HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2001-04-25 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
S
P
E
C
IA
L
MEETING
M
I
N
U
TE
S
OF MEETING HELD ON APRIL 25, 2001
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL
Priscilla A. Thompson/ City Clerk
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 25th day of April 2001, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting
place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in special session.
The meeting was called to order at 4:17 p.m. by Presiding Officer/Commissioner Wifredo Gort
with the following members of the Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Wifredo Gort (District 1)
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton (District 2)
Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3)
Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4)
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5)
ALSO PRESENT:
Carlos Gimenez, City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk
Sylvia Lowman, Assistant City Clerk
ABSENT:
An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Regalado, after which, Commissioner Winton led
those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
4/25/01
Vice Chairman Gort: Before we begin, anyone that's going to testify, they need to stand up and be sworn
in. Anyone that is going to testify needs to stand up and be sworn in. And I'm going to ask all of you that
are going to testify, please, come up to the City Clerk and put your name down, so we can call you. Now,
my understanding is -- excuse me. Hello? Hold it. Anyone that's going to testify needs to stand up.
Raise your right hand to be sworn in.
Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Do you solemnly swear or affirm --
Vice Chairman Gort: Wait a minute, wait a minute. My understanding is there might be some individuals
outside that would like to testify. OK, make sure they come in and everybody gets sworn in.
Note for the Record: AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH
UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1, TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING
ISSUES.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Please sit down. Now, the next question: All residents of the City of Miami
raise your hand. Residents in the City of Miami, raise your hand. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning): Thank you. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk,
Planning and Zoning Department. The item before you today is consideration of approving a major use
special permit as modified for the Brickell Bay Village Project, located at 2101-2105 Brickell Avenue.
The Planning and Zoning Department has reviewed the modified plans as submitted in November of 1999,
and found that the proposed changes meet the same requirements as the original application. It has further
been found that the modified plans are an improvement to the original plans, in that they reflect a
reduction in the development on the subject property from 421 units to 359 units, as proposed before you
today. There is a table in your backup that shows the revisions and the numbers involved in the revisions
to reduce the project. I want to give you a quick history for the record, and to refresh your memories on
the project. This was originally submitted as an application on March 5th of 1999 for a major use special
permit with 421 units and 632 parking spaces. The Planning Advisory Board, at a meeting held on May
19, 1999 recommended denial of the major use special permit as presented at that time. On November 18,
1999, the applicant submitted a modification to the major use special permit application, which is the set
of drawings and the plans that are before you today. This is the one that reduced the project from 421
units to 359 units, and reduced the parking spaces to 510. The project was also reduced in footprint. It
meets and exceeds the setbacks everywhere. They are way over the minimum requirements for setback.
They also set back the property -- the project from the water, you know, more than was necessary, in order
to retain a line that was closer to the buildings on either side. On December 3, 1999, the Zoning
Administrator determined that the modification was substantial, even though it was a reduction, because it
2 4/25/01
did move the footprint more than ten feet. That is one of the criteria for substantial modification. The
Planning Advisory Board reheard the item --
Vice Chairman Gort: Hold on a minute. Excuse me. Can we have somebody go out there and tell them
that we all one to keep one meeting? Thank you. Go ahead, Lourdes.
Ms. Slazyk: OK. The Planning Advisory Board then on December 13, 1999, reheard the substantial
modification to the project and recommended approval, finding that the changes were, you know, being
that they were reduced, and reduced the overall development on the property, that it was appropriate for
the property and they recommended approval. The City Commission then adopted the major use special
permit on December 14, 1999, Resolution 99-961, which approved the 359 units with the 510 parking
spaces. The approval by the Commission was then appealed to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court
in January of the year 2000. The Appellate Division of the court issued an opinion in November of 2000
remanding the matter back to the City. On January 25th of 2001, the City Commission remanded it back
to the Planning Advisory Board for reconsideration, according to the court's opinion. The Planning
Advisory Board at its meeting of February 21, 2001, approved the modified plans by a vote of four to two.
The Planning Advisory Board also asked me to make sure I inform you that they deliberated long and hard
on this. The hearing last approximately three hours. They listened to both sides. They weighed all of the
information, and they wanted you to know that they -- you know, they thought long and hard on this, and
they recommended approval by a vote of four to two. The Planning Department continues to recommend
approval of the project as presented with the conditions that are specified in the development order in your
package. The only condition other than the standard conditions to a major use special permit is regarding
a final revised landscape plan. There was concern at the Urban Development Review Board under the
design review about the Coral Way frontage, and the trees, and how the landscape would be treated. So
we did add a condition here that the final revised landscape plan would be submitted to the Planning
Department and the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) for review and approval prior to a
building permit. That's it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Lourdes, for the sake of all the -- everyone that is here, could you go through the
conditions? Because I think it's very important everyone gets all the information.
Ms. Slazyk: All right. The conditions of the major use special permit are, first, that they meet all
applicable building codes, land development regulations, ordinances and other laws. That they pay all
applicable fees due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Number 3 is that they allow the Miami
Police Department to conduct security survey at the option of the Department, and to make
recommendations concerning security measures and systems, and further submit a report to the
Department of Planning and Development prior to commencement of construction, demonstrating how the
Police Department recommendations, if any, have been incorporated into the project, security and
construction plans, or demonstrate to the Director of Planning why such recommendations are impractical.
Number 4: Provide a letter from Department of Fire -Rescue, or approval on building permit, indicating
the applicant is coordinated with members of the Fire Plan Review Section at the Department of Fire -
Rescue in the review of the scope of the project, owner responsibility, building development process and
review procedures, as well as specific requirements for fire protection and life safety systems, exiting,
vehicular access and water supply. Number 5: Prior to the issuance of a shell permit, provide a letter of
assurance or obtain approval from the Department of Solid Waste that the project has addressed all
concerns of said department. 6 and 7 have to do with preparing a minority participation and employment
3 4/25/01
plan. They also have to record in the records of Miami -Dade County either a declaration of covenants and
restrictions providing the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be
by the property owner, or a mandatory property owner association, in perpetuity, in case of a
condominium, a certified copy of the development order specifying that it runs with the land and is
binding on the applicant. Prior to a shell permit, they have to demonstrate to the City that they have either
completed the condominium requirements of the State of Florida or provide the City with a record -able
unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title agreement for the property. Provide the Department of
Public Works with plans for sidewalk and swale area improvements for review and approval. Provide
Planning and Zoning with a temporary parking plan which addresses the construction employee parking
during the construction period. The plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning
Department prior to the issuance of building permits, so we can coordinate construction activity. 11:
Make available to the City at no charge Department of Fire -Rescue and GSA (General Service
Administration), the roof area for any necessary communications equipment. 12: Retain the services of
an archeological consultant, who will be responsible for conducting archeological monitoring of ground
disturbing activity, as well as subsequent recovery of artifacts. The consultant shall work at the direction
of the Miami -Dade County Archeologist, and shall provide reports to both that office and to the City. And
the landscape plan condition is next. And the final one is that they comply with conditions of the Miami -
Dade Shoreline Development Review Committee Resolution 99 -SDRC -2. They were required to get
Shoreline Development Review approval, which they did. And this requires compliance with those
conditions.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Lourdes. Yes, ma'am. Before you go on, I think it's very important
that we all understand. You'd be amazed and surprised how many times we have had this audience, and
after listening to both parties, we have been able to come up with some solutions, believe it or not. Yes,
ma'am.
Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Good afternoon. For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with offices at 2500 First
Union Financial Center. And I'm appearing before you on behalf of Brickell Bay Village. First and
foremost, I'd like to take just a couple of seconds to do some housekeeping chores. And we would like to
include in the record by reference all transcripts of previous hearings on this matter, all City files, all
plans, the major use special permit books and applications.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, Vicky. Would you lower your mike, please?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: The appellate cases. And this includes everything from our first meeting with the
City in September of 1998 to the present. Also, as entered into the record at the Planning Advisory Board,
the transcripts of cases filed in the 11 th Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Miami -Dade County. The first
case is the Atlantis on Brickell Condominium Association, Inc., in its corporate capacity, and its capacity
as class representative of the Condominium Unit Owners of the Atlantis on Brickell Condominium, Haim
Shaked, Ruth Shaked and Harvey Goldman versus the City of Miami and Coral Way Investments with the
cross-claim from Coral Way Investments for fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) in damages. Also, the
transcript of the lawsuit in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami -Dade County, Florida,
Appellate Division, Case Number 00 -112 -AP, Mickey Bizz, Petitioner, versus City of Miami Coral Way
Investments, which has been dismissed. I would like now to very quickly expand on a few things that Ms.
Slazyk presented to you as part of the history of this project. I represent the developer of this project,
which is a partnership of local businessmen and the union pension funds, which includes electricians,
4 4/25/01
plumbers, brick layers, metal sheet workers, et cetera. The case is before you on a remand from the
Circuit Court in its appellate capacity for a public hearing with notice. This case started for the developers
and owners at a meeting with the City called, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the City Code, a preliminary
meeting for a major use special permit. It was followed during the fall of 1998 with a meeting of the
Large Scale Development Committee, which is a committee made up of some 30 different governmental
agencies for and on behalf of the City of Miami, Dade County, the State of Florida, which looked at this
project and analyzed the project for purposes of meeting their Code requirements and their agency
regulations. We received approvals and moved on to the Urban Design Review Board, City of Miami
board that is comprised of architects and landscape architects in this community who reviewed the
building for design. And again, this building received approval. It then went to the Planning Advisory
Board in April of '99. And at that time, for the first time, we heard of concerns from the neighborhood,
and the Planning Advisory Board denied the project and sent it on with a recommendation of denial to this
board. We were scheduled before you for the first time in May of 1999. And at that time, working with
legal counsel for both our neighbors to the north and to the south, the two condominium associations, the
Bristol to the south and the Atlantis to the north, we came before you and asked for a continuance, and
that continuance turned into two, and into three, and into five, and into six, and we continued this matter
from May until November. During that period of time, there were several phone calls that I was instructed
to make on behalf of my client, the developer, to try to reach out to the neighbors, both to the north and to
the south, and to hear their concerns, get a list of demands, requirements, and be able to work with them,
to try to resolve this issue. I would like at this time to enter into the record copies of Exhibit Number 1,
which are a series of letters that transpired between myself and legal counsel for both of those
condominium associations.
Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): No. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's proper that that be
entered into the record here. That's not relevant to your decision. I would ask that you not include that in
the record.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Mr. Maxwell, with all respect, this is already part of the record.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: I would ask that it not be included.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Because it was introduced at every other hearing.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. We have to listen to our Attorneys.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's got to be scratched.
Mr. Maxwell: Also, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Maxwell: With all respect to Ms. Garcia -Toledo, also, she asked that the proceedings from the
litigation -- the transcripts, I believe you said, Ms. Garcia -Toledo, from this case and transcripts from
other Circuit Court cases be included. Did you not?
5 4/25/01
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. Were included already in the public record at the Planning Advisory Board
meeting, in our part of the public record.
Mr. Maxwell: You know, I would -- my recommendation would be that they not be included here. That's
not relevant here. The record that the -- the decision from the Appellate Court is relevant. That's why it's
back.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: But the other would not be.
Vice Chairman Gort: Since it's a different matter --
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Vice Chairman Gort: -- let's hear from you as an attorney. What is it we are to do here?
Mr. Maxwell: Right now, what you have before you is an application for a major use special permit, as
amended. The criteria is clearly set forth in the Code for making such decisions. It doesn't include
activities between homeowner's associations or anything of that nature.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: It is -- your decision would be one that's based on competent evidence presented at this
proceeding, not any agreements or anything that may have happened between the homeowner's
association or anything that doesn't involve the City. That doesn't involve the City.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. You heard from --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: In order to protect my record, I must object to the opinion that has been rendered.
Vice Chairman Gort: Ma'am, objection taken.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I just need to put these legal things in the record.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Well, objection taken.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I understand. And I would also like to add that it's already part of the public record
and that --
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, may I just inquire of one thing, please? Has anyone put into -- did
you put into the record the Appellate Court order or ruling?
Mr. Maxwell: That's what she just did. And that's the one that I said is relevant to these proceedings. I
did say that's relevant.
6 4/25/01
Vice Chairman Gort: Are we going to get a copy of that now? Is somebody going to pass that over to us?
Mr. Maxwell: I had --
Commissioner Teele: Are you putting that in the record, ma'am?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I already did, sir, at the Planning Advisory Board. The City has all those documents
from me. So all I was doing was reiterating what the previous --
Commissioner Teele: All right, all right, excuse me.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, when it's convenient, would you see if someone can locate a copy of
that order, that I'd like to peruse.
Mr. Maxwell: I understand it's on the way. It has been sent out before to the board. Also, when I said "at
this proceeding," I meant proceedings of the City, which would be all lower boards, as well, that's
relevant.
Vice Chairman Gort: Say again. I didn't understand you.
Mr. Maxwell: I said, when I said the only thing before you would be -- all the relevant criteria would be
that presented at this proceeding. What I meant was proceedings of the City. That would be this
Commission and the lower boards of the City. Those proceedings would also be included in the record, as
well.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And if I may ask to the City Attorney through the Chair, and if those documents that
I just talked about are already -- have been already accepted into the record, into the public record of Dade
County -- I mean of the City of Miami -- they're part of the public record. Correct?
Commissioner Sanchez: But they have not been given to us.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is you can put all that in the record. My understanding is that's
not going to help us in making any decision for or against. And I just want you to understand that. And I
think that's what he's stating. What you're stating in here is irrelevant to the way -- the decision that
we're going to take. You're welcome to put all that -- my understanding is --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Correct. But all I'm going is establishing the history of the case.
Vice Chairman Gort: -- this is part of the record, the public record that was introduced before. It's there
and that's it. That doesn't mean that we're going to read it or we're going to look at it, except for the one
on the court. I'd like to get a copy of that. Continue, please.
4/25/01
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We were scheduled and continued for five months. During those five months, there
were several communications between us, in an effort to facilitate a resolution to this matter. There was a
resolution entered and reached with our neighbors to the south. And that resolution came about and
created the modification that is before you today. And that's what I was trying to establish. I was trying
to reach the point where I explained to you why we originally had a major use special permit application,
and you'll hear me refer to it as the MUSP, which called for a certain building with 421 units, six stories
of parking, et cetera and et cetera. But that never came to you, because out of working with the neighbors,
we entered into an agreement with one of our neighbors, responded to all their requirements and modified
the application, pursuant to Chapter 17, to bring it to this new project.
Tucker Gibbs: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker, you're going to have --
Mr. Gibbs: I'd like to raise an objection to this.
Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker, you're going to have all the opportunity and all the time to speak. Now,
Mr. Attorney, can we hear that they got together and they made some changes? They got together with
the public? Come on. Let's get somebody -- We have too many lawyers in here.
Mr. Maxwell: What I've said is that --
(APPLAUSE)
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Hey, hold it. We're not going to have any of that. If we have any of
that, we welcome you to go outside.
Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Garcia -Toledo --
(UNINTELLIGIBLE COMMENT)
Vice Chairman Gort: Sir, you're out of order. If you want to stay in here, I'm going to run this meeting.
OK? Thank you. Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't think it's relevant. The fact that she says that they've made changes, and she said
they made changes as a result of trying to cooperate with the neighbors, I think is probably the only thing
that's really relevant -- I mean that she needs to say on this. I mean, other than that, I don't think it's
relevant to these proceedings.
Mr. Gibbs: And Mr. Chairman that was my objection.
Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker --
Mr. Gibbs: That was my objection.
8 4/25/01
Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker, thank you. You're going to get all the chance in the world, and you know
you will. Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, as a point of procedure, we're in a quasi-judicial setting. You
cannot, with all due respect, stop counsel from objecting. He has to preserve his record. This things is
going to go up to -- no matter what we rule, it's going to go up on appeal. We're here as judges. And
both counsel have the right, unless the Chair is ruling otherwise, both counsel have the right to interrupt
each other for the purpose of imposing an objection on the record. And that's my view, Mr. Attorney, and
if I'm wrong, then correct me.
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, I understand that what you're saying. I'm not an attorney. I
never sat here as a judge, so I'm going to have to define my -- maybe you should run the meeting, then
and let's do a judicial meeting instead of a zoning meeting. I mean, if that's what it's going to be, you tell
me.
Mr. Maxwell: No. I think Commissioner has a point that they have -- all counsel have a duty to preserve
the record. Courts have said that quasi-judicial proceedings of this type do require observance of minimal
due process, and that would include cross-examination of such. I think the time, in order to keep the
proceedings going, because they talk about a relaxed standard, the way to do that would be to at the end,
allow counsel to ask all questions --
Vice Chairman Gort: So I'm going to wear my hat as a judge. And my understanding is that there could
be all cross-examination, and they can do it afterwards.
Mr. Maxwell: Oh, cross-examination, but it would occur --
Vice Chairman Gort: But we have to run this like a court that if they won't accept each other -- because
let me tell you, I don't know how many lawyers we have here. We're going to be here all night.
Mr. Maxwell: I would suggest that you --
Vice Chairman Gort: So I'd like to do a procedure, if I'm allowed, any questions they have, any
objection, write it down and then you can take it later on. If not, you tell me.
Mr. Maxwell: If you'd like, you can do it that way as chair.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a question of the Chair?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Gibbs: To clarify, on behalf of my clients, what you're telling me, if Ms. Garcia -Toledo wishes to
make a statement into the record, that will go into the record, and I will not have the opportunity to object
to that statement until my opportunity to speak on behalf of my clients. I have to take -- I have a problem
9 4/25/01
with that. All I want to do is put it on the record that I object to it. I don't want to make a big deal about
it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK. Tucker, I understand that. But my understanding also, and correct me if
-- all you attorneys. We're not sitting here as a jury.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Let me say this: There is clearly -- because I read in the newspaper recently that
two Commissioners said that they are prepared to vote on a particular item a certain way. Clearly, this
Commission needs to have a workshop, because any zoning matter -- We are judges. And if somebody
has already made up their mind, they have an obligation to get up and leave before they've heard both
sides of the evidence. If anybody has already heard -- made up their mind before they hear the evidence,
in my judgment -- as a Commissioner, not as a lawyer -- they have an obligation to recuse themselves
from any participation in this. We hear every zoning matter as quasi-judicial. That's a matter of State
law. That's not a matter of Commission policy or Commission Charter. Every, every zoning matter is
quasi-judicial in its nature. Is that correct, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. You are judges when it comes to these matters, quasi-judicial matters. The
application of existing criteria to a question in order to reach a decision is quasi-judicial in nature. And in
those situations, you sit as judges.
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand and I agree. But I want to set up a system in here, because let me ask
you a question: There's going to be a lot of testimony coming in front of us that's not relevant to the case.
Do we tell them, no, you can't say that? Are we --
Mr. Maxwell: You may recall on occasion I -- I just interrupted Ms. Toledo to say that it wasn't relevant.
That's something as Chair; obviously, you could do, as well, with guidance from your legal counsel.
You'd certainly have a right to conduct these proceedings in an orderly fashion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Okie doke. Thank you.
Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Winton: Mr. Attorney, Commissioner Teele just stated that his opinion is that any
Commissioner who has stated publicly their opinion about some item before it's come before the
Commissioner should not -- should leave the room or recuse themselves from the deliberations on that
item. Is that accurate or not accurate?
Mr. Maxwell: You don't have to leave the room, sir. But you certainly -- your decision must be based
purely on the information in the record during either earlier proceedings of the lower boards or this one. It
can't be on anything else.
10 4/25/01
Commissioner Winton: Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Let me correct the record. Does either party have the right to voir dire? Under all
of the rulings of the State of Florida, does either party have the right to voir direct? That is, to question
any Commissioner on any statement that he has made, to determine whether or not he is fit? And may that
attorney challenge a Commissioner under the rulings that I read by Judge Fletcher on the Court of
Appeals?
Mr. Maxwell: You cannot question -- no one can question the motives of --
Commissioner Teele: No, no, no.
Mr. Maxwell: No, I understand what you -- may I finish, Commissioner? I understand exactly where
you're going with that. And when you're talking about Judge Fletcher --
Commissioner Teele: I'm not going anywhere. That's what the law is.
Mr. Maxwell: No, no, I mean I understand the question. I understand, particularly when you referenced
Judge Fletcher. What you're speaking of is Jennings. And Jennings is the case -- Milton Jennings versus
Metropolitan Dade County is the case that allows members of the public to voir dire a judicial member of
this Commission, to determine whether or not they are privy to any external information that's not part of
this -- whether or not they have been privy to ex parte communications.
