HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1989-06-22 Minutes+w.
I
c
i
ap
I T
� ,
N.
i�,` MpL.'�acf,TN� ,� ai "�xs .t F 1� 5 r•: x k'f ��
" �>y�
"r
,• k �Jf l 1's. i V 5
46
ztr
E i C 5
r
INCORP ORATE
18 96
r n
-
�
PLANNING �• `�+QN
S
8Y r :OFFI O.F. THE
ssCITY � I
` 1-na
x�� a'�.yriJ'����iir
,
I'NIiISE -
91RUtES Or AtOULAR MAITt"d
# " 'L$NFt1SSIbl9 OF MIA"t i PLOV SA
�tltlR 22, 146
IT2H 9MUCT LROMATtOlt PA62
1. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND DISCUSSION l
SPECIAL ITEMS. 6/22189 _
S
#. DISCUSSION CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF DISCUSSION 2-5
NEW' CITY COMMISSIONER TO VACANCY 6/22/89
REAM BY RESIGNAVON OF COMMISSIONER
ROSARIO KENNEDY - Call special session ,
for June 28, Mg. (Note: This was „ {
Later changed to June 27th -- see label
5. Selection of Dinner Key Boatyard for R 89-576 3-5$
full service boatyard/Marina at 264.0 6/22/80
60 Bayshore (Formerly Merrill Stevens
site) (See Label 7).
46 (A) ACCEPT STATE OF FLORIDA SAFE R 89-577 65 �K
NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT ($30,000) - R 89-577.1z'
Execute agreement with Florida 6/22/89
Department of Community Affairs to
provide technical assistance to Wynwobd
SafeNeighbor.hood'Improvement District.
4 s
h: (B) 'ACCEPT STATE OF FLORIDA SAFE p,
NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT ($250,000)
Execute agreement with Florida X r
Department of Community Affairs to?"�
prepare a Safe Neighborhood Improvement
Plan for Wynwood Safe Neighborhood••W, kri
=•:1a Improvement District. W
Fx
4
r taA
5. ESTABLISH SPECIAL `CHARGES, TERMS AND R 89 578; 6i=677tn }$4h..:Mi
,
CONDITIONS FOR USf� OF ORANGE `BOWL 6/22/89`^�,�1�,� i
STADIU14 BY' MITCHELL MBMO}iIAL HIGHWAYt " #`
CHURCH OF CHRIST, zNC. ''- for a gospel
N Zi
music concert and oration by Reverend
Jesse Jackson. L -
J —
6.. CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES DEPARTURE OF DISCUSSION
JUDITH C. S1+CxER; A MEMBER OF; HIS 6/22189
STAFF - Direct Administration` to
prepare' appropriate Proclamation,
i (Continued Discussion) DIRECT CITY M 60679
ATTORNEY TO GIVE TERMINATION NOTICE TO 6/22/89
"MERRILL STEVENS MARINE CENTER Afi;i3�
s.M, -ay
�
- it t� Kk <r
DINNER KEY ASSOCIATES, LTD. Requesta� �F
Merrill .Stevens to vacate premises no
hater thaa� November 1989 See
'1abd1 y "• L§Y�`
{
�. CpMMIfiSIONER DS YURRE EKf'RES0US NEED'- DISCiT6i I�IN
REVIEW". CITY 1TTORNIIY'& "SALARX Cii:F b/ 2/$9 `� v
Commission agrees to ;' dis+.uee. Cif ,
Managers, city Attorney"a grid1! E`
Clerk's ealaries duriri#bdet�g 1_
hearings. u.
—
�}.
atJ
silliso
1
CA= AGREMENT w1TL1 21E1,APONTS
R 89-590
TACOLCY CENTER, 19C for ittp leffiebt on
6 / 2 2 / 69
of dropout prevention d6bpotiont or
Summer 1outh Employment & Training
Program.
ACCEPT PLATt HIGH POINT ESTATES.
R 89-561
6/22/89
+9.8
ACCEPT PLATt ARBORETUM REPLAT,
R 89-582
6/22/89
10.
EXECUTE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS -
R 89-583
between the City (Purchaser) and David
6/22/89
�
Abraham; James Kirk, John K. Durkin &
Barbara Ryan; Graham C. Miller,
Trustee; Joaquin & Hortensia Trias; and
Irving Zuckerberg (collectively
"Sellers") - for purchase and sale of
properties regarding acquisition of
"Federal Law Enforcement Building".
11. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT
ACRRRMF.NT WTTT4 WTT.T.TAM R_ RRTCKRT.T._ at
_
a�
2
l
R 89-584 76-85
13.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING LENGTH AND FORMAT
DISCUSSION 86 87:.,,;' >
OF CITY COMMISSION AGENDAS.
6/22/89
14.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING AREA -WIDE
DISCUSSION 88-104'
_
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
6/22/89
<'
(DR!) FOR VIRGINIA KEY/KEY
—
BISCAYNE.
15.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend zoning
ORDINANCE 104-105
atlas by applying Section 1610 HC-1 at
10598
3744 Stewart Avenue (Marjory Stoneman
6/22/89
'
Douglas House) (Applicant: Planning
Department).
i6.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Change zoning
ORDINANCE 1.05-109 .
atlas from RG-2.1/3.3 to RG-22/7 at
FIRST READING
1918 Brickell Avenue (Applicant: Paul
6/22/89#'
R. Sadovsky).
17,
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend zoning
ORDINANCE 11Q;1
r
atlas -Change atlas from RG-1/3 to CG-
FIRST REARING
"'m_
1/7 at approximately 4220-40 N.W. 14th
6/22/89 N� r+
4�
Street and : 4253-55 N.W. 12th • Street
Drive (Applicant: Charles Traficant),
AM
rY-
bfbCUSS AND CONTIMM TO THE OCTO$ER DISCU$stdN 11
#tAN1i11iG & ZONING MEETING CmSIDERATtON 6/22/89
Orr PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE
t6 amend Miami Comprehensive
Voighberhood Plan concerning area
generally bounded by N.W. 12th and 21th
Avenues between N.W. 36th and 38th
Streets/SR12 to change designation of
abutting properties.
AMEND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT R 89.585 115�125
ORDER AND MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT - 6/22189
for the 1111 Brickell Avenue Project (a
DRI) - reference amended Major Use
Special Permit, add additional
development of gross square feet of
retail and hotel use, add parking
spaces and square footage of loading
area, delete office use and parking
use, change gross building floor area,
provide for traffic mitigation
alternatives, etc. (Applicant: 1111
Brickell Associates Limited).
20. AMEND DRI AND MAJOR USE SPECIAL R 89-586 125-1 9
PERMIT - for Terremark Centre Project 6/22/89
at approximately 2601 South Bayshore
Drive - extend bui.ldout date, etc.
(Applicant: Terremark Centre, Ltd.)
21. DISCUSS AND DEFER TO THE JULY DISCUSSION 129-142
27TH MEETING REQUEST FOR VACATION 6/22/89
AND CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF S.W. -
30TH AVENUE LYING SOUTH OF THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
S.W. 28TH LANE AND NORTH OF THE
METRORAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY
(Applicant: Public Storage
Properties XIX, Ltd.).
22. APPEAL DENIED: UPHOLD ZONING BOARD'S R 89-587 143v-151
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW 6/22/89
CONVERSION OF EXISTING BAR TO A SUPPER
CLUB - at approximately 2721 Bird
Avenue (Appellant: Howard
Weisberg/Applicant: Castlewood Realty _
Corp., Inc.).
23. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE DISCUSSION 157-159
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY APPLICANT 6/22/$9
(GENERAL BANK) to review Zoning
Board's denial of Special Exception to
allow construction of surface parking
4 lot at 3044 S.W. 7th Street (See label
t 25).
24 DENY REQUEST TO AMEND DECLARATION OF M 89p588.`. 9-1,
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - previously 6/22/89 1
authorized by the City for property
s
located at approximately 2210 S,W, 16th 3 x
ti Street and 1600-02 S.W. 22nd Avenue 7�
..
to modify certain prohibitions against r'}'{ u;
use of property for package liquor ,w, M�
A .P `"
stores, lounges, bare, or sale of A"
alcoholic beverages, etc.-,(Applicentt$A,� ;
Jemajo Corp.)>
:� �
is
}
i
.. S
10
it.
(Odntinued Discusblot) APPEAL
DISCUSSION
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT (GENERAL BANK)
6/22/89
CONCERNING PRIOR REQUEST TO REVIEW
EONING BOARD'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL
EXCEPTION - to construct a surface
Marking lot at 3044 S.W. 7th Street
(See label 23).
E$.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Miami
ORDINANCE
172=i$2
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-
FIRST READING
2000, Future Land Use Plan Map - change
land use designation of three -block
area bounded by N.W. 15th and 17th
Streets, between N.W. 28th and 30th
Avenues, from Duplex Residential to
Single Family Residential (Applicant:
Planning Department).
27.
(A) DISCUSSION CONCERNING ARTICLE IN
DISCUSSION
183�184
"MIAMI TODAY" IN CONNECTION WITH THE
6/22/89
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
(B) INVITE JOHN BLAISDELL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, MIAMI SPORTS & EXHIBITION
AUTHORITY - to appear before the City
Commission at its next meeting.
28.
DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE -
M 89-589
184�185
concerning request for zoning atlas
6/22/89
amendment from RS-2/2 to RG-1/3 at
2900-2922 N.W. 17th Street (Applicant:
Maysland Group, Inc.).
29.
(A) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend
ORDINANCE
186-204
9500 - eliminate Transitional Uses in
10599
Residential, SPI-9 and SPI-14.2
M 89-590
Districts, with provisos (Applicant:
6/22/89
Planning Department).
(B) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO DO
PLANNING STUDIES CONCERNING COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS IN THE CITY THAT WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO SOME RELIEF FROM THE
-
ELIMINATION OF TRANSITIONAL ZONING.
30. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Miami
ORDINANCE 205-207
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-
FIRST READING
2000 - Amend definition of Land Use
6/22/89
Element, refine definition of
_
Residential, Office and Industrial,
amend Housing Element Objective and
Policy, and delete certain policies as
they pertain to Community Based
—
Residential Facilities, Adult
Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF),
5
Family Homes and Group Homes
— '
(Applicant: Planning Department).
31. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Miami
ORDINANCE 207-208 —
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-
FIRST READING -
2000, Drainage Sub -Element, Policy -
6/22/89 =
specify storm sewers to be designed for
_
a one -in -five year event, establish
-
specific level of service standard for
remainder of sewers, define and
designate Coastal High -Hazard area,
s
etc. (Applicant: Planning Department).
1 FS Y Y -
q
T � k
``
j �.+
� -�rt'4&*a 2x.3'ri•�.z' ,•
�
1���LL
j
4'�asxtrxPtS 1 i
.
`` 4 � : i''�,.,� �i�.•
Cr, $rs-hf'a s�x �,#�,�, ��A�
? riyn{t{°9.
i
s.as, ---_---.-----------.._-------------------------.. --- ----
DISCUSSION CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF NEW CITY COMMISSIONER TO 'VACANCY
CREATED BY RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER ROSARIO KENNEDY - Call special
session for June 28, 1989. (Note: This was later changed to June 27th -
see label 35)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: I've consulted the members of the Commission other than
Commissioner Kennedy on a preference for a Special Session to be held on the
issue of replacement and basically have narrowed down days to Tuesday and
Wednesday of next week. Commissioner Plummer is going to be out Thursday and
Friday. I know Commissioner Dawkins you wanted to make a statement and we
will proceed right on to...
Mr. Dawkins: I would like to do it tomorrow. The college is on a four -day
work week and it won't cost me no money to miss a day from the college. If
you do it Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday, I have to take a day off from the
college and I'm going to lose my money, but I will go along with the majority
and maybe when time comes to bury me, J.L. will remember that I lost a day's
pay and he'll knock it off my bill. OK, whatever day you choose.
Mr. Plummer: There are those who say, the sooner the better)
Mayor Suarez: OK, we'll dwell on that a little bit and as you suggested,
Commissioner, maybe at the end of the morning or early afternoon, we'll come
back with a consensus date and...
Mr. Dawkins: Let's do it now. Wednesday, what time? Wednesday, J.L.?
Mr. Plummer: Fine with me.
Mayor Suarez: I would chink 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. Dawkins: I only lose a half a day.
Mayor Suarez: Wednesday at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Do we need to take
vote on that, or do we just...?
Mr. Plummer: Oh wait a minute, in consideration to my colleague, would it
better to have it at noon instead of eating lunch?
Mr. Dawkins: But are you sure this will be done in an hour?
Mr. Plummer: I'm not sure that tomorrow is going to be here.
Mrs. Kennedy: What was it last time, 31 ballots?
Mayor Suarez: Thirty-six in 1979.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, let's try for noon. No, I'll take the half a day, let's do
it in the afternoon.
Mayor Suarez: 2:00 o'clock next Wednesday and we'll...
Nits. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, since I will not obviously be voting on this nor be
part of the discussion, I certainly hope that you choose somebody who has the
best interest of the City at heart and also give a strong consideration to a
female in this Commission.
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, if that's not sexist, I don't know what is.
Mrs. Kennedy: Balanced, let's say it is.
Mr. Plummer: I've got to find out if Walter Mercado lives in the City.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Mayor Suarez recognizes former Miemi City
Attorney George Knox.
3. Selection of Dinner Key Boatyard for full service boatyard/Marina at
2640 So. Bayshore (Formerly Merrill Stevens site) (See label 7)
Mayor Suarez: We have the project at 2640 South Bayshore Drive, a UDP
(unified development project). Mr. Manager, what has been the evaluation
process and what is the recommendation or recommendations, if any?
Mr. Odio: What I suggest you do, Mr. Mayor, is that you listen to each of the
presentations and that you draw... so that it is fair that you draw...
Mayor Suarez: Had you not done that already on an impartial basis you have?
Mr. Odio: We have done it.
Mayor Suarez: OK, who drew first go, first turn?
Ms. Arleen Weintraub: Yes, we drew at 8:45 a.m. at the Clerk's office, so
number one, as I recall is International Cruising Centers.
Mr. Odio: Well, is it number one?
Mr. De Yurre: Is there a time limit on this?
Mayor Suarez: Yes, we've specified a maximum, is it 15 minutes? - and
obviously the Commissioners may want to ask questions, which might enlarge it.
Are they represented here?
Ms. Weintraub: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: They are represented here. Madam City Clerk, this is not a big
deal, but did you supervise that, the drawing of the lots for the turns to be
taken this morning? That was done in the Clerk's office?
Mr. Odio: I just wanted somebody to...
Ms. Weintraub: Let me put it on the record. Arleen Weintraub, Department of
Development. We had a draw at the Clerk's office by number and the order as
drawn is International Cruising Centers will go number one. Number two is
Dinner Key Marina Associates. Number three is Merrill Stevens, number four,
Dinner Key Boatyard. And also I just wanted to add one thing here which is 20
minutes each.
Mr. Odio: Excuse me, let me clarify, 20 minutes, not 15 minutes.
Mayor Suarez: OK, Mr. Carlos, you are about to tell us that YOU 4rO
guaranteed 20 minutes and Traurig was going to agree with you on one item,'at
least this morning, right?
Mr. P1unnnere Well, just so there is no confusion, do all four parties agree
with the draw was held and it is all perfectly in order? Does everybody agree
to that? I mean, because it wasn't held out here in the public. There is no
question about that? OK, fine.
Ms. Weintraub: May I add one more thing to the record. There was a fifth
proposal that came in by Bayshore Marine. They declined to present this
morning.
Mr. Odio: bet me...
Mayor Suarez: Is that by any chance, the group that Jeff Berkewitz is
involved in?
Ms. Weintraub: Yes, it is.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, it is.
Mayor Suarez: OK, I'm happy to hear that. Yes, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Odio: International Cruise Center is not one of the three that we are
recommending, but I invited them to come here so they would have their day.
Mayor Suarez: OK, Madam City Clerk, would you begin counting the 20 minute
period and there would be some flexibility in this because Commissioners might
want to ask questions. They will have a right to interrupt, but hopefully we
will proceed with the presentations and stick to the 20 minute limit.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I ask...
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: ... all three of the applicants or four, I proffered a
memorandum of 27 questions of which the Manager answered and I want to make
sure that all three had the availability of those 27 questions. Is there
anybody that did not get a copy? Thank you. I sent that 27 questions to you.
OK. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Proceed, give us your name and address, please.
—j Mr. Robert O'Neill: My name is Robert O'Neill, I'm representing International
Cruising Centers, which address is 555 NE 15th Street, Number 28-K. Could we
please have the lights down for our slides? Thank you. We wish to thank the
Commission for allowing us to present the Coconut Grove Cruising Center.
Today I will show you the highest ranked overall project design put together
by the only team with hands on working experience in every aspect of this
_ project; the only registered minority corporation dedicated to helping the
underprivileged youth of Miami, the team providing the -post secure and highest
real dollar return to the City; the team and the proposal best suited for the
lease of this sight. Our goal is to develop a premiere full service marine
center for the people of Miami for today's needs as well as the needs of the
_ next century. The major areas of our plan include a 36 space full service
boatyard that will accommodate from 29 to 80 feet, designed around a boat
repair facility, a new state-of-the-art elevated dry storage system that will
provide covered ground level free valet parking for 145 standard automobiles.
Unlike other bidders, we have elected to build only 40 foot long storage
slips. This gives us the added flexibility to dry store boats 29 to 45 feet.
The larger length of the slip also provides adjustable widths from 8 to 16
feet which will allow us to meet the demands for the cabin cruiser
type vessels, rather than just cater to the high-powered speed boat market.
