing boils down to is the fact
that there is not that much space for these peoples' activities. If they take
the 1.2 which about correct as far as the density is concerned they will put 440
people in this particular piece of property. If you examined or you remember
the pictures that Mr. Traurig showed you and the architect who happens to be a
very fine architect as well as the architects on your review board. The only
area really for use of these people is that behind the building between the build-
ing on the bay, that's approximately 15 to 20,000 square feet. Their space usable
for so-called activities other than landscaping of a tree in a parking lot or a
setback from the parking lot to the property line is about 45,000 square feet
which is approximately 60% of that required by your own Code. All right, now
let's take that little space behind the building. That space - this room here
is approximately 75' square, suppose it contains 200 people, put 440 people in
an area three times this size and you've got the idea of the recreational space
provided by these units. That in my professional opinion is too small for the
activity and can be changed. The Urban Review Board said it was adequate, I do
not want to go against their judgement except that since this is a new type of
concept and they may not have had experience in designing this type of building
they might not have known that. As a result the opposition has said that they
could take parking, and they have more parking than they need, they could take
this parking out and t:-,Py could put parking under ground. I would suggest that
this be sent back to review to see how much parking they absolutely need. Now
there is a difficulty in that, it just can't be taken off and say I'll take so
many cars off and so forth. According to their statements half is below ground,
half is above ground. These people while extremely active have eye sight that
is not quite as good, their depth perception begins to go down, I know mine has
and I'm not as old as they are. Some of you wear glasses, some do not. To go
down ramps with turns that we require no more than 23 feet or so radiuses is
difficult for elderly people and they dcn't like to go down... But if you take
half off and make enough space for this to be feasible you've got to revise your
parking scheme and I suggest this has to be done. One other thing that came up
that was not mentioned in any way shape or form was fire lanes. The auditorium
location blocks the access of Fire engines around that particular building. Since
these people are not quite as mobile as we are they would need more protection
and consequently that should become a factor. Thank you.
Mr. Hersh: The last speaker is Miss Janet Waldman.
Miss Janet Waldman: Thank you. I think one of the reasons why I got the applause
from my friends and neighbors and one of the reasons that I got the boos from my
friends and neighbors, and I do have friends and neighbors over at the UTD Towers,
is because I have been one of the most active people in Save Brickell Avenue. I
am the President of Save Brickell Avenue and I have fortunately had the time to
devote to do a lot of study of this matter. And while I could address you on
numerous issues for hours on end without repeating myself I will try to stick
very closely to the issue of these dedications. Now these figures that you see
behind me are indicative of the different figures that have been presented to
the Planning and Zoning Department at different times. As you see the first evi-
dence is directly taken from the drawings on the plan. It lists the site as
136,016 square. That would give you an acreage of 3.112. The number of dwelling
units that was mentioned on the plans.is 366 and before I continue with this 366
I would like to speak with Mr. Frank Williams who is the Chief Inspector, I believe,
with the City of Miami Zoning Department. I would like to ask him what the plans
for the original building showed as far as the number of apartments and whether
he has any indication that there are any more or feser number of dwelling units
in that building now than there were then. Mr. Williams, may we call on you?
?r. Traurig: Mr. Vice -Mayor, if I, understand -the proceedings we're not at this
point in for a Building Permit we have merely submitted plans to the Zoning
Department and we're happy to hear from M.r. Williams but I don't think all of
these things are germane.
Miss Waldman: They are very germane because I will show where the figures are
inaccurate and that is the basis of my presentation here tonight. And if you
_ 69
JUL 211977
y
wallid like to take my word for it I'll be happy not to ask Mr. Williams.
. Traurig: I'll be delighted to take you word for it because I don't thihhk
any of it really is germane.
Mr. Waldman: I spoke with Mr. Williams this morning and he assured me there
were, in fact, 272 apartments or dwelling units in the initial building and that
there are to the best knowledge of the department 272 units existing today.
This while it looks like only six units may not change the figures dramatically
but it is part of the pattern and as you can see and as I will show you it changes
the figures tremendously. Now on February 1st Mr. West added a set of figures
to the plans. On this set of plans we lost some square footage. We had 135,935
square feet which brings it down to 3.12 acres and a very interesting item is
that what was listed as usable open space on this set of figures is 55,030 square
feet, again the 366 dwelling units and a Floor Area Ratio of 2.115. Now on Feb-
ruary 9th, eight days later, Mr. West admitted another set of figures which I
understand was at the request of Mr. Davis and this was less the 70' dedication
by 200' frontage and this gave an acreage of 2.79 with a square footage of
121,935 square feet. However, the usable open space figure remains the same.
Now to the best of my knowledge the building didn't get any smaller, they didn't
take off any parking spaces from the parking lot, what is left? Usable open
space. Well, it could very well have been a typographical error or whatever but
nevertheless these two figures remain the same when the square footage of the
site area was reduced by 14,000 square feet. Of course, since the site area is
reduced you have a higher Floor Area Ratio because it is very important, this
is what your Floor Area Ratio is dependent upon and we have 2.36 here. Now the
URDB came along and they looked at the most recent set of figures and they, and
I may probably use the word arbitrarily because I believe that that is their
prerogative to make some arbitrary decisions, added 40' of the 70' which was not
paved thus they brought the square footabe up to 129,935 square feet which brought
the figure of acreage up to 2.98. Well, the figures that they added, 8,000
square feet here, so where else are you going to add that 8,000 square feet but
right back onto the usable open space? Well, all of a sudden they end up with
8,000 square feet of usable open space that wasn't there when you figured the
entire site. And I will point out to you that item #4 on the URDB Report states
as one of the most important points that was considered, the fact that the usable
open space nearly meets the requirement, Well, we'll discuss a little bit that
in a minute - brings the Floor Area Ratio, I'm sorry, the lot coverage to 18.3%,
the same number of dwelling units and a figure of 126 dwelling units per acre
with a floor area ratio of 2.21. Now you're already seeing three different sets
of Floor Area Ratios and I will discuss the comparison with the surrounding build-
ings when I get done. With the help of Mr. Houston, actually I should say Mr.
Houston with my help came up with the actual figures according to ordinance and
according to law and I will substantiate this. On April 18th of 1972 a memorandum
regarding Lots 70,71; 72 and 73 of this same subdivision, Robert Ferencik wrote
to Mr. Harold Young and stated: Mr. Watson's suggestion that Mr. Forte be per-
mitted to use the 70' service road reservation in the.computation of Floor Area
Ratio, set backs, lot coverage, etc. is not consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance nor is it consistent with the practice that has been carried
out in similar situations both on Brickell Avenue and in other areas of the City
where zoned street rights -of -way exist whether or not the city holds title to
the property they are not counted as being part of the parent tract when making
the various computations necessary in calculating the Floor Area Ratio, set back,
etc. And he goes on. Yes, we're going to enter this. He goes on in saying
that he should point out to you that all along that all of the development that
has been carried out along Brickell Avenue since the adoption of 7111 has been
constructed without counting the 70' reserve area into the Floor Area Ratio, lot
coverage, etc. I submit to you that this would be very dangerous to present a
proposal that now includes the 70'. You will see this come up again and again
in lawsuits against the city that I'm sure the city does not need to have brought
against it. Now based on this legal interpretation by your representative Mr.
Houseton and I worked up some figures that the actual square footage that can
be legally counted is 119,435 square feet bringing the acreage down to 2.74 which
you know from previous testimoney is not consistent with the minimum acreage re-
quired for a PAD. And going back to the plan, Mr. Housetpn laboriously computed
them because I don't know anyone else personally who is qualified to do that, he
saw that there was only 45,800 square feet of usable open space. He came up with
a figure of lot coverage of 20.3% and we go back to the original and correct num-
ber of dwelling units of 372 which brings the number of dwelling units per acre
at 136 and which brings the Floor Area Ratios to 2.41 on a lot the size of 2.74
acres. Now if they were to follow the standard R-5A zoning they would need
74,400 square feet of usable open space, they would be permitted to have a maxi-
mum of 265.4 dwelling units. They already have 272. The dwelling unit per acre
JUL 211.77
figure is 96.8, they are proposing 136 and with this 2.0 Floor Area Ratio I Would
like to make another discussion. Now I have a very important .Point to make and
I will appreciate it if you will listen because it is for your good as well as
the rest of the City of Miami. Now the bonuses that were awarded in the URDB
Report awarded bonuses, there were two bonus types awards, one was for putting
some parking underground and the other was for the depth of the lot. Now with
.02 bonus points allowed for a depth of a lot of something like 100 or 150' and
then an additional .1 for making the lot even deeper of something even deeper
of something like 300'. Now i submit that you really aren't entitled first of
all both those bonuses but that's not the point here. The point I'm trying to
make is that in the R-5A district there is a provision for increasing the Floor
Area Ratio on bonuses and that provision is for increasing the apartment size
above an average of 700 square feet per dwelling unit. The average dwelling unit
in the addition is 581 square feet. If you average in the existing 272 apartments
or dwelling you come up with an average of 521 square feet which is below
the minimum which is 550 and certainly far below the suggestion for bonus points
which is 700 square feet, above 700 square feet. Now I've been doing some read-
ing, quite a bit of reading as a matter of fact and one of the things that I read
was this Brickell booklet prepared by the Planning and Zoning Department in con-
junction with a number of noted architects and without quoting directly from it
I will tell you that that talks about awarding bonuses and larger FAR for large
lot sizes. Now here we're dealing with a lot that is below the minimum size and
besides being below the minimum of three acres it is not a distinguished piece
of property. There is nothing that distinguishes this piece of property from
any other piece of property along this strip. I have a map that I will show you
that shows that you cannot tell which area of the land is the UTD Towers land
and which is not. I'll find it for you later. Oh, here is one. Now....
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I don't know whether she had two minutes or four
minutes but I think she's taken twenty minutes.
Ms. Waldman: What are you afraid of what I'm saying, Mr. Traurig?
Mr. Traurig: No, but I think this is a clear case of deception.
Decaption! I am showing the truth. The deception existed in
sets of figures so that nobody could make heads or tails of it.
Madame, I hope you will all remember that the people over here have
heard an equal time and to be respected.
Yes, sir, I do.
Ms. Waldman:
five different
Rev. Gibson:
a right to be
Ms. Waldman:
Rev. Gibson: I would hope that you realize that I gave an unusual amount of time
to your side and the man that spoke before you was speaking in addition to the
the amount of time and so are you now.
Ms. Waldman: Yes, sir, I understand.
Rev. Gibson: I would hope so that we don't have to ... That you would try to
wind it up, please.
Ms. Waldman: Well,
ant points.
Rev. Gibson: I hope you will be even briefer because you know otherwise you put
me in an awful bind and I regret that I dinaat't thenow that I nobody woulduld haveave given all
exceeded that.
of you a half an hour each. Had I done th
So I hope you will wind it up for me.
Ms. Waldman: Well, I'm going to try but I hope that in the interest of a few
minutes time... I hope that in the inrerest of a few moments time we will not
make a wrong decision for lack of information.
Rev. Gibson: I promise you we are going to try to do the best in making the
right decision and I assure you that I want you to kind of wind it up.
