Loading...
6861 SW 77 TERR_GREEN MISC November 160 1955 Mr. Lee Henry, Attorney 7227 si-i 57 Court South Miami 43, Fla. . Lear Mr. Henry At -Mrr. Bishop's request I am writing to advise you that the City Covnell,a at, its retnpl.ar 'meeti.ng on November 1, 1955 accepted- the recommendation of the special committee in regard to the Lawlor house by 'proper motionf made# seconded and carried. A copy of this report is 'enclosed herewith for -your i`UPs,. Very truly yours, enc., SGM Syl.va G. Martin, City Clerk �� i DADECOUNTY a 14128-2e OW 3 u I O 5 O N C �1x 2 J2�4 1217 n n J 14127 25 50 50 50 w 0170� w 00 Utg 0 u N V/) 114434 ,0 u N l N t m w o o i IS g ,`mil,J C 00 m k 1zs m o 0,125 0 9 m T 3 i W J 1 y CO JO7 I I 72a7 co J J w a a w J ? p v 7x7.3] J CO i V 1.1.36 141.741 TTT CD 0 a s w W 00 W a NO D a J A i0 IT' a I a N co a Q. 0, N ID°i J N i ° J O i-w o 1412 ry 0c) p U) o o N O R 01 N i .- R7 a a 01 N a N N N a a wD cn iI jj.. •O 073.91 ^„ NO a W \0 W _ . I n O 141.45 to N I (II�J. O !r. m i Iq,a6 14G N a 01 A u 0, A w ? a z 0, I a, OND aI O I to O N co cn o a I to Ia ° P c:' _ 141.49 J w 50 A Q\a i A co 741.49 I I N w0 ' O1 aY J J p i i r-• J � w wi am w N w I a° °� IO W wa � aw I I� 0 A ,0 ,O w O �7 Y U137 141.53 -�//� No Ora N No ° a 41 01 o N a !� 0, w wfU N I i0 N O X N N ° a N N �i \ �� N p I 14'.57 w T c3 01 I i A a l J � ^ w R) oa J N cNn o f I ao cNJt N IMF o I - I 50 Ln O N N to r� 141b1 141b1 140 ,nN to 1 � STREET N — -`� - - I 14th.O I(P N 1n CLOSED 'Q N 125 6 m m ° y 0 ��1n I 10 w "j ; 0 w O� 9�m co co I UN cn OD A N N N o 141.66 A I 141.63 j i .W N ..� N W J a a W I O J I aO 01 'Z w W N A N O J u7 J' J\ u7 I is �m m N w 1 a 01 N N V JO '� i O, N i 141.69 ,^ r2 J N 0\' a J N a N N Ja I :.O 0 o o O O (31` p I` D J I J w Op i o � ta _ i L — .n — — t41.n o v W a; _ `^ J J J I J 0' I 01 U1� J 0`� �O (n J J CJI I V O W cn V, 0, I i Noa `N ° Ln 00 N Ni I I U1 J 011 ? W ~_ (� 141.76 a ? A 1.1.76 4/• O N N 0,4 J 141 so o A rT CD 7n6o N W T ~ N ° W a v W I O mY _ W a a 0, 0\ J /r a J w e I iD J ~O 1 i Q` O ° V 4 Y w0 m O N a N ,0 �p 0 �a V a v a 4194 141.64 W J 03 p` a w i O 75b w —� w ~ � m N N N 171 O V 0, J p rrl a m J oD ° 0 �{ v m 9 a, 125 — u197 — u9e 25 n N O W ? N W A U1 � � m Y .-. Y Cfl tT N W J 8�-' N W CJl N J N 8`-' J I� O .-. 161 o J J 50 00 I o 0 141.92 146 75E n r/ n 2S p N Orr n n 9r n 50 xs n pn n 25 141.92 w W A N UI f AVE. w Li 197b0 25 BREWER 50 51/4 GRIGSBY MANOR LUDLUM PLAZA MANOR 64/78 pp. -o COPY KG ;5 �fy�rn i n re ms e Mrs, George, A14 Lawlor e ec u 1 Southwest 77 7er5�9. e, South P i, Flori a. Mayor City,Council. South M amit Fla. Gentlemen; !✓ in -November of -1955 the City Manager asked my' permission , to break into the concrete and also to :remove some boards from MY house to determine .if any violation of the .building code existed. I was assured that this would be replaced and a first .class job Mould 'be done, however this was not sat.isfaatorily replaced nor repainted, , I havo an estimate to stucco the removed portion, paint the replaced boards and rear of my house for $25,00 and believe it ,is the responsibility of .the City of South Miami to fulfill the agreement made by th•e City Manager,, A-rja it ing an early r`eply I am, respectfully Signed/ � George A. Lawlor s CITY OF SO MIAMI, FLORIDA r Date 11-16-55 FROM: _Jl2£ City '-'-V(anay£z � O ff CE TO: Mrs . Sylva G. Martin, City Clerk SUBJECT; Mr. Lee Henry, attorney for George Lawlor, would appreciate a letter from you in re- gard to the action taken by the City Council relative to the report given by the AIA investigation board. Will you please forward this to Mr. Henry. i Leonard L. Bishop, Jr. City Manager LLB: s } HIN S OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TIM CM COUNCIL OF SOS MXMK HELD TUEESDAY, NOVEMBER 19 A.D. 11955 AT" THE CWMIXTY BUILDING AT 8:00 P.M. In the absence of NA or Gluck, Assistant yor Ann-is; calked the meeting, to order with all Councilmen, City Massager Bishop, Attor- ,ney. Proby and Clerk Martin present. Councilman Corley. seconded by Cou ncilmman," Bryant, moved tMt the minutes. of the regular meeting of October 18 be adopted as individually read. Motion carried Assistant Mayor Annis stated that" the" City Attorney wished to make a few remarks relative to the City Hall bonds before the Council proceeded further with its regular business. Attorney. Pr®Ray then stated that the Notice of Public Sale necessarily was changed from October 4 to October 11, asked the Council for a gas.®lutiou to amend Resolution No. 807 designating the new date of "sale, After a short discussion Attorney Proby read Resolu- tion tion ado. 815, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 815 \ A RESOLUTION AG RESOLUTION NO. 807. BE IT RESOLVW BY THE CITY COUKCXL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH d`711bMI: 1. That tnas£ar as it was impossible to publish ttbe Notice . of Sale of the City Bond lesue. prior to October 119 A.D. 19559 Resolution loo. 807 is amended by the substitution whenever the date of October 4, 1955 appears, to read October 119 A.D. 1955. CouncALnan Corley, seconded by Councilman Tevis, moved that Resolutioh No. 815 be adopted as read. Motion carried by poll, as follows: . Tevia-yes; McKinney-yes; Bry4nt-yes; Corley-yes.; Annie-yes The next item taken under consideration waas the bads on the City Hall bonds. Manager Bishop addressed the members of the City Council and informed them that he had received seventeen inquiries. bait only two bids were received. The At will Company of Miami, Florida, was low bidder. The second bid was received from the B. J. Van ingen and CaVany. Representatives off both companies were in the audience:. After reading the tabulated information Manager Bishop stated that he would recommend the . Atwwill C any, which was some $3,000 less on Interest charges. Further discussion was held and then the City Council took the follow " action: r , ' . Councilman eYn seconded by Counci "fo rley9 mo ved that ®rdtnance., 3® be amended to exclude lored section from .the provis a of Section .7, sub-section 3 thereof. Motion carried by poll., as follows: Tevismyes9. McKinney-yes; Bryant-yea; Corley-yes; Anniamyes - 5. H. George Finks relative t® the L l®r matter. . iii addressed the begs of tae Council and at that time identified the members of the 'comittee to inspect the Lawlor residence. Thereupon the report of findings was read, as follows: "November 1, 1955 19South Miami City Council City of South Miami, Fla. Gentlemen "Acting on suggestion of Ho George Fink, Secretary of Floridan South Chapter, A.I.A. s and appointed by H. Samuel use, President of Florida South Chapter, A.Y.A. , 0. K. Houstoun Jr. , James L. Deen and Scott S. Arnold, practicing architects, and corporate members of Florida South Chapter, A.Y.A. , inspected the residence of Mr., George Lawlor, 6561 SW 77 Terrace, South Miami,, Fla., starting at 2:30. p.M. , Friday afternoon, October 28, 1955. "Conforming with our "Public Relations' policy, this service as rendered is gratis, and this report is submitted with the under- standing that neither the Florida South. Chapter, A.a.A. , or the three above nod individual Members thereof will be involved in any litigati®n concerning this matter. ° e carefully checked existing conditions at the residence and found the following violations of building code and/or faulty construction in said building. Q11. Built-up wood beams on car port do not appear properly anchored.- No metal straps visible and the beam appears to be anchored to the cols by finishing .nails only. "2. Wood covers on car porn zolums as shmin on plan were not put on and, while not a Code violation, is poor construction as columns will be more subject to decay by said omission of comers 103.. 