Our design parameters rejected the barn look of a completely enclosed version
of dry stacked storage. The fully enclosed system presents too great of an
exposure to total loss due to fire. The current fire fighting methods prefer
to close up the 'barn and let it burn itself out, rather than fight an
explosive fire in an enclosed area. The open system will allow greater fire
control, security, plus add an openness and less bulk to the visual appearance
of the structure. Our multipurpose building is also elevated to add ground
level openness and covered parking. The only ground level retail area will be
1000 square feet of inboard -outboard shop and 600 square feet of fuel, bait
and sundries area. We are the only bidder formally addressing the repair and
maintenance requirements of the inboard -outboard customer separately in a dry
storage area. Our multipurpose building is also elevated to cover valet
t
4u0e,, ,139
parking. A ground level breeze and view corridor, the second level of the
structure will house marine related retail shops that will be accessed by
baywalk and bay observation deck. We have provided for complete handicapped
access to the entire site, including the second level via gradually sloped
ramp at the south and a switch -back ramp on the north. The retail area will
also display a pictorial history of the Dinner Key area. The third and fourth
levels will contain professional offices for brokers, surveyors, marine
insurance agency, along with other marine related professional services. This
area will be accessed by conventional stairways and elevators. Adjoining the
multipurpose building is an 18,000 square feet boat repair shop that acts as a
security buffer to the full service boatyard, plus allow for additional
storage on top, along with the bay observation terrace. These shops will
offer every service expected in a full service facility. It is hard to
imagine what the other proposers were thinking about when they only put in
7,000 or 8,000 square feet for workshop area in a full service boatyard. Our
intention was to segregate each area into a controlled environment to enhance
safety and security but without unsightly fences and gates, to create a
separate traffic flow to each area, but also have easy inter -area traffic
patterns. The restaurant is placed for easy access from any approach and
provide a modest relaxed atmosphere. The second level of this area will be
available to marine related, nonprofit groups at no charge for meetings and
instructions. This area will also supply classroom space for a minority
training program. This program is what really differentiates International
Cruising Centers from any proposer. A comprehensive program of on the job
training, along side of seasoned professionals and classroom instruction on
the fundamental principles involved in marine environment with emphasis on
safety and fire control. Our program will lead towards licensed professional
careers and the advanced base of educational skills. Our intention is not to
hire 20 underprivileged kids for 20 years. We hope to hire 20 per year,
provide training and experience over several years, so the participant can be
placed in a professional position or become an independent contractor with
their own business and employees. We will utilize the Neighborhood Jobs
Program as a first source of participants to our program, provide them with a
position with esteem and a fair wage, instructions in the basics of boating,
building on day to day job functions, reinforced with classroom instruction,
to provide a more specialized level of training and to accomplish our goals
and provide the individual with experience and training necessary to
contribute to the real world as an accomplished craftsman and a professional
in an industry desperately seeking qualified personnel. It is a fact
presented by every industrial analyst that by the turn of the century, we will
have dramatic labor shortages in all fields. Our program, along with the most
innovative design of a full service marine facility will insure that Miami,
the nation's largest boating area will be able to serve the marine community
with trained personnel at a state of the art facility well into the next
century. None of the other proposers have considered personnel requirements
and training or how many jobs will be available. We project a full time staff
of approximately 50 with an additional part time staff of. 20, increasing by 20
a year to level out at approximately 100 new jobs in Miami. International
Cruising Centers Inc. has the best overall design by this site, ranked higher
in this by the review committee, ranked higher than the most notable
architectural firms in Miami, ranked higher than the most experienced
developers in Miami or Fort Lauderdale and ranked higher than one of the
oldest marine repair facilities in Miami. How can International Cruising
Center, the only registered minority corporation presented by Arthur Andersen
in review with lower than inferior designs and sweetheart deals come up with
higher design rankings than the area's leading professionals? As naive as it
many sound, we were not profit driven. This design was truly to build a
facility that will set the future standards for a marine center and provide
one more reason for people to visit Miami. We are hands on working people in
the marine industry. We know how to design the best layout because we've
actually worked in many of the large and small boatyards in South Florida. We
know what the customer needs and wants, we've been there. We know how to
manage and train the people in this industry because we've done it. Our team,
lead by chief executive office Betty O'Neill, mother of ten at age 45, went
back to school to earn her masters in nursing and education, has gone on to
manage the family business, ONECO. ONECO controls 900 acre gas and oil fields
in West Virginia that produces approximately 30,000,000 cubic feet of product
per year. Secondary oil recovery operations in Southern Illinois' O'Neill
Trout Farm in The Lake of the Ozarks in Southern Missouri; Proctor Point
Resort, a 152 acre real estate development on one mile of frontage at Lake of
The Ozarks. Our president, Arlene O'Neill, the only licensed property manager
on any team. She has managed several multimillion dollars projects over the
5 June 22, 1989
0
last ten years in the Miami area. Michael Loggins is our comptroller, the
past senior executive of Financial Federal Savings and Loan, executive vice
president of Sun Bank of Florida, Mr. Loggins has arranged two guaranteed
credit lines, first with International Finance Corporation for $3,000,000 in
construction loans and second, Allied Marine Mortgage Association for
$6,000,000 in venture capital. Mr. Ed Jackson, Jr., our risk manager was the
managing director of Phoenix Fire and Marine Insurance, a member of the
Lloyd's group, president of the Jackson Insurance Agency, managing director of
Caribbean Premium Finance and president of Number One Automotive, a Caribbean
parts distributor. Mr. Jackson is placing all of the insurance and bonding
required for this project, including all of the performance bonds required by
the City of Miami. Marie O'Neill, experienced in major automated accounting
payables and receivables, branch banking, day to day bookkeeping, an
accomplished blue water sailor with over 5,000 sea miles logged, sail maker
and sail designer. Tim O'Neill, our general manager, over 20 years in marine
repair and marine repair facility design, marine facility development and
management, well known throughout the local marine community. Myself, Robert
O'Neill, past general manager of Boats, Vessels Asian America, a builder's
agent for Asian yachts, managed, imported and commissioned, plus warranty
service for Formosa Yachts, Taipai, Taiwan, CT and Taichow? limited Taipei,
general manager. of International Marine Services Inc., importer of French and
Asian yachts, U.S. commissioning and professional yacht management. I am the
only licensed Coast Guard captain with a 50-ton ocean operator license of any
bidders with over 20,000 sea -miles logged in pleasure vessels. Ivan
Rodriguez, our award winning senior architect, is the head architect for Dade
County School Boards. Edward Ghezzi, a major architect in South Florida for
35 years, and Pilar Ramos -Ortega, architect for several notable projects in
Coconut Grove, including Monty Trainer's Bayshore Restaurant. Our
architectural team has worked together for the past ten years. Ricardo
Rodriguez, our general contractor and construction manager, the president of
RJR Construction is currently building a three hundred unit dry storage marina
at Haulover Beach Resort for Dade County. Mr. Rodriguez is also a licensed
engineer and formerly in charge of bridge operations for Dade County.
International Cruising Centers has the best design and the only hands-on team.
We realize what has to be done and how to do it, even if we have to do it
ourselves. I've shown you here today the highest ranked design and the only
hands-on management development team. The voters have mandated a full service
marine prepared facility on this site. International Cruising Centers
responded with a complete facility designed around a marine repair center with
the needs of the next century in mind, rather than major profits for a select
few. Let's see what the other proposers call full service marine centers.
Merrill Stevens has plans to cut the existing boatyard in half, put a shopping
center on the other half, the lowest rank design overall, at max this repair
facility can handle eighteen x 40-foot vessels, but Merrill Stevens already
has a boatyard that handled the bigger jobs up the river. They don't need any
more repair area here. Bayshore Marine Center could handle fourteen 40-foot
vessels, but this wasn't a major concern for them because they leased out
their two plus million dollar repair service for under $200,000. The City's
percent on that would be approximately $20,000 per year. The Dinner Key
_ Marine Associates can accommodate 12 vessels 40-feet. They also will lease
the $2,000,000 marine repair business for less than $200,000 per year to a
principal of their corporation and likewise the City's cut will be less than
_ $20,000 per year when it should be around $280,000 per year. Lastly, Dinner
Key Boatyard, if one looks closely at that proposal, they'll find eight do it
yourself spaces, 12 dry storage spaces and six repair spaces. This is a no
service barnyard, hardly a facility to serve a City like Miami for the next 40
years, but they project to make two plus million dollars on boat repairs per
year. That's $179,000 per space per year. That comes out to $500 per day,
365 days a year for boat repair, a very ambitious and highly impossible goal.
They'll try to convince you that this storage area is for repair, but that's
not what their performance is. Who will lose if they don't meet the
projections? The City can lose millions and I'll show you that in a minute.
International Cruising Centers can put twenty-four 40-foot vessels on the
ground level in a large boatyard, the largest boatyard of any proposers. When
we use the overhead of the repair shop, which is 45 feet wide, we can add 12
more and that totals the space to 36 for boat repair alone. This is a full
service boatyard. We are the only bidder that has increased the repair
facility on this site. We haven't discussed do it yourself spaces, we don't
have designated areas for do it yourself, we don't limit the spaces for the do
it yourself, nor will we treat this customer as a second class citizen. This
will be a full service public marine center. We will do the work, the boat
owners can do the work or any vendor can do the work. We have no restrictions
6 June 22, 1989
on do it yourself. In the recent Arthur Andersen report, Dinner Key Boatyard
was ranked highest in return to the City if all of their idealistic and
improbable projections are met. Dinner Key Boatyard makes their $179,000 per
space per year. Arthur Andersen doesn't know the fluctuations of the marine
business and neither does Dinner Key Boatyard. If you'll notice, the 20
percent of their 20 year 100 percent projection in blue and the 20 percent
reduction table in yellow, figured by Arthur Andersen in his report to the
City Manager, Dinner Key is shown with $7,900,000 in return to the City.
International Cruising Centers is next with a mere $600,000 difference over 20
years, but if things don't work out as planned, the impossible projection is
not met, Dinner Key drops $1,700,000 in the 20 percent reduction in total
return to the City. That's 14 times greater than the $120,000 lost
International Cruising Centers experienced in a 20 percent reduction table.
Merrill Stevens loses $1,000,000, eight times greater than International
Cruising Centers. We offer the highest and safest return to the City in real
world projections. How can the other bidders come close without a major
boatyard? Look at the total square feet of shopping, yard space. Then again
notice the poor utilization of the area. These are all barnyards, not
boatvards. Coconut Grove Cruising Center is the only real boatyard. Compare
the total square feet to the number of repair spaces in yellow. Now, just the
boatyard area to the number of spaces in yellow. It is hard to see... it is
not hard to see why we rank highest in overall design. During the entire
construction phase, without interrupting a single day of business, the Coconut
Grove Cruising Center, our boatyard will never offer less service than what
Merrill Stevens, the lowest ranked design, plans to take this City into the
next century. I've shown you the best overall design, an entire full service
marine center designed around a boatyard. I've shown you the best minority
training program possible that returns immeasurable benefits to the City and
the people who participate in it. I've told you about the only hands-on team,
a young spirited team that will on site every day, no management by memos or
binoculars. We will be there for the entire 20 years, the same people who are
here now, in front of you today. The voters mandated a full service boatyard,
give them the biggest boatyard with the most secure return. Put the politics
aside, make the best choice for the future of Miami. The Coconut Grove
Cruising Center and International Cruising Centers are the only team to pick
in this area. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your presentation. Commissioners, any questions?
Mr. Plummer: I guess for the record, Mr. Mayor, the question needs to be
asked of the Manager, of why this company was not in the three evaluations
that he did and I would ask if nothing more, than for the record.
Mr. Odio: One was the financial situation. They show a cash flow deficit for
the first one or two years and an annual cash flow for the subsequent years,
possibly, but do not exceed $200,000 until the year eight and the cash flow
doesn't show any projections or source of funding for the year one and two
when they have a flow deficit, so basically I would say that because of their
financial conditions, we couldn't recommend it. And Arthur Andersen and
Company, the CPA firm evaluated them and did not consider them that they
should be one of the candidates.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins.
Mr. Dawkins: What is meant when you say best minority participation? Then
you say the only real program that benefits minorities in the City. Explain
that to me.
Mr. O'Neill: Well, as I said in my presentation, our minority participation
is well rounded...
Mr. Dawkins: What do you mean by minority participation? You mean working,
sweeping up the floor, you mean owning the brooms to sweep the floor with, or
do you mean...
Mr. O'Neill: Quite the contrary, Mr. Dawkins.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, tell me what you mean, sir.
7 June 22, 1989
9
Mr. W Neill: I meant by in our program, that we will give these people from
the City jobs program an opportunity to make something that.... a life and an
income with esteem to overwbelm the glamour of drugs and gangs that plague our
City right now.
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mr. O'Neill: This will pay theca to go to our school while they work in our
boatyard.
Mr. Dawkins: Wouldn't it better, I mean, for me it would be better for you to
tell me that they own a part of the 30 year lease where he could buy him a
Rolls Royce like the drug dealer and he could say that, "I honestly was
involved in a project that was owned by me and I had a part of, not like on a
plantation where I worked all my life." See, you are telling me that you want
them to just work all their life, unless I am wrong, correct me, sir.
Mr. O'Neill: You are definitely wrong.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, correct me.
Mr. O'Neill: If we had a longer time to present this, I would have got into
the employee's benefits. Our corporation...
Mr. Dawkins: See, you are still telling me about workers. I'm asking you
about ownership, ownership!
Mr. O'Neill: If you give me an opportunity, they have a part of ownership.
We have 60 shares...
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, well now that... explain, OK.
Mr. O'Neill: We have 60 shares in our corporation. Only 16 are issued. The
rest, the balance of these shares go to profit sharing for the workers and no,
that's not indicated in your book. That's the fine details of our program.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, well that is...
Mr. O'Neill: And we have intended for a profit sharing program to go to all
of the people that participate in this.
Mr. Dawkins: Wonderful. All right, you say that, you say...
Mr. Tim O'Neill: Excuse me, Mr. Dawkins, if I might interrupt and I hate to
be that impolite, but 62 percent of the ownership of our corporation are
minorities.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, sir, for the record will you state your name and
mailing address.
Mr. T. O'Neill: My name is Tim O'Neill. I live at 17101 SW 200th Street,
Miami, Florida.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't you define the 62 percent minority ownership.
Mr.
Dawkins: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr.
T. O'Neill: Fifty percent of the
issued shares, which are eight...
Mr.
Dawkins: Name the individuals who
own the 50 percent who are minorities.
Mr.
T. O'Neill: Betty O'Neill owns four
shares.
Mr.
Dawkins: Sir?
Mr.
T. O'Neill: Betty O'Neill who is
a woman owns four shares. Arleen O'Neill
who
is a woman owns two shares.
Mr.
Dawkins: That's six.
Mr.
T, O'Neills Marie O'Neill who is
a woman owns two sharga.
1. a
Mir. Dawkins: Eight.
Mt. T. O'Neill: Annette Jackson, who is an American black owihk 2 shares,
which is the equal number of shares that I own.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, ten froth 62 in thy math, I learned in school, is 52
percent.
Mr. T. O'Neill: Ten from 16, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: That does not, see, still. minorities got ten percent and others
got 52 percent. Nov who owns the 37 percent that's left hanging?
Mrs. Kennedy: Commissioner Dawkins, before we go into the others, could I
just ask... aren't you, isn't your last name O'Neill?
Mr. T. O'Neill: Yes, Ma'am.
Mrs. Kennedy: Are these people related to you?
Mr. T. O'Neill: Yes, Ma'am.
Mrs. Kennedy: Thank you.
Mr. T. O'Neill: This is partially a family bu•,iness that involved other
professionals. _
Mr. Dawkins: Since you going to Congress, you getting awfully sharp, huh?
Mayor Suarez: So, you had described ten out of the 16 shares as being
minority owned? Eight out of those ten are women and two...
Mr. O'Neill: Yes, and two are owned by blacks.
Mayor Suarez: And two blacks.
Mr. Dawkins: And who owns the 37 percent that is left hanging? - 37.5.
Mr. R. O'Neill: That's the worker's profit sharing program on that.
Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute now, hold it, hold it. Either I am going to hear
from you, or I am going to hear from you. I am not going to ask him questions
to have you answer them, or ask you questions and have him answer them. Now,
if you going to present it, then he has to sit down. I asked the question and
you started to answer and then he took it from you, so I assume he figures he
can do it better than you. All right, go ahead.
Mr. T. O'Neill: What was the question again, sir?
Mayor Suarez: The other 37 and one/half percent.
Mr. Dawkins: Who owns 37 and one/half percent that's swinging?
Mr. T. O'Neill: Those shares are uncommitted and will probably be devoted to
shareholder's benefits.
Mr. Dawkins: Shareholder's benefits. Now, the shareholder's benefits would
be developed when?
Mr. R. O'Neill: As soon as we initiate this lease, we'll develop the program,
held in trust for a profit sharing system for the employees of the boatyard,
Mr. Dawkins: OK, now I don't know who is here, but I see we got the press, I
want everybody to understand in Miami and anywhere else, as long as I sit on
this Commission, I do not accept this as minority ownership and participation,
so Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, this to me is not minority
—" participation. Thank you, sir. ;
°' Mayor Suarez: One question about the ownership, what about local involvamant -
In terms of how I define it which means City of =Miami residents. YQu hev
E, anybody of the owners who actually live In the City of Miami?
q eApp �
Mr. T. O'Neill: No, one of the stockholders does.
Mayor Suarez: I see one nodding. Is that the one who lives in the City of
Miami?
Mr. T. O'Neill: Michael Loggias lives in Miami, Michael Loggias our
controller.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I have one more question of Arthur Andersen. Anybody
here from Arthur Andersen?
Mayor Suarez: Why don't you, let him step up to the mike please, and Mr.
O'Neill.
Mr. Tom Bradley: My name is Tom Bradley, I'm a partner in Arthur Andersen.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, I said I did not intend to vote for any proposal that
included a restaurant, in that I felt that we had enough restaurants with
Monty Trainer, the Chart House, the Grand Bay and the one that Money Trainer
is going to put over here. In this proposal, of the guaranteed return to the
City, how much of it was calculated on food service and sales?
Mr. Bradley: Well, for this particular proposer, although they are including
a restaurant, they have a guaranteed rent to the City, so they do not have a
percentage override.
Mr. Plummer: No, no, wait a minute, hold on. I think the question, or at
least the question I have if his statement is correct, that he would not vote
for any proposal with a restaurant, if they did not have the restaurant, what
would their percentage, or what would their minimum guarantee to the City be?
In other words, there is a certain amount of dollars that are derived from the
restaurant. If there were no restaurant in any of the proposals in this
particular one, how much less would the City be receiving?
Mr. Odio: Not one penny less.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, by definition I guess, what he would want is, assuming we
had calculated how much they expected of the guaranteed minimum rental to come
from the restaurant operations and I don't know that we've calculated that.
Mr. Plummer: That's exactly correct.
Mr. Bradley: What you'd really have to do is ask the proposer how much they...
Mr. Dawkins: Beg pardon?
Mr. Bradley: The proposer would need to tell you that if he is not allowed to
have a restaurant and not allowed to earn additional revenues, how much...
Mr. Dawkins: But when you evaluated, I think, his proposal, you had to use
some kind of a scale to determine if the proposed guarantee is accurate and if
they had food sales, in my opinion, "X" dollars would have to come from food
sales to make up that guarantee, "X" for marine related sales and "X" from
boat repair and "X" dollars from boat storage. Now, I in my opinion, that
would have been... now, we didn't do that?
Mr. Bradley: Those are the sources of revenue, but again for this proposer,
they have a guaranteed minimum, and also as we said in our report with regards
to this particular...
Mr. Odio: Commissioner, yes, we did that in the presentations that I had in
my office. I asked the questions specifically where the revenues were being
projected from, what profit center within their structured proposal and if you
take away the food in this case...
Mr. Plummer: You're missing the point somewhere, at least... Did this
proposer, excuse me Dawkins, did this proposer say that from the restaurant we
propose "X" number of dollars? - that being applied toward the minimum rental.
In other words, did you break out in your proposal, you were going to derive
"X" revenue from the boatyard, "X" from the ships store, "X" from... "X" being
a dollar figure?
10 ,rune 22, 1969
Mr. Olio: Excuse me, their projection, shows five percent of their total
revenue to be from the restaurant.
Mr. Plummer: OK, and what is their total revenue?
Mr. Odio: Nine.
Mr. Plummer: Nine percent? What is their total? I can't...
Mr. R. O'Neill: Mr. Plummer, do you want to know the total dollar annual
figure?
Mr. Plummer: I'm trying to help my colleague who is in fact trying to
determine, because he has stated for the record, he will not vote for any
proposal with a restaurant, did each one break it out as to what the amount or
percentage from the restaurant would be, which would have to affect the
minimum rental, minimum guarantee. Basically we projected gross revenue from
the restaurant to $180,000 a year.
Mr. Plummer.: That's the number I think we are looking for. Now, the second
question...
