HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1973-02-08 MinutesITt OF MIAMI
COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 8, 1973
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
INDEX TO,
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI,FLORIDA
February 8,1973
ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION NOS.
1. WAIVING READING OF MINUTES:
2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATION OF CERTIFI-
CATES OF APPRECIATION AND PLAQUES:
3.. APPEARANCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF GIRL
SCOUTS COUNCIL OF SOUTH FLORIDA TO
REQUEST SPACE FOR GROUP CAMPING ON
WATSON ISLAND:
4. AMEND RESOLUTION 73-39 CHANGING NAME TO CUBAN
MEMORIAL BOULEVARD: 73-88
5. ANALYSIS OF FEINBERG PROPOSAL FQR CONVENTION
CENTER SITE:
6. VARIANCE - LOTS 27, 28, 29, 30 BLK 7,
BRADDOCK SUB: 73-89
7. CONDITIONAL USE -VARIANCE- 1501 N.W. 9TH A VENUE 73-90
NATIONAL PARKINSON FOUNDATION: 73-91
73-92
8. EXPRESSWAY & RAMP IDENTIFICATION-MIAMI FASHION
CENTER:
9. VARIANCE REQUEST -LOTS 12,14,15,16 Se'ly 20'
LOT 13 - GIFFORD & HIGHLi.YMAN' S SUB: 73-93
10. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CORRECTION OF ZONING DIST.
MAPS- YEARLY CORRECTIONS AND OMISSIONS:
TO ORD. 6871: 8136
11. ACPTG COMP. WORK -NE 7TH COURT SAN SEWER EXT: 73-94
12. ACCPTG.COMP. WORK-DR.PROJ. E-25: 73-95
13. ORDERING RESOLUTION-VIRGINIA GROVE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT H-4358: 73 -96
.14. H-4354 - AMD. ORDERING RESOLUTION -LE JEUNE
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMNT: 73-97
15. ACCEPT PLAT - M.C. SUBDIVISION: 73-98
16. ACCEPT PLAT- NAPOLI PROPERTIES: 73-99
17. POLICE I.D. TECHNICIANS = REQ. CITY NOT TO
APPEAL CIRCUIT COURT DECISION: 73-100
18. CONSIDERATION TO WITHDRAW COND. USE FOR OPER-
ATION OF PRIVATE CLUB-1402 S. BAYSRORE DRIVE:
19. PAN AMERICAN UNION DAY FESTIVAL FOR USE OF
O. BOWL PARKING LOTS - DENIAL:
20. INSTALLATION OF SCOREBOARD AT CITY OF MIAMI
BASEBALL STADIUM:
73-101
73-102
21. CITIZENSH:tP LITIGATION -REPORT BY CITY ATTY:
22. AMEND ORD. 6871 - COND USE -OFF STREET
PARAING LAWS:
23.. HOURS OF CLOSING FOR SMALL RESTAURANTS ON
SUNDAYS ONLY:
ORDINANCE &
Ri.SO. NO.
8137
8138
24. PLAT ACCEPTANCE,-KLEBBA BAY ESTATES: 73-103
25. SALE OF $28,350,000. PUBLIC PARK AND RECREA-
TIONAL FACILITIES BONDS OF THE CITY OF
MITMI, FLORIDA-PROVIDE FOR SALE: 73-104
26. FEDERAL GRANT -APPLICATION -MANAGEMENT DEV.PROG.: 73-105
27. AMEND ORDINANCE 6945 - SECTIONS 1 AND 2 ART.XIV
LAYOFF,RESIGNATION AND REINSTATMENT: 8139
26. AME. ORD 6945 SEC 2 OF RULE XIII: (1st reading)
29. FLA ATLANTIC UNIV. - APPLICATION FOR FL). GRANT
HUMANITIES SPECIAL PROJECTS: 73-106
30. SUBMISSION OF QUARTERLY REPORTS-FLA REV.
SHARING ACT-1972: 73-107
31. CLAIM SETTLEMENT-HOWARD OLIVER: 73-108
' 32. EXTEND COND. USE - 1 YEAR -FOR DALLAS PARK -
LOTS 38,39 BLK B: 73-109
33. ACCEPT BID -LAWN AND MOWING EQUIPMENT: 73-110
34. ACCEPT BIDS -PLASTIC BAGS: 73-111
35. APPOINTMENT OF ADD. MEMBER TO COMMITTEE TO
STUDY THE NEW PLANNING AND ZONING STRUCTURE
FOR THE CITY OF MI AMI :
36. APPOINTMENT OF COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI FOR THE COCONUT GROVE CENTENNIAL CELE:
37. BERTHING OF SEA SCOUT VESSEI, AT DINNER KEY
MARINA -DISCUSSION:
38. CONSENTING TO EXTENSIONS,ENLARGEMENTS &
IMPROVEMENTS AT PORT OF MIAMI:
39. EXTEND CONTRACT FORLEGAL SERVICES-MONTAGUE
ROSENBERG:
40. TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS OF THREE ASST. CITY
ATTORNEYS:
, 41. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH P. MANNERS TO
DISCUSS THIRD DIST. COLR T OF APPEALS CASE
NO. 72-1182:
42. ACCEPT BID -PISTOL PRIMERS, SMOKELESS POWERS
& 25 SHOTGUNS:
43.. PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY ATTY JOHNSON DAVIS
REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT:
73-112
73-113
73-114
73-115
73-116
2
a
_MUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
ON THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1972, THE CITY COMMISSION OF
ON.
MIAMI, ORIDA MET AT ITS REGULAR MEETING PLACE AT CITY HALL
IN SAID T I N SREGULAR �$ESS IOj�■, ! H MEET NG WAS CALLED TO
ORDER AT V:55 O'LLOCK A.M Y FA DAVID I. K NNERY WITH THE
OLLOWIN MEMBERS OF THE OMMI STUN PRESENT: MR. RUMMER, MR.
KEBOSO,REVEREND GIBSON, MRS. IiORDON AND YOR KENNEDY.
ABSENT: NONE.
AN INVOCATION WAS DELIVERED BY REVEREND GIBSON WHO THEN LED
THOSE PRESENT IN A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
1, WAIVING OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The following motion was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE MINUTES
OF THE PREVIOUS CITY COMMISSION MEETINC
Upon being seconded by Reverend 3ibson, the motion was passed
and adopted by the following vote - Messrs. Gibson, Plummer, Reboso,
Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
2, PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION
AND PLAQUES
(a) A plaque was presented to Mrs. Elizabeth Virrick
Executive Vice President of Coconut Grove Cares Inc.,
and certificates of appreciation of members of the
boxing program were given to several persons.
(b) The Mayo-:- proclaimed the month of March 1973 as
Fight Litter Month
(c) The Mayor proclaimed the month of February 1973
as Parade of Music Month
(d) Declared February 14, 1973 as Mary Mc Leod Bethune Day
(e) Proclaimed the week of February 11 through 17, 1973
as Vocational Education Week
(f) Presented to Cmdr. Bolton and Robert Portland Jr.
a certificate of appreciation to Roxy Bolton for their
efforts in the Women in Distress program
(g) Presented a plaque to Miss Helen Sullivan on the occasion
of her retirement February 16, 1973 after 30 years service
to the City of Miami
(h) Certificate of appreciation to Cynthia Whitney for the
River Restoration program of the Junior League of Miami
(i) Certificate of appreciation presented to Adriana Kelly
The Commission entered into a short recess for the purpose
of inspecting newly acquired fire engines and equipment brought
to the City Hall for this purpose.
3 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
3, APPEARANCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF GIRL SCOUTS COUNCIL OF SOUTH
FLORIDA TO REQUEST S?ACE FOR GROUP CAMPING ON WATSON ISLAND
Mrs. Oakerson and Mrs. Wilson of the Girl Scounts Council
of South Florida appeared to request the consideration of the
Commission in the matter described above.
Mrs. Oakerson: We know that studies a/e in progress for the use
of Watson Island land and we wanted to come and tell you today
that as we continue to grow, tropical Florida serves both Dade and
Monroe counties, and as we continue to grow, we have an increasing
need for space for group camping and outdoor activities. Although
we own and maintain several sites on our own, although we use many
public properties and also private properties, there is a waiting
list. Our camps are over 90% full and we know that other non-profit
youth organizations have this same problem. Another problem is
finding sites that are available by public transportation, this is
a growing problem. As we have begun to meet the needs of the hard
to reach girl and we are reaching a number of them now in the inner
city and in the cuban community and we have need for public trans-
portation, land that can be reached by public t-onsportation, so
we looked at a map of Watson Island and we founa a portion of it
and Mrs. Wilson who is our executive director, ha_; gone over to
check out and we want to urge you to consider the use of some of
this property for group camping facilities for non-profit youth
organizations. Linda has it marked here on a drawing that we have
and I would like her to tell you what she saw when she went there.
Mr. Wilson: This is the park with the Japanese Garden in the
center. Most of this area is a very public area with the boat ramp
and the picnic areas but particularly over on this side, there is
a rather large space separate from public use or could be separated
by say, a fence and would make a very nice, very pretty group
camping area which would be accessible by public transportation from
the City. We have approximately 3000 girls, black, white, cuban
in that area and so do the boy scouts, YW and YMCA and other youth
agencies.
We respectfully ask your consideration of this need for the youth
of our community and thank you very mich for letting us come.
Mayor Kennedy: Thank you. Mr. Reese?
Mr. Reese: Mr. Stone and associates, is doing this study to develop
a plan for the utilization of Watson Park as well as the possible
park program and I will be glad to pass this suggestion on to him
and for his evaluation and recommendation.
Mrs. Oakerson: Shall we call him at some later date and find -
Mr. Reese: I will pass the suggestion on to him.
Mayor Kennedy: Well I think more than that Mr. Reese. I think what
you ought to do is tell him that this City Commission would like for
him to meet with these ladies and with their counterparts in theBoy
Scouts and the YMCA and YMHA and sit down and see what each of the
groups would plan and the type of depth of encampment that it comes
into, into play. I think if lied sit with them, he could probably
come to a better conclusion. Ithink that's the general tenure of
the Commission is that they would like him to sit with them.
We don 't need a motion. You will be hearing from Mr. Stone and we
will try to get the groups together at one time.
Mrs. Oakerson: Thank you very much.
4
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
4,
E
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-88
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-39 PASSED
AND ADOPTED JANUARY 25, 1973, BY CHANGING THE NAME
FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGNATION OF S. W. 13TH AVENUE
BETWEEN S. W. 8TH STREET AND S. W. 22ND STREET FROM
"MEMORIAL BOULEVARD" TO"CUBAN MEMORIAL BOULEVARD"
(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 - Messrs. Reboso, Plummer,
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
5, ANALYSIS OF FEINBERG PROPOSAL FOR CONVENTION CENTER SITE
Mr. Reese: I passed out to the City Commission this morning an
analysis of the Feinberg proposal and of all of the criteria that
has been previous established for auditoriums here in the City and
it is suggested that after this is reviewed that if it is the wishes
of the City Commission, we would advertise for a public hearing on
February 22nd, which is our regular Commission Meeting day and
notify all people concerned so that we can get, the Commission
can get their observations and be in a position to make a final
decision.
Mayor Kennedy: Do you want that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Reese: I would suggest that so we can proceed to advertise.
it and it will be a public hearing so all you have to do is set
the time.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a motion.
Thereupon the following motion was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
A MOTION TO ADVERTISE FOR P)BLIC HEARING AT 2:00
O'CLOCK P.M. ON FEBRUARY 22, 1973 THE MATTER OF
THE FEINBERG PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI SITE
OF PROPOSED CONVENTION CENTER
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Gibson,
Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
5
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
VARIANCE - LOTS 27, 28, 29. 30 BLOCK 7, BRADDOCK SUB
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-89
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE
NO. 6871, ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 4 (1) (a), TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION TO OFFICE BUILDING
ON LOTS 27, 28, 29 AND 30, BLOCK 7, BRADDOCK SUB
no. 4, (3-61), LOCATED AT 1951 N. W. 17TH AVENUE
WITH 0' SIDE SETBACK (10' REQUIRED) ZONED C-4
(General Commercial) DISTRICT
(Here follgws 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,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
A discussion occurred in connection with the adoption of
this resolution concerning the setback requirements and the
landscaping on the adjacent property and the applicant assured
the Commission that only as much of the tree would be cut as
would be necessary for construction.
The possibility of acquiring an adjacent duplex was brought
out and the applicant stated this had been considered by the
law firm but the duplex was not available for sale and was owned
by an absentee california owner and was income producing property.
Mrs. Gordon stated the matter had been deferred from the
meeting of January 25, 1973 for inspection by members of the
Commission and reported that she had inspected the structure and
the surrounding area and believed the variance was in order.
7, CONDITIONAL USE -VARIANCE- 1501 N.W, 9TH AVENUE
APPLIC ATIONAL PARKINSON FOUNDATION
Mr. Herbert Demmel, Attorney representing the National
Parkinson Foundation appeared to outline plans for expansion
of the Foundation at 1501 N. W. 9th Avenue and requesting the
consideration of the Commission in the granting of variances
and conditional use to permit this construction. He presented
an architectural rendering of the proposed addition of 2-stories
and explained the conditional use requests passed the Planning
Board by a 7 to 1 and 8 to 0 vote respectively but that the
variance request was a 4 to 4 tie vote and since one member was
absent, it constituted a denial of the variance.
Mrs. Jean Levey: I am Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
National Parkinson Foundation and I believe you are familiar with
the work we are doing at the Parkinson Institute and we are asking
this morning I believe for a very minimal consideration and we hope
that you will held us in this respect. We need this 20' setback
which is immediately adjacent. It is next to a 50' parking lot.
We own the property on the other side of this lot. The people can
do nothing with a 50' lot and we have not been unable to purchase
it and we are asking your consideration to permit us to go ahead
with our building.
6 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Schrumm: I am the architect for the project and as you may
know, we have been here before and previously we had 4 stories
and penthouse and since that time with this presentation, we have
shrunk the building to 2 floors with the roof for an exercise area
and we need the space and as Mrs. Levey said, the lots directly
north is a 50' lot and beyond that, Lot No. 20 is owned by the
Parkinson people. We need the space and by reducing this building
to about 2 the square footage, we want to keep it to 2 stories
and we are asking a lot less variances than we previously did.
Mr.Friedman: My name is Morty.Friedman, I am public relations
director for the National Parkinson Foundation. I would just like
to point out that there is more than just local interest in this
project because this will become the Bob Hope Parkinson Research
Foundation and we are hoping that when he is here on February 18
for the annual Bob Hope dinner, we can tell him that this is a
reality. People do come to the institute from all over the world
and it is not really a local facility, its international in scope.
We appreciate any consideration. I think its a credit to the City
of Miami that its located here.
Mayor Kennedy: Are there any objectors to items 10 a, b, or c?
The chair doesn't see any.
Mr. Grimm, Director of Public Works: Mr. Mayor, 1 would like to
call the Commission's attention to one item. The County,plans to
relocate loth Avenue generally alon gthis alignment. At the
present time, 9th. Avenue is only 40' in width. Its :oned 50' in
the City and we feel as part of this conditional use, a 5' ded-
ication should be required and hopefully the building; will be
set back out of the future widening of 9th Avenue to 7' .
Mr. Simpson just informed me that the buildings do cle4r the 70'
right of way. We now presently have 40' right of way.
Mr. Demmel: I would like to submit if I could a letter from
the Department of Traffic and Transportation and they have no
objection to what we are doing. I think you will find that the
plans for the road have been considered in the planning for our
structure and of course our structure is an existing building and
it is not going to approach 9th Avenue at the extension any greater
than the existing already approaches that.
Mayor Kennedy: On the waiving of the parking spaces, you operate
a bus, right?
Mr. Demmel : That is correct.
Mayor Kennedy: Most of these people that come, have to be driven,
so they are dropped off, right?
Picked up later after the therapy is over with so you don't really
need the parking spaces that are required by law.
Mr. Demmel: Other people in the area use our parking spaces because
we don't need them all, even as it is now.
Rev. Gibson: I am interested in what you said about that road,
please explain that again.
Mr. Grimm: As it stands, the existing right of way is only dedicated
for 40'. Our ordinances in the City require that all streets be a
minimum of 50' wide and less dedicated otherwise or wider. Since
our zoning ordinances only allow for 50', the city is not in a
position legally I don't believe to ask for the 70', but we certainly
feel as part of the conditional use that we should get -the additional
5' of dedication on 9th Avenue abutting this property but we also
want to alert the Commission and the owners, that the County plans
to redevelop 9th Avenue on a 70' basis which would take an additional
10' so certainly their planning should take that into consideration,
not only for the building but for parking and everything else, that
ultimately this road is going to be 70' wide in front of this
building.
Mr. Demmel: I would like to have the architect explain how the
expansion was planned in relation to the road expansion.
7
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Schrum: Well even if they should take the 70', it would still
clear our building.
Mr. Grimm: I am not debating that sir, what I am saying is, you
own the property now and as part of the conditional use, you
should dedicate it to the City so that when the road is widened,
we don't have to come in and pay for it.
Mr. Schrumm: I couldn't answer that part, its up to the owner
Even if they did widen the street, it would not interfere with our
operation and still leave us our planning.
Mr. Demmel: I think its clear that the objection is based on the
philosophy that the Commission should use a blackjack in the case
of the parkinson foundation, if you want the variances, you must
give land free. Now it might come to pass that the directors of
the Parkinson Foundation might say we will give or they would sell
or do many different things, however,.I don't think that is a
proper approach when we are coming in asking for a variance, we
are a non-profit institute and I don't think we should be pushed
into that direction.
Mr. Grimm: I would remind the Commission that ti.is has been their
policy in conjunction with many buildings, speci'iic example is the
one right accross the street at Bayshore and 27th Avenue.
Mrs. Levey: May I please say something. As far as taking or
widening the street on the cast side of the street, where we arc,
there is a very large parking lot on the opposite side, certainly
they could take all the space they need there and it is not filled
up at anytime and to penalize us on the east side, I hardly think
is the fair thing, and besides this ordinance is not vet been
executed and if it, applicable to everybody on the block, we arc
going to abide by whatever everybody else does but to single .us
out at this time, and specifically specify that against us at this
time, I do not believe it is fair to us because we have been
cooperative in the community and I would like to go on record as.
saying that when the bond issue was being considered, I owned a
substantial piece of property on 17th Street. I was asked to sell
this because they wanted to include this in their parking facilities
and I could have sold this for a very much larger fee but I am
community minded and I feel this body should consider that we have
made a community contribution and on that basis, we are asking your
consideration, thank you.
Mr. Dem mei: I would further point out that any such requests
from our point of view would have to be considered by the Board of
Directors and I would further point out that our institute is not
a private business and we are not in business for profit. We are
in business to help the Parkinsonian patient and to do research.
It is a public purpose if you will and a charitable purpose and I
think this is not a proper requirement.
Rev. Gibson: Did you say that if this building is built now in
light of a probable 70' widening, in light of that, that it would
not affect the building. Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Grimm: It will not affect the building but it will affect
access to the building and the parking.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. architect, you heard what the staff said.
Mr. Schrum: It cannot affect the parking because the parking is
on the other side and as far as the access, theydo have d driveway
worked in there so they can pull things off the street. If they
widen the street, they can park along the street like they do now
I mean for stopping purposes. Now they can stop by pulling completely
out of the street and stop in front of the building and leave it
there all day and it wouldn't interfere with anyone in the street.
They have enough to create a little drive in the front and it is
not considered for parking at all. Strictly an access drive. If
they do widen the street to 70', which is a pretty wide street,
it would affect this little drive but its just a convenience that
they have there. They have buses they line up there sometimes,
they would have to put them in the back.
8
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Rev. Gibson: This widening of the street, can't you as the
architect deal with that -
Mr. Schrumm: No probleip,we have already considered that and our
planning is based on that but this additional, instead of 50',
this 70' which would mean another 10' on our side if they take it
off the Parkinson side, it will bite into this little drive they
have there strictly for their convenience. Not for parking, all
the parking is on the other side and on the north and then there
is another lot on the other' side of the alley they want to use
for parking. There is an old building which they plan.tc tear
down and use that for parking too. They don't need parking because
this is strictly research and a lot of people come there by bus.
Mr. Acton: For the record, I would like to read the contents of
a letter addressed to Mr. David Simpson Jr from C. F. Broward Jr.
Asst. Director of Hospitals, JMH. "The medical center planning
advisory committee met on Friday, Jan 19. 1973 to discuss a request
by the National Parkinson Foundation and the consensus of opinion
was a recommendationto the Planning & zoning Board for denial of
the request. The background for this recommendation is based
primarily on the criteria set forth in the Medical Center Master
Plan adopted by the Dade County Commission undo: resolution R-1478-68
although the functions of the National Parkinscii ►,c,undation must be
considered as medically oriented as e:cpressed in ;ie master plan
criteria, closer examination indicate; that there aro no formal
relationships between the Parkinson Foundation and :inv other medical
institution in the medical center. Therefore under the broad concepts
of inter -action and cooperation in the various components of the
medical center, the Parkinson Foundation does not compl•• and does
not contribute to the medical center by its existence 1.re. It's
operation could be locate'l anywhere in Dade County and therefore we
see no hardship to justif; granting a conditional use variance.
The committee was also concerned about the waiving of any parking
spaces, :although we understand ,:hat many of the patients are furnished
special transportation, there is no provision in the present city
zoning to deny a certificate of occupancy to some other activity
which would acquire the Parkinson Foundation property if the
foundation were to be relocated or dissolved. The proposed County
parking garage No. 2 is several years away from its completion and
is a considerable distance from the Parkinson property. The 3rd
item concerning the committee is the 9th Avenue -loth Avenue bypass
recommended by the master plan. Preliminary engineering plans have
been prepared by the Dade County Public Works and submitted to the
City Planning Department and public works for review and comment
and final alignment is now prepared or being prepared for submittal
to the planning hoard. This proposal will widen N. V. 9th Avenue
along the west side of the Parkinson Foundation property, thereby
requiring an additional 10' in right of way for most of the length
of the Parkinson property on 9th Avenue. Should the board decide
to grant the variance requested, conditional use, the dedication of
this needed right of way should be a part of the conditions".
"Finally it must be pointed out that the master plan recommendations
for a ground coverage of 40% for buildings and parking combined,
this condition has not been met by the major components of the
medical center but every effort is being made to do so with the
establishment of parking garages and gradual elimination of the
major amount of surface parking. Parkinson's Foundations request
for greater coverage should be denied since there is no apparent
way to improve this relationship in the future with the limited
land available in the area. The Medical Center advisory committee
consists of representatives of Dade County Department of Hospitals,
Housing and Urban Development, Public Works, Traffic and Transportation
and the City of Miami Departments of Planning and Public Works and
with occasional participation of other County -City Departments.
It is respectfully requested the comments of the Planning Advisory
Committee be made available to the Planning and Zoning Board members
in consideration of this item".
9
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
•
Mr. Demmel: One might wonder the purpose of the Medical Ce ter
Planning Advisory Committee is. In their letter, they make ref-
erence to the fact that there is no formal relationship bet een
the Parkinson Foundation and other medical institutions in the
center. It happens that Jackson Memorial does send their
Parkinsonian patients particularly the ones without funds to the
Parkinson Foundation for treatment. The balance of the items
referred to in the letter would appear to be items which are really
not the province of the Medical Center Advisory Committee. They're
concerned about parking, road right o:' way, everything that I think
is not medical planning. The same le::ter was read -before the Zoning
Appeals Board and as this Commission is aware, the Zoning Appeals
Board, voted quire favorably for all of our petitions with the one
exception of the 0 setback on the north side of Lot 18 and there
was a split 4-4. I would respectfully urge and request this
Commission to grant our variance. Mrs. Levey would like to make
one more comment please.
