HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1973-01-25 MinutesPREPARED BY THE OFFICE OFT THE
CITY CLERK
INDEX TO
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI,FLORIDA
January 25,1973
ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION NOS.
1. WAIVING READING OF MINUTES:
2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES AND PROCLAMATIONS:
3. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL -
EXPANDED PROGRAM:
4. DESIGNATION OF MEMORIAL BOULEVARD AND SITE
FOR CUBAN MONUMENT:
73-37
73-38
73-39
73-40
5. ADDITIONAL MEMP ERS - COMMITTEE ON NEW PLANNING
AND ZONING STRUCTURE: 73-41
6. DISCUSSION OF APPEAL OF CIRCUIT COURT RULING
CONCERNING CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN PARCELS 73-42
OF F.E.C. PROPERTY FOR EXPANDED BAYFT PARK: 73-43
7. JUNIOR LEAGUE OF MIAMM1I PLAN FOR MINI -PARK
ON MIAMI RIVER:
8. CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING
TO RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES COVERING RESIGNATION,
LAYOFF AND REINSTATEMENT IN EVENT OF TRANS.
TO METRO DADE COUNTY ETC . :
9. CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF THE LATE PRESIDENT
LYNDON B. JOHNSON:
10. FLAGS OTHER THAN FEDERAL FLAGS TO BE AT HALF
STAFF:
HOPE THAT PRESIDENT NIXON' S PEACE PLAN WILL
BRING LASTING PEACE:
11. CONFIRMATION PRELIMINARY ASSESMENT ROLL SE 14TH
STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-43 53 :
12. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK-MUSA ISLE SAN SEWER
SR-5308-C:
73-44
73-45
73-46-A
73-46-B.
73-47
73-48
73-49
13. VARIANCE-DENIAL-3770 S. DIXIE HIGHWAY-I-1 DIST: 73-50
14. EXTENDING COND. USE -LOTS 4,5,6,7 KARKEET SUB: 73-51
15. VARIANCE -LOT 1, BLK 3, SPRING GARDENS: 73-52
16. CONDITIONAL USE -BANYAN BAY CLUB AT MIAMI CLUB
APARTMENTS:
17. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - LOTS 27,28, 29,30,
BLOCK 7 1951 N.W. 17TH AVE:
73-53
18. CONDITIONAL USE - LOT 8, 7, BLOCK 14, NORTHERN
BLVD TRACT: 73-54
19. VARIANCE -LOT 12, BLK 2, TROPICAL MANOR: 73-55
20. FUTURE RESOLUTION FOR PRIVATE PARKING LOTS- 73-56
1
ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION NOS.
21. STREET CLOSURE-CULMER PARK SUBDIVISION NO.1: 73-57
22. FUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'S NDP 5TH
ACTION YEAR:
73-58
23.. ARCHITECT'S REPORT - EDISON PARK TEEN CENTER: 73-59
24. ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON REVENUE SHARING FUNDS:
25.. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-COND. USE -OFF ST PARKING
LOTS: (1st reading)
26. RENAMING OF SE.1 AVENUE TO "BRICKELL PLAZA": 73-60
27. ORD. AMENDMENT -INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS: 8131
28. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -RESTAURANTS IN MULTIPLE
FAMILY DISTRICTS: 8132
29. PUBLIC HEARING -EXTENDING HRS OF SALE FOR
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR SMALL RESTAURANTS
WHO DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER EXISTING REGU-
LATIONS:
29-A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION ON CLOSING HOURS OF
RESTAURANTS FROM 1 AM TO 3 AM:
30. CODE AMENDMENT -REMOVAL OF UNLAWFUL VESSELS
FROM DINNER KEY MARINA YACHT BASIN AND BAY -
FRONT PROHIBITIVE ANCHORAGE AREA:
8133
8134
31. CLOSING HOURS OF SMALL RESTAURANTS WITH LESS
THAN 200 SEATS: (1st reading)
32. ACQUISITION OF UNDERWOOD MARINA PROPERTY
DISCUSSION: 73-61
33. FILLING OF SUBMERGED LANDS IN BAYFRONT PARK
DISCUSSION: 73-62
34. WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION-2510 SW 17TH
AVENUE: 73-63
35. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION FOR
CURBSIDE GARBAGE AND TRASH COLLECTION IN THE
CITY OF MIAMI: 73-64
36. PLAT ACCEPTANCE-SYLVI SUB: 73-65
37. PAN AMERICAN UNION DAY FESTIVAL-REQ. FOR USE OF
O. BOWL PARKING LOT AREAS:
38. JETPORT IN N. DADE - ASKING METRO COMMISSION
TO RE CONSIDER VOTE: 73-66
39. ORDERING RESOLUTION -RISC. E. HIGHWAY H 4357: 73-67
40. ACCEPT COVENANT-I.P.A. INC. 73-68
41. ASSIGNMENT OF COVENANT FROM PAUL LOWMAN,
BARBARA LOWMAN TO HESSEN, LAZARE AND FEISLER : 73-69
49. BID AWARD -SAFETY SHOES:
42. AUTHORIZATION OF GENERAL HAULING SERVICE
AS WASTE COLLECTOR:
ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION NOS.
73-70
43. AUTHORIZING WASTE DISPOSAL DIV. OF SANITAS
SERVICE CORP.- WASTE COLLECTOR: 73-71
44. AWARD BID -SE 15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMP. SK-4356: 73-72
45. BID AWARD-JEFFERSON HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4350: 73-73
46. BID AWARD -DEMOLITION OF LUMMUS PARK COMFORT STA: 73-74
47. WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR 4 ROUND CAST
DOORS FOR INCINERATOR #1: 73-75
48. WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING -FILLER, HANGING TILE
BRICK INCINERATOR #1: 73-76
73-77
50. WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING -POLYGRAPH EQUIPMENT: 73-78
51. BID AWARD -BUNKER ITEMS FOR FIRE DEPT: 73-79
52. RENEWAL OF NIGHT CLUB LICENSE-JAMES CLUB: 73-80
53. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-BLDG. HEIGHT LIMITATION -
LE JEUNE GARDENS ESTATES:
54. CLAIM SETTLEMENT-HILDA GIMINEZ AND PEDRO
GIMINEZ: 73-81
8135
55. CLAIM SETTLEMENT-ROBERT C. DEVAUX: 73-82
56.. CLAIM SETTLEMENT-MRS. DOROTHY MAYS FOR
MICHAEL MAYS: 73-83
57. CLAIM SETTLEMENT-EDUARDO GONZALEZ: 73-84
58. CLAIM SETTLEMENT-SCHOFIELD FLEMING: 73-85.
59. BID AWARD -DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS FOR
DOWNTOWN GOVT CENTER: 73-86
60. EXTEND CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES-MONTAGUE
ROSENBERG: 73-87
3
• •
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMIJ FLORIDA
On the 25th day of January, 1973, the City Commission of
the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place
at City Hall in said city in regular session.
The meeting was called.to order at 9:30 O'Clock A.M. by
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon, and on roll call the following members
of the Commission were found to be present:
Messrs. Plummer, Gibson, Reboso'and Mrs. Gordon.
Absent: Mayor Kennedy.
An invocation was delivered by Reverend Gibson who then
led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
1. WAIVING READING OF MINUTES
On motion of Reverend Gibson, seconded by Mr. Reboso, it
was unanimously agreed to waive the reading of the minutes of
the previous meeting.
2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES AND PROCLAMATIONS
A plaque was presented to BARBRA GLADSTEN for her efforts
in the Miami International Folk Festival.
Presentation of certificates of appreciation were presented
to the participants of the. Bicentennial Bike-a-thon held December
3, 1972.
NOTE: Mayor David T. Kennedy entered the meeting at 9:40 O'Clock
A.M.
Mr. Jim Fleckenstein, President of the Miami Herald Explorers
Post #651 and Mrs. Jiminez of the same organization appeared and
certificates of appreciation were presented to them and the Mayor
procleimed the week of JANUARY 21, 1973 as:
EXPLORERS WEEK IN THE CITY OF MIAMI
3, BOOKER T. WASHINGTON ,COMMUNITY SCHOOL -EXPANDED PROGRAM
The Commission again took up for consideration an application
for additional matching funds for an expanded program at Booker T.
Washington High School.
Mayor Kennedy: As Mr. Daniels was here last meeting, we asked the
administration to study his request which I thought was an excellent
one. Mr. Reese do you have a recommendation?
Mr. Reese: The City Commission was supplied with a memorandum at
the conclusions of the discussions with the people held with the
Booker T. Washington representatives and the Commission has this
memorandum. Briefly the memorandum consisted of pointing out what
the City is doing as far as the overall different school programs
and also pointing out, well congratulating Booker T. Washington
for their forward steps in what they are trying to accomplish but at
the same time, suggesting that this is something that the school
board should use board of education tax funds for rather than to
use the City tax funds that the city of Miami is endeavoring to
operate and of course, this request was not incorporated into the
city budget at the time that was adopted.
4
4
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mayor Kennedy: I appreciate everything you say Mr. Reese and
as an administrator, I agree with you that our budget is very
tight and that it was not a budget request at that time and
you didn't budget for it however, I think that the overall
importance of this program and especially with the added addition
of funding from matching funds that would give them the opportunity
to have 9 new people and to expand the program greatly and its
already considered one of the best in the country and not because
Henry is here but I think we have one of the outstanding men in
the country running it and I just think we ought to take the
monies out, find the monies for this, I think its the only
school community program that is asking for this on a matching
fund basis and other communityschools in the area have other
agencies to go to, Jackson, has the model cities area to go to, so
they are the only ones coming in and asking for this. I would
like to turn the chair over to Mrs. Gordon and I would like to
move that the city allocate that. Mr. Reese, hopefully these
funds are the type that could be used from the revenue sharing
funds so that they could be put back in the budget if you needed
it to be put back when we decide what to do with the revenue sharing
funds but this is something that I can envision, that revenue sharing
could do because with a minimum donation, its going to help a
maximum amount of people and I think that's what we have to look
for in the community service today, so I move that we allocate
this money for matching program for the Booker T. Washington
Community School program.
Rev. Gibson: Second.
Mrs. Gordon: Its been moved by Mayor Kennedy and seconded by
Father Gibson -
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, before you
vote on it. I would like to bring something to your attention
The public hearings that were held on the matching funds program
and realizing the rules and regulations are not out yet, but the
information, and this is only information, it isn't one of the
rules and regulations. Supposedly none of this money is to be
used for funds that are made available through other sources for
education. In other words what they are saying, is that this is
not a substitution for financing education. If the City Commission
is so inclined to proceed on this, and recognizing that we are
funding three other schools as undoubtedly each one will come in
with a similar request -
Mayor Kennedy: That's what we are pointing out. There is other
community schools in the City limits Mr. Reese, other than these
four that we are funding, but we are not talking about funding those
other schools. I think there is 1 or 2 other community school
programs in the city of miami, other than the four that we are
helping to fund and they haven't come in and said, look you are
funding 4 others, we want to be funded.
I think what we have to do is draw a line. The other 4 that we
are helping to fund have other agencies that they can go into.
Booker'T. Washington doesn't fall within the model cities program
so they can't go there and ask for funds and as far as I am con-
cerned, this is one of the finest programs there is in the country
at Booker T. and I would like to see it expanded because I think
there is a great need for expansion. We could put on 9 new people
with the matching fund program and I think the overall good to the
community, far outweighs the amount of $5,000 .:e are being asked
to put up.
Mr. Reese: I just wanted to make that observation because Edison
undoubtedly will follow a similar program etc., but just so the
Commission is aware and undoubtedly you are already aware of it
without my bringing it to your attention, but if this is going to
be funded by the City Commission, then the only source of funds
would be out of the contingency fund.
Mayor Kennedy" I move that these funds come out of the contingency
funds.
5
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
Mr. Reese: May I make a suggestion then Mr. Mayor that you pass
a resolution adopting this program and then a second resolution
appropriating money out of the contingency fund for the total
that is needed which is $4,438.50.
the following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-37
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING IN PRINCIPLE THE EXPANDED
COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR BOOKER T. WASHINGTON
HIGH SCHOOL
(Here follows body of resolution4 omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy.
The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-38
A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING FROM THE CONTINGENT FUND
THE AMOUNT OF $4,438.50 FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLE-
MENTING THE EXPANDED COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR
BOOKER T. WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
NOTE: Prior to the adoption of the foregoing resolutions, the
Mayor surrendered the chair to Vice Mayor Gordon and following
adoption, the Mayor resumed the chair.
4, DESIGNATION OF MEMORIAL BOULEVARD AND SITE FOR CUB MONUMENT
Two representatives of the Cuban Historical Group, Memorial
Committee appeared to request consideration of the Commission in
the renaming of S. W. 13th Avenue and the placing of a monument
by their group thereon. Since the applicants were not able to
communicate in english, their application was made through Mr.
Parades of the City Manager's Office.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who
moved its adoption:
6
JANUARY 25, 1973
RESJLUTION N0. 73-39
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING S. W. 13TH AVENUE BETWEEN
S. W. 8TH STREET AND S. W. 22ND STREET AS
MEMORIAL BOULEVARD IN ADDITION TO ITS STREET DESIG-
NATION OF S. W. 13TH AVENUE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso,
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-40
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE PARKWAY OF S. W.
22ND STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF S. W. 13TH
AVENUE AND 22ND.STREET, AS A SITE FOR A MONUMENT
TO THE CUBAN HERO, JOAQUIN VICENTE DE AGUILERA;
AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT ALL PERMITS REQUIRED
TO BE OBTAINED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID MONUMENT BE ACQUIRED AND THE FEES THEREFOR
BE PAID AND THAT THE CITY ASSUME NO OBLIGATION FOR
THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID MONUMENT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Gibson,
Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
In response to a question by Mrs. Gordon, the applicants
through Mr. Paredes assured the Commission that they would assume
full responsibility for the cost and maintenance of the proposed
monuments and improvements and that there would be no responsibility
on the part of the City.
The matter of adding the surname of MEMORIAL BOULEVARD instead
of CUBAN MEMORIAL BOULEVARD was discussed by Commissioner Reboso
who said he preferred MEMORIAL BOULEVARD in order that in the future,
other heroes such as national heroes from Venezuela and other latin
american countries, would not be excluded.
JANUARY 25, 1973
7
5, ADDITIONAL MEMBERS- COMMITTEE ON NEW PLANNING AND ZONING STRUCTURE
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-41
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE
CITY'S COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF A NEW PLANNING
AND ZONING STRUCTURE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
The following named persons were added to the committee:
EMELINE L. MC GRANER, Planning F, Zoning Board
HAZEL BUNGY, 6580 Santana Street
OFELIA T. FERNANDEZ, 1861 S. W. 36th Avenue
MICHAEL SIMONHOFF, Architect
WILLIAM HUGGETT, Attorney
REV. TEMPRANCE WRIGHT
ED. HURST, Past President Bayshore,Plaza,Point Assn.