Mayor Suarez: Although that is gross revenue, so don't mistake that
necessarily to mean that they expect of the minimum guaranteed yearly rental
to pay whatever percentage that works out to be, which is I guess is about
half.
Mr. Plummer: But in effect, it would also alter, if they could not have the
restaurant, reducing their gross, I'm sure would affect their minimum annual
guarantee. The second question has to be from me, do you propose, and this is
going to be all four, do you propose that the City would derive from the
restaurant operation, and the boutique if you sublease it, we would get a
percentage of gross, or a percentage of the rent?
Mr. R. O'Neill: The way we have it stated, we have guaranteed $504,000 per
year and the breakdown is not specific to the commercial space or the
restaurant.
Mr. Plummer: You are not listening to me. On the restaurant and the
boutique, or the ships store, are you proposing in yours that you give the
City a percentage of the gross, or a percentage of the sublease?
Mr. R. O'Neill: We have elected to pay the City $504,000... please let me
finish, sir...
Mr. Dawkins: Regardless of what they make, whatever they make.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Mr. R. O'Neill: ... for years one through five. After years six through 20,
we'll adjust that, using the CPI index and one percent of the total gross
revenue of the whole project.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, you are still not listening to me, OK?
Mt. Plummer: No, excuse me, for the record, that is not true of all of theta,
OX? You know, I learned my lesson, I love Grove Key farina, Spencer Meredith
wound would up making Chart House, we get a percentage of the rent. If that's
the case, I don't need a middle man. I don't need a middle man. I don't need
to be putting anyone in as a landlord. The City is going to get a percentage
of the total gross of the restaurant, that's fine. If it is going to get a
piece of the rent, then I'm willing to run the restaurant, not you.
Mr. R. O'Neill: We had the total gross of the entire project.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Well, there is always going to be some... not always, but
typically in a situation like this, always there is going to be some
subcontracting. I can't imagine that we'd...
Mr. Plummer: And I have no problem with that, but we get a percentage of the
gross, not of what they collect as rent, which we do at Chart House.
Mayor Suarez: Are they the only one... one more question, before I forget
this, if I may. Are they the only one that is proposing to guarantee five
hundred and some thousand dollars a year for the first five years, that large
amount? Is that the highest guarantee minimum rental of all of the projects
proposing for the first five years? And the required is three sixty? The
required minimum guaranteed rental?
Mr. T. O'Neill: That is the highest guaranteed.... That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: If I made a bad statement, then let me know.
Mr. T. O'Neill: Three fifty.
Mayor Suarez: Three fifty. Thank you Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: I might stand corrected. Spencers about ready to do a fit back
there. Don't answer it. If I'm wrong, I'll so note it on the record.
Mr. De Yurre: I'd like to ask...
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Mayor.
Mr. De Yurre: I'd like to ask a question of the City Attorney. Are we in a
position to require that any change of ownership or any sublease of this
property come before the City Commission for approval?
Mr. Rafael Suarez -Rivas: Upon award you may make that a condition that any
contract awarded, all subleases, assignments, sale lease backs not included in
a bid proposal already that is not before you today must come before the City
Commission for approval, definitely.
Mayor Suarez: Well, the standard consent to assignment provision would be
included, typically... OK.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, of course. In fact, you could time that up by saying
that...
Mayor Suarez: Now, typically, I think Commissioner, Mr. Vice Mayor, we
required only proof of credit worthiness of the assignee. We may, in this
particular case want to retain more powers if an assignment of more than 50
percent of the shares of the principal portion of ownership is made.
Mr. De Yurre: Well because I have a concern, I want to make sure that if
have, if we are getting a picture here today, from all these different groups,
and if we are going to be voting based on that picture and I want to remain as
close to that situation as possible. I don't want this to turn around, become =
a flip situation where the people aren't here as owners, and they not turn out _
to be the owners and the next thing we know, we are not dealing with what we
thought we were dealing with originally, so I want to make sure that...
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me offer to you what we did with the cable. That
concern was also there and what we did was we put a stipulation in the
contract that no stock could be sold or transferred for five years. After the
12 June 22, 089
0
5th year, any transfer of more than five percent of the stock had to be
approved by this Commission, so you could very well add that to this, and have
the same safeguard.
Mr. De Yurre: Well, I'm going to be looking for something along those lines
for sure. Now...
Mayor Suarez: And make that a cumulative transfer, so that they don't do five
or six transfers during one year. At some moment maybe you want to make that
into a motion.
Mr. De Yurre: And the other question I had and I'm going to be asking it of
all the different groups is the following: I have a concern, you know we are
talking about the ownership, we're talking about all these fantastic things
that are going to be happening there. The one thing that has not been
addressed is should Merrill Stevens not be selected, what's going to happen to
those employees that are there? I have a concern for the people that have
been working there for a number of years and I want to hear from you and from
all the others, whether you are committed to offering these individuals the
opportunity to remain working on that site.
Mr. R. O'Neill: We don't have a problem with that, Mr. De Yurre, not
whatsoever. Being familiar with several of the people that have been working
there for a long time, and their numbers aren't anywhere near as great. It
would be a benefit to us, I would think Merrill Stevens would want to move
them to 12th Street, but we would be more than happy to take someone that is
experienced in that particular site.
Mr. De Yurre: OK, thank you.
Mr. Dawkins: I have a problem with that, in that if I were the successful
winner of this bid, I wouldn't dare take anybody from Merrill Stevens shop to
sabotage my program and make me lose out. I would have a problem. Now, but I
wouldn't have no problem that if they have been with Merrill Stevens for
years, there should be some concern of their having been faithful servants for
so long and we'll take you with you wherever we go.
Mr. Plummer: The real question is, will you hire Fred Kirkland?
Mr. R. O'Neill: No, I don't think I'd go that extent. Maybe Charlie Alvarez,
but not Kirkland.
Mayor Suarez: Not quite that far, huh?
Mr. Dawkins: But all jokes aside. If whoever is there is going to need
trained personnel, and I am pretty sure that that individual will not care
where the trained personnel come from, I'm sure of that.
Mr. R. O'Neill: That is correct.
Mayor Suarez: Anything further?
Mr. Plummer: Sir, did you see my list of 27 questions?
Mr. R. O'Neill: No, we weren't provided with that list, Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm sorry and Mr. Mayor I would like them to have the
opportunity to get that and if they have any rebuttal with the answers of the
Manager, that's what I'm going to be asking all of them.
Mayor Suarez: At the end of the morning we'll provide a couple of minutes if
we can then, for that. Would you provide them with that list?
Mr. Plummer: I have some other questions, by the way, in addition to those 27
and I'll just put them up front, that I will be asking of each one of the
proposals to speak to. Number one, none of the proposals tell me what is
going to be done from the year three to the year 25, assuming that the lease
is 25 years. We all have seen very readily what's up front, what they are
going to spend it and how they are going to spend it, but I want to know, what
are you nronosin¢...
13
June
22,
1989
lob
171
Mayor Suarez: You mean by way of capital improvements, but is that what you
mean?
Mr. Plummer: 'Whatever, capital improvements...
Mayor Suarez: Well, they presumably all have told us what they are going to
pay the City and what they are going to build there and what kind of operation
they are going to have, but...
Mr. Plummer: OK, I am not of the thinking that says hey, you are going to do
everything in three years and then for the next 22, do nothing.
Mayor Suarez: Capital improvements.
Mr. Plummer: That's fine. I just want them to speak to it if it is capital
improvements, the programs, operational, or what. I have also indicated that I
want to know from each applicant is the City of Miami going to be the
recipient of total gross, not a percentage, but total gross of the entire
project. I'm also concerned of the mixture that shows as to the payments up
front as to the minimum rental... excuse me, they keep referring to rental, it
is not rental. It is minimum annual guarantee to the City. Are you going to
pay up front, as your intention and how do you intend to do that. My other
area of concern is going to be difficult to speak to, but it is still a
question in my mind. All of them have shown basically that they will be
increasing the number of slips, wet slips. We know that it would take... not
all of them? OK, then on the ones that do, we know that the processing for
permitting would take somewhere around five years or more. The calculation
that they have given in their proposal speaks to those additional wet slips
and what happens in that period, number one, if it takes five or six or seven
years, does that affect their revenue stream and second of all, what happens
to the money dedicated for those improvements if in fact, the bottom line they
can't be made. In other words, if the permitting is impossible to get, I
think most of them have anywhere from one to three million for the improvement
of those slips, what would happen to that money if in fact, they don't get the
permitting and the slips are not built. My concern there is, their revenues
are based and minimum guarantees are based on all those projections. What is
their idea as to what would happen if they didn't get the additional slips.
That, plus the 27 questions is what I am looking for in the way of answers.
Mayor Suarez: OK, on one of those that I think had not been really, really
considered unless we heard the answer to a prior question, stated and framed
In a different way, I want to ask the gentleman from Arthur Andersen or the
Manager. I think the Commissioner is getting at, what assurance do we have on
a minimum guaranteed rental payment to the City that they can in fact make
that minimum guaranteed rental payment and is that in fact the question you
answered before when you said that you didn't think they had the financial
wherewithal at least as compared to the other ones to...
Mr. Odio: They never showed what their financial situation is, what the cash
flow will come from, the...
Mayor Suarez: Is that the kinds of things that were considered when you made
that analysis?
Mr. Odio: Yes, and also the selection committee and I think that we, when you
award, it will appear on the contract that they will have to have bonds,
guaranteed monies up front to assure us that what they are saying they will do
will be there available to us, including the...
Mayor Suarez: Where you looking to bonds or were you looking to financial
statements to make that determination, up to now?
Mr. Odio: No, we are looking to bonds. We are looking to some kind of a bond
system as we worked out with Mr. Dunn the first time around where we knew that
the capital improvement monies would be there and drawn just for that and in
agreement with the City Manager's office as to what they were going to do at
that time and that's the same thing I said that we would require.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, the capital improvements was a requirement we had in the
prior RFP or UDP, because...
Mr. Odio: I don't see any...
14
Mayor Suarez: ... we wanted to have assurances that they could in fact make
the capital improvements, but as to minimum guaranteed rental payments you
have so far analyzed financial statements and projections from this particular
project in your determination of ability to make those minimum guaranteed
rental payments.
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: OK. All right, that's...
Mr. Plummer: Well, my problem area, Mr. Mayor, is in some of the proposals,
the minimum guarantee which is stated is not during the construction period,
OK?
Mr. Odio: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: During the construction period, some of them have deviated from
their minimum annual guarantee and I think that's important, because of the
fact...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, let's get those out on the table as they make their
presentations.
Mr. Plummer: Exactly. That's part of it. May I also stand corrected...
Mr. Odio: Wait, I can recite that...
Mayor Suarez: Well, as they make their presentations, I think he wants to
make sure that all of those questions are addressed, but it is kind of unfair
to hold up the other presentations. We'll get answers to all of those as we
go through. Yes, Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: May I...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: May I stand corrected? As low as it might be, we do receive 3
percent of the gross revenues at Chart House. I stand corrected.
Mayor Suarez: And I think, although we got a very complicated answer to a
very complicated question that all of the proposers have some sort of a gross
percentage, percentage of gross revenues payment to the City built into their
formulas, but not necessarily as part of the minimum guaranteed rental, which
makes sense, because that's the minimum guaranteed rental.
Mr. Plummer: Well, in the final analysis, Mr. Mayor, this City has dealt both
ways and every time we've gone into a percentage of net, we wound up in a
Cracker Jack.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, yes, I'm...
Mr. Plummer: My vote in the final analysis, which...
Mayor Suarez: I understand that none of them are based on percentage of net.
They are based on percentage of gross, compared to minimum guaranteed rental
and some•other aspects of the formula.
Mr. Plummer: My vote in the f inal analysis will be only, only on gross, so
put that on the record.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your presentation. Next presenter, please.
Mr. Tomas Carlos: Mr. Mayor, if we have a few minutes to set up before our
time starts, please?
Mayor Suarez: You now have 19 minutes and 30 seconds left, Mr. Carlos.
Mrs. Kennedy% Before you start, Tom, Mr. Manager, I just asked the City
Attorney a question and we don't have a clear answer. On the constructions
timetable, was that part of the RFP?
l Jung
Mt. Odib: We didn't have a timetable, we just set... but, they all came in
with their timetables, in which they would spend their... what they would do
to capital improvements.
Mrs. Kennedy: And what was that, 48 months?
Mr. Odio: Well, and the Dinner Key Marina, for instance, that is coshing up,
they propose to... let me if I can find it here... an 18-month constructions
period from the time of the award. They would have about and 18 month
construction period.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I think the RFP specified that.
Mr. Odio: They would have to spend $1,500,000 up front, upon receipt of
the... and the rest would have to be done within the 48 month period, but they
are proposing, these people 18 months, a boatyard 15 months, and...
Mayor Suarez: I think you are saying some of them have an accelerated
schedule?
Mr. Odio: Some have...
Mayor Suarez: More than required, more accelerated than required? Counselor,
are you ready to begin?
Mrs. Kennedy: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: If not, we are ready to start counting.
Mr. Carlos: Mr. Mayor, I'm ready now.
Mayor Suarez: Proceed please. Madam City Clerk.
Mr. Carlos: For the record, my name is Thomas Carlos, I'm an attorney at law
with practice at 999 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. I reside here in Coconut Grove,
Miami. I represent Dinner Key Marine Associates. I would like to take a
minute, I will not introduce them individually, but like to have those that
are a member of the development team, who are behind us here, please stand.
Included are the principals, Mr. Glen Wright, Jr. Mr. Ahnert, Mr. Hukle, Mr.
Charles Johnson and the rest of the development team made up of the
architects, the civil engineers, the landscape architects and I won't take the
time to introduce them all. Please be seated. Before commencing, I would
like to state that the process that we have been involved in has been both
rigorous and arduous, demanding, and although we have not always concurred
with the conclusions, I would like to state that we have always been treated
fairly. I would like to thank staff, especially Arleen Weintraub, Rafael
Suarez -Rivas, who have at all times conducted themselves in a professional
manner and I do want to thank them for their help and their courtesies. As I
indicated, although we were not selected number one, and maybe that is one of
the issues that we cannot concur with, with respect to the review committee,
we feel that the review committee did identify requirements which were
essential to a successful proposal and those are outlined in page 18 and 19 of
the their report. Sometimes it is more important, not what somebody says that
you are number one, but how they describe what is essential in terms of the
process itself. In their recommendations as to what should be included in the
terms and conditions of the lease to be negotiated by the City, there was a
statement that indicated that there should be a continuous baywalk,
handicapped accessibility requirements, waterfront setback requirements...
(MAYOR ASKS FOR QUIET IN CHAMBERS)
Mr. Carlos: I was listing items as part of the design requirements, the
Selection Committee indicated were essential as part of a successful proposal
and should be required as part of the conditions of the lease term. Continued
baywalk, handicapped accessibility, waterfront setback, view corridor, on -site
parking requirements, and in addition to those, indication that the lease term
be no more than 25 years. In addition to it being a requirement as pointed
out by the Selection Committee, it is also noted these are requirements in the
RFP and I have prepared a chart here which compares the three proposals that
were selected and with respect to each of these items, I have indicated as to
compliance as to the proposals providing these items or not. In all of these
items, we can say uniquely that this proposal, that Dinner Key Marina
16 June 22, 190
0 0
Associates complies with each of those requirements, where in the others,
there is an absence of compliance. In addition, the only proposal that had a
25 year lease term was that of Dinner Key Marina Associates. In addition, in
the Manager's report, in his proposed resolution to you, he incorporates those
recommendations and clearly indicates that any successful proposal would have
to include in its lease term those five items. To be frank, we were somewhat
astounded that the Selection Committee and staff even found the other
proposals being responsive. The items that we had mentioned such as a baywalk
is a legal requirement of the Charter - the setback requirements, are Code
requirements, the requirement of handicapped accessibility is clearly demanded
and required, both in Federal, local and State laws and I believe that this
City has adequate experience with Bayfront Park development when it failed to
provide handicapped accessibility, accessible amenities. When we started
this proposal, our singular charge to our development team that it be
responsive and in being responsive, that it would be required to comply with
all of the applicable charter and code requirements. There is no escaping the
requirements of the RFP, the mandates of the Review Committee and the mandates
of the Manager. We state to you and we stand before you and uniquely
prepared, in all respects, to comply with each and every one of those
requirements and not as a modification to our plan.
Mrs. Kennedy: Tom, will you go in...
Mr. De Yurre: Thank you for your presentation.
Mrs. Kennedy: Will you go into the description of the view corridor?
- Mr. Carlos: Yes, I'm going to, as part of the evaluation process...
Mayor Suarez: Talking about view corridors, you kind of destroyed our view
corridor from the cameras up there with your...
Mr. Plummer: That's good.
Mayor Suarez: Which, in the case of some Commissioners, would probably be a
great idea.
Mr. Carlos: One of the six criteria by which the proposals were evaluated
were overall design... The proposal of Dinner Key Marina Associates, first
and foremost, address the development objective which was a full service
marina while providing additional enhancement of public access. Let me first
state that with respect to our project, we entirely demolish and remove all
structures from the existing facility and start anew. We create a 299 boat
dry rack storage facility. We provide a separate and distinct repair facility
in this area here and our marine related stores, ship's store, bait and
tackle, etcetera, of 7,500 square feet, is in this area here where the
reception area for customers in arriving. We have a snack bar in this area,
it's not a restaurant, it's not enclosed. It is basically an open snack bar
for refreshment for those who are using the public areas. In addition to
that, in our proposal, we are committed restoring or repairing the - or
reconstructing the sea wall and we're committed to restoring and renovating
the 56 wet slips that are there and in our proposal, which is unique from all
of the others, we are committed to an additional 43 wet slips. But because
our engineers, in taking soundings in the water, found that those additional
wet slips would require dredging and filling and that since there was an
admonition in the RFP that this was the Biscayne Bay aquatic preserve and that
dredging and filling was not permitted in those areas, we took the precaution
of not including initially those costs in our construction cost breakdown of
some one million dollars. And I will note that later as that has been
indicated as one of the deficiencies or differences in our construction cost
from others. In addition we felt that although it was unlikely to be
permitted within 10 years, our experience at Black Point, Chapman Field, Grove
Isle, indicates a history of permitting that's only become more difficult in
recent years with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act being enforced. In
terms of any other amenities, as I indicated, the stack, the storage area, the
retail, the repair and the wet slips and I think the Manager's report
indicates that all of the three proposers that were recommended, they all
satisfy the requirement of a full service boatyard. That which distinguishes,
I believe our proposal1 and the principle, the overriding principle that we
were governed by was that that which was not absolutely necessary as a
boatyard facility, as a marina facility, that we would rededicate that
17
June
22,
1989
property to the public use. We feel that we've done that with respect to
public accessibility and certain amenities. We're the only proposal that has
a dedicated promenade from Bayshore to the bayfront that is not compromised by
commercial facilities or a parking lot or other activities that would
interfere with the public feeling... an invitation to the public to come this
particular area. In addition, this promenade legally qualifies as a view
corridor from Bayshore to the bay. Our proposal is the only proposal that was
found by the selection committee, by staff and by the Manager to qualify as a
legal view corridor. In addition to the promenade, we have a bay walk that
extends from the north, along the shoreline - and it's important that we
indicate, along the shoreline - an uninterrupted as a result of crossing a
bridge over the launch area and which is, in addition to being uninterrupted
is handicapped accessible at all times. That the ramp slopes, etcetera, meet
all of the handicapped requirements of the City's code. And at the same time,
the manner in which we have provided for this baywalk and the segregation of
the baywalk from the intensive areas of the boatyard that we've been able to
accommodate establishing public access to the waterfront and to this activity
center without, in any way, compromising the security or safety of the
boatyard facilities. We think that these are substantial enhancements and
that your development objectives, that it would be wrong to consider that you
only asked for a full service boatyard. We feel the Manager is correct. We
feel we've done a superb job with respect to those amenities and we don't
think that we fall second to anybody with respect to the full service boatyard
facilities. But I think you will find that our proposal is most unique with
respect to these public amenities that we've provided. In fact, in this area,
we have scrupulously followed the baywalk guidelines which are part of your
code and which are attached as an exhibit to the proposal and we have
provided, as in this area, you can see the characteristics that the walk is
uncompromised by any commercial shops, by any other parking areas or security
areas needed for a boatyard. This is the promenade and this is the baywalk
itself and I think that if ,you follow the master plan for Dinner Key, this is
essentially the missing link that has the most egregious lack of access is
behind Merrill -Stevens and Grove Key Marina and this is your opportunity to
make that commitment that there will be public access and at the same time,
provide a full service boatyard. I indicated to you with respect to the
capital improvements, when the capital improvements was mentioned we
indicate - it was indicated that we were three million dollars. Actually, our
additional wet slips and should they be permittable, we are prepared to fund
them and construct them is an additional one million dollars. In our
proposal, we committed to the renovation of the sea wall and that is a mandate
of the RFP and the City Attorney's office has indicated that that cost is
appropriately included within the cost construction and if those three - two
items...