Mrs. Levey: I would definitely like to answer the gentleman in
regard to the fact that we have no affiliation or association or
working arrangements with the JMH, the Cuban Refugee Center or
even the University of Miami School of Medicne. Recently we
brought a man here from Japan, a scientist that worked for 2 years
and was doing very intensive studies and the university of
Miamineurological department permitted us the use of their animal
laboratory to do these studies and this was a very impoMtant con-
tribution regarding the medicne eldopa. The JMH as Mr. Demmel
indicated, send their patients as soon as they say they are a
parkinsonian and unable to pay, they send them to the Parkinson
Foundation and we treat them regardless of their abili'v to pay.
The Cuban Refugee group has done the same. We have a very sub-
stantial list of patients that do not pay and I do not know what
affiliation or association means. We give them the service and
they do not give them the service and there is no other place
where the Parkinson patient can receive the kind of treatment and
care that we give them at the Parkinson Institute. We are
recognized at all levels of government from Washington, State
and local levels, all through the country and in other countries
as well and I think that our record of performance is indicative
of your, of the history of our performance and I think deserves
your consideration, thank you.
Mayor Kennedy: If there are no other questions, the chair will
recognize a motion.
Mr. Plummer: I think tha magnitude of this thing here, I personally
would like to go out and look at it and see for myself the factors
that have been brought out here this morning. This is a good size
project. I would make a motion to have this deferred.
Mayor Kennedy: I think why they wanted it heard today was because
Bob Hope was coming in for their dinner and had they had it, they
were going to make arrangments to name this and maybe have the
groundbreaking ceremony at the building. If they can't get this,
obviously they are going to have to get another location. This
is the problem.
Mr. Demmel: We have had variances granted by this Commission on
prior occasions for a much more ambitious building.
Mr. Plummer: What bothers me is that this 5' dedication which is
being asked of you and which you think is improper of the City
is surely not a precedent setting thing. We have requested and
were given this by many people in the past and it bothers me
that you are the people who are going to benefit from the widening
of this road but you are leary of saying yes you will dedicate
it to the City. Now I understand you don't have to Sir.
10 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
Mr. Demmel: If I could perhaps, my point is not that we are
opposed. It's that any authority to make such a statement would
have to be predicated upon the Board of Directors approval.
I don't have a Board of Directors here to speak to,to get such
permission. It might well be.
Mr. Plummer: Would 'ou be agreeable that it be given on the
condition that the Board of Directors say yes?
Mr. Demmel: Let me have a minute.
Mrs. Levey" As the Chairman of the Board of Directors, we are
allowed to use judgment because we have come pretty far along
those lines. We don't object to this 10' agreement but we want
this to apply to everybody on the block. We don't want it just
to apply to the National Parkinson Foundation. This has been the
sad history of this whole medical group because we have done
something that they failed to do and I think on that basis, we
would be more than happy to conform on this provision when it
does come into affect providing everybody along the block is asked
to do the same thing.
Mr. Demmel: I think what Mr. Plummer is asking Mrs. Levey i$
we at the Parkinson Foundation if required to give up the 5'
would waive our right to compensation for that.
Mrs. Levey: If this is applied to everybody else, we are going.
to do what everybody else does. If everyone else were just as
community minded as the rest of them, we will apply the same way.
Mr. Rothstein,City Attorney: Maam, maybe I can explain the legal
technicality here. You are here asking for a variance, your
neighbors are not. It has been a standard procedure, not just you,
but everybody in the community who has been faced with this problem
when they come in for a variance and they have a position where they
have to have a road widening, that they are told, they are given a
condition in their variance, that if they want to use the variance,
they must agree to do this so you can't bring in the rest of the
street because it has nothing to do with the rest of the street.
What Commissioner Plummer says, he is ready today perhaps to proceed
in your favor but only on condition that your Board of Directors
will agree to give up the 5' to the City without compensation.
Mrs. Levey: I think we would agree to that and as the Chairman
of the Board, I think I can go on record and say yes.
Mr. Demmel: We would both recommend it to the board.
Mr. Rothstein: If the Board does not vote for it, you won': have
your variance so that's the answer. You will have a lot of weight
behind you when you -
Mrs. Levey: I think I can speak for the Board and I think they
will respect your opinion. I have a number of board members here
with me.
Mr. Demmel: It appears we would accept it with that 5' business.
Mr. Grimm: For the sake of clarity, we are only talking about a
5' dedication to the City.
Rev. Gibson: If we can get this 5' dedication, you would have no
objection?
Mr. Grimm: That's right, I didn't have any objection anyway, I
was just pointing out -
Rev. Gibson: I am talking about as a professional.
Mr. Grimm: Yes Sir, 5' is all that we can require. Ultimately
they will need an additional 10' but that will be the county's
responsibility.
Rev. Gibson: I would feel better if I had the resolution dedicating
11 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Plummer, you started to make a motion.
Mr. Plummer: My point was the 5'.
Rev. Gibson: I will offer it on the condition that we get a yes
from your Board.
Mr. Demmel: Okay, we'll accept that.
Mr. Rothstein: You don't have to do that. You just make as part
of the condition of the variance, the use of the variance, that the
Board agree to the 5'. If they don't agree, they don't have a
variance.
Rev. Gibson: I will offer the motion with that understanding and
bring the document back here to us, is that what we have to do?
Mr. Demmel: We will accept that.
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by
Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-90
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE", AS
PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE VIII,
SECTION 1 (11) (c), TO PERMIT EXPANSION AND
ADDITION TO NATIONAL PARKINSON FOUNDATION
STRUCTURE ON LOTS 15 THRU 18, AND W. 40' LOTS
13 AND 14, BLOCK 21, HIGHLAND PARK (2-13),
LOCATED AT 1501 N. W. 9TH AVENUE, IN CONJUNCTION
WITH VARIANCES BEING CONCURRENTLY PETITIONED FOR,
SITE ZONED R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(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
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-91
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE
NO. 6871, ARTICKE VIII, SECTIONS 6 AND 3 (2) (c),
AND ARTICLE XXIII, SECTIONS 4 (8) AND 4 (22), TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION TO NATIONAL PARK-
INSON FOUNDATION STRUCTURE, ON LOTS 1S THRU 18,
AND W. 40' LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 21, HIGHLAND PARK
(2-13), LOCATED AT 1501 N. W. 9TH AVENUE, WITH LOT
COVERAGE OF 47.3% (28% PERMITTED), WITH SETBACK
ON N. W. 15TH STREET OF 10' (20' REQUIRED), WITH
REAR SETBACK OF 0' (20' REQUIRED), WAIVING 88 OF
113 REQUESTED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, STRUCTURE
UNDER CONCURRENT PETITION FOR "CONDITIONAL USE",
ZONED R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) DISTRICT
12
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded b;' Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and ado pted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None.
Mr. David Simpson, Executive Secretary of the Planning Board: Mr.
Mayor, this involves the remote lot for off-street parking that
has the 5' required dedication also, so that condition should apply.
Rev. Gibson: Beyond a doubt, you understand that. You have 'to
dedicate on that remote lot.
Mr. Demmel: We understand that.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Reverend
Gibson, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.,73-92
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE", AS
PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SEC-
TION 1 (6) (b), TO PERMIT OFF-STREET PARKING
ON LOTS 20, BLOCK 21, HIGHLAND PARK (2-13),
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1615 N. W. 9TH AVENUE,
IN CONJUNCTION WITH NATIONAL PARKINSON FOUNDATION
AT 1501 N. W. 9TH AVENUE, PARKING LOT NOT TO BE
USED FOR REQUIRED PARKING, AND SUBJECT TO SITE
PLAN APPROVAL BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SITE ZONED
R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) DISTRICT SUBJECT
TO CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
(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.
Mrs. Gordon: Let the record reflect there isn't a single objection
on that map. No red on the map, its all green, no objection in the
neighborhood at all.
Mr. Demmel: Thank you very much.
13
FE B RUARY 8, 1973
8, EXPRESSWAY RAMP IDENTIFICATION- MIAMI F
Mr. S. Meyerson appeared to outline a plan to the Commission
for designation of the Garment Section of the City of Miami to be
known as Miami Fashion Center.
Mr. Meyerson: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. We have agreed on a
certain area of the City of Miami with the County and we request
unanimous resolution', or resolution from the City of Miami to
designate N. W. 20th Street from North Miami Avenue to Northwest
6th Avenue through N. W. 36th Street. The County and the City
have agreed to put up signs designating this area as the Miami
Fashion District. We will now also approach, we have already
approached the federal authorities with regard to our postal zone,
this is all postal zone 33127 and we can now be able to have all
the manufacturers in this particular industrial area address and
publicize the Miami Fashion District whether its mens wear,
clothing wear, fashions of any type, so we have got this entire
area which encompasses this one district and we are all in accord.
We have yet to hear from the federal government or the state dep-
artment so we feel that in adopting a resolution for this district
at this time, its a step in the right direction and later on the
state department who is cooperating with us and they are all very
very nice and the federal department will all come along and we
will be able to prepare for 1973 in July Resort season.
Mrs. Gordon: I compliment you, I think that's a giant step forward.
Mr. Meyerson : Thank you, we would like to get your complete
approval.
Mrs. Gordon: I would move that.
Rev. Gibson: What is that boundary?
Mr. Meyerson: N. W. 20th Street from N. Miami Avenue back to N. W. 6th A
enue to N. W. 36th Street. The proper signs will be put up directing
people into the area and helping that area grow and helping the
largest industry that we do have. WE will have a connection from
the Beach on Julia Tuttle Causeway and have a connection from N. W.
12th Avenue exit on I-95 from the exit on N. Miami Avenue at 36th
Street, we have a connection to 20th Street. We have all the
connections we possibly need. We have got great cooperation from
Kevin Mc Norton and Lew Price and we're going into a nice program
and preparations to let the entire nation know that Miami is and
will be one of the largest, if not the largest, fashion district
in the United States.
Rev. Gibson: Who all was at the meeting you all made this decision
on?
Mr. Meyerson: I do not remember all the names but I guess we had
Mr. Simms, we had Mr. Mc Norton, we had Mr. Conkling, Mr. Price,
we had practically everyone is agreed.
Rev. Gibson: I want to hear the names because I happen to know most
of the people, you know why I am asking that question don't you?
Mr. Meyerson: No, I do not Sir.
Rev. Gibson: Black people live in that area.
Mr. Meyerson: Yes Sir and they also work in that area.
Rev. Gibson: No no, I said, did you talk with them?
Mr. Meyerson: No we did not.
Rev. Gibson: All right, you know I raised that question when you
came here the first time.
Mayor Kennedy: That was one of your stipulations.
14
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
Rev. Gibson: That was one of my stipulations and I think that
before we pass anything here, those people ought to be talked
with. Did you talk with the School Board? They have some
schools in that area.
Mr. Meyerson: We have one school in that area.
Rev. Gibson: They have Wheatley, they have Dunbar -
Mr. Meyerson: They have two schools in the area, they have
highschool and Dunbar elementary school that has nothing to do
with that district Sir.
Rev. Gibson: Sir, I used to live on 21st Terrace and I lived
there from 1928. My people's homestead was there so I know the
area.
Mr. Meyerson: Well how could the signs of designation possibly hurt?
Rev. Gibson: I am not saying they are going to hurt. Let me
tell you. I used to know about signs too you know and they used
to be offensive to me. I would like. I am not opposed to it,
I just think that the people ought to be told, ought to be
consulted. I just don't think you do for people, enforce upon
people just like you got all the, and I made the stipulation
that you call the traffic department and then talk with the people
in the area.
Mr. Meyerson: We did talk to the traffic department.
Mayor Kennedy: But Mr. Meyerson, he did specifically say that at
that meeting he wanted the people who lived in the area there
and we hope that you would have taken that into consideration.
Mr. Meyerson: It's very difficult to talk to everybody to get
their approval, every apartment house.
Mayor Kennedy: You should :lave had a notice somehow maybe run
in the Miami Times or the Liberty News and advertising that this
meeting was going to be held and ask the people in the community
to come. Now, we are for what you are attempting to do. This
Commission is very sympathetic to this fashion industry because
we know its our greatest industry but also I have to back up
Canon Gibson because he specifically said that, that he wanted
the people in the area to be notified. I think it would be much
better if you could go back and maybe have a meeting and come back
before us on the 22nd and have these people notified in the area
and have a community meeting there.
Mr. Meyerson: How do we notify them Sir?
We have no funds. I am doing this on my own. We have not as yet
gotten together and spoken. Now who advertises in the Times.
Who pays for the ad?
Rev. Gibson: All right, I will tell you this. I'll commit myself
to get the Liberty News and the Miami Times to write an article.
You tell me when you are going to meet and you tell me where.
I think this would be fair to the people.
Mr. Meyerson: Anytime you say Reverend because this can only do
one thing for the people. Employ them in the area and help them.
Rev. Gibson: Sir, I don't want to debate this but I think you
better let me offer you this bit of advice. You know because those
factories are doesn't mean my people and the people who live out
there are the greatest employers in that area. I know the story.
Now the one thing I like is my mother sent me to school so I could
be educated and a lot of things I could think but I don't have to
say and I want to be your friend. I feel like that Mayor.
15
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Meyerson: Whatever you request Reverend, we will do, we will
be happy to comply with. I can only say this. Whatever we are
attempting to do here is not for just today and not to injure
anyone and its only for one purpose. To designate an area, that's
all.
Rev. Gibson: Give me your telephone number and I will make it my
business to take the initiative to call you.
Mr. Meyerson: 576-2131.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Price, you were part of this, you represent the
City, what's your number?
Mr. Price: 377-5469.
Rev. Gibson: I am sure you were here the last time when we said
we want these people to be notified.
Mr. Meyerson: I don't believe we had any such statement said at
that time., but we did .say this.
Rev. Gibson: All right I will do this, you don't have to worry.
Mr. Meyerson: May I have your number Reverend su I could follow up?
Rev. Gibson: 443-6349 and 445-2224
Mr. Meyerson: Whatever meeting you want, we will be :nappy to ccmply
with but I don't believe this can do anything but improve the area.
Rev. ,Gibson: I agree, but I want them notified.
16
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
WITHASUBMERGEDSLANDOTSC� &16hEthliS2KBL°T 13
Mr. Jack Watson, Attorney together with Mr. Tibor Hollo,
Developer, Florida East Coast Properties appeared to outline
a plan for construction of a 163 unit apartment building in
Point View area of the City of Miami as described above.
Mr. Watson: Mr. Mayor, and members of. the Comrnission,my name
is Jack Watson, my address is 505 Pan American Bank Bldg, I
represent the applicant Florida East Coast Properties, and its
President, Mr. Ted Hollo who is here with me this morning.
We are desirous to construct a 15 story structure on the
property, which is the subject of this aiTli.cat:ion. This
cation passed the Planning Board, and has the approval of the
Planning Board by a 7 to 1 vote. There are no objections or
objectors within the 375 ft. area that I am aware of. It is
unfortunate that this property in question is not large enough
to qualify for a P.A.D. application. If it was so, we would
have gone that route. I want to say for the record that after
we took a look at the Planning Board, I mean thy_ ?lanning Staff
recommendation of denial on the basis that the p -n lacked
adequate provisions for landscaping in ground -level useable
open space, we changed our plans so as to include a very heavy
amount of landscaping. As far as the open space is concerned,
our open space does meet the requirement of the Code, and you
will notice that the complex here is really surrounded --well
at least on two sides practically • by water and then on a road,
a lot of open space there. Now, this Board has repeatedly, on
other occasions granted a floor area ratio much in excess of what
we are asking for. We need this variance, which I consider to
be only a small thing, to make this building an economic reality.
Now, under these conditions, I think that what we propose to do
will greatly benefit the property from its present condition,
because when we bought the property, that property didn't have
anything on it; it was completely scarified, it was naked of
all shrubs and bushes, and I don't think that anybody, including
the Planning Department would want to preserve it in its present
condition. What we want to do, since we couldn't go P.A.D., we
want to attempt to restore this property as much as possible, and
have the same type of foliage that existed on this property prior
to scarification in a beautiful apartment complex. I think this
is a bonus which would certainly justify the granting of this
small variance. I wish to call your attention to the fact that
this property is at the end of a one-way street there, and that
our access and engress views are limited, ----proposition. I have
with me this morning, Mr. James Dean, who is the architect who
designed this project, who would like to make a brief presentation
and answer any questions, and also Mr. Hollo who is the owner,
would also like to addressthis Board, so at this time, I would
appreciate if Mr. Dean would come forward and explain the appli-
cation, ----Jim?
Mr. James Dean: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I am the architect
and planner for this project. I call your attention to an aerial
1969 of the site previous to the time my client purchased the
property. The property is in orange, ---it one time had a single
residence on it, --the area '.n green around it the Catholic Diocese
property, Assumption Church, and their school, --we are bounded
2/8/73
on this site on the south of it by their play field and on the
west of it by a series of tennis courts, and as Mr Watson has
told you, on the north of it by 15th Road. 15th Road is 100 ft.
right-of-way, similar to Brickell Avenue, which is here, our
access to this site is by a signal light at the intersection
approaching toward the Bay, along the parkway street. And it
is interesting that this parkway street of 15th Road has no
interceptions in it, --once you are committed to that street
you can only turn from it in a U turn to leave the site at the
Bay, so our access is down as Mr. Watson said, technically really
a one-way street. We have 361 ft. frontage along the street, and
289 ft. along the Bay. It is an irregular shaped site with approx-
imately two acres, 73,000+ square feet. We are allowed in that
zoning district of R-5A a floor areas ratio of 2.0. We plan to
build a 15 story building, approximately 130 ft. in height, with
163 units. all of these conforming to your regulations as to
height, set -backs and density. We will be providing 258 parking
spaces, part of those within a covered deck below the building
of approximately 2/3 of those spaces being covered,---173 in
number. At the ground lever, and this is my ground level plan,
we have provided for the apt building some of tt.,? amenities which
are necessary for this particular project to comi:,te wit-'lin the
area. As you know we are close by the Point View Auartments;
lobby, card room, billiard room, small gym with a sal:na, obviously
the toilets for the use of the pool, a pool, A '='::, deck across
the entire frontage of the Bay, a tennis court, and these amenities,
exterior count to approximate 44% of our site area, an; technically
what ycu call landscaped developed areas. Our building covers 16%
of the site, --the parking on top of the deck occupies 40`;, and
our landscaped development 44%. Our request is only for an increase
in the floor area ratio. Of the 12,000 square ft. on each floor
we net out approximately 10,500 sq. ft. or an average size of the
apartment unit of somewhere around 952 sq. ft. As you are aware
in your code, you have a bonus of floor area ratio for larger
than what you classify minimum apartments, which you say at 700
sq. ft. You get a bonus of 0.2 for every square ft. of area above
the 700 sq. ft. minimum unit. This means that the allowable sq. ft.
on this particular project or building bulk is really 2.1 and our
variance to bring these apartmentSup to the 952 sq. ft. average
size is for this .26. I think I can support the apFlication.
Floor area ratio is a very difficult thing to analyze because it
is a control on building bulk, but to subtract this amount of
building bulk from this particular structure, may or may not
affect its size. We could take the ground floor amenities of the
billiard rooms and card rooms out and put parking in there and the
building scale would not change, --it would still be 71 ft. wide
178 ft. long, and still be 130 ft. high, but what we are requesting
is the oppotunity to add some amenities for the purchasers within
relatively a small scale building, 163 units.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Tibor Hollo: Illustrious Hoard, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Manager
my name is Tibor Hollo, 1605 Biscayne Blvd., I would like to
state here that we are very much desirous to proceed in a very
lovely project. Currently the area is scarified, devoid of any
vegetation. We would love to go in with some lush tropicalvegetation,
to build a very comprehensive lovely project, very much within,
and in excess of most of the P.U.D. requirements in this area,
in which favor I am very much. We have several hardships existing
in this site that we had to overcome, however, we could still build
2/8/73
18
our building without any variance, without this one variance
we are requesting by just having exterior walk ;pace, what
they call cat walks, but this is considered a sign of the
past and we would like to build for the future, --we'd like
to put up a very lovely comprehensive complex in this area.
I would like to just state to my very illusLrious colleagues,
I4r. Dean has mentioned the extent of the variance we ask for,
it's 2.1 currently facilitated, we would to have 2.36. Most
of the area currently has been awarded variances up to about
2.47 floor area requirements, ratios, ---we would not want to
ask you for any variances whatsoever other than has been granted
in the area all ready in completely straight parcels. Our parcel
has a very peculiar shape, as you have seen it. We have some
of the excess area. We had to clip off a part,
a corner of our property to grant a vary large easement to Key
Biscayne for utility installation that goer through our property.
We had with the Sisters who owned Assumption Academy
around us, whereby we have granted them permanent easement on the
west end of her property, We have talked to everybody in
our area that had no objections,the Order of Sisters, ----congratulate
our plans.
I respectfully ask you grant us this small .riance.
Mayor.
Mr. Watson: That concludes our initial presen ati.on, Mr.
Mayor Kennedy: Are there any objections?
Mrs. Julius Alexander: I am Mrs. Julius Alexander of 2323
S. Miami Avenue, Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Gordon and members of the Com-
mission, I appeared before the Planning Board, nd: as an objector
though I did register objector on the basis that I am opposed to
variances, most particularly in the Brickell Ave. area . I can read
into the record the general portions of two petitions which have
been presented to this Commission, one signed by 88 property owners
the other signed by 98 property owners which objected particularly
to Holiday Inn variances which you did not grant, which particularly
to the 1901 Brickell Ave. variance which you also did not grant.
They say with a great deal of charm and expertise, and they have
done their homework very well that they are asking for miniscule
variance on the basis of the fact that other variances have been
granted in this particular area. This is not exactly true; there
have been concessions made under the P.A.D. ordinance but the PAD
ordinance is one thing and a variance is something else again.
They cannot ask for a variance to my understanding on the basis
of the fact that there are other variances which are really not
variances. Now, I have before me the ordinance about variances.
ONe of the requirements are, that a variance cannot be granted
on the basis of the economic hardship, and it is a question of
economics. They are asking for 18% increase, which amounts to
approximately two floors, 17 apartments and of course the necessary
parking that will have to go along with this excess of what the
ordinance requires. The vote of the Planning Board was 7 to 1,
the negative vote was on the part of the gentleman on the Planning
Board who was assigned to the particular area. He was the one
who researched it, nobody picked it up, nobody followed up on ,
he failed for the lack of a second, so the motion was given to
grant it, but the Planning Department has vigorously recommended
against it and again I go on record'as saying that I am in favor
of supporting our Planning Department in their recommendation.
Why do we have them if we do not abide by their recommendations.
So on this I rest. Thank you.
Mr. Acton: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, Mrs.
Alexander stole much of my thunder and she has done her homework too.
19
2/8/73
•
The Planning Department is opposed to this particular application.
We can find absolutely no hardship to grant this variance and if
this variance is granted it will in effect destroy so much of the
work that has gone into the development of the Planned Area
Development ordinance, which does give bonuses for certain
public amenities. There's only been one granted, that was the
Forte project in the amount of 2.36. The reason this was granted
is because the Forte project was substantialy over the apartment
size, it is the upper level in our ordinance. They erect well
over 1200 sq. ft. for average apartment size, whereas this partic-
ular project is around 950. Also the Forte project did dedicate
and profusely landscape the 70 ft strip, dedicated to the City
in recognition of the fact that the provided, substantial open
space, landscaped open space in the strip as well as heavily
landscaped areas in the 40 ft. tower itself, we did recommend
the granting of bonuses of 2.36. but if you recall in the 1901
project because of the fact that we didn't feel that they were
giving the City the type of bonuses and amenities we did recom-
mend against granting a variance in there, and t}e Commission
did up hold our recommendation, but even in tha.. project they
would have been entitled to a 2.2, whereas in thin project under
the ordinance they are entitled to a 2.1 floor area ratio and we
believe that the Commission should hold the line in the Brickell
Area to insure that future development will have a firm footing
to grant bonuses and not just based on economic hardship which
was brought forth in the Planning and Zoning Board meeting which
as the Commission knows does not form the basis for hardship.