Commissioner Teele: Whether they have been privy to ex parte or whether they have formed an --
Mr. Maxwell: They have engaged in ex parte communications.
Commissioner Teele: Exactly. Or formed an opinion, as I've read the Fletcher ruling.
Mr. Maxwell: Well, I don't --
Commissioner Teele: Again, I'm speaking only as a Commissioner. I'm not giving the law. But I'm
telling you, if you've read Jennings and if you read the subsequent decisions, it's very clear that anyone
can ask us questions about any statements that we make that are ex parte; that is, are made in -- without
both parties being present. And any person who has formed an opinion before the evidence is made may
be challenged by either party not to sit. Now, whether or not they sit is another matter. But the courts will
review that if it goes up on appeal. This case is going to go up on appeal. I'm only trying to get the
record straight for us, not for either one of them.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Proceed.
11 4/25/01
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioners, the relevance of what I was trying to tell you is that I am going to
show you two buildings, because today, the application that is before you is a modification of what was
originally submitted to the City. And the only reason why the developer modified this building to this
building was following the request from our neighbors to the south. So that is the relevance that Mr.
Maxwell was looking for. Had we not had neighbors that said to us, "We are concerned, these are our
problems and we want you to address our problems," we would have been here before you with a building
for 421 units, not a building that has 359. And had we proceeded with this building, there would never
have been a modification. There would have never been a trip back to the Planning Advisory Board, and
there never would have been an appeal with an order to come back with you for notice. So that's how we
got here. And in the process of going from this building, which you can see clearly had six stories of
parking, had four or five additional heights in story, we went from there to a building in June. So from the
original proposal, we changed it in June. Our neighbors were still not satisfied. And at that point, the
applicant sent back this revision, and redesign -- asked the architect to completely redesign the building.
And that change, and that redesign to meet what our neighbors were requesting from us is what causes the
substantial modification. As part of that process, we had to make those changes, because we signed a
contract, a settlement with those neighbors. And I think that's very relevant, because what we can do in
terms of the project that we have now designed is the subject matter of a contract enforceable under the
State of Florida. May I have the contract?
Mr. Maxwell: Again, Commissioner --
Vice Chairman Gort: Vicky, my understanding is they're trying to tell you that that contract, that
agreement you made with your neighbors, whatever it is, is irrelevant in here; that an agreement that you
make on your own -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Attorney -- is not relevant for this matter.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It does not bind the City. And I am not entering it for probative value of saying that
the City is bound. I am entering to establish the history of the case and how we got to this building.
Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Garcia -Toledo, I appreciate it, but respectfully, it's not relevant. It's not relevant.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. So we go from there, and we make all these changes to the building. And so the
building that is before you today went from 490 units, which is the allowable, permitted by the land use in
this area and in this district to an original proposal of 421 units to its current revision in front of you of
359 units, or substantially below what's permitted by the density. We went from unlimited height, which
is again allowed by your Zoning Code to 28 floors in the original proposal down to 31 or up to 31 floors,
in order to create a thinner, taller building, which you probably will be asked about, and you will hear
testimony asking us to make that change. We made it. We made that change to a skinnier, taller building
in June of 1999. And again, the neighbors were not pleased. So we came and brought the building down
to 26 stories. Again, the building before in front of you. They did not want to -- We had too much
parking space we were told. We had between 750 to 800 is permitted. We came in with 650 parking
spaces. In our June revision, it still was at 650. There were further objections. We went down to 510,
which is what is in front of you. In making those changes in unit count and the changes in parking, we
were able to address one of the main concerns, which was the above ground parking. We had a parking
pedestal that was six stories above ground. We redesigned it, went underground, and were able to do two
underground parking, using the entire space, not just what was physically under the building, but because
we were underground, we could go beyond the footprint of the building. And so we ended up with only
12 4/25/01
two levels above ground. So we went from six to two. And in the new design, we went from a typical
podium parking design to a fully screened two stories of parking so that it looks like windows and
landscape, rather than the wall of a parking garage. We also shortened the distance of our property from
391 feet -- and that's east to west access, from Brickell to the bay -- we went down to 317 feet. In other
words, we shortened the building an additional 80 feet from the water. So by bringing the building and
pulling it back from the water, we were able to allow better views for our neighbors on both sides. The
project that we originally brought before the board had a request for an FAR (floor/area ratio) bonus of an
additional 25 percent FAR. That does not change density. It doesn't add units. What it does is it allows
for bigger units. The neighbors had objected, and again, we dropped that requirement by making our units
less and our building smaller. And we have a chart that we will be passing out that is exactly the chart that
I just went through with you. Unfortunately, due to a scrivener's errors, at the City Commission meeting
of December 14, 1 believe, 1999, this Commission approved this project. The project that was approved
by a vote of four to one is exactly and without any changes the same project that we are presenting to you
here today. Nothing has changed. Interestingly enough, because there is this long history to this project,
you had in your packages the original resolution that was prepared for you when this project first came
before you in May for 421. And in those packages was also the new resolution for 359. And when it
came time to finalize that resolution after your vote, the wrong resolution was picked up and finalized by
the City. That error, not in the project you approved or in the number of units that you approved, but in
the resolution that was finalized, was used as one of the entry points into the Appellate Court. We spent
an entire year, from January of 2000 until January of 2001 in Appellate Court. I'm not going to bore you -
- it's on the record -- all of the legal issues that were raised. The court did not find any fault with any of
the legal issues that were raised in appeal. They strictly sent this matter back only for a public hearing
with notice. End of story. And we're here.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Would you repeat your synopsis? The court sent it back-- The court
sent it back, what? Say that again?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: For a public hearing with notice. They did not raise in their opinion any other legal
issue. They did not find anything wrong with the decision that you had made. They didn't find anything
wrong with this project. And, in fact, how could they? You will hear from our architect that we not only
meet your Zoning Code, but we, by far, exceed each and every requirement. Your own Charter setback
for waterfront asks for 50 feet. We have over a 260 -foot setback from the water in this project. And there
are not many projects in this City that can boast that kind of a setback. We meet your view corridors. We
exceed the setback from Brickell Avenue. We are below density. We are not asking for any variances or
special exceptions. No wonder the court didn't find anything wrong with this project. And once again,
what's in front of you is exactly that same project that was before you and approved four to one in
December of '99. Now, you're going to hear substantial competent evidence from a number of experts,
and they are going to show you just how much and how well this project fits and is compatible with its
surrounding. I would also ask you to be very attentive to some of the arguments you're going to hear here
today. We have very sophisticated and educated neighbors. They have always been represented by
counsel. And like any good counsel, they know and they've been told that views are not protected in the
State of Florida. And this has been litigated, and it's established law in Florida. And so when we started
this whole process, people were concerned with their views. And then when they got educated that views
are not protected, then it was no longer about being able to look out and maintaining their views. It was
about saving the world for the Atlantis, so that the rest of the world could see the hole in the middle of the
Atlantis. And while that's a very sophisticated argument, it is still an argument that does not hold any
13 4/25/01
legal basis. Because, in fact, if you read the case of Fontainebleau versus 4525, Inc., from the Third
District Court of Appeals, it specifically says that no views are protected from inside or from outside.
And I'd like for the record to introduce that case law so that anyone who wants to review it can do so.
And I'd like to read into the record on Page 359 of that case, District Court of Appeals case, Third District
Court rehearing denied, in fact, that the record affirmatively shows that no statutory basis for the right
sought to be enforced by plaintiffs exist. The so-called shadow ordinance -- and here was a municipality
that had gone further than Miami. This was Miami Beach. And they created an ordinance to protect those
views. And the Court held the so-called shadow ordinance enacted by the City of Miami Beach, at
plaintiff's behest, was held invalid in City of Miami Beach versus State. And this particular decision of
the Court goes on and on about that there is no possible basis for holding that plaintiff has an easement for
light and air either expressed or implied, across defendant's property, nor any prescriptive right thereto.
The law is settled on this matter. At this point in time, what I'd like to do is introduce Mr. Willy Bermello
to share with you the actual project, as well as some studies that he has done that I think will be very
enlightening.
Willy Bermello: For the record, my name is Willy Bermello with offices at 2601 South Bayshore Drive,
Coconut Grove. Thank you, Ms. Leiva. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, what I'd like to do is focus the
presentation on a number of the issues that I believe have been raised during the various presentations that
we've made, and limit myself to those areas that I think are germane to some of the concerns that have
been voiced by the opposition, address those in my presentation, and not get into a lot of the other detail
about the project, which may not be totally relevant in your final decision. First point, which I think is
important, this developer and this project, in reality, did not have to be before you. The developer could
have, in fact, come to the City with two buildings on the property, with each building under 200
apartments, thus negating the need to go through a major use special permit. The board that has been put
up before you shows two ways in which two towers could have been sited on the property next to the
Atlantis. And I'll ask my partner, Ray Fernandez, to point to you where the Atlantis is, and how two
towers, in fact, could have been located, each under 200, adding up over and above the number of
apartments that we have on our project that's before you today, which is 359 apartments, but never
requiring to appear before you, as long as we were not asking for any variances. We simply could have
just marched on down and getting a building permit. In fact -- and we'll put the next board -- the property
-- we have a little overlay that shows the level of extent for -- Ray, if you flip the -- if you take the
setbacks required in the Zoning Code, it gives you a lot of latitude with respect to the site setbacks, the
setbacks along Brickell, the setbacks along the waterfront. In every single case, our project exceeds -- in
other words, we provide much greater setbacks than what the City would require of a developer. And if
we take that overlay out, you will see the footprint of the building that's before you, in comparison to the
footprints of the buildings next to you. Almost like comparing shoe sizes, as if it may, whether the shoe
sizes fit and whether they're in keeping with the neighbors. If we could address a second one of the issues
of views -- and Ray, if you could put that one up. And as you can see, I'm going quickly through these,
because we have a lot of people here and I don't want to take more time than I need to. A lot of the
comments we received is, you know, your building is going to block the hole, or the view from the outside
of the Atlantis. And, you know, unless you're on the bay, unless you're maybe in a high-rise far away, or
you're watching one of the old reruns of 'Miami Vice," if you happen to be jogging or driving down
Brickell Avenue, that is what this sequence of photographs shows you. If we were to be concerned here
today also with not blocking views of the Atlantis, we'd have to cut just about every single tree down,
because, in fact, the landscaping in that neighborhood does a great job. It does buffer a lot of the buildings
from the view of the pedestrian or the motorist. If we look at numbers for a second, what your Code
14 4/25/01
permits and what is before you in terms of how many units we could have built or proposed to you, 490,
the building has 359. There's a limited height. The uppermost level of the building is 260 feet. You
could have put 800 parking spaces. We have 510. Every single setback, we have exceeded. Some have
said that the building is out of character, out of scale, too large. This graph before you shows you the
height of every single building along that road, with a photograph, each one coded, so you can identify it
by name. Our building is the one in red. I think this graph speaks for itself. At least with respect to
building height, this building is the median, the average of the neighborhood. It's not the smallest one.
By a long shot, it's not the tallest one and not the biggest one. They say that a photograph is more than a
thousand words. And I'd like to pass to you -- this is an accurate computer image of what the building
will look like, as sited in the project and with the adjoining buildings that exist there today. We also have
a model, so that three -dimensionally, we show you exactly -- this is not something that's out of -- where
there's hocus-pocus or some funny math going on -- to show you in three dimensions the proposed
building next to the Bristol, next to the Atlantis, next to the other adjoining buildings. Again, if the issue
is of character, whether this building is within the character of the neighborhood, whether it overpowers,
whether is stands out as something that's sore-- eyesore, I think that what we're showing you in terms of
a sense of scale and character, a sense of the visual impact and the aesthetic impact in the area and in three
dimensions what we are talking about. Now, you know, some people will probably make reference to a
recent editorial, and there was also a -- kind of a nice article by Beth Dunlop, a good friend of mine about
the Atlantis and how this building would impact that building negatively. But being a history buss
somewhat, amateur history buff, went back into the Miami Herald archives. And they have great
archives. And I'd like to pass to you an article also written by Beth Dunlop and also by an associate in the
Herald 18 years ago about the building that many of the people here are representing today against this
applicant. And I won't go into it. I have highlighted the comments by Beth. I have highlighted the
comments by the other Herald reporter so that you can see that, you know, sometimes, these things are in
the eyes of the beholder. But -- and people can change their minds over time. I think the bottom line is
that we have a project that is within the context of your Zoning guidelines, has gone through a process that
has been recommended by approval by three City boards. We're providing you with technically accurate
graphic exhibits that show beyond any reasonable doubt that the project is, in fact, within character. As a
matter of fact, it's average in terms of its size and bulk for the area, and that there's no special rights that
are being granted to this developer with your approval here tonight. I promised you I'd keep my remarks
brief and to the point. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that you may have of me, of my
partners later on during the process. Thank you very much.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We'd like you to hear from our traffic engineer.
Jack Schnettler: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jack Schnettler. I'm a traffic engineer with
Post Buckley Schuh & Dernigan, office in Miami at 2001 Northwest 107`" Avenue. My firm performed a
traffic study for this project to address the requirements of the City of Miami for traffic concurrency and
traffic operations. The study requirements were coordinated with your City staff prior to conducting the
study, and were performed in accordance with the specified procedures and criteria that are laid out for
these types of studies for such projects. We considered the fact that there was an existing residential use
on the property previously, and that property generated trips. Thus, there is a credit for the trips that were
made previously from that site. As agreed to in our methodology approach, the study considered seven
inner sections that are signalized to the north and south of the site, as well as the adjacent arterial
segments. The study also included projected traffic from nine other committed developments in the
Brickell Avenue Corridor. The study identified the fact that the project, as originally proposed, with 421
15 4/25/01
units would generate 51 net new additional trips in the peak hour, p.m. peak hour, after taking credit for
the trips that were previously generated by the site, or less than approximately one per minute in or out of
the site on average. The study was done with 420 units, the project is now configured with 359, and that
would further reduce the net new trips to approximately 30 in the p.m. peak hour. But we -- our report
was prepared with the higher figure. The results of the analysis indicated that traffic service at the
intersections that were studied would be maintained at acceptable levels of traffic service with the project,
and that there would be no significant adverse impact from the project on traffic service. The project adds
a small number of net new trips, and was found to be in conformance with the City's traffic concurrency
requirements. The City traffic planner has issued a statement concurring with these findings, as well.
That concludes my statements. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question --
Vice Chairman Gort: Go right ahead, sir.
Commissioner Winton: -- that goes back to a statement that Willy Bermello made. And that was that
without -- Had the project been done as two separate towers with 200 units each, a MUSP would not have
been required. Therefore, this whole process would not have -- would not have had to come before the
Commission. So as a statement, I want to understand from staff whether that statement is accurate,
number one. And number two, could they have built those towers simultaneously, or in order to do that,
would they have been required to have been built separately, and not simultaneously?
Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): Lourdes Slazyk will answer the question.
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Regarding the two separate 200 -unit projects, that could very well happen, because
they are two separately platted parcels. And if a project were to come in on each one at 200 units, they
wouldn't need major use special permits if they were separate ownership. So if they sold off one, you
could conceivably get two towers of 200 units apiece without major use special permits.
Commissioner Winton: Under separate ownership.
Ms. Slazyk: Under separate ownership. They're -- if they're together --
Commissioner Winton: So that means they would have had to have been built separately.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes, because if they're together, then there's an aggregation issue.
Commissioner Winton: All right. So then you wouldn't have -- then you would have had to have dealt
with the vagaries of the marketplace, because one gets built, and you don't know what's going to happen
once you get it built, and whether or not you ultimately ever get the second one built, because the vagaries
of the market may have some impact there.
Ms. Slazyk: Right. But technically, two 200 -unit towers could be built there.
16 4/25/01
Commissioner Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Slazyk: How and under what ownership is --
Commissioner Winton: OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: I have a question on the parking study. Was it an independent --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Traffic study?
Commissioner Sanchez: Was it an independent traffic study? Who paid for it?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It's part of the major use special permit that we, as the applicant, are required to hire
all of these experts and turn over all that information for the City.
Commissioner Sanchez: Isn't the City looking at for future to have independent traffic studies conducted
instead of having the developers do the --
Ms. Bianchino: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I didn't hear you.
Commissioner Sanchez: I believe we either made a decision here or passed some resolution saying that in
the future, we would have independent traffic studies, instead of having the private developers do their
own traffic study?
Ms. Bianchino: Actually, the policy said that the private developers would do their own traffic studies,
but they would also pay for the City to hire someone to review that study and make sure that it was done
appropriately. That did not happen on this project.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is it taking -- is it taking place now in future projects?
Ms. Bianchino: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any other questions from any board member?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Ms. Slazyk, what -- or Madam Manager, what is the minimum number of parking
units that this building requires, Madam Manager?
Ms. Bianchino: I'm going to ask Lourdes to answer that for you.
17 4/25/01
Ms. Slazyk: They have 359 units. It depends on the bedroom breakdown. They do meet the minimum
with the 510.
Commissioner Teele: May I ask the question again?
Ms. Slazyk: I have to find out the unit breakdown. That's going to take a little while. I have to go
through the plans.
Commissioner Teele: All right. Well, I'll just wait till you get that information. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any other questions? OK, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Bermello: We can answer that question if you'd like, Mr. Commissioner. The -- Your code has
minimums and maximums. In terms of the minimum number of parking spaces, all combined, in terms of
the different -- the two uses, of which we have some minor retail -- the total minimum required is 360
spaces. We are providing 510 spaces. The maximum number that we could have provided --
Commissioner Teele: That wasn't my question.
Mr. Bermello: But that's 510, in excess of the minimum requirement.
Commissioner Teele: The minimum number is what?
Ms. Bianchino: 360.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you.
Ms. Slazyk: There is no max -- let me just -- this is R4, this isn't downtown. There's no maximum. The
minimum is one for one bedroom and two for two bedroom, and then they have to meet visitor spaces, and
then there'll be handicapped requirements.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, is there any way they could build some parking units in some other
parts of town since -- transfer of parking development rights?
(LAUGHTER)
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: If the Chair would permit, I'd like to have the expert on economic impact testify.
Ms. Slazyk: Let me just answer. The minimum required is 495. They have 510. So they're over.
Commissioner Winton: That's a different answer.
Ms. Slazyk: That's because of the unit breakdown.
18 4/25/01
Commissioner Teele: OK. So you all don't have -- at some point, before we end, could you all sort of
rationalize and figure out what the -- agree on a minimum number? I'm going to take your word always,
Ms. Slazyk. I've always found it to be accurate. But
Mr. Bermello, would you all -- Mr. Bermello? Mr. Bermello?
Mr. Bermello: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Would you all try to rationalize that number before we close between you and Ms.
Slazyk, please? Not now, please, just before we get out of here, before midnight tonight.
Mr. Bermello: OK.
Tom Schlosser: My name is Tom Schlosser. I'm a CPA (certified public accountant). I'm with Sharpton
Brunson & Company. And we did the economic impact study for this project. And I just want to briefly
tell you that the project will generate during the construction period approximately a hundred and four
million dollars ($104,000,000) in economic positive impact, and will create 224 jobs. On an ongoing
basis, taxes and other expenditures will result in five and a half million dollars going into -- ad valorem
taxes will be one million, seven hundred, and the rest will be jobs created during the -- after the project is
finished and sold out. Thank you. Questions?
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to save the remaining time for rebuttal.
There is someone who wants to speak who is interested in this project who is just a resident of the area, if
you think that the right time for her to speak is now.
Ms. Bianchino: Commissioner Teele, in response to your earlier question, the minimum number of
parking places required, given the unit configuration they've given us, it's 495 parking spaces.
Veronica Cervera: Hello. My name is Veronica Cervera, and I'm one of the owners of a building at 1492
South Miami Avenue, and I've sold to a lot of people that are here; in fact, some of the people who are
opposing this. In the 20 years I've been doing real estate, I can tell you one of the first things I did was
come to one of these Commission meetings when Harry Helmsley wanted to put up the Palace. And more
times than not, when somebody wants to put up a building, the neighborhood gets involved, and the
neighborhood many times has a lot of positive things, which is why we end up with some of the buildings
that we have here and the building that we have here tonight. But with Harry Helmsley and subsequent
developments, Brickell Avenue is the important avenue that it is today. And I've seen that when we bring
new projects and new buildings that the area benefits from it. And if you all look at the sales, you will see
that in the last two years that the sale, average square price in the Atlantic Building has gone up
substantially. And that's easy to pull out, and I have that information for you. I think this is a beautiful
building. It's replacing two buildings that were old, and I guess it had come time to replace them. And to
the people that have sold, I remember when your buildings were up, there was a lot of opposition. But we
have great buildings in the avenue, and I believe strongly that this will continue to raise the value of
Brickell Avenue. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Ms. Toledo.