Mr. Dawkins: Mister...
Mr. Carlos: ... are included, our cost, construction cost...
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor - I mean, Mr. Manager - pardon me, Carlos. Mr.
Manager, Mr. Carlos is saying that their proposal spells out that they are
committed to the seawall and according to the synopsis that you gave me, the
last line reads, "...Total cost of capital improvements estimated at three
million dollars, cost of mandated repairs or replacement of seawall not
included in proposed capital improvement." Now who's correct now?
Mr. Odio: He did not include the seawall in his capital improvement projects.
Mr. Carlos: We indicated the commitment to construct the seawall in our
construction cost breakdown. We inadvertently omitted the cost of the seawall
of three hundred fifty thousand. We spoke, with respect to that, based on the
fact that it was a requirement of the RFP that we did actually commit to
making that repair. It was appropriate to include that as part of our total
overall cost. And that is our commitment.
Mr. Plummer: Is that beyond the three?
Mr. Carlos: Yes, the total would be at this point, one million for the
additional wet slips as is comparable to the others.
Mr. Plummer: Huh?
18
June
22,
1989
Mr. Carlos: Three hundred and fifth thousand for the seawall for a t6ta1 bf
abut faillion, two hundred ninety -sic thousand.
Mr. fldlb: Yes, he can say he made a mistake but it's not part of his proposal
at of this moment.
Mr. Carlos: But the cortnitment to construct the seawall and thake those
renovations is a part of our proposal and is clearly stated there.
Mr. Mummer: Well, let me ask this question. Mr. Manager, I would aboutne, if
in the RFP it stated you had to comply, that was an automatic given that if
you didn't comply, you really weren't a bidder. I mean, that's whether you
spell it out or you didn't...
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: They have.
Mr: Plummer: ... if you said that they've got to have the handicap, they've
got to have the view corridor, they've got to have the parking, that's a
given. If they don't provide that and they don't intend to, then, to me,
they're not a bidder.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Correct, Commissioner. As to the seawall, they are
acknowledging a clerical error where they left that amount, but since they
did, otherwise, commit to the seawall, we are under the...
Mr. Dawkins: Commit where?
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: In their...
Mr. Dawkins: Verbally? To you?
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: No... -
Mr. Dawkins: OK, was it written to you? -
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: In the RFP...
Mrs. Yl.n..•dy: Was it part of the RFP?
Mr. 1 awkins: No, no, no, no. OK, wait a minute. I'm not - I see, I know
what +ihe RFP said, OK? I want to know how did they respond to the RFP, that's
all.
Mr. Cares: We committed in the RFP, in writing...
Mr. Dawkins: All right, show it - all right, hold it - show it to me where he
committed to the seawall. That's all right, I'll see it after lunch. Go
ahead. Go ahead. I mean, and then if...
Mr. Carlos: OK. There are numerous references in terms...
Mr. Dawkins: No, then if they lied, then I'll take it out on them, Carlos, it
aint' no problem. Go ahead.
Mr. Carlos: One of the other criteria deals with the experience of the
proposer and the capability of the development team. I'm pleased to note that
in the Manager's synopsis and in order to - in an abundance of time — save
some time, we are ranked excellent in both of those categories. There is a
substantial experience demonstrated in the development, operations of marinas,
dry rack storage facilities, boatyard repair and recreational facilities among
the principal. Without going through the exhaustive list, the principals have
developed the Thunderboat Marina in Ft. Lauderdale, a 600-boat dry rack
storage facility, one hundred wet slips there, and a full service marina
there. In addition, they have been recently competitively awarded the =
development and operation of the Black Point Marina by Dade County which is a
300-boat dry rack storage facility. Because of the concerns expressed by
several Commissioners with respect to Black minority participation and ;..
minority participation in general, first of all the development team here that
was shown in our proposal, Mr. Arnard, Mr. Huckel, Mr, Glenn Rice, Sr., Mr.'
Glenn Rice, Jr. We're a team that has been in place not just for this
19 JU062; 19
proposal but they have represented a continuum of management, both a
Thunderboat and at Black Point and intend to be involved in marina and boating
matters into the future. Taking to heart the admonitions of several
Commissioners with respect to Black minority participation, we have
effectively sought out Slack minority participation. We have been involved
with a Black minority civil engineering firm, Williams, Russell & Johnson. We
discussed it with Mr. Charles Johnson and his partner, Pelham Russell, and
they have agreed and I'm able to announce that they will be an equal one -fifth
partner in Dinner Key Marina Associates. They, subject, of course, to your
approval and instructions to the City Manager to include them as part of our
proposal.
Mr. Dawkins: They will be a 30-year part of this agreement. Whatever this
program makes in 30 years, they will receive one -fifth of the total profits.
Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Carlos: I'm telling you that they will make an equal con...
Mr. Dawkins: All right, now, let me rephrase this. This group that you just
named, in the end of 30 years, will receive one -fifth of the total profits
from this project. Yes or no? -
Mr. Carlos: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you, that's all.
Mr. Carlos: They will also be responsible for....
Mrs. Kennedy: Twenty-five, for the record isn't it 25 years?
Mr. Carlos: Yes, that's what I was going to correct. We're proposing a 25-
year lease. The Manager's proposing that he - that you execute a lease not to
exceed 25 years. Our relationship with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Williams may
extend because of projects that this entity is involved in way beyond that
period of time. What I would like to point out that they - we have a $200,000
equity capital contribution that's been made by the other four. They have
made their $50,000 equity capital contribution. They are an equal partner.
They are equal with respect to all the requirements of capital contributions.
They are equally responsible for all financial obligations. They receive
profits and they are also responsible for losses. They will not only have a
voice in the management but they will assume 100 percent responsibility as
civil engineers to supervise the construction phases and the implementation of
the amenities in the boatyard. We felt that we had experience with Williams,
Russell, Johnson in that they had been a part of our development team at Black
Point and we're happy to have them and we feel privileged that they are going
to participate with us as full equity partners. With respect to our financial
capability, I would like to point out...
Mr. De Yurre: Tom, do you have any Cubans here? Any Hispanics?
Mr. Carlos: Do I have any Cubans or Hispanics? Yo soy aplatanado. No soy
suficiente? You want me to get a Greek for you too, huh?
Mr. De Yurre; No, it's not what I want. I just want to know where - what you
guys are all about.
Mr. Carlos: When we started the RFP, we addressed the issue of minority
participation and committed to the City's guidelines of 51 percent
participation in our employment and in our contracting. We didn't really set
out to say who was going to be what or what his ethnic ability was, but as a -
result, the people that we knew and had worked with... _
Mr. Dawkins: Give him some more - you need some more time because we cut you
off. Start his time back, give him three more minutes but before that, Mr.
Mayor, I need special privilege to cut him off. Mr. Brown, come to the mikeii
please. State your name, sir.
Mr. Eddy Brown: Eddy Brown.
Mr. Dawkins: Your occupation.
Mr. Brown: I'm a professional football player, Cincinnati Bengale;
20 .Tuns 22, 96
17A
Mr. Dawkins: In the event that someone had come
could buy into this marina for X dollars, being
investment, would you have been able, sir, or
your share of the initial investment to buy into
Mr. Brown: Yes, I would.
11
to you with proposal that you
a young man and it's a 30-year
been willing to come up with
this project?
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you. That's all. See, now here is a man with money
available. After I raise hell, they go find another man with money available
and I did that for one reason. I want all of you out there to understand that
we do have qualified blacks with money, who are willing to do this and when
you come up here with these minority and rent -a -Black -folks, it irritates me.
When I've got qualified people out here who are ready, willing and able to pay
their freight. Thank you. Now, give him his time back. Thank you.
Mr. Carlos: Commissioner Dawkins, I don't know what prompted Mr. Eddy Brown
being called although I think you're aware that we have been negotiating with
Mr. Brown, but one of the requirements, and I understand it's probably been
satisfied, is that you're in and I think it was something you said to me.
Their money has to be like everybody else's money and we have received the
check from Williams, Russell, Johnson and...
Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute, Carlos, you are missing the point.
Mr. Carlos: No, no, I'm...
Mr. Dawkins: I have nothing to do with this. I said that he could have been
found, identified in time for all the requirements to have been met. Not go
find him after you get your package put together and say, hey, I've found one.
Come here, boy. Sign here on the line and we're going to run with it. That's
all I'm saying. OK? He was there the first day the RFP went out. Mr. Brown
was available, this gentleman was available, OK? But nobody - everybody come
in with these shabby, shimmy, shammy outfits and say, hey, look, we made it
and then when this Commission say, hey, no, we will not accept that, then
rightfully so, everybody say, hey, well what do we have to do to adjust, you
know, to come in and meet what your requirements and I respect you for doing
that. But I'm just saying, this shouldn't have been necessary, that's all I'm
saying.
Mr. Carlos: Miller, I understand.
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Carlos: And it takes time to learn and we hope that we've been responsive
and we hope that we have chosen on the basis of merit and on the basis of
compliance with the same requirements for every principal of our corporation.
When those requirements are met, I believe that we will be able to
successfully say that Mr. Brown will also be presented for Commission approval
as is the requirement with respect to change of ownership.
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, I'm sure everybody else will go and submit him with their
proposal now. Now that you know he's available and with money. Have no
problem with...
Mr. Plummer: I feel sorry for Mr. Brown now that he's said on the microphone
he's got money. He'll have 400 people calling him this afternoon, all wanting
a piece of it. If you give ten cents to Joe Robbie, you're out.
Mr. Carlos: With respect to financial capability, the Manager rates all of
the proposals good. I think we're better than good. We have a $200,000
equity up there, that's already been put up. In addition to that, the
financial net worth of our principals, Arthur Andersen indicates, is more than
sufficient to secure the necessary financing for the capital improvements that
we've proposed. With respect to the other two proposers, Arthur Andersen
indicates that the absence of financial information and the submission of
financial statements makes it impossible foe- them to determine whether there
is sufficient financial capability or commitment on the part of those other
three proposals. One of their concerns also was in the stability of the
proposer that in the situation of Dinner Key Boatyard that the general
partner, upon successfully securing a lease and a CO being issued, was bought
out by the limited partner and the - for $100,000. This again, indicated that
21 .Tune 22, 1989
0 0
there was a lack of financial stability in that situation. In the case of
Merrill -Stevens, the situation is one in which 50 percent of the investment
from limited partners has not really been established. They're just an
indication on the part of individuals that they would like to, but there are
no...
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Carlos, would you wrap up, please?
Mr. Carlos: I would like also with respect to financial return to point out
and that you should consider, that when somebody is lacking 56 parking spaces
such as Dinner Key Boatyard, where are those parking spaces going to come from
when you require them to comply with the parking? That's about 40 percent of
their actual boatyard area. If they lose 40 percent of the revenue from their
boat repair area due to having to require with the absence of required parking
on site, we feel that that is an additional matter that is not taken into
consideration in the review process.
Mayor Suarez: I have a couple of questions. Very briefly, are you saying
that your proposal is the only one to meet with - to meet the requirements of
our master plan for a baywalk or the one that meets it the best? I'm very
interested in who meets that master plan.
Mr. Carlos: In terms of the baywalk in this area, we comply with the legal
requirements. We have said in our indication here that the Manager found the
Dinner Key Boatyard people also had a baywalk that was continuous. However,
the selection committee indicated that they had problems with it in view of
the fact that their baywalk was merely a walk around this launch area where
boats are being launched at the rate of maybe one every five minutes, one
every ten minutes. And that that did not constitute an uninterrupted
continuous baywalk that was handicapped accessible. In any event, if they are
deemed to have a continuous baywalk, we find that the solution in terms of the
intermixing between the boatyard activities and the pedestrian access to be
somewhat hazardous in the boatyard case whereas in our case, we resolved it in
the fashion of using...
Mayor Suarez: That is a very creative design that you have there and a very
attractive design. Who is the designer, have you already told us?
Mr. Carlos: No, I haven't and I would like to. It's Robin Boscoe and Robin
is also the designer on the Monty Trainer's Marketplace just to the north of
here.
Mayor Suarez: And, of course, the view corridor, I've yet to hear the other
two presentations rec of the two other bidders recommended but that is a very
impressive way of solving the layout problems of this whole project, I have to
tell you that.
Mr. Carlos: Well, I compliment and I think it's been the hallmark of our
proposal that the design has been - that has driven us to a point of
recognition that it is one of the best, if not the best. With respect to
return, we think that you ought to take into account the value of public
space. Yes, we could have...
Mayor Suarez: Well, we're going to limit you to questions from the
Commissioners and go on to the next presenter after that. If any...
Mr. Plummer: The only question I have, Mr. Mayor...
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: ... as we know, I think or we all know, with one of the
companies we know who will be the operator of the heavy boatyard kind of a
situation. You've indicated a company called Cable...
Mr. Carlos: Marine.
Mr. Plummer: Cable Marine. I guess my question there is, what guarantee do I
have that this Cable Marine, who is your heavy boat repair, will be there in 3
years or in 5 years?
Mr. Carlos: Well, I think there's two factors. One, although we have brought
in Cable Marine to operate the repair facility, we, ourselves, have
22 June 22, 1969
0
substantial marine repair facility experience and are capable of operating the
marine repair facility. On the other hand, we felt that Cable Marine, which
operates three facilities in Broward and who laid out this particular marine
structure and what have you, has a requirement which calls for a building
which will handle two boats inside, enclosed for painting and for other things
they...
Mr. Plummer: That's not my question. My question is, what assurances can you
give me? Are they making an investment?
Mr. Carlos: They are making an investment, they are making an investment in
addition to our investment of building the buildings of $750,000 in terms of
repair equipment, improvements at that repair facility.
Mr. Plummer: Of their own money?
Mr. Carlos: Of their own money.
Mrs. Kennedy: Could you tell us exactly where were you ranked by Arthur
Andersen as far as capital expenditures and present money value?
Mr. Carlos: Well, I believe, with respect to capital expenditures, we may
have been the lowest in terms of ranking. On the other hand, I would like to
point out that with respect to capital expenditures, our capital expenditures
were hard cost. We are the general contractor. We do the work ourselves. We
do our own self financing, we don't go out and pay money for brokerage fees
and loan fees and whatever have you. In this particular instance, Arthur
Andersen indicates that those are approximately a one million dollar item in
the other proposal. We do not include that burden in our operation. It just
doesn't exist in the manner in which we operate. What was the - I'm sorry -
the other, the return?
Mrs. Kennedy: The return to the City.
Mr, Odio: They were ranked number five.
Mr. Plummer: You mean as far as the upfront investment.
Mr. Carlos: No... I think, I think we were, I thought we were number four.
Mrs. Kennedy: Present money value and lease payments.
Mr. Carlos: Present money value and lease payments, I believe we were fourth]
however, at the same time, we were the only ones with a 25 year lease where
the others that were ranked ahead of us had longer term lease with the
exception of the proposal that was not found financially sound...
Mr. Odio: To clarify that, if I may,
was based on a ten year period.
Mr. Carlos: Where'd it go?
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask this question.
Mr. Carlos: The charts.
these were ranked fourth, it
Mr. Plummer: If; in fact, we accept their adjusted total of is it five
million dollars for round numbers? Where would that have ranked them?
INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mr. Plummer: Had they put into their proposal that which they're showing here
on this chart of a million dollars for the wet slips...
Mayor Suarez: Correction, the adjusted total would be 4.3 million. Still
would be in third place in terms of that, I think.
Mr. Plummer: ... the adjusted total - OK, a 4.3.
them in the ranking?
Mr. Odio: Number five.
23
Ire. Remedy: OK.
Mr. 'Carlos: Did you get an answer?
Mr. Dawkins: The gentleman from Arthur Andersen again, please.
Mr. Carlos: Let me, while he's...
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, hey, no, we got it, we got it...
Mr. Carlos: Oh, OK.
Mr. Dawkins: it's almost 12:00 o'clock. We got to get out of here.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins.
Mr. Dawkins: Did you evalu... Well, what would their guarantee, what portion
of it would come from the sales of food?
Mr. Carlos: Our food represents 2.5 percent of our revenue stream. Two point
five percent.
Mr. Odio: If I remember correct, it was about a hundred thousand a year or so
of the revenue, wasn't it?
Mr. Carlos: I think it came...
Mr. Odio: Just trying to go by memory, that...
Mr. Bradley: Restaurant revenues start at thirty-seven five in the first year _
and go to $58,000 in year ten.
Mr.
Carlos:
Right.
Mr.
Bradley:
In that...
Mr.
Carlos:
That is our...
Mr.
Dawkins:
And what percentage of that would be for foods, sales?
Mr.
Bradley:
That is food.
Mr.
Carlos;
All.
_
Mr.
Bradley:
That is all the restaurant revenues.
r
Mr.
Plummer:
Food and beverage.
Mr.
Bradley:
Right.
Mr.
Carlos:
Right. That's just a snack bar. We have an open kiosk,
I think
we
show it there and it's not a restaurant where you make a reservation
like
the
Chart House.
We just have, where people would come...
Mr.
Plummer:
Excuse me, didn't we make it very clear, Mr. Manager,
I assume
we
did in the
RFP, that this was not a restaurant that was going to be
open to -
the
public, to the general public, but an accessory to the boatyard?
I think
I made
that on
the record as I recall.
Mr.
Dawkins:
And I said none on the record.
Mr.
Plummer:
First and foremost, we're here to operate a full
service,
boatyard.
Mr.
Odio: I
think we'd better clarify that.
y_
Mr.
Plummer;
The ship's store was an accessory and the restaurant.
Mr.