Mr. Watson: I would like to respond to both of these folks,
first to Mrs. Alexander, i believe she stated that she had been
here before and that she had two petitions that had been filed
in other cases. Mrs. Alexander does not have a petition against
this particular piece of property that I'm aware of, or if she
has it has not been filed. Now everybody has been nice enought
to say we have done our homework and maybe we have. Here are the
petitions that Mrs. Alexander is talk_.j about, they are directed
solely to the projects involved, and not this project, that we
have no objectors whatsoever within the 375 ft. , we are not
only talking about an economic hardship, we are at the end of
a one way street with an irregular shaped type piece of property.
We have a limited ingress and egress, and consequently you have
to figure and plan your building accordingly. I am not quite sure
I understood Mrs. Alexander to indicate if I am wrong, then I
misunderstood her, something to the effect that Mr. Silverman
was the only one in the Planning Board, that either understood
her, that it was in his district and took time to examine this
property. I can't believe that to be so, because I believe that
you have one of the finest Planning Boards in this State, and I
believe that all members of the Planning Board, they take their
time to look at everything that comes before them and not just
a member that whose's district it is supposed to be in, to make
the motion. I believe that the Planning Board knew exactly what
they were doing when they voted approval on this property. Mr.
Hollo would like to further briefly respond, I can only conclude
my presentation by saying that we are only asking for a small
variance from 2.1 to 2.36. We are giving profuse landscaping.
We are trying to restore this property as much as possible to
what was there before somebody scarified it. It is a naked piece
of property. We didn't do that. We want to build a beautiful
project there, and I think that the landscaping alone will justify
a bonus to be made. I think the Planning Board felt that way, I
hope that you feel that way, I will appreciate your consideration
and favorably upholding the recommendation of the Planning Bd.
Mr. Rollo will finally conclude. Thank you very much.
2/8/73
20
•
Mr. Tibor Hollo: Illustrious Board, I would like to just
point out a couple of items. I must say before I state those
items that it is really a pleasure to be confronted for once
by a lovely lady, I do have to take a couple of exception to
what she has said. I think it is very proper, that for the record
this should be properly established. One Item, ---three items I
really had, one was she was saying that I am asking for 18%
more than I could get. That is not so, even according to the
statement of Mr. Acton, I am asking from 2.1 to 2.36 which is
a 14.8 percentage point , so I'd like to have that straight..
A couple other items, I would like to make it to your honorable
Board, will know that Mrs. Alexander really appeared for herself
and nobody else in this case. I took the trouble, as she as told
you to do my homework. I have called on the list, that is a
matter of public record. People answer m'. that they don't know
anything about my project. Then I had a visit with a Mr. & Mrs.
Weintraub existing on this petition, and they said they had
absolutely no objections to my project. They only objected to
a project to be built on Brickell and 19 or 20 Street. So in
their name I can say to you that they are absolutely are not
a part of this petition, as far as I am concerneC, they were
as far as that particular petition was concerned. Then, there
is one more item that I would like to come to the defense of the
City, I think its system is proper and good, and I want to uphold
it every way. You have a very fine Planning Board. I believe that
the dir'ctions are always considerate. I also would liko to say
to Mrs. Alexander, acknowledge that Mr. Silverman. the -:ole
objector to my project on the Planning Board made the following
statement which is a matter of record. I object because I object
to any of the projects on Brickell Avenue. That was his only
statement, Mrs. Alexander. I do appeal to your Board to grant
us this one variance item as it was granted to us by all but
one of the Planning Board. I thank you.
Mrs. Alexander: May I respond? I am sorry I made the mistake
about the 18%, as versus 14.8. I did get these figure:: from the
Planning Department, so it seemsa small moment, it is 4%. It still
amounts to two stories and approximately 17 or 18 apartments and
I appreciate the flattery Mr. Rollo, I say the same for. you. You
have been most polite and most complimentary. The name that you
brought up are all well and good, and every one of these, and I
have two of them, there was a general statement which said for
example, these requested changes in zoning affecting the area
will definitely set a pattern which will eventually destroy the
character in one of the most beautiful streets, and in the other
one I have here, the significance of the granting of the variance
in this particular case is not limited to the property here involved.
These were inserted for the particular purpose of bringing us up-
to-date. It may very well be that Mr & Mrs. Weintraub do not ob-
ject to anything that you do Mr. Hullo, but Mrs. Calhoun, Mrs.
Pecetti, the late Dr. Pecetti, Dr. Alexander, Mr. & Mrs. Cy Ames,
Mrs. Barkin, these are all people that I contacted personally
and I have spoken for in the past are all in objection to any
variance that go against the recommendations of the Planning
Dept. and so I rest on that little matter. There are many other
names that I don't need to read into the record, and I did not
mention the name of the Planning Board member who made the recom-
mendation at all, but I quote from him, since the name was brought
and read into the record, the exact statement,
"I am not going to make a speech. I have been on the Board
over seven years. Mr. Hollo, Mr. Watson you all know how I
feel about this area, and I am not going to make a big thing
out of it. I do say this for the record, that the floor area
ratio controls the amount of bulk thatis put on the property.
21
2/8/73
i •
The variance request in simplified language means they
watt to put 18% more building this property than is
permitted. I am opposed to the variance as I have been
to others in this area, I move to deny." And I second
Mr. Silverman 's opinion. Thank you.
Mr. Hollo: If I just make one more statement, ---
Mrs. Alexander: I might add that I made no reference
about the Planning Board's efficiency, effectiveness or other-
wise, and I don't appreciate being put in the position as to
have to defend myself on that score. I simply made a statement
that one member of the PlannilaBoard, in whose district this
was assigned recommended against.
Mr. Hollo:---yes, and he did move the motion because
of the insight. and foresight and grave thoughts of the Planning
Board, nobody seconded that motion, --passed, all in favor except
one. Thank you.
Mr. Watson: We've got no objectors except Alexander
and all of her people, whoever she says she represents, lives
outside the area prescribed. We aretrying to do something nice
for the City as well as ourselves. We are trying to heavily land-
scape something that we don't have to do. You've heard Mr. Hollo
say he can put up the same size building, the same number of
units if he does it another way, but it won't look nice. It is
a small thing we are asking for, at lease as far as I am concerned.
I'd appreciate this Board upholding the recommendation of the
7 to 1 vote of the Planning Board, that studied this property.
Thank you.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a motion?
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a questi2n. Mr. Acton, you heard
some comments and I'd like for you to comment on particularly.
They made reference to the fact that on the first floor, instead
of using the first floor as we have seen some of the buildings
have done, instead of using it for parking they are putting in
useful things for the tenants of the building from a billiard
room to sauna bath, things of this nature, and the other thing
that I heard was that instead of having open exposed cat walks,
or walkways, that they are going to enclose them, and finally
I would like you to address yourself to the final statement
they made, and that is that they can put the same number of units
on this piece of property in a different fashion, not as nice
as what they are proposing. I would like to hear from you on
those three items, also keeping in mind I remember Mr. Pancoast
who was here in a recent hearing, -and he made mention of the
fact that the trend today by all architects is to have in your
buildings a little bit higher but greater things on the ground
area which is open area more green area and things of that
nature, and if you will address yourself to that I would like
to hear your comments.
Mr. Acton: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, Mr.
Rollo has accomodated quite a bit of his parking in underground
structure, part of which is landscaped in the top, but you must
realize that we are still speaking about a concrete structure,
very similar to the situation that the Planning Department and
Urban Dev. Review Board faced with the 1901 Project, our feeling
there was that it is in the best interest of -the Brickell area
to provide as much landscaped ground -level open space as possible.
2/8/73
22
s •
Coes that answer your question No. 1, Mr.
Mr. Plummer: What I'm asking George, is this. Let's
say they didn't add on the first floor the amenities they
had proposed and they didn't enclose the walkways. Is the
statement that I think I understood correct, they wouldn't
then have to ask for a variance? That they didn't have to
take that area in to consideration. In other words, they
use the bottom floor for parking instead of putting in these
other amenities and they didn't enclose the cat -walks, the
walkways.
Mr. Acton:They still have to provide the required
amount of parking. What I'm saying is,it is provided in a •
concrete parking structure. It goes down. They would still
have to provide some type of treatment just for the amenities
of the apartment, on top of this concrete structure.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, what you are saying is those
thingswould not compensate, ---
Mr. Acton: Absolutely not, ---
Mr. Plummer:--- for the variance, --
Mr. Acton: No. Because it is the same situation we faced
in the 1901 project, and quite obviously it is to the advantage
of any developer to build ahandsome structure. I don't know if this
is going to be rented or what, nevertheless if you put, as the
applicant has described 'cat walks' on the outside of the building
he will not be able command the type of prestige tenant we are
trying to attract in promoting the Brickell Area. Perhaps he could
do this, I don't know, but it is not a real subject for zoning
to consider, the design of the structure itself. We are concerned
with only what is allowed on the zoning ordinance, theoemount of
bulk that is considered proper in relationship to the property,
and the surrounding properties, and as your last statement, which
you referred to Lester Pancoast saying that architects are trying
to provide structures which are tall and thin, quite true. In this
particular case it amounts to two floors of additional bulk, and
we don't believe that the additional bulk is warranted in spite of
all the other factors we have to consider under the R-5A Brickell
ordinance, and especially since we are trying to provide some basis
for granting ordinances in the Brickell area. What I've said is that
if you grant a variance like this it will destroy the basis we have
been so vigorously trying to establish through the use of the
Urban Dev. Review Bd. and through our Planned Area Dev. ordinance.
Mr. Bollo: If I may say so, Mr. Commissioner, if I may
state this item, Mr. Acton has answered you, but he cannot,
the crux of your question, the second question, if I can truly
build that building without any variance by just having open
walkways. I have the percentages on that. In order to do it,
I can have open walkways without any enclosures, same size
apartments, however, in size, so still entitled to the bonus
of 2.1 ,the actual 1. bonus,---.1 bonus. I only would need a
structure of 2.035, less than 2.1, without enclosed corridors
to produce but as Mr. Acton pointed out it wouldn't be such
a desirable building. I would like to build for the future, not
for the past.
Mr. Watson: One more thing, we are talking about a building
here as I understand it, what we are suppose to do today is to try
2/8/73
23
•
to leave as much of a view of the Bay as possible, and that is
the reason for the long, narrow structure. Mr. Dean can give you
the percentages on it if he will, but just exactly just what
George Acton said is what we want to do. We want to try to
attract ,---we want to build a beautiful building to attract
the type of tenants that he would like to have and that we
would like to have. If we had to, we could build the catwalks,
no variances whatsoever. George skimmed over the question that
Commissioner Plummer asked by talking about parking. We are not
asking for any parking variance. The only variance we are asking
for is a small floor area ratio variance.
Jim, could you tell us the percentages on that?
Mr. James Dean: Yes, I made my presentation before that
we have 289 ft of Dayfront,.and our building is 71 ft. in width,
so we are occupying less than 20% of the bayfront in the way of
building structure, the long, narrow, skinny building concept
that we discussed. We are loading it with landscaping that we
don't have to do. It will be in excess of ---,it will be the same
type, ---I studied some of the records of the pr.-,tiious hearing,
and it seemed like what they all wanted was,is a restoration of
the property along the Bay as much as it used to be, like it
used to be, with the same type of foliage that used to exist
there, and that's what we want to do.
Mayor Kennedy: George, let me ask you a question. If
this had come in under a P.A.D. which they can't because
they don't have enough space, is that right, is that the
reason they couldn't come in under P.A.D.?
Mr. Acton: That is one of the reasons, they have about
an acre and a half, and PAD starts at about three acres.
Mayor Kennedy: If this had come in under PAD would
you say that what they are doing is sufficient to give them
the difference, the bonus?
Mr. Acton: No. As I stated before, Mr. Mayor, is that
in the Forte Project, for instance, they were building an
apartment that was well over 1200 sq. ft. whereas this one is
around 900, was one of the bonuses we gave them, plus they
had dedicated to the City this 70ft. wide strip and landscaped
it, and we gave them credit, and which also boosted up their
floor area ratio. That is the reason I say, in this project
there is no way to give them bonuses, ---
Mayor Kennedy: ---don't you think by only building on
so much, how much is it, 20% of available bayfront that they
could build on? Don't you think that is a bonus? Would you
rather see them spread a building out, and take up all the
bayfront?
Mr. Acton: Absolutely not, you are quite correct, but
of course this again is controled by our set -backs.
Mayor Kennedy: Would rather for them to have exposed
parking, or would you rather have parking the way they have
it? Underground?
Mr. Acton: Certainly.
Mayor Kennedy: Are they giving you more shrubbery, and
more landscaping than they would be required to?
Mr. Acton: I believe so.
24
2/8/73
•
Mayor Kennedy: These are all points. I don't •understand
it, George. They are doing things to me to have only 20% of the
bay built on is a tremendous plus.
Mr. Acton: Mr. Mayor, what I'm saying is, that their •
setbacks through the ordinance require that they put the
building back , if they go up, they have to set it back..
Your points are well taken. but I'm saying there is no
way even in the Planned Area Dev. for us to give them a bonus,
for what they have done. The project is within the guidelines
of the Brickell ordinance as far as you know, of putting up
a nice structure, but it is not in terms of allowing the
applicant any bonus in terms of floor area ratio. He has
given the City actually none of the amenities we are looking
for in the Brickell area that would entitle them to that
type of bonus.
Mr. Hollo: That's true because there is no
highly awarding and motivating yet.
that , an ordinance isn't there yet, but
sophisticated City and we write this kind of ord
our book of ordinances, then we would have far in
of the bonuses that we would be accorded to, but
this. The only bonus we have right now is to do w
an apartment, but I want to be able
willing to build an apartment, a small apartment,
but much smaller, but g,.ve other amenities, there
other ordinances that give us such a bonus.
such
It isn't
more
nances into
excess area
we Oust don't
ith how big
one day,God
not 950 sq. ft.
shoull be
Mr. Plummer: George, '.et me ask you a real pointed
question. He has made the comment and I want you, even if
it is an educated guess,to say that he can build on this site
the same number of units, without the amenities. Now, is he
somewhat near right? Is it possible he could build 163 units
on this piece of property.
have
Mr. Acton: I really can't answer that Commissioner Plummer
without analyzing the project which we didn't do, but all I said
is it would not be obvious, ---
Mr. Plummer: ----I don't mean to interrupt you, ---
Mr. Acton: ----what I'm saying is obviously if you have
as he calls cat -walks on the outside of the building,---- what
it really means is instead of having a double corridor in the
middle of the building, you put the corridors on the outside
on both sides and cantilever them, and also is not counted as
floor area ratio, but quite obviously this would not work very
well in a structure of this height, plus the fact that, I doubt
if he would be able to attract the type of tenants he is after,
in this prestige area. But I can't answer your question without
analyzing the project.
Mr. Plummer: It is inconceivable to me that we are trying
to get people to do a better job. We are trying to get people
to put amenities in, but here we are saying to peop1 , okay,
we want you to do this, but we are not going to give you credit
for it. Now, somewhere along the line there has got to be a
happy meeting place, where when we say to people we want you
to do a better job, we've got to say to them in the same text
for doing this better job, we are going to do this for you.
2/8/73
25
• •
Now, I know we have to make rules, and we have to abide by them,
but still somewhere along the line, and what my thinking is right
now, if this man can build the same building with the same number
of units, in a barn, and I'll use that as the worst example,
wouldn't we be much better off to take the amenities and give
him the variance than to let him put up something that is not
conducive to the area: This is what my thinking is, I'd like
you to,
Mr. Acton:Zoning does not control the design of a building.
Mr. Plummer: No,money does.
Mr. Acton: That is the exact point, ---
Mr. Plummer: He is spending extra dollars, as I under-
stand it, correct me if I'm wrong, to cover up his garage,
and landscape it, he is spending extra dollars to put in more
landscaping, which he doesn't have to do, you've already admitted
he is going beyond what is required of him, and it comes to a
point where what is the happy meeting place. That s what I'm
trying to get at, and basically my question is, if he can put
up the same structure, with the same number of units, in a
form that would not be pleasing, wouldn't we be better off to
allow him to put up a structure that would be more pleasing to
the eye, with the same number of units, --that's what I'm trying
to get at.
Mr. Acton: Commissioner Plummer I'm trying to point out
that zoning does not control design of a particular project.
A11 we can do is control the amount of bulk on the property
and hopefully put in there various types of regula tions that
will insure that we get a certain amount of ground level
amenities in terms of open space. Now he has to build the
structure to accomodate the number of parking spaces required
under the ordinance. He couldn't do this with just ground level
parking but zoning just does not control design of this project
or any other project, and if the Commission is going.to be
swayed by the argument that I could build a monstrosity, not
just on this particular project but other projects that come
before you, then you are stepping outside the relm of zoning
ordinances, because we cannot control or dictate to any particular
applicant or architect how he designs his project. A11 I'm saying
is it is to the advantage of a developer to design a project which
is handsome, which will attract the type of tenants that we are
beginning to get in the Brickell area.
Mr. Plummer: I understand we can't dictate to him, but
surely we can encourage for better amenities, and that's the
way I see it, and that's the way right now I am thinking, that
it seems to me we'd be better off to encourage, if that's the
word, rather than to dictate, encourage people to do better
projects, to do better things for the area, and doesn't seem
like to me, from what you are saying that we are encouraging
them. We are saying, fine, we are going to hold to the law, do
what you want. You know, hopefully you will do something better,
but I don't know, ---
Mrs. Alexander: May I say a word rlease. As far as building
a better building according to Mr Acton, the market pace will
prevail, and its incumbent upon them to build the most attractive
building they can build to get the kind of tenants they want,
and if they were to build cat walks, they would not get the kind of
26
2/8/73
•
tenant that they are looking for with indoor corridors. That's
the first case, in the second place, they are talking about this
property being unusual. In a sense it is,unusual and different
from all the other bayfront property, because it doesn't sit
at the end of a one-way street, it sits at the end of a double
parkway. Its true there is no access, but also the fact that
it is at the end of a double parkway, which abuts and comes
around to the U-turn to S. Bayshore Dr. with a complete view of
the bay, that I don't see the necessity for bonuses for they
are not occupying more than the frontage on the bay because
.it is really of no moment, because nobody cp ing on Brickell
can see to the Bay from their property, because the Academy
of the Assumption is way in front of it on Brickell up to
15th. The only way you can see to the Bay if you drive, and
I carefully did drive down 15th Road, and' there the Bay is
right in front of you, as far as the width of the property
according to Mr. Acton, that dictated by the set back which
are necessary because of the height, a question of bulk, so
this has no particular merit, in terms of givi►:-'r them bonuses
because they haven't occupied that much more of `rye footage
in fron t of the Bay. It's really not germane to .he point.
Mr. Hollo: If I may Mr. Commissioner just answer very
briefly, I know its very late, but it boils down to the two
points that was raised by Mr. Acton the first time and the
second time by Mrs. Alexander, I would like to very briefly
point out and answer these two questions.
First he says you can'tdesign fairly effective buildings
such as has been designed in the height or in the bulk our
building with catwalks. The Robert King High's apartments,
they are this type of catwalks, they are attractive buildings,
I wo•zld also like to point out the second item that Mrs.
Alexander talked about. I wish you to know that this is the
Bayfront. According to prevailing ordinances, all we are re-
quired to do is set back 15 and 25 feet, and we could have
the building just blocking out the entire bay, but because
we were this encouragement that was provided
to go to sophisticated developers in our city, both by your
Board and by the Planning Board, we are going to comply with
these things, to give more iroluntarily, we want to give more,
we want to give something more beautiful, so we can produce
a good and proper city. I think that these two items I was
able properly to answer.
Mayor Kennedy: I think we have exhausted the arguments
on this. Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Maybe we are
hoping it will float away in the bay.
Canon Gibson: That would ease all of our problems. May
I ask, where in this feble thing, you people could get together
and agree upon, where, where, is there another meeting ground?
Mr. Rollo: Yes, we have originally presented, some of
larger prints,to turn our building, instead of paralleling
the bay which we felt was wrong ourselves,to a longitudenal
manner, perpendicular against the bay, just the thin side
showing to the bay, and having the rest of the exposure
toward the City, so it comes to completely, also we have had
a building designed where we had most of the lot covered with
parking, and we have decided that the great expense of putting
the parking underground, and put the parking in the place over
2/3 of it where its not visible, and converting those parcels
to beautification, to landscaping and to recreational facilities,
27
2/8/73
•
but to really come down to the wire, we have really cut every-
thing out, and that's where we are standing with.
Canon Gibson: You ought to tell them where you could
meet. You told me where you had come from. Now, Mrs. Alexander,
we go through this regularly. You and Mr. Acton heard what
this gentleman said, is there a meeting, is there
a place we can meet?
Unidentified person: I'm no expert.
Canon Gibson: I know, but, sometime you are more
powerful than experts, depending on what it is. Isn't there
a meeting ground?
Mr. Hollo: We were asked that before, and we had come
down, Reverend, to the point where it was perfectly and finally
acceptable to the Planning Board. We have given great concessions
from our original plan. These kind of variances, all through
our immediate neighbors were granted to, they ale all granted
in much higher floor area ratio than we are, and •.with one
important difference, their building covered the bay, in excess
of 60%,in its exposure, ours 20%. I think our's is a heck of
lot better than was already agreed upon, met by various groups
such as Mrs. Alexander's group, our coverage of the bay is far
in excess by multiples less than anybody who is building in
our immediate neighborhood.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Acton, which properties is Mr. Hollo
referring to? Which properties?
Mr. Acton: I can't,
Mrs. Gordon: Which properties are you referring to?
Mr. Hollo: For instance, the Forte property. Their
coverage of the bay as against the land of 400 ft. frontage
they have is approximately 60%.
Mr. Acton: The coverage of the bay, they are oriented in
the same direction your project is.
Mr. Hollo: Still, if you add up the footages, you will
find to be 60%.
Mr. Acton: No, sir, I beg to differ with you. That is
erroneous.
Mr. Rollo: Well, how many percentage, ---
Mr. Acton: Well, it is a forty story building.
Mr. Rollo: What would you say then?
Mr. Acton: I'd have to look that up.
Mr. Rollo: I'm sorry, --
Mr. Acton: I don't have the information, but I do know
its on a very small lot coverage.
Mr. Rollo: ----and other plans that I have seen in the
area.
Mr. Acton: I don't know what he is speaking of. There's
only been two large projects before the City Commission. One
28 2/8/73
1
was the 1901 project, ---the Forte project,
Mr. Hollo: I am referring to the other projects right
next to us, on Bayshore Drive.
Mr. Acton: They are only allowed to build 2.2.
Mr. Hollo: I am referring to their Bay coverage. The
big letter that says R-5, you have several buildings on it.
They are covering the bay in excess of 60%. I was very generous
to say 50%.
Mr. Acton: What I'm say is, that project had four
towers on it, in over a thousand feet.
Mr. Hollo: No, no, no„ just to the north of us,
Mr. Acton, immediately to the north of us, ----all that area, ---
Mrs. Alexander,: Point View North and Point Vis.w South
have a road in front of them so there is comple`c access to
the bay for the public. Its what amounts to a maiecon.
Mr. Acton: Speaking about the R-5a, which you are in,
Mr. Hollo: Right.
Mr. Acton: ----Mr. Hollo, and the R-5 in the Baypcilt area.
Mr. Watson: We are talking about bay coverage, George, what
difference does it make if�is R-5 or R-5A if it blocks out
somebody's view? I wish this Commission would consider some
of the pluses we have tried to do, that we really didn't have
to do in order to try to make this a beautiful type project
and make it a sound project. You can't get around the argument
of fact that you've admitted the landscaping is in excess, you
admitted you'd rather have .a building facing the way that is
does, and give so much open space and view, ----we've done every-
thing that we -can possibly do to try to increase the amenities,
that we can give. I don't know what else we could give, and so
consequently it would seem to me that the City would be interested
as the Mayor has pointed out, in trying to get a beautiful
type building built, and give consideration to these things.
Here we are, we have one lady that is an objector, she lives
outside of the area, and she is an astute lady, and I know
dedicated and I know she believes what she says. On the other
hand, when we've done everything that we could possibly do,
there is no bonuses as you all know in variances. There are
in P.A.D. I wish we had a P.A.-D., so we tried to do much more
than what we would have to do, and I've got to agree with lir.