Ms. Waldman: I understand, and if we could get back to my presentation we wont
be spending any more time on this discussion. Now, I will quote to you from,
think I've discussed the point of whether or not this 70' should be counted in
but I will quote to you from the hearing of June 6th which was the first Planning
and Zoning Hearing and Mr. Traurig in the June 6th hearing said among other things
the ordinance talks about the possibility of the 70' dedication for the service
I'm trying to be as brief as I can and yet cover the import-
1
•
JUL 211977
NNW
drive along Brickell Avenue. Notice he said possibility. Not in the URDB Report
it is agreed by the applicant, whoever the applicant is, that there will be not
only a 70' dedication but an additional 20' curb dedication and in light of the
history of the UTD Towers with the dedication, and I'll make it very quick. I'I1
tell you what happened. UTD Towers then CTA Towers came before the Zoning Board
and received many variances and they were required to place the 70' under dedicat-
ion to the city. They got their building permit or they got their zoning approval
and they turned around and immediately closed their construction loan with HUD
which is with the United States of America through HUD without having deeded this
property that they well knew they were obligated to deed. When the city commun-
icated numerous times with them they made all kinds of excuses for time and fin-
ally said, "We can't turn this property over to you because it is security for a
mortgage to the United States of America." So what transpired then was an ease-
ment. Now, the CTA Towers knew they had to dedicate this property, they didn't
close until after they had received their zoning permission, how come they didn't
dedicate the property, how come they didn't talk to the United States of .America
when they were closing this loan and say hey, we can't sign over the 70' to you
because we have already agreed to turn it over to the City of Miami. Well, I
submit to you that when Mr. Traurig said the ordinance talked about the possibil-
ity of the 70' dedication for the service drive along Brickell Avenue I wonder
what he is going to plan to do and what we will actually see. I do have other
things that I could talk to you about but basically I have talked on the most
important issues and so in interest of time and to comply with the wishes of the
honorable Vice -Mayor I will at this point end my presentation.
Rev. Gibson: I appreciate that so much, thanks very much. All right I'm going
to solve this problem. Sir, I'll give you five minutes and give you five minutes
and that will solve that problem.
Mr. Hersh: I didn't get to summarize so I think I should have six.
Rev. Gibson: Alright, you wouldn't need more than two minutes to summarize I
trust, especially when you had all the time over here.
Mr. Hersh: I would only need two minutes to summarize.
Rev. Gibson: Ali right, I tell you what you do. You summarize and then I'll let
you...
Mr. Traurig: I would like the opportunity, Mr. Vice -Mayor, in addition to that
rebuttal time to have the opportunity to call A1r. Culver to appear before you
for just one moment. He is sitting right in front of you, and also to have the
architect, Mr. West clarify some information which I think was grossly distorted.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir, let's deal with this clock - two minutes.
Mr. Hersh: This is the summary?
Rev. Gibson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hersh: And that's it?
Rev. Gibson: Let's hope that you wouldn't need more than three minutes.
Mr. Hersh: Thank you, Mr. Vice -Mayor. I think that clearly the presentations
show that....
Rev. Gibson: Take five minutes, I want to be fair to you.
Mr. Hersh: I accpet graciously. There are three major points that we have
attempted to make this afternoon and early evening, (1) That on a technicality
this does not qualify for a Planned area Development. It is not three acres, it
just doesn't qualify in any way shape or form. (2) That the density is too high,
the open spaces are not there as represented or we submit misrepresented. (3)
That there is a continuation of bad faith by these applicants that is clear and
evident from the various presentations. Now I would submit and say to you that
when you look at and you see and we've asked to enter because you've all been
given this page and I hope it is entered with these five sets of figures, I'd
asked that it be entered because this raises a clear doubt in anyone's mind when
you look at those figures as was ably presented by Miss Waldman. If there were
actually acreage of 2.74 and not 2.9 acres as reflected by Mr. Traurig and the
applicant and, in fact, if the various floor area ratios and the 70' service
road have properly been calculated by your Urban Development Review Board and
we've entered all of these documents into the record, if all of these are a matter
of fact then we come to a situation where there really is a reasonable doubt as
'72 J U L 211977
•
to telying on these figures. I really emplore you to consider sending this back
for 'recomputations, get your experts to recalculate these figures because you have
heard from our expert who has gone through these figures carefully and determined
that they do not jive. You've heard that on February 1 there was one set of fig-
ures, on February 9th another set of figures, the Urban Development Review Board
a third set of figures and the original drawings a fourth set of figures and now
our figures which we submit are correct that clearly follow the policy of the City
of Miami with regard to the 70'. If that be the case and if you recall Mr. 0, K.
Houseton telling you that the important thing is usable open space and that it
doesn't exist in this project then we come to a situation that perhaps it should
be sent back for further reconsideration because the fact is when we get down to
it there has been complete bad faith. They didn't dedicate the 70' before and
the same mortgage exists with the Federal Government, they can't dedicate that
70 feet. It's mortgaged to the Federal Government to the HUD if they're making
the payments because it's low interest and I think it is only interest that is
primarily being paid but if they're making their payments it is a long term mort-
gage and the government hasn't released it and isn't going to release that 70'
and that was a condition that was put out by your Planning and Zoning Board when
they had the hearing. Now one other thing in closing, I would like to remind
you if you would to look at the transcript from June 20th because Mr. Frank
Williams, your Chief Zoning Inspector told you that as a result, and this is on
page 91 he testified and he said that with result of the continuing zoning vio-
lations of the union activities going on there he said he is in a dilemma. He
says if I sign a building permit I can be convicted of misconduct and if I don't
sign it I can be convicted of misconduct again. You know between a rock and a
hard place, that's the position that your Chief Zoning Inspector is in when there
is knowledge of continuing zoning violations going on there and he is being asked
if he will sign a new building permit. That's all right, that was on 91. Mr.
Tornillo testified on page 93 of that same hearing, that's just a few weeks ago
and on 93 he told your Planning and Zoning Board, he says if you want to restrict
the second building we'll accept it but we will not accept your decision for the
existing building. That's what Pat Tornillo told you on June 20th, "We will not
accept it." The fact of the matter is the opponents of this plan do not accept
this plan as it is proposed because it does not qualify as a PAD and it is too
much density in an R-SA area and finally they continue to show their lack of
good faith. Thank you.
Rev. Gibson: All right, counsel.
Mr. Traurig: I have two rebuttal witnesses and then I'll summarize for you, no
three because I believe Mr. Tornillo wants to address you aaain for a moment. I
would like to call on a member of the board of UTD, Mr. C. Sullivan Culver.
Mr. C. Sullivan Culver: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I'm C. Sullivan Culver. I live 2550
N.W. 33rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. I am the Vice -President of the UTD Towers
Board, that non-profit organization. As a member of that board from day one I
resent the fact that much is made to do over no blacks living in UTD Towers. I
believe HEW guidelines require that minorities, that these facilities be made
available to minorities. There are members of minority groups in that building.
The fact that no blacks are there is no reason why and is not evident of the fact
that the opportunity to live there have not been extended to blacks. I speak for
myself as well as the other three members, black members of UTD Towers Board. It
is advertised frequently almost weekly in the Miami Times and to members of the
black community and to the teachers that these facilities are open to any person
who qualifies, any teacher who has parents that qualifies to live in that build-
ing it is open to them and it is well known throughout the county and I resent
and I know my fellow board members resent the fact that this is being made a issue
of in this meeting. Thank you very much.
Mr. Elmer Brigman: Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the commission, as difficult as
it is to respond to half truths, distortions, half quotes and outright lies and
a clever smokescreen to camoflage the real issues. Let me very briefly say the
following: With regard to Federal housing, it is unions, labor unions and churches
in this nation who have been the sponsors of elderly housing from :Miami to San
Francisco to New York, all over this country, All you need to do is look at the
record, Who has provided elderly housing for senior Americans in this country?
Who have been the sponsors of those projects? UTD is legally the sponsor. Who
else would be? A rich landlord who is putting up a luxury highrise apartment?
One of the comments was made with regard to the fact by the esteemed attorney
that we need to have separate corcporations. Well we may or we may not but that
is irrelevant to this issue of the zoning. It is a technical matter and can and
will be resolved. Whether or not we have separate corporations for his informat-
ion it will be the same board that will be the board for both corporations an
paper and they both will be non-profit. The 202 funding contrary to what the
JUL 211977
attorney has told you is set aside. It has not been rescinded and is reserved:
the decision on the Section VIII funding which is separate from the 202 funding
is waiting for a decision from this commission today and that's only a matter of
whether the money, Section VIII not Section 202 money comes out of this years
HUD budget or comes out of next years budget after October but there has never
been a question about whether or not the money would be provided. By law by the
federal regulations, there's been a lot said here that why don't we restrict this
to just teachers. By law we can give preference only to teachers but we cannot
restrict the residency to just teachers. Under Federal housing regulations and
the regulatory agreement Federal Housing must be open to everyone regardless to
race, color, creed or whatever occupation they have. You can and we have given
preference. The occupancy of the present UTD Towers is 53% teachers and relat-
ives of teachers and the other 47% are some very find retirees who occupy other
occupations and other professions. The statement that we have a four member
legal firm is totally erroneous and a lie. We have one attorney on the premises.
The fact of the matter is I wish we did have four. This entire statement that
was made by the gentleman, I'm not sure I recall his name, on the economics of
the situation, the tax rolls, the loss of taxes, I almost felt while I was listen-
ing to that that I was listening to the Republican Party's Platform on housing
for the elderly because it almost read exactly the way it was written. 0f course,
housing for the elderly does not provide taxes for a city, that's the balance
that's provided by those who have to help those who have not and that's exactly
what this country was based on and thank God for it. Mrs. Waldman's charts and
figures remind me of a saying my grandfather said to me that it all depends on
whose charts and who figures you're using. The opposition and Mrs. Waldman would
have this commission believe by her charts and her comments that the Planning
Department of the City of Miami, the Environmental Review Board of the City of
Miami and the Zoning Board of the City of Miami do not know what they're doing,
have used erroneous figures and border on incompetence and I suggest to you, lad-
ies and gentlemen that you know better. You have some very fine competent people
working for the City of Miami and don't forget that this project comes to you
with their approval despite lengthy presentations and the figures, anyone can do
anything with figures and you have people that have looked at these figures who
work for the city and they are extremely competent people and L suggest that you
take her figures with a grain of salt. Thank you.
Mr. Traurig: I'd like to call Mr. West, the architect for just one moment and
then I would rebut, Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Robert West: My name is Bob West, an architect. I have offices at 6915
Red Road, Coral Gables. Please excuse my sunglasses, I'm near sighted and I
can't see the figures without them. Excuse my counsel, if you'll step aside
I'll attempt to try to explain the figures to the committee. I'll say I've had
a few discussions with Janet, she's called me several times, one conversation
over the phone where I gave her facts and figures I think exceeded an hour and
I've tried to cooperate with her as much as possible. I have not talked to 0. K.
Houseton, I wish he had called and perhaps we could have eliminated some of the
confusion. The first line of figures -T think speak for themselves, they're the
figures that are on the drawings. The second line of figures are some data sheets
I gave to the Planning Department with our submission. They were dated the first
of February and they did include the 70' right-of-way or not right -or -way but the
70' easement. It has not been dedicated. I think they still have title to....
Excuse me, Janet. The first set of figures do include the 70' easement, the Feb-
ruary first figures. The February 9th figures were given to the Planning Depart-
ment at their request to refigure the project without the 70' easement. Having
done two projects on Brickell Avenue, the Bay Club and Forte Plaza, having worked
with the Planning Department the Urban Development Review Board and the Planning
Adviwory Board and this Commission I think we are all familiar with the 70'. I
am not a lawyer I'm an architect. Going to the third row of figures that are
over there, these are figures which the Planning Department and the Urban Develop-
ment Review Board came up with. I can really find no argument with those figures,
in fact, they gave us another 8,000 squate feet of open space which I suspect
probably came from the 40' which they added back in for our benefit of the 70'
green area which I had not counted. I do not know what O. K. Houseton has included
in his figures except that they are somewhat different in minor numbers. The
thing which is not minor perhaps is the 372 dwelling units. I think we all know
from reading in the newspapers that there are 259 apartment units in the existing
building. We propose to add a hundred in the new building making 359 and then
I've been told by my client that they plan to take seven apartments which are I
imagine are now office area, I do not know the existing building that well, but
they plan to take seven of those apartments or that area equivalent to seven
apartments and convert them back to units makin g a total of 366 units. There
is not 272 apartments in the existing building now and there will not be and is
74 JUL 21 1977
intended in our PAD application. lt's 366. But anyway to repeat, the first figure
was without the 70' then with the 70' then the third column is the.Urban Develop -
tent Review Board. You're off small amounts, the only one I can see is the 8,000
square feet where I think they took the 40' green area from the service road and
added it back in for our benefit and other than that I think our figures will
withhold attack from anybody. I wanted to speak in general terms and not in fig-
ures, I'm sorry we got side tracked, I don't think the figures are the issue.