2"W' wood decking over car porn springs under load. The span length seems excessive; from a structural viewpoint. Q14+. Rake rafters on northwest corner of carport storage room supports the roof overhang, yet is not run through along rake to main house. Rafters cut short -and a cut nailed e to block walla Rafters should be removed and run up rake to mouse. "5. blood plate on storage roots rake appears to be cut nailed in place and not .bolted as per Building Code. 116. Rear end of residence rake sew poorly constructed. a3 Reg Awrion Institute of Architeete Cmdttee for RaelfwIn Residence for ft. GEORGUfflWAS October , 1955 Ronoraa a etayor and city Qounejl i 8outb� .a , lea. Gentlemen: Under date of October 3 r 1955 the writer requested a two wsek extension of tim " Council otxnr hold Tuesday$ OotOsr 4, 1955 for presentation o the Cowittee Repot an the above matter relative to violations or non-vtolationis of the puller Code. e to the fact that most Architectural offices 4+ very 4usy i fferee�at p is time lRelations"o since this•service Comittee was unable to have the gestuts, the port for the Cawneil K**t1ft of Tuesdayj October U, 1955. Wherefore, we reepootf"ully request a two week wMenslon of time for this report and will hav* same in-writin at the next regular Counoil *tin& Tuesday, I��+er 1, x955• Respectfully RabmItted, CIT' OF SOUTH MIAMI PLAWKIN G BOARD, RIM chairman RC /dsl` rr Fla 0P Rat Amerka In8titute of Architects Comittoo� Far Reevlu Usidazwe for MRS U R: October-3.0-1935 Honorable or and~C�Y COU1,611, City of south Miami f a As suWasted at the lid�i94UZA the City Council . bar the writer 9 a cootitt` bas been pointed bar the President of Florida Soft Chapt4r, Tie American. Institute of Architects ara the plans for the residents at 6861 so we th rraq*, South Miami and make a personal imps ti0A'*f the Residence rsl•- ative to the matter of "vi at�ns of the Buildin$ Cod*. � This Cott - has "MILO red t p� but, since most of the Architectural Orfices; b�tayr at the presort ti and since this is a matte Vii' �P�xblie Rervicer' insofar as our Chapter is cam , they bt'v+s not had the time to inspect the hour. However they will macro such a epection durlas the time px v to next Council beet* and we herw ash , your indt tda ►ce vatil the new lar Council�tjA Oatober Its 19559 At vhich UWm he report l be sub . witted In writl ag# 1 i The City Kmapr and the writer �e not entered into '. this report and, so f" W as Po +s ns , this will be a fair and Impartial report of vio ate, +�d/ar z=-violations. teap*ct rmf tted, iE ClTr OF 5t? �AMX PLANNXNO , Chairman n' /1 TOs :133t hops Jr. DATE: Sept. 19, 1955 Cityanae >Ci��j',6�'x��Autl� i:a��:i, l`1�.. • Bu ldin Code Requirements ;1 '1y�g/ L-1g. 19 RE:7! J" • g vy S J' $Id jr 3 ► ' ZING CQRl . CBS Residence 6861 SIN 77th Terr. a� You have requested information supplementing my report dated Sept. 14, 19550 in that report, I refer to the removal of a section of stucco at the bottom of the west window opening. This removal revealed the existance of a reinforced concrete tie-beam extending vertically on the west side of the window and also extending horizontally beneath the window. Only one,window was investigated, but it is reasonable to assume that the same condition exists at all window openings. Although the tie-beam position deviates .from the Plans, it complies with the Building Code requirements and makes the masonry walls structurally sound. I i ,, Leon,���c i p, Jr. DATE: Se 4, 1955 c •n outj ,,ija:,-I,,: zia. 08.19 RE: :wilding Code Requirements Levai's, g. Ong rT}j �iE? id : CC�d'. CBS Residence i. 1:�?�z3'.`; -F�,�e ? . •• 6861 S';V 77th Terr. At your request , I have reveiwed the original building plans and have made an inspection of a CBS residence located at ,6861 SW 77th Tor. in the Ci I:ty of South ialili. T:-1i is residence was recently purchased by a !,,Jr. George Lawlor. The original plans were prepared by Architect .`gym. H. IVierriam, A.I.A. for HD,1ROD CONSTRUCTION CO. and are dated 7-12-54. The Building Code, in .Sec. 2901, specifies as follows: "A tie-bear of reinforced concrete designed in accordance with the .engineering Section,of the Code shall be placed in all masonry walls below each tier of floor or ceiling joists or over main interior .horizon p al frame and on top of walls for!riing a coping." "Bending and anchoring of horizontal and vertical framing members to the wall shall be provided sufficient to re- sist the asswried wind force acting in any direction." The plans specified that walls be constructed of masonry topped Tr with a reinforced concrete tie-beam. (8"x 12" 4-` bars? . At the gable ends of the building, a continuous tie-beam was specified. For the sides of the building, the tie-beam was to be continuous, but instead of being positioned at a fixed elevation in the conventional manner, was to run along the tops of the walls between window openings, and, at the openings, was to run down the sides and across the bottoms. This positioning, while unusual, complied with the Building Code, and was, in this case, structurally sound. M'y inspection, made Sept. 81 1955, in your presence , disclosed that no continous tie-bead was installed across the top of the north gable end of the building. To determine structural stability, 1 recommended removal of a section of stucco at th.e bottom of the west window openings and your forces complied. On Sept. 13 , 1955 , 1 again inspected the building and found that a reinforced concrete tie-beam extended vertically on the west side of the window. Such positioning of the tie-bean;, while deviating from the original plan, is structurally sound, provided that it is continous around all window openings and the block masonry between windows, MINUTES or THE REGULAR HERTM ' U, CITY COUNCIL OF SOUTH MIMI HEW TUESDAY, SEPTDMER 20v A oD 1955 y' TEX C ITY BUILDING NE 8e 00 P.M. Mayor Gluck called the meeting to order with all Councilmen.. City Manager Bishop, Attorney Froby and Clerk Martin present Before taking action on the minutes of the regular. meeting of September 6 Councilmam Tevi.s stated that as a member of the prevailing sides, and after due investigation on his parts, he moved to reconsider the request of R. Lo Vernon for the con- struction of a duple on Sid 63 Avenue just south of 73210 Councibnan Bryant, sedonded the motion. Mayor Gluck then stated that CounciLwn Tevis had such a right { to reconsider since he ww on the prevailing sides Thereupon the Zoning Board's rec udati,on on this particular matter Wa@ read (See minutes of Augmt 16, 1955, page 5.) motion Carried by poll, as follows: Tevi.s-yes; HcX -n®; Annis®yes; Bryant-yes; Corley-yes - Thereupon the matter was brought up for discussion. Councilmn Annis stated that he felt the Council was out of order and that the minutes of the last meeting should be first considered, He was o that Councilma Bevis wished this matter disposed of before the approval of 'the minutes. Councilmn Bryant, seconded by CounciLmm Corley, made the .son motion that he made at the last meetinap that the Zoning Board°s recannudation be denied; that this variance be granted for Mr. Vernon. yurther discussion followed with the read of various c ica® tins relative to this matter, including a etter fry the Im- mediate neighbors voicing no objection. Notion carried by poll, 'es follows: Tevis-yes; McKinney-n®, is-yes; Bryant-yesa ;C®rley-yes Mayor Gluck then called for Council action on the minutes of the regular meeting of Septwher 6, 1955. Councilman Neginney, seeded by CouncLiman Corley.,. moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of September 6 be adopted a® individually read. Motion died next item t0ke-a under consideration was the matter of George. Lawlor (see Wrbatim transcript®) Considerable discussion was held on this subject with reference to the, conformity of Mr. Lawlor's building with the South Miami building code. manager Bishop