19 4/25/01
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: There's another person, two persons that want to speak. James? You need to put
your name and your address on the record.
James Bush: OK. I'll speak first.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No, before you speak.
Mr. Bush: OK.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Right here, do it right here.
Mr. Bush: OK. My name is James Bush. I live at 3824 Northwest 15`h Avenue. I was born and raised in
Dade County. I'm 37 years in the construction industry. I've seen this town grow through the years. In
my home, I have five registered voters. And I would like to appeal to the Commissioners that we need
this project. We need this project for our people to have jobs to support their livelihoods. We have -- in
this area here; I've seen this town grow from the past 54 years. Miami is a growing City, and we need
these jobs. We need this project here so that our people can have jobs. We need to send this -- We need
this impact that they was talking about a few minutes ago to give our people jobs so they can have --
support their livelihoods. Miami is a growing City. It's a metropolitan area, and we need this project so
that we can have jobs for our people. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Vicky, we have a long meeting to go to.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. I would like to save the remainder of the time for rebuttal.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. OK, Mr. Gibbs.
Tucker Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, members of the City Commission, my name is Tucker Gibbs. I have
offices at 215 Grand Avenue in Coconut Grove. I represent Susan Faucett, Richard Donovan, Hyman and
Ruth Shaked, Harvey Goldman and others living at the Atlantis, people who live at the Bristol Towers,
people who live at Brickell Place, people who live at Brickell Woods and in other developments and
houses in the area of this project. I'd like to ask the indulgence of the chair for one second, and with the
City Attorney's OK. Mr. Bermello spoke earlier, and I'd like to examine him with one question initially
and -- to start this off, because this goes to the heart of our argument. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Bermello, have you
been retained by Michael Bowman and Coral Way Investments to prepare working drawings on this
project?
Mr. Bermello: Yes, we have.
Mr. Gibbs: Have you completed those working drawings?
20 4/25/01
Mr. Bermello: No, we have not.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you very much. My clients object to this project as presented. My clients believe it is
too dense, its size and massing have a negative impact on the area. We're not asking you today to reject
development on this site, and that's very important for you all to understand. We're asking you to require
of the developer remedial measures that will ameliorate the negative impacts of this proposal. The
remedial measure we seek is a taller building with a smaller footprint. Could you all pull those boards
from back there? Excuse me. I have some visual aids.
Commissioner Sanchez: What was that? A taller building with a --
Mr. Gibbs: Smaller print.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- smaller footprint.
Mr. Gibbs: Taller and thinner. Today, I am joined by representatives of the City's planning and
architectural community, homeowners groups and citizens to implore you to reject this plan and require
the developer to build a project that is more compatible with its neighbors. I just want to have these ready.
Additionally, Mark Alvarez, who is a planner, a professional planner, and Professor of Architecture,
University of Miami School of Architecture, Francois LeJeune, will testify as to the planning and
compatibilities of these issues. Your review is more than a rubber stamp of your December 1999 approval
of this plan. This is a matter of applying standards in the Code and rendering a decision. The Court, the
Circuit Court, when it directed you to re -hear this matter, believed that, quote -- and it's right there --
"There were difficulties" -- when you considered this matter in December of 1999 -- "There were
difficulties articulating the concerns about the project with the requisite specificity in order to either accept
or reject either proposal." Ms. Garcia -Toledo has said, and I quote, "The Court did not find anything
wrong with the project." OK on its face. The Court did find that there wasn't the evidence in the record
to support a finding of either "yes" or "no." And that's the reason why it's been sent back to you. You all
have a blank slate. It's a new day. And that's why we're here. Any statement, inclination, inference that
you all must rubber stamp this issue because you approved it in December of 1990 is false. The developer
has made a choice when he chose his development program. And you've heard him discuss this choice.
He had a choice: One, he could develop the two platted pieces of property with 200 units on each, and he
didn't have to come here. He could pull a building permit, build his buildings, and that was it. That was
one of his choices. Or he could ask for a major use special permit with bonuses. Now, Ms. Garcia -Toledo
also you about one of the bonuses that they didn't ask for, but they asked for initially, and they backed off,
and that was the housing bonus. There's another bonus. And the only way you can get this bonus is
through a major use special permit. And this bonus is referred to as a PUD, a Planned Unit Development
Bonus. Now, frankly, when I deal with planned unit developments, I think of planned unit developments
in R-1 neighborhood, where you're going to group townhouses or houses together, to preserve
environmental features. But in this case -- And most developers in this town tack onto PUD, because
they get 20 percent more. They can add 20 percent more to their building. So right now -- And my
numbers are raw, because my numbers are taken from their sheet, which was presented at the Planning
Advisory Board. Right now, based on the bonus and based on his square footage -- and I'm going to get
to that in a second, how he gets to that square footage -- he can build approximately 419.5 square feet of
building -- thousand square feet of building -- excuse me. This is 349,000 square feet, based on the actual
land, gross area. And 69,000 square feet in his PUD bonus. That's 69,000 square feet of additional
21 4/25/01
building. Vicky is right; it's not additional density. It's additional building. He chose the latter, quite
frankly, because he could build more, and he could use the PUD bonus. And as I said, the only way to do
that is to get a MUSP. There is a tradeoff, however -- and Mr. Alvarez is going to speak to it in detail --
and that is, a MUSP involves public hearings. And it also involves a stricter scrutiny of the project by
you, by the Planning Department, by the Zoning Board. A MUSP and PUD bonus involves the
application of specific standards, which are set out in your Code, to the proposal presented by the
developer. That, itself, as Mr. Maxwell has said, is a quasi-judicial act. And that's why you're sitting in a
quasi-judicial capacity. The developer voluntarily submitted his project to this scrutiny. Nobody forced
him to. He came here with his eyes open, knowing full well that the public was going to have input on
this that necessarily -- might not necessarily have had if he had gone another route. We want to make it
clear, this building and project do not -- does not meet the basic requirement of a major use special permit.
Could you put the big one up? No, not that that. This huge thing. Sorry. The basic requirement that we
are going to focus on in a major use special permit is that the project must be contextual. It must fit in.
This is the reason for Section 1305.8, which says a MUSP must take into account and specifically address,
quote, "potentially adverse effects, generally, on adjoining and nearby properties, the area the
neighborhood or the City" -- it's not just the area, just not the neighborhood -- "for the use and occupancy
as proposed, its location, construction, design, character, scale or manner of operation." So when Ms.
Garcia -Toledo throws at you a case that's many years old, the Fontainebleau case, and says you all have
no right as a Commission to deal with these issues, I beg to differ. You and your Code -- and you have the
right under the police powers that are given to you by the United States Constitution to enact ordinances
that take into account potentially adverse effects of one building to another when the developer voluntarily
chooses to go the major use special permit route. And that's just what he did. He understood this. If such
adverse affects are found, and it says in here further, you may recommend remedial measures to
ameliorate them, such as screening, buffering, landscaping, up to and including -- and it's in there --
alteration of the proposed design or construction of the buildings, relocation of proposed open spaces, or
alteration of use of such space. You all have a lot of discretion here to look at this project and say, "This
has some pretty adverse effects on the community. What can we do to make it better?" And I want to tell
the people here who are representing the union, which is financing this project; I want them to understand
something. My clients are not opposed to developing this site. We're not opposed to developing this site.
What we are opposed to is this particular design. And that's very important. Because you all know me. I
come up here a lot, and I say, "no." Well, I'm not saying "no." I'm saying they can do better for the
community. They can do better, and people will have jobs. The pensioners who are financing this thing
will be able to get a good return on their money.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: You've made two references to the financing issue. Is that in the record anywhere?
Mr. Gibbs: It's in the record at the Planning Advisory Board.
Commissioner Teele: And what does that record say?
Mr. Gibbs: The record basically says that this is a -- that the Union Pension Fund is financing this, and if
it doesn't go down -- if this thing goes down in flames, pensioners are going to be left out in the cold.
22 4/25/01
Commissioner Teele: The reason I ask, I guess, is that I'm just not sure that's the kind of thing that should
be in the record or on the record. And you put it on the --
Mr. Gibbs: I have no problem taking --
Commissioner Teele: You put it on the record here. But I just --
Mr. Gibbs: I have no problem with taking that -- I wanted -- because you see here, and it's -- it's -- the
people who are here representing the unions are here for a reason. And that's --
Mr. Maxwell: That's not relevant, please.
Mr. Gibbs: OK. I just want -- OK. And I accept that. I accept that.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Mr. Gibbs: OK. I agree, it's a public hearing. So how does this project not fit in with its neighbors?
Francois LeJeune, I think Ari Malay will be here, Hervin Romney, who are all architects of well known
repute in this town, and Mr. Mark Alvarez, who is a professional planner are all here to discuss that issue.
And they have the expertise in architectural and planning fields, and they'll testify to the fact that this
project does not fit in with the Brickell neighborhood. Let's go back a little bit. We talked about history
before. Let's go back to December of 1999, when this City Commission heard this. The testimony back
in 1999 before this Commission at the Planning Advisory Board meeting, from architects and citizens on
Brickell, from both neighbors of the Atlantis and Bristol Towers sited to the incongruent design of this
structure. And the architects and planners will deal with that in more detail. I want you to look at the
configuration -- Could you put the map up there? I'd like you to look at the configuration of the property,
because in all of this -- and I haven't had a chance to look at all of the designs that you all have seen -- but
no one has shown you, really, the context. Here's Brickell Avenue. And if you notice, the building is
highlighted on there. And you notice something about it, the configuration, in the context of the other
buildings, other properties on Brickell Avenue. It's an anomaly. It's an anomaly, because it juts out into
the bay. Look how it juts out into the bay. Because of this, the developer gets to measure the gross square
footage that he can calculate. You know, you have the FAR, 1.72. You multiply the gross square footage
by that FAR, and you get what you can build. And you add that 20 percent bonus that I talked about
before. Well, the City has an interesting rule that says how you measure gross lot area. It says you can
measure -- and Mark, will you show them? -- You can measure out into the bay. The bay bottom can
count as your FAR. And Mark probably has a better illustration of that than I have, so I'll let him put that
up. That's what they measure as part of their lot. And that's the law in the City of Miami, and that's
allowed. It's an anomaly, because unlike -- and could you put yours below so they can see the rest of
Brickell? This is the only property on Brickell Avenue that has water on three sides. Now, I want you to
think about that. Put yours up again, Mark. I hate to do that again. If you look at the red, you will see
that the red, part of that red is in front of the Bristol Tower and part of that red is in front of the Atlantis.
Now, when the Atlantis got its FAR, when it got its gross lot area measure, and when the Bristol Towers
got its gross lot area measured, it measured its entire frontage on the bay. Well, guess what? Part of the
frontage that you all allowed the Bristol Towers to have for their lot area, you're now giving to Brickell
Bay. Part of the Atlantis that you gave to the Atlantis is now being given to Brickell Bay. What
23 4/25/01
essentially this does is allow the project an additional 60,000 square feet in area to develop, in building
area. This anomaly, with the PUD bonus, because you multiply that whole amount by the 20 percent,
yields a much more massive project than other projects with similar land area on Brickell Avenue that
have just one bit of water frontage. OK. The design of this massive project does something else to one of
its neighbors. It creates a wall effect against the south fagade of its northern neighbor, the Atlantis. It's a
building that literally walls off an entire `nother building. And what makes that interesting for the
Atlantis, as one building on Brickell Avenue, is the Atlantis -- and I'm sure the architects can do a much
better job than I, but it's single -loaded. And my understanding about a single -loaded building, they all
face south. So you're blocking every single unit in the Atlantis -- virtually every single unit by this. In
fact, we contend that this project has a long way to go to meet the requirements to receive the 20 percent
PUD bonus. According to your Zoning Code, it is the intent of the article dealing with PUD bonuses that
Planned Unit Developments and redevelopment be encouraged, and that the provisions of this article be
utilizing as an aid in providing. Now, these are the things that a PUD is supposed to provide the City of
Miami: Greater flexibility in the pattern of development, improved level of amenities, appropriate and
harmonious variety and physical development, creative design and/or improved environment. This is to
help housing in the City of Miami. And while this project may assist in the general housing needs of the
community, and my clients have no objection to this type of housing, this project does not provide any of
the items that were listed above. Like many developers, this PUD bonus is nothing more than a basis to
increase t he size of the building, and no real effect has been made to really address the items that were in
the PUD Ordinance. There's a solution, and we have a solution here, one that my clients and their
predecessors who filed the lawsuits in this matter have been proposing since November of 1999. You
want to talk about the history of working with the community? My clients have said one thing, and one
thing on this. At all the public meetings, we have said one thing. Make it taller, make it smaller. Reduce
the negative effect of this massive project by reducing the pedestal, increase the height, and I would say
reduce the density. If you all feel you don't need to, you don't want to reduce the density, don't. Make it
taller and thinner. The fact is, what we want is a project that works, that fits in with this neighborhood.
I'm going to refresh your memories and re-establish the concerns that some Commissioners had with this
project when you heard it back in December of 1999. The two Commissioners who had the most to say
about this proposal during that discussion were Commissioner Winton and Commissioner Teele. After the
public hearing was closed, Commissioner Teele stated: "All evening" -- this was a three-hour hearing --
"all evening, there's been sort of eyes and whispers. This building that is being proposed clearly is not
architecturally innovative or significant." And Commissioner Teele made some very veiled reference to
that in his last comments. And I'll just put it on the record. Commissioner Winton responded: "Let me
be more blunt." Commissioner Teele: "Please." Commissioner Winton: "You're absolutely right.
There's nothing of, you know, there's nothing architecturally significant about this building. It's a plain
kind of vanilla rental property." And that's a big part of the point here that I'm making. Commissioner
Teele responded: "Well, you know, and I must say this: The architect, who I will not put on the record in
this context, is an architectural firm that I'm extremely positive about. I've made several appointments.
In fact, one of the principal owners of the firm is my appointee to one of those City boards. But I cannot
believe that a statement, that building -- I mean, it's -- I can't believe that a building this direct in it's
architectural approach -- is that a nice word, `direct'? -- Would put itself right next to a building like this,"
meaning the Atlantis. And this is the heart of the issue. Is this the best the developer can do? Is this the
best the City can do? Now, we prepared a model. You should bring the model out. Sorry about that. We
prepared a model that shows the bulk and height of this proposed building and how it smothers its
southern neighbor. You can see that here. By the placement of this building, one of the City's most
significant buildings is unnecessarily -- and I really want to underscore -- unnecessarily rendered
24 4/25/01
insignificant. I say "unnecessarily," because there is a solution that can resolve this matter and allow the
developer to go forward with the density he wants. He can reduce the building footprint. He can make
the building taller. Commissioner Teele was correct when he said, "Its view, its architectural, its the
design, its the traffic." And none of those issues are, unless the developer is prepared to go back to their
architect and look at this from a totally different aesthetic point of view, which I certainly think could
happen and maybe even should happen. Commissioner Winton was correct when he said, "Let me be
more precise in the terms of my objections. I think this development is too dense for the neighborhood. I
think they need to look at their parking requirements, and the density of this project and the architectural
design of this project. And we can, I understand, approve this project so it doesn't have to go back
through a bunch of special hoops with conditions." And City staff, Lourdes Slazyk, at that meeting
explained how that exact thing could happen. She said the City Commission could approve the plan, a tall
-- and I'm saying this -- a taller and thinner plan, subject to elevations being reworked and approved, as
approved by the Planning Director, the Urban Design Review Board, and the City Commission could add
specifics regarding parking, regarding height and density, those things. That's on Page 56 of the
transcript.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Excuse me. I need to ask a question regarding the model. Is that going to be offered
into evidence?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, it is.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I need to be able to have somebody testify as to what it is, and its size and its --
Mr. Gibbs: As we got forward through our presentation, it will.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. My understanding is they have planners and architects that would
address that.
Mr. Gibbs: And I apologize, Mr. Chair, for responding without responding through you. The developer
has said -- and I am not going to get into the details, because the City Attorney has made a determination,
but I have to at least address the issue -- that it cannot modify these plans. They've modified them
enough. And they said this at the Planning Advisory Board. They can't advise -- do it because they had
an agreement. Well, we all know, and Commissioner Teele, the City Attorney has said that such
agreements are not relevant. And I want you all to understand that we agree that --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Excuse me. I need to object to that, too. I mean, if it's not relevant, then why is he
addressing it?
Mr. Gibbs: I'm stating my objection, Mr. Chairman, as you told me to.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. It's on the record. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, you were the one who told me to wait, and I did wait, and I am now telling you
what my objection is to that. My objection is private agreements are not relevant, and should not have any
part of this.
25 4125/01
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: How is that an -- Excuse me. He's testifying.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. I'm going to run this meeting. Address through the Chair. My
understanding is you made a statement, tried to find a statement. We all know here and we've been stated
by our attorney that those -- whatever agreements made among neighbors does not determine how -- the
decision should not influence our decision. OK? Is that on the record now? OK? Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: That's quite -- and I agree. The other argument that was made at the Planning Advisory
Board -- and since the Planning Advisory Board transcripts were placed into the record, I feel an
obligation on behalf of my clients to respond to that, and that's the reason why I asked Mr. Bermello if he
had, indeed, completed or had been working on the working drawings. At that hearing, the applicant has
said that he couldn't make changes because he's already completed the working drawings. And our
position is, if that's the case, and the working drawings or the actual drawing to build this building, he is
rolling dice. He made that decision. He made that business decision to do so, based on his own desire to
go forward. And that is the concern that I want to place on the record as a citizen of the City of Miami, in
response to the remarks that were made at the Planning Advisory Board, because I suspect, and I'm
concerned. And I'm concerned, because I don't want this City to get sued if you all vote in my favor.
That's all I'm going to say, Mr. Maxwell. I just want to -- I have dealt with this issue. I don't want to go
into it, so I'm just going through my notes to make sure I don't deal with it anymore, but I wanted to bring
that out.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Hold on. Yes, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: If it's helpful to you, counsel --
Mr. Gibbs: Sure.
Commissioner Teele: -- I'm very confused, based upon your last statement. Apparently, you were
responding to something that was in the record on the Planning?
Mr. Gibbs: At the Planning Advisory Board.
Commissioner Teele: But the presentation that is before us today, are you commingling -- is -- are you
commingling the record now here? Unintentionally, I'm sure. But the design that is before us today is
that design the same one that you're making reference to?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, it is, Mr. Teele. And Commissioner Teele, what I did was I -- unintentionally, if I -- I'm
not trying to commingle. But Ms. Garcia -Toledo initially, when she first came to the podium, brought all
this information and placed it into the record. Now, as you know and as the City Attorney knows, that
record is going to be a big volume that will go up one way or another to a court. And I need to be able to,
as you know, to address those issues, because if I don't address them, the court won't hear them.
Commissioner Teele: I'm not at all trying --
26 4/25/01
Mr. Gibbs: I understand.
Commissioner Teele: I just want to understand the matter that I've got to vote on today. When was the
statement made that you just made reference to?
Mr. Gibbs: At the Planning Advisory Board.
Commissioner Teele: When?
Mr. Gibbs: In the last meeting, I think. Was it March or February? February, the February meeting.
Commissioner Teele: This current March?
Mr. Gibbs: Iles, this current February. It was this set of plans. This set of plans hasn't changed since you
approved it in November or December of 1999, and it's the same plans. And that's the only reason why I
wanted to put it on the record, because it was stated out there and --
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me -- Then Mr. Chairman, may I -- I know you're not through, but let me
just try to clarify one point. Would you come around and point to these three designs and tell me the one
that you're -- The three designs that are on the bottom here.
Mr. Gibbs: The December design.
Mr. Maxwell: For purposes of the record, please try to be more specific in response to the
Commissioner's question.
Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Can you take the --
Commissioner Teele: I'm referring to a document known as Brickell Bay Village that has three drawings,
one that says original proposal -- Give him a mike, a portable mike, so he can -- One that says June
proposal and one that says November proposal. Now, the comments that you made about the Planning
Advisory Board, which of the three designs are you making reference to? The one that says November
proposal?