If I could take just a minute I'd like to address a couple of comments just to
Mr. Houseton's remarks. One is the parking that is needed for this project.
Federal guidelines specify .18 or .2 parking spaces per unit. The city, it is
my understanding, has just passed an ordinance requiring .3 or .33 cars per dwell-
ing unit for the elderly. We made a survey of the usage on the units that are
there and came up with a requirement, a real requirement of .44 cars per units
based on experience and that is what we are planning to provide in this project.
We wanted to go and make utilization of the existing Code or this new Code and
we would cut it less but they have a real need for that parking. The ramps, the
ramps are greatly over -sized. This is one item that came up in the review process
with the Urban Development Review Board. They are probably 50% wider than the
ramps down at the Bay Club which I have personal knowledge of. The fire lanes
that were :mentioned were considered and the one side of the building there which
is blocked by emergency equipment by the auditorium. The auditorium is there,
that cannot be amended regardless of the proposed building. Just very quickly
I would like to say that by all measures of density and existing zoning the pro-
ject as it stands now the building underdevelops that property under the R-5A
zoning. This is the reason for the PAD approval to develop the property up to
the allowable under the R-5A without an application and to work with the city
under a PAD to provide a greater number of individual units than the R-5A allows.
These are unique units, they'resmall but by all measures of density, people, floor
area ratio and cars this project is less dense than Brickell Bay Club, compared
to the Brickell Bay Club because I'm a property owner there and I was the archi-
tect there and rather than get into a battle with the neighbors, but by all meas-
ures of density it is less. We are asking for a floor area ratio of 2.21 as com-
pared to 2.36 which was given at the Bay Club. The number of cars is less per
acre than on these other projects. It is a good viable PAD application, I think
it deserves your passage. Thank you.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Vice -Mayor, Mrs. Gordon, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the
entire matter can be summed up when we talk about one little subject and it is
typical of the matters that have been called to your attention by the opposition.
They raise time and time again the matter of the dedication of the 70' as if that
is the critical matter in connection with the development of this property. Now
what is all of that 70' business about? Because in your R-5A ordinance you have
a provision that says under certain circumstances you might be entitled to a ser-
vice drive and that if you are along, and it was really intended to be Brickell
Avenue, but a state road or a federal road in a certain area, et., etc., the City
has the right to ask for a 70' service drive under certain conditions but it
could be waived. What do you want the service drive for? So that you can carry
traffic. Now they keep telling you those folks didn't give you a service drive,
those folks didn't give you the dedication, those folks didn't tear out all that
shrubbery, all that natural vegetation and destroy it to give you a road that you
don't need. We're talking about saving trees and they're talking about those bad
people at UTD that didn't give you the road. Well that isn't fair and everybody
knows it isn't fair and they're raising this question because they are trying to
embarrass UTD. They're not concerned about the viability of the plan, they're
not concerned about the land planning aspects. They're raising something about
a 70' dedication that someday the city might want. Well, this was considered by
the Urban Development Review Board and the Urban Development Review Board which
is composed to outstanding architects said listen, let's swing that service drive
around those trees. We think that the plan Mr. West has proposed is terrific,
let's move it around the trees so we have an area on the east side of that 70'
area and we'll use that for the service drive if we ever need it. We don't even
know if we'll need it. So for them to raise a question about the service drive
as if it is the big thing in this plan just is unfair. Now to be honest with
you I stood here a lot longer than I had anticipated standing to listen to them
say things which I really am shocked by and offended by and embarrassed and in-
sulted by. They're talking about money. They're not talking about people they're
not talking about life style they're not talking about the commitment of this com-
mission to create housing for the elderly and other housing that would be subsi-
dized in a manner. I made a check list of things that they said and two out of
every three relate to money. They said such things as "The final loan approval
has not been granted, that there is a low average square foot per unit." They
would like us to have less units and have more square footage per unit but we're
_ 75 JUL 211977
creating housing for people who need it. the objective of the program is to
create small housing units, -the total population of which would not equate with
the population at Brickell Place and they're saying our units are too small
because our people can't afford to pay a lot of money for larger units. They say
don't let us set a precedent, a precedent of what? A precedent not to have high-
rises on Brickell Avenue, a precedent not to have PADs on Brickell Avenue? They're
saying don't let us set a precedent by taking in more people who have less money
than they have and I'm offended by it. They talk about Mr. Axelrod's salary,
they talk about the economics of the taxes and Mr. Tornillo talked about hat for
just a second and it is absolutely true that subsidized areas and certain other
areas with a community don't carry their fair share of the Ad Valorem Taxes includ-
ing parks and schools and governmental buildings and complexes and they're saying
don't put any schools up because we need the tax money, let's use their land for
something else. It's the same thing as saying don'g let them build a building
to house people who need to have some kind of governmental help through some kind
of governmental program. Suppose a housing for the elderly program were built by
the City of Miami or by the church or by Little HUD or by some other non-profit
corporation in any other place, it would have the same kind of Ad Valorem Tax
advantages and the intention is not to benefit a few people who derive profit out
of it but to give a break to people who at this point in their lives don't have
the same kind of incomes as the people in Brickell Place. They say we can' waste
our best tax areas and I would say to you that we can't waste our best people and
I think that is the difference. They're talking about our best tax areas and
we're talking about our best people who served this community when they were of
an age where they could serve the community and now that they're retired continue
to serve the community. You had testimoney from a lot of different places from
people involved in the United Fund, United Way, people who are involved, the lady
from Florida City, all of the people who testified about the kind of work that
they do that you can't get from the average folks. And so they're saying that
`.hose people aren't good enough to live on Brickell Avenue and I think an, ody
could see through that. They say realestate values will decline and that's poppy-
cock. Real estate values have to be improved by the kind of quality of people
that will be living in the area and they say something about whether retirees
have a right to live on that street and on and on talking about the economic fact-
ors and don't let UTD destroy Brickell Avenue. UTD isn't about to destroy Brickell
Avenue it's about to add another dimension to Brickell Avenue and make it an
even greater street. Now I
Mr. Hersh: Mr. Mayor, are we going to five minutes? He's been already almost
ten....
Mr. Traurig: I think all of the statements that were made were designed to em-
barrass some people and designed to designed to embarrass the institution and
designed to avoid the issue. The issue is does Brickell Avenue have the kind of
environment for a PAD, is this a site that ought to have a PAD, are these the
kind of people and are there counterparts the kind of people who ought to have
the privilege to live on Brickell Avenue? They talk about the area being too
small, less than three acres and we've got 2.98 acres, I don't care if we've got
2.5 acres we're entitled to a PAD because we are offering something to the com-
munity that justifies the kind of bonus we're talking about and we don't have
2.5 we've got 2.98. They talk about the density being too high, the density and
the number of units is a little bit high but in FAR it's 2.21 against their 2.36.
They never talk about their property having the highest FAR around and then they
talk about bad faith. I would submit to you that they come here with bad faith.
Mr. Hersh: The fact of the matter is when you come right down to it Mr. Tornillo
didn't speak to M.r. Buz Kirk this afternoon and he didn't tell you that he had
and he said to you well, if we don't get the money this year HUD will get it next
year because that's what Mr. Buz Kirk told us this afternoon. It's nog coming
this year and it's been recommended against and the fact is, and we'd enter into
a letter from Mr. Buz Kirk in 1976 where he said in this letter which is again
from the files regarding this project and he says in page two, "The increase of
density would be approximately 37% which in our opinion would be exceptionally
high considering that elderly housing should be planned to provide an abundance
of open space suitably designed for both active and passive recreation." And
he goes on to say that a 368 unit complex would tend to impact the area thereby
adversely affecting the life style and planning characteristics of the existing
202 project. We enter that letter into the presentation at this time. In final
summation I think it is important to knew that a lot of this has to do, Mr. West
says with how many units you count in in the existing building. Is it 366, 372?
The problem is, and that's all in the HUD files, they were authorized to build
272 then they dropped down to 266 then they went down to 259 and that's the prob-
lem because they're using units that they had federal funds that our taxpayers
paid for union offices and that is why HUD is so upset and that's why the figures
'7f
JUL 211977
get thke n off because 1 submit to you that what should be done is the figures
bounce back to your Urban Development Review Board and that for the first time
this applicant should allow your inspectors to go in to determine how many units
Ate actually there on the premises because you can see that it makes a big dif-
ference in all your computations depending upon how many units you talk about in
total because if you check the Dade County tax rolls there are 259 units on the
tax rolls, I'm told 256, I understood 259. But in any event the big change comes
in the number of units and again we tell you that we're not opposed to the people,
that would be foolish but we are opposed the building, we are opposed to the proj-
ect as has been presented and to the five sets of figures. For all those reasons
and with the clear understanding that Mr. Houseton has told you that he has the
qualifications that he builds elderly homes, he's involved in these projects,
that for all these reasons he submits that it is not good land use and we request
and would ask you to deny this or in the alternative to remember that when your
Planning and Zoning Board came before you that they said that no union activity
should occur anywhere on the premises and they went in, and it is in your file
as to the 70'. Mr. Traurig says forget about the 70' but page one of the report
of May 17th says the UDRB found as follows: (1) The URDB recognizes that the
applicant has agreed to dedicate the 70' strip. They didn't have to require it
and I'll enter that in right now. They didn't have to require it because the
fact is they had agreed already so they had accepted that agreement and they went
on to make them give another 20'. That's all in your report of your professionals
and for all those reasons we'd ask you to deny the application as presented.
Thank you.
Rev. Gibson: You're going to ask me a question now, you kno• one question.
Ms. Waldman: I would like to answer one question. Mr. Traurig has repeatedly
compared the FAR to the FAR of Brickell Place and I can provide you with document-
ation that the City of Miami was the defendant in a lawsuit regarding that FAR
and Mr. Guiterrez settled in lieu of losing to the city on a FAR of 2.36 that
specifically excluded counting the dedicated area and if he would like to compare
the FAR of Brickell Place with the FAR of the proposed property I would like him
to compare it with the figures that are presented to you without the dedicated
area and his FAR would then be 2.41 as opposed to Brickell Place's 2.36.
Mr. Traurig: I think you're ending with a question mark, eight?
Ms. Waldman: No, sir.
Rev. Gibson: Ladies and gentlemen, I hate to do this but you know that's one of
the disadvantages of being in this chair, you get worn out. The bottom part
can't stand but so much you know and it gets to be a point where we have to cut
it off. Is there anybody who's just got to speak?
Mr. Traurig: I don't just have to speak, Mr. Vice -Mayor.
Rev. Gibson: Go ahead.
Mr. Traurig: I do want to say one thing, that the grants that were made through-
out this community by the Federal government including the Catholic church and
the Greater Miami Jewish Federation and UTD and so forth are for specific numbers
of units. The grant to UTD is for a hundred units. They can't build a hundred
units anywhere because the cost of operation for a small building are very high
per unit. They have to consolidate it in this location with the existing facil-
ities and the existing service personnel. I want you to understand that the only
way that we can provide the kind of facilities for these people we want to serve
is on this tract.
Rev. Gibson: All right, I'm going to rule 'J'ai fini'. Do you know what that is?
Oh, you didn't know I knew that. Right, it is finished. Please be seated.
Alright, we wait to hear the Commission now.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Vice -Mayor, may I ask Mr. Fosmoen to stand up at the microphone
and give us a little bit of :is ooint of view from the Planning Department and
in his comments I'd like him to town on the fact of the number of people per
acre, etc., and some of the other things you've heard.