MR. JOHN C. MAYES, President same organization as above
6, DISCUSSION OF APPEAL OF CIRCUIT COURT RULING CONCERNING THE
CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF F.E.C. PROPERTY FOR EXPANDED
DAYFRONT PARK
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Mayor, I have sent to the Commission, a memo
and of course you have read in the papers, that we had a trial on
the F.E.C. property and Judge Crawford ruled that we could condemn
in part and a part we could not condemn because of the theory that
the railroad was a public use and a prior public use and had a
higher priority of public use, we are proceeding to prepare the
documents for the appeal. The official written order has not yet
come in from the Court. When it does, we will immediately file
the appeal papers which are being prepared and expedite the appeal
as quickly as possible and I do suggest -
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Rothstein, as you know, this will tear up the
dream that all of us that have worked so hard for this parks for
people program. The people voted on it overwhelmingly and it is
something that has been endorsed by everybody. It will make our
downtown on the bayfront, one of the most beautiful in the world
and now, we are going to find that its all jogged up and it would
be impossible to spend that type of money in that area and justify
it with a jigsaw pattern that we will be stuck with. Now, I think
we should proceed with the utmost haste on this and 1 know you are.
My question to you is, do you think you need an outside special
counsel to go before the appellate -
Mr. Rothstein: No Sir, because we have Mr. Hadley who is one of
the foremost experts in zoning, both at the local level and the
appellate level and I would like to remind the Commission that the
experience in the past at the trial level in Dade County has been
extremely favorable to those who sue the City and our percentage
of reversal is very very high.
8
JANUARY 25, 1973
We feel very strongly that the appeal should be taken and that we
will prevail.
•
Mayor Kennedy: I think this is of such utmost importance that
this Commission should take an affirmative act and I would like
to move that although its something we do anyhow, automatically
appeal an adverse decision, I think that this Commission ought to
go on record once again, in saying that we, the people has spoken,
the community has spoken, that we want a beautiful downtown bayfront
park, certainly that is of far more significance as a public benefit
than the Florida East Coast property and the use they are putting
it because the real use they are using it for, they can get at
the seaport of Miami. There is no reason in the world they cannot
go over there and that is a use that is very compatible and I would
like to move Mrs. Gordon, that we go on record, appealing this case
and to give whatever tools the City Manager and the City Attorney
need to fight this, whenever they ask for and whenever they need,
that this Commission is behind them.
Mr. Rothstein: It is my recommendation that you pass this resolution
and then, I don't know what the manager is going to recommend, but
its my recommendation that you do proceed with the condemnation of
the other pieces because part of those other uses are non -conforming
uses and as an alternative line of attach, if we are not successful
with our appeal, be phased out under our zoning law, we may have to
do it with more litigation and thereby be eliminated, if it is
truly a public use, sometime down later on in the future, five years
hence, so it is my suggestion that you do proceed on those other
parcels because if you wait, ultimately if we should lose on this
appeal and we go the alternative route by the fact that the
property is getting phased out over 5 years as being non -conforming,
if you leave this go, the value will go so high or they might build
a building on it, that I think and my recommendation is that you do
proceed with condemnation on these pieces.
Mrs. Gordon: Is there a second to the Mayor's motion?
seconded by Mr. Plummer, will you call'the roll please.
The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-42
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO TAKE AN APPEAL IN THE CASE STYLED
CITY OF MIAMI VS. F. E. C., CIRCUIT COURT CASE
NO. 71-17071 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATE GIVEN
TO THE CITY AT THE POLLS RECENTLY THAT AN EXPANDED
AND BEAUTIFIED BAYFRONT PARK IS DEVELOPED BY THE
CITY OF MIAMI
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Reboso, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
9
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Reese, do you concur with the City Attorney's
suggestion?
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, I think it warrants considerable discussion
and evaluation. Realizing there are conditions on the four yellow
pieces of land there. I would imagine the City Commission would
recognize that they can already move in and condemn or acquire that
the land is islands within the park, its islands, and one of the
biggest problems we have encountered in other property is when we
have islands within a tract we are trying to acquire. I use the
Wainright as an example and I use this uranium field down here
called dinner key, the price is equal to uranium. If you go into
this process, you could end up with islands and again, not the
same people voted on of and I am wondering if it isn't a good pos-
ition to say the people of miami expressed themselves that they
wanted this as a bayfront park. They didn't want only taking the
boulevard or parts of the boulevard even, not the entire frontage
and no waterfront and no accessibility.
Mayor Kennedy: Thats' what we just did in that motion.
Mr. Reese: Yes Sir, but before we proceed to buy this, then we are
walking in and buying it on a piecemeal basis and I am just wondering
if we don't show enough public conviction to not do that at this
time, but consider the fact that we want it all and if the worst
comes to worse, we can still come back and get this.
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Rothstein, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Reese
on this. I think we have enough time if we lose the appeal to still.
come back in if we decide 'we want to spend that type of money to have
islands. I don't really think -
Mr. Rothstein: We can request the Court to hold off on their
determinations during the course of the appeal and in effect it
would be an increase in value much the same as a number of years
= back, on the uranium field, we could have bought it for 500,000
and now its 5 million so I have an obligation to explain to you
that if we don't proceed now and the appeal takes ayear, and then
if they are successful, that's a years increase in value that the
city will have to pay additionally.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, I don't want the record to show that we
could ever have bought this for $500,000. I think that is a mis-
statement because this tract down here was negotiated and every
time we got to anywhere near asking the Commission to proceed
with the resolution to condemn, the owners came into the Commission
and made other offers and one time to tie it up long enough so
they could go in on zoning, they came back and said have you got
other lands to trade, so we spent a lot of time researching public
lands and then presented it to the Commission to show that we didn't
have the type of lands to trade that they would be interested in
so in the meanwhile, the zoning changes went on through the Courts
etc. If it was $500,000 and we have had the assurance of the
federal government for participation up to $500,000 for the last
3 years so, it was the strategy that was used that forced that
price up.
Mr. Rothstein: I am not going to quarrel with Mr. Reese because
any of the Commissioners who wish to look at the record, they can
see what the record is for themselves but the only point I was
making is that delay in other areas has cost the city money and
I just want the Commission to be aware of all of the facts as they
approach the process. I may agree with the Mayor, that yes it may
cost us a little bit more on those parcels but lets wait until we
see if we can buy the whole thing but you have to make a decision
based on all information and I am just giving you additional infor-
mation.
Mr. Reese: I recognize that the Wainright park is costing the city
more money. The little island in there because the city didn't
have the funds. We didn't have them so it changed hands and changed
hands about 4-5 times and now we are back into the predicament that
the land value has skyrocketed.
10 JANUARY 25, 1973
Mr. Rothstein: This is accurate on the Wainright park -
Mr. Reese: On this parcel down here, the record doesn't show that,
I am sorry to say.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor
Mr. Rothstein: I would suggest that you pass a resolution -
Mayor Kennedy: Let me ask you this question so the Commissioners
can understand what the two alternatives are that we have.
The alternative the way I understand it is that Mr. Rothstein is
asking for, is for us to go ahead and make the appeal of Judge
Crawfords decision and at the same time to go ahead and start
condemnation proceedings on those islands within the park and
by islands, I mean isolated land within the park.
Mr. Rothstein: Well we are in condemnation, this is all a part
of the condemnation suit that has been filed.
Mayor Kennedy: To proceed individually with those that Judge
Crawford said we could -
Mr. Rothstein: Let me retreat a little bit. On hearing the
Managers recommendation and the thoughts of the Commission, I
suggest tht what we do is take the appeal and try to expedite
the appeal because of the great public interest and request that
Judge Crawford not set down the taken;; dollar wise which is the'
next step until after we know what the appeal process brings us.
That's probably the best thing.
Mayor Kennedy: I think that's best because I am not too sure if
the people want us to spend the type of money we are going to
have to spend to get that hodgepodge there if the courts rule that
we can't take the whole thing.
Thats a decision this Commission is going to have to make after
the appeal is taken. so I think with this suggestion, we get the
best of two worlds.
Mr. Reese: And also in the meantime, the attorneys could proceed
to condemn the point property down there. Suraly the Courts
wouldn't divide that up because part of it is parking.
Mr. Rothstein: We have just received the abstract, the complaint
is right now being processed and prepared and it will be filed
together with the Wainright parks suit next week.
Mayor Kennedy: I'll move that.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mayor
Kennedy who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-43
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
IN THE CASE STYLED CITY OF MIAMI VS. F. E. C.
CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 71-17071, STAY ANY PRO-
CEEDINGS SETTING THE VALUATION OF THE PARCELS
OF LAND WHICH THE CITY HAS A RIGHT TO CONDEMN
UNTIL AFTER THE CITY'S RIGHT TO APPEAL HAVE
BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND THE APPEAL'S COURT HAS
RULED ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
CITY CAN LAWFULLY CONDEMN THE REMAINING PROP-
ERTY IN THE ORIGINAL CONDEMNATION SUIT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
11 JANUARY , 1973
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
JONIOR LEAGUE OF MIAMI PLAN FOR MINI -PARK ON MIAMI RIVER
Several representatives of the Junior League of Miami,
River Restoration Project appeared to outline a plan which would
create a mini -park on existing pylons near the N. W. 5th Street
Bridge of the Miami River on city owned property. They described
the property as being 180' in length.
A landscape architect donating his services to the proposal
appeared and presented a plan done by architect William Cox.
Mr. Ray Collins made this presentation.
After a discussion, the Commission complemented those persons
responsible for this plan and the following resolution was then
introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-44
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAN OF THE JUNIOR
LEAGUE OF MIAMI rOR THE CREATION OF A PARK ON
THE MIAMI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF THE N. W.
5TH STREET BRIDGE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF
SAID PLAN BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
8, CIVIL SERVICE RULES AJVD REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO RIGHJS Qf
EMPLOYEES COVERI,NG RESIGNATION. LAYOFF AND REINSTATMENT 1 N
EVENT OF TRANSFER TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY ETC.
Mr. Bob Paul, Executive Secretary of the Civil Service
Boardappeared to outline the contents of a resolution passed'
by the Board on January 16, 1973..
Mayor Kennedy read the C.S.B. resolution to the Commission.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Civil Service Board, at their meeting
on January 16, 1973, was informed through a legal opinion from
the City Attorney that the existing Civil Service Rule XIV, Sections
1 and 2 covering Lay -Off, Resignations and Reinstatements does not
grant retention rights to employees in the event of a transfer to
Metropolitan Dade County or when their job is abolished and,
WHEREAS, THE Civil Service Board has always interpreted the present
rule to grant such rights and all other abolishments of functions
and transfers to Metropolitan Government have been carried out under
these provisions without objections by any of the parties involved
and,
WHEREAS, present employees have a right to rely on and be granted
the same protections previously granted to all other employees, and
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Board has proposed a rule change which
would more specifically give rights based on City-wide seniority
and classification and,
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Board feels that this matter must be
corrected prior to the April 1, 1973 date of transfer of the Water
and Sewers Department, and,
12
JANUARY 25, 1973
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Board will hold a public hearing
on this rule change on February 1, 1973 in order that this rule
may be considered by the City of Miami City Commission on
February 8, 1973, and,
WHEREAS, it is the request that this be considered as an emergency
rule change.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Civil Service Board of
the City of Miami request the City Commission to pass a resolution
directing that the City 4aw Department and the City Manager have
this rule change presented at the meeting of February 8, 1973.
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Faulk, do you want to explain that?
Mr. Faulk: The resolution explains it fairly well, however to
elaborate a little more extensively. In all the past transfers
of functions or departments to Dade County, we have always inter-
preted the rules written to provide the right'of those employees
who have classification which can be utilized in the remaining
departments to have the right to remain with the City in those
various departments even though it may tend to roll someone out
of a job because the person with the department being transferred
has a greater seniority with the city. Since it has always been
done in the past and since we now have a legal opinion which
came forth about 2 weeks ago from the city attorney's office,
indicating that our rules do not provide what has been occuring
in the past, we are faced with the prospect of wanting to protect
the lights of those people in the water department who are facing
transfer to Metro the same as those who have had protection in
the past and in order to do so it is necessary to amend our rules
to comply with the means by which we have been treating these
employees in the past. We urgently urge you to consider this.
The Board has not had the opportunity to pass it as yet but in
order to expedite your consideration for the 8th, we ask that
you have it prepared in amendatory form so that it can be placed
on the agenda for the 8th and I know that the Board will pass this
rule change on the first which is next thursday so it will be in
your posession by then and you can take action on it if its within
your wisdom to do so.
Mayor Kennedy: At that time, the debate can be heard, all you
are asking for today is that it be placed on the agenda for the8th?
Mr. Faulk: Yes Sir, we are asking that the city attorneys office
be instructed to prepare the proper ordinance so that it would be
in position to be passed on that date.
Mr. Reese: Is this a motion to put this on the next agenda
Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Kennedy: And to have the proper ordinances drafted so that
if this Commission decides to pass this, that we would have every-
thing prepared.
Mr. Reese: But if I understood correctly, it was also stated that
the Civil Service Board is going to hold a public hearing but
evidently they have already determined the conclusion of the public
hearing.
Mr. Faulk: Mr. Reese, you may be right.
Mr. Reese: I think this democratic process is -
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-45
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE
NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMISSION WHICH WILL AMEND
THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO AS TO
GRANT RETENTION RIGHTS COVERING LAYOFF, RESIG-
NATION AND REINSTATEMENT TO EMPLOYEES IN THE
13
•
EVENT OF A TRANSFER TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY
OR WHEN THEIR JOB IS ABOLISHED
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
9, CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF THE LATE PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON
The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-46A
A RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCES IN THE DEATH OF
PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
10, FLAGS OTHER THAN FEDERAL FLAGS ALSO TO BE FLOWN AT HALF STAFF
DURING MOURNING PERIOD FOR PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON
The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-46B
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT FLAGS IN THE CITY
OF MIAMI OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES FLAG ALSO
BE FLOWN AT HALF STAFF DURING THE MOURNING PER-
'IOD OF THE LATE PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
NOTE: Prior to the introduction of the two preceding resolutions,
the Mayor surrendered the chair to Vice Mayor Gordon and
following the adoption of the resolutions, the Mayor resumed
the chair. 14 JANUARY 25, 1973
RESOLUTION TO PRESIDENT NEXON FOR HIS PEACE EFFORTS
The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-47
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE HOPE THAT
PRESIDENT NIXONJ,S PRESENT PEACE PLAN WILL
BRING PEACE TO ..HE WORLD NOT ONLY FOR THE
PRESENT GENERAT::ON BUT FOR GENERATIONS TO
COME AND WISHING HIM GODSPEED IN HIS EFFORTS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Plummer, Reverend Gibson`, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Keanedy. NOES: None
NOTE: Prior to the introduction of the resolution, Mayor Kennedy
surrendered the chair to Vice Mayor Gordon and following
the adoption of the resolution, the Mayor resumed the chair.