Plummer, it would seem to me, the City should try to encourage
the type of building we have, when we can build it the same
height, the same number of units without any variance at all,
but it won't look as nice.
Canon Gibson: Mr. Acton,what this gentleman says kind of
troubles me. He says he could build the same building, the same
height without a variance, won't look as good, won't have the
same amenities---, how do we answer?
Mr. Acton: Commissioner Gibson, I thought I had answered
it before by stating that any zoning regulation does not control
the design of a project. This is what we can tell from various
court decisions illegal to dictate the type of design that a
particular developer can build. All we can do is control the bulk,
29
2/8/73
. •
and if he elects to go up high as this applicant has decided to
do, it means he has to have adequate set backs to insure that
you get proper light, proper ventilation around the building,
and I can't see how any zoning ordinance can regulate the
design of the structure itself, and as•to whether or not he
can build the same project with catwalks on the outside I
cannot answer that without sitting down and trying to analyzing
the project itself to see what he could do in the framework of
our zoning ordinance.
Canon Gibson: Would you be interested in analyzing that?
Mr. Acton: I'd be quite willing to do that i.f the Commission
desires. I also would have the review board take a look at it if
the Commission desires it.
Mr. Rollo: We have already analyzed it Mr. Commissioner.
Our architect perfectly analyzed it, has figures, ratios everything.
I can give it to you immediately.
Mr. Acton: The question, Mr. Hollo was, if the Planning
Department would like to analyze the project.
Mr. Hollo: The Planning Department just advised the
Commission that they cannot act upon the beauty of the project.
They can only act upon the bulk of the project. Our zoning
board men doesn't provide for beauty . That's what Mr. Acton
just told us. I hereby respectfully submit the figures have
with me. I can build on the site, 154,600 sq. ft. if I eliminate
my enclosed corridors and have open corridors just like the
Robert King High Towers. I can then complete the building with
153,700 sq. ft., I'll have 900 sq. ft. to spare. It won't be
as beautiful, I must say this. Maybe it will be, maybe we can
come up with a nice design. I don't know.
Mrs. Alexander: I'm not going to get into the mechanics
of the sq. footage and floor area ratio. I think I have to stick
with the ordinance and the recommendations of the Planning Dept.
and the ordinance as far as variances are concerned state simply
enough that any condition that existed at the time the property
was bought doesn't constitute a reason for a variance. They knew
what they zoning was. They knew what the sq. footage was when
they purchased the property. They have a kind of a bonus, because
a big chunk of that property is filled -in land. They didn't do it,
the previous owner did, so they have an extra piece of land, the
bulkhead that goes out beyond the existing bulkhead, and they
knew exactly how many feet they had, and they knew what the zoning
was. The zoning was R-5A. It cannot logically be compared to
the R-5 which is north of 15th Road, acm rding to the ordinance
the R-5A is 15th Road down to the Rickenbacker Causeway. It was
a very special ordinance, created to maintain the beauty of the
very special area of our City, and this is what we have to deal
with, and this is what they had, and this is what they could
do in terms of numbers, and they didn't qualify for P.A.D.
and that's all I can go on. This is what they have to deal
with.
Mr. Watson: A building is a. building, whether its R-5
or R-5A. If you shut off so much view from the bay, I don't
care what zoning classification you got in, that's the only
comparasion we've made between R-5 and R-5A. We have got the
best possible design in my opinion for this property. We have
given everything we can possibly do, and I'll say it one more
time, and Mr. Acton cannot not refute it, we can put on that
property today the same number of units, the same height, but
it wouldn't look nice. Now why in the world, ----what are we
30
2/8/73
arguing about. Doesn't the City want more landscaping than
is required, doesn't it want as much hidden parking as required,
doesn't it want as much a vieW of the bay as possible? That's
what I. think we ought to be working for, and that's what we did.
We cat down everything we can, and I'd appreciate your consideration
on upholding the recommendation of the 7 to 1 vote of the Planning
Board. Thank you.
Mrs. Alexander: May I say one more thing, a variance is
supposedly based on a legal hardship, and for this I think we
must defer to the, legal opinion, because the Planning
Department doesn't think a legal hardship exists. I, in my
own unknowledgeable way can see no lecal hardship, but I think
this is what the City Commission must determine with consultation
with their legal Department, because economics do not, according
to the variance constitute a legal hardship.
Mr. Watson: I'm not talking about economics, ---I'm talking
about the fact that just one thing is that we are down on the
end of a one-way street. We didn't make that street down there.
We have a limited ingress and egress with the property, the
size and shape you admitted is irrigular, and thc.t does con-
stitute a hardship. Let's do something for the City. I think
of this as a beautiful building. I think we have done all we
can do plus, and I don't know what more we can say.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Acton, in the regarements for PAL` is
it not true that there are certain conditions where property
which is under three areas can be considered in a 1.A.D.Dev:
Mr. Acton: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Bearing this in mind, wouldn't it not be
proper then for Urban Review Board to consider this piece
of property that falls in the area of the R-5A, an area where
we once move forward with the variance approach, we are lost
in my opinion. We are trying to up -grade and maintain, ----agreed
you have a beautiful design, that is not the point, the point
is precedent in this area, and that you can handle this under
P.A.D. It can be done. I heard you say you cannot, but you can.
Am I right, Mr. Acton?
Mr. Watson: We were informed Mrs. Gordon, when we started
this application, I made a direct question to I believe Mr. Simpson
or Mr. Davis, could this qualify under a PAD and I was told it
did not.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, it can, and he just confirmed it
because, the reason being that it is adjacent to a large
open space and although it doesn't have the three acre minimum,
it has other factors to qualify it for that.
Mr. Watson: Well, Mrs. Gordon it seems to me like that
the City, when we filed this, there's no question, -I think
Mr. Simpson will verify me, that we were informed that it wouldn't.
The problem is, have we got time? and time is money, and really
honest to goodness, if we went PAD, it looks like we've done more
than what anybody in PAD would ever require us to do, and we've
done everything possible7 I would like Mr. Simpson to
answer me, did, --
Mrs. Gordon: I don't want to put Mr. Simpson on the
spot, even i•f we didn't go PAD, I still believe the Urban Rev.
2/8/73
31
• •
Board, that we do have who are involved with this particular
area of Brickell ought to take a look at it.
Mr. Watson: Is somebody telling me, is the City Atty,
or somebody telling me this property qualifies for a PAD
application?
Mr. Rothstein: The only way I couldgaV'yes' or'no' answer
would be to spend the time reviewing this parcel with the
Planning Department in consideration of other parcels to
determine whether or not it is unique, all the provisions
that allow you to go PAD under 3A, and there is no way I
could tell you today.
Mr. Watson: In other words you can't tell me.
Mr. Rothstein:I can't tell you today because I haven't
reviewed that parcel for the provisions of under 3 acres.
Mr. Watson: Can we do this?
Mr. Hollo: Illustrious Board, we were told 'no',six
months ago we started planning this. We went through all
the administrative, 'we went to the building department,
they said you need a variance, we discussed this with the Planning
Department, we have been in front of the Planning Board, and
therefore decided that is a beautiful project, we like it, we
want it, they voted 7 to 1 to it. We are now in front of you,
we respectfully would like to have your answer,please.
Canon Gibson: Mr. !Mayor, I think, you are about
to give us that answer. Go ahead, I want to hear what you have
to say.
Mr. Watson: The only problem is, Canon, I don't own
that property, and it is not my money, and so, ---
Canon Gibson: You know what they say,? if you don't
want a lawyer, don't hire, ---that's one thing I discovered.
Mr. Watson: Well, this lawyer knows when to talk and
when to be quiet.
Canon Gibson: Well, you wouldn't help me, I help you
sometimes why don't you help me? I'd like for Mr. Rothseti.n to tell
us by the next meeting whether this qualifies, and also have
if it does, that the PAD people ought to come back here
at the next meeting with an answer and put all these people up.
I don't like the fact the money is held in abeyance. What they
told me, sounds good to me, but if it doesn't make sense,
then you know, ----
Mrs. Gordon. do you want the Urban Rev. Hoard
to take a look at these plans?
Mr: Hollo: Mr. Commissioner, if I may have the chance
to answer you, I appreciate what you are trying to do. I am
here with a project to you, many times,before I was here,
many times, I came with a resolve, with a God given resolve
to me, that if you and this Honorable Board feel that it is
a good project and pass it so forth, ---I'll build it, if not,
I won't , I'll do something else, here we're going to ask you,
just look into your heart, and if you feel like it's a good
project then give it to me now, if you feel not, then turn it
down.
32 2/8/73
Canon Gibson: Well, you don't give me much choice.
Mr. Hollo: I gave you all the choice God has given you.
an
Canon Gibson: That'snawful way to bargain with Father.
I have to bargain with a man from above, at times when I
bargain with Him preferably, you give me no choice.
I would rather you listen to me, ----I heard a voice.
voice.
Mr. Watson: I know what happens when you hear that
Canon Gibson: Right. I heard a voice.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask Mr. Hollo a question. Mr. Hollo
I think that you should have been able to read in what I saiu
Sir, ----
Mr. Hollo: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Now, I made my comments and T laid my
thoughts open to not only you but Mr. Acton, and I think
in all fairness, Mr. Hollo, this Board has been v..ry good
to you, you've been good to this Board. I think it has been
a two way street in many projects you have done, and I can't
see the harm of asking for a two -week delay, because we are
faced with two situations, one to the variance aspect of it,
but I made my point very clear, that I think you shoulc be
entitled, not just you, but any builder who wants to give
us greater amenities into a project, and I can see no harm
Sir, in a two -week delay, and let this thing go before the
Urabn Rev. Board and more particularly for J.L. Plummer.
I want to know the answer, can you build this, and I want
it from my Department. I have the greatest respect in the
world for Mr. Dean, but I want George Acton to answer the
one question for me also, that yes you can, or no you cannot
build this same building in a different manner, and I think
in all fairness to Mr. Hollo that you should go along with
this two -week deferment and not put this Commission on the
spot. I think the time we have taken here this morning indicates
Sir, that we are trying to help you, but we are also trying to
protect the City of which we are charged with to do, and I
personally Sir, think as Fr. Gibson says, If you force me into
c orner, you give me no alternative, so I think a two week delay
is reasonable.
Mr. Watson: Now, it is time for me to talk.
Canon Gibson:You wise attorney,
Mr. Watson: Mr. Plummer, in answer to your suggestion,
I •:ponder, and I think it ought to be done this way, I think
you mean it to be done this way, and I think Mrs. Gordon and
Canon Gibson would also want it to be donethis way. The first
thing that should be done is that the City Atty's office determine
whether or not under the existing ordinance this application
qualifies for P.A.D. If,it does, then, and only then, does it
go the route that P.A.D. goes, to the Urban Review Board, because
if it doesn't there's no provision under the ordinance to treat
it as a PAD, so let the City Atty make the determination whether
or it not it qualifies for P.A.D. if it is yes, let it go the
route of P.A.D. let the Urban Review Board review it and on either
circumstance put it on the agenda for the next meeting and I want
also to have Mr. Acton in the position to be able to answer that ques.
he isn't able to answer now, about what we could do with the property
2/8/73
33
•
without asking for any variance whatsoever. Is that reasonable?
Mrs. Gordon: No.
Mr. Watson: It's not? Okay, tell me about.it.
ask
Mrs. Gordon: We could as the Commission4for an opinion
from our Urban Review Board without a P.A.D. and this is what
at this point in time we are asking for, ---our Urban Rev. Board
opinion of your project.
Mr. Watson: Does the Urban Review Board, ----does it con-
sider projects outside of PAD?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, they can consider anything, am I right?
Mr. Watson: I've never heard of it, ----it is not in the
ordinance, Mrs. Gordon.
Mr. Rothstein: The Urban Review Board is Established in
two areas, the area No.1 where people want bonuses under the
Brickell Ave. procedure further down where we rezone and
provide it, and if somebody wants to come in for bonus or
extras he can do that, and the other way is by the FAD.
There is no provision in the Code as such for them to make
any study, however I don't see anything wrong with the Com-
mission asking them to look at something and you can't make
these people go to the Urban Review Board,
Mrs. Gordon: We are not making them,
Mr. Plummer:Mr. Rothstein,I remember sir, that when
the 1901 came before us here they claim they would not go
under the PAD ordinance since they had tried that route,
but this commission asked and was given the right to have
it reviewed by the Urban Rev. Board and come back with their
recommendations.
Mr. Rothstein: That's what I just said. I see nothing
wrong in this Commission asking for your own information pur-
poses to have that information given to us.
Mrs. Gordon: Just as we ask for information from the
Traffic Dept or any other department.
' s
Mr. Watson: In that application that you refer to, that
that property there was no question that it qualified for PAD.
In this property there is a question, not only is there a question,
when we paid our fee, filing fee, we were told by the City, this
is the only way we can go, and this is the only way we can go, ---
and this is the way we went. What would be wrong for us to let the
City Atty to make an opinion, or give you an opinion ,just as you
asked for, whether or not it qualifies for a PAD, and if it does
then come back and say so, and if it does, let it go to the Urban
Renewal Board.
Canon Gibson: Council, ---I think what we would do to save
some time and some anguish on the part of all of us, why don't
we carry out points 1 and 2, and also make 3, if for instance,
it does not qualify for A PAD we also take 3 as an advisory
thing for us so that on the 22nd we could be inteligent and
do something to help the people, one way or the other. I'd like
to offer that motion.
Mr. Hollo: Rev. Gibson, I accept that, you said one way
or the other.
34
2/8/73
•
Mr..iiollo: We come to a conclusion. Thank you.
Canon Gibson: That's the motion.
Mayor Kennedy: It has been moved by Canon Gibson, is there
a second?
Mr. Plummer: I seconded it.
Mayor Kennedy: Seconded by Mr. Plummer, call the roll.
Mrs. Gordon: Would I get a clarification on that motion
please?
Mr. Southern, City Clerk: I'd like a clarification on
it myself, I'm not quite sure,
Canon Gibson: A11 right, you state what, the things
you stated, because they made sense to me.
Mr. Watson: Number one, by the next meeting of the City
Commission, that the City Atty will prepare a formal legal
opinion as to whether or not this application qualifies for
a PAD, number two, as I understood you to say, is that even
though it may not qualify for a PAD, ---
Canon Gibson: should it not
Mr. Watson: ----whatever Review Board it is, to review this
application and make a recommendation and Number three is, Mr.
Acton should be in the position to answer the question as to
whether or not we can build the same size structure, the same
number of units, without giving the bonuses that, ---the amenities
that we are asking for, do the same thing without asking for
any variances whatsoever, ---we are making record here, and I
want to state for the record that, should the property not
qualify for the PAD, I want, ---I don't waive any rights nor
admit that the,what is your Review Board? whatever it might be
has any authority whatsoever to review this application, nor'
do I admit that this Board could accept or reject any such
application, that's made solely for the purpose of the record.
Canon Gibson: We'll deal with that. My intent is it is
an advisory thing for us.
want
Mrs. Gordon: I would not,the motion as stated, I would
substitute another motion, and the motion I would substitute would
be a deferment until the next meeting with a recommendation to this
Commission of the Urban Rev. Board of this project. I don't believe
before us the other issues you stated, with all due respect to you
Mr. Watson are pertinent, and I would substitute that motion.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a second on the substitute motion?
Mr. Plummer: It doesn't answer the one question I am looking
for, and the one question I am looking for stated quite frankly.
I want to know that this man can, yes or no, build this project
in a different manner, the same building and the same number of
units without the variances, that is one question that hinges
my vote.
Mr. Watson: I thought I made it the way you want it.
Canon Gibson: We have no objection to your motion --
Mrs. Gordon: I would include you portion of it in the
substitute motion with deletion of the portions referring to the
35 2/8/73
legal opinion, because I don't think it is pertinent to the
deferal. The number one portion of your request, I would delete
that from the motion. I don't think it is pertinent.
Mr. Plummer: You don't think the legal opinion is pertinent?
Mrs. Gordon: No, it isn't pertinent to the delay or our
decision on the Urban Review Board giving us their recommendations.
I believe we are entitled, and we can ask for the Urban Review
Board's opinion on any application that comes before us, ---if
it's inthe Brickell area more particularly.
Canon Gibson: They are doing what you say, Rose, with
the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: ---establishing whether or not this could
or could not be in a PAD and whether or not it could or could
not be referred to the Urban Review Board,
Canon Gibson: No, no, no,that is not what he's saying, ---
you are saying that we want a legal opinion, I want a legal
opinion-Tif these people have a right to go to tL:- Urban Rev. Bd.
let them go. They should have gone. We ought to establish that
once and for all, and the second thing is, we ought to know
whether or not he could build the same building,without any
amenities given on their part to us.
Mr. Rothstein:I've already ruled that you can as}: the
Urban Rev. Board to give you their opinion.
Mrs. Gordon: We can delete that from the motion.
Mr. Rothstein: That was not in the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, it was.
Mr. Rothstein: What the motion was, as I recall it, was
No.1, Legal opinion as to PAD, No. 2 Directing the Urban Review
Board to review it for next meeting, and No. 3 to answer Mr.
Plummer's question, that's the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: The portion that I'm deleting is, the legal
clarification of whether they should or shouldn't or would or
wouldn't be able to go under PAD, because they are not considering
going under PAD at this time. They are asking us to make a determin-
ation on a variance, and I':-: saying the determination on this var-
iance is predicated in my thinking upon the opinion of the Urban
Rev. Board, end that'u why I asked for that to be included and
and the other dr' eted.
Mr. "..:son: I thought what you all talking about is you
wanted find out if we could go under PAD or not.
«:s. Gordon: At this point in time, since you have told us
than. .x months ago you determined that you were not permitted,
tti. . _° ' s no legal opinion needed at this point in time, as to
,.other you can go or should go.
Mr. Watson: Fine. Then as I understand it the City conceedes
that we can't go under PAD, is that what you are saying.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm not conceeding anything. I'm simply saying
in the motion, I prefer to delete the legal opinion, portion of the
motion.
2/8/73
36
Canon Gibson: Let me say why I made the motion. If it ;s
determined right now that this cannot be done in the future, we
know this. If it is, as long as it hands fire, it will
always come up. We can do no harm by getting a legal opinion
if we get the Review Board to go through, an all this other
business, we could still take affirmative action next week.
This is all we are saying , and I still want ':co know.
Mr. City Atty, I have another thought, a brainstorm, supiose
we do this in this fashion and that is, we ask for a leaal
opinion. I want a commitment out of you. I'm your friend you know.
You aren't going to take us to Court later on because he cave
us an opinion in saying yes or no, are you? I want a ^onu itment,
otherwise you know you leave me in mid -ocean, you herd what the
man said about going out in the ocean hoping it is going to sub-
side that way?
Mr. Watson:I can't say whether or not that anything would
be a subject matter or court action or isn't, I couldn't say that,
that is not for me to say, if calling for a legal opinion of the
City Attorney justifies a situation where you are going to deny
something because somebody would go to court ovtr whether or not
that he was at issue at the City Attorney, I don t think that's
right. The City Attorney may issue an opinion, I might think its
wrong, he probably is right, but maybe he's not. I don't know.I
may agree with the City Attorney, but I don't think it would be
fair to ask or predicate it, --a request for a legal opinion on
whether on not we go to court over a zoning matter.
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Gibson, may I say this, from an
administrative point of view, there is no doubt in my opinion
that Mr. Simpson was correct in the position that he took.
Number two,because he does not have, he can't make that kind •
of legal interpretation, as to uniqueness, no. 2 so far as they
are going to court because of what Mr. Simpson said they at the
time originally from a court point of view, could have had other
avenues to approach,.iher by requesting an opinion, or by taking
an action so I don to fiie'''City is in any worse position by giving
an opinion because now they raise the question and the issue is
being requested for an opinion by this Commission, so what I'm
saying is, their position can't be any better by whether we give
an opinion or not.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a second on the substitute motion?
The Chair receives no second on the substitute motion. There is
a motion on the floor with a second, call the roll.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by
Canon Gibson, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-93
A RESOLUTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION
OF FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES FOR VARIANCE ON
LOTS 12,14,15, 16 AND SE'LY 20' LOT 13,GIFFORD
AND HIGHLEYMAN'S SUB AND REQUESTING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO RENDER A LEGAL OPINION WHETHER
THIS APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA TO BE
CONSIDERED UNDER P.A.D.; REQUESTING THE URBAN
REVIEW BOARD TO REVIEW THIS APPLICATION EVEN
THOUGH IT MAY BE DETERMINED THAT IT DOES NOT
37
2/8/73
•
QUALIFY UNDER r.A.D: DIR7-7:Nr 71' 7.1.tiNING
DEPARTMENT TD RESEARCH TFF ''.ADE BY
THE APPLICANT THAT A STR--7-vr -1- SAME
OVERALL SIZE AN) DWELLDWETi t T SCI1E
OF THE AMEN:TI:,:r coL5.n. RE-
QUESTING A VARIANCE AND ;,.1 !PE -
GOING R?:poRTs AN n REVIEW AC.N :CMPLET7T)
ANT PRESENTEL TO THE CITY COMMs:(-)N AT
MEETING ON FEWARY 22, 1973 FOR FINAL ::;:7:A-
MINATION
(Here follows body of reeolution, omitted here
nd on file in the City Clerk's office.)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolut;cn
was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES:
Plummer, Reboso. Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. WEL: NDTIf'..
38
2/8/73
•
10, ORD.INANCE AMENDMENT COR ECTION OE_
YEARLY CORRECTIONS AND OMMISSIONS
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 6871,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO PROVIDE FOR
CERTAIN CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS ON THE ZONING
DISTRICT MAP AND/OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN
THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE;
DECLARING T}iIS 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 Mr. Plummer and seconded by Mis. Gordon 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 Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon,
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. 8136.
11, ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - N. E. 7TH COURT SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-94
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF
JOE REINERTSON EQUIPMENT CO., FOR THE N. E.
7 COURT SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION- 1972 AT A
TOTAL COST OF $16 731.00 AND AUTHORIZING A
FINAL PAYMENT OF S2,212.20
(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: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer
and Mr. Reboso. ABSENT: Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy.
NOES: None
39
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
12, ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK- CENTRAL DRAINGAGE PROJECT E-25
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-95
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF
J. P. EQUIPMENT INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
CENTRAL DRAINAGE PROJECT E-25 AT A TOTAL COST
OF $193,474.50; ASSESSING $1,200 AS LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES FOR 15 DAYS OVERRUN OF CONTRACT TIME;
AND AUTHORIZING, AFTER ALL ADJUSTMENTS, A FINAL
PAYMENT OF $34,044.15
(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 and Mrs. Gordon. ABSENT: Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy.
NOES: None.
13, ORDERING RESOLUTION- VIRGINIA GROVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4358
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-96
A RESOLUTION ORDERING VIRGINIA GROVE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT H-4358 AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY
AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE
FOR A PORTION OF THE COST THEREOF AS VIRGINIA
GROVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4358; AND
ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $3,000 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)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Plummer,
Mr. Reboso, and Mrs. Gordon. ABSENT: Reverend Gibson and Mayor
Kennedy. NOES: None
40
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
14, 808iNg RESOLUTION- LE JEUNE GARDENS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4353
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-97
ORDERING RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 43179
ENTITLED " A RESOLUTION ORDERING LE JEUNE GARDENS
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4353; DESIGNATING PROPERTY
AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR
A PORTION OF THE COST THEREOF AS LEJEUNE GARDENS
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4353; AND ALLOCATING
THE SUM OF $1,000.00 TO COVER THE PRELIMINARY COSTS
BY INCLUDING N. W. 45TH AVENUE FROM N. W. 7 STREET
TO COMFORT CANAL AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTIES
AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR
A PORTION OF THE COST THEREOF AS ADDITIONAL LOTS
AND PARCELS IN LE JEUNE GARDENS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT H-4353
(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 and Mrs. Gordon. ABSENT: Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy
•
15, ACCEPT PLAT - NL C. SUBDIVISION
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-98
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED M. C.