produced an engineering report stating that the building was sound, while Mayor Gluck presented an engineering report submitted by Mr. L wloros attorrdey stating that the building was in violation. . Lawlor was present with his attorney, Mr. Hem. They both asked that the Council advise them of the status of the build°iag, whether there were violations or not. There was considerable discussion, in which Fxn H. George Fink offered the services of a comittee of the American Institute of Architects. Cotuncibum Arms moved that the C®lpleil take advantage o£. Mr. Fink's offer to have this Board of Feview inspect the Lawlor house and give a report at the next Council meeting as to whether or not the house meets. the unified building code. Councilman Tevis seconded the motion, which was died by poll, as follows: Tevia-yes.; McKinney-yes; Annia-yes; Bryant-yes; Corley-yes At 12:02 A.M. Councilman Corley moved for adjournment with Council- man Bryant seconding. After some discussion Councilman Corley moved a econsid.eration of adjo�rn�ent with Counci Eryant answering 11Y.08-79 City Attorney Roby had a resolution prepared with referent to the Iselling of the bonds for the new City ball and this resolu- tion was read to the members of the Council, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. SO? A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LISHI OF NOTICE OF SgALE OF pg�px�o CITY g eS�O$ ISSUE LS SET FORTY1 SAM TO CMMMCE POL ICATION OIL OCrOBER 4, 1955 ANA MITSCRIBIDIG A PUBLIC SALE TO BE HELD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AT 5:00 P.M. ON NO ER 1, 1955; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT �r S �'RPUBLIC SALE OIL NO ER 1. 1955 BE MDE AVAIL- ABLE TO THE CITY HALL COMITTER ON OR , ABOUT NO ER 20, 1955. WHEREAS,, the representative of the City of South Miami as fiscal agent for the sale of the municipal building bond issue Is ATWILL & CONPANYv local fiscal agents, and they have made requests that the saia be published in a recognized financial publication ceencing on October 4, 1955, as concerns the notice of sale, and WHEMAS, the aforesaid ATWILL & CWPAWT has advised that said public sale be held at 5:00 P.M on November 1, 1955, before the Mayor and City Council of the City of South Mimi, and said fends shall be made available as a result of 12 PHONE MO 7-7710 i SMITH. RUTLEDGE & HENRYj 1` ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 1553-F SUNSET DRIVE ,C CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA `! August 31, 1955 Mayor Carl pluck City Hall South Miami, Florida Dear Sir: I enclose herewith copies of two letters received by my client, Mr. George Lawlor. As you can see, the letter dated July 28th lists certain specific violations on your building code and the letter of July 29th retracts all of the previous admissions of violations. My client saw Mr. Owen and had him make the inspections which were forwarded to him in the letter of July 2.9th. Mr. Himrod of the Himrod Construction Company then contacted Mr. Owen and the letter of July 29th was the result. My client feels that this matter should be brought to your attention and the attention of the City Commissioners to determine who is right. Lither there is a violation or there is not a violation. It doesn 't seem that a letter could be written stating such on one day to be followed by a subsequent letter denying the violations on the next day. I believe that my client has discussed this matter with you and you asked him to forward you the copies of which we hold the originals and that you would notify him of the date that this matter is to be brought before the Council. Should you desire any further information, please contact me. Yours very truly, Lee Henry LEH/sph HAVE READ ATTACHED CHECK encl . 2 Mayor - Councilmen ' J II I - I 1 I I CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI . .Public Aorks Department July 28, 1955 Mr. George Lawlor 6861 Sou 77 Terrace South Miami, Florida Dear Sir: Having made a thorough inspection at your home, 6861 Sir 77 Terrace, I find there exists several violations of our building code and non--conformaneies to the approved blueprints of the structure: A list of them follows : 1. The building code requires and the blueprints show a concrete, steel reinforced tie—beam atop the block wall across the rear of the structure. An inspection was made by the City of South Miamt Building Department (myself) and this tie—beam was formed and steel in place. During my inspection last week I removed several of .the wood siding and there was no tie—beam beneath as required. My conclusion is that the forms and steel for the tie—beam was re- moved by the builder after the Inspector had left the job and no concrete was poured at all . 2. The submitted and approved blueprints show a poured cement step at the rear entrance: It does not exist at this time. .3. The metal drip strip along the edges of the roof is not of sufficient width and water seeps into the exposed wood sheathing and rafters. 4. The blueprints show, in detail, that all double rafter ends were to be covered. with a 1" X 4" wood strip. This was done on o-nly one rafter end. 5. The blueprints `show, to detail, thdt the tripled 2"" X 6" columns supporting the porch and carport were to be covered by ad" X 4" wood .strtp. This was not done and water blows through the joints and soon will rot out the supports. 6. The blueprints show flagstone stepping stones ai front and rear doors. These do not exist. 7. The bath room window does not conform to the approved blueprints as to size. Since you have recently purchased this structure from the builder (Htmrod Con- struction Company, Inc. ), I suggest that you contact your lawyer as to what legal action you should take and if possible have the purchase contract cancelled and all your investment returned to you. The City of South Miami will take action against said builder as prescribed by law. Very truly yours, Richard H. Owen Lots 12 & 13 Block 2 West Larkin Park Building & Zoning Inspector CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Public Foorks Department July 29, 1955 Mr. George Lawlor 6561 S. Ff. 77 Terrace South Miami,~ Florida l Dear Sir:: Since writing you a letter yesterday regarding the construction of the home you recently purchased, I have studied the blueprints minutely, and ,further, placed said blueprints in the hands of a Structural Engineer, W. G. Stephan. Vie find that the absence of the tie-beam across the rear of your house paralleling the rafter pitch does not constitute a code violation. The omission of the tie-beam shown on the blueprints was approved by me on the job, but I failed to make the change on the blueprints; therefore, when I looked at the prints one (1 ) year later, I firmly believed that code vtolatton. had occurred. The house which you have purchased at 6.961 S. W. 77 Terrace and built by HIIVIROD CONSTRUCT-LON COMPANY is of safe construction. The rafters are all firmly secured to tie-beams and does meet our code. You purchased the property by sight only and not through a contract to build from HIIVIROD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. The house was given a - final inspection of approval long before your purchase. All matters concerning .,yozzr houzae should be t-alsen up with the­ builder Ae find no violations but rather an oversight by the inspector when giving the final approval. Very truly yours, Richard H. Owen RHO:edb Building and Zoning Inspector CC: City 10anager, City Attorney, H11MOD CONSTRUCTION CO. MISS -OF THE C ING OF THE CITY COUMCIL OF OUTH M MI HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, A.D. 1955 AT THE CM4WITY BUILDING AT 3:00 P.M. Mayor Gluck called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. with Council- men Tevis, Aunis, Bryant and Corley, City Manager