Odio: It
says clear, the RFP says clear, "Marine related retail space
may
include,
but
not be limited to such activities as a ship's store, 'makine
paz-t:
shop, marina electronics shop, yacht brokerage, boat dealers,
fishing
supplies,
sail maker, charter service, marine apparel, rental lockers stQ
u$
je
22; 19 Ot>;
solely for boating and marine uses, and up to 3,000 square feet of food and
beverage gales."
Mr. Plummer: Three thousand feet...
Mr. Odio: And up to...
Mr. Plummer: ... does preclude a liquor license.
Mr. Odio: It precludes a liquor license. And it was done with that
intention.
Mayor Suarez: Anything further, Commissioners, before we go on to the heat
presentation?
Mr. Dawkins: He has one statement he want to wrap it up with. -
Mr. Plummer: I guess, the only question, did all of the proposals come in
under the 3,000 feet?
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Mr, Plummer: OK.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Mayor and then, Tom, you can make a wrap...
Mr. De Yurre: I just want to reiterate my prior question about the employees
over at Merrill -Stevens. Your group be willing to give them a crack at being
employed at your business?
Mr. Carlos: I think we have no problem with experienced employees and they
would be chosen in as open and competitive a process as any other people. I
don't think we have any particular unique commitment to the employees of
Merrill -Stevens, to the extent that they have qualified people there, we'd be
happy to entertain their...
Mr. De Yurre: What I'm saying is, if you take a qualified individual from
Merrill -Stevens and you take one from Wyoming, you know, I want to have
priority, a commitment of priority, to Merrill -Stevens - all things being
equal - I want to protect these individuals as much as possible should
Merrill -Stevens not be chosen. That's what I'm talking about.
Mr. Carlos: Let me say that we would prefer that the people from Miami here,
not that we have anything against people from Wyoming, but I think that they
would know our boating public and our boating needs are...
Mr. De Yurre: There aren't too many boats in Wyoming, needless to be said.
Mr. Dawkins: I think all the Commission is saying is that mechanics being
mechanics and its just a mechanic - and a mechanic being needed and we got X
number of mechanic laid off at Eastern Airlines, he would certainly hope that
some local people be considered, that's all he's saying.
Mr. Carlos: In fact, we'll be looking for them.
Mayor Suarez: OK, Commissioner Kennedy, last question.
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, last question. When do the lease payments to the City
begin? When the lease is signed or when construction is completed?
Mr. Carlos: I believe that our lease payment, guaranteed payment, is in the
first year $360,000. But it starts from the beginning...
Mrs. Kennedy: But when does it start?
Mr. Odio: The rental payment during the 18 month period, construction period,
to be made on a pro rate basis and needs to be negotiated according to their
proposal.
Mr. Carlos: My understanding was that it was three -sixty, as of the fire
year, but you're indicating that you have something indicating that weld
prorate on the first year during construction period?
J4
3
25 June
mnf
0 0
Mt. Odio: During construction period.
Mrs. Kennedy: When is the first year? When the lease is signed or *hen
construction is completed?
Mr. Odio: As we understand it, if he should get the award, during the
construction period, they propose a rental payment which will last 18 months
prorated and it needs to be negotiated. They left it open to be negotiated:
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mr. Carlos: In a previous presentation, when we were asked that question,
would we accept payment as of the first year, the full guaranteed amount, our
principals indicated yes and, in essence, the negotiations were closed before
we ever got to the Manager that there would be a full $360,000 payment
commencing the first year including the year of construction.
Mrs. Kennedy: Thank you. So when the lease is signed, I guess, is the
answer.
Mayor Suarez: OK, next presenter, please. Which is next, Mr. Manager? Mr.
Manager, who is the next presenter?
Mr. Odio: Merrill -Stevens.
Mayor Suarez: Merrill -Stevens.
Mr. Plummer: Why don't you take five minutes and let them set up?
Mayor Suarez: Three minute recess while we get them set up.
Mr. Plummer: Is that a latin three minutes?
THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT
10:52 A.M. AND RECONVENED AT 10:57 A.M., WITH ALL
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT
EXCEPT VICE MAYOR DE YURRE AND COMMISSIONERS DAWKINS
AND KENNEDY.
Mayor Suarez: Merrill -Stevens ready to proceed? All the equipment ready,
state of the art equipment? Who's making the presentation? OK, proceed Mr.
Sechen. Start counting, Madam City Clerk.
Robert Sechen, Esq.: Mr. Mayor, Robert M. Sechen, from Blackwell Walker
Fascell and Hoehl, One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Miami. One behalf of the number one
ranked proposer selected by a clear majority of your selection committee, we
present the Merrill -Stevens Marine Center at Dinner Key.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Vice Mayor De Yurre entered the meeting at
10:58 a.m. Commissioner Kennedy entered the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
and Commissioner Dawkins entered the meeting at 11:01 a.m.
AT
THIS POINT,
A VIDEO PRESENTATION IS MADE
BY THE MERRILL-STEVENS APPLICANTS,—
Mr.
Plummer:
Are we supposed to applaud?
Mr.
Dawkins:
No, no...
-
Mr.
Plummer:
Popcorn and peanuts.
Mr.
Dawkins:
No, but I'd just like to know
who did that because I'm going to
hire them to
help me with my reelection
program, They did a greatjob.
Whomever it is, you did a great job. Great
job.
26
,Tune 2:, �909_
Mr. Plummer: You'd better wait and see if Merrill -Stevens wins.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, if they don't win, he'll work twice as hard on my
reelection campaign.
Mayor Suarez- Mr. Candela.
Mr. Eladio Candela: My name is Eladio Candela and I'm the president of
Spillis, Candela and Partners, Architects, Engineers and Planners. Over the
last 63 years, our firm has been involved in this community and has been
involved in some of the most significant architectural engineering projects
here. And we're very proud of it. We're very proud of having produced award
winning design projects for the City of Miami specifically. However, we have
never been involved as a partner. This is the first time in the history of
our firm that we come in and join a client and become a partner. And we're
doing this for the first time, number one, because we have always, over the
years, have had tremendous respect for the Merrill -Stevens group. And number
two, because we fully believe in this project, in the people that make the
Merrill -Stevens group and in the manner in which this project has been
conceived. Mr. Post.
Bud Post, Esq.: My name is Bud Post, I'm the Post in Post Buckley Schuh and
Jurnigen. The reason that I'm here and the reason that our firm has a
particular and special interest in this project is because we value very
highly and are keenly aware of the historical precedence that exist around
this area. Dinner Key and Coconut Grove and Miami go back a long way and I
was delighted, in looking at that film, to see those clipper ships landing
because when I was 12-year old Boy Scout in 1936, me and Bob Schuh were right
out here on this deck on a field trip and I watched those clippers land and I
have never forgotten it. And I am hopeful that 50 years from now, my two
little granddaughters who are now two and three, I hope that they will be able
to go out there and say that, Grandpa was here a hundred years ago and watched
the clipper ships land. But, to conclude my remarks, we are in the same
position, , that Post Buckley, in the past, has always had a policy
of never participating in clients projects. In a lot of cases, we did it out
of self defense because we figured maybe they wouldn't be around very long but
in this case, we think that the City of Miami is going to be here for a long
time. We think that Merrill -Stevens is clear the leader in the marine
industry and the repair yard business. We've known them a long time and
respected them, respected the team that they have put together and we'd be
very pleased to be part of it if you all should choose them for this project.
Thank you.
Mr. Sechen: Private employees in this City are an asset. Merrill -Stevens
Marine Center at Dinner Key intends to employ more people and employ them
continuously than any other of the proposers. The reason why? We're going to
do substantially more services. We are going to provide to the City of Miami
eight percent of the gross revenue or a minimum of $451,000, including taxes.
We are the highest minimum guarantee of the three which were recommended
alphabetically by your Manager in terms of the minimum guarantee. We're the
only ones that said to the City that we will agree to negotiate the minimum
guarantee on a five year basis and have that go upward at the beginning. You
ask that we provide equity and debt capital adequate for the project.
Merrill -Stevens provides 3.6 million dollars along with its other partner, of
equity. The other partners - the other proposals that you've seen fall far
short. You've asked that we use a minimum of 1.5 million in capital
improvements on the project. Merrill -Stevens will renovate and upgrade the
existing marina facilities including the replacement of the seawall and spend
over twelve million dollars in capital improvements on the City's property.
The next closest is a mere six million dollars. We think that the plan that's
put to you on behalf of the Merrill -Stevens Marine Center, is financially the
most viable, from the financially most viable entities and we're happy for
your consideration. Fred.
_ Mr. Fred Kirkland: My name is Fred Kirkland. I'm the president of Merrill -
Stevens Drydock Company. In 1960 I came to work for the Merrill family and
oddly enough, it was right here at Merrill -Stevens Dinner Key. I've been
given the unique opportunity to learn the yacht repair business and the
yachting business from the ground up in the ensuing 29 years. I might add,
— I've had the real pleasure of learning this business from the pros because,
yes, in 1960 Merrill -Stevens was already a very highly respected firm, not
27 June 22, 1969
0
only nationally, but internationally. You have seen a brief presentation that
highlights what is, in effect, three months of hard diligent work by a highly
trained professional staff that I pride myself to be associated with.
Naturally, in 20 minutes, we can just skim the highlights. I hope you had an
opportunity to review the full proposal that was submitted to each and every
one of you because if you do, you will see in that full proposal, that this is
the one firm that has done its homework. Coopers & Lybrand has closely
analyzed the feasibility of our plan. Believe me, it has to be that way to
arrange the financing on a project of this dimension. The firm of Spillis,
Candela; Post Buckley Schuh and Jernigan speak for themselves. They're highly
respected professionals in this field and almost assuredly guarantee success.
I pride myself to be a part of this team that's puts together for this
purposes. Noticing the brevity in the time and in closing, I would just like
to comment and respectfully submit that I believe this commission can make a
decision today that, in my opinion, is pretty clear. If you want a firm, if
you want a company that has guaranteed the highest number of dollars to the
City of Miami, that firm can only be Merrill -Stevens Marine Center at Dinner
Key. If you want a firm that has guaranteed the most minority interest from
an equitable standpoint, that firm can only be Merrill -Stevens Dinner Key. If
you want a firm that is committed to this project from the heart of the marine
industry, it has to be Merrill -Stevens and finally, let me say, that the City
of Miami has a company already established with an international reputation as
far as a reputation. This commission today has an opportunity of joining with
_ that firm to make a dynamic attractive and exciting center happen. One that
will make Dinner Key in the City of Miami a must stop location in yachting in
South Florida. I respectfully request your support for our proposal. Thank
you.
Mr. Jabbo Merrill: My name is Jabbo Merrill, I'm chairman of the board of
Merrill -Stevens Drydock Company and I see our time has run out and I just want
to think you gentlemen - and lady - for listening to us today. I thank we
have the best proposal and I can assure you that our group, all of which
you've heard from, with the exception of Tony Marino of the Firepack and Billy
Thompson of the Heat, they're all dedicated people. They want to do what's
right first of all, to you Commissioners and to the City of Miami. But they
also want to do what is right for the citizens of this community and they all
want to pay their debt and they can so by showing their support and helping us
all have the finest marina in the world here at Dinner Key. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins. Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: My immediate question is, because it's the first time I've seen
twelve million dollar figure bandied, would you kind of break down for me,
what is the twelve million dollars?
Mr. Dawkins: And how many years you're going to spend it in? That was one of
my questions, J. L.
Mr. Sechen: The use of funds, relative to the 12 million, are 9.4 million in
construction cost. Commissioner Plummer, you've asked what are you going to
do over the next 10 years to keep up the property? That's 1.3 million in
additional capital improvements over the first ten years, leasing years, and
that goes on for the entire term of the lease. That's in our financial
projections that you've been given. Their existing equipment has been valued
at 1.15 million dollars and tenant improvements of $736,000. That money will
come from limit...
Mr. Plummer: No, no, no...
Mr.
Sechen:
OK.
Mr.
Plummer:
...
I'm not
interested where it comes from.
Mr.
Sechen:
OK.
Mr.
Plummer:
I've got to
go back now and ask on the 9.4.
Can you give me an
idea,
we know that
you're
going to be doing a restaurant,
we know you#re going
to
be doing,
your
proposal
shows a museum...
Mr.
Dawkins:
The
baywalk.
26
,dune 22, 1909
Mt. Plummer. A baywalk. In other words, are those the items that you're
estimating to be the 9.4? No, they're showing 9.4.
Mr. Sechen: It's 8.8 plus capital soft costs, things like that. I don't
disagree. The hard capital costs.
Mr. Plummer: We'll play the lottery and get the difference.
Mr. Dawkins: You earning your money, man, you know that?
Mr. Sechen: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: OK, so in other words, what you're saying is that the hard
number of 9.4 is what you plan on spending as Commissioner Dawkins says, in
the first three years?
Mr. Sechen: First two years.
Mr. Plummer: Two.
Mr. Sechen: Two years.
Mr. Plummer: First two years.
Mr. Sechen: First two years.
Mr. Plummer: And that, here again, I get back to my other point. Does that
include the additional wet slips?
Mr. Sechen: Yes, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: OK, and what is your pro... what do you propose, if for whatever
reason those wet slips cannot be built, not your fault or ours, what happens
to that money dedicated to those wet slips?
Mr. Sechen: The money to replace the existing slips which must be replaced
right away... -
Mr. Plummer: The existing, yes.
Mr. Sechen: ... will certainly be spent. The money which is not utilized for
_ building the newer slips will then go into other capital improvement projects
on the property which will then generate revenue for the City of Miami and, of
course, for the Merrill -Stevens Drydock Marine Center.
Mr. Dawkins: In three years?
Mr. Sechen: Within the three - well, it would depend, Commissioner, as to how
long we find out that we couldn't build those slips. We might find that out
in a year and a half. We really do believe, and we've done a lot of studying,
we've had discussions. Ed Swaycon is one of our environmental engineers, Post
Buckley Schuh and Jernigan, we have already had preliminary discussions with
all the approving agencies. We do believe that we can have the approval but in the event that for some reason, the law changes, something happens that we
find we cannot build, we believe that we can have a new use of that capital
improvement in place probably by the end of two to two and a half years. —
Assuming the time we find out about the...
_ Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, how much money are you designating... I'm sorry,
J. L. -
Mr. Plummer: The other question has to be of the Manager. Mr. Manager, I
asked when they came to visit with me, that a museum is nice but a museum
doesn't produce revenue. And their answer was that in the RFP they were
limited to X number of square feet and they had no other choice, it was space
that was not used for anything else or not revenue producing that if the
latitude was afforded them to put something else in of a revenue producing,
that they would have much preferred to do that. Now, is that a viable
negotiable item?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, if you make that available to everybody also. it you.
don't, then that's being unfair.
i 29 s?,�
Mr. Plummer: The only thing I think here...
Mr. Dawkins: I mean, I'm talking to him.
Mr. Odio: The proposal gave them twenty thousand square feet of retail Opact
to provide marine related retail services. And including a 3,000 square foot
for food. I don't know where we limit them in any way.
Mr. Plummer: How many square feet is the museum?
Mr. Odio: I don't know why they...
Mr, Plummer: Roughly?
Mr. Sechen: I would say about 2,000 square feet of floor space.
Mr. Plummer: OK, the question I'm asking...
Mr. Sechen: I think I can answer you, well... you wanted, Jim.
Mr. Plummer: The question I'm asking, is there latitude, in the negotiation,
when we send a group to you such as this one, that that 2,000 feet could be,
in fact, not a museum, but a revenue producing. Is that negotiable? Is that
possible?
Mr. Odio: It could be but I don't know why you're concerned about that, and I
mean that, because we should be concerned about our minimum payment and the
gross, of course, and a percent.
Mr. Plummer: The minimum payment could go up if they had another 2,000 square
feet of revenue producing. That's why I'm concerned.
Mr. Odio: But, in this particular proposal, they have 52 percent of their
income comes from boat repairs and that's where the money is. I just don't
know what else they could have, but that could be negotiated. That's the
answer.
Mr. Plummer: That was the answer I needed. Thank you. The only other
question that has come up and I don't mean to deal with rumors, but I think we
ought to lay it to rest and the only way to do is ask. That of your limited
partners, in fact there is none of the limited partners - excuse me - I'm
speaking not of the George Knox, whose 4 percent, I'm talking about the list
below that.
Mr. Sechen: George is five, just for the record.
Mr. Plummer: OK, fine.
Mr. Sechen: I didn't want him to get nervous.
Mr. Plummer: George...
Mayor Suarez: As he's quick to point out.
Mr. Plummer: George always told me he was a ten. The question I'm having is,
are those people who you showed on your list, are they definitely committed
with the check in the bank?
Mr. Sechen: Commissioner, we're prohibited, by securities law, to commit
people to projects which aren't in existence at the time. We had our
securities lawyers look at this. We can only get letters of the broadest
interest prior to doing that. But if you look down the list of those names,
these are people who don't even lend their names be used unless they are very
seriously interested in a particular project. We have to be very careful. We
can't sell a speculative project because then we're selling securities in
violation of the securities act of 1933.
Mr. Plummer: All right, so Mr. Manager, then we could, in effect say, subject
to those people being on the dotted line, if they're not, then it's void, OK�
well, I'm just asking which way we can travel,
�}
30 guns
1
� t
0
Mr. Dawkins: OK...
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins.
C
Mr. Dawkins: The total cash investment in the 3 years. How much?
Mr. Sechen: Total spent on capital improvements?
Mr. Dawkins: Total cash money to be spent in 3 years on any and everything.
Mr. Sechen: In three years, it is the 9.4, the one point one - well, the 1.15
is equipment so that wouldn't be cash investment as you could say and then the
10 in improvements. So it would be over 10 million dollars cash. Some of
that would be borrowed funds from...
Mr. Dawkins: Borrowed from where?
Mr. Sechen: From ATICO and InterContinental Banks who are our bankers. We
have a representative of our bank here.
Mr. Dawkins: Then what would the limited partners put in for their cash
investment?
Mr. Sechen: The limited partners would put in 1.8 million dollars. The
remaining 1.8 of two to come up to the three point six million of total
equity, would be in by the general partners, be put in by the general
partners.
Mr. Plummer: That doesn't come up to ten.
Mr. Sechen: OK, no, it comes up to 3.6 million of equity plus then, the loan
funds.
Mr. Dawkins: And you have a letter of commitment from a bank saying that in
the event that you're successful, you have no problem negotiating a 10
million, whatever the loan is.
Mr. Sechen: We have the strongest letter a bank can give and our bankers have
been with us for every single meeting, ATICO Financial and Bill Allen.
Mr. Dawkins: I will rephrase my question. Do you have a letter of intent
saying, if you are successful, we will. Yes or no, sir.
Mr. Sechen: The answer to that is no.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you. Now, if you want to qualify it, go ahead, sir.
Mr. Sechen: OK, thank you. The letter that we have is a strong - once again,
to do things legally it's easy to say, you get a letter from the bank saying,
yes, we've lent you money before and we'll consider this project. Our letter
_ which is, I think a two -page letter from Mr. Bill Allen who is chairman of the
board of ATICO and InterContinental Banks says he knows of the Merrill's,
knows of the reputations, knows of all the parties and would be very pleased
to work out a deal to lend this group of people money.
Mr. Dawkins: OK. My last question. Eighteen percent is owned by George,
Tony and who else?