Mr. Gibbs: That's correct.
Commissioner Teele: And what is your representation of the design that we approved before this matter
went before --
Mr. Gibbs: The November proposal, also.
Commissioner Teele: All right.
Mr. Gibbs: That's the proposal that went to court.
Commissioner Teele: If I may, Ms. Toledo.
27 4/25/01
Ms. Garcia-Toledo: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Is his characterization correct that the November proposal is the one that was before
the Planning Review Board?
Ms. Garcia-Toledo: That is correct. It is the November 1999 proposal. The application that is before you
is the MUSP application that we applied, which has been substantially modified as a result --
Commissioner Teele: OK. I'm going to -- you're going to get a chance to do a rebuttal. Please, I
apologize. I just wanted to be clear as to what comments you were making reference to.
Mr. Gibbs: I understand. And I appreciate it, because I think it clarifies the situation for all of us. Our
issue of the working drawings that was brought up at Planning Advisory Board is that that issue -- and I
just want to say it on the record -- is irrelevant. What somebody does, based on suppositions -- This is
not a final development order. There is no final development order, and anything that is done prior to --
Ms. Garcia-Toledo: Again, I have to object to this information.
Mr. Gibbs: I'm just stating -- OK. Mr. Chair?
Vice Chairman Gort: You're going to get a chance later on to rebuttal of all the statements that's being
made. Let the record reflect that as an objection. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Gibbs: And Mr. Chairman, the issue of working drawings prepared prior to a final approval is
irrelevant to your decision today to render what's hopefully going to be a final approval. And that's our
position. That's all. Our position has not changed. Our position has not changed since September of
1999. In September of 1999 -- well, in November 301h of 1999, my predecessor, as the attorney on this
matter, said in a letter that -- to Ms. Garcia-Toledo that he -- that the condominium board at the Atlantis
had problems with the size, as well as the massing of the -- I'm speaking --
Mr. Maxwell: That would be --
Mr. Gibbs: I'm not speaking to a settlement agreement. I'm speaking to our consistent opposition to this
proj ect.
Mr. Maxwell: I would still say that that information should be introduced in the record now, let him
testify. But I think Mr. -- I think, Mr. Gibbs, what you're doing is trying to slid it in the back door on us.
Mr. Gibbs: What I'm trying to do is just to state consistently -- and I will say -- what I will do is I will
paraphrase this. I will say that Mr. Robbins, who was the attorney for the Atlantis in this matter, through
the lawsuit, consistently, starting --
Ms. Garcia-Toledo: I must object. I was not permitted to put my correspondence with that particular
counsel into the record, or to refer to it.
28 4/25/01
Mr. Gibbs: Then I'm going to --
Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't think it's relevant, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Take it out.
Mr. Gibbs: OK. Then what I'm going to say is my client's have consistently stated since September and
November of 1999 that they want a smaller, thinner, taller building. That has been their position and that
has been their consistent position throughout this. Any statements that my clients are interested in
anything else absolutely that, irrelevant, because the issue here is this MUSP. And we've said from the
beginning, we said it at the Planning Board; we're saying it here, a taller, thinner building. I refer you to
the minutes of the December of 1990 -- December 13, 1990 Planning Advisory Board meeting, December
14, 1999 City Commission meeting, February 21St of this year Planning Advisory Board meeting, the
lawsuit, the March 29th, and -- OK. Now they say they can't change the plan. OK. I'm --
Mr. Maxwell: Not the lawsuit, Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs: Pardon me?
Vice Chairman Gort: Not the lawsuit.
Mr. Maxwell: Not the lawsuit.
Mr. Gibbs: Not the lawsuit. I'm sorry. I take the lawsuit out of it.
Mr. Maxwell: No, the lawsuit will not be included in the record.
Mr. Gibbs: That's fine. I have no problem with that. You can make this project work for everyone -- the
developer, the neighbors and the community. You can send it back to the drawing boards for a better
design. You can make it taller and thinner. And that's what we're asking for. I will leave it to Mr.
Alvarez and Mr. LeJeune, Professor LeJeune to talk to you about the details of the planning aspects of
this.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Mark Alvarez: Good evening. I'm Mark Alvarez. I'm a professional planner. I'm an AICP, American
Institute of Certified Planners. I'm qualified to testify on these issues, and zoning issues, traffic and
parking as well, although I don't think we'll be getting into that tonight. My address, business address is
2520 Coral Way, Number 2190, Miami. The issue before us tonight -- and I know this is repetitive, but I
need to start with this -- is the issuance, the approval of a major use special permit, a MUSP, as I'll refer to
it later on. The MUSP is specifically referred to -- and I know we have Section 1305 up here. But the
section that refers to MUSPS is Section 1703, and it provides a list, also, of seven things that we need to
consider, with reference to 1305's impacts. The section asks -- and in a sense, those seven things are
framed as questions. And it asks seven questions, of which one of them is the one that's really before us
29 4/25/01
tonight. It's Number 6, Section 1703, Paragraph 6. It says whether the development will adversely affect
living conditions in the neighborhood. I will be testifying to that. There will be architects, local architects
of repute that will also be testifying to that. We have the neighbors, the neighbors of the Atlantis, the
Bristol, South Miami Homeowners Association, Roads Association, Brickell Place, Brickell Woods and
perhaps a few others that will also testify to that effect. That's the question. That leads into Section 1305
and the questions that are involved there. The focus tonight -- we've heard a lot -- let me just go back a
little bit. Some of those questions actually in Section 1703 do refer to impacts on the economy of the
City, et cetera, et cetera, and traffic, and parking, and the applicant has made presentations with regard to
that. But that's not what -- what we're dealing with tonight is Question 6, the impact to the neighborhood.
Question 6 does not say anything, and nowhere in those questions does it say anything about the developer
meeting the neighborhood halfway. So what you have done in the past is really not relevant. It's what's
before us now, the November proposal, does it meet those needs, and that's it. There's about four issues
I'd like to focus on. Actually, one I'll dispense with quickly. The first one, as we look at -- we look at
four basic things: The program, the massing, the site and the context. I'm using different words to get
away from the Code a little bit. The program refers to the use, the land use. And the land use is protected
by the underlying zoning, R-4. We have no problems with the land use. The massing. And the massing
is an interesting issue. And with the massing, what I'd like to talk about is some of the issues that were
presented tonight with regards to the MUSP. We do have an application for a major use special permit.
There have been -- excuse me -- statements in the past that the developer has voluntarily gone forth with a
major use special permit, which they have. But the intonation, I think in those statements was that it was
sort of a civic -- something for civic good. And I think that there are other things that we need to consider.
I think there are considerations for the application of a major use special permit that are practical
considerations, and I'd like to go through a few of those and reframe this. What we would have, if we had
the two buildings referred to before would be two buildings, each on hundred foot lots. To meet setback
requirements and the view corridor criteria, each would be about 70 feet wide, at the most, with, at best,
40 feet between the two of them in the middle. Or they could arrange it differently, but that might be the
best one. It's 70 feet width. We'll start on the bottom of the building, our parking pedestal. At 70 feet
width, you have extremely inefficient parking. You would have one tray of parking. A tray is when we
say double -loaded parking, parking on two sides of an aisle. You would have a 60 -foot tray. Ten feet you
waste in circulation, going from tray to tray. The efficient way is to bring the building together, have two
trays, so that you have parking going up all the way. You don't waste 15 percent of your space just on
ramps. So the first point, just going up through the building, having a MUSP reduces the cost and makes a
more cost-effective project. Item 2. Excuse me. We don't know the pedestal. If we have a 70 -foot
pedestal, I should say, we'd probably have a 70 -foot building -- wide building on top of it, because
anything narrower would lead to a single loaded building, like the Atlantis. So really, we would have no
opportunity for this private open space that you see on this building. They refer to this pedestal -- and
actually, the pedestal in this building is rather not typical of Brickell. It provides an opportunity to have
private open space uses. They would lose that without having a MUSP. Practically speaking, I'm sure
they could do it in a ten -foot section. But there would also be two exterior walls, in addition to what's --
basically, we have four exterior walls now. They would have to build two more exterior walls, raising the
cost of the project again. There would be -- when you have those two exterior walls, half of the
apartments -- again, assuming that tower is double loaded -- that is to say there's apartments on both sides
of the hallway -- half of the apartments in that development of two towers would have literally no view
and have extremely little value. So again, the MUSP not only cuts cost, but increases the value of the
project. And finally, as Mr. Gibbs alluded to, told you about, the FAR, you cannot get the PUD bonus
without having the MUSP. And the FAR goes from 1.72 to 2 -- wait. I don't have it in front of me, but
30 4/25/01
it's at 20 percent. And they're using 17 percent of that 20 percent. They're using 17 percent of that
bonus. They would have three percent to go. So really, the application for a MUSP and the need to have
this additional massing is not something that came about accidentally. It's very intentional. It provides a
more -- a project of greater value. Let me get to the issue of the site. And it sort of follows up on this.
And again, I know Tucker Gibbs has gone over some of this. It gives you a little bit more information
about how this project is getting bigger and bigger. We have the 17 percent that came from the PUD. We
have the increased value of the project and the somewhat lower costs.
Mr. Gibbs: Mark, which one do you want?
Mr. Alvarez: Sorry. I've got it. The -- I'm showing the site -- well, it's actually -- it's the site plan. And
I have outlined in the pink the area where, by the City's own Code, you can use the open space bonuses to
calculate your gross lot area, to calculate the floor area. And I'm just -- I'm sorry to belabor this, but I
should do it for the record. The net lot on this property is approximately 143,000 feet. We have -- No,
I'm OK with this. Thank you. We have the -- You're allowed to use half the right-of-way on Brickell
Avenue. That adds 10,000 feet. You're allowed to use the south bulkhead going into the bay, as every
other property along Brickell does. That provides them 12,000 feet of gross lot area. But then, this
particular property, because -- Can you point, actually? Because of those two sides, the bulkhead on the
north and the south, and the use of the corners -- this is where the north and the south meet the east side of
it -- there's 38,000, approximately 38,800 feet added of gross floor -- sorry -- of gross lot area. That's 19
percent more gross lot area. That means, all FAR's aside, you get 19 percent more on this building. So
we add it up. We have -- they're taking 17 percent on the PUD. We have 19 percent because of some
unusual circumstances in this particular lot, plus we have a building that can be a lot larger than it could
otherwise be on this property if it were shaped like other properties on Brickell, if it didn't have these two
inlets on either side of it for bay bottom, and if it was -- and if it were not a MUSP. If they didn't have --
just to give you an idea, if they did not have the two side bulkheads to use, if we took that away, there
would be, multiplying by the FAR, there would be approximately 340,000 square feet of floor area
available to use. They're proposing a 410,000 square foot building. They would be 70 -- they would be
over, 70,000 feet over.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Excuse me. I have to object. Once again, I don't understand the relevance if he's
testifying that it's pursuant to Code.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Wait a minute. Excuse me. Hold it.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't have any problem with the testimony right now.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Alvarez: We're pointing out the ability of this site, and the conditions around the site and this
development that allows a larger building. That's all this is about. The proposed development would be,
basically, of the 410,000 square feet, 17 percent of that is coming from that -- in a sense, that bonus from
the site of the north bulkhead and the south bulkhead. So a basic point, and I think it is material to this
issue, is that we can fit something on here that if this were another site, that if this were not a MUSP, we
could not fit on this property. A MUSP -- Then getting to the last point. And I read four things that we
look at -- program, massing, site and context. This is the context. And a MUSP asks us, if you're going to
31 4/25/01
ask -- if you want a MUSP, you got to look at the context. It's an extra criteria, and it's -- that context is
something that by the -- yes -- by the Code, you have a lot of discretion to decide how it may be -- and I
know Tucker went over this before -- how it may be oriented, massed, et cetera. I have two -- I don't need
that. There's four that I put up and it's -- I'll be -- I put together two aerial -- an aerial, a Dade County
aerial, January 25, 2001, and I also have a photograph here taken from Key Biscayne. Actually, the
causeway. The distances here are shown -- to show you basic -- This goes from Brickell -- just south of
the Bristol Tower.
Mr. Gibbs: South of Bristol Tower.
Mr. Alvarez: Brickell Bay Club. Excuse me. I forgot that. This goes from Brickell Bay Club to the
Santa Maria. It shows all of the buildings in between the Bristol, proposed Brickell Bay Village Project,
the Atlantis and the rest of the condominiums. What you see there is a --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Excuse me. Can I just ask if this is to scale, and what is the height of the building?
Mr. Alvarez: Actually, I'm not going to be referring to the height. I'm simply referring to a contextual
issue. I will not be referring to the dimensions, and I will use yours if I do.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: But the photograph depicts the proposed building at a specific height. I think we
need to know if that height is true height, in scale with -- as it's being depicted.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: I think Ms. Toledo is proceeding to continue her question, even though I think you stopped
her a moment ago.
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry; I can't hear you.
Mr. Maxwell: I believe -- Did you rule on whether or not she could ask that question?
Vice Chairman Gort: No, I have the --
Mr. Maxwell: Did you? Did you allow her to ask?
Vice Chairman Gort: No, I didn't. No.
Mr. Maxwell: Well, that's what I'm saying. She interrupted. And I think earlier on, the question was
whether or not you would wait until the end of presentation and then ask your questions.
Vice Chairman Gort: Well, I tried to state it, that if you write all those things down, and you had a few
minutes for rebuttal -- well, as much time as possible -- and then you can ask all those questions. And I
asked that of the two of you, because there's still a lot of individuals here that would like to testify.
32 4/25/01
Mr. Alvarez: OK. Maybe I'll solve it this way: In regards to height, I'm not going to dispute what the
applicant has shown on their display, and I'm not even dealing with that issue. This is not about height.
This is about an issue of context in the area. One of the problems with looking at that board is it doesn't
show you context, and maybe I'll explain this. While they show a graph of all of the heights of the
buildings lined up, and they show a photograph of each of those buildings taken from ground level, they
don't show how they come together. So you don't get the opportunity to understand the relationship of
the height of those buildings, the mass of those buildings with each other, and you don't get to understand
that from Santa Maria to Brickell Bay --
Unidentified Speaker: Brickell Bay Club.
Mr. Alvarez: -- Bay Club. Excuse me. And that's what this photograph is about.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez, does that have
an angle?
Mr. Alvarez: That is -- that does have an angle, and I will explain that, and I have some notes at the
bottom. There are distortions that are photographic distortions in this, just as there are on aerials.
However, there's no better -- a picture is worth a thousand words. There's no way to get around this. And
I have no problem explaining the angles. The photograph is taken so that essentially, these two -- actually,
this building is about centered on the photograph. So as you can see, you start to see the side of the
Atlantis going this way. You see --
Commissioner Sanchez: I see the point you're trying to make. I see the point you're trying to make.
Mr. Alvarez: OK. The point is really to look at these distances. And you can look over there for heights.
But just to look at the distances here, I did fill in what those distances are, and I'm going to say it now.
They were read off of the aerials, off of the 300 scale aerials, so they could have a little error. Again, my
point is not about setbacks. It's not about specific setback issues. It's just the relationship. This is all
about context. And what you see here is that Brickell Bay Village fits in among these a rather small
space. They're allowed to be there, no problems with it, but it is one of the smaller spaces. Point made on
this photograph. The next point -- and you have to take these together to understand it -- is when you look
at the aerial. Same thing down here. Santa Maria is over here. Brickell Bay Club is over here. I'm sorry;
I just don't remember that. Atlantis is in the red. Bristol is in red. And the Brickell Bay Village is in
orange. When you take these together and you look at, say, any of these buildings, most of them are 100,
110, 120 feet apart, at the closest. That's about what we have here. No problem. But look what happens
along Brickell. It's the orientation and how these buildings are staggered when they're close together.
Every single building is either a good distance apart, or when they're close, they stagger them so that the
views -- so that the value of each of those buildings is preserved, every place. Even the Santa Maria,
which is a very large building, was turned on its axis to face the other way. Here, the Atlantis and the
Brickell Bay Village is the only thing, the only place, if this application goes through, as it is now, as
proposed, where one tower, one slab, if you will, stands directly in front of another. Period. They're right
in front of each other. And again, as has been mentioned before, the Atlantis is single -loaded. Everything
faces south. So this is a compatibility issue. You take it together. If they were farther apart, fine. I'm
sorry, go ahead.
33 4/25/01
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I don't understand. Factually, that may be correct. But what is the significance of
the compatibility issue that you're arguing?
Vice Chairman Gort: It's blocking the view.
Mr. Alvarez: The compatibility -- I'm sorry. The compatibility issue is one of how these buildings relate
to each other. And actually, at this point, I was going to turn it over to
Mr. LeJeune. I think he can speak much more to this effect. But it's the combination of these two issues
of how these buildings relate to each other, and that is applicable to the compatibility and harmony aspects
of the project. How those buildings are situated with relation to each other is what's important here. Not
particularly the size, not particularly the mass, not particularly the height, not particularly the location.
When they're all together, it doesn't work.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: May I cross this witness at this time?
Vice Chairman Gort: No.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No?
Vice Chairman Gort: Remember, I stated, and I asked the two of you to write down all the notes, and later
on, you'll get a chance to do so. OK?
Mr. Alvarez: And with that, thank you. I'd like to --
Vice Chairman Gort: Now, my understanding -- it is my first experience as a judge, but watching TV, my
understanding is people -- people get a chance to make the presentation, and after they finish, then you can
rebut and you can answer questions. Cross-examination after they testify. Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, you may proceed.
Jean Francois LeJeune: Yes. Am I allowed to speak at this time?
Commissioner Sanchez: State your name for the record.
Mr. LeJeune: Yes. My name is Jean Francois LeJeune. I'm a resident of Dade County since 1986. I'm
an associate professor at the University of Miami School of Architecture, where I teach design,
architectural design, urban design and architectural history. Outside of the teaching, and I think that is
relevant to the history of our City, I have written various articles about the City. I was the curator of the --
still the largest architectural exhibition ever shown in Miami at the Center for Fine Arts at the time in
1992, called Miami Architecture of the Tropics, where Atlantis and other buildings of the Brickell
Corridor were prominently displayed and published. Presently, I became a Planning Board member of the
city of Miami Beach, and I want to emphasize that, because it's very important for this case, that I have to
look at similar situations sometimes in my duty, in my service duty at the city of Miami Beach on the
Planning Board. And I would also say --
34 4/25/01
Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, just -- just --
Mr. LeJeune: Yeah?
Commissioner Sanchez: Are you registered
Mr. LeJeune: Yes, I am registered.
Commissioner Sanchez: Are you -- Did you register today?
Mr. LeJeune: Yes, I did. Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Mr. City Clerk?
Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): When you say, "registered," you're asking him whether or not
he's a registered lobbyist, are you not?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, registered lobbyist.
Mr. LeJeune: Yes, I am. I have the paper.
Mr. Maxwell: And you have indicated that you are.
Mr. LeJeune: The paper is here.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm sorry for the interruption. I just wanted to make sure that you state that for
the record.
Mr. LeJeune: Everything is in the rules. I wanted to point out to the Planning Board experience, because
as was stated already at least two or three times, my appearance here in front of the Commission is not to
resist any development of this site, but, in fact, to go ahead and to propose a better design, better siding,
better massing for this important project in the City. And all the developers that have come to the
Planning Board in Miami Beach will testify that I am very familiar with the issue and the pragmatics of
working in the City, of dealing with the job market, and all the other financial issues. I want to state that,
of course, the Atlantis is an important building, and I think this is a quite important meeting, because it is
probably the first time that we have so many people assembled here to defend a building, which is, in fact,
not literally threatened. We're not here assembled to resist the demolition of the Atlantis, which has
happened many times in our history, both -- in all parts of the County. No. We are here, actually, to
defend a symbol, and image of the City through a particular building, but I would like -- rather say to a
corridor. This is not about the Atlantis, itself. This is not about the hole on the Atlantis, which is a
wonderful architectural feature, but it is about a high quality area of development in our City. It is a
testimony of a very important period in the history of the City of Miami, the 1970s, early 1980s, where
some of the best designs, some of the best buildings in the City were built. And not only are they on
Brickell, but we have some of those, as well, in downtown, by very high level architects, such as S.O.M.