Mr. Fosmoen: Commissioners, it has been the position of the Planning Departm^nt
and Planning staff that the project be approved as submitted. our air season
for recommending this project is, in fact, based on the anci,r.. o_ activity, the
intensity of development that's going to occur. mha =ewer of people per acre
that this project is going t- ''-'erl.te is ape-�A=-Irately the same as those proj-
ects _:.z the suuLa. I thi- we can spend hours as we have talking
`77 JUL 211977
Vikr-
EP-
about numbers, about floor area ratios, about how one project compares to the
Other but the bottom line in our opinion is that the site will carry the number
of units for an elderly project. I underline that because if this was a convent-
ional project with a much higher density or number of people per unit we would
not be recommending it but it is intended as an elderly project with far fewer
people per unit and in end result there are approximately the same number of
people per acre proposed on this site as -there are for the projects both north
and south. I have one caveat I'd like to add to that. If the commission con-
siders the resolution before them since there was a great deal of discussion
about whether or not there is federal funding or a federal commitment available
to this project I would recommend that you consider amending the resolution that
is before you to provide for the approval by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for financial assistance as an elderly housing project.
Mrs. Gordon: Also, Mr. Fosmoen, it is important to clear the records with re-
gard to the numerous figures that were thrown at us. We understand that your
department also the Development Review Board went over this very carefully and
made recommendations. In order to clear the record would you state your posit-
ion on those statements that were made?
Mr. Fosmoen: It is the February 9 figures that are important, Commissioner.
want
That's the date of `:.; c final set of plans that came in. Mr. Whipple, do you
to expand on that?
Mr. Whipple: That in combination with the plans, dimensions as shown are the
plans on record and we are satisfied with the description of the project as set
forth in those two documents.
Mrs. Gordon: Is it that set of plans and those sets of figures that your depart-
ment approved or made a recommendation for approval?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, both our department and the Urban Development Review Board.
The Urban Development Review Board figures were figures that they used in their
analysis but they were using the same plans, the same figures submitted in the
letter dated February 9th.
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask you a question for information purposes? If, in fact,
they came in cr at the time of application for a permit, there was any other set
of figures or any other set of plans would there be a permit issued than the one
that was on February 9th?
Mr. Whipple: No. They would have to match these figures or they would have to
reprocess an application, another application to modify them.
Rev. Gibson: All right, any other questions? All right, I'm listening.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I've heard three hours and 25 minutes of testi-
money. Unfortunately only about 30 minutes of it pertained to zoning. Mr. Vice -
Mayor, I find nothing that contradicts that which was originally put forth and I
move you, sir, that we uphold the Planning Board and the Planning Staff with the
caveat so entered into by the experts.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Vice -Mayor, Mr. Plummer mentioned that the Planning Department,
Planning Board, I would like the record to reflect also that the Development Re-
view Board made up primarily of architects and landscape architects also entered
their recommendation for the approval and with all due respects to those people
who are neighbors adjacent to the property, and I don't feel that this develop-
ment will be a detriment to the area I am an appraiser, I do appraise things. I
know that this property is already there and I don't feel personally that there
will be any depreciation because of this additional development.
Rev. Gibson: Do you second the motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Second.
Rev. Gibson: Moved by Plummer, seconded by Gordon, Any discuss
Mr. Ongie: That is with the amendment.
Mr. Plummer:
With the caveat.
Mrs. Gordon: The amendment. for approval by HUP for financial assistance es
an elderly housing project.
JUL 211977
4
The following tesolution was inttoduced by Commissioner Plummer who toted
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-603
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD)
CONSISTING OF A NEW APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING
APARTMENT STRUCTURE ON LOTS 51 AND 52 LESS NW'LY 70', BLOCK
"B", MARY & WILLIAM BRICKELL SUB (B-96) , AND SUBMERGED LANDS
LYING SE'LY THEREOF TO THE FORMER DADE COUNTY BULKHEAD LINE
(74-3 SHEET 3), BEING 1809 BRILL AVENUE, AS PER PLANS ON
FILE, WITH A COMBINED TOTAL OF 366 DWELLING UNITS, SUBJECT
TO REPLATTING, AS PER ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXI-1, AND
SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE URBAN DEVELOP-
MENT REVIEW BOARD AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND APPROVED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR FINANC-
IAL ASSISTANCE AS AN ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT; WITH NO UNION
ACTIVITIES ON THE PREMISES; ZONED R-5A (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE).
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote -
AYES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAINING: Mayor Ferre.
21. DENY APPLICATION TO PERMIT PUD AT 2751 - 65 S.W. 22 AVENUE AND REQUESTING
PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE A STUDY OF THIS AREA,
Mr. Robert Davis: This is an application by Mr. Mello to permit develo ':ent
Planned Unit nature on 2751-65 S.W. 22 Avenue consisting of six units in six
structures. The Planning Department recommended debuak 6-1, nineteen objectors
were present at the meeting and twenty-one objections by mail. Mr. Vice -Mayor,
since the Zoning Board Meeting the applicant has revised his plans and gotten
with the neighborhood and hopefully it is a little quieter situation than we had
at the zoning Board. It is now an application for four units in four structures
instead of six units in six structures.
Mrs. Gordon: How large are those lots, Mr. Davis? There are two lots.
Mr. Davis: One hundred by two hundred, ma'am, each lot.
Mr. Plummer: Push the map down, where is Dixie Highway? Is it below it
it? ... Ok, so Dixie is below it...
Mrs. Gordon: Dixie is above it, J. L.
Mr. Davis: You can see at the bottom of the map where Bayshore is.
Mr. Plummer: Dixie is above it then.
Mr. Davis: It lies between Dixie Highway and Tigertail Avenue on the west side
of the street.
or above
Mr. Plummer: Oh, this is by the old fire station. Yes. That's the old house
that's unkept that sits back. Yes, I know.
Mrs. Gordon: Are the existing structures going to be removed? Which one,
the one to the north, the one to the south?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The one to the south. The one to the north will be re-
modeled.
Mrs. Gordon:
ok.
UNIDENTIFIED
Rev. Gibson:
Axe there any of the people who are objecting here tonight? Q1
SPEAKER: Some of us are still here.
A3right, you're the pro?
79
JUL 211977
Mti Thatas Mello: Yes, I'm the applicant.
Rev. Gibson: How many objectors are there? How much time do you need to Make
your presentation?
Mr. Mello: I have approximately 15 or 20 minutes. I have two speakers that would
also like to speak on behalf of the project so including all.
Rev. Gibson: A11 right. Gibe both sides 20 minutes, is that what we'd say?
Mr. Plummer: Is your objection serious or not serious?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Very serious.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir, let's hear you.
Mr. Thomas Mello: A11 right, my name is Mr. Thomas Mello. I am a builder and a
developer and I've been building in Coconut Grove now for about three years. My
office is at 2833 Bird Avenue. I am the applicant and I have petitioned for a
Conditional Use as provided for in the R-1 Zoning Ordinance. I originally re-
quested a Planned Unit Development of six units which according to the Planned
Unit Zoning Ordinance I was entitled to as the result of the way that that ordin-
ance is written. Now subsequent to that because of the opposition at the zoning
hearing I have reworked the project and have reduced the density because the
density was the primary objection to the majority of the people that appeared at
the zoning hearing. They felt that six units was just too many. I have reduced
it to four, I have a revised plan which I'd like to distribute amongst you.
Rev. Gibson: All right, sir.
Mr. Mello: I'd like to discuss the neighborhood very briefly because I think
this is quite important. It is an important point that needs to be considered.
Let me go to the other microphone so I can be closer to the map.
Mr. Plummer: Have the objectors seen this?
Mr. Mello: Yes, they have. The points I'd like to make about the neighborhood
are the character of the neighborhood. As you will notice on 22nd Avenue to the
west we have a subdivision of 50 X 100' lots on the average or approximately
5,000 squate foot lots and that continues on over to 27th Avenue. This is R-1
zoning. To the east we have a different type of subdivision. They are larger
lots which run from 22nd Avenue on to these several streets. The type of housing
that I am petitioning for is very compatible with that which is evidenced on 22
Avenue on the west side of 22 Avenue. The houses themselves are quite compatible
with those to the east. The density is somewhere in between what is on the west
and what is on the east because with four homes on approximately one acre it trans-
lates to one home to approximately 9,500 square feet. So you can see that is sub-
stantially larger than what is on the west but it is less that what is evidenced
on the east. The homes that are included in the revised plan are single story
where the original petition included two-story homes. The reason I've revised
them was because of the objections to the two story homes in a single story resi-
dential community. So we are now talking about a single story home and we are
talking about a density which is less dense than what is immediately across the
street or thirty feet away. The homes are not large homes, they are still basic-
ally the same size home that we originally petitioned for. They are 2200 square
feet, two bedroom with a den, three bath homes. These are not geared to large
families so we do not anticipate a large number of people residing in the homes.
Now you might also note that 22nd Avenue is a main artery. There is no problem
as far as traffic. There are at least two or three buses that service this area
and this property in question is approximately a block from Dixie Highway so it
is easily accessible. It is just down the street from Secoffee which is the
first street south of the highway. Now a great deal of the objections that we
have had in the past were taken care of with the reduction in the density because
the record would or does state in most instances for the people who were opposed
to the project that they were opposed to it on the basis of density. Those that
weren't opposed to it on the basis of density were opposed perhaps to the two
story or the fact that there was no privacy in the back and I have agreed to in-
crease the coral rock wall which runs the full length of the rear property to
five feet. So five feet in conjunction with the fact that we're 20' frcm the
reat property line and we have single story homes would more than provide the
privacy to the rear lot line. Now this is not a variance, this is provided for
in the R-1 zoning. The R-1 zoning provides for one residence for 6,000 square
feet. In this case I am asking for one residence for every 9,500 square feet,
•
Now there is still some objectors to the project as you've noticed and I think the
primary reason for the objection at this point is a fear that this development
will continue into the estate area to the east, that we would have a continuation.
Now my feeling on that is that 22nd Avenue because of being a border between two
subdivisions one of higher density and one of lower density is different from the
estate area to the east and should consequently be treated differently as far as
development. Furthermore, although I can respect their feelings I think it is
important to note in this case that I have complied with the Zoning Ordinance, it
is within that ordinance that I petitioned originally for, it was with the approval
of the Planning Department, I have reduced the density below that which the Zon-
ing Ordinance requires, I am not asking for a variation, and based on those facts
I respectfully request that you uphold my rights under the current zoning ordin-
ance to do this type of a development. AT this point I would like to introduce
Mike Carilla who not only owns property on 22nd Avenue of which this parcel is a
part, he also owns a lot of Emathla one block to the east and is building a home
there. Mike.
Mr. Mike Carilla: Reverend Gibson, Madame, Commissioners, I am Michael Carilla.
I am after a fashion with one foot in one stirrup and one foot in the other in
the sense that I have lived on 22nd Avenue for four years specifically in the
blue shaded area next to the two lots which are under consideration for these
four homes. I say I have lived there for the past four years so I am reasonably
acquainted with 22nd Avenue, it's general atmosphere and traffic flows and I have
some experience on Emathla as I have spent the last four months supervising the
construction of a home which incidentally was prompted by the traffic patterns
on 22nd Avenue, I have children and I wanted to get onto a more quiet street. If
I consider myself certainly not an expert but someone who has a feeling for both
street this is maybe something that others can't say but there is a very definite
and noticeable difference between S.W. 22nd AVenue which is in effect an artery
between Tigertail and Dixie Highway and South Bayshore and Dixie Highway and
Emathla which is a street that is really used by the residents of Emathla. It is
a non -through street and there is a different character to that street. So it
is not only conceivable but it is quite in order for the residents of Emathla to
be concerned of a project in their immediate area or if a project such as this
were to take place on Emathla Street. Again, it is a personal opinion but inas-
much as I'm going to live on Emathla Street when this new home is completed....
Mrs. Gordon: Where do you live now, on the one that's shaded in blue?