•
15 JANUARY 25, 1973
11. CONFIRMATION..PRELIMINABY ASSESSMENT ROLL S, E. 14TH ST.
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-48
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
ROLL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF S. E. 14 STREET HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT H-4352 IN S. E. 14 STREET HIGHWAY IMP-
ROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4352 AND REMOVING ALL PENDING
LIENS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT NOT CERTIFIED HEREBY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Vice Mayor Gordon, prior to the introduction of the above
resolution announced the Commission was now ready to consider
hearing any objections to the confirmation of the Preliminary
Assessment Roll for S. E. 14th Street Highway Improvement H-4352.
No objectors appeared.
12, ACCEPT COMPLETED WOEK-MUSA ISIF SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5308-C
The Mayor announced the Commission was now ready to consider
hearing objections to the acceptance of completed work for Musa -
Isle Sanitary Sewer Improvement SR-5308-C.
No objectors appeared.
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-49
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF MUSA ISLE SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENT SR-5308 -C
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by mi.. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the folling vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
16
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
13, VARIANCE DENIAL- 3770 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY- I-1 DISTRICT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-50
A RESOLUTION TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO DENY APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XX,
SECTION 3 (1) , AND ARTICLE XXI II , SECTION 2 (5)
TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION TO EXISTING
AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP, WITH SETBACK ADJACENT TO
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF o' (20' REQUIRED),WAIVING
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING AREAS, BEING
DESCRIBED AS "UNPLATTED", LOCATED AT 3770 SOUTH
DIXIE HIGHWAY, IN AN I-1 (Light -Industrial) DISTRICT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Mr. Bob Savage, representing the applicant Ethel N. Savage
appeared to appeal an adverse ruling of the Planning and Zoning
Board for variance as descri.bed'above.
Commissioner Plummer asked what the recommendations of the
P.A.C. committee had been since this matter had been previously
deferred for their recommendation and the applicant replied that
the P.A.C. Committee do not want him to enlarge on this property
on the basis that they wished Coconut Grove to be 75-80% residential
and did not want businesses to be located in their area.
In response to an additional question in regard to waiving
of landscaping, the applicant said he didn't want to have trees
14' in height as would be required since amond other things, a
commitment was made to a firm using a billboard on the property
and that the trees would block the view of same.
Mr. Savage emphasized the Planning and Zoning Board had
denied the application of the variance due to possible re-routing
of a major highway but that conference with Mr. Ramos of the State
Road Department had disclosed nothing is planned in the next five
year period.
Mr. George Acton, Director of the Planning Department stated
their recommendation would still stand and mentioned that the matter
of the corridor of the mass transit system was still unresolved
and although no immediate plans were on paper for this area, the
Commission should keep in mind that the area would be in for changes
as these transit plans are developed.
Reverend Gibson said he was a member of the P.A.C. committee
and abstained from voting on this application.
17
JANUARY 25, 1973
• •
14, EXTENDING CONDITIONAL USE -LOTS 4,5,6,7 KARKEET SUBDIVISION
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, when this matter was before the Commission
there was a question on the inspection of this particular site and
the Commission asked that the Building Department go out and re-
inspect it.
Mr. Ferencik: We met with Mr. Little and his neighbor out there
on the property and looked at those things he brought up before
the Commission and when our original inspection was made out
there, we inspected only those conditional use lots which were up
for consideration and we had not considered the entire property.
The conditional use lots which are really the subject of this
hearing, we found them previously and at the time that I went out
there and looked at the property, those lots were being used in
keeping with the restrictions that were placed on the conditional
use in the first place however, the, Mr. Little and his neighbor
brought other issues with reference to other uses on the property
and some things on the property that they found to be a nuisance.
Specifically a question about oil spillage on the ground which had
killed some required lancscaping on the west side of the building
and there was a question with reference to trash blowing around
on the property, all kinds of paper and other types of trash.
Nuisance from the general operation. We looked at the property
again, considering the complaints on the part of the neighbors and
we found these things that they said, to be true. There was trash
blowing around the property and this is evidently coming from the
sweeping out of the buses when they come into the parking lot,
racetrack tickets, dog track programs and candy wrappers and
the cleaners have apparently been sweeping these out of the door
of the bus and onto the paved area and it blows around and in all
candidness the particular day we happened to be there, it was
raining and they weren't blowing but ordinarily they would and not
only find their way to the neighbors property but some of it must
go out in the public right of way.
The oil spill that occured that killed tie landscaping on the west
side of the property apparently occured as a result of an accident
which there was no argument, there was oil spilled out there and
the area has been resodded. We did find some quarrel with the way
they handled oil on the property but this had nothing to do with
the nighbors complaint and this matter has been discussed with the
principals and they have agreed to correct this problem.
Mr. Philip Schiff: I have seen the pictures and have looked at
the area and as Mr. Ferencik says, the property which is subject
matter of this hearing is being operated strictly in accordance
with the condition. Resolution 43155, each one of those conditions
has been and is being adhered to. The landscaping on the west side
has been resodded. The inspection concerned itself not only with
the conditional use lots but myclients commercial property which
fronts on Le Jeune Road. Its not the cleanest type of property
you could have, it has to do with machine shops on their property
where legally they do first and second echelon maintenance on their
buses. The problem of the buses being swept out has been
corrected by the use of a box outside of the buses and when they
sweep it out, the debris goes into the box instead of the surface.
Oil and grease interceptor to be installed is going to be expensive
but my client has expressed a willingness to do it.
Mr. Schiff reminded the Commission that the area had changed very
radically in recent years with commercial and multiple family units
replacing what once had been single family residences and that
there were very few houses left in the area and that much of their
continuing objections were the fact that they had elected to remain
in an area where commercial and multi -family uses had taken over.
18
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mayor Kennedy stated he appreciated the comments but that those
neighbors had been there for a long time and was their business
if they -wanted to remain in the area and had a right .:o have their
homes and investment protected. He suggested the installation of
the grease traps and the sweeping personnel being more careful would
be beneficial.
Mr. Little, a neighbor complained that the use started out as a
limousine service and the bus service was a new addition to the
use and complained of the washing of these buses all night long.
He said he was a long time resident of the area and when he bought
it, he was a whole block away from commercial uses. He said the
noise of these buses with engines running all night was very bad
for people trying to sleep.
Mrs. Little, said they have complained about these problems since
the administration of Robert King High and that the applicant
had not kept their. promises. She complained of the spanish speaking
personnel who talk in very loud voices at all hours of the night
that are engaged in the cleaning operation of the buses.
Mr. Shutts, a neighbor appeared and reiterated the problems assoc-
iated with the careless cleaning of the buses and resultant trash.
After considerable further discussion, the following resolution
was introduced by Reverend Gibson, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-51
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING "CONDITIONAL USE, AS
LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1,
(6) (c) OF KARKEET SUBDIVISION (43-45), IN CON-
JUNCTION WITH THE OPERATIONS OF MIAMI BEACH AIR
TRANSPORT INC., BEING THE SOUTH SIDE OF N. W. 11TH
STREET WEST OF LE JEUNE ROAD, :TONED R-3, (LOW -DENSITY
MULTIPLE) AS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY RESOLUTION NO.
43155 ON JANUARY 20, 1972, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1)
YEAR; GRANTING AN EXTENSION FOR (6) MONTHS AND
PROVIDING FOR A REVIEW BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT
THAT TIME
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Plummer, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor kennedy. NOES: None
•
19 JANUARY 25, 1973
•
15, VARIANCE - LOT L BLOCK 3, SPRING GARDENS "
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-52
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE
NO. 6871, ARTICLE VII, SECTIONS 2 (3), 3 (2) (a),
AND 3 (2) (b), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF DUPLEX
ON LOT 1, BLOCK 3, SPRING GARDENS (5-38), LOCATED
AT APPROXIMATELY 901 N. W. 8TH STREET ROAD, WITH
LOT AREA OF 3,500 SQ.FT. (4,000 SQ.FT. REQUIRED)
WITH SIDE SETBACK OF 10' (15' REQUIRED), WITH
SIDE SETBACK OF 5' (9' REQUIRED) ZONED R-3
)Low -Density -Multiple)
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution
was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Mr. James Pollack, Attorney representing Mr. Peter Rodriguez,
the applicant appeared and urged adoption of the resolution.
16, CONDITIONAL USE - BANYAN BAY CLUr AT MIAMI CLUB APARTMENT
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-53
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE" AS
PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE VIII,
SECTION 1 (11) (e)•, TO PERMIT CLUB KNOWN AS
"BANYAN BAY CLUB" TO BE LOCATED ON TENTATIVE
MAT #793-A - "MIAMI CLUB APARTMENTS"; LOCATED
AT 703 N. E. 63RD STREET, ZONED R-4 (medium -
density multiple)
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file .:i the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso and Mrs. Gordon. NOES: Mayor Kennedy.
Mr. C. K. George, Attorney representing Belco Ltd. the applicant
again appeared and outlined to the Commission the results of ameeting
with objectors from the American Legion as well as the neighbors and
that the new owners of the property had assured the neighbors that
they wanted to be good neighbors and would allow the use of access
to the bay without the obstruction of a wall or closing off the area.
20
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mr. Lloyd Morrow, a resident of N. E. 62nd Street appeared
to object to the additional traffic that the club would generate
and pointed to the entrance and exit from lots on N. E. 62nd Street
and the hazard these added vehicles posed to members of his family.
FL'.ture highway improvements for the area under discussion
were outlined by Mr. Grimm, Public Works Department using a chart
of the streets in question.
It was again emphasized that it was not in the power of
the Commission to restrict guests of residents of the apartment
complex and that the traffic would already exist by virtue of those
residents living in the apartment complex.
In casting his NO vote on roll call, Mayor Kennedy said he
thought the developer had done an outstanding job in the community
and the apartments were very nice and that private clubs basically
have been a problem in coconutgrove and that he didn't want this
done in the northeast section.
Mrs. Gordon suggested the Commission for the future might ask
the Planning Department to look into regulations which permit
private clubs just anywhere.
Mr. Plummer said such a request had been made of the City
Manager's office several months ago on this very subject and that
the information was being gathered on private clubs in general and
that upon completion of the investigation, a memorandum would be
furnished to all members of the Commission.
U, gi NCATeNlFg ONRCE-LOTS 27.28.29.30, BLOCK 7
Mr. Joseph H. Kaplan, Applicant and Attorney together with
his associate Tom Dorsey and Bill Johnson appeared to urge con-
sideration of the application to permit addition to an office
building located at 1951 N. W. 17th Avenue. He described the
area as being econimically retarded and a very run down type
of neighborhood and that he was hopeful they would be able to
remain in the building they had constructed there to serve their
clients in the allappatah areas and industrial clients in that
area. He outlined the plan for additional staff members for his
law firm and said he does not have enough space and the building
would have to be enlarged. He represented there were no persons
objecting and that none had attended the zoning hearings and that
the building would be extended toward the back. He showed the
Commission a photograph of the already existing structure and
emphasized again it was upgrading the depressed neighborhood.
Mr. George Acton, Director of the Planning Department said
he felt this application was one that might warrant inspection
by members of the Commission and that he did not disagree with
what Mr. Kaplan had stated in that he had a beautiful office
building in a depressed area but that the department was of the
opinion that the addition was too close to the abutting residential
use and mentioned large trees on the property line in question.
After discussion on motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by
Reverend Gibson, it was unanimously decided to defer consideration
of this matter to the meeting on February 8, 1973 and Mayor David
Kennedy expressed the opinion that since the applicant had been
here all day waiting, that the matter should be considered the
first zoning item on February 8th at 10 o'clock in the morning.
21
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
18, CONDITIONAL USE - LOT 8. 7, BLACK 14. NORTHERN BOULEVARD TAT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 7 3- 54
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE AS
LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION
1 (6) (b) , TO PERMIT PARKING LOT ON LOT 8 ANI)
W 25' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 14, NORTHERN BOULEVARD TRACT
(2-29), LOCATED AT 658 N. W. 30TH STREET, FOR EM-
PLOYEES VEHICLES, IN CONJUNCTION WITH BUSINESS
LOCATED AT 675 N. W. 29TH STREET; WITH NO OPENING
ON N. W. 30TH STREET, AND SUBJECT TO A REVISED
SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT;
ZONED R-3 (Low Density Multiple)
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mess.. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Mr. Malcolm Stein representing the applicant Jack Hartley
appeared and said Mr. Hartley was a garment manufacturer and was
a clean industry but that additional parking was needed fer employees
due to expansion of their business.
19, VARIANCE- LOT 12, BLOCK 2, TROPICAL MANOR
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-55
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE
NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 3, TO PERMIT CON-
STRUCTION OF ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ON LOT 12, BLOCK 2, TROPICAL MANOR (41-93),
LOCATED AT 2151 S. W. 16TH STREET, WITH REAR SET-
BACK OF 16.1' (20' REQUIRED), ZONED R-1 (One -
Family)
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
22
JANUARY 25, 1973
20. FUTURE . RESOLUTIONS FOR PRIVATE PARKIN LOTS -LIGHTING ORDINANCE
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-56
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE POLICY OF THE
COMMISSION THAT ANY FUTURE RESOLUTIONS
AUTHORIZING PRIVATE PARKING LOTS INCLUDE
A PROVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S
PARKING LOT LIGHTING ORDINANCE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Cordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: NOne
21, STREET CLOSURE - CULMER PARK SUBDIVISLON N0..1
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-57
A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND
DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF
N. W. 9TH STREET BETWEEN N. W. 5TH AND 7TH
AVENUES, AND N. W. 6TH AVENUE BETWEEN N. W.8TH
AND 11TH STREETS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TENTATIVE
PLAT #762-C, DESIGNATED AS "CULMER PARK SUB-
DIVISION NO. L", SUBJECT TO RELOCATION, ALTER-
ATION OR INSTALLATION OF ANY UTILITIES AND
EASEMENTS, AND SUBJECT TO RECORDING FORMAL PLAT
h,sre follows body of resolution, onitted here and
0'. ::1 in the City Clerks Office)
Upon c.c ;:; .onded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and ddc: .v the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Plummer, Mrs. cJ- : • and Mayor Kennedy. ABSTAINING: Rev. Gibson.
Applicant: iious1r4, ; ran Development.
Reverend Gibson absta:,,. .rom voting on this item because he
serves on the H.U.D. Adv. Board.
23
JANUARY 25, 1973
• •
22, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'S NDP 5TH ACTION YEAR
Mr. Robert Tague representing Housing and Urban Development
NDP appeared to outline the application to the Commission for the
5th action year plans.
He outlined plans fr:r Edison Center area with the use of a
chart showing overlay of •,ossible purchase of property there.
He then moved on to plan for the central area including the area
of Dorsey Park for housing purposes.