SUBDIVISION, 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. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Reboso and Mrs. Gordon. ABSENT: Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy.
41
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
16, ACCEPT PLAT - NAPOLI PROPERTIES
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-99
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED
NAPOLI PROPERTIES, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDIC-
ATIONS 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: Mes.rs.
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs Gordon. ABSENT: Reverend Gibson F, Mayor Kennedy.
Reverend Gibson re-entered the meeting at this time.
17, POLICE I.D. TECHNICIANS -REQUEST CITY NOT TO APPEAL CIRCUIT
COURT DECISION
Mr. Musial: I am Joseph Musial representing the Identification
Technicians and we already argued this matter before the Court
and the Circuit Court has ruled and we are merely here to ask
this body not to appeal it further. This thing has been in lit-
igation now for more than 3 years and in the interest of time
and additional expense, we are asking t.1is body to not appeal it
any further.
Mrs. Gordon: Anyone else that wishes to speak on this item?
Mr. Paulk: In representing the City of Miami Retirement Board
and as chairman of the retirement board, the issue did come
before the retirement board. I believe it was in the year 1972
in the form of a request for the I.D. Record Technician personnel
to be considered to join the particular section of the retirement
section which police and fire officers are in and the request was
denied and they then proceeded through the Courts. I can only
tell you that the retirement board was not willing to entertain
such action. I not aware as to whether or not they prevailed upon
the Commission to seek acturial studies and various other things
to accomodate due consideration by the Commission or the retirement
board in the furtherance of this request, but, I would stand before
you now in representation of the retirement board to let you know
we would be in opposition to this by virtue of the fact that we
considered it when they first entertained the thought in opposing
it.
Mr. Printz: I am a member of the system and in that capacity only
appearing here this morning. I also would concur with Mr. Paulk's
sentiments and his statements and the "fact that I think this
Commission has acted in the past with regard to changing or amending
ordinances or enacting new ordinances pertaining to the pension
system, and the plan and the first thing is to get an actuarial
study to see the feasability as to what impact it might have on the
system and the plan and of course I don't think the Court has
42 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
taken this into consideration. I think the Court's at times act
on emotion in the sense that they really don't know what is
involved as far as being a member of the city government and a
member of the pension system, consequently, as an individual member
of the system, I would also go on record now in asking this
Commission to appeal this decision by the Circuit Court and if
in the interim period, have an actuarial study conducted to see
the feasibility as to whether or not these people, if it is
feasible or not for them to become members of this particular
system in the Police and Fire pension and it might be determined
that they are or it is feasible and consequently there might not
be a pursuit, need for pursuance of the court matter at that time
but until such study is made, I think we are acting prematurely
and I would ask this Commission, a,s a member to persue it into
litigation.
Mr. Musial: I would like to correct Mr. Paulk's statement that
this matter came before the pension board in 1972. It was 1969,
in fact we went before the pension board before we filed the
suit. It was 1969. as far as all of these arguments that Sgt.
Printz has forwarded. All of these arguments were made before
the Court. The Court has made its ruling, we didn't come here
to argue the merits of the pros or cons of whether we should or
shouldn't be allowed to participate in Plan We have already
made those arguments before the Court, the Court has made its
ruling, we are merely asking you this body not to extend it
further by further litigation causing difficulty and time for all
concerned , thankyou.
Mr. Rothstein: While in many circumstances such as the citizenship
matter in the District Court of Appeals which I gave a memo to you,
and I will discuss it, it might not be appropriate to take appeal,
in this case it is appropriate to take t"ie appeal because we often
have a situation where employees are involved where at the trial
court level, we are not successful but our record on the appeal
where the employees are involved, are that our success it up at
the appellate level. It would have to be from my point of vew,
a very good benefit to the City, equitable benefit for me not to
take the appeal. I find no benefit to the City by not taking the
appeal and I feel very strongly that we will succeed in the appeal.
My recommendation is to take the appeal because there is no reason
not to.
Rev. Gibson: These men work for the City?
Mr. Rothstein: These men are I.D.Technicians.
Rev. Gibson: Do they work for the City?
Mr. Rothstein: Yes Sir, they were the plaintiffs in a similar case
that asked them to be treated exactly as policemen and they lost that
case and they lost that case. This case is very similar. They once
again say they wanted to be treated as policemen and under the
regulations and under the regulations and under the rules of the city
they are not entitled. to be.
Rev. Gibson: Are they under a pension system?
Mr. Rothstein: Yes, they are under one pension system but they
want to move into the Police and Fire system.
Rev. Gibson: Why?
Mr. Rothstein: Because it gives them greater benefits. They
can retire at 50 instead of 55. They get 211% instead of 2% in
their benefits. Mr. Paulk can probably give you greater details
of it than I can. If you will explain the economic benefits and why
they are-
43
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Paulk: Essentially the retirement system in set up in three
different categories and there are two additional that are being
phasedout. Group I are male employees, Group II are female emp-
loyees and Group III are Police and Fire regardless of their sex.
Over the years Police Officers and Firefighters have been in Group
I1I and the other male employees are in Group I. There have been
charges that have been gradually phased into the retirement system
by ordinance.amendment and it rather complicates the matter but
police officers and firefighters prevailed upon the Commission in
the early 60s and finally in 1963 . Plan III was amended in a
subdivision form and each of these are really subdivided, you have
1-Al, lA and AB and #3A and.#A-1 and 3A-2 and 3B and 3B-1. These
are all separate segments of Group III and each one has different
characteristics with regard to what benefits are permitted.
3A-2 is the greater beneficial value to all police and firefighters
within the retirement system and it is the retirement at age .50
and perhaps you will recall what Mr. Rothstein was relating to
you, there was an adjustment last year changing from 2% each year
to 21%. I don't think that's the question they are concerned
with. Quite naturally that is related to it. They are concerned
with early retirement which police and firefighters are eligible
for in this particular plan and this is what .they are seeking
naturally. It would change the benefit from 2 to 21/2o for them if
they are successful in being incorporated in Gr-up 3 so all of
these people are members of the retirement syste:-!. Their benefit
is computed on the basis of 2% for each year and their minimum
retirement age is 55 if they happen to be in that particular
segment of Group I. Some of them may still he in the 60 year
retirement. I don't know this. This would have been their choice
based on a change that was offered some number of years ago when
they were given the opportunity to reduce from 60 on (,1wn to 55.
The question very simple before you now, is should they be included
it . the 50 year retirement and if they should, should other people
also be included? They are asking that you not appeal the Court
decision so that the Court's decision will stand and it will
naturally put them into Group 3. We are simply saying to you that
we considered this and we suggest that it not be done this way.
If you want to consider it not only forthese people, then consider
it for all people and if its practical to retire I.D.Technicians
at age S0, there may be other employees as well.
Mr. Rothstein: One of the other factors is very significant
actuarily wise and money wise is that the Police and Fire by
action of this committee and by the state legislative act, the
police and fire have a presumption of a heart condition being
job related if they have a heart attack and this Commission has
turned down that similar circumstance, similar rule, for all other
general employees and when you figure out actuarily, the
increase of potential risk because of that presumption can affect
the retirement system, which can affect what every other employee
in that police and fire system could get and also the point of the
age 50 in the police and fire circumstance was because of the
stress and strain of the hazard of the occupation and in a
previous court ruling, the I.D. people were found to be not in that
circumstance and not to have that stress and strain.
Rev. Gibson: Have they ever done this before?
Have you ever put a person in the category of police and firemen
who was not a policeman or fireman?
Mr. Paulk: No Sir, no one was entered into that, there are some
exceptions of people who were police officers or firefighters and
I at the present time am one of those exceptions by virtue of the
fact of having been hired as a firefighter, I am in class ##3, group 3,
but because of the appointment as Executive Secretary, I still
remain there.
Rev. Gibson: I follow, let me communicate. Have you ever taken
into the same category as fire and policemen on a retirement basis
anybody who other than a person who has been a policeman or fireman?
44 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr.Paulk: Not to my knowledge.
Rev. Gibson: Has anybody shared the benefits of the retirement
system? Who has not been a policeman or fireman? Think- well.
Mr. Paulk: I am and as far as sharing the retirement benefits,
yes, all of the people who belong to the retirement system share
the benefits but the benefits are not the same for each person,
they are different within the various groups and within the
various segments of the specific groups.
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask it another way. 1 am talking about the
specific category that these gentlemen and ladies, I guess, are
talking about. Has that ever been done?
Mr. Printz: I think Reverend Gibson, you might be relating back
to an individual by the name of Bob Balmer. I don't know the
particular involved with Mr. Balmer being a member of the pension,
system, our pension system, but I think is what primarily the case
of the I.D.Technicians suit was about. I am not familiar with the
entire contents of the suit. I was unaware of the litigation to
be very honest with you but I think to use this as a precedent of
one individual who is no longer with the City, to allow additional
people in without a feasability study, I think ,ruly is not wise,
in the sense that there are various ramification: such as (1) In
hiring. A police Officer can be in -hired years 21 to 35 and an
I.D.Technician, there is no limit on an age. - With the maximum age,
there is none. For example: Police we have 50 year retirement,
60 year mandatory retirement. An I.D.Technician could be hired -in
at 59 years old and be compelled by ordinance to leave the following
year. He is not going to have a pension. He is not going to share
any great wealth being only a city employee for one year.
(2) As Mr. Rothstein pointed out, a lot of time has been given and
a lot of energy expended and finances expended with regards to the
heart bill that the Police and Fire enjoy and this was based upon a
feasability study of some years ago for firemen in particular and
of recent nature of policemen in particular because of the fact that
we have a job that is more hazardous and should since it has more.
strain to it, we should have a heart bill. The General Employees
have appeared before this Commission and have been thus far refused
because they have not been able to document or substantiate the
reasons for them to have the same thing and consequently to involve
additional people of all ages from 21 through, I don't imagine,
the eldest or oldest of the I.D., but they could be 55, to involve
them in something without a study, to determine the impact, would
be unwise. Over the yaws, we the police and fire have paidan
additional 1% higherinto the pension system than the counterpart
of the other employees, so there are many remifications of the
pension ordinances. It is not a cut and dried. Has there been
someone in it and did that individual gain benefit? I am sure that
Mr. Musial would substantiate the fact that there has been.
I won't argue this point. I don't intent to argue it but my infor-
mation, I mean my involvement is that there are additional people
who will be involved by court order. A judge who set down and
order and said that they shall be taken into a system that is
financed by the City and by in part the employees of which we
have paid our fair share, to include someone else merely because
of a court order, to say to do so, without appealing this order
and to see whether or not all the circumstance and all the facts
have been presented, I think would be a situation of just saying,
why don't we take everyone? Why have a system and a plan? As
we have had over the years of which there is in fact, a differ-
entiation between the two.
Rev. Gibson: Two questions. What would happen if you go up on
appeal and the appellate court said do it? Where are we at that
point?
45
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
• •
Mr. Printz: My suggestion as I first presented, was this, that
if you go on appeal and in the interim period between now and then,
is have an actuarial study performed to come back with the information
that is pertinent to, not only the I.D.Tenhnicians, but possibly
everyone. It would be a. godsend if all the employees of the city
could enjoy the same benefit if we all had 50 year retirement,
that if we all had a heart bill, that if we all were the same but
we are not and its been because of ordinances and because of
particular things that we have not been and that we aren't today
so I would suggest a feasability study and an actuarial report
indicating that possibly, not only coupled with the fact that they
could be involved in the pension, police and fire pension but that
that actuary might come back and recommend and suggest strongly
that the in -hiring age be changed or the maximum age be changed
to fit into the pattern of what benefits that you the Commission
have afforded us so far. It might be that they would fit in like
a hand in a glove and not just say, well the Court said, they
shall be members without really looking into all those ramifications.
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask the other thing. Why if this condition
existed, why haven't you, the police and fire and you Mr. Paulk,
why haven't you seen fit to make this investigation before now?
Let me tell you why I asked that question. I think that everybody
who works for the city ought to enjoy the beneiits of what the
maximum benefits, maximum reasonable benefits th,t the City can
afford and accord. Always I think it is the responsibility of
government to take affirmative action and don't sit around and
talk about what they can't do. Sidney Aronovitz taught me something
I will never forget. He said, there is a will there is a way.
I like to see people take the positive approach and not the
negative approach and in that direction, I am troubled t..at you
did it for one man and at that point, you should have started the
process brother Paulk to look at what does this do for the others.
I am disturbed and distressed that we were not concerned about
the other employees of the city who may not have been quite as vocal.
I thought I would put all these questions on the table.
Mr. Printz: Reverend, at that particular time because this goes
back several years ago, at that particular time, there was a
differentiation between police identification technicians or
personnel and police officers based on the fact of the qualifications
of one. There is more stringent qualifications to become a police
officer than there are an I.D. technician even though their arguments
are that we should be the same, the same pay classifications, their
argument, possibly good argument, but the fact still remains that by
the city's own qualifications, there is a difference between the
two of us. We have to go a step further and bring into existence
the court orders of the jail personnel that also sued to become
interchangable with the police department in various other benefits
that we enjoyed as police officers and the jail personnel did not.
They sued and this was relative to the 1% fund that the police
officers get from the state and the courts construedthat since the
jail personnel carried guns, had a power of arrest and identification
cards indicating they were officers and could arrest people, that
they were to be enjoying the same priveleges, rights and benefits
as we did in the 1% fund. It cost the city a lot of time and money
and consequently and subsequently they were given this right.
Immediately upon the court ordering that to be done, the I.D.
technicians approached the same course of action and we didn't
fight, I say we, I was not a member of the team that fought them,
I was only a member of the whole team, the police department
and the I.D. people now enjoy, the 1% money. Coupled with the fact
that they enjoy the monies that they at one time carried a gun
and identification, they have used this in the courts to get
closer to being qualified as police officersand the courts are
bringing them closer to us by the latest adjudication of what is
before you today. That stilildoesn't alter the facts that the
qualifications of in -hiring have not changed. They are still there.
There is still a big difference and what has occurred is that as the
years pass, its not going to be used as a precedent of what should
be done today without the city looking into it because we approach
the city and I say we, the police and fire organizations approach
the city and requested the city to bear the expense of some
actuarial study relative to the pension ordinances and we were
denied this because of lack of funds.
46
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
• i
We did not give up our pursuit. We through the organizations, got
the money together and persued it wit'i our own finances and came
out showing the Commission and standing before you, the feasibility
that we could enjoy these benefits and you gave them to us.
This is all I am asking today, that they do this.
Mr. Musial: As I stated in the beginning, I didn't come here to
argue the issues. We have already presented these arguments to
tilt! Court and the Court ruled however I would like to straighten
out a few of the statements made by Sgt. Printz. No. 1, we are
not asking for anything for nothing. The court order said that as
members of plan 3A-2, the city retirement system of the City of
Miami, the plaintiffs shall make whatever payments of hack con-
tritutions into the pension system as will entitle him to benefits
under plan 3A-2. We are not asking for anything for nothing.
We will pay exactly the same fair share or rate that the police
and firemen have paid into this plan. We don't expect to get
into it for nothing and as far as another member of the identification
section being a member of this plan, yes Robert Volmer, as a clerk -
photographer was taken under this plan and he retired under Plan
3A-2, he was my predecessor. He was supervisor of identification
and records and another statement that Mr. Printz made and I don't
know where he gets the idea that the.identiiica*ion technician would
ever want to be made policeman. This is utterl; ridiculous. The
identification profession is a profession in itse'`. We are not
policemen, we are technicians and we are proud of that profession.
We do not want to be made policeman. We have been fighting over
the years to get a fair salary, to get a fair pension plan as City
employees doing a job and I think we are entitled to the best benefits
that can be ;fforded us. A survey was made back in 1967 by the
City of Chicago and with reference to the pay and of cities of
comparable size around the country, of identification personnel
that go into the field and do crime scene investigation etc., and
out.of the 41 participating cities, the City of Miami is the only
city that pays its identification technicians at a lower scale than
it does its policemen. The in -hiring specifications for an
identification technician, you have to have a high-school diploma
with previous experience in photography or fingerprinting, the
absence of those experience requirements, you must have at least
an associate degree in police science and criminalogy. Now these
are the specifications for identification technicians. He is
arguing about age, this can be rectified by setting the age limits
down for identification personnel on in -hiring but one thing I
want this body to get straight. The identification personnel are
not in anyway claiming to be policemen or wanting to be policemen
but we do want to be afforded the salary and benefits which we feel
we are entitled to. You have given them to others in the same
category, and we feel that we also are entitled to them, to be
treated fairly. Thank you.
Mr. Faulk: This is not a situation that is unique just for the
city of miailni. Throughout the United States where retirement
systems exist, then likewise in the State of Florida, there are
the same differentiations between employees. Under the State
of Florida Retirement system, there is a high hazard or high risk
in which sheriffs departments and police officers and certain
high risk people who are employed within that particular job
classification or specification are covered and eligible to retire
at somewhat earlier age than their co-workers so to speak who are
in the clerical field and some other groups similar to I.D.
and Records technician.
It is my personal feeling that this is not properly within the
jurisdiction of the Court do make a determination on these lines.
The State of FLorida, circuit judges are not in the consolidated
retirement system. a specific retirement system is established for
the judiciary. A specific retirement system is established for
the other employees of the state. It is not unusual that the
various types of employees are situated within retirement system
groupings within a retirement system that is different than some
others.
47
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
In 1966, I believe it was, was the first time that a request of
this nature was made and it was by one of the persons who is
seeking this now and a very serious question I am going to put
to you now is one that deals with an additional expense aside
from the fact that maybe we have a number of I. D. Record Tech-
nicians who are seeking to belong to this new Group 3 plan and
the very reason I was very much opposed to this in 1966 when the
request came was simply this. In the system, no one is .covered by
social security. In the plan, all are. In 1956, when social sec-
urity was offered to all of the employees and in 57 when it was
established, the plan incorporated social security protection
to the people who elected to do so. 100% of the police and 100%
of the fire, elected not to have coverage under social security
so they are not covered under social ;ecurity. Many of these
I.D.Record Technicians may not be but many of them may be. My
very grave concern is by including them in Group 3-A2, is the
ultimate inclusion of the necessary protection of social security
for police and firefighters as they retire and as their replacements
come in, you are compelled to provide social security benefits for
them which is going to be a rather high outlay in expenditure for
the city when this ultimately occurs because they are not currently
covered and its somewhere in the vicinity of 5. some odd % social
security that the city now has to extend to a c'.1iling of around
$9,000 on each employee. You are not having to •ie that for police
and fire but by including I. D. Record Technician., into 3-A2, some
of those people are covered by social security and the ramification
could be such that now police and fire must be covered by social
security and you do have a very serious question of financing, if
thisis true. If this is a fact, and I don't know that it is, its
only of concern that it could happen. I would not be not would
any existing policeman or firefighter be compelled to (,it as they
are phased out, by the very fact that we now have people covered
by social security in that section, their replacements would also
have to be covered by social security and its a very substantial
amount of money that we are talking about.
Mr. Plummer: Didn't the court order say that any monies that would
have to be laid out, that they would have to lay them out themselves?
Mr. Paulk: No Sir, not completely. Only insofar as paying back
for the time differentiation between what they were paying in their
existing coverage 1-Al to 3.k-2. If they were paying 61/2% and they
had to move up to 81% or 71%, that's the only difference they would
have to make up. You are going to have to fund the employers side
of this necessary expenditure to do this. Now, I say to you that
the Court is usurping your legislative right to include whatever
employees you want to and provide whatever benefits you want to
do so and this is where I say, it belongs not in the Court but
before the legislative body, just as the State of Florida will
legislate that the judiciary are in a separate retirement system
than other employees of the State and the County. So should the
City COmmission direct who should be in what system and set the
benefits and it should not be before the judiciary.
Mr. Rothstein: May I say this to you, you know its one thing if
a Court points out that a particular group of individuals whatever
number should be in a plan because they are closely related to the
police department but its another thing if this Commission takes
a positive action in effect saying that there is another group of
employees in the City who are not required to have any other
hiring standards with reference to physical aptitude and physical
time age limits like the policemen are, are entitled to retire
at 50 which is what you would be doing if you say, don't take the
appeal and I can tell you this, you had better be ready because
every other employee in the City is going to now say, this Commission
took a positive act in favor of people for 50 year retirement, a
positive act in favor of people who do not have the rigid requirements
that the police have in in -hiring and we come under the same circum-
stances as they, and we want the 50 and we want the 211%.
Mr. Plummer: That's what the I. D. Technicians are saying now.
48
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Rothstein: No Sir. They are saying that they are closely
enough related to police and firemen, that they should have the
same retirement benefits. Now if this Commission says that they
are, then you better he prepared because you are going to have
to face that question from every other employee in the City.
It's one thing if the court says it and the court might not say
it for the rest of the employees. I am talking about funding and
money and I think you had better ask your Manager about the money
potential of what you may be letting yourself in for if you say,
donut take the appeal as a positive action of this Commission.
By the way, there is no rush for you to make that decision today
because there isn't even a written order finally issued in the
case. We have a petition for re -hearing in the situation and there
is plenty of time for you to get factual information as to what the
problem is you are really faced with before you make this kind of
decision.
Rev. Gibson: I think I hear something I don't agree with,
philosophically or morally either.
If the Court told us to admit them, what are we going to do?
Mr. Rothstein: If the Court makes a decision, ,hat says, that
these employees are close enough to policeman to be policeman
insofar :as retirement is concerned, that is not an affirmative
act of this commission. You must obey the Court, but if you take
an affirmative act that says under our standards of I.D. Officers,
which is no specific physical requirement other than any other city
employee, no restriction on age as the police and firemen have, and
their entitled, if you say they are entitled to 50 years at 212%,
you had better be ready to do it for the rest of the employees.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Reese, how can we, the members of this City
Commission, take an affirmative act to make sure that we know
what can happen if. By the way, before I ask you the question,
how many people are we talking about?
Mr.. Musial: 32.
Rev. Gibson: 32 people. How can we, Mr. Reese, take an affirmative
act to determine what the cost, what the impact is on the system
should we, or should the Court say do it?
Mr. Rothstein: Sir, you are only taking half the step.
Rev. Gibson: Give me the other half.
Mr. Rothstein: You are just saying, if the Court tells us to do
it, we're stuck with it :30 far as T.D. Officers are concerned, on
the theory that they are related in their work to what police
officers say, so you are saying to the Manager, well, if we don't
take the appeal, how much will it cost us to do this?
What I said to you was, you would have to find our from the Manager
if we don't take the appeal but if we today as a City Commission
set the policy that there are other groups other than police and
fire who will be entitled to 50 years as a retirement age, and 22%,
how much will it cost us to do the same thing for the rest of the
city employees?
Rev. Gibson: No Counsel let me tell you what was in my mind.
Whether or not we take the appeal, with or without, I think we
ought to know, do you follow me?
Mr. Rothstein: Yes, I agree but that's why I said you are only
asking half the question. You have to know (1) about the 33 but
you alto have to know about (2) about every city employee.
Rev. Gibson: All right, I think we ought to know, not only
about the 32 but we ought to know about all the rest of them and
if we know about the categories and all this business, if an
ar.tuarial study is necessary, then we ought to at least be intelligent.
49 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
The one p.ilosophy of my 1:.fe and moral principle is that r want
to treat all employees that work for the City, the same, alike,
fair, equitable. I want them to have the greatest benefit possible
for us to give them. Every one of them.
Now if the actuarial study will show that this is what is, then we
can make a determination, then I would be very happy.
Mr. Reese: We could request the actuary study to show what the
impact would be but I think there is another side to this question
that the actuary study would show, that is not being discussed,
and that is the impact that would exist on the existing pension
fund which would haveto be supported or raised up considerably in
order to absorb this impact. I appreciate the philosophy and I
think this is a philosophy that you have been expounding that the
City has been endeavoring to followbut we have to follow it by
classifications. We can't say everybody has got the same qualif-
ications, that everybody does the same job, that everybody gets
the same benefits, that everybody gets the same salary.