Mr. Carilla: Yes, I would live next to the project. I have sold my home to my
brother and he is now going to be living next door to these other homes, hope-
fully if approved one of which would be purchased by my dad when he comes to
up in here. But referring specifically to the uncertainties of my neighbors and
most of whom I know here and we just happen to have a different point of view on
this particular issue, I would object to the character of this project if it were
on Emathla Street because S.W. 22nd Avenue is very clearly a dividing point be-
tween one feeling on the east side and one feeling on the west side. I think
again some of my fellow neighbors are concerned about the possibility of future
developments. It would be my suggestion that yes, there probably would be re-
quests if not in six months or in six years for future development toward Dixie
Highway. I see this personally as a natural trend. But by the same token as
Mr. Mello has done in this case he has gone from a density of six two story units
which were allowed under the ordinance to a density of four homes, single story.
Now in that respect it was basically because of the pressure of the community
and this is a power the community has. But there again it can't, I don't think
negate the right of somebody to make use of his property in conjunction with the
wishes of the neighbors. So in the future they will have a control over what is
built on the two green lots, for example or the pink one to the south of the two
yellow ones. It is not a question of someone coming in and putting a service
station so my thought as a resident of 22nd Avenue at the moment and as a future
resident immediately adjacent to or parellel to 22nd Avenue would be to recom-
mend this project for your approval. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask you a question?
Mr. Carilla: Of course.
Mrs. Gordon: Did you own those two that are in yellow at any time?
Mr. Carilla: Yes, I did, I sold those to Thomas Mello.
Mrs. Gordon: In case you're wondering how I knew that, you're shown in blue and
that means co;n.iguous ownership. You're shown in blue with the yellow. You're
4
on the board in blue and you're contiguous of the yellow and that indicates a
joint ownership or an ownership of record somewhere along the way. I'M hot a
mind reader.
Mr. Lee Taylor: My name is Lee Taylor. I live in Coconut Grove and I own a
home on Washington Avenue in North Grove. As I look at this project, there is
something else you should know, I work with Mr. Mello in the Mello Development
Corporation. As I look at this project and I have followed the history of the
hearings and the objections and the contact with the neighbors and so on, I see
three alternatives. The three alternatives seem to be (1) to put a PUD on this
property, (2) as provided for by law to replat the property into five units or
five lots and ... Five. The property is large enough, has the square footage
for a cul de sac with five pie shaped lots. (4) is the PUD that Mr. Mello is
requesting. Replatting could lead to five. Now, I sympathize a great deal with
the feelings of those who are opposed to this project. I believe that they de-
sire, and if I lived on Emathla I would desire it too, a buffer zone between
their property and 22nd AVenue. This is something I personally would seek if I
were a homeowner on Emathla. Now unfortunately the zoning ordinances do not pro-
vide for R-1 on Emathla and R-1 on 22nd Avenue, R-1 is just R-1. We don't have
Emathla R-1 and we don't have 22nd AVenue R-1, it is R-1 in both cases. Now if
there were some way that through zoning we could take that strip along the east
side of 22nd Avenue and put it in a category all its own it obviously is not con-
dusive to estate homes as exist on Emathla. On the same hand it is not the same
kind of property that you have on the west side of 22nd Avenue. Now I really
think that in the best interest of protecting the Emathla property that, and of
course, this really can't be done because the property all along the east side
of 22nd Avenue is not under one ownership but I think if this could be done one
of the answers might be to provide a PUD from Secofee all the way to Tigertail,
something that would come under review by the residents that would have to receive
their approval and that would become a kind of a buffer zone, the kind of thing
that I believe that they sincerely desire. Unfortunately, that isn't possible.
What is possible is the PUD Mr. Mello is seeking a replat of five units which can
be done without speaking to the neighbors, without requesting their approval and
the third thing that is a possibility would be to request a moratorium on this
entire area while a group of citizens request rezoning to a density even less
than R-1. Now it seems to me that this unlikely. I can't read the minds of the
Zoning Board or the City Commission but it seems to me highly unlikely the mora-
torium will be granted in this area or that the east side of 22nd Avenue will be
rezoned to a lower density than it is now. So it seems to me that the answer is
to cooperate with people like Mr. Mello who have shown good faith who have abided
by the law, who have made repeated concessions to those who have opposed this
project. The going to one floor or one story buildings, the business of going
from six to four, these are just two and there are others, concessions that have
been made because people have expressed opposition. And I really do believe that
if the people in thie neighborhood would cooperate with the sympathetic and under-
standing builder that they would be way ahead. Thank you.
Mr. Mello: Will I have an opportunity to come back and speak again? Two minutes.
Ok, in that case this concludes our presentation.
Mx. Dennis King: Mr. Vice -Mayor, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Reboso, Com-
missioner Plummer, my name is Dennis King. I reside at 2915 Emathla. This is
about 200' from the proposed development, Lot 18 on Emathla Street. I purchased
this property less than a year ago and paid what I thought was a premium price,
part of which part of that premium I thought was the purchase of a piece of prop-
erty in what is in effect a subdivision of half acre lots. Now if you will look
at this zoning map.... City of Miami it will give you a more expansive view of
where the location of this proposed development is and how it fits in with the
character of the neighborhood. Now we've spent five hours here waiting to be
heard and the issue in the previous PAD or PUD or alphabet soup or whatever we
deal with here is how this fits in with the character of the neighborhood. I
would submit to you we're dealing here is putting a high density Planned Unit
Development in the middle of a residential area, we are subdividing residential
lots. There is nothing like this anywhere within a reasonable distance of this
area. If you will look all the way to South Dixie from Bayshore going all the
way down to the apartments near 27th Avenue all the way up... Natoma Manor there
is no such intensity of development anywhere with perhaps the sole exception of
the Costa development of the six residences down on 22nd and South Bayshore. So
we're dealing here with something that is totally foreign to the whole character
of this neighborhood. The developer here is attempting to plug more intensive
development and subdivide an area which is already residential and which is one
of the last few or perhaps only areas of the City of Miami which I can think of
which is these 100 X 200' lots and these extend from 22nd Avenue all the way
NOW we would submit to you that you should take into consideration what kind of a
precedent this is going to set. This is like the first highrise on South Brickell.
This developer is attempting to pop a Planned Unit Development right in the heart
Of the neighborhood. We have taken some measures to alleviate this and I submitted
a petition signed by eighty residents in the area to Mayor Ferre and he has acted
on it. It is not a long letter and I think it bears repeating. Dear Mayor Ferre,
The impact of commercialization has been a matter of concern to many of us in north
Coconut Grove in our particular residential area wherein at least one developer
has attempted to ripsaw the neighborhood into accepting a planned unit development
in excess of legally permitted density with a threat that he could replat the
properties and achieve an almost equivalent though less marketable density.
Frankly it was a shock to most of us this could legally be done under R-1 zoning.
Accordingly the attached list of property owners constituting a majority of the
property owners within the area request that an R-1B district be created bounded
by the area east of 22nd Avenue west of Natoma, south of South Dixie with the
existing office complex on South Dixie and north of the average rear lot building
line on the south side of Tigertail Avenue including therein the appropriate seg-
ments of Emathla Street, Seminole and Secoffee. R-1B, of course, would require
a lot area of 10,000 square feet per structure and a minimum average width of
100' as opposed to existing R-1 zoning. AS a matter of fact, I believe we,would
favor the creation of a special zoning category to leave the area as is, however,
there is no such category in existing law. We also request that a moratorium be
declared as to any replatting within the subject area pending the consideration
and creation of this zoning district and hereby request that on behalf of the
attached list of property owners be notified of any hearings regarding any replatt-
ing or any other intensified development with this area, submitted with that on
June 6th with signatures of some eight property owners which (1) oppose the plan-
ned unit development right in the middle of what is in effect a subdivision of
100' X 200' lots. (2) Support the creation of this type of zoning and I have
attempted to show most of those in red ... constitute the vast majority of people
in that area. The speaker after me will demonstrate that there is opposition to
this project also from those residences west of 22nd Avenue. Now the developer
says that we're concerned that this will, development will continue into an estate
area. We will submit to you that this is not continuing into an estate area it
is in the estate area. We're looking at a development which is right smack in
the middle of an R-1 zoning, single family single residence development
It is right in the middle of residences. There is no border here, the line has
to be drawn somewhere and there is nothing atypical about the lot configuration
or the houses on the west side of 22nd Avenue, they are all the same... I think
it is encumbent to take into account the people, the lifestyle and the existing
nature of the neighborhood and Mayor Ferre has responded to this petition by his
letter of June 5, 1977. Dear Mr. King, As you know your recommendation with re-
gard to R-1B in the northern part of Coconut Grove is part of the Master Plan
recommendation. I agree with your position and will keep you informed of what
progress we make. I have a copy of his memorandum to Mr. Fosmoen. Enclosed is
a copy of the letter from Mr. King. If the Neighborhood Plan as adopted by the
City of Miami ... limitations so that Coconut Grove is not chopped up into little
small lots perhaps we should move ahead with this rezoning and maybe even con-
sider a moratorium of the affected Grove area until this is accomplished. Please
give me your recommendation and schedule it for a hearing as quickly as possible.
June 17, 1977. I would submit to you that what we are dealing with is a very
crucial issue. Are we going to carve Coconut Grove up into postage stamp lots?
And Mr. Plummer, I would submit to you this is just the same as if the fellow
across the street from you or. that extensive lawn suddenly decided he wanted to
make a few bucks out of this and said, "I'm going to subdivide this. This is a
good place for a developmc t of a planned unit nature." I would submit that this
is totally at variance with the intent, purpose and spirit and literal language
of that ordinance as has bey.:. propounded to you time and time again in the prev-
ious hearing. Speculating on the liklihood of what's about to happen in the
future is not the issue before you. The issue before you is whether planned
unit developments belong in this type of residential areas. Now with all due
respect to Mr. Carilla, he and I differ on this. 1 came into this neighborhood
expecting to live in a neighborhood of 100 X 200' lots and he apparently came in
expecting to also live there on a street with 100 X 200' lots but pay for it by
subdividing what he owned on 22nd Avenue. Now I respectfully disagree with that
I think that it is not consistent with the purpose of the ordinance, it is not
consistent with the Master Plan for Coconut Grove. We have sat down with him
hour by hour by hour. Mr. Mello has been on the phone with me for an hour today,
we met with him for an hour last night. He attended a board meeting of the Tiger -
tail Association this morning, I'm the Vice -President of the Tigertail Associat-
ion. We considered his proposal, we listened to his arguments but we're in a
position that this is total inconsistent with the neighborhood. Therefore, we
support the Tigertail Association which, as you know, is an active association
83
JUL 211977
of several hundred property Atwners. 1e support the concept of a moratorium be-
Cadge this is absolutely incomprehenGivle that we can sit in the neighborhood in
our homes and have to be Horatio at the gate everytime a developer comes cruis-
ing through and starts a planned unit development process to start carving the
neighborhood up. Based on these considerations we would recommend that this com-
mission support the Zoning Board which on this record on the presentation made
denied this six to one and deny this application as presented. Thank you.
Rev. Gibson: All right, anybody else?