Commissioner Plummer mentioned a question raised to him 11
years ago by a property owner who had been advised that his prop-
erty would be acquired by HUD but that no further action had ever
been taken, that the owner was apparently required to sell only to
HUD and that the minimum housing; standards had forced upgrading of
the property for minimum rents. He asked what actions are planned
to take such property owners out of limbo and grant them relief in
such circumstances.
The respondent from HUD replied that in all probability it
was in the process of being acquired right now since it usually
takes about 11 years from notification to actual acuisition pending
the availability of funds.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the following resolution
was introduced by Mr. Plummer, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-58
A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE THE FIFTI.
ACTION YEAR OF" NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS PRESENTED TO THE CITY
COMMISSION BY THE METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY DEPAR-
TMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City. Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES' Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
23, ARCHITECT'S REPORT- EDISON PARK TEEN CENTER
Mr. Lester Pancoast, Architect and Mr. Hoffman appeared to
outline the plan for Edison Park Teen Center in Edison Park.
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-59
A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE, THE PLAN
PRESENTED THIS DATE BY PANCOAST ARCHITECTS
FOR THE PRELIMINARY PHASE OF THE EDISON PARK
TEEN CENTER
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
24 JANUARY 25, 1973
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Mrs. Annette Eisenberg appeared and endorsed the plan and thanked
the Commission for their support.
24,, ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE SHARING FUNDS
Mayor David T. Kennedy announced the appointment of two
additional members to serve on the Mayor's Advisory Committee
on how Revenue Sharing Funds could be spent.
ANNETTE EISENBERG
ELIZABETH VIRRICK
The Mayor requested the City Clerk to advise Mr. Dan Paul,
the Chairman of these additional appointments.
RECESS: THE COMMISSION W S N REECESS ROM 12:35 O'CLOCK P,M,
THIS DATE UNTIL L:1D O'CLOCK I,M,
THE COMMISSIOI RECONVENED AT 2140 O'CLOCK P.M.
WITH MESSRS _ UMMER, RE.sOSO1 �IBSON & MAYOR KENNEDY
PRESENT, AbS: T: MR$L GORDON
25, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CONDLTIQNAL USE -OFF STREET PARKING LOTS
Mr. George Acton, Director of the Planning Department outlined
this amendment to the Commission:
Mr. Acton: This is a modification to our off-street parking ordinance
and if the Commission recalls, during the time that you were hearing
the requests from the bank located on Coral Way and 17th Avenue,
a situation came up where our off-street parking ordinance did not
allow an entrance to go through an off-street parking lot in a
residential zone even if it was abutting a commercial street, so
this modification simply allows the City, in those cases where an
applicant requests conditional use off-street parking and where
the conditional use off-street parking located in a residential zone
abuts a residential street, to allow an entrance to the conditional
use parking lot provided it abutts an arterial street and the
illustration shows basically what it does. Our Off -Street Parking
ordinance does not allow or does nor encourage, more traffic through
residential streets and its so written but there was an oversight
and there are some cases where the off-street parking lot does abut
a street that can carry heavy traffic and is designed to do so
and this merely allows -
Mr. Plummer: Have you put into the ordinance, any kind of a
stipulation as to what constitutes an arterial street as far as
width is concerned and things as we were faced with this morning?
Mr. Acton: The County classification for arterial street system
dictates whether an arterial street is actually that, in other
words, the local residential street is under the jurisdiction of
the City of Miami. The arterial streets like 17th, 22nd, the ones
that are designed to carry heavy traffic loads through the City.
Mr. Plummer: you feel this is necessary?
Mr. Acton: Yes I do.
25 JANUARY 25, 1973
• •
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE
XXIII, SECTION 8, SUB -PARAGRAPH (d) OF PARAGRAPH 1
BY DELETING SUB PARAGRAPH (d) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SUB -PARAGRAPH (d)
WAS introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mr. Reboso, and passed
on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Gibson and Mayor Kennedy.
ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon
26, RENAMING OF S. E. 1 AVENUE TO "BRICKELL PLAZA"
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 3-60
A RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY DESIGNATING THAT THE
THOROUGHFARE BETWEEN S. E. 8TH STREET AND
S. E. 12TH STREET, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS S. E.
1ST AVENUE, BE CHANGED TO BRICKELL PLAZA.
THIS THOROUGHFARE SHALL BE KNOWN BY BOTH NAMES
FOR A PERIOD OF SIX (6) MONTHS TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE TIME TO FACILITATE CHANGEOVER
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso and Mayor Kennedy. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon
Mr. James Boyett representing Allen Morris Company appeared
to urge adoption of the resolution.
27, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ARTICLE IV, SEC, 3,9 INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE
IV, PERTAINING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, BY ADDING A
NEW SECTION 39 TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM ZONING
DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN THE PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT; PRO-
VIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THE INTERIM ZONING
DISTRICT AND SETTING TIME LIMITS FOR THE PROPOSED
INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS
IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE
TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE
26
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 11,
1973, was taken up for its second and final reading by title, and
adoption. On motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson,
the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by
title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Gibson, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Xennedy. NOES:
None. Declaring this ordinance to be an emergency measure on the
grounds of urgent public need for the preservation of peace, health,
safety and property in the City of Miami.
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8#31.
28, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ARTICLE IV, SECTION 20, RESTAURANTS IN
MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICTS
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, PERTAINING
TO COMMERCIAL USES IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOTELS, MOTELS,
APARTMENT -HOTELS, OFFICE BUILDINGS, AND APARTMENTS;
AMENDING ARTICLE IV, SECTION 20, BY DELETING SECTION
20 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTING A NEW SECTION 20;
BY ADDING A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH (h), SECTION 1, ARTICLE
VII, (R-4 DISTRICT); BY ADDING A NEW SUB -PARAGRAPH (c)
TO PARAGRAPH (6), SECTION L, ARTICLE X (R-S DISTRICT);
BY ADDING A NEW SUB -PARAGRAPH (b) TO PARAGRAPIt (2-A)
SECTION L, ARTICLE X-1 (R-5A DISTRICT) ; BY A, DING A
NEW SUB PARAGRAPH (c) TO PARAGRAPH (51, SECTION 1,
ARTICLE XI, (R-C DISTRICT), AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH:
AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 11,
1973, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and
adoption. On motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer, the
ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by
title and passed and adopted by the fallowing vote - AYES: Messrs.
Gibson, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Or.i:mince No. 8132.
29, PUBLIC HEARING- EXTFV:•ING HOURS,OF SALE FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
FOR SMALLER RESTAURAV AILDO NOT QUALIFY UNDER EXISTING REGULATIO
Mr. Jerome Robinson, Exe..utive Vice -President of the Florida
Restaurant Association appeared tc, again ask the consideration of
the Commission in the matter as described above.
Mr. Robinson: For a better part of a year now has gone by and we
have brought up the proposition of the smaller operators of rest-
aurants being discriminated against by the city code of the City of
Miami in that places and establishments of over 200 seats are all
owed to serve beer on Sunday until 1 A.M. the following Monday ;.M.
and in those areas restaurants under 200 seats, they must close ;t
7 P.M. on Sunday.
I presented to each of you a complete background of eve rvtt:;n,; tn:i!
has happened in the past 6-7 months. I request that some a:: t i fin be
taken to relieve those restaurants that are under 200 seats, tc have
them have the same ability as those that are over 200 seats and
think all of you have heard this for some time and I do not want try
belabor the point and I am here to answer any questions that you
might have on it.
Mayor Kennedy: Are there any objectors present on this item?
27
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mayor Kennedy: Was this advertised as a public hearing in the
proper publications?
Mr. Southern, City Clerk: Yes Sir, it was. It was advertised
as a display ad in two papers.
Mayor Kennedy: That is normal for what we do?
Mr. Southern: Yes.
Mayor Kennedy: The chair doesn't see any objectors, is there a
motion?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask the Manager since
he did make a recommendation before, if he has any recommendation
on this specific item. ,
Mr. Reese: Briefly the answer is no.
Mayor Kennedy: You don't recommend this?
Mr. Reese: I don't have any recommendation on it at all sir.
This is in general keeping with what we recommended as far as
this particular group is concerned.
Mr. Robinson: You are talking about what recommendation, the
recommendation that it be the same as those with 200 seats?
Mr. Reese: I am not making any recommendation because this is
in keeping with the previous recommendation.
Mayor Kennedy: What is the County's requirements?
Mr. Reese: I don't know.
Mr. Robinson: The County, in your brochure which I gave to you, the
County allows from 1 P.M. on Sunday to the 1 A.M. on the following
Monday.
Mayor Kennedy: And what are you asking for?
Mr. Robinson: We are asking for the same thing. You see they make
no breakdown between smaller restaurants and larger restaurants.
They say all restaurants. 1 P.M. to 1 A.M.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, may I, let me ask for clarity. Weare
not, you are contending if I remember correctly, that there is
an inequity -based on seating capacity in the City which is not
true in the County, is that right?
Mr. Robinson: THat's correct.
Rev. Gibson: Thats the issue before us, is that right?
}ir. Robinson: That's correct.
Mayor Kennedy: Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Mr. Reboso: Mr. Mayor, regarding the restaurants, we discussed
about 2 months ago, a proposal by the City Manager that all the
restaurants, liquor, beer and wine will be open from 7 A.M. to
3 A.M., all of them, that was two months ago and I would like to
make a motion now of approval of that proposal that the City
Manager did at that time. All restaurants in the City of Miami.
Its in the minutes of December 14, 1972.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Mayor, if I may. No never mind.
Mr. Plummer: Let me if I may because I have got to clarify this
because I made some statements at the first hearing and irrespective
of what happened at the last hearing, that I will still contend are
proper and I cannot second Mr. Reboso's motion. I have always said
I was a bad one to come to because I am a teetotaler but I don't
feel my thoughts should be injected on someone else. I do feel
though there is a great deal of difference between a man who on a
28
JANUARY 25, 197
•
Sunday evening want, ir n out and the terminology that I would
want to use, to drink rink, which I feel would be only going
to a bar for the .soh 1 ,ose of drinking and that of a man who
goes to a fine restaurni. and we have a lot of fine restaurants
under 200 seats, and a., .r ::ompliment to his meat, has the right
to enjoy a bottle c' ( beer or a glass of wine. My only, problem
Mr. Reese is this. .; heard and it has been brought to my
attention that the administration has in the past had some problem
in the realm of enfor -c.n i:t. That is, how do we differentiate
between a neighborhooi r who suddenly comes up with a hot-dog
cooker as a restauran: opposed to what I would like to refer to
as a legitimate restall. and serve as an accessory to the
restaurant, a bevera,:': has this been a problem? Is it easy?
I ask you Sir for an explanation.
Mr. Reese: I think Hie ;),oblem has been the other way where some
of your restaurant i a .tclub operators had to have food and
what they did was have a ):ir of peanuts in their icebox as food
and items like that. :,,eve not heard where any bar per se would
meet any of the restaur::-:t requirements or because they had a
hotdog machine, would h:ivc a problem.
we are talking in tern!, u[ a restaurant and if you will look at the
present code, it open:, now at 7 A.M. and closes at 1 A.M. and opens
at 1 A.M. and closes 2 A.M. - 1 P.M. and closes at 1 A.M.
All we are trying to Jo i:; to try to get it as standardized as
,possible in the whole of trying to get enforcement so that
the police officer did t ;lave to be concerned about he walks into
this door, its one hc:,. :J: he wants into that door and its another
hour so we were tryin , full into the pattern of not taking away
any of the opening tic: ; ike 7 A.M., permitting that, :end then
opening it up to 3 A.R, Cut the restaurant in who is open and
in competition with t i;., ): i g ate club. That was the purpose of
going to the: 3 A.M.
Pe%. C,ibson: Mr. May , thought we werenot arguing about the
hours but we were arw.ti - r,)out the seating capacity. The
nc qu 1 t : is nct •in t t, _ they are not even complaining about
the hour, they are cc ping about a restaurant that can scat
00 people and can .n,' one with 100 people and cannot serve
ard I thought also t.' t f' were going to take up, we have already
�s,Lc i Mr. Plummer co dL , „:th the uniform hour business with the
mur:ic.ialities, if We ;f we have an inequity that exists,
it seem to me that ve -,;,l:t to go the route and not bother with
t}-.esc hours, to as to :,iApeund Mr. Plummers position later on.
Mr. Plummer: %'e11 Reverend Gibson, let me tell you that the
Dade League has had the is ir. st meeting of the committee of the
problem that I preseatd to them and things are in the works and
things are hopefully moving along very fine as far as uniform hours
are concerned. Let me if I understand you.
Are you saying that rat'h_r than us changing the hours perse, that
the regulation pertaining to the amount of seating be eliminated
in that way to take care of this individual prc!lem?
Rev. Gibson: Right. l �'n for the seating problem.
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Robinson, you are only talking about Sundays,
now right?
Mr. Robinson: That's cr•itect, just Sunday closing hours.
Mr. Reboso: Not weekJ,.:r :•..
Mr. Robinson: No, we ::VC... talking strictly Sunday.
Mr. Plummer: For the :....i, so there will be no misunderstanding
where Plummer stands, ir; ::, way, will I vote for Sunday morning.
That's the .rea:;on why i said I could not second Mr. Reboso.
Mr. Robinson: In the cer ificate which I sent to youand in my
presentation, I state very clearly that we are not looking for
the extension of the hours in the morning on Sunday. We are happy
to stay with the 1 O'clock opening hour on Sunday, 1 P.M. but
we are looking of the extension of the hour from 7 P.M.
29
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
to 1 A.M. the following Monday morning so we have never requested
and will still stand by that, we are not looking for the Sunday
early morning hours. We are looking for 1 P.M. Sunday to 1 A.M.
Monday morning. This is the request we are making so it would not
take in the early morning hours. People do go to church etc and
we are not looking for this area at all.
Mr. Plummer: The statement that I heard was the people are not
restricted to 7 o'clock evening time so if they enjoy their dinner
etc.
Mr. Robinson: correct.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Reese, can we attack the problem from that way sir?
Mr. Reese: I think the Dade League working on this, the end results
have to be a compact with the different municipalities as well as
the county in order to come up with standard hours. I don't think
it can end up that one gc,vernmental agency has the statutory auth-
ority to regulate it in the entire area. This is only a laymans
opinion, not a legal opir'.ion, so I think in light of that, there
would be no great harm as far as any compact because we are still
closed the longest of anybody as far as the hours are concerned
so that when it comes to working out a compact, I can't see some
of the other communities rolling back their hours.
Mayor Kennedy: I think we are confusing what is being asked for
at this time.
We have one very simple thing in front of us. It only extends to
Sunday and from 1 O'Clock to 1 O'Clock and so all you are asking
for is an increase from 7 O'Clock to 1 O'Clock for the small
restaurants that have 200 seats or less and the ones that have 200
or more are automatically open until 1 o'clock.
Mr. Robinson: It would make it uniform for all restaurants.