Mr. Sechen: You know, it was very interesting you asked one of the football
players to come up here. Well, you asked Mr. Brown to come up here because he
was available, we all read about him in the newspapers and it's nice to see
him here at a City Commission meeting. Well, we approached Billy Thompson,
one of the members of the Miami Heat. He just signed a new two-year contract
with the Heat, he's going to be around this town for a while. He already owns
businesses. We thought he represented the new Miami, some of the new minority _
Miami, faces that you haven't seen, people who have the financial resources to
come in projects and the expertise and we're very proud to have him. -
Unfortunately, he's not here today, he's finishing up his degree in finance
and he couldn't get away because of classes.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, so now, you have four percent George Knox...
31
lilt. fianhsnt Five percent. You guys keep trying to take money away frim t:lil:.
Mr, baWkinst I have to go by ghat I see. All right, I see hete...
Mr. gecheit: Fire percent, George Knox.
Mr. bawkinst Hold it, now. In a minute, I see, because I don't Vint you to
think I can't read. It says here, 18 percent minority. Nov, explain to me,.,
Mr. Sechen: OK.
Mr. Dawkins ... the people who make up the 8 now, if George got fine, it#&
thirteen more.
Mr. Sechen: OK, George - that's correct - another 5 percent
Thompson...
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Sechen: ... for a total. of 10 percent black.
Mr. Dawkins: Right.
Mr. Sechen: Four percent...
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no. Not see, no, no, no.
Mr. Sechen: OK.
Mr. Dawkins: See, that's how I stay in trouble with the Miami Herald. Don't
tell me about blacks, tell me about the minority. OK?
Mr. Sechen: Right. I'm sorry, Commissioner.
Mr. Dawkins: I'll say black, you just give me the minority.
Mr. Sechen: OK.
Mrs. Kennedy: If they didn't, he would bring it up.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, now...
Mr. Sechen: OK. Five percent, George Knox...
Mr. Dawkins: Right.
Mr. Sechen: Five percent, Billy Thompson.
Mr. Dawkins: Right.
Mr. Sechen: Four percent Fire Pack.
Mr. Dawkins: That's fourteen and four percent somebody else.
Mr. Sechen: Four percent, Spillis Candela. In addition, Commissioner.'..
Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute now. Where is Spillis Candela? Yes, you're it
minority.
Mr. Sechen: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: A rich minority, go ahead. All right? Now, now what happen..,-'
i z
Mr. Sechen: Commissioner, to further answer the question, Merrill-StevGA.
` Drydock Company is owned 21 percent by womeni women in their own name,
women...
Mr. Dawkins: How many of them black now?�fFr `cr
Mr, Sechen What? V11��,�r°,_
M,Y
lw1.
,. r
Mr. Dawkins: I'll say it again. Of the 21 women who own stock in the big
Merrill -Stevens, since we're going to talk about black, how many of those 21
women are black?
Mr. Sechen: None. None are.
Mr. Dawkins: None, none.
Mr. Sechen: That's correct.
Mr. Dawkins: N-o-n-e, none.
Mr. Sechen: None.
Mr. Dawkins: As they say in Spanish, nada. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Plummer: Would you consider heavy sunburn?
Mr. Dawkins: OK, now, who owns the 82 percent? When you take 18 percent from
a hundred, that leaves 82 percent. That's the controlling interest of the
business. Who own it?
Mr. Sechen: That's correct. The rest of the... the 78 percent, the 82
percent, is owned 4 percent by...
Mr. Dawkins: Huh?
Mr. Sechen: Four percent of the 82 - OK, if you're using, you're just...
Mr. Dawkins: All right, four percent of the 82.
Mr. Sechen: OK, four percent is by Post Buckley Schuh and Jernigan.
Mr. Dawkins: All right-. So that leaves us 78...
Mr. Sechen: The remaining 78 percent is owned by Merrill -Stevens Drydock
Company. I might point out that the board of directors...
Mr. Dawkins: Now, how... no, I don't need it, I mean... now, how much - you
say the initial investment is how much?
Mr. Sechen: Three point six million.
Mr. Dawkins: How much is George Knox, Billy Thompson and the rest of them,
for this 18 percent, how much cash money they got to put in this?
Mr. Sechen: We have letter agreements, Commissioner, with each of them. I
don't recall specifically what the total amounts are and...
Mr. Dawkins: All right, Arthur Andersen, come up to the counter, bring your
calculator.
Mr. Plummer: Well, there's 1.8 from the equity side, right?
Mr. Dawkins: You're not the accountant, you are an undertaker. OK?
Mr.
Plummer:
And don't you ever forget it.
Mr.
Dawkins:
OK, now, to be fair, OK, the initial
investment is how much?
The
initial
investment is what now?
-
Mr.
Sechen:
Three point six million of equity.
Mr.
Dawkins:
Three point six; 18 percent of three
point six come to what,
sir?
Mr.
Sechen:
He brought a calculator specifically for
this.
Mr.
Plummer:
Why don't you just ask George how much
his wife gave him to
spend?
Mr.
Bradley:
Six hundred and fifty thousand.
33
Jung 22,
Mt. Dawkins: Ruh? Six hundred and fifty? Six hundred and fifty thousand
dollars. OX. Mr. Manager, when they come back, if they're the successful
bidder, I want to see where this money was put in in cash. Not sweat equity,
OK? Not in promises, not in promissory notes, not in warrants, not in what.
Mr. Plummer: Boy, I can see the Internal Revenue ordering a copy of this
transcript.
Mr. Dawkins: And I'm glad to see that we, again, found one, Billy Thompson:
They're out there but we didn't find them till late but we found him.
Mr. Bradley: No, we found him way in advance of putting our bid in,
Commissioner. The other groups....
Mr. Dawkins: But what happened?
Mr. Bradley: The other groups, if you look at our proposal, we were
absolutely in there with Billy Thompson, George Knox, Fire Pack, they are in
our proposal. I can't understand how the Commission could even consider
somebody coming and say, "Oh, by the way, we just sold to Mr. Brown outside."
Mr. Dawkins: Well, what makes you think this Commission did consider that?
See, you're reading things into what we're doing.
Mr. Bradley: I don't think that you did.
Mr. Dawkins: See, but all of you know - I mean, you read in the paper
everyday where professional sports loan their players money to invest against
future earnings and etcetera for retirement. Yet, out of all the professional
sports figures, black, you all never find them. But maybe from now on, we'll
find them. Thank you.
Mr. De Yurre: I'm going to carry that a step further because, you know, why
wait for Cesar to come up with this issue. I come up with - in rough
numbers - five, if George Knox has five of the 18 percent and the 18 percent
is $650,000, then we're talking about $175,000 that you're putting up cash, is
that correct? Is that correct?
Mr. George Knox: Are you asking me on the record?
Mr. De Yurre: Damn right, I'm asking you on the record.
Mr. Knox: That's my obligation.
Mr. Dawkins: That's right, that's all.
Mayor Suarez: Let the record reflect he stated, "That's
my obligation."
We're going to need to get it actually on the record,
George, although -
you're...
Mr. De Yurre: Yes, come on up.
Mr. Plummer: Does your wife concur with that?
Mr. Dawkins: She'd better.
Mr. George Knox: My name is George Knox. For the
record, I'm an equity
participant in the proposal submitted by Merrill -Stevens at Dinner Key. And
the question was, whether or not I was committed to provide a proportionate
share of the equity contribution to capitalize the project and the answer is
Yes.
Mr. De Yurre: Which amounts to about one seventy-five,
roughly.
Mr. Knox: Whatever the obligation is.
Mr. De Yurre: OK, by when do these amounts have to be
placed?
Mr. Sechen: Commissioner, at the time that we would
sign a'lease agreement
with the City, we would then demonstrate the financial
resources which include
loans and equity to be able to build the project.
We would also have ;tc -
34
June °22,
i
9
provide performance of payment bond relative to the building of the project,
as hit been required before.
Mt. De Yurre: So, at the time of the lease, you would have to have in hand
the equity amount of the 3.6 million.
Mr. Sechen: I don't know that you'd actually say you'd have to have cash in
hand, Commissioner. You're familiar with development projects. There are a
lot of ways to guarantee that the existence of the money clearly nothing - we
would not sign the lease prior to satisfying the Manager that the cash is
available or is available to be drawn from lines of credit and/or from other
bank loans.
Mr. De Yurre: OK, but you're talking about lines of credit that these
individuals will get on their own. Not that the business would go out and get
a line of credit guaranteed by these individuals.
Mr. Sechen: That is correct. The equity would not become a lien on the
property is what, I'm sure, you're asking.
Mr. De Yurre: Um hum.
Mr. Sechen: It would not be. The equity it equity in the normal sense of the
legal sense. It is not money which is going to be a lien on any kind of
property or any investment.
Mr. De Yurre: OK, thank you.
Mr. Plummer: I have one other question, Mr. Mayor.
Mrs. Kennedy: I have...
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, you want...
_ Mrs. Kennedy: No.
Mr. Plummer: In speaking with Mr. Kirkland the other day, I asked a question
which I told him I was going to ask on the record and I'm going to ask it to
the Merrill -Stevens proposal. I needed some comfort in the fact that you own
another boatyard which is not under the lease and what provisions could you
provide this Commission that work from Dinner Key was not going to be put into
the other yard which would short circuit our potential revenue. And I don't
know how you... I told you the other day, I don't know how you can give us
that assurance but I think the question has been raised and I think it needs
to be answered.
Mr. Sechen: I'll let Fred answer part of that and I'll answer the other part.
Number one, within the lease agreement with the City, I think there can be
certain representations made relative to that. Number two, we have a
fiduciary obligation, Merrill -Stevens Drydock, to our joint ventures on this
project, to Mr. Eladio Candela, to Post Buckley, to Billy Thompson, to George
Knox. They are going to be the greatest source of assurance to the City of
Miami because if we were to be doing that kind of a thing, we would breach our
fiduciary obligation. In addition, as Fred will say, he's going to announce
today, I don't have to say anything. But, in addition, we're increasing the
size boat so we can work on at Dinner Key. As we all know, and I learned - my
boats been worked on there for years - but I've never had that big of a boat
that I had to worry about this. The size of the boat is limited more by the
draft of the boat to get in and out of there than anything else. We're
putting in a fifty -ton travel lift which will now be able to lift out larger
boats, we'll actually be able to work on larger boats at the property. In
addition, in order to make the payments to the City which are going to be
required, loan payments, whatever else, we're going to need to generate as
much work for that yard as possible. =
Mr. Dawkins: You finished, J. L.?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: George, Commissioner De Yurre asked me to inform you that he
does know some banks like ten he know that he can give you a letter:of
recommendation and you can go apply.
35 June 22, 1909
0
Mr. be Yurre: Any help you need with lines of credit or anything like that,
give tie a call and I'll give you a hand, OK?
Mr. Sechen: Thank you Mayor, very much... oh.
Mrs. Kennedy: Bob, no, no, no, one second. I have some questions. Since the
baywalk is part of the RFP, what steps have you taken to separate the public
from the boatyard activities?
Mr. Odio: They went around the back, Commissioner. That's the simple answer.
They did not go in front of the marina, they went around the building and then
back to the baywalk coming from the Chart House.
Mr. Sechen: The only part that is not accessible to the public is this small
part right here.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mr. Julio Grabiel: My name is Julio Grabiel, I'm a partner with Spillis
Candela. We are very concerned when you have a true working boatyard to have
the general public walking across from these kind of gantries and boats going
into the water. We provided the same width of 50 feet, which is required for
the baywalk all along the bay as much as we could and then around the
buildings, into the project - within the property line and around the project,
that's where the museum walk occurs and let them walk around the museum. So
that they still have access, the baywalk is not cut, the baywalk is continuous
but it's a safe baywalk.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK. Let me tell you that the only - or the worst problem I
have with this - you're asking us for a 50-year lease. You already have a 45-
year lease. If we grant you a 50-year lease, that's going to be three
generations on City -owned land. Is that the minimum term of the lease that
you are...
Mr. Bradley: No, Commissioner, it is not.
Mrs. Kennedy: ... asking for?
Mr. Bradley: On page, I believe it's three of our proposal, we say that we
have requested a lease of 50 years. Our financial projections and our loans
are amortized over a 25-year period. This is all according to our proposal
itself, are only 25 year loans. We are saying and we clearly would say on the
record, that we are willing to negotiate with the Manager to reduce the term
of the lease to a manner acceptable to the City Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask on the record, and this applies to any one of
them. Mr. City Attorney, it is my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong,
that whatever company is chosen today to send to the Manager for final
negotiations, anything is fair. He can negotiate anything he wants on behalf
of the City, he could negotiate...
Mr. Odio: As long as it's to improve from here on up, but not back...
Mr. Plummer: ... the position. In other words, there's nothing to stop you,
for example, of negotiating from let's say four hundred and fifty thousand
minimum to five hundred thousand?
Mr. Odio: As long as I don't go down two or three hundred.
Mr. Plummer: OK, the other question that I have and I guess it's somewhere
along the line got to be asked. With these huge investments of nine million
dollars, four million dollars, five million dollars, what happens if that
company who is chosen goes under? What protection does the City have that we =
don't have to go in there and amortize against?
Mr. Odio. First of all, it's a lease. We would get our minimum guarantee
payment for the year if, let's say they went broke after four years. I
pretend again in negotiations, whoever the company might be that they have to
put upfront in guarantees the capital improvement money. So the worst that
can happen, as I can see it, is that we would have an improved property, the
minimum payments they have made up to that time, if they have made minimum
payment and we would take over the marina.
36 June 22, 10091
Mr. Plummer: OK, but I guess the question is, let's use this one here since
they're in front of us. They're talking about, from what I can see, at l6fitt
a 5 million dollar loan from a bank, OK? If that went under and the bark
foreclosed...
Mayor Suarez: They used the Bayside, the lease, as collateral....
Mr. Odio: We're not responsible.
Mr. Plummer: But what happens to the lease?
Mr. Odio: The lease is ours.
Mr. Plummer: la it automatically revert back to us?
Mr. Odio: It reverts back to the City and they would be owing the money to
the = whatever financial institution they borrow the money from. Again, the
bottom line to us, Commissioner, is that we would have an improved property
with the minimum payments they have made up to that time and we would have to
lease it to somebody else.
Mr. Plummer: OK, but in other words...
Mr. Odio: And they would be responsible for any financial obligations they
have.
Mr. Plummer: If, for whatever reason, anyone that's chosen went into
foreclosure, it is in the lease that it reverts back to the city.
Mr. Odio: It will be in the lease that it will revert back to the City of
Miami. It will be because we don't have a lease.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mr. Odio: We have to draft a document that will cover all of your concerns
and mine.
Mr. Plummer: All right, and you are also aware, by my questions, that a
bottom line is, that whoever the successful applicant is in this endeavor,
cannot use this facility as a pledge or collateral for any other project.
Mr. Odio: That has been understood even though the lease can, I be...
Mr. Plummer: OK, I'm telling you that this one vote...
Mr. Odio: The property, no, the lease can.
Mr. Plummer: ... that whoever the successful bidder is, they cannot, in any
way, pledge this as collateral or equity into any other project. It must
stand on its own.
Mr. Odio: They don't own the property.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, I understand that.
Mayor Suarez: For other project is what he said.
Mr. Odio: OK, so they would not be, it would not be. They could not pledge
the property.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mayor Suarez: There was a chart or graphic by one of the prior presenters
that indicated, counselor, that as much as almost a million dollars of your
construction would be for paving. Did I read that right?
Mr. Plummer:
We're not going to, no.
Mr. Sechen:
I don't recall. We have
a lot of specialty paving, One of the
�-
things that
we wanted to do was to make
the place...
37 f �
9 0
Mayor Suarez: Fill and paving, maybe? Something and paving?
Mr. Sechen: Yes, yes, I mean, there's a lot... Post Buckley and Spillis
Candela did a very detailed analysis. We've provided you in our proposal
something like 20 something pages of detail on all the cost out of the
construction projects. We're the only group that really went to that level of
detail, but between...
Mayor Suarez: OK, because the comparisons, the contrasts with the other two
were incredible. It was like a hundred and some thousand, a hundred and some
thousand for the second one and yours was almost a million, nine hundred and
some thousand.
Mr. Sechen: When you have to remove all the existing paving thats there,
that's part of the cost of paving. We have our walkway, our open presentation
area... This whole area here is specialty paved and this turnaround here, we
have designed, which makes it open, makes it a pretty place for people to come
down. But when you go and say to remove all the existing paving, when you
have to repave and do some specialty paving on the area, it does amount to
quite a bit of money and I would really let Post Buckley speak to that or
Spillis Candela if they want to.
Mayor Suarez: I just saw a great disparity there and I wanted to - it doesn't
indicate, you don't think, any basic distinction in the design or in the
amount of concrete or lock coverage that we have in this project as opposed to
the other ones? Maybe your architect can...
Mr. Grabiel: It does. Some of that is that we're doing special paving on the
main view gallery, the main viewpoint through the whole project, it is a
special paving and at the end of it, there's a special rose compass which will
be placed in there which is special material, special rock paving doing there.
So that's what upped the cost of some of that paving. So it's not just the
paving for the boatyard, which has to be special also, or the parking but
that, the pedestrian people spaces.
Mr. Plummer: I got one other...
Mayor Suarez: You weren't disputing the figure so I guess it was a correct
f igure .
Mr. Plummer: I got another question. Mr. Manager, in the Merrill -Stevens, in
particular, when they came to see me and he's mentioned it again in his
presentation, their minimum guarantee stated was $451,000. He said including
taxes.
Mr. Odio: Oh, they pay... all of them have to pay taxes.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. One of the things that I saw in his own presentation
was that $19,000 of that was 6 percent sales tax. Now, is that... are we
apples to apples on the other presentation? I also want to ask the question
when he said, and including taxes, does that minimum guarantee reflect any
advalorem tax? On any of the projects now, not just the one. You showed me a
paper the other day of $431,000 to bring it...
Mr. Odio: Yes, that one.
Mr. Plummer: ... that's exactly. And that to bring it up to the four fifty-
two, you're showing the six percent sales tax which doesn't come to the City.
We get a portion of it back.
Mr. Sechen: That's correct, that's correct.. If you subtract the sales tax
that would have to be paid, the sales which are shown on that sheet, that
means that the minimum to the City will be $431,000.
Mr. Plummer: OK, Bob, that's not my question to the Manager.
Mr. Sechen: OK.
Mr. Odio: The total...
Mr. Plummer: Are we dealing apples to apples on all proposals?
38
LA
Mr. Odio! Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Did they other ones include six percent sales tax in thait
thinjoum return to the City?
Mr. Odio: They didn't but what we did...
Mr. Plummer: They did?
Mr. Odio: They did not.
Mr. Plummer: Did not.
Mr. Odio: Did not. I'll let the CPA clarify
Mr. Plummer: And my other question is, is any of ad valorem taxes included in
that minimum guarantee?
Mr. Odio: In the total economic return to the City, yes.
Mr. Bradley: First of all, the other proposers did not include sales tax and
because that sales tax is just a small portion of that stays with the City and
most of it goes to the state, what we did is took that out of everyone to make
them comparable.
Mr. Plummer: Well, he's not taking it out of his.
Mr. Bradley: Well, it's not out of this, but if you look at our report and
the City Manager's analysis, page 46 of our report where we compare everyone,
$425,000 is their guaranteed minimum without the...