Mr. Samuel D. Chasen: My name is Samuel Denver Chasen. I live at 2369 S.W. 28
Street, approximately two blocks from where they want to build this. I'd like
to clear up a few things: (1) It's true that Mr. Mello's office is in the Grove
but Mr. Mello himself lives in Fort Lauderdale and (2) when you say that a house
is two bedroom and den and three bath that den could be put into another bedroom
and that's three bedroom three bath to me and I don't see how a small family would
live in that. I think you'd want to have a bigger family living in there. (3)
There are estate sized homes on 22nd Avenue and (4) I went out and in three hours,
one and a half hours on one evening and one hour on another evening I got forty
signatures of forty different homes, not two people to a house which two into
forty is twenty, forty individual homes that said that they did not want a planned
unit development built in that area. Now if there was something like that there
you would say well, ok, hey there's one a block away. There's already one there
so it sets a precedent but there is nothing like it. Picture in your mind 27th
Avenue and Tigertail. Have you got it? Can you see it in your heads? Ok, there
is something like that in that neighborhood. You say fine, but there is nothing
like that here and I've lived in the Grove now for four years and we want to keep
Coconut Grove the cozy place that it is and I just think it would be criminal to
subdivide and ruin the flavor and the atmosphere of the Grove. I'm really upset
about this and I'm really trying to hold back because I really believe in what
I'm saying and I have a little seat on the back of my bike and me and my little
girl go for rides and I talk to people. I say hey, what do you think, this and
that and everybody is against it. Anybody who tells me that the people in the
area really don't care or gee maybe it would be a good idea to build a PUD be-
tween Secoffee and Tigertail or we really don't care or gee if it looks... That's
not true. That's not true because I talk to people every single day about it and
they are as much against it as I am. So it is not true that people don't care,
they're indifferent, well gee you ---- That's not true. Forty out of forty-two
people that I spoke to, I spoke to forty-two different homes and two people told
me they would not sign but forty people told me they would and they did and I
think that is proof of people saying we don't want it. Now if Mr. Mello wants
to come and live in Coconut Grove we'd love to have him, he's a very nice fellow.
We'd love to have him live in our neighborhood but to build, please no. Thank
you.
Mr. Charles Martin: My name is Charles Martin. I live at 2910 Emathla Street.
That would be Lot 6 bordering the yellow. The remark that Mrs. Gordon made at
the beginning reminded me of my gradeschool education here in Miami, yellow and
blue make green and that's the color of money and that's the reason we're here
tonight. I think that Mr. Mello has gone all out in an effort to try to somehow
make the people who live on Emathla Street think that it is ok for us to do away
with the 100 X 200' lots. I do not consider myself living in an estate. My home
was built in 1908 and I love it and I bought that lot because it was big and my
children were small then but now they're in college and going away. If Mr. Mello
is allowed to build two houses on his 100 Y 200' lot then I submit to you what is
to keep me from doing the same thing? And I think it is only fair that if he
gets that then I get that. That's all I have to say. ...
Ms. Norma Post: I'm Norma Post. I live at 2061 Tigertail at the Corner of Emathla
and Tigertail, that's Lot 13 on the map. I think one thing to me seems obvious
and that is that we really have a clear demarcation point just by the size of the
lots on either side of 22nd Avenue. Just by looking at the map itself you can
see the difference in the size of the lots and if we want a point where we can
stop building that would seem to be the point. We have the smaller lots on the
west side of 22nd and the larger lots on the east side. There are many people
that are living on that east side regardless of the traffic problems that Mr.
Carilla thinks that they may have. We also on Tigertail have the same traffic
problem. We have an intense amount of traffic going by but it still doesn't pre-
vent us from enjoying our property and it doesn't most of the people that live on
22nd Avenue I think with the exception of just two, Mr. Carilla and some other
neighbor. So therefore, I would like very much to have that area retained as it
is. Now I don't want you to think that just a few of us that are here are the
only people that are objecting to this. Because this was we supposedly thought
scheduled for about three O'Clock many of the people of the neighborhood actually
011 1111 91 1077
would have been here if they had known it was going to be in the evening so I
want you to realize that we are not just a few people that are -objecting. I hope
that you will consider that there is a clear demarcation point there at 22nd Ave-
nue. We have a very enjoyable area, the people in the area like it the way it
is. Another point I think that now in the area a 100 X 200' lot with a home on
it existing now can be purchased at the price that Mr. Carilla and Mr. Mello want
to build another home on a smaller lot. The price that he's going to be asking
someone can buy a home with more land and I and many of the neighbors would never
have come there if we knew that we were going to be in an area that was limited
by small lots. Thank you.
Ms. Meghan Bruder Redman: Mr. Vice -Mayor, my name is Meghan Bruder Redman. I
live at 2790 S.W. 22nd Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida according to the United
States Post Office. I'd like for the much maligned people on the west side of
22nd Avenue. I have one quick point. Mr. Mello in his presentation has by infer-
ence I believe given the commission the idea that across the street on the west
side of 22nd Avenue we have one house per 50' lots. This is incorrect, it is
error. We happen to own,Lots 21 and 22 are owned by Mrs. Audrey Raleigh Bell, my
neighbor who has given me authorization to speak for her. The Redmans own 23, 24,
25 and the north half of 26 - that's one house, that is not a postage stamp, not
as nice as across the street but it's not bad. And my other neighbor owns the
south half of 26, 27 and 28 so there are three houses across on that block not six
or seven houses up there. I'd also like to add that I drive down Sunset Road to
my office in Coral Gables everyday. There are some magnificent estates on Sunset
Drive. Sunset Drive is also an arterial highway and nobody is going to say that
those are not estate sized lots and threaten to chop them up and I thank you, I
have a very bad Irish temper.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She said half of my stuff. Honorable Vice -Mayor and honor-
able members, maybe it is not my place to commend you for your staying power up
there but I can certainly envy it. I too would like to point out, I live at 2230
S.W. 28th Street There are nine lots there but there's not nine houses.
There are four single family homes there. So I agree with Meghan that the way it
is shown here is not the way it has been quote developed, that there is more than
one house per each unit that you see there. I'm a lawyer and up until 46 minutes
ago I was here only to represent myself. My wife and I came at 3:00 O'clock this
afternoon which is when this was heard, she had to leave at 7:30 feeling she
couldn't explain why she had to break an 8:00 O'Clock appointment because she went
to a 3:00 O'Clock hearing. Now I don't say that to chide anybody but I do say it
to point out that some who came just couldn't be here now and that others had they
known we would be here now would be here with us and would also be opposed to this.
Mr. Ongie: Would you give us your name for the record, please.
Mr. Theodore M. Kraft: Theodore M. Kraft, my wife is Patricia Kraft. Patricia
opposes this on the grounds of, she has a lot of middle names, my wife opposes
this on general grounds that it increases the density in the neighborhood. It
simply does not look like that map. I'm sure you have heard every argument there
is about not disturbing one blade of grass in Coconut Grove and I'm one of those
people that embraces everyone of those arguments and I'll leave it at that with
you. Maybe there's one you haven't heard before - I'm a runner, I'm a long dis-
tance runner and I used to run on South Bayshore Drive but the traffic is so bad
down there that it has driver. me off, the fumes from the traffic have. I run in
the area you see there, Freeman, Lincoln and so forth.
Mrs. Gordon: I live there.
Mr. Kraft: Now there is a thing about running, Patricia runs too, there is a
thing about running that cleans out your lungs and it gives you sort of a brand
new feeling where you breath. I have reached the point in my running that when-
ever a car goes by, and a car never goes by two or three go by at a time, the
fumes make me ill. We can no longer see the pollution that is coming out of ex-
haust pipes. I have to avoid 22nd Avenue now especially after I have finished
my running because one car with the fumes threatens to make me throw up. Maybe
human kind is developing our country or at least in our urban society some kind
of defenses to this but believe me those defenses are gone for those of us who
run around the back woods of Coconut Grove in the evening. This proposal to put
in four is about going to double the number of cars that will be coming onto 22
Avenue going either way and generally will add to the pollution so I suppose that
is part of the density argument and I hope, sir, Mr. Plummer, that you haven't
heard that one before. Finally, and this distresses me to have to bring up this
question and I hope that you will look into it, I don't know where the water foun-
tains are in this building and I certainly don't know what moves you all. I went
JUL 211977
40
to the first kv:tzring by the Zoning Board and we were put under oath there and I
testified that Mr. Mello and the interests that he represents whomever they may
be already had drawn up plans for a four unit development. As far as I know there
was no testimoney at that hearing to refute my statement that the four unit plans
were in existence at the time of the first of two Zoning Board hearings. I did
not attend the second Zoning Board Hearing, I figured I'd be running to hearings
the rest of my life. I think that this, if it is true that these plans for four
units were drawn first, the plans for a six unit development were submitted to
the Zoning Board, I submit to you that it represents less than good faith for him
to come in and represent to you now that he has come down in his demands if all
the time he had the four unit plans in his other pocket. I spoke to the architect,
the wife of the architect who drew the four unit plans before the first Zoning
Hearing. She lived next door to me. They have since moved and obviously are not
here today. I hope you might look into that and satisfy yourselves if that is
relevant to your decision making process. I don't know whether it is or not but
I thank you for hearing me.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mello.
Mr. Mello: I'll try to be as brief as possible. Let me start with the last com-
ment first. I had never had a four unit plan. Now I don't know what took place
before I got involved in theproject which was back in March but my original plan
and the only plan I ever submitted to the City for zoning approval was a six unit
PUD plan. Now with regard to the lots and the fact that they are, let me just
point out some facts and go through this as quickly as I can. These lots are not
200' lots, they have a 12.5' dedication for 22 Avenue so they are less than the
200'. Legally under the ordinance this can be re plotted as was pointed out at
the last Zoning Meeting by the Planning Department into five units. I chose the
PUD because I honestly felt it is the best way to develop. It is a good concept
and I think that it is the best way to develop this type of property. There is a
great deal of natural landscape and the PUD affords me the flexibility in arrang-
ing these homes such that I do not have to destroy that landscape. The replat
ordinance is more restrictive with its setback requirements and would necessitate
a good deal of this natural landscape having to be removed in order to build on
this property. As far as precedent there is a six unit project on the corner of
22 avenue and Bayshore. There is also a replat subdivision which is very close
to these large lots which is called Micanopy Woods in which the lots were plotted
into 50' lots and there are nine lots and they are being sold as lots which would
afford any owner to come in under the R-1 Zoning Ordinance and build a single fam-
ily residence of any size and up to 35' in height whereas I am here submitting to
you a single family of one story height which is only 2000 square feet and even
if you consider the den an additional bedroom it is still a three bedroom home.
I don't understand the analogy between a PUD on a residential property and any
suggestion that it is similar to a commercial type development. I think perhaps
the word PUD may frighten some of the residents or the words subdivision or what-
ever but this is provided for in the ordinance and it is an excellent way or an
excellent alternative to the legal right of replatting which is far more restrict-
ive and in my opinion far less desirable. Now the point I was making as to the
west side of 22 Avenue, it had nothing to do with the houses themselves, it is
the fact that those lots are 50' lots. Now I agree that not all of the lots are
occupied on 22 Avenue but this property will eventually be sold and those lots
can, in fact, under Zoning Ordinance be developed into individual homes. The
majority of the property to the west is already developed into 50' lots with single
family residences on each one and the gentleman that got up and complained about
me increasing the density lives on a 5,000 square foot lot and I am submitting to
you lots that are practically twice that size. There is nothing wrong with the
homes to the west, people take pride in their homes and it is a nice residential
community. So I am not talking about a density that is in excess of what is
provided for. I am not talking about a density that is in excess of what is im-
mediately evident 30 feet away, not 400' or 450' away on Emathla or 250' on
Emathla. Now Mr. King brought up his petition to have the area rezoned. In ef-
fect what he is requesting is that these lots be restricted to two units per lot.