I don't think that you would want that. I don't think that your
philosophy would go to that concept. 'I think what your philosophy
is saying is that the person that is in a certain category should
get all of the benefits entitled to that person in that category,
if its a policeman or a fireman that are doing .:ii actual police
and fire function, he had to meet certain requirements in order to
be this police and fireman. Physical requirements, age requirements
etc. He has made a contribution and it has been recognized that the
casualty exposure is greater. All of these things are considered
in the classification for the police and fire pension benefits,
salary benefits and all the other ramifications, just the same as
all the ramifications and criteria is considered when 't does to
explore a secretary, an engineer or a sanitation engineer or
anybody that you can think of in this City and we have a large, large
number of classifications. What is it Bob, how many different
classifications do we have?
In the neighborhood of 300, I thought it was 287 but 300 is a good
figure. These are all different classifications.
Rev. Gibson: I hate to 3elieve you have to have 300 to deal with,
you know, that's an awful lot of classifications.
Mr. Reese: We have a lot of different functions carried on in this
city and I don't mean you, but the average John Q. Citizen doesn't
even know that's going on. We even have a Blacksmith in the City
of Miami.
Rev. Gibson: I could understand that, you have some horses.
Mr.. Reese: No, not because of the horses. We have a blacksmith
over in the garage on the heavy equipment. Now this is the type of
thing that is a separate classification but I am only going to the
extreme in mentioning this but I think that this ought to be
appealed and let the appellate court make its decision and then
determine that if the appellate court should say, that all people
performing work in the policeman area, if they should go that far,
would have to be given all the rights and benefits, that's one
thing. If they would say, these individuals are allied and should
be given this right, the Court is saying it but if you take a
legislative step to say it, I can assure you, that the employees
of the City of Miami are entitled to every bit of the same right
and priveleges and should come in before you to request them,
because you have no further any ability to say, you are a civilian,
you are a police officer, you are performing certain duties and
you are performing certain other duties. If the Court decides it
within a confined area, that's one thing but if you take the
legislative action, you can't say, only the I.D.Technicians are
entitled to it.
Mrs. Gordon: I think we have heard enough argument and enough
convincing. Is the Commission ready to make a motion or is a
motion necessary? at this time?
50
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Rothstein: Obviously if no motion is made, we just continue
the appeal.
Mr. Plummer: A question Mr. Rothstein. Lets say this goes to
the appellate Court and the Appellate Court substantiates the
Circuit Court. We then have no choice then, is that correct?
Mr. Rothstein: That is correct. Further it depends on how them
Hake their opinion.
Mr. Plummer:
But if they in fact say that they are entitled to what they are
asking for, then we have no choice. Now wouldn't we be smart
to prepare ourselves to, for 2 reasons. #1 if it does go to the
Appellate Court and they do say that, we already have an impact
or an idea of what is going to be the outcome and if it is not
the case, as Father Gibson has said, that this Commission can sit
back and analyze in the Commission's wisdom, that yes or not,
because I see two different points here. I see one judicial and
the other legislative. Now would it behoove this Commission to
day instigate action for the actuarial study to say yes or no.
As you indicated there is a great deal of time and if this time
is available and the actuarial study comes back in their favor,
it's not too late to say, drop the action.
Mr. Rothstein: The answer to your question is yes, that was my
suggestion that you get up all the facts before you make any
decision, thats #1. #2, I think it a better practice, that even
if you find that there is a way to fi:fiance, that it is appropriate
and what have you for everybody to leave the city on retirement
at 50 at 21%, if you don't leave it to the Court to make the
determination as to how you do it. I think you should do it
properly and legislatively. The Court will not take into account
your financial problems. The Court will not take into account
the necessity for phasing in a system. My answer is to you
without any question, in this case, I think the appeal should be
taken and number 2, I think you should proceed as you suggested
and as I suggested to gather up all the information on this question.
Mr. Plummer: Well then a motion then would be in order and you
would recommend such that the Commission recommends that the
actuary immediately start a study of this situation and give us
a report back as soon as possible.
Mr. Rothstein: I don't think you should limit it in that form.
I think you should turn it over to the Manager, he knows the
problem and let him come back with an overall report but include
in your motion, authority to proceed actuarily as well.
Mr. Plummer: I will move that.
Mrs. Gordon: Is that your motion, is there a second to the motion?
Rev. Gibson: Madam Mayor, I am going to second that motion but
it certainly doesn't answer what is in my mind.
Mrs. Gordon: Discussion on the motion then, would you like to
speak to it?
Mr. Plummer: Well I am hoping Father Gibson you will make known
to the City Manager what is on your mind and hopefully he can get
an answer back.
Rev. Gibson: I hope the City Manager will do this. Tell us
specifically how we can integrate these people and what it will
cost us to integrate these people into the system. That is #1.
You shouldn't take too long to get that answer and then if he
wants to talk about the other people, thats another so that you
don't lose all that time. We could spend 2 or 3 years trying to
get that other answer. I am not trying to defeat the police
and the firemen. I just find it difficult -
Mr. Plummer: I will be glad to incorporate in my motion those
specific answers be given back to this Commission.
51
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
• •
Mr. Reese: Well rather than for me to say how, you want to say
how much, I think. What would be the -
Rev. Gibson: I want you to give us both.
Mr. Reese: Well the one question is already in litigation and I
don't think you want an administrative judgment applied against
the suit that is in litigation.
Mr. Plummer: No Sir, its not that. We are asking what is the
impact, if it is the case. We are not asking you to determine
that the Court is right or wrong.
Mr. Reese: No but Father Gibson said, tell him how these people
can be incorporated.
Rev. Gibson: Tell us what the cost is and if we decide, if the
court does not prohibit us, tell us also how. You see I find it
rather difficult if you are going to study a situation and you
have to study the two, you can't study them independent of because
what happens on one hand has a relationship to what happens on
the other. In other words you will have to go back. Suppose the
Court says do it. We'll have to go back and mare another study.
Mr. Plummer: I prefaced my remarks by sdying that we would be
just as well off at the end of the time knowing beforehand either
way.
Rev. Gibson: Right, that's my position.
Mr. Rothstein: I understand that the study is broad enough in
your direction to the Manager, for him to cover the impact of
both the 32 men and also a7.1 city employees.
Rev. Gibson: Correct but you don't have to wait until all of them
are studied before we get an answer about the 32.
Mr. Rothstein: Well you may want to because if you answer- one
way for 32, you may be forced to do the same thing with all of
them. That's the problem.
Mrs. Gordon: That's providing we take the affirmative action but
if we do not and the court -
Rev. Gibson: So we could be knowledgable, that is the thing. I
think that if you know better, you ought to do better.
Mrs. Gordon: Well then my decision is then based on your advice
and counsel with regard to our position on an overall basis and
will ask you to call the roll.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-100
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO PROCEED ACTUARILY TO DETERMINE THE
IMPACT .OF THE INTEGRATION OF 32, I.D. TECHNICIAN
EMPLOYEES INTO THE GROUP 3A-2 OF THE MIAMI CITY
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND FURTHER DETERMINING
THE IMPACT OF INTEGRATION OF ALL OTHER CITY EMP-
LOYEES INTO THIS PLAN INCLUDING COST FACTORS AND
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE RECOMMENDATIONS
52
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
• •
(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 Edopted by the following vote Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso,
Reverend Gibson and Mrs. Gordon. ABSENT: Mayor Kennedy.
NOES: None
Rev. Gibson: One final comment. I find it rathex_difficult to
have to appeal an order and this is a matter of philosophy. To
appeal an order of the Court that from all indications gives
people certain benefits. 1 understand it is a legal problem
and there is a money problem, but philosophically, if there was
any other way, I would not appeal that order because I feel that
these people work for us and we are their friends. I can under-
stand.
Mrs. Gordon: Father, I think you speak for all of us.
Rev. Gibson: I understand the Policemen and Firemen's position
and I want them to understand and I want the ot'ler people to
know that I understand their position too.
18, CONSIDERATION TO WITHDRAW CONDITIONAL USE FOR OPERATION OF
PRIVATE CLUB- 1402 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
Mr. Reese: This is brought up on the agenda for the attention
of the City Commission. At the time when the conditional use
resolution was granted, there was considerable discussion about
dedicating some land and public works has been endeavoring to
get this accomplished and of no ave41 and I would like very much
for Vince Grimm to explain what the problems are that we are
faced with.
Mr. Grimm: About a year ago, Mr. Davis appeared before the
Commission representing Mr. Bliss, on.a conditional use for a
yacht and rowing club on Bayshore Drive. At that time I took
advantage of the fact that it was a conditional use and asked
the Commission to require a dedication of the outlot which the
Commission did. Subsequent to that action, Mr. Davis then wrote
to the City and requested that that decision by the City be
rescinded because of the financial burdens this placed on the
owner and he asked that the owner be allowed to enter into a
or a conditional granting of this dedication when the city moves
forward like other owners had done. Well the Commission granted
this in APril. Now, at the same time that the Commission gave
Mr. Davis this consideration, Mr. Davis or his client was already
appealing to the federal government for permission to build a pier
out into the bay with the full knowledge that the City needed this
lot to redevelop Bayshore Drive and I felt that this was a breach
of faith on the part of Mr. Davis and his client and wrote them
immediately for the dedication which they did not honor. As a
matter of fact, I have written to them three times requesting
that they dedicate this land and none of those letters have been
answered. Now as a result of that, I wrote a rather detailed report
to the City Manager requesting that the conditional use variance be
withdrawn.
Mrs. Gordon: All right thank you. Did you want to speak to it Sir?
Mr. Davis: I don't understand Mr. Grimms remarks very frankly.
Mrs. Gordon: For the record, please state your name.
53
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
Mr. Davis: My name is Johnson Davis, 1112 Ainsley Building and
I am appearing in behalf of Mr. Bliss. I have in my possession
here a letter from Mr. Grimm on February 24, 1972. I have a
letter of March 27th, a copy of my letter to him in response to
this. March 17th and I might add that I have a copy with his
signature of April 21, 1972, and a letter of intent which was
given to the city which says exactly what we have always said.
That first of all, I wish we had this little map up here, thatwe
are the yellow. We are more anxious tt.an the City of Miami is
to widen this road. We are most happy to dedicate that amount
of outlot #4 which is needed for a right of way for a road.
The condition that the Commission placed appears on your agenda
of April 6 and it is our position that we are ready and anxious
to build this road. I heard for 2 hours today, a discertation
about 1Sth Street which is at the other end of the block, about
that big high-rise you were arguing about. This is the only example
I know of in the City of Miami where a landowner is not using his
land for full potential of building. We could put another con-
dominium complex. This is the .restoration of a beautiful building.
We are willing to widen the road but the conditions that this Commission
put on it, we contend, is when the other people from l5th Street
up to 14th Street, give you their land, we are willing to give you
ours. Now the City has gi'ren us a deed to fill out. We say, we
are willing to give you the deed when the other people do.
It so happens on what is shown there, I believe its R5. There is
another beautiful concrete box going up, a nice condominium and over
100 people are purchasing and diving a 100th interest in another
outlot. Now to me, the city should be more concerned in getting
that before 100 owners gain title. We are ready to give you ours
when you start the roadway. In the meantime and this is in his
own deed that he sent. We have reserved the right to .11i1d a pier
out into our land. We own 100 feet that we own in front of that
yellow line and you are not going to put a 100 foot road over
the 60 ft. , a 160 ft road just in front of our property. We will
give you whatever you want, when you get ready to build it but i
don't understand why we are here because ue have said this over
and over and over. We are not willing to be the guinea pig as the
only person on that street that gives away land. That has been our
position and the Commission accepted it before. We gave them a
letter which I have a copy of here, w'iich -they have which says
we will give you the land when you want it, when you start building.
Let me say this. This land that we own today is being used as a
parking lot for some condominiums south of us. We are not willing
to give you our land to furnish a parking lot for adjacent property
owners because I think you would agree, this is justly unfair.
There is no justification for it. I wrote a letter to Mr. Grimm,
I talked to his assistant on November 21. Mr. Campbell and we
reiterated the umpteenth time, that you have a letter of intent
in your files that says when you get ready to build a road, let
us know, we want the road and why we keep getting harassed, I
don't understant it frankly. As I said, those people who just
bought a condominium in the R-S, where they bought an undivided
100th interest in an outlot. Why not get those people instead
of harassing us by giving us a sheet of paper. We made it
plain to you at the outset that we have a mortgage and any person
versed in realty, we can't give you what we don't own. We can't
give you a warranty deed on land under mortgage but we can give
you a deed for the purpose of which you want, if and when you
start doing the road work as long as its restricted to that.
I have been here 4 hours today and I have never figured what I am
doing here yet but I would do what the City wants but more than
that, we want a road widened. There is 60' there, we hope they will
go to 75 or 100. Lets get to building the road and we will give
you our land but in the meantime, lets get it from all those other
property owners on that same street.
54
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Grimm: What Mr. Davis may not be aware of is that his very
actions about requesting a permit to build this dock is what has
stopped the city's ability to build this road. While we were in
Tallahassee asking for title to 15th Road, the trustees of the
Internal Improvement Fund throw back in our face, the fact that
one of these owners, that we profess to have agreed upon to give
us this land is asking for a permit to build a dock and on the
18th day of April, 12 days after the Commission granted this
change, a permit was sent out by the Corps of Engineers for this
dock. Now, Mr. Davis before this Commission professed that they
had no knowledge of our plan and that yes they would give us the
road. Now, how are they going to give us the land and how are
we going to build a road when he has a dock on it? Right where
we want to build the road.
Mr. Davis: ,If I can answer you by reading to you, your own letter.
It says, let' me apologize to you for apparently taking advantage
of you at the February 17th Commission Meeting in reference to
bringing this subject up. We had never heard of it until we got
here.
Mr. Grimm: That is because you are a new owner.
Mr. Davis: But you are saying we should have i:nown it but
we didn't know it and we said we would give it to you. Now
the deed you sent me reserves the reparian right for us. We own
100' of footage there. We bought it. We paid over $5000 for 100'
of bay bottom. We can put a dock on there. We have a permit from
the State of Florida to put a dock on there and we are going to put
a dock on there.
Mr. Grimm: No you don't have a permit to put a dock c. there.
You don't have one from the City of Miami.
Mr. Davis: We have one from the State of Florida.
Mr.Grimm: You can have it from the State of Florida and from the
Trustees and the Corps of Engineers and you still can't build that
dock until you have a permit from the City of Miami.
Mr. Davis: We just got this, we haven't applied for it yet.
Mr. Grimm: You don't have a permit from the Corps of Engineers and
you don't have a permit from the Trustees.
Mr. Davis: I don't?
Mr. Grimm: No Sir.
Mr. Davis: Well I think that is what that is.
Mr. Grimm: Not to build a dock because I have letters in my files
saying that I have stopped it.
Mr. Davis: Well I don't have a copy of it.
Mr. Grimm: Well I will be glad to furnish you with copies.
Mr. Davis: But again, I don't know what I am doing here. I'm
willing to dedicate the land if and when you get ready to widen
the road.
Rev. Gibson: If you can't give us the land now, though you said
you had a mortgage etc., if you can't give us the land now free
and clear, how are you going to give it to us then? Or if you
can give it to us then, why don't you do it now? Are you going
to have the mortgage paid off at that time?
Mr. Davis: First of all, let me clarify something Reverend Gibson.
The mortgage that I have on the property, understand that I wasn't
the attorney who closed on this. The mortgage that I have in my
file does not reflect as being outlot #4. Its on lot 4. My client
informs me that this was a mistake because the same man sold him
both pieces of property and the lot covered both. I will say very
candidly that the mortgage that I have a copy of doesn't reflect
that.
55
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
I.informed him of this. The point that I make is nota question
of mortgages alone, although that is a major concern.
The point is, when are you going to build the road, we will then
give you the property. We have said this on 3 different occasions.
Mrs. Gordon moved it at the last hearing April 6th. We have given
you a letter which Mr. Grimm has, which says, this dedication is
further subject to retention by me and such reparian rights I now
might enjoy as the fee simple owner of said outlot. We still have
the rights to build the pier because the deed you've given us is
for right of way over roads so the mix of the pier and road,, to me
doesn't make sense. I don't understand it frankly.
Mr. Grimm: Mr. Davis if I understood him, has stood before the
Commission and he told the Commission that he was going to go ahead
and build this dock. Now both in writing and on the telephone before
the Trustees, I am telling them that the City is going to build this
road and he is telling me that this gentleman is going to build this
dock so I mustnot have agreement with him to the road and until r
can show to the Trustees 100% agreement of all these owners, they
are not going to allow the'city to proceed with this project and
that repeatedly happened to us. We brought this matter up when we
were talking about the Miami Harbor project just recently and we
were reminded again by their representatives '.hat we have not
been able to present this unified front. We can't even obtain title
to the land that the city owns at the foot of 15th Road because of
this. We have by the way Mr. Davis, acquired 3 dedications on Lots
55,56 and 57 from Mr. Ferre. Those are actual dedications.
Mr. Davis: And how about from 'there on up to my corner?
Mr. Grimm: With the exception of 58 xnd 59 which are new ownership
and this one up here, part of Lot 5, we have letters of intent from
all the rest. We are working on these two. These properties have
recently changed hands.
Mr. Davis: I think that's where that new condominium is going up
isn't it?
Mr. Grimm: It very well could te.
Mr. Davis: I would suggest that you check it becuuse I have just
examined an abstract where they have given people a deed so you
are going to have 100 owners to mess with rather than one when
they get through selling out.
I don't know if the COmmission is familiar with this whole thing.
This is the old Donahue Estate which has been refurbished as a
non-profit club which I think is beautiful. I think the owner
should be commended for not putting up another high-rise. If you
go to the lot just north of us on 14th Street, there is another
lovely home there and toc.ay it is torn down to put up another
high-rise. This is the only piece of land with no high rise put on.
We are getting more trouble than all the others put together.
Rev. Gibson: How do you answer the fact that we can't proceed
with the street unless you give the land. What you are saying
sounds good, honorable and all that. You heard the staff people
say they cannot proceed until they get that. Answer that.
Answer that. I love you, we've known each other for years. I
want to, we're not going to be enemies after this. Why don't we
go ahead and make that land available.
Mr. Davis: Reverend, the land is available, we have given you
a letter a year ago which says when you get a deed from those
other people. They took letters of intent from everybody on
that street that you could get. I am informed and I don't state
it factually, I am informed that there are some owners on that
street that said, We're not giving you the time of day. Now
why don't you bother those people rather than me when I have
already said, I am going to give it to you when You need it. It
doesn't make sense to me because we want the roadwidened.
The day that we get retained for us, the land surface that you
fill in to widen the road so we will have the same amount of land
east of Bayshore Drive when you get through as we have today.
56 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
In other words, if you extend it 20', we are going to have it just
20' further, if you understand me. We still want to put in our
pier. As I understand mr. Grimm, our putting in a pier affects the
building of this road and in all due deference to him, I think this
is a facetious statement because we own it and we are entitled to
use it. We bought it. To say that us putting in a pier is going
to affect hin because we are going to put a pier 100' away from
that road. If he will look at our permit with the State of Florida,
that's where the pier is going but I hope he isn't going to tell me
that we can't use the 100' of land that we own.
Mr. Grimm: What Mr. Dayis doesn't understand apparently, is that he
wants to build the pier contiguous to the land. The city's plan
calls for filling this triangle of land out to the bulkhead and
this will be where the roadway is. Now Mr. Davis's pier than
winds up right in the middle of our proposed roadway. If what
Mr. Davis proposes is what he wants to do, build a pier, what I
am saying to him is let him stiuplate that he will support us to
get the road built and then he can build his pier at this new
location but not to move forward trying to build it now which is
an obstacle to our trying to move forward with the road.
Mr. Davis: Mr. Grimm. Let me correct you, first the pier is not
running parallel with the road, it's extending east.
Mr. Grimm: But Sir, it has to start with the lane., are you going
to swim to it?
Mr. Davis: Right, and if ybu take up 10', we don't mind.
Mr. Grimm: But we're not taking 10', we want it all.
Mr. Davis: All the 100 feet?
Mr. Grimm: Whatever this is, we want the 100' width all the way
out to here. As soon as we own title to this, we can apply to
the trustees for title to that and that's where we are going to
build the road.
Mr. Davis: You are going to build a 160' road for one block?
Mr. Grimm: No Sir, the Commission's policy is to provide as much
public access to the waterfront as it can. We are building a road
70' wide with parking.
Mr. Davis: That's 10' over what you have got now. 70' road, you
have got a 60' road. Are you telling me that you are going to
take the remaining 90' for a public parking lot because if you
are, I am telling you right away that we are not going to furnish
parking for those condominiums that are being built there. Let
them finish their own parking.
Mr. Grimm: What you agreed to when you came before us for a
conditional use variance to use the land was to dedicate this land
for the city to use. At that time, when you were here, you were
shown a plan. You have had ample opportunity to come to the
department to review the plan. This is the first time I have
heard you object to the plan and a minute ago, you were supporting
it. Now you are arguing about the dimensions and unless we have
the title to this land, we cannot acquire title to the baybottom
land and unless we have that, we cannot build what we want to
build.
Mr. Davis: Well so the Commission understands my clients position,
because evidently Mr. Grimm doesn't. We have said from day one
Reverend, that we want the road widened. That we are willing to
give the land so you won't have to condemn it but I want it
specifically understood that we are not willing to give up 100'
of land that we bought and paid for and got check for to furnish
a parking lot for the condominium owners south of us.
Now that's what I understand and the letters that I have from the
city say just the opposite. This is for widening of the road.
Now you say we are going to have 10' of this land used for a road
and 90' for a parking lot. Then my friend, all I have to say is
that you are going to have to go to Court to get it because no
57
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Court is going to take land from one man and then give it to
another and that is just what we are being asked today for the
first time and I might say we have suspicioned this for some time
because our land today, we can't enjoy because the tenants and
the condominiums use it. They just park there. They've been
parking there. It hasn't been a hazard yet but I don't think its
the policy of this Commission to first give a bunch of variances
to build a condominium and then turn around and take the mans
property adjacent to it to give the condominium owner parking,
or else you say, you can't live in your house. If you remember
when we were here. This is the house that has been there for
almost 50 years, its still there and I think we need more restor-
ation of houses and less condominiums and for you to tell me that
you can't use this house now unless you give us 100' to furnish
a parking lot for the adjacent property, is absurd.
Mr. Rothstein: May I clarify this for you.
There apparently has been a lack of communication between Mr. Davis
and the Public Works Department and what I mean is this. %hen
Public Works suggested that the only way they be granted the
conditional use for that private club wh,,ich is a privelege that
you, and only you, can give them, they greed to give up the
property necessary for the roadway project. Now Mr. Davis had
it in his head, that that rieant 10'. What the plans show is
right here. A straightening out of this property so that this
is what Mr. Davis thought was the 10' when in actuality, this
does come all the way out here, and is 128'. That means there
is two alternatives. You can either say, Mr. Davis, you can
continue to have yJur conditional use and we are going to request
you providing that you would give up all the land necessary which
is up to all the land that you have apparently so that we can do
the project the way the city wants to do the project. If you
don't agree to that Mr. Davis, you can't have your private club
there. Then Mr. Davis can build what he wants on the property
and we will go and condemn it for whatever it's worth.
The other alternative is that you just say well, were not going
to require that this man give up this property, this hay bottom
land but we will let him have his conditional use anyway. So
there is your two alternatives.
Mr. Grimm: There is a third alternat'.ve to that too Mr. Rothstein
and that is that if they do let him have his conditional use
subject to his supporting the roadway project when we get to it
and if he would also stipulate at this time that he is not going
to build this dock so its in our way and further that he doesn't
apply before the Corps and the Trustees for a permit until we
have got this clarified. Then as far as I am concerned, he can
build his dock out from that bulkhead line and he can have access
to it.
Mr. Rothstein: But he doesn't own the property further out.
Mr. Grimm: That's true, certainly he doesn't
Mrs. Gordon: Then how can he build the dock there?
Mr. Davis: That's what I want to know.