Mr. Plummer: Merrill -Stevens?
Mr. Bradley: Right.
Mrs. Kennedy: Not four -fifty.
Mr. Bradley: Well, without the six percent.
Mr. Plummer: All right, now the question still resolves itself. Is, on any
of the proposals, is the minimum guarantee part of advalorem taxes?
Mr. Bradley: The minimum guarantee to the City does not include ad valorem
taxes but again, on our analysis, where we compared everyone, we did include
ad valorem taxes in there so that you can get a picture of what's the City's
return in...
Mr. Odio: In other words, advalorem taxes is in addition to.
Mr. Bradley: Right.
Mr. Plummer: So it's not a part of the minimum guarantee.
Mr. Odio: It is not a part of the minimum guarantee, no.
Mr, Plummer: And you're saying that only in the Merrill -Stevens proposal did
their minimum guarantee include sales tax.
Mr. Odio: Include the sales tax which we took out for a....
4
Mr. Plummer: So, apples to apples then, Merrill -Stevens has to be considered,
I assume at their number of four thirty-one,
Mr. Odio: Four thirty-one.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, OK...
Mr, Odio: Yes.r'
Plummer: I just wanted to make apples to apples
Mr: 'Olio: Yes, sir, you're right, , x ��,
i z¢ F1
Nr; bawkth6i OK, 1 have one more question.
Mt, Pl1fl*er: what is the proposed ad valotbM? what It the Proposed ate
valorem?
Mr. Dawkins: 1 didn't hear anything about the space for the do-it-yourself
work.
Mr. Sechen: we do have space for do -it --yourself. It's in our proposal.
Julio...
Mr. Dawkins: How much is it? flow much is it?
Mr. Sechen: We have room for twelve 22-foot boats and then you can start
doing the math from there.
Mr. Dawkins: So twelve 24-foot boats...
Mr. Sechen: Twenty-two.
Mr. Dawkins: Twenty-two, twenty-two foot. So, if we put three 22•-footers and
four 8-footers, what we got?
Mr. Sechen: We can fit them in.
Mr. Plummer: A mess. -
Mr. Odio: Let me clarify something for ad valorem taxes purposes, it in on
improvements only, on improvements only.
Mr. Plummer: But, Mr. Manager, the point I was making was that whatever it..
oh, it's on improvements.
Mr. Odio: Only. Yes.
Mr. Plummer: So what you're saying is then that Merrill -Stevens, in effect;
would be paying a higher advalorem than the one who is...
Mr. Odio: Because of the proposed capital improvement project,
yes, in other
words, they will only - the taxes are based on any monies that improve the
property and not on the property itself.
}
Mr. Plummer: That's how it would be assessed.
Mr. Odio: So, if you're spending a million dollars in
improvement, you pay
taxes on a million dollars. You spent five, it's on five,
or ten, it's a ten.
Mr. Plummer: All right, so then you're assuring me that
whatever number that
Mr. Sechen's has produced here today, that that's easy on
assessment that that
would be the number that advalorem would be assessed on.
-
Mr. Odio: Whatever number is finally fixed in the lease,
the contract, would
be the one that he would be paying tares on.
Mr. Plummer: Ad valorem.
Mr. Odio: Ad valorem.
r
Mr. Plummer: And that's true for all.
-
Mr. Odio: And that's true for all.
ij
Mayor Suarez: I have received and would like to now
to introduce in the3{'
record a variety of letters. I think almost all of them on.behalf of Merrill� �
`
Stevens, Somebody did their work awfully well, I see
a smug look on Phi 1
Hammersmith's face. Most of them are very well written except for two that"4
f;
j`
Mr. Sechen: Phil wrote those.
Mayor Suarez: .. , that have the title of Commissioner
Xavier
with correction, that's appropriate to those, I'd like to
introduce they$or
the record,
E
e'11
.;.
i
—
y.s
Mr. bamkit►t i Since the Mayor's going to introduce these into the records, I
with atabbody would also put into the record that you think the Individuals
Who wrote these letters was referring to the boatyard on Bayshore Drive and
not to the one downtown because in no letter that I received did they specify
that the work i received was at Bayshore and not downtown.
Mr. Plummer: Well, to keep the record clear, I got the same stack of Merrill -
Stevens that you did, I got two on Dinner Key Boatyard and none on Dinner Key
Marina. Let the record reflect.
Mayor Suarez: OK, last presentation.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: The Commission then took a five minute do
facto recess, from 11:51 a.m. to 11:56 a.m.
Mayor Suarez: Proceed with the last presentation.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, before we start...
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Odio: Marvin, are you... this is a political announcement...
Mr. Plummer: Can we have an understanding what procedure we're going to
follow?
Mayor Suarez: It looks like we're going to have a complete presentation made
before the lunch break. Hopefully, with reasonable number of questions, since
we've asked quite a few, and that deliberations will have to take place after
lunch.
Mr. Plummer: All right, so in other words, once this one is finished, then
we'll go to lunch and come back two hours from that point. Is that correct? —
as we normally do.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Or, let's see what it comes out to.
come back at 2:00, maybe we'll have to push back
proceed.
Mr. Plummer: That means we get out of here at 2:15.
Mrs. Kennedy: Marvin, I hear you're running for office.
Mr. Plummer: Ohhhhhh.
Mr.
Odio: I just asked him
for an appointment in Washington.
Mr.
Plummer: That wasn't a
low blow, that was low tide.
Mr.
Marvin Dunn: I'm not only running, I'm fully confident of:
success, Madam.
Mr.
Plummer: Ohhhhhhhl
Mr.
Dunn: In spite of what
was in the Herald this morning.
Mr.
Plummer: He's not only
running, he's confident of winning.
Mr.
Dunn: I said my chances
are next to nil, but I'm not
quite sure the
Herald got that right.
Mrs.
Kennedy: As confident
as William is.
Mr.
Dunn: Yes.
f Y .
E
!
0 0
Mr. Dunn: My name is Marvin Dunn, I'm president of Dinner Key Boatyard. Two
years ago, you asked for a world class, full service boatyard and marina.
Experienced management insisted that you had asked for too much. They said
your terms were unrealistic. Two people, two people said that you were on the
right track, Ron Faulkey who was general manager of Merrill -Stevens and Bob
Hardin, his consultant. They created a plan that they believed in so much
that they gave up their jobs to pursue this dream. Clare Hardin believed in
it so much that she put our company together, Dinner Key Boatyard. And I
believed in it so much - and where is Miller? I believed in it so much that I
mortgaged my home to be a part of it. Now, let me say something I feel very
deeply. We blacks do not inherit boatyards. No one has ever given us a City
waterfront lease. Never because we don't have any experience. I was a Navy
officer for almost seven years. I ran small boat repairs for two aircraft
carriers including more than 40 boats. My men hauled, scraped, painted, did
carpentry, repaired engines, everything any boatyard does. And now I hear
that's not experience. My partners have managed, consulted for and owned that
boatyard next door. Ron and Bob wrote the book on management reform. My
partner, Roberta Balfe, owned key stock in that company. My partner, Clara
Hardin, ran and managed a marina. My vice president, Mike Bressure, has owned
boatyards. When Ron Faulkey left Merrill -Stevens in 1987, every foreman,
everyone, wrote a letter praising the changes that he made. Now, we think
that's experience. On the question of minority participation, we are a 61
percent minority owned company. I own 20 percent, not 2 percent, not 4
percent. I own 20 percent of our management company. I negotiate contracts,
I sign the checks, I speak for the company, I am one of five votes on the
board. That's minority participation. The people who support us very
strongly are the people who own boats, who live here. The very people you
rely on for advice.
Mr. Dawkins: Come on. Your twenty minutes are getting away from you all, you
understand me?
Mr. Dunn: You have appointed twelve members of the marine community to review
and evaluate these plans on the Waterfront Board and on the Review Committee.
Of those 12, ten have recommended us, and that includes one member who wrote
the Mayor changing his vote in favor of us. Ten out of twelve from the marine
community. One recommended Merrill -Stevens, one recommended Dinner Key Marina
Associates. Now, why do we have such strong support with marine people?
Because we are the only ones who can call ourselves a boatyard. Please
consider these facts. We can repair more boats by far, we can accommodate
more do-it-yourself, by far. We have the best finance, by far. We offer you
the only all new facility. And on top of that, we offer you more money by a
substantial amount. Commissioners, we're looking ahead to actually operating
that yard. It must generate a lot more money. The old loyal customers won't
be enough. They're only 25 percent of the Dinner Key market. We've got to
attract that 75 percent that do not now haul out at Merrill -Stevens. The
public does not want a shopping mall. They do not want a restaurant that
dominates the yard. They do not want a tourist attraction. Most importantly,
we know that it won't work as half this and half that. It'll end up all
nothing. Willy Bermello, our architect on this project, will now present the
details of. the Dinner Key Boatyard plan.
Mr. Willy Bermello: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, you have heard this
morning...
Mr. Dawkins: Hold it, no, no, no, for God's sake, don't move those.
Mr. Bermello: Put them in the bottom, put them in the bottom. I have some
things.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, put them on the floor.
Mr. Bermello: You have heard this morning...
Mr. Plummer: Is your name Willy Borroto?
Mrs. Kennedy: Willy, please state your name on the record.
Mr. Bermello: Willy Bermello, architect. You have heard some lofty ideas,
some visions, a museum walk, retail arcades, plazas by the bay, a training
center. All fine chamber of commerce ideas, but we think that these are ideas
42 June 22, 1969
9
that are not fine for Dinner Key. Philosophy is what gives birth to an idea,
and our philosophy in the Dinner Key Boatyard is that of a boat owner. We see
2640 South Bayshore Drive not as a real estate development opportunity. We
see it as an obligation for the public and private sector to join in providing
a boatyard which is functional, affordable, efficiently run and aesthetically
pleasing for the public. There are developers in this room that could come to
you with twelve sites in our great City where you could develop an exciting
retail shopping center to attract our tourists and entertain our residents.
i But tell me, how many sites in Miami's waterfront can a boater haul a boat
out, have the bottom cleaned, repair an engine and do so in an environment
that is not infested with crime, where you don't have six bridge openings and
you can enjoy easy and convenient access to Biscayne Bay? There's only one
site and that's 2640 So. Bayshore Drive, and that's where our proposal is
different from the rest. We asked ourselves three questions in preparing our
proposal. First, would it be in the best interest to provide all new
facilities, or should we simply repair, fix, and patch up deteriorating
facilities that have been allowed to decay over 40 years by Merrill -Stevens?
Our choice was clear. In our proposal we're providing... is that on now?
We're providing for an increase in the marina which will be expanded, replaced
with an all new marina facility. We're increasing it from 56 wet slips to 102
wet slips. The tarmac, or the repair yard area, will have over 70,000 square
feet of repair space. We will be able to service, at any given point in time,
32 boats; 28 on land, four in the water. We will have eight, eight dedicated
spaces for do-it-yourself. These are not come as you see, maybe we'll have
them, maybe we'll not. These are eight dedicated do-it-yourself spaces, 30 by
60, fenced, with utility poles for water, electricity and lighting. The boat
shed area. Now, I've learned a lot of things during the last six months. One
of them is that Merrill -Stevens, over the last 40 years - they've really
developed a sense for historic preservation, and that's why they're going to
keep the boat shed there. Well, we're not. We're replacing it and why?
Because even if we kept it and renovated that termite infested old structure,
which is not an historic structure, but even if we renovated that, you could
not house more than a hundred and ten boats. We will be able to store 298
boats. Parking issue has been brought up. We have, in our plan, the space to
park 200 cars. We asked ourselves a second question. What should the
priority be in designing this facility? Should we have the priority in the
boat service repair and storage facilities or should the priority be in
accommodating the 20,000 square feet of retail that this Commission allows in
the RFP? Again, our choice was very clear. We opted for the boat service and
repair. How could we turn to the boating community and say to them, we are
going to increase the servicing of boats, we're going to store more boats,
while we're cutting a third of the yard out, like one of our competitors is? -
the current operator of Merrill -Stevens. We are designating 32 percent of the
site for repair, 25 percent for dry storage; a total of 57 percent. No other
proposal comes even close. Not a single square feet of retail on the ground
area. Now, you ask me, you don't have retail? Sure we do. We have it on the
second floor, and there's where we made our principle difference from the
others. We didn't want retail to in any way interfere, inhibit, or conflict
with the operations of a boatyard. Yes, we have yacht brokerage, yes we have
a ship's store, yes we have a convenience snack area that is 1,600 square feet
less than the 3,000 square feet allowed in the RFP. Yes, we have a new
dockmasters, yes, we have marine storage. But all of it is on the second
floor. How do we compare with our competition? These graphics clearly show
the facts in terms of boatyard repair which you see there in the blue, by far,
we're number one. The others don't even come close. Do-it-yourselfers, we're
the only ones that have a fully designated, clearly fenced with utility area
for 8 designated do-it-yourself areas. In terms of dry storage and wet
storage, we're also number one. In terms of ground floor commercial retail,
how do we do? Well, I have to admit, we don't do too well there. We come
last in that category. But in the boating community, we come first because
there's where our emphasis lies in our plan. The third question we asked
ourselves was the issue of public access. We're the only ones that provide a
continuous baywalk that is accessible to all of the public and all means the
disabled and the handicapped. From point A to point B, you can walk along the
waters edge in our plan. Merrill -Stevens has an interrupted baywalk, not a
continuous as required in your RFP. Dinner Key Marina Associates, they have a
bridge which will not meet the State of Florida criteria for the handicapped
which is one foot for every 12 feet with a landing at every 30 feet. That
=_ bridge would have to be 290 long and the site is 450 feet in length, across.
Now, you do your own calculations. Is there a problem with safety? There's a
concern. Of course there is. All five proposers faced it. Our approach is
that we're approaching it from the demand side. We're not creating Coney
43 June 22, 1989
V
Island on the bay. We're creating a boatyard. We're not creating an
attraction for people to come in here and have ice cream and buy tee-shirts
and videos. This is a boatyard. Our attraction here for be for the family,
the people that own a boat that want to get on the water, that want a place to
repair and store their boats. Let me address three final issues. One is cost
schedule and architecture. In terms of cost, we're committing for $4.9
million dollars in our investment in hard construction costs. These are not
padded figures. These are real, real figures. We're the only team that had a
general contractor with a reputable track record, Chase Construction Company.
They have over $100,000,000 in bonding capacity. They have a commitment to
this town which they have shown on the two projects that they currently have
under construction in the Park/West area. We have an independent cost
estimator in our group. No other group had that. Merrill -Stevens is spending
close to a million dollars in paving. We're spending $300,000 in paving. You
know why? Because they're putting in bricks. We're putting in asphalt. Now
you tell me, do you need brick paving to service, repair, and store a boat?
We all know the answer to that. They have $1.1 million dollars in unassigned
miscellaneous contingencies. If you subtract that and if you have some
realistic figures, you find very quickly that their 9.4 is really not $9.4
million dollars. Time. We're committing to having the boatyard in operation
within 10 months from us receiving the permits. Everybody recognizes that the
issue of permitting is a difficult one, but we're committed to working with
the City staff and the county to do the best job possible to be under revenue
operations. Any why? Because we start paying our rent from day one, not two
years down the road. Last, architecture. We've been called the boat barn
people and we're proud of it. Beth Dunlop said we're gritty, not pretty, and
we're proud of that too. Because we're the no nonsense people, we're
basically providing a boatyard. We think boatyards are beautiful and that the
architecture has nothing more to be than a simple back drop for the boats and
the boat yard operations. You have the opportunity today to make a choice and
we think your choice will be clear too between having "Six Flags Over Georgia"
at Dinner Key or having a real boatyard and reclaiming this property and
giving it back to the boating community. They've been waiting for this since
1984. Thank you very much. I'd like to call on Bob Traurig.
Mr. Traurig: That clock up there moves so fast that it reflects that I don't
have much time to address you. Therefore, I may have to abbreviate my
presentation unless you give me the opportunity to complete it. My name is
Robert H. Traurig, I'm an attorney with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue and
I'm joined here by co -counsel in connection with this, Mr. Jesse McCrary of
McCrary and Self. And together, we represent Dinner Key Boatyard, joint
venture.
Mayor Suarez: I was going to respond to your comment on the clock. I think
it's an electric clock and, as such, it responds to electromagnetic signals
coming from an oscillation of two electromagnets or something and it
typically sixty cycles per minute so it works out to be exactly one...
Mr. Traurig: It may have started early though.
Mayor Suarez: It's about as accurate as any that we are familiar with, Mr.
Traurig, but we'll give you back the 15 seconds that I just took away from
you.
Mr. Traurig: I thank you. By way of preamble, for several decades one of the
City's most valuable assets, this property at 2640 So. Bayshore, has been
_ underutilized, for a variety of reasons, resulting in a strong desire by your
Commission to convert the antiquated, inefficient, unproductive operation into
a facility which would complement, architecturally and functionally, other
waterfront properties in this Dinner Key area, and which would serve the
boating community more effectively, and which would produce income to the City
commensurate with the prime location of this property and the opportunities
available to the future tenant. To enhance it's service to the boating
community which makes a major contribution to this community to both the
residents and the visitors, the City extended invitations for proposals which
would result in the development, or redevelopment, of a full service boatyard
facility and, incidentally, with the marina and marine related retail uses.
The objectives were clear. Primarily to create a boating service facility as
described by Mr. Bermello. Not a center where shops or a museum would be a
principle component. With full service, where more boat repair facilities
would be provided, especially for the do-it-yourselfers, who constitute such a
substantial part of the boating community and to maximize the return to the
44 June 22, 1989
City. Thus, the objective here was to create new customers and a changed
image. And one reaction that I think is important for you to access, is the
reaction of the boating community to the proposals which it reviewed. There
are, within this audience, a number of people from the boating community, they
represent the interests which are reflected here as applicant A and applicant
B and applicant C. But I think it would be important for you to note how many
people here are for Dinner Key Boatyard and you will note that these are
people from the boating community. To reflect that interest to the boating
community, you have a Waterfront Board and that Waterfront Board voted seven
to two for Dinner Key Boatyard.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, Bob Traurig.
Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Are you telling me this nice grey headed lady is a boater?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm the neighbor of a boater.
Mr. Plummer: You're the neighbor of a boater. OK, I just could not see her
out water skiing.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That was a Tigertail Association
Mr. Traurig: Well, let me say that we are supported here by other people who
live in the Bayshore and Tigertail area and who are Coconut Grove business
interests and residential interests and we're happy that they're here along
with the boating public to support this application.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mr. Traurig: It's very interesting to note that of the people whom you
endorsed and appointed to the evaluation committee and the Waterfront Board,
from the marine industry, Dinner Key Boat Yard got nine votes, Dinner Key
Marina Associates got two votes and Merrill -Stevens got one vote. Our
contention, therefore, is that Dinner Key Boat Yard, joint venture...
Mayor Suarez: That's the evaluation committee of the City, not of the
Waterfront Board.
Mr. Traurig: Those are appointees by the City Commission to both the
Waterfront Board and to the evaluation committee. And of...
Mayor Suarez: Oh, you combined all of the non -staff members of either one of
those two.