(Skidmore Owings & Merril), I&P, as a matter of fact. So we are talking here a building that represents
35 4/25/01
not only itself, but I think represents a level of quality, of architectural commitment by developers and by
architects to a particular image of Miami. And let's say that the image of Miami as a City was created
essentially during those years of grand architectural work. Since those times, unfortunately, for a lot of
reasons, I don't believe we have had as many buildings of value as much as those that were created in the
late `70s, early `80s. We have the Miami Arena. We have some new buildings being built on Brickell at
this point, also by important firms. We have the Four Seasons that opened recently. We have one of the
largest firms in the country, Goldman Peterson & Fox building the highest building on Brickell, or at least
on this side. And those are buildings of high level. And they are good signs that architectural design
quality is coming back to the City of Miami. One must confess that it had left the City of Miami and had
gone to Miami Beach. Now, because of the competition in the market, I think eventually, quality is
coming back in the City of Miami. And this is very important. And this is what I will essentially
emphasize. I do not believe that the project in front of us today, which I admit is an improvement upon
the first version of the project of the middle of 1999. This version of November 1999 that was passed
already by the different boards is an improvement. I'm a little confused about the architectural authorship
of this building, because all the plans that I have looked at in the last days are all stamped by Volvek
(phonetic) and Alvarez, Architects. I see here a very dear colleague, Mr. Bermello, also a very good
architect in the City. But I'm not quite sure exactly who is the author of the project, eventually, at this
moment. So I don't want to blame it on anybody. But I must say that this building is not up to the
standards that Brickell has used us to and what are now being built along the street. I think it's massing,
facades; it's materials, detailing, or actually, lack of detailing. It's not particularly interesting. It lacks
imagination. It's very repetitive. I think one element is the balconies of the building, the type of windows
-- just compare the balconies of the building we have in front of us and the type of windows that it
displays on its fagade, and compare that with the Santa Maria design. Compare that with Bristol. I was
one of those who thought that those buildings were too high and too bulky, the Bristol and Santa Maria,
but they were built. They were up to code, and they are distinguished. They are very well built, high-
level material, and so on and so on. I don't believe this project goes to those standards. Not only the
standards of the Atlantis, as a historical symbol of the City, but even more recent standards of new
building. I actually believe that it relates more to some "urbanistically" interesting projects that are taking
place a little farther north on Brickell, closer to the river, in the area of 8th Street and the island there,
where a lot of new condo -- actually new rental apartment buildings, such as the Metropolitan, I believe
are being built. Those buildings, I'm convinced will do a lot of good for the City, because they are
bringing life in an area that was dead. But they are not -- let's be honest -- they are not architecturally
distinguished. And I'm afraid that the object that is now sort of going south between those distinguished
structures, the Bristol and the Atlantis, is actually part of that breed, rather than being part of the original
breed of Brickell, or the new breed, the one that Messrs. Goldman, Peterson & Fox are building at this
moment. Now, this is not to say that those projects were not valid and didn't have their point. I think they
are making a lot of good for the City, and it's good to have rental apartments in that area in the City, as
well. I'm not here at all defending condominium building versus apartment building or rental apartment
building. But we have to design the same quality, it seems to me. The second element, which is
problematic, and it has already been stated, is the bulk or let's say the density of the project. I think Mark
Alvarez has been quite clearly the sort of -- I wouldn't say it's a loophole. It's not a loophole, it's legal,
the way the FAR and the quantity of square footage which is allowed in this property has been calculated,
but it's not very normal, let's say. In a certain way, it's a not completely relevant advantage that the
developer has taken advantage for very normally. But let's just talk about the widths of those lots. The
Atlantis is 200 feet wide. This particular lot, assembling two, 100, it's 200 feet wide. And Bristol is 200
feet wide, if I'm not mistaken. This lot, I argue and I will admit is longer. It goes a little further into the
36 4/25/01
bay. So it has a bigger square footage on the ground. That is absolutely clear. But that doesn't really
count, because it's sort of like a little bit of an island that penetrates into the City. If you take it at the
level of the sort of ribbon of land that blows between the bay and Brickell Avenue, it doesn't really count
very much "urbanistically." And what do we have? We have the Atlantis Building, which is 97
apartments -- 96. 96 apartments on a piece of property, which is 200 feet wide. We have Bristol, which
is, if I'm not mistaken, 146 on the same type of property in terms of width, much higher, much bigger.
And here, we have a project, which has, in fact, already voluntarily -- and because of the previous request
of the City Commission, it has been downzoned already to 359, if I'm not mistaken. That is still almost
four times as dense as the Atlantis, on the same piece of land. Now, technicalities will say, no, not really,
because the lot is bigger. I agree with that. But in reality, we don't know that. In reality, this is not the
way it faces the avenue. And I think we have to admit that is a quite high level of density. Now, I must
say that I haven't had the time to go back through the history of Brickell and figure out whether, at that
time, the developer of the Atlantis would have been able to build as high and as big a building that they
want to build now. Maybe the zoning was changed in between. In any case, there is something not
completely right in the zoning, and probably, this issue probably will sort of force the administration to, in
fact, revise the zoning procedure in this particular case. And my final point, in fact, is the issue of height
and siding. I think it has already been said that height would not be necessarily an issue here. I think we
could go higher, and get a smaller building in footprint. Siding has already been discussed by Mark
Alvarez. This is the only case along Brickell Avenue where two buildings would be literally parallel to
each other, almost with the same lengths, and almost ending at the same line, relative to the avenue, itself.
I'm pointing to this line here, which is basically the setback line from Brickell, and I'm pointing to the
front line, which is almost exactly the same line relative to the bay. I mean, this is what the developer has
proposed to us. We believe that this is possible, that changes are possible. I would actually say that I --
there's a lot of people who want to talk, so I'm sure other issues will be resolved. As to what -- perhaps
the parking podium is not quite usual on Brickell, either. It's usually been handled in other ways in the
best buildings, and I would actually say that we need to aim for quality, that the City Commission needs to
send a message that quality is back in the City of Miami. There are many cranes in the City of Miami. In
a certain way, in some areas, more cranes in Miami than in Miami Beach. I don't believe the City,
although it has still financial problems, is in such dire straits that it can approve any project only on the
basis of economic pressures. So I would urge you to go for quality and give the neighborhood a chance
for a redesign of this project. In fact, as a joke --this is a joke. I'm not trying to offend anybody herein
the audience, particularly my colleagues. I would suggest that this is such a difficult site, if I were Mr.
Bowman; I would hire Arquitectonica to do this new project. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Teele: I don't think that was very nice.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Well, what can I tell you? It's a public hearing, and people can state what --
they can. Anything else, Tucker?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes. We have -- excuse me. We have several people who do wish to speak from the
community, and I'd like to start off with --
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Just go ahead.
Mr. Maxwell: Before you do that, I would -- before, I would suggest you allow cross-examination of the
experts.
37 4/25/01
Mr. Gibbs: Those are our experts, so have at it.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, I would suggest that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is that your conclusion with the experts?
Mr. Gibbs: With our experts, but there are other people.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Mr. Gibbs: There are other people, by the way, who are architects, but who are not our expert witnesses
from the community. But these are --
Mr. Maxwell: I would suggest that now would be the time to allow cross-examining, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Now?
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, ma'am, it's all yours.
Mr. Maxwell: Of those, yes.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. To Mr. Alvarez through the Chair, please.
Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Alvarez.
Mr. Alvarez: Yes.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I'm sorry; I'm a little confused. Are you an architect?
Mr. Alvarez: I am a planner and an engineer.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: A planner and an engineer. OK. Can you tell me what -- if this building, the one in
the orange, on the large board where you have "context" written across the board, and you have a series of
pictures, and you have taken a building to represent the proposed project here, Brickell Bay Village, and
tried to put it in context with its neighboring buildings. Is it -- what height did you use for that particular
building?
Mr. Alvarez: I used the height that is proposed, and I don't have it in front of me. I don't have my notes.
And I scaled it from the Atlantis, using the Atlantis as my scale. I would like to -- well, go ahead.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Well, I don't want to interrupt you if you haven't finished your answer.
Mr. Alvarez: No, no. Please.
38 4/25/01
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: So you don't have -- you cannot tell me what height you used. OK. Is it to scale
with all of the other buildings?
Mr. Alvarez: It is to -- I'd like to answer this completely. I'll take my option at this point. Again, as I
explained to Ms. Garcia -Toledo, this diagram is not about height. And I referred to your -- to your board,
and I referred the Commission to look to your board for the height --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: That's not my question. My question is --
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is there's no scale --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Is it to scale?
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me.
Mr. Alvarez: Yes.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It's not to scale.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Hold it. There's no scale, right?
Mr. Alvarez: Yes. But I'd like to clarify. You know, it's --
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Mr. Attorney, I mean, come on. I'd like to get this --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Then I need to know what height to use.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. I'm trying to get it to there. I'm trying to get there, please.
Mr. Maxwell: I think the Chair does have the prerogative of deciding when he feels the question has been
answered. He doesn't have to allow it to go on ad infinitum, Ms. Garcia -Toledo.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It's fine. If he doesn't know the scale and he doesn't know the height he used, that's
fine. We need to move on.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. I think -- I think what the Chairman has said, that he heard him answer. Is that what
your response was?
Vice Chairman Gort: You heard the answer, that's the answer, and that's it.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: That's fine.
Mr. Alvarez: I'll settle with that.
39 4/25/01
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you, I'm getting a lot of practice in here. From now on, I'm going to be
watching TV quite a bit, especially those judges and those --
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, but make sure, Mr. Chairman --
Vice Chairman Gort: According to -- from now on, we're going to be in court, I mean. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Maxwell: Let me, if I may; let me speak to my client here. But make sure that they -- that the has
answered. You don't -- If he -- make sure he answers it. But then after he answers or he gives an answer,
it's not your response, it's his response.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's why you're here.
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: That's why I wanted to make sure right now that he was the first --
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. I'll listen to you. I pay you.
Mr. Maxwell: Thank you.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I got my answer. He can't tell me what height.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. And to Mr. LeJeune -- is it "LeJeune"? Is that the correct last name?
Mr. Alvarez: Tucker, could you come here for a second before he answers that? She just rephrased what
I said as I can't tell her what height, and I would like to --
Mr. Gibbs: What did she say?
Mr. Alvarez: She just rephrased as: "He can't tell me what happened."
Mr. Gibbs: She can't tell you what happened --
Mr. Alvarez: Referring to the scale issue. And I think that --
Vice Chairman Gort: The question that was asked is: "What scale did you use to measure the height?"
My understanding is his answer -- and correct me if I'm wrong --
Mr. Maxwell: No. Let him answer it, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Go ahead.
40 4/25/01
Mr. Maxwell: Let him answer it.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: He already did.
Mr. Alvarez: No. I do object to that, because I know what I did. I had -- I'm not the architect of record,
and I'm not in a position to accurately scale that building. I cannot do that. I needed to -- that was a
representation for your benefit, and I needed to put something in there as close as possible so you
understand the relationship. That board is not about height, period.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. So it's the closest possible representation.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, Vicky. Wait a minute.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. I understand. One more question. Is this model that is in front of the Assistant
City Manager coming into the record? And if it is, who can testify to the model? Is it Mr. Alvarez or
someone else?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes. It's the model that's been identi -- it's the model that I asked that it be specifically
placed into the record. And it was here at -- I have the gentleman who -- excuse me. The gentleman who
prepared the model is here. And if you want to -- He was going to testify later on, and you'd be able --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. I can question him later one. That's fine.
Mr. Gibbs: -- you'd be able to -- you'd be able to examine him at that point.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: That's fine.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, but Mr. Gibbs, we need you to --
Mr. Gibbs: Identify?
Mr. Maxwell: -- identify that for the record. It's has something --
Mr. Gibbs: It's a model of the Bristol Tower.
Mr. Maxwell: It has something written on it.
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, I know. I was just saying it's a model of the Bristol Tower, the Brickell Bay --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: But I don't think Mr. Gibbs can bring it into the record.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, excuse me, Vicky.
Mr. Gibbs: I'm just identifying it. I'm not testifying to its accuracy or anything else, Ms. Garcia -Toledo.
This is a model of the Bristol Tower, Brickell Bay Village and the Atlantis. It was prepared by BEA
41 4/25/01
International. The gentleman who prepared it is here to testify. He will testify after some of the other
people have because they have to leave, so I want to get their testimony in.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: There's a question. Ms. Toledo, your question regarding that?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. But I will wait until the appropriate person comes up and testifies before I
cross.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And I think my next question is -- is it LeJeune? Mr. LeJeune? I couldn't understand
clearly the last name. To your knowledge, as a professional architect, is there any prohibition or limitation
in the City of Miami Code that does not allow two buildings to be located on their sites, side by side.
Mr. LeJeune: If there is such a regulation that would not allow it?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No, no, no. I'm asking you if, in your professional opinion, you know of any
limitation that does not permit the location of these two buildings in the City of Miami Code?
Mr. LeJeune: No, absolutely -- absolutely not.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. LeJeune: My point was purely architectural. It was not legal or related to Code.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, thank you to the Chair.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's it. OK.
Mr. Gibbs: OK. I'd like to introduce -- I'm just going to be introducing people at this point. I'd like to
introduce Mr. Pedro Fuentes -Cid of the Four Ambassadors, who is going to speak on this point. Mr. Cid.
Thank you. The Four Ambassadors.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. City Clerk, two minutes.
Pedro Fuentes -Cid: Yeah. My name is Pedro Fuentes -Cid. I live at 905 Brickell Bay Drive, Apartment
1527. I have my office at 2650 Biscayne Boulevard. They're both in the City of Miami. I'm here today
as a concerned neighbor. I'm sure you have heard -- I just arrived, but I'm sure you have heard a lot about
the historical and all the qualities of the Atlantis. My preoccupation is this: These people that are here
that have so actively pursued their -- you know, the view that they have in the building, the possible
change in the architecture of the building that they're going to do next door are my neighbors, and they're
also your neighbors. I think that they were there first, and that if we're going to really back something
that our neighbors are doing, I believe that neighbors probably come after family and sometimes even
before family. So we should back them up. We're in the Magic City. Anything can happen in the Magic
42 4/25/01
City. Very good things can happen here, and I think they deserve our backing as our neighbors. Thank
you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: I'd like to introduce Susan Fawcett.
Susan Fawcett: How do you do? My name is Susan Fawcett. I've lived in Speed Watch on Brickell
Avenue for 12 years. And before I make my comment, I would just like to speak on behalf of the
apparently nearly 200 people who came here today whose passion about this issue, as Mr. LeJeune said, a
building, really caused this hearing to be called. And I think it's ironic and unfair, frankly, that many of
them couldn't come in, and sit down, and participate, and see and be here in the hearing. I just want to say
that for them.
Commissioner Teele: But Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone who needs to --
Vice Chairman Gort: Look, I stated at the beginning of the meeting, anyone that would like to address
this Commission, even if they're outside, they're welcome to come in, sign up, and we'll listen to them.
OK? Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we take a one minute recess and instruct counsel
to go outside and -- no -- and to go outside and bring anybody in that he wants, with the permission of the
police and the sergeant -at -arms that is going to testify. I recommend -- I move for a one -minute recess.
Ms. Fawcett: Excuse me.
Mr. Gibbs: Oh, excuse me. OK. We can do it in one minute or we can do it right now, because I have
people here who are ready to speak right now. OK.
THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 6:32 P.M. AND
RECONVENED AT 6:36 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION
EXCEPTING COMMISSIONER TEELE AND COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ, FOUND TO BE
PRESENT.
Vice Chairman Gort: Please, can we all take our seats and have one meeting, please? Thank you. Yes,
ma'am.
Ms. Fawcett: Thank you. Again, my name is Susan Fawcett. And it's my privilege to read into the
record some excerpts from the Herald editorial from March 29, 2001: Scale Back Bayfront Project.
Miami City Commissioners should send the proposed Brickell Bay Village development back to the
drafting table. The project is simply too huge and too intrusive for its site along the bay.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I need --it's an objection. Relevancy.
Ms. Fawcett: Commissioners should insist that developer, Michael Bowman --
43 4/25/01
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me.
Mr. Vilarello: I believe the Chair has instructed objections to be preserved to the conclusion of the
testimony.
Vice Chairman Gort: This is about the fifth time I'm going to repeat this.
Mr. Vilarello: You've noted your objection for the record, and you can inquire --
Vice Chairman Gort: OK? Later on, you can go back and you can bring whatever you want. And, I
mean, they opened the door, I'm not an attorney, come on.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: But then it's all on the record.
Ms. Fawcett: Thank you. Commissioners should insist the developer --
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me a minute. Do I have the right to contempt of court anyone? Or --
Ms. Fawcett. Thanks. Sorry. Commissioners should insist the developer, Michael Bowman, scale back
this massive project to better fit in with its Brickell Avenue neighbors. The fortunes of one building --and
I might add one builder -- cannot alone drive the Commissioners' decisions. Elected officials who have
the temerity to say no to the baseball stadium cannot back away now from heeding common sense urban
planning, compatible design and public interest. Brickell Bay should be reduced to be a good neighbor.
And I'd like to add that we are not asking Mr. Bowman to forfeit his right to build on this property. We
are asking you to instruct him to toss out his "Great Wall of Brickell" design that will hulk over the
Atlantis and shoulder out views at the Bristol and neighboring buildings. He's asking to be granted with a
special permit, a major chunk of Brickell Avenue's resources and of our quality of life, and in exchange,
all we're asking for is that Mr. Bowman give us a taller, thinner building. Please, Commissioners, vote
"no" to this project as proposed. Thank you very much for listening.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Note for the Record: Commissioner Sanchez entered the Commission Chambers at
6:38 p.m.
Mr. Gibbs: Hervin Romney, architect of record of the Atlantis.
Hervin Romney: Chair, Commissioners, learned professionals, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Hervin
Romney. My office is at 306 Alcazar Avenue in Coral Gables. I think you have a letter from the City of
Miami stating that I'm the architect of record of the Atlantis, the Palace, the Imperial, the Babylon, and
also, the Acropolis at Brickell Avenue. So I have gone through the design process numerous times,
always keeping in mind that we all have a responsibility, especially we as design professionals, and also
our clients have a responsibility. And I have been fortunate enough to work with clients who have
understood and responded to that responsibility. Harry Helmsley was mentioned about a half an hour ago.
44 4/25/01
Harry Helmsley gave me the project of the Palace on a handshake when we were visiting the site. And
Harry Helmsley scaled his project back to suit the St. Jude Church next door, to respond to the late
Nicholas Morley's request, who built the Panamanian on the south, and also to allow the building just
northeast of it to have a view across its doing of his project. And we designed a stepping building, a red
stepping wing so that it would not interfere with the sidelines of the neighbors. We did something similar
at the Imperial. We stopped back from almost 200 feet from the bay bulkhead line, among other things --
and not only -- but among other things, to respect a strangler fig that still grows there. We worked out all
of these issues with the Urban Development Review Board. I will have you know the Atlantis is thinner
than that model, is 37 feet, six inches thick, is 300 feet, two inches long.
Vice Chairman Gort: Could you please wrap it up, please?
Mr. Romney: And it's that length because it respected the existing houses on the site. We also kept it in a
position where it would not block the view of the buildings to the north, the condominiums to the north. I
say this as a preamble to the point of what I want to bring to you today. The Brickell Bay Village is a very
important development. It is so important that I am here to ask everybody, including, respectfully, the
developer and the designers to do the best job that can be done. What is being proposed, sadly, not only
for the Atlantis --
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. We have given you beyond two minutes, and right now, we're
restricted to two minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Romney: It's only a blinder, even to itself. It can be redesigned. You can read about it in an article
on April 19`". And I thank you for your attention, Commissioners, Chair.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Tucker, if you wanted to do a presentation, you should have it with the
presentation as an expert. OK.
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Larry Levis, who is the model -- who made the model and who will testify regarding that
model.
Larry Levis: I'm the model guy. My name is Larry Levis. I'm a partner with BEA International. Our
address is 4217 Ponce de Leon in Coral Gables. Our firm produced this mass model that you see here,
and I can attest to the fact that we did our utmost, working with public information to make it as accurate
as possible. The Atlantis is based on as -built drawings. John Kallah (phonetic), one of our partners, is a
resident and has access to those as built. The Bristol Tower footprint was based on the proposed building
as submitted for the MUSP, and the height was taken, actually, from a web site. Public information,
www.skyscrapers.com., and the actual building was taken from the drawings that were submitted for the
MUSP. So to the best of our knowledge and abilities, we produced an accurate model. The other thing
I'd like to say, if I have a minute, just as a citizen, is that the -- Miami is very much a car society. And
when you drive north on I-95 -- we don't have much topography in Miami. It's only when we get up onto
the freeways and we get up onto the on -ramps that we have a vista. And those are the exciting moments
in Miami, when we're driving up, and we can actually see the green trees, and the canopy and the
buildings. That view of Miami is very emblematic. And as you drive north from Coconut Grove into
Miami, on I-95, I submit that the taller, thinner version of the building that all of us have been harping on
would actually allow at least a portion of the Atlantis to be seen, which I think is important. Thank you.
