Afteraction January 12, 2005 <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Miami</strong> <strong>Beach</strong>10:00:30 a.m.Emergency Item:Discussion on the Coral Rock HouseACTION: Discussion held.Jorge Gonzalez, <strong>City</strong> Manager, introduced the item. He stated that he has been informing the <strong>City</strong><strong>Commission</strong> via LTC’s, and asked for directions to appropriate the funds for the testing, to wavecompetitive bidding to allow him to engage with Gopman and Associates, and stated that it needs togo to the Unsafe Structure Board, which is the organization that has the jurisdiction. He explainedthat the <strong>City</strong> now knows what the testing will entail and it is questionable if that test can be permittedunder the Florida Building Code.Mayor Dermer is concerned with the timing since the Unsafe Structures Board meets nextWednesday and asked if that board will wait until the study is completed.<strong>Commission</strong>er Gross stated that the <strong>City</strong> will not spend any money if on Wednesday the UnsafeStructures Board decides that the structure needs to be demolished. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>Commission</strong> canapprove the expenditure subject to the Unsafe Structures Board agreeing to the timeframe.Mayor Dermer asked who is driving the Unsafe Structures Board’s calendar. He stated that the <strong>City</strong><strong>of</strong> <strong>Miami</strong> <strong>Beach</strong> should be vigorous on this subject, not only to conduct the study, but to ensure thatthe Unsafe Structure Board respects the fact that the <strong>City</strong> is conducting the study, and to give the<strong>City</strong> the time needed to do the study.<strong>Commission</strong>er Garcia asked if hiring Mr. Gopman, a board member, would be a conflict <strong>of</strong> interest.Gary Held, First Assistant <strong>City</strong> Attorney, stated that he did not think it would be a conflict, but hedeferred the question to the <strong>City</strong> Attorney.Murray Dubbin, <strong>City</strong> Attorney, asked if there is a connection between his duties as a member <strong>of</strong> theBoard <strong>of</strong> Adjustment and the job he would be performing in connection with the Coral Rock House.He stated that ethic questions are very factually driven and he cannot answer the question withoutreviewing all the facts.Mayor Dermer stated that doing work for the <strong>City</strong> and sitting on a board is a conflict and if the <strong>City</strong>hires Mr. Gopman, he would have to resign from the board.<strong>Commission</strong>er Smith asked what the study is going to accomplish.Jorge Gonzalez, <strong>City</strong> Manager, stated that there is no guarantee that the Unsafe Structures Boardwill accept the testing regiment that Mr. Gopman has proposed, and more importantly, the UnsafeStructures Board requirement is to determine if the building is safe or not. The Unsafe structuresBoard requires the local Building Official to approve the adequacy <strong>of</strong> the testing for purposes <strong>of</strong>issuing a building permit. He explained that based on the testimony given by Mr. Gopman to theHistoric Preservation Board, he cannot prove mathematically what the outcome will be; it becomesalmost impossible for the Building Official to issue a permit to do that test.Phil Azan, Building Department Director stated that Mr. Gopman stated at the Historic PreservationBoard, that even after the test is completed, he could not guarantee that the building can berestored. He explained that Mr. Gopman has stated both verbally and in writing that mathematicallyhe cannot prove that the building could be restored and meet the Building Code. The test beingproposed by Mr. Gopman does not meet any standards approved by the Codes the BuildingDepartment enforces.Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> Clerk’s Office Page No. 40M:\$CMB\CITYCLER\AFTERACT\2005\Afteractions\011205\aa011205.doc
Afteraction January 12, 2005 <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Miami</strong> <strong>Beach</strong><strong>Commission</strong>er Smith stated this is a test that has never been done before. He explained that thestandard <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> that he is accustomed to following is what is reasonable engineering probability,not possibility. He emphasized that he is certain that there is nothing that can be done to save thishouse. He stated that this test is a complete waste <strong>of</strong> taxpayer’s money.Phil Azan, Building Department Director, agreed with <strong>Commission</strong>er Smith.Vice-Mayor Cruz stated that <strong>Commission</strong>er Smith makes a compelling argument and the <strong>City</strong><strong>Commission</strong> does not want to waste money.<strong>Commission</strong>er Smith asked what would be the cost <strong>of</strong> saving the house.Phil Azan, Building Department Director, stated that the cost to save this house will be astronomicalbecause <strong>of</strong> the way it was constructed; it has no structural supporting frame.Vice-Mayor Cruz asked who made the decision that it is an unsafe structure.Phil Azan, Building Department Director, stated that his department made that decision through aroutine inspection. He stated that this is one <strong>of</strong> 32 buildings on the list.Mitch Novick, Chairman <strong>of</strong> the Historic Preservation Board, spoke.Motion made by <strong>Commission</strong>er Gross to refer the Historic Preservation Ordinance to the PlanningBoard to discuss: a) the cost factor involved in fixing a historic building, b) the <strong>City</strong> should have a list<strong>of</strong> engineers that the <strong>City</strong> certifies as being qualified in historic preservation and when one <strong>of</strong> thisprojects are presented, the applicant should be required to pay the engineer from the list to ensurethat the <strong>City</strong> gets an opinion with the objective to preserve the building, instead <strong>of</strong> demolishing thebuilding; seconded by <strong>Commission</strong>er Bower. Motion passed without objection. Jorge Gomez toplace on the committee agenda and to handle.Vice-Mayor Cruz stated that a statement needs to be made that the <strong>City</strong> will not accept destroyinghistorical properties that could be saved.Motion made by <strong>Commission</strong>er Bower to: 1) establish the emergency <strong>of</strong> the situation, 2)appropriate funds to conduct the study at a cap <strong>of</strong> $75,000, 3) wave the competitive bidding,4) hire an engineer at the <strong>City</strong> Manager’s discretion, 5) to refer <strong>Commission</strong>er Gross’s itemsto the Planning Board for review; seconded by <strong>Commission</strong>er Gross; Voice vote: 5-2;Opposed <strong>Commission</strong>ers Garcia and Smith.<strong>Commission</strong>er Smith stated that the test Mr. Gopman will be doing has never been done in thehistory <strong>of</strong> the world, it has never been certified or approved by standard laboratories in the UnitedStates. It is a test that has been done with soil, but never with coral rock, and it is a test that theBuilding Official has stated, on the record, that he will not approve.Rhonda Hasan, Assistant <strong>City</strong> Attorney, spoke.Carter McDowell, Esq., representing the property owner, requested the <strong>City</strong> <strong>Commission</strong> to givethem the chance to work with staff and the Historic Preservation Board to reconstruct this buildingappropriately. He explained that they will 1) document the building exactly as it is now, 2) will drawplans appropriately with the supervision <strong>of</strong> the Planning Department (William Cary), 3) will come upwith a demolition program approved by the Building Official that will allow as much as it is humanlypossible, take the building apart piece by piece in order to save as much <strong>of</strong> the rock as it is humanlypossible. To the extent that they cannot preserve the rock and re-incorporate it into a structure thatPrepared by the <strong>City</strong> Clerk’s Office Page No. 41M:\$CMB\CITYCLER\AFTERACT\2005\Afteractions\011205\aa011205.doc
- Page 3: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 6 and 7: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 8 and 9: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 10: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 14 and 15: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 16 and 17: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 18 and 19: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 20 and 21: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 22 and 23: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 24 and 25: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 26 and 27: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 28 and 29: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 30 and 31: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 32 and 33: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 34 and 35: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 36 and 37: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 38 and 39: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 42 and 43: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o
- Page 44: Afteraction January 12, 2005 City o