Mayor Kennedy: You police this yourself now, the problem we have,
we don't want something to just spring up and serva a hotdog.
Mr. Rob inson: What we have written to you about it was this is
the establishment where the sale of beer and ale is incidental
tp the sale of food. Its primarily a food operation with the
service of beer to compliment the dinner, not the beer strictly.
In other words, you must be serving food as you serve.the beer on
Sunday.
Rev. Gibson: I find it difficult to deal with both of them at the
same time. I would like to separate them. I want to deal with
the inequity first and then after I have dealt with that, the
hour is a thing that I could deal with later but I would like to
remedy the inequity. Whether they get their hours extended,
that's another problem. Is that in order?
Mayor Kennedy: I don't see how they are divisable.
Rev. Gibson: Well they are. Presently -
Mayor Kennedy: The thing is, the restaurants with over 200 can
stay open on Sundays until 1 o'clock but they want the restaurants
with 200 seats or less -
Mr. Robinson: Reverend Gibson, what we are saying is, if you strike
the 200 seats minimal, the 4,000 sq.ft. 200 seats, then we have an
even -
Rev. Gibson: I am dealing with an inequity. I move you Sir,
that we strike the 200 seat capacity limitations in the ordinance.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a second?
Mr. Rothstein: We are getting the code right now. There was no
request made of us to prepare an ordinance and we will tell you
in two minutes, all we have to do is strike those.
Mr. Robinson: If we strike the 200 seats and the 4,000 sq.ft.
because this is also, you have to have the 4,000 sq.ft. and the
30
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
Mr. Plummer: Does the county code contain the 4,000 sq.ft?
Mr. Robinson: The 4,000 sq.ft. in the county is only to the
liquor license.
Mayor Kennedy: Are you sure you know what we are voting on now?
Mr. Reese: I want to gei: this 4,000 sq.ft. question resolved
because 4,000 sq.ft. and 200 seats also tie in to our nightclub
license and I wouldn't wmt to dilute the control on that.
A type of restaurant that falls into a separate category.
Mr. Robinson: I think when you get into the position of over
200 seats, you are going to have to have the 4,000 sq.ft. because
you have a sq.ft. requirement.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest at this time since Mr.
Robinson is the only one here appearing on this that we give
the city attorney 1 hour to review this and lets go on.
29A,PURLIC HEARING -I ISCUSSION ON—C[OS-ING HOURS OF RESTAURANTS
Mr. Reboso: Mr. Mayor, what 1 would like to request is a public
hearing for those restaurants that don't fall in that division
that are closing right now at 1 A.M. and we have all the nightclubs
opening in the city until 5 A.M. and the private clubs until 3 A.M.
and the restaurants serving food are closing at 1 A.M. and I would
like to take the proposal that the city manager did and December
14, 1972 and be consistent with the closing times and ask for a
public hearing extending those hours until 3 A.M. because I think
it is a big discrimination with the latin restaurants closing at
1 A.M.
Mayor Kennedy: There is a problem here Mr. Reese. These private
clubs to 3 and nightclubs to S o'clock -
Mr. Reese: Yes Sir, those are the ones that pay the special night
club fees and have all, meet all of the requirements.
Mayor Kennedy: Specifically what Mr. Reboso is talking about is
a problem in that you have cuban nightclubs that serve food,
restaurant -nightclub combination that only can stay open till 1
o'clock and these are the busiest as far as presenting types of
singers and dance groups -
Mr. Reese: But they don't meet the requirement to get the
nightclub license.
Mayor Kennedy: Because cf what?
Mr. Reese: Because of the requirement of the 4,000 sq.ft. and
they have to have dancehall space set aside and they have to meet
other requirements and these smaller restaurants don't have it.
Mayor Kennedy: I think what he wants is to have a public hearing
just on those types of situations because the cuban community is
very interested in it. We must receive 10 calls a week from various
people, not only cubans but all latin americans who enjoy to go to
these places and latins start very late in the evening. They
don't start at 7, they like to gi to dinner at 10 o'clock and they
are just getting rolling at 1 o'clock and they have to close up,so
the problem is this is a select category that is in a grey area
and I think we ought to hold a hearing specifically on that.
Mr. Reese: Well this is the group through a lot of meetings
compromises to come up with the hours that have been previously
suggested but we can schedule in this category of restaurants, we
would notify that group for a hearing.
Mayor Kennedy: Why don't we do that and hold a public hearing on
that at the next meeting if you will have enough time.
Mr. Reese: Well first of all we have to get all of the ones that
have that type of a license and notify them.
31
JANUARY 2S, 1973
i
•
Mayor Kennedy: we can do if in\ month.
Mr. Reese: Easily by February 2/nd.
Mayor Kennedy: That public hearing will be set fcr 'rein
and that public flooring will only take in that .ateg-r,
meeting was only for the restaurants that didn't have
Mr. Reese: And he was only talking in terns
Which often times is the beginning and they bi4 ;,r a
want the liquor because they are open that rrui
tA
30, CODE AMENDMENT -REMOVAL OF UNLAWFUL .YI,,S. ,;r ; ANr '•: ILv
MARINA YACHT BASIN AND BAYFROMI.P. ilidY,L .A
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Reese, would sugl,e lead this ; f since
your recommendations as to low. mar,pert- are to he had will be
important.
+41 Reese: Mr. Jennings, met with representatives of the boating
pc'.;:le out here and with representatives of th,- Marine Council
and after going over all of the prohier;4 etc, .. 'aas come up with
some solutions, recognizing that as 1 pointed oui at the last
COmmission Meeting, we are not going to be able to satisfy everybody
and we find o::t that the area that was designated under the Dinner
Key Master Plan for the Marine doesn't have enough water or depth
in order to ge into a mooring type of operation. It would be
necessary to (2 in there and dredge out first. These are some of
the thini didn't know and the master plan indicated it in the
text •.( ,n ;?.c diagrams it showed, so realizing these limit-
atior,,, V;. cnnzr:;s has some definite recommendations and he has
a crap !it ri. he Lan show you. We would recommend that the City
Coccus: adopt.
.'c `,r., 7.Director of Yacht Docks Dept: I would like to read
a s c:r t report and if discussion can proceed from that point.
Mr. f:eec mentioned, Mr. Paul Andre of the Marine Council and
Mr. Marketty, the Dockmaster at Dinner Key Marina and I met with
a committee who were present at the last commission meeting and
were opposed to the passage of the subject ordinances. Those
pre;ent at this meeting opposed to the ordinances, expressed their
opposition either on the basis of (1) that the City had not pro-
vided for an interim anchorage area for those people who presently
are anchored out only because there is no room within the present
marina or (2) that the City had not provided an anchorage for
those yachtsmen who prefer to anchor out rather than to moor or
to dock alongside.'
They further added their feelings on the problem of where to tie
up their dinghys and on the question of the city provision of
shower facilities for them. It is my feeling the discussions were
fruitful and that a compromise solution may have been reached
whereby both sides of the question are at least partially satisfied.
The proposed solution is as follows:
Since the ordinance as its written, makes anchoring, mooring or
docking etc within the Dinner Key Yacht Basin illegal, only
without city permission, the city administration propose9 to
permit interim anchoring of vessels in the area on the west or
outside of Mole #2. This is the area where the large X-red is
described on the sketch. This would be an anchorage area which
would be provided until the new marina construction or dredging
process requires that the area be cleared. As you notice, it is
actually inside ;the limitations of the new Dinner Key Yacht Basin
but as I said the city is willing to permit anchorage in that area _
since the ordinance does say, with city permission, this can be done.
This would not be an uncontrolled anchorage however and the vessels
desiring to anchor there would be required to meet certain criteria
as follows:
32
JANUARY 25, 1973
The vessels must register with the dock office within 24 hours of
arrival. Vessels must hold current registration or documentation
and the vessels must have some means of propulsion other than by
paddle, oar or makeshift sail. Also this would be the only area
where anchoring would be permitted within the yacht basin, it would
not be permitted in any other areas and all vessels presently
moored, docked, anchored etc., in the yacht basin without city
permission, would be required to leave.
This anchorage will probably only accomodate approximately 30
to 50 vessels depending on the size of the vessels of course but
there is no way we can possibly accomodate all boats that desire
to stay at dinner key as the manager adequately pointed out at the
last meeting.
Mayor Kennedy: How many do we presently have there, I know its
kind of hard to say.
Mr. Jennings: All of them all around the islands in the channel
and so forth, perhaps 50 or a few more.
Mayor Kennedy: So we should take care of most of them?
Mr. Jennings: If they meet the criteria yes, Mr. Mayor. and
if they are willing to anchor out.
Now with regard to the question of dinghy dockag.. The city admin-
istration requests authr,r-iration to fabricate or have fabricated
at'a cost of approximate:. ir0o.00, a floating dock, which will be
placed just off the short. tinuthwest of the small boat launchir4
ramp between seminole bait r; and the Coconut Grove Sailing Clot,
which is the area Mr. Reese pointing to right now.
This dock would be for the frr ,se of anyone desiring it to uCt
to tie up a dinghy, anyone. it could be a floating dock,,
could easily be moved as cony- t : proceeds on the new pari..
marina complex. Until this dc-Li oomhleted however, I would aci
that those anchored out not .<<. .: 7L,Tina piers, that is tht tea:
marina piers for dockage hut fih. 77.e , thtr area, perhaps ac1.4
there is a little finger pier t:,t is just about
location and perhaps thcrt her,, ;c -,t-;: convenience, ac _.
provide the southernmost side of the ;:;0_•7 them to tie t;'
dinghies uI, until we could get the f ic:.,t ,:ck fabricated
place. Admittedly the area beside c;tv ha.:, where they ;rt
tie up is rather uangerousince they: have to scale th(.-
get to the ground level.
Finally with regard to the ,,t;cr.cr and toilet facilit.
shower facilities are old and a3;,,.:equate even for tht -
regular tenants at Dinner Marina and the city adrs. • :.z.:s r,
does not feel that the city is in a position at th i - spend
the money and effort required to maintain public s
Therefore in view of the fact that the c;.tv }:as willingness
to cooperate and assist the concerned vachtsre, .r problems
the city administration recommends that. t,! . :,oti be passed
on second reading and that they take efr 60 days
hence as the Commission may desire.
An Ordinance entitled -
AN r)RI)INANCL AMENDING SECTION SC -It AN:. kLPLALING
5-" 5 AND 50-15 OF THE CODE OF TUL CITY
"IF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING.
FOR Till. r:}.MOVAi. :IF VESSELS UNLAWFULLY LOCATED WITHIN
THE ARi..•'• DP,: CR L Ri::) AL: THE DINNER KEY MARINA YACHT
bASIN ANI+ THE h.AYI RONT i'ROHIBITIVE ANCHORAGE AREA;
PROVIDING FO; 'Till. REMOVAL, POSSESSION, STORAGE AND
SALT: BY AND A ;L`. IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
AGAINST S.A L l+ i" .:.A - ;iL: s LMCATED VESSELS; REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES, C:.),)i .i C;"I IONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN
CONFLICT, INSOFAR Ti;t't ARL IN CONFLICT; CONTAIN-
ING A SLVERABILITY PROVISION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFF-
ECTIVE DATE.
33
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 28,
1972, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and
adoption. On motion of Mr. Reboso, seconded by Reverend Gibson,
the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by
title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Plummer, Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon'and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8133.
The Commission determined the effective date of this ordinance to
be 45 days from January 25, 1973.
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 20,
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
ENTITLED "REMOVAL OF ABANDONED PROPERTY FROM
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY" FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ADOPTING BY REFERENCE ALL OF THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 705.16, FLORIDA STATUTES, AS AMENDED,
APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF MIAMI; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY PROVISION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC-
TIVE DATE
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 28,
1972, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and
adoption. On motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mr. Reboso, the
ordinance was thereupon €riven its second and final reading by title
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Gibson,
Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No.
8134.
The Commission determined the effective date of this ordinance to
be 45 days from January 25, 1973.
A large delegation of persons appeared in connection with
the adoption of the preceding ordinances consisting of owners of
these vessels anchored in the Dinner Key Marina area who for the
most part voiced their opposition to the ordinances and to the idea
that they are required to move from the area.
It was brought to the Commission's attentnion by the adminis-
tration that Dade County Marinas do not permit live aboards in
their marinas.
Mayor Kennedy expressed the opinion that the administration
and the Commission had leaned over backwards to be accomodating
and that the implementation of the Dinner Key Master. Plan would
have to proceed on schedule if the Marina is to be completed by
the target date of 1976.
A delegation of taxpayers and representatives of the Cruising
CIub and Marine Council appeared and urged adoption of both ordinances.
34
JANUARY 25, 1973
31, CLOSING HOURS OF SMALL RESTAURANTS WITH LESS THAN 200 SEATS
ON SUNDAYS
The Commission again took up for consideration the matter of
the closing hours of small restaurants concerning the sale of
beer and wine, with les3 than 200 seats, on Sundays only.
Mr. Harris Turner: Mr. Mayor, we have prepared an ordinance which
is in front of you which eliminates the differentiation between
the size of restaurants. All we did was, everything is the same,
except the one provision which made a differentiation between the
sizes.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a motion?
Rev. Gibson: Moved.
Mrs. Gordon: Second.
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, SECTION 3-8, SUBSECTION (c)
IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR
A NEW SECTION 3-8- SUBSECTION ;c); ELIMIN-
ATING DISCRIMINATION IN HOURS OF CLOSING
ON SUNDAY BETWEEN RESTAURANTS OF OVER FOUR
THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND SEATING OF OVER
TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE; REPEALING ALL LAWS IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
PROVISION
was introduced by Reverend Gibson, seconded by Mrs. Gordon
and passed on its first reading by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Gibson, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and
Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
35 JANUARY 25, 1973
•
•
32, ACQUISITION_ OF UNDERWOOD MARINA PROPERTY- DISCUSSION
Mr. Jack Watson, Attorney representing Underwood Marina
appeared and the following discussion occured.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, one of the items that was programmed in
the capital parks improvement program was the purchase c,f the
Underwood Marina property which is shown on this map as the red
box along Bayshore Drive. The value that we had established through
an appraiser was $750,000. Realizing the jury award that was made
on the property that was in the proximity of this particular piece
of property, the Underwood Marina Property, that cost the city on
an average, $10.00 a square foot including the price that was
averaged in there on the submerged land and recognizing that
that made it necessary for us to utilize as many of the funds as
we could possibly use at that particular time, I want to bring
to your attention that the Underwood Mar4na property represents
122,000 401 sq.ft. or 2.8 acres of land which is representative
of approximately 1.65 acres of upland. If we were able to acquire
this at the same price, we acquired the raw land, with no real
property improvements on it, it would represent a cost of
1,224,010. Now I am operating on the assumption that if this went
to condemnation, that the juries would take int(, consideration this
other piece of property that we purchased which is the closest
piece representing a sale of property on the bay that I know of.