Mr. Grimm: Just like other people that build docks in the City
on property that they fill to the bulkhead line. The coning ordinances
give them permission to build docks along the bulkhead line, maybe
not as extensive as Mr. Davis likes but provisions for docking are
there.
Mr. Davis: You mean to tell me, you know I have sat here so long,
maybe I am getting foggy. You mean to tell me that I can't build
on a piece of property that I own but you will let me build on a
piece of property that I don't own. Now this is ridiculous.
We own this 100'. We have got a permit.
58
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Rothstein: Just a second. It's not ridiculous. What they
are telling you is, the way they are going to do this project
is to straighten out the bulkhead line and the baybottom land
that is there that is going to be used to straighten out the
bulkhead line, the city will fill, will be and take up the 100'
that you own. Factually that is accurate. Now he is saying that
it does not necessarily preclude you later on from building a dock.
Whether you get the permission, is a different story. As far as
this Commission here today. Either you say to them, if you want
the conditional use, we are eliminating the communication diff-
iculty. If you want the conditional use, we have to have it out
there to straighten out the bulkhead'line which includes your
100' and if you don't do that, we are not going to give you your
conditional use. Or in the alternative, you could say to Mr. Davis
you can have your club and you are not required to give us the
land and then the city's project will have a lot of problems
because we will have to go and condemn that land, they haven't
given us an agreement and the state won't release the land on the
bottom etc.
Mr. Grimm: Another thing too, Mr. Davis may have records that I
don't have but the 100' he keeps referring must be the distance
from here out to this bulkhead line. Mr. Davis only owns this
strip which is only 5 or 10' wide, I have forgot.en. This white
line out here that he wants to build his pier on is held by the
state. Now the deed to that baybottom land rightfully goes to
the upland owner and that's why the contest. The fact that he
owns it doesn't automatically guarantee that the state is going
to give him title tothe baybottom land. As a matter of fact
unless his records are radically different than mine, ` doubt
that he could even get up.
Mr. Rothstein: Thats another fact that he says he owns the 100'.
Vince Grimm says he only owns 5' and hopes to get the balance of
95' which there is some question about.
Mr. Davis: Mr. Rothstein could I answer you. This is a deed
drawn by the City of Miami by your legal department. It says
Warranty Deed -Highway Right of Way Deed. The last paragraph says
it is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the party
of the first part, which is the owner shall retain the riparian
rights with all rights and priveleges appertaining thereto. Now
this is to outlot 4. If I am being told today that we are going
to take your whole outlot 4, what riparian rights am I retaining?
If you are going to get them all, this to me is insulting.
Again Mr. Grimm says his records may be different, they may be
because I have here in my hand a letter from the State of Florida
dated January 17th which is a permit, 1973, which says, a license
to construct, install, and operate exclusively, a marina and it
goes right ahead and gives us the right to do just what we are
doing. Lying 15' south of the parallel etc. and it goes on to
outlot 4.
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Davis, forget about your ownership, but how
far out do you understand your reparian rights to go? Forget
about the ownership.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Davis: You
Rothstein:
Davis: My
are talking about, what does the deed give us?
I am talking about -
ownership by state law goes to the -
Mr. Rothstein: I am asking you, what are your riparian rights?
Forget about where they go from but what are they?
Mr. Davis: Outlot 4.
Mr. Rothstein: That's the property that you own. What are your
riparian rights from that property? How far out does it go?
Mr. Davis: It goes to the high water mark which is the line there.
It gees tothe U. S. Harbor line which is shown here.
•
59
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Rothstein: That is what Mr. Grimm is trying to tell you and
what that deed is saying to you, whatever you can build from
wherever you own, the City is agreeing with you, you should
likewise build from wherever the City ends up filling in.
Mr. Davis: And we agree with you.
•Mr. Rothstein: If you are agreeing with me.
Mr. Davis: We gave you a letter to that effect.
Mr. Rothstein: If you are agreeing with me, then why can't we
get the deed now so we can proceed and the City has agreed with
you, that attached to the city's land, you have the same riparian
rights as you have now.
Mr. Davis: Mr. Rothstein, to terminate this, I know you have a
lot to do, we will place in escrow with you or the City Manager
or anyone else you designate, a deed to the outlot 4, for the
extension of a road ,L,Not for a parking lot.
Mr. Rothstein: Wait a minute now, lets not play with words because
he is telling you now.
Mr. Davis: What I am telling you, is that we are not going to
let you take our property and make the man next door a parking lot.
Mr. Rothstein: Now, we have a clear issue to the Commission.
The City wants to do the project out to this bulkhead line and the:
City has said, whatever you could tag cn here and go olt, you can
tag on here and go out. He has said that this little triangle,
that he is not going to give it to the City. The City Commission
can now make a decision by saying that if you want that private
club there, you are going to give us that over there, and if you
don't, okay, we are either going to give you the private club
anyway or we are not going to give you the private club.
Mr. Davis: You pointed to the wrong property, we ,,are north of
the property you just pointed out.
Mr. Rothstein: Here it is right here. The road is here with a
bulkhead all the way up to here, fill all this in, widen the road,
and preserve parking here so the people can get to see the bay.
Mr. Davis: Can I ask a very elementary question. You see where
you just pointed to our property? You see the piece north of
there now? Do you have a deed to that property?
Mr. Davis: Well then why don't you go get a letter from them
rather than bugging us? Because you and I know Mr. Grimm and I
don't think we are being fair.to the Commission, that that piece
of property was just purchased, the house is being demolished, and
they intend putting up a high-rise. Now if this Commission wants
one more high-rise on that street, we can give it to you because
we have been offered more money than we paid to put up another
high-rise. .Now, we don't want to do that, we want to do something
for the City. There hasn't been a marina built in this town in
over 25 years and for the first time, someone does it and I swill
be doggoned if they say don't do it and give us the land.
Mr. Grimm: Let me read a letter from the Corps of Engineers dated
December 1972, Dear Mr. Grimm: This is in reply to your letter of
December 13th concerning the disposition of the above mentioned
application to the Department of the Army. The enclosure is self-
explanatory and will indicate the present status of the subject
permit application. As a matter of information, there has been no
reply to our of APril 20, that's when they wrote to Mr. Davis.
and accordingly, no further action has been taken on this permit.
Now the Corps is not going to give them a permit to build a
marina there.
Mr. Davis: Well then why are youworried about it?
60 UBRUARY 8, 1973
•
Mr. Grimm: Because what I am saying and all I said before was,
that this doesn't indicate good faith on your part with the City.
Mr. Davis: Well Mr. Grimm if you will read your files and I will
hand each City Commissioner a letter than you've got that we gave
that says we will give you the land when you get ready to build
the road, its that simple. You don't have to worry about the
marina, we can forget that subject here today. If we don't have
to worry about the parking lot, we can forget that, but if you
think for one second, that you are going to take my clients prop-
erty, 90' of property and build my next door neighbor a parking
lot, I can assure you, you are going to do it by condemnation,
not by gift.
Mr. Grimm: That's the alternative that the City Attorney gave to
you. If you don't agree to give the property then, you could not
have possibly gotten the variance. This was the trade that was
given you.
Mr. Davis: No, the trade was to build and I have got it right
here in writing, was to build a roadway. 10'. Now you have gone
from 10' to 100' and I am shocked, I am shocked that you would
make this admission, that we have never heard of a parking lot
until today and you've got tapes of these meetings and I will het
any amount of money anybody wants to wager that there has never
been a mention of a parking lot until today. Not; its been the
policy of this Commission and I think stated adequately earlier
today, that when a person wants to use their property for an
unusual use, you ask them to dedicate on these roadways but I
have never heard of them saying, not only give us some roadway.
but give us a parking lot for the guy next door, and that is just:
what you are asking us to do. I don't think this woul': be the
sentiment of this Commission to be honest with you.
Mr. Grimm: Do you have a deed to the baybottom land?
Mr. Davis: We've got a deed to outlot #4.
Mr. Grimm: Do you have a deed to the baybottom land?
Would you mind furnishing my office with-, I say you don't have a
deed to that land, so therefore, we are only talking about the 10'.
Mr. Davis: A deed to what now?
Mr. Grimm: The 100' you keep referring to. I say you don't have
the deed to that.
Mr. Davis: I am talking about -the 100' parking lot you are going
to build now, I have never heard of it until now.
Mr. Grimm: The picture we had in front of you couldn't talk but
it was self-explanatory and there were parking areas, 3 parking
areas shown on that sketch.
Mr. Davis: My deed to set the record straight is for outlot #4
period to the bulkhead line. The bulkhead line is that line that
you want to extend the property out to, the way I understand it.
Mr. Grimm: Will you send us a copy of your deed?
Mr. Davis:, Beg Pardon?
Mr. Grimm: Will you send us a copy of your deed?
Mr. Davis: I will give you one right now.
Mr. Rothstein: You don't own the 100', you just own 10' that is
outlot 4, then the Commission has got a position that is much
clearer for them to take.
Mr. Davis: But Mr. Rothstein you just stated and Mr. Grimm just
stated that you are going to use this for parking and lets take
hypothetically 10' that I get 10' further east when you get through
filling.
61 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
Mr. Rothstein: No,, we say to you, whatever your riparian rights
were up to that 10', we are going to reserve to you, so if you
can today build a dock off the edge of that 10', the city will
let you build the self same dock off the edge of whatever our
property is, that's all we are saying.
Mr. Davis: That is no problem, we will give you copies of the
deed right now.
Mr. Rothstein: I suggest that you defer this for me to come
back with a report at the next meeting and I will clarify with
a memo to the Commission of the alternatives of the legal aspect
of it, full report.
Mrs. Gordon: Thank you Mr. Rothstein, I don't think we can come
to a conclusion today.
Mr. Davis: I don't understand it but thank you anyway.
NOTE: Mayor Kennedy re-entered the meeting at 1.1proximately
2:30 O'Clock P.M.
19, PAN AMERICAN UNION DAY FESTIVAL FOR USE OF GRANGE BOWL PARKING
LOTS -DENIAL
Mr. Plummer: The City Attorney is to report.
Mr. Reese: Item #15, he gave me a copy of the memorandum.
Mr. Plummer: Its' very brief, it says it cannot be used.
Mr. Rothstein: I passed out a memo in which I advised you that
its not legal.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mrs.
Gordon who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-101
A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE LEGAL OPINION OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY AND DENYING APPLICATION OF PAN
AMERICAN UNION DAY FESTIVAL FOR USE OF THE ORANGE
BOWL PARKING LOT AREAS FOR A FESTIVAL ON APRIL 6
THROUGH APRIL 15, 1973
(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 fallowing vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
62
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
20, INSTALLATION OF SCOREBOARD AT CITY OF MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM
Mr. Reese: Item 17. At the present time at the Baseball Stadium,
we have a scoreboard that the baseball clubs have been for some
time, trying to get us to replaceit, and it has been uneconomical
for the city to do it so through the efforts of the baseball people,
mainly the Baltimore and also the minor league teams, have been
working with some individuals at Spencer Marketing Service to come
in with an idea of building a scoreboard and putting the scoreboard
up and at the same time have an advertising peroggative on it.
These people would come in and remove the present scoreboard and
install a new scoreboard, 78' long and 11'5" high. It would be
a.:complished by the Spencer Marketing Service. The scoreboard is
donated to the City upon installation and after a 10 year period '
of advertising. Spencer Marketing Service receives the advertising
rights for a 10 year period. Advertising is subject to the approval
of the City. Scoreboard has a 1-year guarantee. Spencer Marketing
Service will provide all electrical wiring except service supply of
power to the board which is already there, fixtures for the control
panel and adequate parts required for the scoreboard repair. The
total time required for fabrication is 4 to 5 weeks. On -site inst-
allation is 1-week.
Mrs. Gordon: The 1-year guarantee. What happens after that?
Mr. Reese: After that, they have to supply us with all necessary
parts required to keep the scoreboard in repair.
Mrs. Gordon: But we have to do the work?
Mr. Reese: Yes Maam.
Mrs. Gordon: What is the value of a scoreboard of this type?
Mr. Reese: The one that we have at the Orange Bowl was valued at
$15,000 and I would imagine to duplicate that today, it would be
around $20,000.
Mrs. Gordon: Another question. If we were to provide our own
scoreboard of an advertising type, and then lease out the rights
for advertising, would we receive a higher amount of revenue for
the City?
Mr. Reese: The only thing is, we are not in the promotion business
to get the different advertisers to advertise in there and this is
promotion advertising people. What we did previously, with the
Orange Bowl Scoreboard, was we got a supplier, Coca Cola, and for
the period of time, for 5 years, they had free advertising up there.
We have already solicited Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, and other people
for the possibility of entering into a similar arrangement on this
scoreboard, but they were not interested because of the exposure.
Mrs. Gordon: Oh, they are not interested. You have already tried
that.
Mr. Reese: Thats right.
Mr. Plummer: Do you recommend this Mr. Reese?
Mr. Reese: Well, we need a new scoreboard and that's the only way
I know we can get one.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by
Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption:
63
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
RESCLUTION NO. 73-102
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO ENTER IN TO AN
AGREEMENT WITH SPENCER MARKETING SERVICES FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW SCOREBOARD FOR THE
MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM AND TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE BALTIMORE
BASEBALL CLUB, INC. PROVIDING FOR THE RELINQUISHING
OF ADVERTISING RIGHTS BY THE BALTIMORE BASEBALL
CLUB INC., FOR THAT PORTION OF THE OUTFIELD FENCE
THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
THE NEW SCOREBOARD
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resol.ition was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Plummer, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
21, CITIZENSHIP LITIGATION- REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Mayor, I handed out a memo inregard to that
citizenship litigation. The District Court of Appeals judge when
he issued his order, just blanketly wiped out the whole rule
instead of the area dealing with the citizenship. In order to
preserve our rights on that, I am going to file today, a notice of
appeal but I want to call to the attention to the Commission, on
Page 3, last sentence which points out that the Supreme Court
very shortly will hand down the guide rules and that we will
take the appeal but if it is ever acted upon, we will not include
that portion of the ruling dealing with the citizenship requirement
which was pursuant to Resolution no. 72-689 that we should not appeal
the business about the citizenship, and that our filing does not
hinder or stifle the processing being established for the new rule
under Resolution 72-690 which recommended to the Civil Service Board
that resident aliens who have demonstrated an intent to become
citizens, will be given an opportunity to become employees.
What I am saying is, that we are filing the appeal for other purposes
and I didn't want anybody to misunderstand. We are not going to be
taking the appeal on the citizenship aspect of it.
Mrs. Gordon: What are you taking it on?
Mr. Rothstein: On the aspect of the rest of the rule which dealt
with the oath of allegiance and some other minor details but it has
nothing to do with the citizenship.
Mrs. Gordon: We then are assured that we are not changing what
we already did.
Mr. Rothstein: Right, that's why I sent you the memorandum so
everybody would understand that while we are filing this notice of
appeal, we are not doing it in contravention of the Commission;s
Resolution.
64
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
22, AMEND ORDINANCE 6871-CONDITIONAL USE -OFF STREET PARKING LAWS
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY
DELETING SUB PARAGRAPH (d), OF PARAGRAPH 1,
SECTION 8, OF ARTICLE XXIII, IN ITS ENTIRETY
AND IN LIEU THEREOF SUBSTITUTING A NEW SUB-
PARACRAPH (d) OF PARAGRAPH 1, SECTION 8 OF
ARTICLE XXIII, AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH; PER-
TAINING TO "CONDITIONAL USE" OFF-STREET PARKING
LAWS; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 25,
1973, was taken up for its second and final reacting by title and
adoption. On motion of, Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mr. Reboso,
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.
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8137.
23, HOURS OF CLOSING FOR SMALL RESTAURANTS ON SUNDAYS ONLY
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); ELIMINATING 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
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 25,
1973, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and
adoption. On motion of Reverend Gibson, seconded by Mrs. Gordon,
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 Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8138.
65 FEBRUARY 8, 1973
24, PLAT ACCEPTANCE - KLEBBA BAY ESTATES
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-103
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED KLEBBA
BAY ESTATES, 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 Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
25, SALE.OF $28.350.000 PUBLIC 'ARK AND CREATIONAL FACILITIES
BONDS OF THE CJTY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: PROVIDING FOR SALE
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO, 73-104
A RESOLUTION FOR THE SALE OF $28,350,000 PUBLIC
PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BONDS OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; SETTING FORTH THE METHOD
OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST; THE FORM OF NOTICE FOR
BIDS FOR SAID BONDS; DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION
OF NOTICE OF SALE OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE
BIDS TO BE OPENED ON MARCH 8, 1973; SETTING FORTH
THE METHOD OF BIDDING, AND SETTING FORTH THE FORM
OF THE BIDS
(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
66
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
26, FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION - "MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM"
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-105
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SUBMIT A FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMIN-
ISTRATION, TO INITIATE A PROJECT ENTITLED
"MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM" SUPPORTED
WITH $58,385 IN LEAA FUNDS, AND FURTHER AUTH-
ORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS THEREBY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted h,:re 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
27, AMEND ORDINANCE 6945-SECTIONS 1 AND 2_ ARTICLE XIV
l AYnFF . RE S T GNAT I ON BAD ,REINSTATEMENT
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6945 PASSED
AND ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 1961, APPROVING THE
CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, BY REPEALING THEREFROM SECTIONS 1 F 2
OF ARTICLE XIV ENTITLED "LAYOFF, RESIGNATION AND
REINSTATEMENT" AND SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR NEW
SECTIONS 1 &2 PROVIDING: THAT WHEN IT BECOMES
NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN A
CLASSIFICATION IN A DEPARTMENT, DURATION, EMER-
GENCY OR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES SHALL BE LAID OFF
FIRST AND THEN PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES AND FINALLY
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES; RESTRICTING THE LAYOFF TO
EMPLOYEES AND CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT;
FURTHER PROVIDING THAT EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR
LAYOFF ARE ENTITLED TO FILL ANY EXISTING VACANCY,
OR IF THERE IS NO VACANCY, REPLACE ANOTHER EMPLOYEE
IN THE SAME CLASSIFICATION WITH A LOWER LAYOFF
SCORE, PROVIDING A METHOD OF COMPUTING LAYOFF
SCORES AND ESTABLISHING A LAYOFF REGISTER AND
PRIORITIES FOR REHIRING; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT INSOFAR
AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
PROVISION AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN
EMERGENCY MEASURE AND DISPENSING W'TH THE REQUIRE-
MENT OF READING THE SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS.
was introduced by Mr. Plummer 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, Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon
and Mayor Kennedy. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mr. Plummer,
seconded by Mr. Reboso adopted said ordinance by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon F Mayor Kennedy.
NOES: None.
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8139. FEB8,197
28.
69_45-
1
An Ordinance entitled-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6945, PASSED
AND ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 1961, APPROVING THE CIVIL
SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BY REPEALING THEREFROM SO MUCH OF SECTION 2 OF RULE
XIII, ENTITLED "TRANSFERS", WHICH READS "SUCH AN
ASSIGNMENT SHALL INVOLVE NO CHANGE IN COMPENSATION";
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS
THEREOF IN CONFLICT, INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CON-
FLICT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION
was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mr. Reboso, and passed
on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Gibson, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor iennedy. NOES: None
29, FLORIDA ATLANTIC -UNIVERSITY -APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL GRANT
HUMANITIES SPECIAL PROJECTS
Dr. Skelling of Florida Atlantic University appeared and
told the Commission the purpose of the resolution before them.
He said 90 million dollars set aside by the President for the
planning of the Bi-centennial of what the humanities could do
and they wanted to begin the task of what the several cities on
the east coast and what the possibilities would be to obtain an
early planning grant and asked the comm•inity support.
Mayor Kennedy: Where did this resolution come from?
Mr. Rothstein: It was prepared at the request of Commissioner Reboso
after meeting with them. He feels with a preliminary grant for
study purposes. Ft. Lauderdale has passed one and a few other
communities have passed one, asking that they be included in the
preliminary study group grant.
Mayor Kennedy: It goes to Florida Atlantic University.
Mr. Reese: Has the Third Century Group reviewed this and passed
a resolution?
Mr. Rothstein: This is only to the university. This is only a
grant available to universities.
Mr. Reese: Yes but its part of the Bi-Centennial and that group
is supposed to be the coordinator and that's why I was wondering.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING
SUPPORT OF THE DADE CENTER OF FLORIDA ATLANTIC
UNIVERSITY'S APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL GRANT FOR
THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR HUMANITIES SPECIAL
PROJECTS
68
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
(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,
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
30, SUBMISSION OF QUARTERLY REPORTS -FLORIDA REVENUE SHARING ACT-19Z
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-107
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA REVENUE SHARING ACT
OF 1972, PART II, CHAPTER 218, FLORIDA STATUTES
1972; PROVIDING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
EMPLOYED BY THE CITY HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR
EMPLOYMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT; THAT NO SUCH
OFFICERS BE COMPENSATED AT A SALARY RATE OF LESS
THAN $6,000 PER ANNUM; THAT THE SALARY STRUCTURE
AND PLANS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WILL MEET
THE PROVISIONS OF PART IV, CHAPTER 23, FLORIDA
STATUTES, 1972; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SUBMIT QUARTERLY REPORTS TO THE POLICE STANDARDS
COUNCIL
(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
31, CLAIM SF.TTLEMENT - 9OWARD OLIVER
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-108
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO HOWARD OLIVER, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $400.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT OF HIS CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI
FOR ALLEGED PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY HIM,
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)
69
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Upon being seconded by Mr. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
32, EXTEND CONDITIONAL_USE-1 YEAR - FORT DALLAS PARK LOTS 38,39 $u B
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-109
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR
THE "CONDITIONAL USE" GRANTED THROUGH RESOLUTION
NO. 43228 ENTITLED " A RESOLUTION GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE" AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO.
6871 , ARTICLE XV, SECTION 2 (8) (a), TO PERMIT
INTERIM PARKING ON LOTS 38, 39-AND PORTION OF
BLOCK B, FORT DALLAS PARK (4-85), TO BE PAVED
WITH OIL AND SAND, WAIVING INTERIOR AND CERTAIN
EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, FOR A PERIOD
OF ONr YEAR, LOCATED AT S. W. CORNER S. E. 4TH
STREET AND S. E. 2ND AVENUE, IN A C-3 (CLNTRAL
COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; SUBJECT TO THE CITY COMM-
ISSION RE-EVALUATING THIS MATTER AT THE END OF
SIX MONTHS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADEQUATE LIGHTING
UNDER THE PROPOSED NEW PARKING LOT REGULATIcNS
SHOULD BE PROVIDED
(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
33, ACCEPT BID - LAWN AND MOWING EQUIPMENT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-110
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BIDS RECEIVED DECEMBER
28, 1972, OF MOZALL OF FLORIDA, INC., DADELAND
FARM AND GARDEN, DEBRA TURN AND EQUIPMENT, GROWERS
FORD TRACTOR CO., HECTOR TURN AND GARDEN INC., AND
GONDAS CORPORATION, FOR FURNISHING LAWN AND MOWING
EQUIPMENT, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER 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)
70
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Reboso, Gibso;i, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
34, ACCEPT BIDS - PLASTIC BAGS
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO, 73-111
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD
A BID ON FEBRUARY 14, 1973 TO THE LOWEST ACCEPTABLE
BIDDER FOR SUPPLYING THE CITY OF MIAMI WITH PLASTIC
BAGS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE TASK FORCE REPORT SUB-
MITTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THEREBY ENABLING THE
CITY TO PROVIDE PLASTIC GARBAGE COLLECTION BAGS TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THE FIRST WEEK'S
COLLECTION BEGINNING APRIL 2, 1973
(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
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, I wanted
to point out that we are asking for this authority now but to
actually award the bid after the public hearing is held by the
City Commission pertaining to the garbage pickup because we are
going out and holding neighborhood hearings and at the end of
that, bringing it back before the Commission for the public hearing.
35, APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL MEMBER TO COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE
NEW PLANNING AND ZONING STRUCTURE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-112
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MR. JOSEPH R. HARRISON JR.