45 4/25/01
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: If I may. This is the gentleman -- oh, you want me to wait?
Vice Chairman Gort: Please.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Write down your questions. At the end, you get an opportunity to ask them.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I have it.
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, if she wants to cross-examine him now while it's fresh in her mind, I have no
objection to that. It may make this meeting go a lot quicker.
Vice Chairman Gort: I don't think so, but go ahead.
Mr. Gibbs: She's going to have to be -- he's going to have to answer questions sooner or later.
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead. Go ahead. No. She'll ask the questions later. It'll be a lot better.
Thank you, sir. Don't go anywhere. You'll be in contempt of court.
Jorge Diaz: Good evening. My name is Jorge Diaz. I live in the Atlantis, Apartment 903. I'm a
physician by trade, and I've lived in the Atlantis since February of 2000. I'm here to talk about the
architectural significance of the Atlantis to the City of Miami and to the world of architecture as a whole.
Let me first start by reading a letter from Cesar Pelee that he wrote to the Miami Herald in response to
Beth Dunlap's March 18th article. The Atlantis is the best modern building so far in Miami, one that has
contributed much to give this City its present character of being progressive, stylish and fun. It is a
relatively new building, but it is an important part of Miami's patrimony, and as such, it should be
protected, and development that will hide its image should not be allowed. I'd like to follow that up by
my own commentary that the Atlantis is a post-modern structure that is unparalleled within its
architectural genre as a whole. The Atlantis is a marvel of modern architecture, and it is widely exhibited
in most modern architectural texts. But most importantly, it has become a symbol of the City of Miami.
People from all over the world recognize it, and it's a "must see" for any architectural enthusiast. It is an
architectural treasure that must be preserved. I have always loved the building. And what is more
important, I have always been proud that it is situated in the City of Miami. The Atlantis launched an
architectural epoch that was synonymous with growth and prosperity in the 1980s. Postcards of the
famous hole in the middle circulated the globe. There are few buildings in the world that have the
notoriety and fame that the Atlantis has. Other cities protect their architectural treasures with zeal, not
only because it's part of their history, but because it makes economic sense to do so. Gentlemen, this is
our symbolic structure. Let's protect it. It seems surreal to me that anyone would oppose a building that
would obliterate the south view of the sky court, the feature that makes the Atlantis so unique and special.
The proposed building would essentially block the famous blue grid view, not just for us, the residents,
but for everyone. A great piece of art would essentially be concealed. Let me be clear on the fact that
46 4/25/01
we're not against developing the adjacent area. What we are seeking is a win/win situation that would
allow a gracious building that is compatible with its surroundings.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Diaz: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Marcelo Salup: OK. I'll try to be ahead of time. Hi. I'm Marcelo Salup. I live in Atlantis, Apartment
1203, and that's the apartment that actually goes into the hole, just for clarification. I'm really astounded
being here again. This is clearly one of the most unpopular, most contested projects that I've seen in
Brickell. I want to remind all of the Commissioners that we are your neighbors. We are the people who
live here. We don't want to take jobs away from anybody. We're only asking for a redesign. The plans
haven't even been done. This is something that's doable. This is something that can bring a lot of peace
to the neighborhood. I was here when Stallone tried to close the only biking path we have through
Coconut Grove, the famous "Stallone Gate." The City, when they saw the unpopular appeal, decided not
to have the gate. And the gate is still chained. It is still there, but it is still chained. All we're asking you
is to close that chain again. Make sure that we can leave in peace, as your neighbors, and have the kind of
design that we -- the kind of design that we deserve in Brickell. You know, good design. The other thing
that I mentioned the last time I was here, I want to mention again, because I have a nine year old who
plays in Brickell with all of her friends in Brickell. It's the issue of the traffic. We're going to have a
huge amount of parking space. It's going to be like 519 spaces. We're going to have 500 cars coming in
and out, and because they're small apartments, one -bedroom apartments, two-bedroom apartments, these
are going to be like, you know, 700 trucks a year going through here. Right now, it is dangerous to even
walk your dog these days in Brickell. The City is proposing a major traffic study. I received a
questionnaire, as one of the people who live in Miami, one of the citizens of Miami. How can we do
something like this even before we complete the traffic study? So I just want two things in leaving. I
know my time is up. One, we are your neighbors. We can live in peace. We just want good design. The
design hasn't been finalized yet. Leave the gate closed and think about the traffic and all of us living here.
Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next.
Tory Jacobs: Tory Jacobs. I live at 145 Southeast 25th Road, Miami. I'm here representing the Brickell
Homeowners Association, an organization that represents the residential community from Rickenbacker
Causeway to the Miami River and from Brickell to the Biscayne Bay. And we network with our
neighboring homeowner associations, the Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association and the new
South Miami Avenue Homeowners Association. And we work very hard, as you guys know, to protect
and enhance this neighborhood, which is a jewel of the City of Miami. And we ask your help in
supporting us and trying to protect and enhance this jewel in the City. And to that end, we passed a
resolution at our board meeting, unanimously by our board, against this project, which has been circulated
and is in your packets. So, please, don't dump on us with putting something that doesn't belong in this
Brickell neighborhood. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
47 4/25/01
Joe Wilkins: Good evening. Joe Wilkins, 228 Southwest 23rd Road, one of the directors of the Miami
Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. One of the boundaries of our neighborhood is South Miami
Avenue, which is one block from Brickell. What happens in Brickell does directly impact what happens
in the Roads. And we have a long, cooperative history of working with the Brickell Homeowner's
Association. Our board, after hearing the experts speak, did pass a resolution, which said -- which is part
of the record -- supporting by adoption the Brickell Homeowner's Association resolution in its entirety.
We also don't feel this project conforms to our area, and I'll just put an exclamation mark behind
everything everybody else has said. We hope you consider this is not just an issue for Brickell. It's an
issue for our entire community. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Donald Maestrodominigo: Hi. My name is Donald Maestrodominigo. I'm an attorney, and I live in
Bristol Tower. And I'm here to inform the Commission that the overwhelming majority of the unit
owners in Bristol Tower are opposed to this building. And many of them -- I have a petition today of
around 70 of the owners in Bristol Tower -- have asked me to speak on their behalf. We were not happy
with the settlement agreement that the board made in our behalf, and as evidenced by the petition --
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, sir. That's not relevant to this testimony.
Mr. Maestrodominigo: Fine. The Bristol Tower owners have awakened to the negative impact that this
massive rental structure will have in our community, and again join with the Atlantis, the Brickell
Homeowner's Association, the Miami Herald, and all of the condos on Brickell Avenue in opposition to
this proposal. We stand ready in Bristol Tower to expend whatever funds are necessary to hire legal
counsel to prevent this project from ever coming into fruition. For all of the reasons, the structure is too
huge, the traffic concerns. There's a 75 -story building that's going up a block and a half from us. The
Metropolitan is just up to the left of us. The pollution from 520 cars in that building in such a small
proximity will really negatively impact our health concerns, concerning our building. We feel the
incompatibility with the neighborhood design, the question of the 200 foot of the bottom being used, in
terms of allowing the developer to get a larger building, the burden on sanitation and cleaning services,
and most importantly, the destruction of residential values to the whole area, thus ultimately reducing the
City tax revenue. I'm sure all of these other issues will be elaborated on by other speakers. And I'd just
like the Commission to know that the individual unit owners of Brickell Tower -- basically, there's been
mailings that have been going on to all the residents in the community.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Maestrodominigo: And we would hope that the Commissioners would respect our wishes.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Hugo Macias: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Hugo Macias. I reside at the Atlantis. And
I'll be short and brief. I basically think the building is way too intrusive; too much traffic, and I bought
48 4/25/01
that apartment that I live in with the perception that I want to have a view. By that building going up, it
blocks my view, diminishes my value of my property. And if that happens, your taxes go down. OK?
Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Tucker, anyone else on your presentation? Excuse me. this -- The
public meeting is not open yet. This is your presentation. Am I correct?
Mr. Gibbs: This is correct. These are all people who want to speak. Quite frankly, my presentation, you
know, was essentially the professional presentation. But I thought you wanted everyone who was opposed
to speak, because they had people who were in favor. I thought --
Vice Chairman Gort: Fine. We'll do that. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. Gibbs: OK. You can change it any way --
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.
Mr. Gibbs: OK.
Alitza Weiss: Good evening. My name is Alitza Weiss. As a person who comes from a family of
commercial real estate developers for --
Vice Chairman Gort: Your address, please, Ms. Weiss.
Ms. Weiss: -- for over 30 years, I can appreciate highly for Mr. Bowman --
Vice Chairman Gort: Your address, please.
Ms. Weiss: 2127 Brickell Avenue, Apartment 1106. I can appreciate highly for Mr. Bowman and how he
has expended a tremendous amount of money over the past two and a half years in trying to put together
this project. But I truly believe, as a person who comes from a real estate development family, he would
extend himself in the long run in a favorable attitude by re -designing the building and working it out with
everyone. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Emma Afra: Good evening. Emma Afra is my name. I live on Brickell Avenue, 2127, Bristol Towers.
And I object to the design of the rental building proposed on the 3.27 acres with 200 feet frontage on the
Brickell Bay Village parcel. You Commissioners know that this meeting is for a special permit requested
on the last parcel of oceanfront property on Brickell Avenue. The objection I have is not about limiting
jobs for anyone by halting a project. The objection lies in the parameters of this design. The proposed
project affects not the special interests of anyone in particular, but the interest in an irreversible way of the
Brickell Avenue community, and the City of Miami as a whole. You, Commissioners, surely know that
traffic studies requested at previous meetings were never provided. 510 parking spaces in this rental
property project will create more traffic than the Atlantis and the Bristol Tower generate together. This
traffic will flow in 200 feet of frontage into a one-way Brickell Avenue Corridor. As designed, Brickell
49 4/25/01
Avenue cannot sustain this. The proposed design of this building is out of sorts with anything on Brickell
Avenue. And as you well know, Commissioners, the Brickell Homeowners Association is not in favor of
this project. We are a community. And we should have a vision for this City in this 21St Century. Most
cities have master design plans. You are intelligent and well informed. And I do hope you share a
compatible vision for the existing Brickell community. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Ingrid Hoffinan: Hi. Ingrid Hoffman, 2127 Brickell Avenue, Apartment 2004. I believe I'm in for
quality. I support jobs. At the same time, the Magic City, and the so-called "hole" is what drives
foreigners like me to come and invest. And I believe that has brought jobs, too. There is very good
quality that has been coming to our street. Obviously, we all know what they are. I believe that the City
should really consider this. And I'm in for a great building, and it's basically about quality and standard.
And let's maintain it, the Magic City. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Harvey Goldman: Harvey Goldman, 2025 Brickell Avenue, Apartment 1701. I'd first like to read into
the record a resolution of the Urban Environment League. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Urban
Environment League strongly urges the City of Miami Commission to reject the proposed plan for the
Brickell Bay Village until it can be re -designed for compatibility with its neighboring buildings, and to
protect valuable views of Miami's architectural heritage. Signed Gregory Bush, President. You know,
the issue for me is a relatively easy one. Of course, I don't sit up there, so it is a little bit easier. But
everybody and their brother has said that that is not a great building. It is not a building that belongs in
that area. There's only one person that has said otherwise -- the developer and his people.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Hold it.
Mr. Goldman: Excuse me. What these people don't realize is that the developer could have gotten them
their jobs on this project so long ago if he had met with the neighbors and simply re -designed the building.
That's all we want. We -- we're not going to stop development. We know there's going to be
development, absent a miracle, on that piece of property. We want you guys to have jobs, for goodness
sakes. This is such an icon, though. This building in this area, I'm sure -- I mean, I'm preaching to the
choir in a sense, if you'll excuse me. That street, and that building in particular, if it needs any saying,
you know, there are snow globes in various cities. In New York, a snow globe --
Commissioner Winton: A what?
Mr. Goldman: Snow globe. Something that, you know, that rains. You'll see it in a second. In New
York, you might pick out the Twin Towers, the Empire State Building. In Washington, the White House
or the Capitol. What about Miami? It's the Atlantis. Now, to put something like what they're proposing
there, to me, it really is an easy question. I see no redeeming alternatives on the other side. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Are you going to put that in evidence?
50 4/25/01
(LAUGHTER)
Alvaro Ferrand: My name is Alvaro Ferrand, and I'm from 2025 Brickell Avenue. First, I'd like to read a
letter from Ms. Alva Moore Parks. She's a Miami historian. It is addressed to the members of the
Commission: Gentlemen, I am sorry that I am out of town and unable to be here to personally voice my
opposition to the planned apartment complex next to the Atlantis. You can make a difference on this issue.
The Atlantis is one of Miami 's most compelling images, and is known throughout the world.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Hello. Joel, it's objectionable to put this on the record.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Write it down and you can bring it up later. Please. This is the tenth
time now. Come on.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I thought that was for cross-examination, not for objections.
Mr. Ferrand: It may not be historic yet, but it is unquestionably a landmark, and must be protected.
Please save the Atlantis for all of us, present and future. If we can't see it, it isn't really there. For
Miami, obscuring the Atlantis is almost like putting a permanent cloud over the sun. And this is the belief
of Ms. Moore Parks, which is a belief I share in as a citizen of Miami. Another point I'd like to make is
when making a judgment call as to the preoccupation and the interest of the developer in the community, I
would ask the Commission to look at the model and consider that that is not really the first proposal of the
developer. The first proposal was 20 percent bigger. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Jeff Rubenstein: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Rubenstein. I live at 2025 Brickell
Avenue, Apartment 601. I've lived there since 1982. I have a couple of items I'd like to quickly
introduce into evidence in the record. First is a collection of all of -- well, maybe not all, but quite a few
of the press articles throughout the world, virtually in ever language on the planet -- Spanish, French,
Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Stern Magazine, of the Atlantis, furnished courtesy of Arquitectonica. I'd like
that introduced into evidence. The building, as you know, is world famous, cover of Progressive
Architecture Magazine, Casa Vogue Magazine, the cover of the American Institute of Architect's Book on
Arquitectonica. I'd also like to introduce the article from Beth Dunlap in the March 11"' issue of the
Miami Herald. And one thing she said in the article, she needed to be corrected about. After she goes
through the history of the building being named by the Whitney Museum as one of the 20th Century's key
buildings, she says, quote, "The building is too young." This is Beth Dunlap. She's the architectural
contributing writer for the Miami Herald.
Commissioner Teele: And what day and month, year?
Mr. Rubenstein: This is March 11, 2001. All right. It says -- she says the building is too young to be
deemed historic by official standards, but it is certainly a landmark. She didn't know it at the time on
March 11th, but as of February 26th, the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, Division of Historic
Resources, through Karl Schreiber, Historic Site Specialist, has stated that the property should be
considered for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and they look forward to receiving our
51 4/25/01
nomination. And I'd like that -- this is the original letter from the Secretary of State. Thank you very
much.
Commissioner Teele: How old is the building now?
Mr. Rubenstein: It was built in 1982.
Commissioner Teele: That's unprecedented.
Mr. Rubenstein: Yes, it is.
Mr. Maxwell: Just for the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I think you need to be advised that the building
is not -- has not as of present been designated as an historic building. To my knowledge, it has not been
designated by the City.
Mr. Rubenstein: No, but the nomination is pending.
Commissioner Teele: No, no, but I --
Vice Chairman Gort: This is not an issue in the decision but --
Mr. Maxwell: You should give it -- you should give it the weight that you deem appropriate for that, but
keep in mind, it has not been designated at this point.
Commissioner Teele: But it's admitted in the record that there appears to be a request by the Secretary of
State inviting that it be done.
Mr. Rubenstein: That's correct.
Mr. Maxwell: And you should give it that weight. But I just wanted to make it clear that it's not confused
with actual designation. The building has not been designated historic.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Rubenstein: Thank you.
Joan Tumpson: Mr. Chairman, members of the City Commission, my name is Joan Tumpson. I live at
2180 Brickell Avenue. That's Brickell Woods. It would be about like right across the street. I want to
say that what is proposed is, in my view, incompatible with the beautiful Brickell Avenue I've lived on for
the last 21 years. The construction will unduly burden Brickell infrastructure, unduly increase access
traffic, parking traffic and traffic on Brickell. And I think this council has an obligation not to just those
of us who live on Brickell, but to the citizens of Miami, because it has this beautiful architectural
landmark, and to the future, to our children and our grandchildren, to enhance this gem in our City. Don't
clutter Brickell Avenue. Don't bury us. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
52 4/25/01
Susannah Weymouth: My name is Susannah Weymouth, and I reside at 2025 Brickell Avenue. That's
the Atlantis, Apartment 703. And in the interest of time, I'd like to read excerpts from a letter that was
sent to the Commissioners and to the City Clerk by my husband, Jan Weymouth. He's an architect of over
33 years experience. He worked for I&P, who was mentioned earlier. He worked for Arquitectonica.
He's now Vice President and Director of Design of HOK, the world's largest architectural firm. The letter
was sent to you March 17, 2001, with respect. A new residential building is planned for the site to our
south of the Atlantis. The designs put forward thus far by the developers ignored the special site between
the water and Brickell. It pays no heed to the really beautiful massing and high quality of design of the
Atlantis and the Bristol Tower. In discussion of the last public meeting, the design was shown to detract
from the rising quality of the architecture lining Brickell Avenue, because the design ignores its
surroundings. I wrote to strongly urge my colleagues, the architects, to re -study the building's massing,
to avoid overpowering its neighbors. Two ways to do that while keeping intact much of the final
building's floor area to reduce the building's planned footprint and to go taller, if necessary, much taller
and vertical, to keep a good proportion of the unit count. Please encourage my colleagues and their client
to make a building of which they can be truly proud, which gives back to the site, and to the great avenue
and the bay on which it is sited. I am convinced that they have the opportunity and the talent to make a
building at once beautiful, in scale with its environment and economically rewarding to its developers.
But to do so, they need to rise to the occasion and make radical surgery on the past schemes, not simply
cosmetic surface treatment. Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Sarah Cox: I'm Sarah Cox. I live at 2025 Brickell Avenue, Apartment 2106. I am a new resident to
Miami. And I do believe that the --
Commissioner Winton: Welcome.
Ms. Cox: Thank you very much. And I'm very happy to be here
Vice Chairman Gort: This doesn't happen all the time.
Ms. Cox: Oh. Well, I appreciate it, and I appreciate your time. I believe that the contention comes down
to this: It takes time, it takes money and it is inconvenient to go back and do something over again until it
is done right, to the best of one's ability. And I believe with the investment that Brickell is becoming to
this City that we shouldn't settle for less than the best. I'm just asking you as one of your newest residents
and someone who hopes to make this City my home for a long time to demand the best from the
developments that come on your watch. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Lyn Pannone: My name's Lyn Pannone. I live at 2025 Brickell Avenue, Apartment 603. Clearly, a
building will be constructed. We know that. There will be jobs for the union members here today. There
will be positive economic impact. One of the issues is compatibility. Another is also being sensitive to
one of Miami's few architectural landmarks, a local icon. I purchased and moved into my condo at the
Atlantis in January. I'd like to share with you an example of how much of a Miami symbol or landmark
53 4/25/01
the Atlantis is. I went up north for Christmas. When I told my friends I was buying a condo at the
Atlantis, I only needed to say the building with the square hole in the middle, and they instantly knew
which building I was speaking of Because it is so striking and recognizable as a Miami landmark, we
need to keep it visible, not hide it from the tour buses and cars, which stop to look and take photos every
day. By the way, I'm not trying to protect my view. I don't have a view from my condo. Your decision
is important tonight. Please make the best one for the City. Thanks.
Vice Chairman Gort: Next.
Annette Taddeo: My name is Annette Taddeo. I live at 6460 Southwest 133rd Drive, Pinecrest, Florida.