Bishop, Attorney Proby and Clark Martina present. Councilman McKinney joined the meeting at 8: 15 P.M. Council Conley, seconded by Councilman Bryant,' moved that the urinates of the regular meeting of August 16 and the special meet- ing of August 23 be adopted as individually read. Motion carried Councibum Corley, seconded by Cou acilman- Bryant, moved that the minutes of the Equalization Board of July 11, 12, 13, 26, and August 23 be adopted as individually read. Motion carried PETITIONS AND CMINNICATIONS: 1. Edward H. Baxter,, architect, for A.D.P. , Inc. , plot plan and east elevation for proposed commercial building at Std corner of Bed Road and 73 Street. The correspondence relative to this mat- ter was then read to the members of the City Council. The attached plot plan was passed around the Co aril table. Councilman Corley, seconded by Councilman Bryant, moved at this lima that this be referred to the Zoning and Planning Boards. Lager Bishop stated that later on in the evening an ordinance would be presented that would cover this rezoning and for this reason he felt that it was not necessary for the Council to take any action at this particular time. Thereupon Councilman Corley withdrew his motion and Councilman Bryant his second. Councilman. Corley, seconded by Councilman Tevis, moved that aiay action on this be tabled until the third and final reading of the ordinance tonight. Motion carried 2. George R. Brewer, re occupational license fen: for mortgage loan broker. Manager bishop stated that this matter had already been taken cage of in the new ordinance and that Mr. Barer, under this ordinance, would be required to pay $30.00 rather than $75.00 3. W. L. Garrison: resignation from Advisory Zoning Board. The letter of resignation for reasons of health was read to the mem- bers of the City -Council. Councilman Tevis, seconded by Councilman Corley, moved that the G+' Council accept- with regret the resignation and that a proper resolution be awn for his past work on the Board. Comeil €ana his asked when the resignation would become effec- tive and Comcilman Tevis counted 09as of this date." Motion carried 4. American Legion Fort No. 31: Letter of thanks for cooperation on information booth ..for the coming national convention. This letter, signed by Mr. John Boyer, was read to the Council. 5. South Miami Lions Club: Request for permit to .sell Christmas trees during the 1955 Christmas season. Councilman Corley, seconded. by Councilman Bryant, moved the permit be granted, at no charge. Motion carried 6. A cammunication from the Florida League of Municipalities re convention on November 13, 14, and 15 at Jacksonville was read. 7. Horace J. Guym: Request for variance from minimum front foot requirements. Councilman Corley, seconded by Councilman McKinney, moved that this matter be referred to the Zoning Board. Motion carried S. Fee Henry, attorney for George Lawlor: re whether or not a violation of building code occurred on his property. Three letters were read. Considerable discus6ion was held on this matter relative to blueprints and the lack of tie beams in the structure. Mayor Cluck stated that the building was in violation and invited the members of the City Council to inspect it. He was of the opinion that it should be condemned and properly built. After much discussion the following action was taken: Councilman Corlge, seconded by Councilman nis, moored this item be tabled until next regular meeting of the City Council. This action was taken to enable the City Manager to have an in- spection made by a structural engineer and report back. Motion. carried 9. Ray M. Earnest, attorney for Henry Acker: Request for vari- ance applicable in the future in the event of need to replace building on Nk Lot 2, Block 2, HAMLET 4/48. Councilman Tevis moved that the request on behalf of Mr. Acker be referred to the Zoning Board for their recommendation. There was no second to the motion. Further discussion ensued and the following action took place: Councilman Corley, seconded by Councilman Bryant, moved that this be tabled. �, 2 � EXCERPT OF CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI COUNCIL MEETING September 20th, 1955 Re: City Manager' s Report on the Lawlor Matter. ,d W. A. Fischborn Official Reporter Member N.S.R.A. v" CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: I have the report on the property of George Lawlor. (City Manager Bishop then read the report to the members of the City Council. ) CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP : In addition to that, and further at the Councils? request, I contacted W. B. Lewis, Structural Engineer, of the Southern Engineering Corporation, who investigated the premises. This letter is dated September 14th, 1955 . (City Manager Bishop then read- the letter to the members of the City Council.) CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP : I have one more thing. So that it is in the record I want to read the letter of suspension to Mr. Richard H. Owen. (City Manager Bishop then read the letter of suspension with reference to Mr. Owen. ) CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: Mr. Owen, on September 19th, wrote to the Personnel Merit Board of South Miami as follows : (City Manager Bishop then read the letter from Mr. Owen to the Personnel Merit Board.) CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: That is all I have to say in regard to the Lawlor property. The building is structurally sound. I feel that Mr. Owen made a mistake. I believe -- think -- that that is the end of the matter. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: I have a report that was handed me today by Mr. Lawlor. The report is from an engineering .firm that inspected the building. I would like to read that at this time. It may have some bearing on the two letters. -1- (Mayor Gluck then read the correspondence referred to. ) MAYOR CARL GLUCK: G. A. James, Engineering. COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: Who's on first? MAYOR CARL GLUCK: There is quite some conflict all the way through. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: Mr. Mayor, I am going a little further than that. I say there is quite some conflict. Mr. Bishop reads a letter about Mr. Owen and about the untold embarrassment on our City. Has anybody thought of the untold embarrassment brought to this gentleman? I have heard it for two weeks. I am sorry that I cannot prove it, but I am going to try to prove it. I am going to ask that this Council be appointed as a board to go into this whole thing 'and that we subpoena people in here to get the facts. We are going to get them. Now, the statement was made, Mr. Mayor, I can't prove it as I said before, that you were getting after Mr. Bishop through Mr. Owen. I am going to try to prove that too; If we don't do something about it I will ask the Grand Jury to dig into this matter. This man has been accused of bribery and everything and that has brought about this man being suspended tonight. If that wouldn't have happened he would not be in the spot he is today! Now, that remains to be seen. I am certainly going to try to find out from somebody. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Well, Mr. Corley, I will say this . I am not going to get into a personal hassel with you or anybody else. I have brought a letter to this Council that was addressed to the Mayor and the City Council. It was read. I have used the name of Mr. Owen exactly the times it was written in the letter. As I 4 -2- understand it, it is your statement that I am using Mr. Owen to get back at Mr. Bishop and it is absolutely wrong. That I do not want to have in the record, however it is there. You are absolutely wrong on that. You know that I don't use around-about ways to get at anybody. I am frank and open-minded and open-spoken. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: Well, there are people in this City and I will get them to stand up and testify to it. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Mr. Corley, perhaps your words here are insinuating that the rest of these have no foundation. I don' t know if that is what you mean. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: I am bringing up the statements about embarrassment brought on Mr. Owen'. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: I feel sorry for Mr. Owen. I worked with Owen. When he came to work for the City I shook hands with him. When I met him I told him that I would back him one-hundred per cent when he was right and I wouldn' t have any sympathy when he was wrong. I have not taken sides against Mr. Owen in this case. I have done my duty to bring it to your attention. It is addressed to the Mayor and the City Council. Can you find any fault with that? CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: Mr. Mayor, could I make one statement? MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Let Mr. Corley finish. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: I am asking the Council to set up a board to investigate -- subpoena people -- to find out these facts. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: It is within the power of this Council and I hope that it does for the good name of the City. We are losing -3- faith with the public unless we do things right. COUNCILMAN E,. J. CORLEY: Well, there certainly is a lot of gossip -- MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Yes, sir -- CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: I asked first, Mr. Mayor. Before the thought is changed -- on several occasions in the City Hall, during -the time of conflict, you stated to me frankly "Are you going to fire Mr. Owen" and I didn't fire Mr. Owen. I didn't plan to fire Mr. Owen. I don't think that it was proper on your part to ask me if I was going to fire him. You were thoroughly convinced that there were violations on the property and that I should fire Owen. I didn't feel any action should be taken until we found out. You were being partial in the case. I think that you were. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Mr. Chairman, I've got to answer Mr. Bishop. I want to read a letter and then tell me what you think about firing Mr. Owen. I didn't talk with you period! I talked with you over the 'phone -- on the 'phone and I asked you -- told you that I had talked with three members of the City Council. I asked what was your intention toward suspending Mr. Owen. There was nothing about firing. I am going to read this letter. I left a memo to you. (Mayor Gluck then read the memo above referred to. ) MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Does that sound like I asked when you were going to fire him? CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: You were convinced that the building was condemnable! -4- MAYOR CARL GLUCK: I made the statement at the last Council meeting that it had no tie-beam according to the plan. COUNCILMAN JEROME ANNIS: Mr. Mayor, I wish -- I would like to hear at this time the opinions and the problems that Mr. Lawlor has. I think that he has been an innocent by-stander and caught in the middle of this Kassel and it leaves him alone. MR. HENRY: I think that the issue is being clouded, gentle- men, by the government being in the middle. In the first place when we brought up these violations we did not know Mr. Owen by name or otherwise. My client came to me and said he thought that violations had occurred in his building and I advised him that the proper pro- cedure would be to go to the Building Inspector-- not knowing Owen -- and find out what the violations were. Accordingly he called Mr. Owen and we then received the letter of July 28th setting forth these violations. When those violations came through we thought that we would bring them to show that the building was condemnable and then low-and-behold we get a letter retracting all of these violations! Why the letter of July 28th was written we never will know! We are getting the issues all clouded up! Down at my client's house they are tearing off boards or drilling holes in the building. What is going to happen is, is if something doesn't happen one way or the other the building is going to fall down any way because they come down there and take a board off here and drill another hole in it -- I doubt very seriously if you could get an engineer to find out whether the building should stand or be pulled down with all the board pulling and drilling! If I remember right, and I stand to be corrected, at the last meeting a Board of Condemnation was to be -5- appointed to look into this . . We get a report. We get one from the Southern Engineering Company. ghat happened to the Board of Condemnation to make an impartial investigation? I advised my client that, in the event something did happen, that he should have a private engineering company go in and make this inspection. We took the trouble, and at his own expense, to have this inspec- tion made. We have a copy made for each one of you Councilmen. I do not like to see this matter revolve around whether Mr. Owen took any money, or whether any money changed hands, due to these imperfections. I don't think that there is any intimation on the part of my client, or on my part, Owen got money out of this. In fact, if that impression was given, we wish to retract it. We don't believe any money or bribery was there. We do believe this. We believe on the basis of that report and what has transpired be- fore that the building was improperly built. We believe that Mr. Owen rather than not doing a good job did a good job. He found seven violations. why he wrote the second letter I don't know. Why he didn't stand on the first letter I don't know. If he did we wouldntt have such an argument now. The report verifies the viola- tions that Mr. Owen found, but they found four more, so I wouldn't like to see anything happen to Mr. Owen. I hope that this building deal doesn't cause anything to happen to. him. COUNCILMAN JEROME ANNIS: When was this house built to begin with? MR. HENRY: I can tell you the closing date approximately. It was closed on or about July 20th, 1954, but all my client wants is this. We believe that there are violations there. We believe it -6- more strongly now. All we want to do is to get the Council to find someone, or go by one report or the other and determine whether it is or not. We dontt have any fight with the City of South Miami. They did not build the building: We believe that the building is built wrong. If you tell us that we will go against the contractor and have the thing backed-up. COUNCILMAN JEROME ANNIS: You say that you believe the building was built wrong? You believe that it is not built according to the plans? MR. HENRY: I think there are imperfections there. COUNCILMAN JEROME ANNIS: Because it is not according to the plans there are imperfections? MR. HENRY: There are imperfections. It was first brought to his attention that water leaked in certain places under the roof. He went out, as any man, and wanted to know why the water leaked and that brought on the original investigation. COUNCILMAN JEROME ANNIS: One more question: In view of the fact that you have this report by the engineer, do you plan to take any action against the builder who built this house? MR. HENRY: That is our contemplation. COUNCILMAN JEROME ANNIS: Here is my point. I am trying to separate the City from you folks. In other words if you are going , after the builder who built the house and he should make good the things you should make good there is no reason for the City to come in and take action condemning the house. MR. HENRY: Excepting the violations. If the Council here -7- will determine there are certain violations, that is the basis of going against the builder. If you find no violations we have nothing against the builder, but the point of the matter is that I want to clear up is that we have no action against the City of South Miami. We have no fight and we believe Mr. Owen did a good job, but he shouldn't have written the letter of the 28th -- 29th. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: Have you got the blueprints on that? What architect or engineer okayed them? CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: They don't okay it. This was okayed by R. H. Owen, Building Inspector. Another thing I would like to add, when a set of blueprints are submitted and a builder desires to make changes through the time of construction those changes can be okayed by the Building Inspector if they meet the code. Now, this thing of the straps not being there and flagstone steps not being there are things that if Mr. Lawlor wants them he has to argue with the guy he bought the house from. I think that the only thing that the City is interested in at the present time is does that building meet our building code and we have had it checked by structural engineers who have said that the building is safe. As to these other problems; the things that are missing -- Mr. Lawlor didntt have the house built for himself. He bought it after it was built. He should go to the contractor and get those extra things. Our problem is is it structurally sound to meet the code. COUNCILMAN JEROME ANNIS: I think that the end is in sight on this thing. As I see it, the house was originally built and during the course of construction it was decided to deviate from the -8- plans with the approval of the City Building and Zoning Inspector. Then the position came about that you got one engineer that says it is all right; that it meets the building code as it now stands and another says the house wasn't built the way the plans show and both of these things aren't true . So, the only thing to settle at the present time is does the City plan to do anything about the alleged violations in this particular house. The house was not built according to the plans originally called for. We also know that changes were made by the City Building Inspector. I think that this can result in a simple solution. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: May I interrupt? Some of those changes as I understand it and I don't know too much about building -- those changes have to be made if they deviate from the prescribed plan -- they must be noted upon the master plan itself. There have been no changes upon the master plan of the deviations that was in the home. I understand that those changes were not on the plan of construction on the job. CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP : That is where the Building Inspector was in error. The first error was that he okayed the changes and didn't change the plans in the City Hall. He looked and then looked at the building. It looked like there was a violation, so -- COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: You make the changes on the master plan as long as they meet the plan. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Just for a minute -- in reading this letter there is emphasis stressed on it' s being sound. I fail to see on -9- where many of these deviations in the building this engineer says it meets our code. I would like to bring another thing up. On what building I have done I have been under the impression before any changes can be made in a structure of a building first you must get the permission of the man who drew the plans for stresses and strains before. you may make the changes. Our Building Inspector isn't an engineer. If this wasn't done there is your first violation of your . code. These things, if there is no notation made,a year later you may say steel was brought out. One letter may be completely changed the second day. A man might have thought definitely on the second day that he thought he might have seen steel and forms. These things should be completely ironed out and should not have to go through this way. The City should have the history of the building. . This letter hasn't said as I read it that we have not violated our code. MR. H. GEORGE FINK: I would like to clarify one matter. I am not taking sides in this one way or the other. At a Council meeting the suggestion was made, but not carried out, that the Chairman of the Planning Board was asked to look at the building and see what he thought of it. Well, that did not come officially from the Council. I think that that was dropped during the evening. The Mayor called me last Friday and asked if I would go down to the house with him. I went down Saturday morning. Mr. Lawlor was there. I had my own opinion as an architect of long standing, but in order to be fair I told Mr. Gluck I intended to tell Mr. Bishop exactly what weotalked about. Mr. Bishop will admit that that was fair and impartial all the way through. I was not representing the City when I went down there. I went down there on my own. I make this statement. I did -10- go down there, but not as a member of the Planning Board or as a private architect. Mr. Gluck knows and so did Mr. Bishop. I wanted to bring that up so it wont come up that I was sneaking around the house. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: Mr. Mayor, I am not a builde°r here either, but I• have reasonable intelligence and I believe we have here a matter where one engineer says "yes" and the other says "no." It resolves itself back to me how much reliability can be placed on these two engineers. I don't know either one of them, but I would like to have you know that maybe one of them is not worth anything if it is the one I think it is. Maybe I am right. I don't know who it is really, but it seems to me a matter that I want to see justice done here. Mr. Mayor, I don't like these conflicting reports. As far as Mr. Owen is concerned my situation there is not on the building code, but the fact that he has contradicted himself and used poor judgment in those letters. I think that the City Manager was per- fectly right in suspending him. I am afraid I would have been a little harder than he was on him. I would like to get down as to who these engineers are and if they know what they are talking about. They both don't know. MR. HENRY: As you see, our report is a typewritten report signed and certified by our engineer. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: By typewriter? MR. HENRY: He put his name in and he typed it both. We got a report from Mr. Bishop. I don't know, I didn't see any certi- fied copy. I don't know what engineer made that observation. Our man went out and signed the thing. See? (Indicating to report. ) _11- CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP : His name is right on the copy (Indicating to report. ) If you want a certified copy I will be glad to get it for you. MR. HENRY: That is just an observation. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: Mr. Mayor, we are all interested in seeing that Mr. Lawlor gets a square deal on this. I made a statement here at the last meeting that we had a Condemnation Board. Why didn't we use the Condemnation Board? MAYOR CARL, GLUCK: I think 'that you made the suggestion that we use that board. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: , Thatts right. As far as Mr. Tevis says, itts true Mr. Owen made a mistake. I questioned Mr. Bishop about it the other day and it is possibly a little of Mr. Bishop's fault too. Those letters Mr. Owen had had to go through Mr. Bishop's office. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: I was discussing Mr. Owen. CITY ATTORNEY LUCIAN PROBY: I think that you are premature on the Condemnation Board. The Building Code says this -- that an official of the City; namely the Building Inspector, has to condemn it. The Condemnation Board is set up for appeals. I believe you will find that in the code; that the condemnation is made by the Building Inspector. I believe that is the way that the ordinance sets it up. COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: Mr. Mayor, I would like to point out this about the Condemnation Board. (Councilman Annis then read from the minutes of the City Council.) -12- 6 COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS : We talked about that Condemnation Board but we didn't do anything about it. CITY ATTORNEY LUCIAN PROBY: The Building Code provides for a Condemnation Board but it wouldn't come into the picture un- less there is a condemnation by the City Building Inspector and someone takes an appeal from that order. So, we have -- MR. HENRY: Excuse me. We did not have time. We got a letter. We didntt have time. He made a statement to Mr. Lawlor at the time he made the inspection that he should condemn this now. Before I had hardly opened the letter on the 28th I got one on the 29th and it didn' t give me time enough to do anything about it! He said that he should condemn it. MR. GEORGE LAWLOR. He said that I should condemn it. I should condemn this building right now. On the 29th I got the other letter. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: In all fairness to Mr. Owen, Mr. Owen is here and maybe we can get a little information out of him on the six or seven points in what he did to rectify this before he wrote the other letter. MR. W. S. C. BOYDEN: Mr. Chairman, in respect to this matter, if it is doing to be "kicked-around" I am going to ask you to let me step outside and not become prejudiced. I hate to see this going on sitting as an impartial witness. I must be that way. The question that we have to decide Thursday night has nothing what- soever to do with the violations. It is a charge made by Mr. Bishop regarding the integrity of Mr. Owen on the violations. As I suggested -13- to you people before, it seems to be a doubt in these gentlemens' minds and our City Manager' s about the two conflicting reports. Surely somebody in this fair City of our's can be called in and we can take their word once and for all whether the building is in violation or isn't. That' s what you gentlemen are trying to find out. How long do you contemplate kicking the matter around? MAYOR CARL GLUCK: I am of the opinion that we did not get there early enough in the early part of this whole thing. I think that it should be brought to your attention that Mr. Lawlor found a leak in the house and he hired a roof-man. The roof-man went on the roof. He knew nothing about the, building or anything else and when he got to the ground he said "You'd better have an inspection made on that house." That was the first statement and it began to make Mr. Lawlor wonder. The rafters in the house are spaced six foot six: The rafters are on studs. I don't think that that is good building for the City of South Miami. Our first violation was the passing of that particular kind of plan. That is my thought! COUNCILMAN E. W. Mc KINNEY: I don't think we know a bit more now than we did before whether there is a violation. I think we should get an unbiased engineer to make another inspection. As it stands right now I don't think we know one thing more whether it is right or wrong. MR. H. GEORGE FINK: I think I can make a suggestion to have a report of engineers. I happen to be Secretary to the Institute of Architects and we have members of the Executive Committee . We have a committee set up for just this sort of purpose and I would be glad to bring it to their attention -- the attention of the President -- -14- and ask him if he will appoint a committee of three architects, not in South Miami, to review the entire case and come up with their recommendation. I think that in that case you would get an unbiased report from men who were not connected with the City of South Miami in any way whatsoever. I would be glad to take this up with the Executive Committee. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: Should that be architects or structural engineers? MR. H. GEORGE FINK: I will assure you that you aren't going into any heavy construction and that any architect can plainly see the conditions existing there now as to their violations . They are so apparent. They are all exposed. It doesn' t take any engineer to say that a tie-beam comes around the window or a truss, or whether there are straps on the columns. That is all architect- ural construction and I am sure that the three they would name would also have engineering. Any architect has enough engineering education to look at a job of that type. CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: Can I make one comment? My suggestion would be, if the Council would accept it, to have the Engineering Department of the City of Miami inspect it, who has inspected some mighty high buildings. MR. GEORGE LAWLOR: I would object to that'. CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP : I would take the structural engineer' s opinion over an architects any day. I don't mean that to be unfair to architects or the structural engineers that are there -- COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: What we are trying to determine is does the building met our code. Get somebody familiar with our -15- code. Does it meet our building code -- that is the point I am interested in. I think that Mr. Fink' s suggestion is a good one providing the architects are familiar with our code. MR. H. GEORGE FINK: The same code the architects work under applies to the City of South Miami and that is the City of Miami Code and we are familiar with it. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: What are the wishes of the Council? COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: I was going to suggest that we let Mr. Fink get three architects and the question for them to determine is this: Does this particular building meet the South Miami Building Code? That is the question and let them come back and answer that, whether it is safe or not, I am not interested in. CITY MANAGER LEONARD L« BISHOP: The Miami Building Depart- ment, of which Mr. Knox is Director, says that construction of that type meets the code . COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: He didntt see the building. CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP: He saw the plans. COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: He didn't see the building. Let' s get these three architects, or three people -- Mr. Fink' s people . Mr. Lawlor hired this particular engineering company to make this inspection. He merely asked that the inspection be made. MR. HENRY: He asked that an inspection be made and whether or not it conformed with the stated building plans. He just asked that the engineer make a report and didn't tell him why. he wanted the report. That report was made without the engineer knowing why. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: One thing that I was interested in was that "per agreement dated July 28th signed by Richard Owen" so I -16- see that he evidently read the letter. MR. HENRY: The violations were handed to me on the 28th and I called him and there was no coercion on the thing -- we did not ask him to make a certain report or anything. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: Did you make that a motion? COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: No, that is just a suggestion. I don't think that it is necessary to make it a motion; that is the feeling of most of the people on the Council. CITY MANAGER LEONARD L. BISHOP : I've got to disagree with Mr. Henry in regards to the house falling down. We took a patch out of the wall three inches deep and two square feet. I dontt think that that side is going to fall down. What Mr. James did on the other side I dontt know. COUNCILMAN J. M. BRYANT: I would like to know before we get these architects if it is going to be acceptable at the end with Mr. , Lawlor or not if they say the thing is structurally sound and passes our code. MR. HENRY: And there are no violations -- it is all right. COUNCILMAN J. M. BRYANT: You will accept that? MR. HENRY: Yes, by an impartial board. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: The changes made in the plan wont come into it at all if it complies with the code. MR. HENRY: We wouldntt comply with the code if we. make a change in the plans without telling you and it has to be on the master plan. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: The construction can be changed. I dontt know, youtve got to allow for that too. -17- COUNCILMAN E. W. Mc KINNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is of vital importance to this City Council and to the City of South Miami and to Mr. Owen, the Building Inspector.. I cannot help but see that one of those letters is right and one absolutely wrong and brought about by one or the other by pressure somewhere. I still don't understand the accusations made against the Building Inspector -- the steel being removed after inspection. That was in the first letter. This is of vital importance to straighten this out if there is a violation here. I think that that is the question we are interested in. Whether it is structurally sound or not is up to Mr. Lawlor to worry about. COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: Mr. Mayor, is a motion necessary? MAYOR CARL GLUCK: Yes, because Mr. Fink would be working on his own. COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: Mr. Fink, let me ask you a question. This Board -- what kind is it? MR. H. GEORGE FINK: It is a board of public relations -- an arbitration board. ' COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: In other words an arbitration board? MR. H. GEORGE FINK: No, it comes under public relations with construction and industry. It is a special committee set up as . 'a board of review. They would not be interested in the plans -- who drew the plans or anything--else. They will just look at the building, and make a report on the building. COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: I would like to move then that -18- we take advantage of Mr. Finks offer to have this Board of Review inspect the Lawlor house and give us a report at the next Council meeting as to whether or not the house meets the unified building code. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: I will second that. COUNCILMAN PAUL U. TEVIS: Yes. COUNCILMAN E. W. Mc KINNEY: Yes. COUNCILMAN JEROME C. ANNIS: Yes. COUNCILMAN J. M. BRYANT: Yes. COUNCILMAN E. J. CORLEY: I am going to vote yes. I think we need an engineer on it too. MAYOR CARL GLUCK: If it were a twenty story building it would be necessary. k z• HOUSTOUN FERGUSON ARCHITECTS & ASSOCIATES 4035 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida November 1, 1955 South Miami City Council City, of South Miami, Flaw Gentlemen: Acting on suggestion of H. George Fink, Secretary of Florida South Chapter, A.I .A., and appointed by H. Samuel Krusi, President of Florida South Chapter, A. 1. A•9 0. K. Houstoun Jr. v Fames Lo Deen and Scott B. Arnold, Practicing Architects and Corporate Members of Florida South Chapter, A. Io Am, inspected the Residence of Mr. George Lawlor, 6861 SW 77th Terrace, South Mi.amig Fla., starting at 2:30 P.M., Friday afternoon, October 28th, 19550 Conforming with our "Public Relations" policy, this service as rendered is gratis* and this report is submitted with the under- standing that neither the Florida South Chapter, A.I.A., or the three above named individual Members thereof will be involved in any litigation concerning this mattero We carefully checked existing conditions at the Residence and found the following Violations of Building Code and/or Faulty Construction in said building, 1. Built-up food Beams on Car Fort do not appear properly anchored. No metal straps visible and the Beam appears to be anchored to the Columns by finishing nails only. 20 Wood Covers on Car Port columns as shown on plan were not put on and, while not a Cade violation, is poor construction as Columns will be more subject to decay by said omission of covers. 3, 2" x 4" good Decking over Car Port springs under Load. The span length seems excessive from a structural viewpoint, 4. Rake Rafters on Northwest corner of Car Port Storage Room supports the roof overhang, yet is not run through along Rake to Main House. Rafters eut short and "out nailed" to block wall. Rafters should be removed and run up Rake to housed 5o Wood Plate on Storage Room Rake appears to be cut nailed in place and not bolted as per Building Code. 60 Rear end of Residence Ranee seems poorly constructed.. Vertical stiffening in absent except for that given by Vertical Siding, Ridge is supported by a vertical Brace, Proper construction would, be 2" x 4" studs to rafters @ 2689 o o c o, wood sheathing, water- proof paper and vertical siding. Siding should lap masonry more than it presently does for weather protection, 7. Wood Columns supporting Rafters have exterior face stuccoed, Plans show good cover. Stucco has not been properly applied having gaps or voids at sash and at Rafters9 enabling moisture to seep in. There is no evidence of anchoring; columns to Rafter or to Concrete Tie Beam below. 8. Span of 249 x -4" Decking on Screen porch is 80 0440 Decking 99springst9 and is undesirable. 4e 90 Plans call for 2" x x.2" Fascia on Screen Porch overhangs 1 x 12" was used and it is warping. 2" x 12" needed for horizontal Bridging on Columns. I k YJ4. 10, Rafters on Screen Porch are supported against wall of house by 2 11 x 6" "cut nailed" to block wall. Bearing of 2" is too small. Column or Pilaster should be 4" x 6" bolted to wall with a" (round) bolts @ 4' 0"' O.C . Rafters could be supported by an angle clip8 bolted to concrete tie beam as an alternate, 11. Flashing from Screen Porch to front Rake of Residence is on outside of Siding instead of being covered,by Siding. As a result, asphalt has crackede resulting in leakage, 12. There is no evidence of ties from Rafters to Ridge and no Straps are visible. 13© Nailing of Collar Beam to Rafters deemed insufficient as nails appear to be finishing nails. lk. Drip Strip used on building is sized for 3A" Sheathing and is too small in depth for 2" x 4" Decking, 15. Plywood cover above Concrete Tie Beams and between Rafters does not appear to cover Masonry enough to give adequate protection. Plans not followed in this instance, 16. Rafter Ends should be covered with 1" R 4" Wood Cover as per plans. Rafters are too poorly erected to be left uncovered. At various points throughout the Houseo one can see out through the cracks in the Rafter beams, 17. Footing on Car Port coliumis shown on Plans is too small and should be 10 x 16" with two (2) #5 reinforcing rods, con- tinuouso. 18. Stucco around house extends onl in "plus or minus" below grade instead of the minimum distance of 4" as directed by Code. 19. Plans call for Rafters to be anchored to Columns by means of bolts. Rafters are, however, connected to Columns by nails. 20, In conclusion, we feel that the construction in general is very poor and does not give the Owner a Residence that will properly protect him from the elements. Sincerely, 0. K. HOUSTOUN, JR.s A.T.A., Architect-Engineer. SCOTT B. ARNOLD, A.I.A., Architects JAMES L. DEEN, A.T.A., Architect.