Undoubtedly it would be aminimum of $10.00. This $10.00 doesn't
take into consideration any of the monies that you would have to
pay for the real property improvements or the impact of putting
someone out of business. I am not in a position to guess what
that would represent. I realize that a representation was made
to this Commission that the owner of the property and I don't know
if it was the owner of the property or the owner of the lease or
what, through their attorney that they wanted to get this rezoned
for high-rise apartments so that the Commission is faced with the
possibility of the owner proceeding to carry through on that
suggestion. In putting the monies together at the time when we
closed out on the land on the Dinner Key to the north of this
site, it was necessary for us to utilize this $730,000 for a short
period of time. This account will be reimbursed because we have
already issued the voucher for -the $500,000 from the State or
from the Federal Government which will be used to reimburse this
account as well as other capital improvement fund that were used
to put this account together sothat we will have the $750,000
back in this particular item that we had set up in the capital
improvement budget for parrs and recreation. We are not in any
way violating the intent of the program of anything that would
bring about any question in that particular area but the question
is that we do not have the money that is forseeable, added cost
that would be added to the funds that we do have available.
In other words, the anticipation of the cost would exceed the
$750,000, There is no way that I can project or inform the
COmmission, that we can fund it.
I just wanted to bring this up to the COmmission so that we would
get an answer of which way we should proceed realizing that this
hearing was up before the Commission 12 months ago but it has
taken that length of time to get the bond issue up and get it
before the people and so on and unfortunately no one realized the
possible impact of the other dinner key land, what it was going
to represent in cost and the only thing we could do was go with
realistic appraisals and not with the values that somebody had
placed on them, that we had to pay so I just wanted to bring this
up to the COmmission to see if you are in aposition of coming to
a conclusion or to see if you want to make a decision as far as
this Underwood Property is concerned at this particular time.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I would like to speak my own thoughts
on this and I feel we should not permit this to remain in private
use, we should endeavor to include this in the overall package of
public lands because we risk the possibility of uses coming in
there at some time that would be objectionable to the kind of
development we strive to achieve in Coconut Grove and even though
the price has gone up, undoubtedly it will continue to go up
in value because this is the trend in South Florida and I for one
36 JANUARY 25, 1973
would be in favor of continuing in our attempts to acquire this
property.
Mr. Watson: My address is 505 Pan American Bank Building and I
represent the Coconut Grove Marine Properties Inc., which is
commonly referred to as the Underwood property.
On April 29, 1971, I came before this Commission requesting this
Commission to change the zoning on this particular piece of
peoperty from WR-Waterfront recreational to R-5 which would allow
and permit the construction of a 23 story, 154 unit apartment
building. After .one of the longest zoning hearings in the history
of this City which was spread over a 2-day period, the City Commission
voted to defer action on my clients request for a change of zoning
from Wr to R-5 and the deferral was made for the specific purpose
that Mr. Reese could report back to the Commisiion how the City
could acquire. the property either by purchase or by condemnation.
Now, only two members of the present Commission that sits here
this afternoon are still on the Commission, the Mayor and Mr.
Plummer.
Subsequent to that time on March 22, 1972, I wrote a letter to
Mr. Reese. "Dear Mr. Reese , as you may know I represent the
Coconut Grove Marina Inc., who requested the City Commission of
the City of Miami for a change of zoning from Wk to R-5 to allow
construction of a high-rise apartment building. After two hearings
before the City Commission, the City COmmission moved to defer the
matter and instructed the city manager's office to attempt to acquire
this property by a negotiated purchase or by condemnation. Over 10
months has gone by without a formal offer of purchase or a suit for
condemnation filed. My client would like to know when and if the
City plans to acquire this property. Accordingly I world greatly
appreciate if you would schedule me for a personal appearance
before the City Commission at your next City Commission Meeting
to discuss the matter, Thank you for your kind consideration"
and I signed the letter.
rcs;)onse to that letter, Mr. Reese called me and told me as I
;Al that the City Commission had engaged the services of an
r :and that was September 23, 1971, that's quite some time
t!ir. City Commission instructed the manager's office to
t: acquire this property. September 23, 1971, the City
:cl Bennett and by resolution No. 42746 for the purpose
appraisals for the Bayshore Underwood Marine and
;-,trties which is my clients property.
:ed me and asked me if my client had an appraisal
Diu and I wrote this letter on April 25, 1972.
:e y: "Dear Mr. Reese: Enclosed please find an
.liens, Coconut Grove Marina recently had made.
:0t made for condemnation purposes since it does
:,al damages for loss of business which has been
.-car period or more, nor does it reflect moving
: motion costs. All these costs would be in
willing to accept the sum of $1,150,000 for
is not satisfactory with the City, I
;,• at :cart has been ordered for the property,
tr...
pr•�,
that
Suhst. ,...
Rothstt,
serve t
prepari:,
your c i i c;:. ,
I am send::4,
is the app ra :
subject to :f f ::..a:.
appreciate he;. r ::.
avoided a time
In reply to Mr. Pc,?.
"Dear Mr. Rothstei
notifying me of the ;
the Coconut Grove M ar . n,: ,
to my client is totally
$1,21)0,000 at this tir•.c.
at least this amount and
substantiate the value.
.a letter from the City Attorney, Mr.
-Dear Mr. Watson: This letter will
of Miami Legal Department is
Leedings on the property owned by
At the City manager's suggestion
the sum of $750,000 which
n ;he property. This is
..at ion suit. I would
c rhaps we could have
:ti,ation on that matter"
t.,, er 12, 1972, 1 wrote
•!cr of September 7, 1972,
:eding with regard to
•r;.at the $750,000 offer
w;11 accept
;:r operty is worth
• ;,raisal to
•. �s.:eration".
at: 25, 1973
The other day, somebody told me that this matter would be brought
before the City Commission by the City Manager. This matter is
not on the agenda, not on the blue sheet but apparently is the
subject of some memorandum that I have not seen. I called
Mr. Reese and asked him if in fact it was his intention to bring
this to the Commission's attention and he said that it was.
Now, here is my position and why I am here today.
This matter has started on April 29, 1971. This matter, the zoning
is in limbo so to speak, it is still WR. The matter was deferred.
It was not voted, either YEA or NAY. Hai it been voted on YEA,
we would be in construction of our apartment building. Had it
been voted on NAY, we would have been in Court similar to Mr.
Silver's piece in asking for the same relief.
I took the position that the city was actingin good faith and so
consequently, I did not press the City Commission for a hearing
date.
I would like to call this to your attention. In your recent bond
validation proceedings that validated the entire bond issue for
all of your park and recreational areas, I wish to read something
from Chief Justice Roberts concurrence. Quote: "The City prior
to the vote on the bond issue in question widely circulated to
the voters, the 39 separate park and recrational facilities that
they were voting for. Brochures were published which mapped the
vicinities by name and location over the city. It is logical that
the voters favored the bond issue, relied upon the representation
by their city. The bond resolution by the city however, makes no
mention of these 39 facilities and only provides generally that
the bonds are for the purpose of providing funds together with any
other available funds, to pay the cost of acquiring, constructing
developing, extending, enlarging, filling and improving public park
and recreational facilities in the City of Miami. There shall be
issued negotiable coupon bonds of the City of Miami, Florida in the
aggregate principle amount of $39,890,000 to be designated public
park and recreational facility bonds and consist of 7,798 bonds
of the denomination of $5,000 each, endof quote"
On the state of this record, I am reluctant to approve the
validation because of the very real possibility that a city could
proceed in a different fashion than which was represented and
apply the monies in a way different, than that which was advertised.
However, public officials are presumed to abide by the law and
carry out their duties and responsibilities. Upon this presumption,
that the City will as intended apply the bond monies to the projects
represented, and one of those projects was my c:.ients property, I
took that out of context, even though not described in this city's
resolution authorizing the bond,I concur and secure in the knowledge
that should they not do so, that appropriate avenues of relief in •
the courts for such non-sompliance, will be open. "
I am not here to criticize and I didn't know that Mr. Reese had
taken some money out of this bond issue as I just understood him
to say that they took some out and are going to try to get some
back. I didn't know anything about that. What I want you to do
is simply this and I think I am entitled to it.
I think this City Commission should, since I have been waiting in
good faith, for nearly 2 years, either schedule a public hearing
to acquaint the new Commissioners with my clients proposal to
re -zone this property to R-5, and if you grant it fine, and if you
don't, I have my avenues of relief in the court, the same way the
silver property did, or in the alternative, do what the voters of
the City of Miami put their trust in and they put their trust in
this City Commission and in that City Manager to use the money the
way it was supposed to be used. Either take this property now or
give me a hearing and let me go to Court, that's all I am asking.
Mr. Reese: There was dollars borrowed in order to meet this
impact that the attorney refers to as the Silver property. These
collars will be replaced :n that bond issue. What Mr. Watson said
about the Supreme Court and their decision reads or sounds like the
::;anion reads, but the Supreme Court decision didn't say what you
were supposed to do in carrying this out if you didn't have enough
11_:,ncv. This is the problem that we are faced with in the Underwood
r_>;t r'.y. There wasn't, there is not enough money in that particular
tt.m rat of the bond issue and this is the problem and this is what
.-.te' to bring to the Commission's attention.
38
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mayor Kennedy: I have talked to Mr. Paul about using some of
the monies under revenue sharing to supplement the purchase of
park property. I think this is one tangible thing we can do
with revenue sharing that's going to have an everlasting effect.
1 believe we should proceed with condemnation as speedily as
possible because everyday that goes by, the land becomes more
valuable. I think we have a great example here in the grove,
We have to proceed posthaste. I think we have to start condem-
nation proceedings and I think we can use the revenue sharing
money to supplement if nece1sary. Hopefully we will be able
to condemn with what we have in the bond issue, if not I think
its important for this city to preserve the bay for the public.
If not, he will go to court and he is going to win in court and
you are going to have high-rise apartment buildings on this side
of Bayshore and we certainly don't want that.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayo;, I would like to make an observation and in
order for us to carry out your wishes., I wish I could get a legal
opinion from the city attorney telling me that we can use revenue
sharing for buying of land. I know we can for construction and I
know we can for other things, but I would like to know if we can
use It for purchase of land. If we can do that and if this is.the
policy of the Commission, then this is the action that will "be
followed but also this Commission passed resolutions of intent
as far as salary adjustments are concerned too so we got to make
sure that we are going to meet that impact and I just wanted to
point that this is an undeterminable figure at this time. I think
there would be enough, I don't know. I don't know what will end
up as far as the acquiring of the property.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I think we should move now to show our
intent -and I would so move the intent of the Commission to
acquire this property for public use.
Mayor Kennedy: We have already done that.
Mr. Watson: The voters pas:;ed that.
Mr. Reese: Reaffirm to move ahead on it, that's all.
Mrs. Gordon: We are re-afirming the intent, that's all because
that is because that is what we hav ebeen asked to do this afternoon
correct?
Mayor Kennedy: The problem is that it has been a long time and
the property is going up in value and there is no doubt about it
and I think we have to instruct the city attorney to get into
condemnation right now.
Mrs. Gordon: We'll move it that way, but the idea is we don't
want it to remain in private use.
Mayor Kennedy: That's what you do when you go into condemnation.
You want to take it for public purposes.
Mrs. Gordon: Thats the reason for the motion, to reaffirm our intent.
Mayor Kennedy: It has to be stronger than that Rose. Either
event, it should be in condemnation now.
Mrs. Gordon: How you like it worded, I will gladly move it.
Mr. Rothstein: That the Commission expresses its intent to reaffirm
proceeding to acquire that land for public use purposes immediately.
Mayor Kennedy: By condemnation.
Mr. Rothstein: I don't think you can preclude negotiation, however
it all depends, I don't kno,, what their appraisal is but this is not
R-5 property, this is waterfront recreation property and I don't
know because I am just not qualified to say that one is the same
price as the other.
Mrs. Gordon: By negotiation or condemnation whichever may be needed.
39
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mr. Rothstein: I think you should put a time limit on it
because -every time the time goes by -
Mrs. Gordon: We are talking about an immediate action.
Mr. Watson: This was the same motion that was made in 1971
exactly to the Manager, either by negotiated sale or by
condemnation.
Please put some time on it in your motion if its an immediate
situation if that's what you want to do and I am not your city
attorney, I think the resolution should say the city manager
shall immediately, either by negotiation or by condemnation, move
to acquire this property and that if negotiation was to fail, on
or before a certain time, that condemnation proceedings be '
institute4, that's the way I think it should be.
Mr. Reese: With the exception of one particular aspect. That
the appraisal has to be updated. We still have to follow the
law as far as acquiring the property. Our appraisal has to be
updated.
Mr. Watson: I need time, I need to know where I am going, I have
been in limbo for a long time and I need something and a date on
that.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-61
A RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE INTENTION OF THE
COMMISSION TO ACQUIRE THE UNDERWOOD PROPERTY
MARINA IN THE COCONUT GROVE AREA OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI; INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED
IMMEDIATELY WITH NEGOTIATIONS TO ACQUIRE SAID
PROPERTY AND IF SAID PROPERTY CANNOT BE ACQUIRED
BY NEGOTIATION WITHIN A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, THE
CITY ATTORNEY SHALL IMMEDIATELY BEGIN CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SAID PROPERTY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. BES: None
40
JANUARY 25, 1973
• •
33. ELLLING OF SUBMERGED LANDS IN BAYFRONT PARK DISCUSSION
Mr. Reese: No. 24 is a proposed public hearing that was advertised
for the purpose of the City Commission to reconsider the policy
that was established a number of months ago, that there would be no
filling of the submerged land at the Bayfront Park and in adopting
or accepting the Stone Report for the Bayfront Park or the new
Bi=centennial Park, there is a proposal to fill in part of the
submerged lands and the purpose of this being on the agenda was
to hold a public hearing to discuss it and arrive at a decision.
Mrs. Gordon: Is there anyone here to speak to Item 24?
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-62
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE CITY OF MIAMI EXISTING
POLICY THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER FILLING OF SUBMERGED
LANDS IN BAYFRONT PARK IN ORDER TO PERMIT FILLING
OF CERTAIN BAY BOTTOM LANDS IN BAYFRONT PARK FOR
LANDSCAPING PURPOSES ONLY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
34, WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION- 2510 S. W. 17TH AVENUE
Mr. Richard Serbin representing the applicant Mr. Fernandez
appeared to further discuss the matter of a wall under construction
at 2510 S. W. 17th Avenue at Dixie Highway which created a vision
problem to traffic.
Mr. Serbin: We are -talking about a wall that is supposed to be 7'
high and the Commission turned it down on December 28 because it
was obstructing the traffic on 17th Avenue.