TO THE CITIZEN'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 Mr. Reboso, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
71
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
36, APPOINTMENT OF COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THE
COCONUT GROVE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
Mayor Kennedy: I would like to take this opportunity to appoint
Mr. Harrison and if you will notify him of this, as the coordinator
for the City of the Coconut Grove Centennial Celebration so he can
start putting together his committee. He wrote in asking for the
appointment and said he wanted to put a committee together and he
has been very active there, the past president of the chamber of
commerce etc., and I would like to appcint him as the chairman and
let him coordinate the city's activities for the Coconut Grove
Centennial and maybe Canon Gibson, you can recommend an outstanding
Vice -Chairman for him so that those two could be put to work right
away. You can make that appointment at the next meeting if youwant
to.
37, BERTHING OF SEA SCOUT VESSEL AT DINNER KEY MARINA -DISCUSSION
Mayor Kennedy: I am in receipt of a letter Mr. geese, from David
Wood. He is the skipper and scoutmaster of a sea -scout unit and
he says and reference is made to City Manager Reese's letter of
January 24th which is attached." As skipper and master of our
sea -scout unit it is my responsibility to reply. I am certain that
my boys would want me to speak for them and tell it like it is.
I don't believe that the City Commission authorized Mr. Reese
to inform our Sea -Scout group of a dockage fee on our Ulat. I
don't believe that is the intent of the City Commission of Miami,
Florida, to charge children $257.00 a year to dock a boat. This
will cost each younster approximately $10.30 per year. We are
unable to pay the $257.52 per year for boat dockage, what is the
alternative?"
Mr. Reese: Well Mr. Mayor, if I recall correctly when you granted
this, it was granted at half fee and that's half of the fee and it
was agreed to by the gentleman that appeared here.
Mayor Kennedy: No this is a different unit of a different outfit.
That was the Naval Sea Cadets. This is a Sea -Scout unit that has
been in Dinner Key for a long time. These are two different things
entirely and you must have taken what we did with the Naval Sea
Cadets which is part of the United States Navy League and applied
that to the Sea Scouts.
Mr. Reese: Here in Dinner Key. I thought it was the group that
was down at the Miamarina. Here in Dinner Key, the ordinance is
that we have to treat everybody alike. There is not way to give
anybody a reduced rate. Any organization.
Mayor Kennedy: How long have these people been here doing this.
You know, government has to have a little compassion too. How
long have these people been, has the Sea Scout unit been at Dinner
Key and not been charged?
Mr. Reese: I don't know. I can't imagine that they were not
charged.
Mayor Kennedy: Well he says they have never been charged.
Mr. Reese: I can't imagine.
Mayor Kennedy: I would like to have a report back at the next
meeting if you could and if you could allow them to stay there
until this thing is cleared up without harassing them and have
a report on how long these people have been in Dinner Key and
why now are they going to have to pay?
72 FF
S , 19 7 3
samw.10:0=
38, CONSENTING TO EXTENSLONS,ENLARGEMENTS & IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
PORT OF MIAMI
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-113
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN EXTENSIONS, ENLARGEMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS
AT THE SEAPORT PROPERTIES AT THE PORT OF MIAMI
(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
39, EXTEND CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES - MONTAGUE ROSENBERG_
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-114
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CONTRACT OF MONTAGUE
ROSENBERG AS SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OFMIAMI
UP TO MIDNIGHT, FEBRUARY 4; 1973, SUBJECT TO THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN HIS CONTRACT
WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMENCING 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. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Mr. Harris Turner, Asst.City Atty.: Mrs. Vice Mayor, there is
another pocket that goes along with this. What this does is
to terminate,the contracts of the three (3) City attorneys on
midnight February 4th. We were all under contract and we are
going under unclassified, so this evens it up.
73
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mayor Kennedy left the meeting at approximately 3:40 P.M.
40, TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS OF THREE ASST. CITY ATTORNEY'S
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-115
A RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE CONTRACTS OF
R. HARRIS TURNER, L. JOSEPH HOFFMAN, AND FRANK
H. WESTON, AS OF MIDNIGHT, FEBRUARY 4, 1973
(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: Messrs. Plummer,
Gibson, Reboso and Mrs. Gordon. NOES: None
41. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH P. MANNERS TO DISCUS THIRD
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS CASE N0. 72-1182
Mr.Manners: I am Joe Manners, at this point, a rather reluctant
attorney it appears, here on behalf of four Police Officer Sgts.
who were successful below at the lower court here in Dade County
seeking relief in two areas. (1) The extension of a certain time
period to keep their last Lieutenants register alive because of
so called freeze and (2) because of improper promotions in the
former register, losing two jobs from the current register.
That was out pleading and that was the order that was rendered in
the Circuit Court hearing. This has been some time ago, roughly
the order was entered in October of November. Since that time,
the City has taken an appeal and the city has protected its end
of the appeal and so have we. We are awaiting oral argument which
is set for about February 23, 1973.
We are here today primarily because of the lower courts order, the
way it was worded, the freeze period or whatever you want to call
it, the current register was extended by that order for 6 months.
That 6 months did run out on orabout Feb 3, 1973. The order stated
very clearly that the first 2 vacancies would be given to the two
named officers because of improper promotions from the register
before and also because there were 4 plaintiffs, the other two
obviously would be entitled to promotion if any promotions were
available, openings in the Lieutenant ranks, during the 6 month
period.
It has come to pass Commissioners that there are now 4 vacancies
for the rank of Probationary Lieutenant, I believe that is the
way it starts. We are hopeful that because the vacancies are
there and further we are hopeful because 2 of these sergeants
I am referring to, have already assumed the responsibilities of
higher command and theyhave been doing that now for several weeks.
Particular one is commanding a group of 28 and the other commanding
a unit the size of 23 people. We are hopeful that perhaps this
Commission would consider its resolution directing the City Attorney
to at this point, not perfect the appeal,although it has been pretty
well perfected, the briefs are in and we are awaiting oral argument.
I don't want to make it sound like its something strange or anything
else. I feel as we consider this, the present circumstances and
the posture of the case, there are no promotions being made in a
rank of Lieutenant or in the rank of Sergeant. I fell that I can
make this statement. That the Police Department is in need of
these promotions. 2 of my people are working in higher command
right now. 74
kSI3RUAR: 8, 1973
It would be somewhat hard for me to fathom the necessity of
waiting until April, May or June for a 3rd District Court of
Appeals opinion which may well be in our favor all the way and
then what happens at that point. I could not even tell you nor
could I begin to surmize the legal problems. If we are successful,
there has been a stay of the current register for 6 months but the
City has appealed and nothing has been during those 6 months.
Is it going to be extended another 6 months? After the appeal is
over, these are questions, I don't have answers. Accordingly,
we feel this resolution we are seeking from this Commission is
one that the Commission should consider.
Mr. Paulk: The last question that was raised by Mr. Manners
is one that is really quite serious by virtue of the fact that
we have delayed in the filling of any positions even though there
were really none since the list exhausted itself on August 3, 1972,
there has been a delay and it has not been because we requested
a delay. It is simply because the lower courts have indicated
that the lists shall be extended. We did not agree with this and
we have asked that an appeal be carried to the Appellate Court so
that it can be properly litigated. The delay is not ours. It is
because we disagree with the Court and there h..s been a delay and
perhaps there would be an additional extension, it is only
because of the procedure that we must go through in scheduling
through the Appellate Court. We are not responsible for that.
The ramifications of that delay should not be on the basis of an
additional 6 months or whatever because it was extended 6 months.
If you drop this appeal to the Appellate Court, the 6 months will
be up in this month, if its not already up and no addiit:onal t
months, and yet we may have someone who would come in ,.nd urge
that an additional 6 months with another lawsuit, so on that very
basis, we'ask that definitely, you do not withdraw this appeal
but aside from that there is so many other ramifications when you
withdraw this appeal. We had a very similar situation before us
in March of last year relative to the Sergeants examination which
the register was going to :die at that time. There were requests
made to the Board to extend the Sergeants register and it was denied.
It wasn't taken to the Court. The people accepted it. Following
that in June or July, acknowledging the fact that a Lieutenants
examination was scheduled in the month of September following the
demise of the register of the Police Lieutenant, they prevailedi upon
the Civil Service Board, and I speak of the plaintiffs in this case
represented by Mr. Manners to have the Board extend it because
there was a freeze. The Board did not agree that there was a freeze.
The Board denied their request and consequently they had to go into
Court, there wasn't any other recourse and they have and the lower
court has ruled in their favor, we think without justifiable cause
and we think that because of the ramifications of extending this
one in the Circuit Court level, we may be faced with additional suits,
the Sergeants register that was not extended last year. In the
fire department there are a series of promotional examinations
that have died since that time in which by the very same logic
that they went into the Court that a delaying mechanism of 30 days
in the filling of a position that occurred that this should freeze
the entire register that they should have been extended, the Board
did not agree, consequently it could seriously affect many different
registers and consequently we feel that law must be established
in the Appellate Court, by a review of the Circuit Court finding
and we don't feel that you can withdraw 'at this time. It must
be carried out. Circuit Court rulings are never the law. The
Appellate Court, as I understand, is the law. Circuit Courts rule
in many different ways. I don't say they are ever wrong but they
are not always right and I think it needs to be aired in the Appellate
Court on the merits. The Civil Service Board took this matter up
acknowledging the fact that Mr. Manners requested an appearance
before the Board to withdraw this appeal last Thursday at the special
meeting and they urged you by way of a resolution which I submitted
to Mr. Reese and the Mayors Office and I would like to read that
into the record.
75
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
(Text of C.S.B.Resolution)
WHEREAS a request has been made on the part of Plaintiffs -Appellees
Mc Cracken et al through their attorney, Joseph P. Manners, to seek
a hearing before the Miami City Commission in an effort to have this
Commission direct the City Attorney to drop the appeal now pending
before the Third District Court of Appeals, Case No. 72-1182, and
WHEREAS the Civil Service Board has requested that the judgment
rendered in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida be appealed by
the City Attorney, and
WHEREAS the judgment under appeal provides that the City Manager
must fill all vacancies and cannot abolish positions, and
WHEREAS the Civil Service Board concludes that the suit was filed
in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida without sufficient grounds
recognizing that every vacancy which occurred within the two (2) year
life span of the register in question was filled by promotion of
persons on the register during that period,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Miami Civil Service Board req-
uests the Miami City Commission not to direct the City Attorney to
drop the appeal and enable the Third District Court of Appeal:, to
render a decision on the evidence presented.
(End of C.S.B. Resolution)
Mr. Paulk: We urge you not to drop the appeal. Let it go to to.
the Appellate Court. Let it be decided on the mE:.its of the case.
There are very serious ramifications that we may be faced with if
you withdraw from this and I have outlined them to you.
Mr. Plummer: I thought there were 2 involved, you say there .are 4?
Mr. Faulk: No Sir, there are more than 4 involved. i re are 4
people who are named on the suit.
Mr. Plummer: What concern!, me is, what happens if we agree with
you and I think Mr. Manners has made the statement that this will
::e heard on the 23rd. Between today and the 23rd of this month,
what can you give me as insurance that the Civil Service board
wcn't do anything to jeopardize their position?
Mr. Paulk: We have no way that we can jeopardize their position
Commissioner Plummer, there is nothing we can do. We cannot give
as examination.
Mr. Plummer: What you are telling me is that they are not going to
make 2 other sergeants or 2 other lieutenants before the 23rd.
Mr. Paulk: There is no way we can. First of all, the only register
that is in question is the Lieutenants register that died August 3,
1972.
Mr. Plummer: Is there a current register?
Mr. Paulk: Not for Lieutenant. At that time, we had one scheduled
and we were prevented from giving the examination by this decision.
Mr. Plummer: When is the next examination for Lieutenant going to
be given?
Mr. Paulk: Not until this is resolved. We are not in a position
to certify anyone to become Lieutenant of Police.
Mr. Plummer: You know what bothers me is as in the case with the
I. D. Technicians. You are going into ramifications that I think
we have to turn to the Clty Attorney for, but it bothers me to no
end, that here these people are and I don't want to single out two
individuals who have gone to Court at their expense to fight for
what they think is right. Now we have a big legal staff and Mr.
Manners made an incorrect statement. I don't think anywhere in
this Commission that we told the City Attorney by resolution to
take the appeal. You will find Sir in the Charter that it is
automatic unless he is instructed to drop the appeal. But it
bothers me that these people have gone to the Court to win their
point and now they have got to be out of pocket to fight it even
further. This bothers me.
76
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Ile hit it on the head, he said they haven't won it yet, but
the Third Court of Appeals isn't the final answer, is it?
They can't appeal it to the Supreme Court? You are going into
ramifications I can't answer but it just bothers me that these
guys, whoever they are have got to lay this money out of their
own pockets.to prove their point and they've won their point
in the lower court and now we are saying to them, well we have
a legal department and it doesn't cost us any more money but it
does, we are going to fight you.
Mr. Rothstein: No, Sir, that is not what we are saying to them.
What we are saying is what I have repeated to this COmmission
many times, that on the trial court level, statistics of victory
are very bad but the statistics of victory on appeal of the trial
court, are very very good because sometimes in the emotion of the
needs of very good calibre men and 1 am sure these men are, or
they wouldn't be Sergeants, a trial court can find in a way that
an appellate court in the cool, abstract of non -emotion, will say,
wait a minute, that's just not so. So what I am saying toyoa
is that this Commission, if you get in the habit of trying to be
the Appellate level, you are going to have more and more time
spent on appeal situations and if you make a decision not to take
an appeal, you had better hear the legal arguments. You better
hear the full detail of what was going on. One the issues that
was in this case was the fact supposedly their rc_,ister should have
been extended because there was a freeze that was 1:ut on by the
Manager with the acquiescense of the Commission bec;i.se of the
financial structure of the City, of over a year and d half ago.
Well as a matter of fact, factually the freeze was nut on the
Police and Fire and yet the decision of the .Judge contr::Ty to the
testimony was that there was a freeze. Factually, tha, just ha;
nut accurate and that is one of the things we arc taking the
appeal on.
M. Manners; May 1 take objection to this remark?
1•4i•. Rothstein: Just a second. The only thing i am saying tc; you
is if you feel that you want to make determinations on whether to
take an appeal, or not, you had better be prepared and you should
in all fairness to everybody, everybody affected. These Sergeants
and everybody affected in the future with other ramifications to
set aside one day a month to hear the full legal arguments and the
full factual details before you are going to make a decision.
if we spend three days trying a case and you are going to come here
and let somebody come and say in 5 minutes, its not fair to these
men to take an appeal, and make a decision, that is not the way in
my opinion to run a ball game.
Mr. Plummer: February 23 is when this will be heard.
Mr. Rothstein: And the Court has been alerted that it is important
that it be expedited. We will again request that a decision be
expedited and we fully anticipate the decision will be expedited.
Mr. Plummer: If its heardon the 23rd, approximately how long'there-
after before a decision is usually handed down?
Mr. Rothstein: Let me answer it in this way. It won't make any
difference to these Sergeants if they win because the Court will
protect their position if they get affirmed. If they don't get
affirmed and get reversed, it won't make any difference to these
Sergeants because they don't have any rights. They can't be hurt
by hearing the appeal. They cannot be hurt in anyway, shape or
form, if the appeal is heard. If they win, their rights are locked
in and they are successful. If they lose, they have no rights so
they can't be hurt at all.
Mrs. Gordon: All right, do we need a motion on this, Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Rothstein: We've done everything on the appeal, its just the
argument, we have the tape of the transcript.
Mrs. Gordon: We have to take action since this is an agenda item.
77
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon, I am not here trying to argue the
merits of the case, its the principle involved that we are con-
stantly asked to drop appeals, drop appeals and I have always
thought that its the point that the person who is here asking us
is having to fork out of his own hard earned. dollars to fight
the big city, and that's what bothers me and he tells me that
the Third District Court of APpeals is the final answer and if
he tells me this and he tells me this will be heard on the 23rd
of February, and Bobby Paulk is telling me that these men's
position will not be jeopardized, that in no way will there be
a new examination given, and the City Attorney further says that
they can't be hurt either way, their rights are going to be their
rights, then I guess I have to be quiet. It was just something
that has bothered me , that people are having to fight this thing,
lets say as an individual and to have the city law department
fighting them, I just thought it was unfair.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Rothstein, does this need a motion?
Mr. Rothstein: No.
42, ,ACCEPT BID - PISTOLPRIMERS, SMOKELESS POWOLV & 25 SHOTGUNS
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-116
A RESOLUIIOA ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED JANUARY
9, 1913, OF =,OUTHERN GUN DISTRIBUTORS FOR FUR-
NISHING PISTOL PF.IMERS, SMOKELESS POWDERS AND 2 S
SHOTGUN , FOR TIIF DEPARTMENT OF POLICE AT A 'TOTAL
COST OF .$,4 , t;34 . S0 AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO CAUSE A "URCH ASL ORDER TO BE ISSUED TIfEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon bung seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson,
Plummer, Reboso and Mrs. Gordon. NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Kennedy.
43, PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY JOHNSON DAVIS REGARDING
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT '
Mr. Davis: May 1 just take a moment of your time? I don't
know what I am doing here today but evidently I got up on the
wrong side of the bed. On February 19, 1972, you gave me a
variance on this piece of property we have been discussing for
2 hours. When 1 have gone to get a•Certificate of Occupancy, I
have been denied same because work was being done on the building.
All the work has been completed. According to your Building Department,
everything that needs to be done, has been done. I went by there
yesterday and I was told that this was on the agenda today and I
should wait until -+iter today which made sense. If you rescinded
the variance, then I don't need a C.O. You have deferred it as I
understood it.
I go back down there, when I got through a little while ago, and
Mr. List tells me that Mr. Grimm has got a "Hold Order" and I can't
have one. I come back up here a little while ago and saw Mr. Grimm
and he says, I just called and you can go down and get one now.
I just made the second and the third trip today in the last 30 minutes
78
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
•
I am told, now you can't have one because Mr. Rothstein wants to
put a 'Hold" on this thing. Now my client owns title to that
piece of property, my client spent $2,000 in taxes on that piece
of property and he is entitled to the usage of it. Now, we have
complied with the actions of this Ibard, as I understood a little
while ago, you continued the discussion about the rescinding until
the next commission meeting. Until I am convicted, I shouldn't be
hung. It looks as though I am getting hung first.
I want a C.O. and I want one today because I am entitled to one.
I met with Mr. Rothstein and tried to be friendly about it.
I have got the letter of intent which the City Commission requested
and it says in paragraph 1 which he doesn't read, he reads the last
two. It says when the other people give you deeds, we' will give one.
Now you heard your city employees say that they don't have the deeds
from the other people.
I want my C.O. and I want it today because I am entitled to it.
After all, I waited almost one year to the day to get the usage of
a piece of property that we are paying taxes on and if I am not
going to get it, I would like him to tell me why not.
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Davis is telling you half the story because
he gave, this Commission gave him the right to have a letter of
intent instead of the deed being issued with the understanding that
he would quote" Dedicate to the Public, this outlot" and then subject
to the following conditions. Mr. Grimm: has advised you that through-
out the year, his actions in proceeding with his dock has prevented
the carrying out of the Commission's resolution and that i.s. He has
prevented us from proceeding with the road to get the dedications
because we have to get first from the State and further. he stood
here aid said, I am not going to dedicate the outlot, ]. am going
to dedicate only 10'. Now, his letter says he is going to dedicate
the outlot. So far as the administration is concerned, he hasn't
done what he says he is going to do with reference to his conditional
use which is the base of his getting the C.O.
When the administration tells me he has not performed, I can't make
chat decision, they have to and I say, if he hasn't performed to
the intent of that resolution, he is not entitled to a C.O.
Its as simple as that. Now you have got us coming back here next
time and we are going to try to straighten it out in these two
weeks but I certainly don't think, if the administration takes the
position that he has not acted pursuant to that conditional permit
and the conditions of variance, that we should prejudice the city's
position by giving him a C.O. at this point.
Mr. Davis: Is this the action of the Commission?
Rev. Gibson: That's my vote, I don't know about the rest.
ADJOURNMENT:
H. D. SOUTHERN
CITY CLERK
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO. COME BEFORE THE
OMMISSION
ON
AUD
MEETINGWASADJOURNEDDATY5:5U O'LLOCKC�,M, THISE DATE.
RALPH G. ONGIE
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
79
DAVID T. KENNEDY
MAYOR
FEBRUARY 8, 1973
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16.
17.
CIT?f OF Mb MI
DOCUMENT
MEETN D E X FEeP� RG DATE:9
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION AGENDA & CITY CLERK REPORT (12 Pages
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-39 CHANGING NAME
FROM "MEMORIAL BOULEVARD" TO "CUBAN MEMORIAL
BOULEVARD
GRANT VARIANCE -CONSTRUCTION ADDITION OFFICE
BUILDING LOCAT ED AT 1951 N.W. 17TH AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE -EXPANSION TO NATIONAL PARKINSON
FOUNDATION STRUCTURE-1501 N.W. 9TH AVENUE
GRANT VARIANCE CONSTRUCTION TO NATIONAL
PARKINSON FOUNDATION-1501 N.W. 9TH AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE -OFF STREET PARKING LOT-
1615 N.W. 9TH AVENUE
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF JOE REINERTSON
EQUIPMENT CO.FOR THE N.E. 7 COURT
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF J.P. EQUIPMENT,INC.
CONSTRUCTION OF CENTRAL DAINAGE PROJECT E-25
VIRGINIA GROVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4358
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 43179 ENTITLED
"A RESOLUTION ORDERING LE JEUNE GARDENS
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4353
ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED M.C. SUBDIVISION,.
ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED NAPOLI PROPERTIES
AGREEMENT WITH SPENCER MARKETING SERVICES FOR
INSTALLATION OF NEW SCOREBOARD FOR MIAMI
BASEBALL STADIUM
ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED "KLEBBA BAY ESTATES"
SALE OF PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
BONDS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BONDS
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI.
EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS - PROJECT
ENTITLED "MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM"
ENDOWMENT FOR HUMANITIES SPECIAL PROJECTS -
DADE CENTER OF FLA. ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY'S
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL GRANT
COMMISSION
ACTION
R-73-88
R-73-89
R-73-90
R-73-91
R-73-92
R-73-94
R-73-95
R-73-96
R-73-97
R-73-98
R-73-99
R-73-102
R-13-103
R-73-104
R-73-104
R-73-105
R-73-106
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
0044
73-88
73-89
73-90
73-91
73-92
73-94
73-95
73-96
73-97
73-98
73-99
73-102
73-103
73-104
73-104
73-105
73-106
18
FLORIDA REVENUE SHARING ACT OF 1972, PART II -
EMPLOYMENT ESTABLISHED SALARY RATE
R-73-107
73-107
DOCUMENH NDEX
ITEM NO.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONTINUED Ps
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
CLAIM SETTLEMENT-HOWARD OLIVER
CONDITIONAL USE -RESOLUTION #43228-
ADDITIONAL YEAR EXTENSION
ACCEPT BID -FOR FURNISHING LAWN AND MOVING
EQUIPMENT
AWARD BID -PLASTIC GARBAGE COLLECTION BAGS
APPOINT MR. JOSEPH R. HARRISON JR.-PLANNING AN
ZONING STRUCTURE CITY OF MIAMI
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE SEAPORT PROPERTIES AT THE
PORT OF MIAMI
EXTENSION CONTRACT OF MONTAGUE ROSENBERG AS
SPECIAL COUNSEL CITY OF MIAMI
TERMINATING CONTRACTS OF R. HARRIS TURNER,
L. JOSEPH HOFFMAN AND FRANK H. WESTON
ACCEPT BID -SOUTHERN GUN DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
PCCEPl DID -SOUTHERN GUN DISTRIBUTORS
COMMISSION
ACTION
R-73-108
R-73-109
R-73-110
R-73-111
R-73-112
R-73-113
R-73-114
R-73-115
R-73-116
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO ,
73-108
73-109
73-110
73-111
73-112
73-113
73-114
73-115
73-116
0045