This is all I am asking for tonight. I am not asking for a density in excess of
that. The density I am requesting is in effect an R-12 density. They aren't
exactly 10,000 square feet but they are 9,500 square feet and the reason for the
difference is because of the dedication on 22 Avenue. Mr. King also brought up
the Tigertail Association. We met this morning, there were five members of the
board present, three verbally approved the plan in my presence. Mx. King obvious-
ly did not and the other member just abstained. Now the fact that the Zoning
Board recommended denial, the point needs to be made that they were recommending
denial on a six unit two story type of development. They were not recommending
denial of four single family homes of a single story nature. I think if the rec-
ord were reviewed one or two of the members of the Zoning Board at that time
8.6
JUL 211977
recotinended a lower density and some of the audience was in favor of a lower den-
sity. t, unfortunately at that time was not in a position because of the assoc-
iates that I had at that time to agree to that but subsequent to that at great
expense I have done everything in my power to comply with the objections that they
made at that last meeting. Now the signatures that were brought up as far as the
west side of 22 Avenue, I don't know what was discussed with those residents, I
know that the residents that I met with on 22 Avenue for the majority of them had
no strong objection to single family homes. They were concerned about develop-
ment as most people are. They were concerned about me doing what it was that I
was committing to do but I think they were mostly satisfied that the homes were
compatible and a PUD does provide control as opposed to the alternative. The
fact that we're all here, the fact that we've discussed it, the fact that I've
come down two units should suggest to you that there has been dialogue, that there
has been involvement, that the community has had a say in this type of develop-
ment, that it didn't just suddenly happen as it has happened just down the street
on Bayshore. That was not a PUD, that was a replot that just happened. Micanopy
oods was just a replot that happened. The point that I'm trying to make is that
I want something that is compatible, I want something that is good for the area
and I am confident that this is. So in summary, I feel that the Zoning Ordinance
and more specifically the Planned Unit Development aspect of the Zoning Ordinance
in the R-1 zoning is my right, is a right that I have to develop and the fact that
I have been willing to reduce the density beyond what the current zoning requires
should suggest to you my willingness to cooperate with the neighborhood and come
up with a plan that will be acceptable. Now I think that the terms of Planned
Unit Development, I think that the terms of subdivision have just left bad feel-
ings with some of the residents in the area. A great many of them no longer ob-
ject because they were objecting on the basis of six units and we are not at six
units any longer; or they were objecting on the basis of two story. I think just
to object to development perse or object to change is just not realistic for the
immediate or the long rante. This property is on 22 Avenue, it is a busy artery,
there is a great deal of traffic, it is not far from Dixie Highway, it has one
kind of density on one side of the street which is only 30' away, it has a dif-
ferent density on the east side and it will impose a hardship on those people on
the east side if they cannot have more freedom in what is done and I think the
precedent that needs to be established is that we take the best of what the Zon-
ing Ordinance has available which is what I feel I've done and we reach some ac-
ceptable compromise. So on that basis I submit to you that....
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask you, Mr. Mello, are you the owner of record at this time?
Mr. Mello: No, I am not. I am in the process of closing on the property.... I
beg your pardon?
Mr. Plummer: Subject to this application?
Mr. Mello: Yes, it is.
Mr. Fosmoen: That's correct. You will recall the Longview Plat which was before
you several weeks ago.
Mrs. Gordon: What did you say, Mr. Fosmoen? We can't hear you.
Mr. Fosmoen: The commission may recall the Longview Plat which was before you
several months ago, the same circumstance applies that the minimum lot size is
6,000 square feet ir. R-1 districts and he is within his rights to replat that
into five lcts if you choose...
Mrs. Gordon: A cuestion to you, Mr. Fosmoen, with regard to the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance. Is it a fact that there must be continuity of title when
those properties are competed?
Mr. Fosmoen: I'm not certain I understand the question, Commissioner.
Mr. Davis: Not necessarily true, Mrs. Gordon, they may sell off ... but there is
nothing in our ordinance to require a unity of title on the site.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, it was. When was it removed?
Mr. Davis: It was never in it, Mrs. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: Continuity of title in a Planned Unit Development?
Mr, Davis; No, it never was in it.
JUL 211977
Mkt, c rdon: I wish you'd check back,
Mf, Davis: f have.
Mrs. Gordon: How many years ago was that passed?
Mr. Davis: About four or five years ago.
Mrs. Gordon: A lot more than four or five years ago because I was on the Planning
Board at the time it was passed.
Mr. Davis: It was discussed but it is not in the ordinance and has not been.
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask you how you would provide in a Planned Unit Development
without any easements for individual ownership of the rear property, services for
the rear properties?
Mr. Fosmoen: He's coming in off the street with a service drive off of 22 Avenue.
Mrs. Gordon: Aren't these properties going to be one to the east and one to the
west on each? I haven't seen a plot of the four units. ...
Mr. Mello: I can answer that. ...
Mr. Fosmoen: There are a couple of reasons. First of all the cost, the intra-
structure, the services are probably less under this site plan than they would be
under a conventional plat. Secondly, he's saving the cost of replatting. Your
other expert is shaking his head yes.
Mr. Mello: Well that's not what I've been told as far as fees with regard to re -
platting. That was under coi,sideration because when I investigated the fees they
weren't that much more than what I have spent on this submittal as far as surveys,
etc. They are the same and a Planned Unit Development involves the Planning De-
partment which also imposes conditions, landscaping conditions and service condit-
ions which I think are as restrictive or more restrictive than the replat. I
chose this because it enables me to have a better site plan. It is more aesthetic
which will make it easier to sell as opposed to having five smaller lots on the
same parcel of land.
Mr. Kraft: ... Yes, sir, I would. It seems to me that Mr. Mello is a better
psychiatrist and Clairvoyant than he is a developer. I sit here and listen to
his arguments and he keeps telling us what our objections are and I think like
most people who assume a posture of telling people what is best for them he is
not really listening to the people whom he is telling. Now I am the Vice -Presi-
dent of the Tigertail Association and we've met with him and were a lot of heads
shaking around and he was excused and the vote was taken and it was to oppose the
project as I stated. And if Mr. Mello had the place bugged and he can play this
back to us I'm that's what it would reflect, that my statement stands correct and
Mr. Mello: All I can say is that Mr. Taylor was present at the meeting and there
were three members that looked at the site plan and said that they had no object-
ion to it. Now I interpreted taht as meaning approval of the site plan. What
took place after I left I don't know.
Mr. Kraft: I have a few other rebuttal comments I'd like to make at this time.
I would like to reiterate the position made that really the numbers just don't
add up on this project as a project. He is proposing four $80,000 homes on 22nd
Avenue on 9,500 foot lots whereas you can aet a 100 X 200' lot home on Emathla
for less than that right now. I don't see how this is economically feasible or
realistic and he talks about landscape plans. I haven't seen a landscape plan
on this, I don't think the Planning Department or the Building and Zoning Depart-
ment has. My information is that this sheet that is being passed around wasn't
even filed until yesterday or today.
Mr. Fosmoen: If the Commission entertains approval we would ask that it be sub-
ject to our review and approval of the landscaping plans, of course.
Mr. Kraft: As I understand it we're sitting here in judgement on something that
the Planning Department and everyone else has not even analyzed.
Mr. Fosmoen: No, that's not what I said. I said that we haven't seen a land, -
soaping plan. There is a plot plan of the project which has been circulated to
the commission which you've seen for four units.
88
JUL 2i 1977
Mt, Kraft: I don't conceed that, Mr. Plummer. I think legal minds can differ on
that and we've had I believe the Planning Department said six of the Zoning Board
Heatings and still the Zoning Board turned them down and I think the record will
reflect that. There is just a great deal of confusion over this question of re-
platting and if the replatting is the issue fine, that will be a hearing before
this commission and we can address it then but that's not what's before this com-
mission. The issue is a planned unit nature development in the middle of a resi-
dential area. We're -'nt talking about a replatting. We have 120 signed residents
of record which is in the , case and Mr. Mello keeps talking about
people who don't oppose the project. ne talks about Micanopy Woods which are
woods. This is a planned unit development in an existing residential area, it
is not a wooded area, it is not a new area, it's not subdividing an area in west
Dade County or an undeveloped area this is right in the middle of a residential
area. We would submit that the commission should support the Zoning Board.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Vice -Mayor, may I?
Mrs. Gordon: I'm ready to make a motion. I want to uphold the Zoning Board,
Mr. Plummer: I'll tell you, somewhere along the line somebody has got to prove
something to me.
Mrs. Gordon: I've got to tell you why. I heard what Mr. Fosmoen said, they can
do this and that whatever but I don't really think it is going to go that way and
I think if we get scared into approving this on that basis I think we make a mis-
take and frankly I don't believe that this area, that last remaining large lot
area of the Grove should be broken down and I don't really like what's happening
on Bayshore Drive, I dislike it intensely and this is another area that will if
we start it, just give one and then the next one says ok, look what you gave him,
let's do the same and I say right now I'm going to hold the line for as long as
possible.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, in fairness to the citizens who are in opposition I
think that we need to clarify for them the platting process because Mr. King was
talking about a public hearing in front of this body with regard to platting and
I think that that really needs to be cleared up so that they don't go away from
here with a misconception.
Mr. Fosmoen: Maybe we can ask Mr. Davis to review the steps in platting or re -
platting property.
Mr. Davis: Platting by the Charter of the City of Miami is a right of any prop-
erty owner and a requirement before any building permit can be issued. Replatting
falls into the same category and replatting is done of older sites used to com-
bine more than one old lot or sections or old lots into a new one or to take old
large lots and redivide them into new ones. There are certain requirements and
standards set up both in the Code and in our Zoning Ordinance which establish cer-
tain minimums. One of the reasons for replatting also is to establish all of the
physical improvements required in a plat such as sidewalks, paving, sewerage, util-
ities and all of the other amenities that are required. The Zoning Ordinance
establishes minimum areas for platting and minimum sizes of lots in zoning of R-1.
The minimum size lot must have 60' of width, 6,000 square feet of area and 30' of
street frontage. Now, if a plat is submitted to the City of Miami and it is re-
viewed by our Plat Committee and is reviewed by the county's Plat Committee where
required and it meets all of the minimums that are established in the Code and in
the ordinance it is then subject to approval by the board and the City Commission
as a matter of right. If there are deviations that the applicant wishes to make
from the minimums, variances of lot width or lot area it is then subject to a var-
iance before the Zoning Board. That is the only situation under which platting
comes into a public hearing - is if minimums wish to be deviated from. But if
they are meeting all minimums platting is not only a matter of right but it is a
requirement for building.
Mr. Kraft: Well, if I can just respond to that, and I've differed with Mr. Davis
on legal points before, I see two items on this agenda accepting, adopting plats.
He has mentioned a plat committee, he's mentioned having it on the agenda here and
on the county, I can't believe that no one has the right to appear, object and
this thing is just going to fly right through and I would submit that he's spec-
ulating that it woul3 and this is not the issue before this commission. The is-
sue before this commission is the planned unit development under that ordinance
as submitted by this. developer. If he wants to go other other route that we've
got another day and we're going to take a look at it but I don't think that is a
valid vasis for a decision that you've got the gun at your head and you'd better
take this because you're going to get something worse later.
89 JUL 211977
Mt, Catrilla: Reverend Gibson, excuse me please, commissioners. This question
Of teplatting is something that has been brought up on both sides in thisrespeci_..
'here was also another question of who was the owner of record. I still am the
owner of record and I have contracted to sell this property to Tom Mello subject
to approval of four homes cn a planned unit basis. It seems that there is so
much controversy of what will occur or what will not occur, I think this can be
clarified very quickly; that should Mr. Mello not be allowed to do this because
of the apparent opposition at this point under a planned unit nature, I don't
know if his opposition is going to cause the commission not to allow this as it
is provided under the ordinance but then I do as far as I understand it have the
right not to do a project with four homes handsomely situated, preserving the
vegetation but then it becomes a question of my right simply as a developer if
you will to replat and have five pieces of property and to chop this area up into
a pie into something that I personally would find very distasteful. So it is not
simply a question of Mr. Mello being subject to either purchasing or not purchas-
ing whether this is allowed or not. It is my position of what I would be able
to do with the property should I continue to own it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have also not had a response from the department as to
their recommendation and what the status of the already petitioned rezoning and
moratorium is.
Mr. Fosmoen: We have a petition before us which will be brought to the Planning
Advisory Board at their September meeting. The problem that we have is that that
petition covers an area but not all property owners within that area have signed
the petition nor is the petition accompanied by the necessary fee. If we are to
rezone that area without a fee then the rezoning is going to have to be initiated
by either this commission, by the department or by the Planning Advisory Board.
The fee per unit or per parcel in the area covered would be approximately $600
per parcel and we have not had that fee presented to us at this point. ... No,
sir, that's not what I said. ... Well, let me clarify it. If you are initiat-
ing or the residents in the area are initiating a petition for rezoning from R-1
to R-1B the fee schedule that the city has requires a fee submission of three
cents per square foot for each property that it is being requested for rezoning.