Mr. Ferencik: You originally passed a resolution authorizing the
construction of a wall along the northerly side of a tract of
land at 17th Avenue and U. S. 1 where a man wanted to build a
single-family residence. When he got the block laid up, it became
evident that this wall was going to block view from traffic trying
to get out of 17th Avenue to U.S.1 in such a fashion that it was a
dangerous condition that existed. We asked the man to come back
in and you rescinded your action with regard to the 7' wall and
directed that the City administration make effort to negotiate with
this man to cut the wall back to 3' and with the understanding
that the City would pay for this reduction in the height of the
existing wall.
He came back in and made an alternative proposal which involves
the extension of the wall, 7' a portion of the distance and then
the reducing of the wall to a 3' height for the balance of the
distance. In the 3' all the way to the end of the property arrangement,
it was anticipated that there would be a fence put on top of the wall
so that people couldn't throw things into his property that were
traveling U.S.1. In his alternative proposal, he agreed that he
would, in exchange for running the wall 50 or 60' from the existing
wall, then reducing it to 3' to the corner, that he would at that
point, not put any fence on top of the wall, just have the low wall.
41 JANUARY 25, 1973
•
I told him that as far as I was concerned, governed by the action
of the Commission, that if he wanted to suggest an alternative,
that he would first have to go to the Metropolitan Dade County
Traffic Engineer and tell them what he wanted to do and then come
back with a commitment in writing and we would bring it back
before you for final judgment. He went to the Metro Traffic
people. They studied that intersection. They decided they .could
live with his alternative proposal, really just as well as they
could with what had been suggested before. They wrote up a
recommendation recommending that he be allowed to do this so its
back before you now for your final clarification. Incidentally,
part of the wall, is there now and the configuration of the wall
as it is right now, that's the way it will finally be and they
have made some changes in the corner and have restricted the right
turn on red and made some alterations in the intersection. They
moved the stop bar about 10' forward. If you approve this in its
present form, then we are going to request the power company move
a pole, 1 or 2 poles on that intersection, further block the
drivers view, we would ask them to move them.
Mrs. Gordon: I travel that street probably since I live down there
and the no -right turn does present a problem there because there is
a backup of cars between the light changes and it requires sometimes
2-3 changes before you car'. get to the corner to get to a right turn
because of the sign being placed on there, no -right turn at anytime.
it used tobe no rightturn:. between peak hours but it really does
not give you the complete'vision clearance that a person needs in
order to make a right turn, the way it is now.
Mr. Ferencik: Well the traffic engineer reasoned in his recommendation
that whether you ran the wall at 3' all the way back to the old
existing wall and then put a chain link fence on top of it, or
you ran the wall 60' or so further to the east and then dropped
it to 3' and came all the corner without any chain link fence on
top, the visibility situation would really be better under those
'.onditions and they recommended that this solution be adopted.
Mrs. Gordon: I can unde:•stand them saying that but I don't agree
with them because you can see through a chain link fence but not
a solid block wall. Unless you plant shrubbery in ,front of that
chain link fence, you can see through it. Thats my own opinion.
Mr. Plummer: They were out yesterday measuring the time on the
light $ I was told the reason was to give us a longer time on
green on 17th Avenue where it has been 25 seconds, they are con-
sidering an increase in that.
Mrs. Gordon: They are still recognizing there is a traffic problem
there.
Mr. Plummer: What do you want us to do, approve the two alternatives?
Mr. Ferencik: Yes.
Mayor Kennedy: What is your recommendation?
Mr. Ferencik: We recommend that this be adopted.
Rev. Gibson: If we agree to-do this and we find out that we
encounter difficulties and disadvantages, then what?
Mr. Ferencik: I can't answer that. Canon Gibson.
Rev. Gibson: I think we ought to make adequate provisions before we
agree because I know that street, I too pass there constantly and
what Rose sayd registers heavily in my mind and I don't care what
the traffic engineer says, there is nothing like the engineer of
the eye when you have to get on and off that day and night.
Mr. City attorney if you would tell us how, if we do what they say
and work out an understanding, that if it doesn't work, they are
going to do the other thing.
42
JANUARY 25, 1973
Mr. Rothstein: Well one of the problems that we are faced with
is that we granted the variance in the first place and obviously
the first situation that we have to consider is the traffic and
not to cause accidents etc., but we have to do it knowing that
any other alternative would make problems in that we granted the
variance to let him get started. It puts the burden of responsibility
on our shoulders, lets put it that way.
We can do all this but, its our problem.
Rev. Gibson: Did he have a right in the beginning?
Mr. Rothstein: We gave him that right, that's the problem.
Rev. Gibson: We gave him a privelege„ didn't we?
The right was the right of the people.
Mr. Rothstein: Well we gave him a privelege but he has acted in
reliance somewhere along the way so I think perhaps, of course we
would have to check the details of law on it, if it can't be
worked out to mutual satisfaction, we might have to put him whole,
lets put it that way, we tight not be forced to maintain a blockage
of the vision so that traffic would be hurt but we probably have to
in good conscience, make ryim whole. We don't have to give him what
we gave but we can't hurt him by not giving it to him in the sense
of dollars and cents.
Rev. Gibson: I sympathize with the man but I know the danger and
how easy it is to go on trying to get off the hook.
Mr. Rothstein: Let me turn it around. There is no question that
you can do what you have to do for safety sake.
Rev. Gibson: Right.
Mr. Rothstein: But if we do that, and the man has been put in the
worst position after we got him started because we granted him the
privelege, then we have to look out for the problems that we caused
to him, in my opinion, monetarily wise.
Rev. Gibson: We are trying to look out for it now by telling him
not to go any further with that wall.
Mr. Rothstein: No question, if he does anything further from this
point on, he is on his own because he `".as got the red glad waving
in front of his eye. The question that was asked of me, if that's
not satisfactory, what can we do? I am saying what we can do is
make the situation back to where it is safe but then we have to
take the responsibility of making him whole so he doesn't lose by
the fact that we granted it to him and now we find we made a mistake.
Rev. Gibson: You are using biblical language, what do you mean
by making him whole?
Mr. Rothstein: Whatever it cost him.
Mr. Plummer: Your department is in accord?
Mr. Ferencik: Our accord ; , :•:;:, .;tcd solely on the fact that the
Metropolitan Dade Conroy Lngineer feels that the proposed
alternative with !;:t. of the high wall and then going to
the wall ;,:ly thi ng on top of the low wall. You can debate
that you can look through a chain link fence but truthfully when
you get over at a certain angle, a chain link fence does not afford
a great amount of visibility through it.
If you get far enough, you just really can't see through it. Its
there opinion that the portion of the high wall and the low wall
without anything on top of it was preferable as a solution to the
concept of putting the low wall with a fence on top of it.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I dcn't see where we have any other choice
other than to accept the alternative and I hope this will work out
and will move it.
43
JANUARY 25, 1973
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-63
A RESOLUTION PERMITTING A WALL TO REMAIN AS
ERECTED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF S. W.17TH
AVENUE AND SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AT A HE'r'UT
OF 7 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LOT LINE TO
EXTEND FOR A DISTANCE OF 66 FEET, 2 INCHES,
WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE DISTANCE TO THE
INTERSECTION OF S. W. 17TH AVENUE, THE WALL
TO BE LIMITED TC A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET
(Here follows body of resolution , omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: Mrs. Gordon.
35, PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATLON FOR CURBSIDE GARBAGE
AND TRASH COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI
Mr. Reese: - This is a report mailed out to the City aua; :• ,ion
after the last commission meeting and it sits forth tic proposal
that we anticipate following on p t 1. i r:g up the garbage and trash
and in keeping with the <.tudv Ih.it ri.:;jr and we arc endeavoring
to try to get the pt,op;e 1• .::,d put it in plastic bag con-
tainers, the s..;rt,as:c :r;:i ;. report basically sets forth the entire
program h pinf: to .:vt it instituted in time to be in conformance
with the recommendations as set forth in the budget so we are looking
fur your concurrence to proceed in accordance with the report.
There is a resolution in 26.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a motion?
Rev. Gibson: You said the resolution was for the purpose of educating
the people, is that right?
Mr. Reese: Holding these meetings throughout the community and
educating the people and getting them to go along.
Rev. Gibson: Suppose the people from the meetings decide later on
that they want to come before the Commission and this is not what
they want to do. What position do we find ourselves in at that point?
Mr. Reese: We are going to find ourselves in a position when a
taxpayer asks to come before the Commission that we should afford
them that opportunity but we are hoping that we will be able to
present it in a manner that we will get the majority of them
convinced and proceed. I realize its a very difficult and delicate
thing because its a change in the way we have been doing things but
costs have made it necessary for us to change.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso
who moved its adoption:
44
JANUARY 25, 1973
RESOLUTION NO. 73-64
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC MEETINGS NECESSARY
TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE RECOMMENI+ATIONS OF THE SANITARY COLL-
ECTION TASK FORCE FOR THE CURBSIDE GARBAGE
AND TRASH COLLECTION IN THE CITY OP MIAMI
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on filein the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by tilt. following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
36, PLAT ACCEPTANCE - SYLVI SUB,
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-6S
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED SYLVI
SUP., A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN
ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City CLerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
37, PANAMERICAN UNION DAY FESTIVAL- REQUEST FOR USE OF ORANGE BOWL
PARKING LOT AREAS
The City Manager advised the Commission that a gentleman had
requested the use of an Orange Bowl Parking Lot for the use of a
Pan American Union Day Festival from April 6 to 15th, 1973 and that
he had suggested the use of the Miami Baseball Stadium Parking Lots
instead because the Orange Bowl lots are tied in with park bond
revenues for recreational purposes. He said holding rides and the
staging of other activities by private individuals would not fall
within the park.
Nelso Varona, Account Manager for a corporation known as
Pan Ameican Union Day Festival said his request for use of the
Orange Bowl was based on the close proximity to the heavy concentration
of latin people surrounding the Orange Bowl and they they could easily
get there and emphasized the fact that the Orange Bowl is not being
used for anything at that time of year. He stated the neighbors
put up with the noise of the Orange Bowl and would be glad to have
noise emanating from one of their own festivals and agreed to
commit a million dollars worth of insurance to the city.
45
JANUARY ?,r 1973
Mr. Rothstein inquired if amusement . y:.•, *err ..1.~:c,
part of this festival and the applicant SF. i.i t Na' r ; dt_ s art : i aar.r,t -
and that his organization was net a nrtn r . . , j,, , tTdd
the city attorney said that via..-7, • +,� ; • r, - . ; r, _ t +; .
was then a private organ i .lat i on rti; i . i, , •.. .
of a public facility.
The City Mana,:e i a::
a lot of research wi: j. i -;,, . (
possible and tht. t r+t
Mr. Rothstein sa:u
of the Commission sing •>t, u
t vi,( Ci
At, ..s f i r..: 1t . •'t,
tr ,:►c.F:ity ria4 tt•rr. denied
by the City Manager and t);:iriiCti the ap l ic;i it could
not use a public iac:l :t for .. p:-r : t ma! ing, private enterprise.
Manor Kennedy sai tr c City .Attorney would research the matter
but that in all probability it would not he possible to use the
Orange howl Parking Lots and suggested the applicant get together
with his organization to consider use of 'iami Stadium instead.
',.it
cal
ativ.tY,
38, JETPORT IN 1NORTH DADS -ASKING METRO COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER VOTE
Mayor Kennedy: The aviation industry in Dade County is our single
largest industry and is very important to our overall area. The
Metro Commission yesterday voted against putting the Jetport in
North Dade with the argument that we don't need a jetport today.
That may be well true that we don't need a jetport today but my
outlook is that the whole purpose of government is to look for the
future needs of its people. 30 years from now when we may need a
jetport, there will be no way of assembling the necess::ry land for
one and I think the net result will be that the aviation industry
that is so much a part of the economy of Dade COunty, out of necessity
will be forced to re -locate in more far-sighted communities.
This won't happen overnight, it will be an evolutionary type of thing
but it will surely happen if this community does not allow for the
development of a jetport. Almost everyone except the neighbors in
the area, have come to the conclusion that this is the best place
for it. The environmentalists have, and everybody concerned, the
federal agencies involved and I think the action of the Metro
Commission is one that will in years go come, have an irreparable
damage and to Dade County and our future outlook.
The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-66
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN DADE
COUNTY COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER ITS ACTION WITH
RESPECT TO A JETPORT IN NORTH DADE COUNTY AND
TO GRANT PERMISSION FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA FOR SUCH
PURPOSES
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
NOTE: Prior to the introduction of the resolution, the Mayor surrendered
the chair to Vice Mayor Gordon and following the adoption of
the resolution, the Mayor resumed the chair.
46
JANUARY 25, 1973
THE FOLLOWING resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its a option:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-67
A RESOLUTION ORDERING BISCAYNE EASE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT H-4357 AND DESIGNATING THE
PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
SHALL BE MADE FOR A PORTION OF THE COST
THEREOF AS BISCAYNE EAST HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
H-4357; AND ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00
FROM THE HIGHWAY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND
FOR PRELIMINARY EXPENSES
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Up,,n being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
40, ACCEPT COVENANT - I.P.A. INC.
THE following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-68
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE JANUARY 9, 1973
COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND FROM I.P.A. INC.,
RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 INCH PER-
MANENT STORM SEWER PIPELINE ACCROSS N. W. 9TH
STREET NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH N. W. 47TH
AVENUE AND DIRECTING THAT SAID COVENANT BE REC-
ORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
47 JANUARY 25, 1973
41, ASSIGNMENT OF COVENANT FROM PAUL LOWMANI BARBARA LOIIMAN
TO HESSEN. LAZARE AND FEISLER ETC.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-69
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO ASSIGNMENT OF COVENANT
TO RUN WITH THE LAND FROM PAUL L. LOWMAN AND BARBARA
J. LOWMAN, HIS WIFE, TO HESSEN, LAZARE AND FEISLER,
A PARTNERSHIP, ADAIR MORTGATE COMPANY AND UNION
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAID COVENANT HAVING
ORIGINALLY BEEN EXECUTED BY PAUL L. LOWMAN AND
BARBRA J. LOWMAN, HIS WIFE, TO THE CITY OF MIAMI
DATED AUGUST 18, 1972, AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 7878, PAGE 271, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE
CONSENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ASSIGNMENT OF COV-
ENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND; AND DIRECTING THAT THE
DOCUMENT STATED HEREIN BE RECORDED IN T►UE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF. DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AT THE EXPENSE OF
THE MAKERS OF SAID DOCUMENT, A COPY OF ASSIGNMENT
OF COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND TO WHICH IS ATT-
ACHED A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COVENANT TO RUN WITH
THE LAND BEING ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
42, AUTHORIZATION OF GENERAL HAULING SERVICE AS WASTE COLLECTOR
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GENERAL HAULING
SERVICE TO BE LICENSED AS A COMMERCIAL WASTE
COLLECTOR IN ACCORDANCEWITH ORDINANCE No. 7434
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Reboso, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: NOne
48
JANUARY 25, 1973
• •
43. THOI'tIZING WASTE DISPOSAL _DIVISLo -
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WASTE DISPOSAL DIVISION
OF SANITAS SERVICE CORPORATION TO BE LICENSED AS
A COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ORDINANCE NO. 7434
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
44, AWARD BID - S. E. 15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4356
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption: _
RESOLUTION NO. 73-72
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED JANUARY
11, 1973, OF FLORIDA CONCRETE CONTRACTORS IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $7,579.00 FOR THE S.E.