You may be wondering, what is somebody from Pinecrest doing here? Well, I am the former President of
Atlantis on Brickell. I have moved out of the City, but I love the City dearly, and I consider Miami the
nucleus of all of South Florida. Therefore, I believe that you, as Commissioners, are doing a great job in
making sure that this City moves forward and becomes the Brussels of the Americas. Today, interestingly
enough, Miami Today just came out. Federated Exec, Downtown Burdines Unlikely for Rehab. You may
be wondering, what does this have to do with anything that we're talking about? Sue Kroenig was the
speaker at the Women's Chamber of Commerce last luncheon. I just happen to be the President of the
Women's Chamber of Commerce. And she said during that luncheon, which is quoted here that because
downtown Miami needs vision and leadership, until there is investment downtown from the City and other
businesses, she said Burdines won't invest there, either. I disagree with her. I think there is leadership in
the City of Miami. And I have seen it. I am one of those nerds, you would call them, probably, that
watches you guys on TV, and listens to the decisions that you make. I have been watching for a year now.
And I have to tell you, I believe you have grown up, and you have made some very important and difficult
decisions. This is one of them. And I urge you to make the right one again. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Ruth Shaked: My name is Ruth Shaked. I live in the Atlantis, and I'm just reading part of my -- I'm just
reading part of my letter, because everything -- everybody wants to go home. When we bought our
apartment n the Atlantis on Brickell Avenue, we knew that one day, a building might be built next door.
Nevertheless, we were wiling to pay prime price and prime taxes, because we love the Atlantis and the
Brickell neighborhood. We knew that a future building might take some of the beautiful views of Miami,
some of the sunlight, some of the privacy. But no one in his right mind would have thought that it would
take all of it, that it would build a big wall in front of our home, that it would cast a permanent shadow
with no more sunlight on our apartment, and that it would take all the privacy, that it would destroy and
totally change our quality of life and tremendously depreciate the value of a lifetime real estate
investment. And it does that. It is conceivable that such an outrageous act would be committed against
us, residents and citizens of Miami, and you, Commissioners, just watch. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Dr. Haim Shaked: My name is Dr. Shaked. I live in the Atlantis, Apartment 2103. Mr. Chairman, City
Commissioners, I'll be very brief. I want to make just four quick points. Number one, the developer
asked you to approve a special permit. In other words, he asked you to take a right which belongs to this
City and its public and hand it over to him for his personal financial gain. Today, despite the developer's
divide and rule tactics, we're presenting here a united major widespread public outcry, supported by
54 4/25/01
world-class architects. We plead with you again not to enrich an individual private entity at the expense
of the public. We are not against a building. We just want a compatible building. Number two, please
use your discretion in accordance with the Sections 1305.8 and 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance, which
provides, I quote, "For a special remedial measure," which is, I quote, "alteration of proposed design."
Again, I want all these good people to know we are not against a building, and they could have worked on
that site two years ago if the developer would have agreed to redesign the building so that it's compatible.
Number three, until modern times, one of humanities worst troubling fears was the thought that the sun
might never rise the next morning. The proposed building, as presently designed, means that once it is
built, the sun will never rise again on the Atlantis. Please do not allow an eternal eclipse to happen and
cast a shadow forever on our building. Number four, throughout this battle, respectable Commissioners,
many people have cynically told us to forget it. I quote, "Miami is a corrupt City for sale. You simply
cannot win when you fight the wealthy developer, his lawyer" --
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Dr. Shaked: May I add two sentences?
Vice Chairman Gort: Your time is up, sir.
Dr. Shaked: May I -- just one sentence.
Vice Chairman Gort: Finish it. It's up.
Dr. Shaked: OK. "You simply cannot win when you fight a wealthy developer, his lawyers, his PR firms
and these influence peddlers," they said. We state here and now that we refuse to endorse such cynicism.
We stand here hoping to prove through your vote that these detractors are simply wrong. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next.
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman that concludes our presentation.
Vice Chairman Gort: Are you sure?
Mr. Gibbs: And I would like to leave you with a couple of words, and that is win/win. What we are
proposing here is just that. We are not sitting here saying no development. We are sitting here and
saying, let this developer come back with a plan, with his density that works, that works for the
community, that works for the people who are pensioners, works for the people who are going to be
building this, works for you and works for the neighborhood. And that's all we're asking for. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. OK. You have a few minutes for rebuttal.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
55 4/25/01
Mr. Maxwell: Could I ask for one thing to be placed on the record by counsel for both parties? Have --
Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Garcia -Toledo, have you had the opportunity to cross-examine everyone you desired
to cross-examine? There's nothing -- I just wanted to make sure that you didn't ask and then there's some
misunderstanding. I believe everyone has been cross-examined; is that correct?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. And I don't -- I'm sorry. There was one person I was going to cross-examine,
but I think his testimony was clear enough, so I don't need --
Mr. Maxwell: That's fine. You're waiving that?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I can pass that.
Mr. Maxwell: All right. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs: That's the same here.
Mr. Maxwell: All right. Thank you, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Well, it is not a new day. This was sent back for a specific reason. And we're here
because we did what our neighbors asked. They said taller and thinner. And we did, except we were able
to make it thinner, we moved it farther back away from the water, and we were able to go down, because
of the parking. The only problem was that the Atlantis did not want to participate with us in that
discussion and in that six-month process in 1999 when, in fact, we did make the changes. The project is
the same. I think that is very clear. We have not changed anything from the last time we appeared before
you. But the reality here is that we will never be able to get everybody to agree. When we were here and
we made the previous changes originally to the original application, the Bristol did not want us to go
taller. And we worked with the neighbors that did meet with us, and that's how this result came out. And
it was a result that met the thinner standard. When they talk thinner, when they say thinner, they're
talking east to west access, to reduce the building east to west. We did. We did by 80 feet. And we were
able to please that request, and at the same time, please the request of making it lower, because the Bristol,
who is taller than our neighbors to the north don't want it higher. They want it lower. And this is going to
go on and on forever, it seems. You have substantial competent evidence on the record from our experts,
from City experts, from the very experts on the other side. They all gave opinions on design. But they all
said, without question that this meeting, the way it was measured, the FAR calculations, the green ring
that they showed you as to that area that protrudes, they said that was all legal, and that, that all met your
Code. They did not question it. They did not challenge it. Why have a Zoning Code if you are going to
apply a subjective standard? It doesn't make sense. There was some testimony about how Mr. Helmsley
and other scaled back. We did scale back. We scaled back in 1999 for six months. There was testimony
that we never met with the neighbors. We did. We sent letters. We asked. And during that year that we
spent in court, I can tell you that there were extensive meetings and extensive communications. And I can
56 4/25/01
tell you that what we were asked for were things like, "Build us a marina. Replace the tile on our pool.
Give a cash payout to every unit owner in the Atlantis." And --
Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Garcia -Toledo --
Mr. Gibbs: That's not relevant.
Vice Chairman Gort: You're out of order.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Mr. Gibbs: Come on.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I have the writing.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't think that's proper.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I have -- Mr. City Attorney, with all respect --
Mr. Maxwell: That might -- there is --
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Excuse me.
Mr. Maxwell: If that occurred, Ms. Garcia -Toledo, you know that there is another venue for you to take
that up.
Mr. Gibbs: That's right.
Mr. Maxwell: That's not this one.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It is another venue. The one that I tried to explain. This is in court.
Mr. Gibbs: And keep it there.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's right.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't think that's proper.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's irrelevant to make a decision in here right now.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It goes to the fact that we cannot please everyone that is here today. You have a
project in front of you that meets the standard of your Code, of Chapter 17. That Chapter 17 has
standards. Mr. Gibbs is absolutely right. And there is a professional staff in the City that is mandated by
your Code to analyze these projects, interpret that standard, and enforce those standards. And you know
what? They've done it here. And they've been doing it here since 1998. And we have worked with them,
we have worked with the neighbors, and they continue to recommend approval of this project. This
57 4/25/01
project was previously approved. We're making no changes. We would ask you to follow suit and
approve this project. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is that it? We now close the public hearing and have comments by board members.
Any questions? Any comments?
Commissioner Regalado: Question for Tucker. I have noticed that several of your witnesses are really
troubled by the number of cars and the traffic, and some of them have children. However, you seem to
say one time and again that you want that development. They just want to change. That would not
change the traffic, it would not. That is one question that I have.
Mr. Gibbs: To respond to your question, Commissioner Regalado, the issue here is really what it's zoned
for. As Mr. Alvarez testified to, it's an R-4 zoning. You're allowed a certain amount of units as a matter
of right. We're not disputing that. Our issue is right here on this board, is when the development has --
when the developer has chosen to go the major use special permit route, he subjects himself to this
provision right here that says you all look at potentially adverse effects generally. And when you look at
them, you bring it all in. Now, Ms. Garcia -Toledo may not like the fact that this standard is in there, and
it's your responsibility to review it, according to this standard, but it's there. So when my -- when people
come up, members of the public who live on Brickell, who drive Brickell -- and I think Commissioner
Teele brought it up when we scheduled this meeting, and asked me, well, you live in Coconut Grove, Mr.
Gibbs. You don't drive here at 4 o'clock or at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Well, these people live on
Brickell, and they drive Brickell every day. And their testimony as to the traffic in terms of compatibility
issues I think is relevant. But I can tell you as a lawyer, I know this is zoned R-4. But because the
developer subjected himself to this standard, I believe that's relevant.
Commissioner Regalado: No. The reason I --
Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker, next question, can you be a little shorter, please?
Mr. Gibbs: I'm going to try.
Commissioner Regalado: No. The reason I asked, Tucker, is because; I mean, even if they would change
the plans, there'd still be cars. So that is a problem that some of the residents have. That is a problem that
will continue.
Mr. Gibbs: But you can mitigate that. You can mitigate that by the fact that you don't include the PUD
(Planned Unit Development) bonus, which takes out 20 percent, which does reduce the number -- which
probably would reduce the number of traffic that comes out of there. You can do that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Tucker.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any other questions?
Commissioner Teele: On that point?
58 4/25/01
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Manager to comment on Mr. Gibbs'
statement. What is our authority to reduce the PUD bonus? I don't -- it's not that I don't trust Mr. Gibbs -
Mr. Gibbs: No, I'm not a professional.
Commissioner Teele: -- but you're my professional.
Mr. Gibbs: And I'm not.
Commissioner Teele: Madam Manager, you're our professional, and I'd like to hear from you on that
issue.
Ms. Bianchino: I'll let Lourdes expand on this, but it is within your purview not to grant the PUD bonus.
This is not a required bonus.
Commissioner Teele: What would be the effect of not granting the PUD bonus?
Ms. Slazyk: For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning. The effect would be that the 20
percent FAR would not be able to be included. They could still do the number of units, but it'd be less
square footage, which could, in effect, reduce the number of units.
Commissioner Teele: Well, hold it. This is what I'm trying to understand. They could still do the
number of units. The same number of units?
Ms. Slazyk: They could. They'd probably come down to all one -bedrooms, because they don't have the
square footage.
Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but I'm trying to understand. Does that affect the number of units?
Ms. Slazyk: It could.
Commissioner Teele: Could it not affect the number of units?
Ms. Slazyk: That's right. It could not affect.
Commissioner Teele: So in the context of Mr. Gibbs' statement that it would reduce possibly the traffic, it
would -- My thought process was that it does not necessarily reduce the number of units. It would
possibly affect the size of the units.
Ms. Bianchino: Commissioner, if I could --
Commissioner Teele: If I may just -- I asked you the question first. Now I'm trying to focus.
59 4/25/01
Ms. Slazyk: That's correct. It would most likely --
Commissioner Teele: If I'm not correct, I mean, I don't --
Ms. Slazyk: No. You are correct. It would most likely mean all one -bedrooms and studios, which is a
marketing --
Commissioner Teele: That's not my question.
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Yes, it could.
Commissioner Teele: If we took away the 20 percent in the context of traffic, does that reduce the number
of units, necessarily?
Ms. Slazyk: Not necessarily.
Commissioner Teele: OK. That's all I'm trying -- Ma'am, Madam Manager, I don't mean to cut you off,
but I'm slow on this, and I wanted to be clear.
Ms. Bianchino: No, I just wanted to add to what Ms. Slazyk said, that you're absolutely right in what you
said. I think from a standpoint of marketability that that probably wouldn't be the same number of units,
but there could be.
Commissioner Teele: I'm not sure marketability is before us. Is it, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Maxwell: You're correct, sir. It is not before you.
Commissioner Teele: All right.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any other questions? Johnny? Commissioner Winton.
Commissioner Winton: No, I don't have any questions. I think that -- I think that both sides have done a
good job of bringing all of their points to the table. I've lived on Brickell. I lived on Brickell for three
years. And I made this argument the last time we had a discussion on Brickell. And some way or another,
I didn't do a very good job of explaining my point of view, because I lost at the Commission level. And
that was the doctor's building there on Brickell that I thought ought to be better landscaped, because --
because it was a building that was absolutely out of character along Brickell Avenue. And if you drive by
there today, that still sticks out like a sore thumb. Brickell Avenue is a unique street from 15th Road to the
Rickenbacker Causeway. There is no other avenue like it in probably all of Florida. It's very, very
unique. And it's terribly valuable to our City, because it is about image and it's about tax base. It's about
our ability to attract new residents to our community. And it's about the ability to attract the kind of
money that does investments in our community that creates jobs in our community. And if you -- and this
is -- this next statement is absolutely the same statement I think I've made almost over, and over, and over
again when it comes to development in all of our neighborhoods. If you build a project that is
incompatible with its adjacent property owners, you ruin the value, no question about it. And in this
60 4/25/01
particular instance, you have two very valuable assets from which this City derives great benefits that are
on both sides. And we have an opportunity here tonight to do something that can further enhance value of
surrounding properties and the asset in question, or we can make a decision that has absolutely the great
potential to reduce values, not only of those two adjacent properties, but other properties along Brickell.
Because what you have to understand is, as it relates to value, value is supply, demand and attitude. If the
reputation of a corridor, of an area of any City is that, that's the place we have to be, because of blah, and
blah, and blah, then people are going to pay higher, and higher and higher prices for that product. What
does that do for us as a City? It gives us more tax revenue that we can take from that wealthy corridor
along there and spend it in all the rest of our neighborhoods. And all of us have neighborhoods that are
poor that need additional tax revenue. This corridor provides us that tax revenue. And so we have an
opportunity tonight to absolutely, permanently entrench Brickell Avenue as the avenue of the Americas,
or we have an opportunity to begin to downgrade that particular avenue. And if we downgrade the value
of those two properties, both of which are signature properties on Brickell Avenue, we will downgrade the
value of all the properties, because it becomes an attitudinal issue about supply and demand. So this is an
easy issue for me. And from my viewpoint -- We had this discussion at the first -- I guess this came up
probably at my second or third Commission meeting. And I remember it pretty clearly, because I was
very concerned from a real estate perspective about the project. But I didn't understand what real rights
that I had as a Commissioner. And those rights have been spelled out in front of us. Because this is a
MUSP, we absolutely have the right to consider design, character, scale, and we have the right to demand
alteration of the project, of the scope, of the size and of parking. And so I think that it's clearly within --
it's our obligation, frankly, to force this one single developer back to the drawing boards and re -design a
project that is in character with that surrounding Brickell neighborhood. And once we get that done, I
think we also need to make sure that the developer -- And the next time we have hands going up from
those who are working on the deal, I want to see more of those hands from City of Miami residents, which
is another issue that we won't get into tonight. But I think it is our obligation to force a complete change
in the design of this project. And so, Mr. City Attorney, you know, I always need help here in terms of
how I craft this recommendation. But the recommendation that I want to make, or the resolution that I
want to put on the table is to force this project back to the drawing boards.
Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, would you yield before you make that motion? And then --
Commissioner Winton: Yes, I will. I will, absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think that the residents that are here
today, everyone has said -- everyone has said that they're not against development. They just want a
controlled development, a development that's going to be fitting and compatible with the surrounding
neighbor. If you look at the past of the City where we have supported development in a time where the
City needed revenue to stay afloat and to continue a healthy path of financial recovery, I think the City has
gone beyond that point. And one of the things that we need to start doing here, and I think we have done
in the past, and I think the track records speaks, is we need to be sensitive to the residents that are going to
be affected. One is, if one drives the residents who live there -- and I jog through there, because I live in
the Roads -- the support that the community, itself, along with the two homeowners and the surrounding
homeowners that have showed up here against this project -- I jog through the area, and I don't know how
sometimes the residents who are exiting those condominiums and entering those condominiums with the
traffic -- it's like they put their lives at risk every time they exit and enter those condominiums because of
the traffic. And the reason why I asked the traffic study, was it an independent traffic study or not was
61 4/25/01
because in the past -- and I have made this argument -- the reports have come back -- Traffic studies are
what I consider to be "everything is perfect" traffic studies. Everything is fine and dandy, there's plenty
of room. Well, you know, the area of Brickell has developed significantly throughout the past years. And
there's going to be development. That area will be developed, no doubt about it. No one anticipates that
it won't be developed. But I think that in the process, one of the things that they have to be is very
sensitive to the neighbors and the residents. Now, the developer, you must tip your hat to the developer.
He has dragged on for two years. And I think he has acted in good faith, which some of the residents may
disagree with me. But you've got to look at this. They're not going to be able to please everybody. And
some of the arguments made here by some of the residents -- you know, it's going to block my view --
hey, we are a quasi-judicial body, and we need to vote when it's time to vote based on the facts that are
presented here. And Commissioner Johnny Winton made a perfect example. We, under the guidelines,
can make a determination based on, you know, the architect, the looks, the surroundings, the compatible
of the project. But one of the things that we must say is if you look at the history, the project, itself -- and
I think every major project that comes in front of us in Brickell goes back, and we force them to find a
solution, and there's meetings back and forth. And in the long run, whether it's a month, two months, six
months -- and I know -- this is to the developer -- we're talking about money. But there's usually an
agreement between the surrounding neighbors and the developer. And I'm hoping that this could be
worked out. And I -- Johnny, if you have a different motion, I am prepared to make a motion that would
be based on a -- to continue for 60 days and allow them to either meet and come to an agreement, or come
back, and then we'll take the decision that's set forth by this legislative body. I'm not putting -- I'm not
putting the motion on. I'm just, you know, basically saying what I --
Commissioner Winton: Right.
Ms. Bianchino: To provide some information on that, if the building changes substantially or even
insubstantially, then it would require another -- to go back through the process again to the PAB (Planning
Advisory Board) and -- because it would be a substantial modification. So I just wanted you to understand
that they may come up in 60 days with a resolution to the problem, but it may require the MUSP to start
over again and go through the process.
Vice Chairman Gort: I didn't get that. I missed it. You said if it changes substantially or insubstantially?
Ms. Bianchino: No. Again, I'm saying --
Commissioner Sanchez: Would the Commission -- would the Commission be authorized to amend that?
Ms. Bianchino: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Mr. Maxwell: To amend that? I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand that question.
Commissioner Sanchez: Scratch, scratch.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a question. My understanding is -- and I can see the developments work
very closely with trying to please everyone. And at this time, you work very closely with one party, but
62 4/25/01
unfortunately, there's many other parties here that's showed in here. My understanding is people
understand a building has got to go up. What they're looking for is go a little higher, fit the footprint,
make it a little smaller. And you have a great architect working with you, which he's done it in the past
on Miami Avenue. We had one mosque that came here. They went back, they did it, and it worked out a
lot better. I think your building, if re -designed -- and this is one area that you need to realize you could
really make something worthwhile, which might be even better economically for you in the future. If we
were to change, leave everything the same, the parking structure, my understanding is there's no problem
in the density. If you changed the footprint, would that be a major change?
Ms. Bianchino: Yes, sir. If the footprint changes by ten feet, it's a major change. And if the height
increases, it's also a major change.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's my understanding the final drawings are not completed, right? That
statement was made?
Mr. Maxwell: They are.
Commissioner Sanchez: They are?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: They are completed.
Mr. Maxwell: Hold. It's like --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Unfortunately, the question that was asked --
Mr. Maxwell: Hold, please, Miss. I think what happened -- that question is going to muddy the water,
and it creates a bad record. The application before you now, the plans are complete. All that's there.
There's nothing incomplete about what you're considering at this time. I think what you're saying is if
you were to continue this and allow them to initiate some kind of process to change, they may want to
consider that. But it's clear. I don't want a record that says that what you're considering today is
incomplete in any way.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Well, just based on the presentation, and arguments and facts presented,
I'm either prepared to make the motion to continue or to deny.
Commissioner Sanchez: To do what?