That's correct.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fosmoen, are you saying? Excuse me, sir. Are you saying that
if the city initiated this there would be no fee?
Mr. Fosmoen: The fee is waived.
Mrs. Gordon: And if this were an actuality then what would happen with an R-1B
is that there would be no replatting of these lots into smaller parcels. Is that
correct?
Mr. Fosmoen: He could still replatt to 10,000 square feet, he's at 9,500 square
feet with his request now. He could replat to 10,000 square feet. The R-1B is
the largest zoning category we have, that's 10,000 square feet. With this pro-
posed development he's 500 square feet short of the largest single family zoning
that we have.
Mrs. Gordon: But what you're saying though is if that happened there could be
no five lots on two lots.
Mr. Fosmoen: If it was rezoned to R-1B that's correct.
Mrs. Gordon: I moved a motion, Mr. Vice -Mayor.
Mr. Fosmoen: It could be four, Commissioner. Commissioner, we have a 200' front-
age involved, he could replot those probably into three
Mrs. Gordon: un huh, cut down from five. The :notion was to uphold the Zoning
Board's recommendation.
The following teso1ution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved
itt Adoptioh
RESOLUTION NO. 77-604
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE
NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1(h), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A
DEVELOPMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT NATURE (PUN) ON LOTS 14 AND 15,
BLOCK "D", BISCAYNE PARK TERRACE (2-36), BEING 2751-1765 S.W.
22ND AVENUE, CONSISTING OF 6 UNITS IN SIX SEPARATE STRUCTURES,
AS PER PLANS ON FILE; 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 Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote -
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso and Vice -Mayor Gibson,
NOES: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
Mrs. Gordon: I would like to make a motion that we ask the Planning Department
to initiate a study for a change of zoning of this area from R-1 to R-1B.
Mr. Plummer: Well, delineat the boundaries.
Mrs. Gordon: Running east from 22 Avenue and continuing to the point that in-
cludes all these large lots that we see on the map. I can't see the easterly
border so I can't tell you... Natoma.
Mr. Plummer: Why stop there?
Mrs. Gordon: I don't think you have the same situation of lot sizes further east.
Mr. Plummer: I've got some in my neighborhood.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I would then ask the department to go as fax east as they
feel is feasible. Ok?
Mr. Plummer: Well, instead of making that in a motion I wish they'd come back on
Thursday, Rose, and give us their opinion and recommendation as to what areas they
feel should be incorporated in the R-1B.
Mrs. Gordon: J. L, we leave it open this way and they have the prerogative.
Mr. Plummer: Well, if you make the motion eastward from 22 Avenue leaving the
east boundary open to them I'll second the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: That's what I meant.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 77-605
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE A STUDY IN THE AREA DESCRIBED AS THE
EAST SIDE OF 22ND AVENUE TO A POINT INCLUDING LARGE LOTS AND
LEAVING WESTERN BOUNDARIES OPEN TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF
REZONING FROM R-2 TO R-1B.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
22, GRANT PERMANENT WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT OF 15 OF 29 REQUIRED OFF-STREET
PARKING SPACES - 23 UNIT BUILDING FOR THE ELDERLY (N,W, 1ST AVENUE
BETWEEN 76 AND 77 STREETS)
M. Robert Davis: This is a resolution to grant a permanent waiver of 15 of 29
Off-street parking spaces for a 23 unit apartment building for the elderly at
N.W. 1 Avenue between 76 and 77 Street. The applicant is HUD. Mr. Vice -Mayor,
this has been up for a yearly review since 1970 and in each case the Building
Department has inspected the property and has found no problems on the property
and are now recommending that a permanent waiver of parking be granted ...
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-606
A RESOLUTION PERMANENTLY GRANTING THE WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT OF
15 OF THE 29 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 23-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING FOR THE ELDERLY ON
N.W. 1 AVENUE, EAST SIDE, BETWEEN N.W. 76TH AND 77TH STREETS
(SITE NO. 20), BEING LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, PHOENIX PARK (6--80),
LOCATED IN AN R-3 (LOW 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 Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote -
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Reboso and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre.
23, GRANT PERMANENT WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE F 32 OF ELDERLY2 (6820RIRED OFF-STREET
�i0 � MIAMI VENUE)_
PARKING SPACES 42 UNIT
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-607
A RESOLUTION PERMANENTLY GRANTING THE WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT
FOR 32 OF THE 52 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 42-UNIT PROJECT FOR THE ELDERLY LOCATED
AT 7820 N. MIAMI AVENUE, BEING LOTS 39 AND 40, BLOCK 1,
PHOENIX PARK (6-80), LOCATED IN AN 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 Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote -
AYES: Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre.
ilk
o
2 . GRANT PERMISSION TO NORTNSIDE BANK FOR INSTALLATION OF OFFICE TRAILER AT
1,030 BR ICKEL L AVENUE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPING AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS
Mr. Robert Davis: This next item, #17, is a personal appearance by Northside
Bank of Miami for an emergency installation of an office trailer at 1000 Brickell
Avenue. Mr. Vice -Mayor, this normally in our zoning ordinance calls for a public
hearing approval by the Zoning Board as a Conditional Use. However, this applic-
ant has run into a time problem with his franchising and since our first Zoning
Board Meeting available to him is September 19th of this year and he has to have
his bank in operation by earlier in September than that he has asked for permiss-
ion to come before you and ask for special approval.
•
Mrs. Gordon: Are we allowed by law to do this?
Mr. Davis: The City Attorney would have to answer that.
Mr. Anderson: There is no provision in the ordinance for it.
Mr. Plummer: So the Charter is mute.
Mr. Anderson: So you really don't have any authority behind you to grant...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fosmoen, are you disagreeing?
Mr. Fosmoen: Well, I'm certainly not agreeing with the legal opinion but I think
that we're faced with a very difficult situation of this bank potentially losing
its charter simply because we don't have a meeting between now and Sepiz*iber.
Mrs,•Gordon: And the opinion is that we can. Ok, Z so move.
Mr. Plummer: Can I ask what the motion was?
Mrs. Gordon: As per request for emergency installation of office trailer at 1000
Brickell Avenue.
Mr. Davis: May I ask, Mrs. Gordon, that you limit this to a period of one year?
Mr. Plummer: Sure, why not.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, limited to a period of not more than 12 months.
Mr. Davis: ... in accordance with the plans on file.
Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you also what I'm going to be a stick in the mud on
this thing. Ok? (1) I don't want to see any outhouse going up on Brickell
Avenue. Now I want that subject to a good landscaping plan being submitted to
the department and (2) I want it fully understood that they do not get a certi-
ficate of occupancy until they have removed the trailer and all accessory items
therein. I drive by that trailer down there that was on 38th Court and Bird Road
and the steps are still out there, the foundation is still out there, .it looks
like hell. So I want it understood I'll go along with it, they're in a*time bind;
(1) the landscapirg be submitted, (2) that no certificate of occupancy of any new
structure be issued until such time as that has been completely removed and that
includes not just the trailer but everything therein. Then I"11 go along with it
!Mrs. Gordon: Ok, is that a picture of what it.would be landscaped as?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
JUL 211977
►a faildWing i iotit% % as introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who move itt
adoptio i
MOTION No. 77-608
A MOTION GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE NORTHSIDE BANK OF MIAMI FOR
EMERGENCY INSTALLATION OF AN OFFICE TRAILER TO BE LOCATED AT
1000 BRICKELL AVENUE SUBJECT TO A GOOD LANDSCAPING PLAN BEING
PRESENTED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT; FURTHER STIP-
OLATING THAT NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON THE NEW STRUCTURE
TO BE BUILT SHOULD BE ISSUED UNTIL THE AFORESAID TRAILER AND/
OR ANY RELATED TEMPORARY APPENDAGES THERETO HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was passed
adopted by the following
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
25, APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE - MIAMI FIRE PROTECTION AND RESCUE SERVICES
MASTER PLAN
and
The following resolution was introduces by Commissioner blurrier who movert
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-609
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MIAMI FIRE PROTECTION, RESCUE AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES MASTER PLAN 1977-1987 IN PRINCIPLE, AS AN
ANCILLARY STUDY TO, BUT NOT A PART OF, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE 12 POLICY STATE-
MENTS, 54 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CON-
TAINED IN THE PLAN SUMMARY; FURTHER DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRAT-
ION TO ENERGETICALLY STRIVE TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID
PLAN SUMMARY, DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO RETURN TO THE
COMMISSION ANNUALLY WITH A PROGRESS REPORT AND WITH APPROP-
RIATE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO UPDATE AND MODIFY SAID PLAN
SUMMARY; AND REQUESTING THE PLANNING DEPARTINT TO EXTRACT
APPROPRIATE POLICY STATEMENTS FOR SUBSEQUENT CONSIDERATION FOR
INCLUSION IN THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DURING
THE PERIODIC REVIEW AND AMENDMENT PROCESS.
(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: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
26, ACCEPT PLAT: PORTO BELL O,
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-610
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED PORTOBELLO, A SUBDIVISION
IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID
PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote -
AYES; Mr. Reboso, Mr. Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
94 JUL 211977
ACCEPT PLAT; LILLIAN SUSANA.
•
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner pluMter who tndti'ed
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-611
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED LILLIAN SUSANA, A SUB-
DIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI► FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDI-
CATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND ACCEPTING THE COVENANT TO RUN
WITH THE LAND POSTPONING THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND
GUTTER AND PAVEMENT UNTIL REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote -
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso, Vice -Mayor Gibson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
28. DEFERRAL OF WORKSHOP SESSION - CAPITAL INPROESIT PROGRAM.
On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, agenda
item 1121 was fiefcrre( by the following vote -AYES, Mrs. cordon, Mr_ Plummer., Mr.
Reboso and Vice -Mayor Gibson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
TRERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TOT �THEKCITY COMMISSION
AT THIS TIME THE MEETING WAS
Maun.ice A. Fen.te
MAYOR
ATTEST;
Raeph G. 0vtg.ie
CITY CLERK
Ma.txy H L'ta.i
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
95
•
40
10.10041011"
efr
(114 t"rtt1
V
a.
7 '`
IIUuIII IIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIMENEN
cliIY OF IWAMI
DOCUMENT
MEETING DATE:
INDEX
ITEM NO
1
2
3
4
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
July 21, 1977
COMMISSION
ACTION
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
5
6
7
8
9
10
•
COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT
AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S GRANT OF VARIANCE
FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV,
11, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING O'? LOT 19, TRAJUNE PARK
AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1(6)
(j), TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A DAY NURSERY.
GRANTING A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 77-63(A) WHICH GRANTED A SIX
MONTH EXTENSION OF ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION
NO. 124-76
RECOMMENDING A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD)
CONSISTING OF A NEW APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND
EXISTING APARTMENT STRUCTURE ON LOTS 51 AND
52 LESS NW'l.y 70', BLOCK "B", MARY & WILLIAM
BRICKELL SUB
DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1(h),
TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A DEVELOPMENT OF A
PLANNED UNIT NATURE ON LOTS 14 AND 15 BLOCK
"D", BISCAYNE PARK TERRACE.
GRANTING THE WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT FOR 15 OF
29 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 23-UNIT APARTMENT
BUILDING FOR THE ELDERLY ON N.W. 1ST AVENUE
PERMANENTLY GRANTING THE WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT
FOR 32 OF THE 52 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 42 UNIT
PROJECT FOR THE ELDERLY LOCATED AT 7820 N.
MIAMI AVENUE
ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED PORTOBELLO, A
SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI
ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED LILLIAN SUSANA,
A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI
R-77-60C
R-77-601
R-77-60.
A
R-77-603
R-77-604
R-77-606
R-77-607
R-77-610
R-77-611
0029
77-600
77-601
77-602A
77-603
77-604
77-606
77-607
77-610
77-611
EIS I
MW
MW