15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4356 IN S. E.
15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SK-4356;
allocating the additional amount of $7,489.00
FROM THE SIDEWALK BOND FUND; AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on filein the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
49 JANUARY 25, 1973
45, BIp AWARD - JEFFERSON HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4350
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-73
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID F'ECEIVED JANUARY
11, 1973, OF MARKS BROTHERS CO., (NOT INC.) IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $400,065.00 FOR JEFFERSON
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4350 IN JEFFERSON HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4350; ALLOCATING THE ADD-
ITIONAL AMOUNT OF $438,073.00 FROM THE HIGHWAY
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
46, BID AWARD - DEMOLITION OF LUMMUS PARK COMFORT STATION
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-74
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED JANUARY
22, 1973, OF BEN HURWITZ, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR THE LUMMUS PARK COMFORT
STATION DEMOLITION - 1973; ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT
OF $2,240.00 FROMHTHE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND - UNALLOCATED FUNDS"; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A PURCHASE
ORDER THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Plummer, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
50 JANUARY 25, 1973
•
•
47, WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR 4 ROUND CAST DOORS FOR INCINERATOR #1
The following resolstion was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-75
A RESOLUTION WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR FOUR
ROUND CAST DOORS AND FRAMES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
SANITATION TO BE USED IN THE OPENINGS IN INCINERATOR
NO. 1; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO U. S. FOUNDRY COMPANY
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,400.00 FOR FOUR ROUND CAST DOORS
AND FRAMES AT A COST OF $600.00 EACH, AFTER FIRST
DETERMINING THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, MRs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
48. f.IVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING-FILLER.HANGING TILE BRICK INCINERATOR #1
The fc:. ;;. rt.solution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who
moved adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-76
'•i.SOLUTION WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR
T. . PURCHASE OF FILLER, CENTER AND HANGING
T:LL BRICK FOR USE IN INCINERATOR NO. 1, AND
y'_THORI2ING AND DIRECTING THE ('ITY MANAGER TO
1N; TRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF
TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO PURCHASE A
:{: ? OF FILLER, CENTER AND HANGING TILE BRICK
AlTOTAL COST OF $3,202.40 FROM M.H. DETRICK
"jF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, THE ONLY SOURCE FROM
mi;:3 TYPE BRICK IS AVAILABLE, AFTER HAVING
F :.TLRMINED THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
(Here :c:.cdy of resolution, omitted here and
on file Lity Clerks Office)
Upon being nfed by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adop't.. •> the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mr, cordon and Mayor. Kennedy. NOES: None
51
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
49, BID AWARD - SAFETY SHOES
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-77
A RESOLUTION .ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED NOVEMBER
7, 1972 OF HELLO SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP., FOR
FURNISHING SAFETY SHOES, AS REQUIRED, CITY-WIDE
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1973 THROUGH DECEMBER
31, 1973, AS LISTED HEREIN, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCH-
ASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE
ORDERS, AS REQUIRED, AFTER FIRST HAVING DETERMINED
THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
50, WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING - POLYGRAPH EQUIPMENT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-78
A RESOLUTION WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR
POLYGRAPH EQUIPMENT FOR USE BY THE POLICE DEP-
ARTMENT, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO THE
STOELTING COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,172 PLUS
FREIGHT, AFTER FIRST DETERMINING THAT FUNDS ARE
AVAILABLE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson•., Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
52
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
•
51, BID AWARD - BUNKER ITEMS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend
Gibson, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-79
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BIDS RECEIVED JANUARY
12, 1973 OF BISCAYNE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR
FURNISHING KNEE BOOTS AND BUNKER COATS AND OF
THE MIAMI FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR FURNISHING
HELMETS, AND OF THE MORNING PRIDE. MANUFACTURING
COMPANY FOR FURNISHING BUNKER PANTS, AS REQUIRED,
FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 1973 TO DECEMBER 31,
1973, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MAN-
AGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS, AS REQUIRED,
AFTER FIRST HAVING DETERMINED THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
•
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gorton and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
52, RENEWAL OF NIGHT CLUB LICENSE = JAMBES CLUB
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-80
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ISSUE A NIGHT CLUB LICENSE TO MR. ALFRED MC KAY
OWNER OF THE JANES CLUB, SINCE IT HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED THAT THE NIGHT CLUD LICENSING REQ-
UIREMENTS WERE NOT MET IN THE PAST DUE TO A
TECHNICAL VIOLATION
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
53
JANUARY 25, 1973
53, ORDINANCE AMENDMENYBLDG,HEIGHT LIMITATION -LE JEUNE GARDENS ESTATES.
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMEiNDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND
LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF EACH BUILDING CONSTRUCTED
THEREON TO NOT EXCEED 39 FEET FROM MEAN SEA LEVEL
FOR LOTS 13 THRU 17, BLOCK 3; LOTS 15 THRU 19,E
BLOCK 2, LE JEUNE GARDEN ESTATES SEC. 3 (44-11)
LOCATED AT N. W. 43 AVENUE AT N. W. SOUTH TAM1AMI
CANAL DRIVE FROM C-5 (Liberal Commercial) TO R-4
(Medium Density Multiple); AND BY MAKING THE
NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE
A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF;
AND REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND
PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE HEREIN;
DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE
AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THE
SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS
THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
was introduced by Mrs. Gordon and seconded by Mr. Reboso, for
adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement
of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the
following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon
and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Whereupon the Commission, on motion
of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Reboso, adopted said ordinance
by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 813S.
54, CLAIM SETTLEMENT - HILDA GIMINEZ AND PEDRO GIMINEZ
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-81
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTIR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO HILDA GIMINEZ, AND HER HUSBAND, PEDRO
GIMINEZ WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE
SUM OF $3,000.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT
OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF
MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE RELEASING
THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
54
JANUARY 25, 1973
55. CLAIM SETTLEMENT - ROBERT C. DEVEAUX
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-82
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO ROBERT C. DEVEAUX, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $238.00 IN FULL AND COMP-
LETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST
THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE
RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ALL CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS
(Here fellows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
•,Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Plummer, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
56, ClAINt SETTLEMENT - MRS. DOROTHY MAYS FOR MICHAEL MAYS
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-83
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO MRS. DOROTHY MAYS, AS MOTHER AND NEXT
FRIEND OF MICHAEL MAYS, A MINOR, WITHOUT THE AD-
MISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF 549.50 IN FULL
AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF
A RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
55
JANUARY 25, 1973
•
57, CLAIM SETTLEMENT - EDUARDO GONZALEZ
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-84
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO EDUARDO GONZALEZ, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $50.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE
RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ALL CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson, Reboso,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None.
58, CLAIM SETTLEMENT - SCHOFIELD FLEMING
The following resolution was introduced by Revereng Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-85
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO SCHOFIELD FLEMING WITHOUT THE ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $100.00 IN.FULL AND COM-
PLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST
THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE
RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ALL CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS
•
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by :dr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Reboso, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon: and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: NOne
56
JANUARY 25, 1973
411
59, B1,4 AWARD - DEMOLITION OF BllI1DI1yGS FOR DOWNTOWN GOVT. CENTER
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-86
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED JANUARY
10, 1973,.OF ABC DEMOLITION CORP., IN THE EST-
IMATED AMOUNT OF $46,500 FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED
"DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER --BUILDINGS DEMOLITION
1973 (PHASE I)" AND THE BID OF BEN HURWITZ INC.,,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,100 FOR "DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT
CENTER --BUILDINGS LEMOLITION--1973 ( PHASE II)";
ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $95,435 FROM THE ACCOUNT
ENTITLED "POLICE HEADQUARTERS AND CRIME PREVENTION
FACILITIES" AND THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $1,565
FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
UNALLOCATED FUNDS"; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
60, EXTEND CONTRACT FQR LEGAL SERVICES- MONTAGUE ROSENBERG
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-87
A RESOLUTION E::TENDING THE CONTRACT OF MONTAGUE
ROSENBERG AS SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI
FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JANUARY 1,
1973, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH
IN HIS CONTRACT WITIi THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMENDING
OCTOBER 1, 1972
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Plummer, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
ADJOURNMENT: THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINE S EF9 E THE CQMMISSION
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT >:3� 0 (-LOCK P.I.
H. D. SOUTHERN
CITY CLERK
RALPH G. ONGIE
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
57
DAVID T. KENNED
MAYOR
n
ITEM NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Creek OF IV IAMI
DOCUMENT
MEETING DATE:
INDEX JANUARY 25, 1973
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION AGENDA & CITY CLERK REPORT (19 pages)
DESIGNATING S.W. 13th AVENUE AS MEMORIAL BLVD.
SITE FOR A MONUMENT-CUBAN HERO-JOAQUIN VICENTE
DE AGUILERA
APPOINT MEMBER -STUDY OF A NEW PLANNING AND
ZONING STRUCTURE
BACKGROUNDER-FIFTH BRIDGE PROJECT
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RESOLUTION
CONDOLENCES -FAMILY OF THE LATE LYNDON B. JOHNSON
EXPRESSING HOPE -PRESIDENT NIXON PEACE PLAN
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL -HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
H-4352 IN S.E. 14 STREET
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK-MUSA ISLE SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENT
VARIANCE -AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP- 3770 SO. DIXIE
HIGHWAY-I-1
CONDITIONAL USE-MIAMI BEACH AIR TRANSPORT,INC.-
N.W. 11TH ST. WEST OF LE JEUNE ROAD
VARIANCE -DUPLEX LOT 1,BLK 3,-SPRING GARDENS-
901 N.W. 8th St. Rd.
CONDITIONAL USE -"BANYAN BAY CLUB" -PLAT #793-A
"MIAMI CLUB APARTMENTS" 703 N.E. 63RD ST.
CONDITIONAL USE -LOTS 8,7, BLK.14- 658 N.W. 30th
STREET
VARIANCE -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE -LOTS 12, BLK.2
TROPICAL MANOR-2151 S.W. 16th STREET
CLOSING FOR PUBLIC USE-CULMER PARK SUBDIVISION
NO. 1
APROVING PRINCIPLE -FIFTH ACTION YEAR OF
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
DESIGNATING THOROUGHFARE BETWEEN S.E. 8th STREET
AND S.E. 12TH STREET- BRICKELL PLAZA
AMENDING CODE -HOURS OF CLOSING RESTAURANTS ON
SUNDAY
COMMISSION RETRIEVAL
ACTION CODE NO.
R-73-39
R-73-40
R-73-41
R-73-46
R-73-47
R-73-48
R-73-49
R-73-51
R-73-52
R-73-53
R-73-54
R-73-55
R-73-57
R-73-58
R-73-60
0061
73-39
73-40
73-41
0062
0063
73-46
73-47
73-48
73-49
0064
73-51
73-52
73-53
73-54
73-55
73-57
73-58
73-60
0065
IDOCUMENTINDEX
CONTINUE
PAGE #2
COT4'1IStION RETRIEVIL
,ITEM NO. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION ACTION CODE KO.
�r.
1
20A
21
22
23
PUBLIC HEARING -EXTENDING HOURS OF SALE OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR SMALL RESTAURANTS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -FILLING BAYFRONT
PARK LAND FOR LANDSCAPING
LEGAL NOTICE OR ADVERTISEMENT OF AUCTION
(DIARIO DE LAS AMERICAS)
PERMITTING A WALL ERECTED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF S.W. 17TH AVENUE & SOUTH DIXIE HWY. R-73-63
24 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER PUBLIC EDUCATION
FOR GARBAGE AND TRASH COLLECTION CITY MIAMI R-73-64
25 ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED SYLVI SUB. R-73-65
26 REQUEST METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY COMMISSION
RECONSIDER ACTION -JETPORT IN NORTH DADE COUNT- R-73-66
27 IMPROVEMENT-BISCAYNE EAST HIGHWAY H-4357 R-73-67
28 COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND FROM I.P.A. INC-
CONTRUCTION N.W. 9th ST. AND N.W. 47TH AVENUE R-73-68
29 PUBLIC HEARING -EXTENDING HOURS SALE OF ALCOHOLIC4
BEVERAGES FOR SMALL RESTAURANTS
30 COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND FROM PAUL L. LOWMAN
AND BARBARA LOWMAN R-73-69
31 AUTHORIZE GENERAL I-IAULING SERVICE TO BE LICENSET
AS A COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTOR R-73-70
32 AUTHORIZE WASTE DISPOSAL DIVISION OF SANITAS
SERVICE CORP. TO BE LICENSED AS COMMERCIAL
WASTE COLLECTOR
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
ACCEPT BID-FLORIDA CONCRETE CONTRACTORS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS
ACCEPT BID -MARKS BROTHERS CO. FOR JEFFERSON
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
ACCEPT BID -BEN HURWITZ INC FOR LUMMUS PARK
COMFORT STATION DEMOLITION
DOORS AND FRAMES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SANITATIO
TO BE USED IN OPENING -INCINERATOR NO. 1
PURCHASE FILLER, CENTER AND HANGING TILE BRICK
FOR INCINERATOR NO. 1
ACCEPT BID-HELCO SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP. FOR
FURNISHING SAFETY SIIOES
POLYGRAPH EQUIPMENT FOR USE BY THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT
ACCEPT BID-BISCAYNE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY
CLAIM SETTLEMENT-IIILDA & PEDRO GIMINEZ
R-73-71
R-73-72
R-73-73
R-73-74
R-73-75
R-73-76
R-73-77
R-73-78
R-73-79
R-73-81
0066
0067
0068
73-63
73-64
73-65
73-66
73-67
73-68
0069
73-69
73-70
73-71
73-72
73-73
73-74
73-75
73-76
73-77
73-78
73-79
73-81
DOCUMEN14N DEX
ITEM NO.
CONTIN UEDPY
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION
CTION ____
RETRIEVAL
-CODE- NOE1
42
43
44
45
46
47
a '
CLAIM SETTLEMENT-ROBERT C. DEVEAUX
CLAIM SETTLEMENT-DOROTHY MAYS
CLAIM SETTLEMENT-EDUARDO GONZALEZ
CLAIM SETTLEMENT-SCHOFIELD FLEMING
ACCEPT BID -ABC DEMOLITION CORP FOR THE PROJECT
ENTITLED:"DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER"
EXTENDING CONTRACT OF MONTAGUE ROSENBERG AS
SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI
R-73-82
R-73-83
R-73-84
R-73-85
R-73-86
R-73-87
73-82
73-83
73-84
73-85
73-86
73-87