Commissioner Sanchez: To continue it for 60 days and having an opportunity to come to an agreement, or
I believe it's to deny. Correct?
Commissioner Winton: Yeah. And it sounds like there isn't a -- there isn't a real way to practically make
the 60 -day extension work, because what they're going to have to do is going to -- is going to be classified
as a substantial change, so it's going to have to go back through the process. So I think my motion is to
deny the application for the modified special use permit that's before this Commission, and that's my
motion.
63 4/25/01
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Teele: Discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first of all want to apologize on the
record to the architect of record on this project. I made a statement the last time this came up that I
honestly believed to be appropriate. In retrospect, I think that statement was inappropriate. And
unfortunately, it has perhaps triggered the most subtle posturing of architects that I've seen lately. We
have on the record now Ms. Dunlap's critique of the Atlantis, which I'm sure she would like to also put in
a different context. So I think it goes to the point that art is in the beauty of the beholder. And those of us
in public policy, whether it be Jesse Helms or modern day Commissioner -- Mayors like Suarez or Ferre,
we need to be very careful in the context of commenting on what is beautiful and what is not beautiful,
because art really is in the eyes of the beholder. And as it relates to the particular architect, the most
beautiful automobile and functional automobile racetrack in the entire world was designed by that
architect, the Homestead Motor Sports Speedway. And certainly, some of the most functional and
attractive schools in the entire south were designed by that architect. My comments about the building
appearing rather bland were probably overstated by myself. But I do think we all share a concern about
maintaining the unique aesthetic beauty that Brickell has come to be known as, and this entire area. And
Commissioner Winton made in his statements a comment about this being the avenue of the Americas.
I'll be pleased to second that motion if that's going to be a name re -designation. However, I have a totally
different take on this project. First, we all are concerned about traffic. I recently voted as one of -- the
sole vote against a major project, because I really do think that we're getting ready to have a major
problem on the north/south access between the Miami River, all the way from Brickell to 12th Avenue. I
think it's -- I think we're about to do to Brickell what the County Commission in the `80s did to Kendall.
And I'm deeply concerned about that. I can't overstate the fact that I think this Commission is doing
exactly to Brickell what the County Commission did in the `80s to Kendall. Unlike what -- comments that
have been made here about the taxes, and the tax base, and the jobs, I don't think that is a proper query or
inquiry for this Commission to make in the context of the matter that is before us. And nothing in my
decision deals with whether or not we're under a financial emergency, we got more money than we can
spend, or not enough money or whatever, because I really do think that the ad valorem tax issues, et
cetera, are not appropriate within the purview of a quasi-judicial zoning decision. I would note for the
record that the applicant placed this to some extent on the record when you read into the record that the ad
valorem taxes, I think you said would be one point seven million dollars ($1.7 million). So I just want to
be very clear that both sides are talking about this, but I'm not sure any of us should be talking about it in
full. On the issue of where we're going on Brickell, I think it's very clear. If you want to do what most of
the presenters are saying, then we need to talk about downgrading or rolling back of zoning. We need to
talk about reducing the level of intensity of zoning in this area. That's the way to do it. I don't think you
can do it by spot attacks on individual buildings that meet the Zoning criteria. If this is an R -- what is it?
-- R-4? If this is an R-4, I don't think you can put on the record, Commissioners, the concern about
traffic. If we've got a traffic concern in this context, which traffic is one of the things that we should
consider, I think we need to really look at the overall land use for this entire area. But I think we're going
to continue to be confronted with this issue if we all agree that we're concerned about traffic. I think we
need to look at this in the proper forum. I don't know, and I'm not comfortable that this particular
application is the appropriate forum to which we should begin to try to manage our traffic growth. And I
think we have a serious issue that we need to look at in a different forum. The final point is this: I would
be totally willing to defer this matter if I felt that the applicant would re -design from the fagade and the
64 4/25/01
total -- totally aesthetic point of view, which was the point that I was trying to make before. I think there
needs to -- there could very well be some character and design issues that we could attempt to address, and
I think we have that right in this context. I think we have the right, exactly as is stated in 1305.8, to look
at the location, the construction, the design -- the design and the character, as well as the scale of the
facility that is before us and the manner of operation. But clearly, when you look at the comparable
buildings, it is within the character of all of the other buildings or many of the other buildings that are
there in the area. And so I am hard pressed at this point to see on the record that is before us the
application of 1305.8. I want to say clearly, I wish this building were designed differently. I do. And I
would do anything I could to induce the developer and the team to go back and do a new fagade, a new
type of approach that adds more character to the building. But I am a little bit hard pressed to find on the
record where we have other than the right to approve this, based upon the presentations that have been
made. And so I will not be voting in the majority on this motion. But I do think that it would certainly
behoove the developer, if you choose to go forward to meet with all of the persons, particularly at the
Atlantis, and to come back with a compromise that I think if there were a delay, it could be worked out.
And so I will not be voting in the majority, again, unfortunately, on this matter. But I wanted to put on the
record my reasons for my vote, and my concerns in the conduct of how we're moving in this entire area,
and my willingness to support the Commissioner from the district to address what I think is going to be a
reoccurring problem in this area unless we get a long-term solution to this particular problem.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: The reason I -- the only question I asked to Tucker was the traffic, because
precisely, I -- I think exactly like my colleague, Commissioner Teele. I noticed that several people
questioned the fact that the traffic will impact the quality of life in Brickell. And recently, I had in my
radio and TV program a lot of concerned residents of UTD Towers. Seems that the union president had
sent messages that they want to sell the building. And they had to even go up to Mel Martinez, the HUD
(Department of Housing and Urban Development) secretary to protect them. That is a 17 -floor building.
It has a huge landmass around. And I asked, what if they go ahead, the union, and decide to buy the bonds
still outstanding and sell that to a developer, and we have a developer who wants to build another Santa
Maria, 52 floors? We will have ten times -- and mind you, of those UTD Towers residents, 50 percent
don't have cars, because they are retired teachers. So that's a problem that we have to address. And this
is why I asked, because regardless what they do, people are going to complain about traffic. So we have
to make a decision. And maybe this is, you know, it's an alarm for us to be heard, that we have to decide,
hey, no more high-rises in Brickell. And this is --this is something that we need to address in the future. I
think, I personally think that whatever they do, changing whatever plans they have, and coming back here,
if they ever decide to come, there is going to be a lot of people that are going to be angry and upset,
because the quality of life is going to be impacted anyway. And one, one final thing. I heard one of the
residents that came and said that -- I think he mentioned exactly -- and I'm quoting. Well, we were told
not to come here, because Miami is a corrupt City, and the residents are, you know, useless when they
come before the Commission, because the big developers, and the attorneys, and the lobbyists, they
control. Don't vote to give these people the idea of their rights. And I was, you know -- and I was
wondering if this gentleman ever sees all the Commission meetings and sees the votes, how they go most
of the time not in favor of the big lobbyists and the big developers. But I wonder what would happen if
the developer will decide to -- not to do the project and sell the land to HUD. And how about if we have
65 4/25/01
to consider the possibility of allowing a housing project or a building for unwed mothers, if that will create
the same anger in that gentleman, in terms of voting for projects that are coming to us with big developers.
So it probably would.
Commissioner Winton: It probably would, just like -- just like in your neighborhoods, if we put a new --
another treatment center in the middle of your neighborhood, your residents are all going to be here mad.
Commissioner Regalado: Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Commissioner Winton: I mean, the context of what goes in the neighborhoods is crucially important.
Commissioner Regalado: Absolutely. And that is -- and this is my point.
Commissioner Teele: Apparently except for one neighborhood.
Commissioner Winton: And which one is that?
Commissioner Teele: Where are all the homeless facilities?
Commissioner Winton: Well, we didn't put them there. Somebody else put them there.
Commissioner Teele: Yeah.
Commissioner Winton: Did you put them there? I've only been here a year. I haven't put any there.
Commissioner Regalado: But what I'm saying, Johnny is that, you know, we have to consider the future.
I mean, see the big picture. And like always, like always, we yield to the district Commissioner to take
the lead on this, regardless of how we vote. And this is why it's important that every time the district
Commissioner makes the motion. But I just want to say that, you know, I'll go along with the majority,
because I think that we need to send a message that we do want development and we do want this difficult
balance between neighborhoods and development. But, you know, we're going to have to address this
issue in the future, because it's going to come back, and come back to haunt us. So I hope that we do that.
And I hope that every time that we have a situation that affects the neighborhood, the City Commission,
and the residents and the important residents will come to support the need to maintain the quality of life.
Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, let me tell you, as the oldest guy, I've been here for a long time. I've
seen a lot of these meetings and I have had the experience of meetings like this many a time.
Commissioner Regalado: You are the oldest guy.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, I am. I won't have any problem in the Sanchez motion to give a 60 -day
continuance. Let them get together. I think the developer received a message.
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion already.
66 4/25/01
Mr. Maxwell: He didn't make a motion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Oh, I'm sorry. There's a motion. OK. Well, I would like to express the -- I would
be against this motion the way it is right now. And the reason is we want to give 60 days, let them come
back and sit down. At this time, you've pleased only one of the neighbors that you have. I think you have
-- you've heard from many of the other neighbors. And there might still be an opportunity where some
changes could be made where it would not be that major a change, and we can get something done.
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK, call the question.
Mr. Maxwell: Who seconded?
Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Winton.
Commissioner Winton: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: No.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Vice Chairman Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: No.
Mr. Foeman: The motion fails.
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to continue for 60 days and allow both parties to possibly enter into an
agreement. So move.
Vice Chairman Gort: With the understanding -- is there a second to the motion?
Commissioner Regalado: I still don't understand. We are sending them to start the whole process. This
is what we are doing.
Mr. Maxwell: No.
67 4/25/01
Mr. Gibbs: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's not to start the whole --
Mr. Gibbs: Well, that's the thing. I have no idea.
Mr. Maxwell: No. If this item were to continue, as you've done on many projects in the past, you
continue the item. The parties have a sense of the way the board is going at this time. It allows both
parties to negotiate and come back possibly with a --
Vice Chairman Gort: Hopefully with a solution.
Commissioner Regalado: Joe --
Mr. Maxwell: -- with an application --
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.
Mr. Maxwell: -- that then could be considered. If it turns out, as it likely would, that that application is
substantial --
Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm asking.
Mr. Maxwell: -- then they would have to go back to the Planning Advisory Board. They could, without
coming back here, if they know it's substantial, at that point, they could simply go back on their own
without coming back here.
Commissioner Winton: So say that one more time. So make that -- one more time.
Mr. Maxwell: They amend their application during this process. During the 60 -day period, they meet
with the opponents, and everybody comes to some consensus. If that consensus would trigger a remand to
a lower board, because it's substantial in nature, they can just initiate that process without coming back
here now. They simply --
Commissioner Sanchez: That's with a denial, right?
Mr. Gibbs: May I ask a question.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: So.
Commissioner Teele: That's with a deferral.
Commissioner Winton: No, with a deferral.
68 4/25/01
Commissioner Sanchez: With a deferral. OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's what the 60 days --
Mr. Maxwell: You're doing a deferral process, yeah.
Commissioner Winton: Yeah, with a 60 -day deferral.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. So I move the deferral, 60 days.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Commissioner Regalado: That's what I said. That's what I said. We are sending back -- we --
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Commissioner Regalado: With the amendment. OK. With the amendment that if -- if they -- if they
decide on a plan that they don't have to come here in 60 days, and then we will resend them to the whole
process. So they can just go ahead and start the process, because this is what we are doing. What they are
asking is a major change; is that correct, Mr. City --
Mr. Maxwell: I don't --
Vice Chairman Gort: That might not be the case. They might begin to -- Let me explain something,
which I think is --
Commissioner Regalado: Well, thinner, taller?
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me give you an example, which I think is very important for you all, for
everyone to understand here. OK? Because I've been here a little longer than most everyone. 22nd
Avenue and Dixie Highway, OK? 22nd Avenue and Dixie Highway. We had that in front of us about five
times, different banks, they wanted to put up a drive -up. The neighbors came in objection to that, and
look what we have there now, on 22nd Avenue and Dixie Highway. And that's -- you were there. You
were a part of that. So you know what I'm addressing. From my understanding, from what I've heard in
here, this could be divided into two parcels, sold as two individual parcels, and buildings could be built
without a MUSP. All right? And these are the things you all need to understand and know. And that's
why I'm asking for the 60 days, so you all can sit down and go over it. And if you don't believe me, go to
Dixie Highway and 22nd Avenue, and that will be the southwest corner, and look what's in there right
now, when we could have had a beautiful-- when we could have had a beautiful landscaping, tellers,
drive -up tellers. Look at the difference. OK? And that's what I'm asking you to do. Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: Before you --
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a question? One question as --
Vice Chairman Gort: We're in a motion right now, Tucker.
69 4/25/01
Mr. Gibbs: Oh. OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: One thing that needs to be clear. During that 60 -day period, they may work it out, or
nothing may happen. If they don't agree, it is back before this board, just like now.
Mr. Gibbs: Just relax. I just have a question for the Chair. Just one --
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs: Just one question. We've told the developer and we've told you all that we're interested in a
taller, thinner building. That's our issue. The question is, can you ask the -- I mean, it would be kind of
silly for you to direct the developer to negotiate with us if the developer is just going to say, no, I'm not
interested. Maybe he can give us an indication if he is interested.
Vice Chairman Gort: We'll ask right now. First of all, I need a second on the motion.
Mr. Maxwell: You aren't directing the developers to negotiate.
Mr. Gibbs: No. I'm not asking --
Vice Chairman Gort: No, no, no. We're not. We're not directing anybody to do anything.
Mr. Gibbs: I understand. I understand.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: We're discussing among ourselves.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: The motion still stands for 60 days to allow both parties to come to an
agreement, and if they don't, it comes back to the Commission. So move.
Commissioner Regalado: And I'll second the motion, but with a friendly amendment that if they do reach
an agreement, and if there is a substantial change, they don't have to lose their time coming back here for
us to send them back through the process. No. They can just go ahead and move. And if this is the case,
we'll ask the administration and the City Attorney to waive the 30 days waiting period from one board to
another.
Mr. Maxwell: That would be something that should be considered at that time. And we'll certainly will
take that under consideration.
70 4/25/01
Commissioner Regalado: And I'm going to tell you why. Because usually, August is a non -working for
this Commission. And if you're thinking on 60 days plus the process, it would fall on the month of
August.
Mr. Maxwell: I know.
Vice Chairman Gort: They might be able to come before that.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. It would depend on -- there are a lot of -- there are a lot of elements that would go
into such a decision, Commissioner. And that would have to be made at that time. Also, it's clear that the
record reflects that you, when considering whatever, if anything changes, or whatever comes back to you
in the future, your basis for a decision will be absolutely the same as it was tonight, regardless of whether
everybody is in agreement. You could still say no, and turn it down. And it has to be clear on the record
that you don't -- you're not delegating any of your responsibility. All you're doing is giving the parties
time to work it out.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, it is crystal clear.
Mr. Maxwell: Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, we never --
Vice Chairman Gort: Can we hear from the applicant?
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner, the developer has always been willing and continues to be willing to
talk. Our only request would be that you make it 30 days instead of 60. If we're going to reach any point
Vice Chairman Gort: No problem. If you guys can come up with a decision -- We don't have any
problem. It says maximum 60 days we'll bring them back. And we can --
Commissioner Sanchez: The motion still stands.
Vice Chairman Gort: You can address the motion that has --
Commissioner Sanchez: No. 60 days, and it stands.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no. Wait, wait, wait. Then I withdraw my second. If they think that they
can talk to them in 30 days, why, why the delay? I mean, they're there.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: May I?
Commissioner Regalado: They're there. And they're willing to talk. Tucker just asked, are they going to
talk. And she says, yes, we want to talk. And 30 -- I don't -- I don't see a problem on talking. I mean,
nobody is going to Italy or something.
71 4/25/01
Mr. Gibbs: Oh, I wish. I wish I was.
Commissioner Regalado: Oh, you wish, but you're not. It doesn't make a difference, I mean, 30 days is
30 days. So I withdraw my motion for the 60 days.
Vice Chairman Gort: The motion can be -- the motion can be structured no more than 60 days. And if
they come to an agreement before that, they are welcome to do so. There's no second.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Vice Chairman Gort: Are you removed as --
Mr. Maxwell: What's the date on that? June --
Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado, you withdraw your motion, correct?
Vice Chairman Gort: You're not changing your motion?
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. I withdrew.
Commissioner Sanchez: You withdrew?
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: So my motion still has 60 days. My motion is 60 days.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: But if they come to an agreement within 20 days, 30 days, it doesn't matter.
They could come to an agreement.
Commissioner Regalado: See, Joe, it's about perception.
Commissioner Sanchez: They've been talking for three years or two years.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, but -- but it's about perception.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: The more time you have, the more time you use.
Commissioner Regalado: If there are people there who are willing to talk, and if there are people here
who are willing to talk, the least we can do is push them.
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, off this gulf, I can tell you that from what Vicky is sort of saying to me over
the distance is that chances are we're either going to come to an agreement or we're not, and it's going to
72 4/25/01
happen very soon. We've already been in discussions. We've spoken to Mr. Bowman. We've spoken to
Vicky. We basically know what their position is and they know what ours is. It's not going to --
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And our experience is that if we're in a short time frame, everybody will work very
fast. If you say 60 days, we're all going to end up waiting till two weeks before the 60 days to do it.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Teele: That's true.
Mr. Gibbs: And may I make a suggestion?
Commissioner Sanchez: I will amend my motion to 30 days. Come on. It's 8 o'clock.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. I'll second that one.
Mr. Maxwell: May I --
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. So It's a motion.
Mr. Maxwell: Wait a minute.
Mr. Gibbs: And I could make a suggestion that we can delay it if we have a problem.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll second the 30 days.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. There's a motion and a second.
Ms. Bianchino: May 24tH
Mr. Maxwell: May 24thq.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I need to --
Vice Chairman Gort: May 24tH
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I need to understand.
Commissioner Regalado: That's my birthday.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Can we have the motion again so I can understand it?
73 4/25/01
Commissioner Teele: Let me -- let me see if the Attorney can do one thing on this motion. Is there any
way this motion can be designed to avoid another full-blown public hearing on -- hold it -- on traffic? I
mean, we're talking now about design. Is that --
Mr. Gibbs: That was our issue when we made our presentation. It wasn't traffic.
Commissioner Teele: That ain't what I heard. I mean, we talked -- we heard everything.
Mr. Gibbs: Our professional -- our professional witnesses talked not one second about traffic.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, Roger -- I mean -- I changed your name now, Tucker. Roger, please.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my comment.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Vice Chairman Gort: Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye."
Commissioner Sanchez: Aye.
Commissioner Winton: No.
Commissioner Regalado: Aye.
Commissioner Teele: No.
Vice Chairman Gort: One "no." Two "noes."
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Can we hear the motion, just so we know --
Mr. Maxwell: Roll call, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let's roll call.
Mr. Foeman: Roll call. Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton.
Commissioner Winton: No.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Regalado.
74 4/25/01
Commissioner Regalado: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: No, sir.
Mr. Foeman: Vice Chairman Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Motion passes.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-315
A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM
PZ -1 (PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR
BRICKELL BAY VILLAGE PROJECT, 2101-2105 BRICKELL
AVENUE) TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY
SCHEDULED FOR MAY 24, 2001 AT 5 P.M.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
ABSENT: None
Mr. Maxwell: That was a motion to continue this item to May the 241H
Mr. Gibbs: That's right.
Mr. Maxwell: Correct, Mr. Chairman? That is right.
Mr. Gibbs: Excuse me, could -- I hate to ask you. Could we have a time certain, please?
Vice Chairman Gort: Five o'clock.
Mr. Gibbs: Five o'clock, time certain. Thank you very much.
75 4/25/01
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And if the change is substantial, then we do -- we follow the procedure. We don't
have to be back here. Is that the way it works?
Mr. Maxwell: Mm-hmm.
Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. I have no problem with it.
Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: If there is an agreement and the change is substantial, we won't be coming back
here. You all will voluntarily go --
Mr. Maxwell: That will be the applicant's call, Mr. Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: OK. That would be the applicant's call.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Commissioner Teele: Good job, Willy.
76 4/25/01
There being no further business to come before the City Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:07
p.m.
ATTEST:
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
SYLVIA LOWMAN
Assistant City Clerk
WIFREDO GORT,
Vice Chairman
(S E A L)
77 4/25/01