Mr. Traurig: Yes, I did, sir. All the non -staff members. Those who have an _
identity with the marine industry. So it was a nine, two, one vote which is
an overwhelming vote and endorsement by the waterfront community of this
particular application. Our contention, therefore, is that we present a plan
which is architecturally an aesthetically creative with a functional full
service boatyard to be developed by experienced and competent people with an
ability to finance same and producing the maximum return to the City, and it's
backed by the marine industry who sole objective is to improve the quality of
service and the responsiveness to the boating public. We are happy that they
are here to attest to that. Now who are we? We're a joint venture composed
of Cal Florida Marine Industries and Dinner Key Boatyard limited partnership.
Cal Florida Marine Industries is the entity that you associate with Mr.
Sherman Whitmore. That corporation is owned and controlled by RockMor
Corporation and he's the principle stockholder of that corporation. Dinner _
Key Boatyard limited partnership is composed of Mr. Dunn, Mr. Faulkey...
Mrs. Kennedy: Are you sure you want to say that?
Mr. Traurig: Well, we're very proud that he made the decision to run for
legislative office before other very qualified people made the same decision.
Mrs. Kennedy: Just joking, just joking.
Mr. Plummer: Ahhhhh!
(Applause)
4 Juno 22, 1969
0
Mr. Plummer: Wowl
Mr. Traurig: So we have Mr. Dunn and we have Mr. Faulkey and we have Mrs.
Balfe and Mr. & Mrs. Hardin, and as Mr. Dunn indicated to you, he's a minority
partner with a 20 percent interest and the two ladies have a 41 percent
interest. Those are interests in the operating companies. Mr. Whitmore, who
has a keen interest in boating and who, in fact, lives on a boat, is the
financier of this development. If Dinner Key Boatyard, joint venture, is
selected by this committee, Cal Florida would acquire the interests of the
other limited partners but simultaneously sublease to Mr. Dunn and his
associates the restaurant, the repair facility, the do-it-yourself facility,
the yacht brokers facility, and the limited partnership would also receive a
management agreement with regard to the dry slips.
Mayor Suarez: Are you getting ready to wrap up, Mr. Traurig?
Mr. Traurig: Well, I really have about five minutes to go, if you could
permit me that. And if you can't...
Mayor Suarez: We've kept everybody to 20 minutes. Most likely, with
questions and answers you...
Mr. Traurig: I do think that a portion of my time was consumed by the banter.
If you could give me three...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, take a couple of minutes because we did consume some of
your time but no more than two minutes, please. Madam City Clerk.
Mr. Traurig: OK. I think it's important to note that Mr. Whitmore, in
addition to entering into these agreements, has entered into an agreement with
his limited partnership friends to contribute a hundred thousand toward
capital improvements, a hundred thousand of the sublease rent would be
relieved and forgiven and he would contribute another hundred thousand in cash
toward the start up expenses, making a total of $300,000. And, furthermore,
that he has entered into arrangements for an irrevocable trust which would
fund $2,000,000 on his death; one million of which would go to local charities
to be determined by Mrs. Balfe, another million to be determined by local
charities to be determined by Mr. Dunn. Therefore, he has demonstrated his
concern for the people of the City of Miami because those local charities
would be City of Miami charities and charitable entities. He's truly a lender
deriving his return from rents on the sublease and these other gentlemen and
ladies would be the people who would be in operational control and management
control of the project. So, therefore, when you determine the percentage of
minority participation, you are looking at the entity which is in ownership of
the sublease and in management control of the entire operation. Now, the
question is, does he have, does Mr. Whitmore have the financial ability to
carry out the obligations that are being discussed here? The answer is
absolutely yes. If we had no money available to us from institutional lending
sources, and this goes to the issue which Mr. Plummer raised, Mr. Whitmore
would, himself, personally, fund the entire development. We have made
arrangements and have a letter of interest from Southeast Bank which would
lend $4.5 million dollars. He would be the personal guarantor of that 4.5 if
permitted to do so and, if not, he would be the direct lender and the direct
contractor for the entire construction of these facilities.
Mayor Suarez: OK, thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Traurig: All right.
Mayor Suarez: We'll probably catch up with any other remarks you may have in
questions and answers. Commissioners, any questions?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, sir, put that minority participation back up there. No,
that one, Mr. Traurig. OK? Now, somebody explain to me what the Dinner Key
Boatyard Management Company is.
Mr. Traurig: That's the entity which I just described which consists of these
individuals. That's a limited partnership, Mr. Dunn will be the president of
the general partner entity and these other individuals will be owners of
interest in that limited partnership.
46 June 22,'1969
2
Mt. Dawkins: Nov, so they own 25 percent of the total project?
Mr. Traurig: No, it won't work that way, Commissioner...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, hold it then, hold it. Hold it now. You go get this
sheet, table 2.
Mr. Traurig: I understand, but I think what I have been trying to may is that
if selected, this joint venture will be reconstituted so that all of the
interests in the joint venture which is the primary lessee from the City,
would be controlled by Cal Florida and Mr. Whitmore, who would immediately
enter into a sublease with Mr. Dunn and his associates...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, you can stop right there, there will be no subleases when
it comes to full minority participation. For my - wait a minute now, wait
now - for my vote, OK?
Mr. Traurig: All right.
Mr. Dawkins: Now, let's understand, I'm not going to treat you any different
than I treated everybody else. Now, if Mr. Dunn - OK, now, how much is - come
back up here, Mr. accountant - how much is the cash initial investment?
Mr. Traurig: By the entire entity?
Mr. Dawkins: No, just... yes, well...
Mr. Traurig: By Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dawkins: Um hum. No, no, no, no, no.
Mr. Plummer: Five point...
Mr. Dawkins: I'll tell you what. Come up here, sir. Anybody can tell me how
much money we're going to spend in the first year or the second year or what.
What is the total cost like when I asked them, they told me three million
dollars, the others say five million dollars. What is the total?
Mayor Suarez: Give us a breakdown on the capital improvement cost that you're
going to be... I mean, expenditures....
Mr. Traurig: We have a capital...
Mayor Suarez: ... the first two, three years.
Mr. Traurig: I think I have to explain it a little bit differently,
Commissioner, if you bear with me.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no. But I'm not going to let you do that, Bob. We're
going to do - we're going to play all apples and oranges. We aren't going to
have apple and oranges....
Mayor Suarez: What is your projected capital improvement expenditure the
first year?
Mr.
Dawkins:
What's your projected capital improvement?
Mayor Suarez:
Second...
Mr.
Traurig:
The capital...
Mr.
Dawkins:
Bear with me now, you'll understand
where I'm going. Bear with
me.
Mr.
Traurig:
The capital improvement budget is
approximately five million
dollars, 4.9
million.
Mr.
Dawkins:
Five million dollars to be spent in
how many years? .;
Mr.
Traurig:
Within the first year or so,
ti
47
e
{
Mt. Dawkins: First year. All right, now, if Mr. Dunn - hov► muoh is It
percent of five million?
Mayor Suarez: Six hundred thousand.
Mr. Bradley: Six hundred thousand.
Mr. Dawkins: All right. Mr. Dunn has to go somewhere and find $600,000 to
buy into this total project. OK? No, no, no. See, I'm not - you gee, Iith
not going to have no rental folks up here, OK? Just like I said about George
Ktox, I said George Knox roust come in with his full amount of money...
Mr. Odio: Commissioner...
Mr. Dawkins: ... to buy into this. He has to buy into it or find - I don't
care - and I'm not saying Mr. Dunn has to come up with that. Mr. Dunn may
find somebody else to go with him. But I'm going to snake sure that if Mr.
Dunn put, how much?
Mr. Plummer: Let him ask his question.
Mr. Bradley- Well, actually, there is - the capital financing, the equity to
be contributed, is 1.5...
Mr. Dawkins: I just need equity. -
Mr. Bradley: OK, the equity is 1.5 million.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, what is 20 percent of 1.5?
Mr. Bradley: Three hundred thousand.
Mr. Dawkins: So all right, now, Mr. Dunn has to come up with three hundred
thousand dollars to buy into this total project, OK? I don't give a damn... I
don't care nothing about this right here, OK? I'm talking about the total -
project for. 30 years, OK? Now, if Mr. - and that's the same thing I said
about George, that's what I said about everybody, OK? I do not intend for the
rumor to be and which I know is a rumor, because I'm not going by it anyway,
that once the contract is signed, these minorities bow out... no, no, no, no,
they're going to buy in and be in permanently. Now, that 'a the only way I
will - you can get my vote. See, and you got my vote because you started out,
upfront, with saying 20 percent minority ownership and the others had to catch
up, Bob, so I don't have a problem with that. But I'm interested in black
people owning some of this project for 30 years, OK?
Mr. Traurig: He would, sir, but your proposal is acceptable. Dunn as in
Dunn.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, good, I don't need nothing else.
Mr. Traurig: OK?
Mr. Dawkins: I'm fine, good. You got me, well, I'm finished.
Mr. Traurig: We think that the restructuring that you have proposed, .is fain _
and it'll be accomplished.
Mr. Plummer; Yes, but let me understand now, because maybe I'm confused, when
they came to see me, Bob, they said that Sherman would own 75 percent. Ths
other portion would own 100 percent of the remaining twenty-five. Now, AP -
that changed?
Mr. Traurig: Before we walked in here today, it was changed.':
Mr. Plummer: OK, I can only go on what I was told.
4?
Mr. Traurig: It was changed. It was changed because before Commissioner
Dawkins raised this issue, what had been proposed was that the lease would lie°
s s
owned a hundred percent by Mr. Whitmore, but the operating management an
management of this facility would be a hundred percent owned by the limited
h partnership of which he had twenty percent. And that all Mr. Whitmore would
r be entitled to...°
x
T `r of _v
Mir. ElWifter: Twenty percent of the hundred?
Mr. Traurig: He had twenty percent of the hundred, and all that Mr. Whitmore
would be entitled to would be rent at the rate of 18 percent a year which was
a return on his investment and commensurate with his risk. So, consequently,
he, up to this moment, had intended...
Mayor Suarez: Why do you call that rent and not interest?
Mr. Traurig: Because he's subleasing it to them.
Mr. Plummer: I'm completely lost now.
Mr. Bradley: Excuse me...
Mr. Traurig: We can restructure it and make it interest as Commissioner
Dawkins wants in order for the entity to be structured as Commissioner Dawkins
has indicated.
Mr. Odio: Commissioner, Mr. Mayor...
Mr. Traurig: So the answer is yes.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, Mr. Manager, clarification, correction.
Mr. Odio: I need a clarification here from the City Attorney because they are
substantially changing the proposed RF...
Mr. Dawkins: There is no... you don't need no clarification from him because
you let everybody else out there do it.
Mr. Odio: No, no, sir. Not the...
Mr. Dawkins: OK? Everytime I set out here, Sechen said he would change
something, you said it's allowable.
Mr. Odio: No, no, no, sir. No, excuse me, excuse me, I didn't say it.
Mr. Dawkins: Now, all of a sudden, this isn't allowable? Give me a break.
Mr. Odio: No, sir. If you change substantially the - what they proposed in
writing - that's why I'm asking just a little question whether am I right or
not.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, let me hear from the City Attorney.
Suarez -Rivas, Esq.: We would have - if, legally, it is a substantial change,
we're not talking about minor things, from the way the entity is proposed
that's not for a business reason, but that is to comply with the City rule,
regulation or requirement, there could very well be a legal issue there
because if it's to comply with the City...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, I'll rephrase it then. OK. This, whatever this
is right here, that makes up whatever it is - 25 percent, is that right? To
keep from putting them out of the ball park, right?
0 0
Mr. Dawkins; Then Mr. Dunn got to borne up with 20 percent of three eeveht?-
five, Roberta Black come up with 11 percent of three twenty-five, Clara Keyes
come up with 30 percent of three twenty-five, Ron Faulkey come up with 29
percent of three twenty-five...
Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. No, no.
Mr. Dawkins: Robert Hardin with 29 percent of 25 percent and they own 25
percent of the total project. Now, what's wrong with that?
Mr. Plummer: But that's not what I'm understanding.
Mr. Dawkins: I'm talking to the lawyer. Let me hear from the lawyer. Vell,
wait, let me hear from the...
Mr. Plummer: OK, all right, excuse me.
Mayor Suarez: What is, yes, what...
Mr. Dawkins: What's wrong with that now?
Mr. Plummer: I'm totally lost.
Mayor Suarez: The Commissioner wants clarification, I think, on the
percentage of ownership, as we understand ownership, does that mean equity?
And if it means equity, in other words, a percentage of the one point five
million net, what must be the form in which an investor or lender, whatever
you call Mr. Whitmore in that capacity, would lend the monies to the project.
Because if it's 20 percent of a million five, if that's the equity, then it
works out to be $300,000.
Mr. Odio: It's four fifteen if..........
Mr. Plummer: But, I'm...
Mayor Suarez: If the Commission is otherwise disposed to go with one of the
three bidders, and wants to impose an additional requirement of higher
participation in ownership, as we understand ownership, the Commission can do
that, can it not?
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: The Commission, in my opinion, should adhere to the
minority laws that were included in the RFP. The Commission can allow a
restructuring that is not to comply with a particular City law. When it's
being done not to do that.
Mayor Suarez: Right. But because that's our understanding of what ownership
means.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: If it's for a business purpose and not to comply with a
requirement in the RFP, the answer is yes.
Mayor Suarez: Right, well a business purpose or a public policy goal of this
Commission.
Mr. Plummer: But here again, I want to know, Bob, are you saying that the
- what
I understood of
75-25 is now
changed?
-
Mr.
Traurig: We had
intended to
change it. You are suggesting
to us
that we _
should not change it,
that we cannot change it...
Mr.
Plummer: No, no,
no, I'm not
suggesting...
Mr.
Traurig: ... we're going to go back to the 75-25 just as
the
original
proposal in the RFP.
Mrs.
Kennedy: After
hearing our
legal opinion, you've got no other chance.
Mr.
Traurig: Pardon
me?
Mrs.
Kennedy: After
hearing our
legal opinion, you've got to do
it:,,
,
Mr. Traurig: Yes, and we shall. And we intend to and we say uncanditibtAlif,
we will do that.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mr, Plummer: All right, so...
Mr. Traurig: It was not our intention when we walked in here to do that
because we thought that a fairer, more equitable solution would be what we
were proposing, but in view of what you have said, we will go back to the
25 with the percentages that you've already heard.
Mr. Plummer: OK. So...
Mr. Traurig: That this now represents the limited partnership interest in the
25 percent joint venture partner.
Mr. Plummer: All right, so then, just any one of them, they would have to
come up with equity as to the percentage of 25 percent.
Mr. Traurig: Correct.
Mr. Plummer: Now we're back to apples to apples, OK.
Mr. Traurig: OK.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioners, any further questions? Are we clear from the...
give us your name one more time, I'm sorry.
Mr. Bradley: Tom Bradley.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Bradley, that the chart on the highest five year projected
City revenue minimum payments to the City does reflect that this particular
proponent has the highest return, minimum guaranteed over the first five
years?
Mr. Bradley: Well, not in terms of the minimum guarantee but in terms of
their actual revenue.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. Bradley: Based on our calculations which includes the percentage override
if they go into the percentage category.
Mayor Suarez: Well, I was maybe looking at...
Mr. Traurig: May I...
Mayor Suarez: ... the highest guaranteed also, they're higher, I suppose, I
mean, I conclude from looking at this chart. Is that correct?
Mr. Bradley: I haven't seen that chart and I'd have to look at it.
Mayor Suarez: Well, you can look at the chart all you want but does the City
Manager, or somebody, have a conclusion as to who gives the highest guaranteed
Mr. Odio: The minimum annual guarantee from Dinner Key Boatyard is $405,000
over the 46-year lease term and/or a percentage of revenues ranging fram 7.5
percent in excess of six million.
Mayor Suarez: What you're saying is, that at some point - I think I know what
you're saying, Mr. Manager is that at some point Merrill -Stevens goes to a
higher minimum yearly guarantee but it's not until the third year.
Mr. Odio: The minimal guarantee from Merrill -Stevens for the first - for the
year three to fifty is adjusted upward every 5th year. So they start with
four twenty-five and every five years it goes up.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. Odio: The amount of the increase is subject to negotiations.
Mr. Traurig: May I respond to that, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry?
Mr. Traurig: First, I think it's very important for the Commission to know
that Merrill -Stevens doesn't go to four twenty-five until year three.
Whereas, we go to four...
Mayor Suarez: I got that from the chart. Is that correct, now?
Mr. Bradley: That's correct.
Mayor Suarez: Because I don't want to rely on anybody's chart here.
Mr. Traurig: And we go to four zero five at the beginning. They never catch
up to us, unless, in the renegotiations, there is a precipitous increase that
the City negotiates. All they have agreed to do is to sit to negotiate an
increase without a defined amount of increase. So, at the end of five years,
we have paid two million and twenty-five thousand dollars, Merrill -Stevens has
paid a million, three hundred and seven thousand based on the guaranteed
revenues to the City at this point, and based on this same schedule of
increases, with them paying four twenty-five and we paying four zero five,
even at the end of 25 years, we will have paid ten million, one hundred and
twenty-five thousand...
Mayor Suarez: We see...
Mr. Traurig: ... they would have only paid nine million, eight hundred and
seven thousand.
Mr. Odio: That is correct.
Mayor Suarez: We'd see those figures. Now, when they say that they will
guarantee to the City in 1990, $405,000. Does that mean what I think it
means? That we will receive during calendar year 1990, $405,000 net of any
expenses that they incur or anything? Is there anything to be reduced from
that in any way or deducted from that?
Mr. Odio: No, they will pay as of the day they received the lease, the
minimum annual
rental payment as...
Mr. Traurig:
In advance.
Mr. Odio: So
they would be paying the
four hundred and five thousand.
Mayor Suarez:
That would be in our
particular fiscal year, possibly
what,
October, this
October 1st, possibly?
Mr. Odio: It
would be if you... yes.
Mayor Suarez:
So 1990 is a bit of a
misnomer. It would be the fiscal
year
which is principally during the calendar year 1990.
Mr. Odio: It
starts on...
:.
Mr. Traurig:
We intend to pay in advance so it would be'upfront,
52 Juas 22#
1989
Mayor Susret: I'll take the $405, 060 right now, as a tatter of 'fact, but..,
Hr: Traurig: We brought it.
Mayor Suarez: OK...
Mr. be Yurre: I'm ready to make a motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: Can we ask some more questions?
Mr. De Yurre: Might as well.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, I refer you back to that proposal which you put
together for the City, is if, in fact, the City did the operation itself as
opposed to go into an outside...
Mr. Odin: I don't have it here. I don't have that here. Do you have
Mr. Plummer: Well, I got it here. I'm around to remind you.
Mr. Odio: Yes, sure.
Mr. Plummer: You're showing, for example, and let me just pick one year,
1991. You're showing that the City's income profit for the period is as its
listed is $645,000. And it increases every year because depreciation is out.
Now, I guess one basic question I've got to ask you without going into real
great detail, nobody has offered us in 1991, $645,000, as your projection
showed. After hearing all of the proposals, I ask you, Mr. Manager, is the
City in it's beat position in choosing one of these proposals or going back to
the City's proposal?
Mr. Odio: Definitely, we should accept one of these three proposals.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: By the way, I had asked the Commissioners, as a procedural
matter, if they wanted, as I initially suggested to deliberate and come back
with a vote - I mean, deliberate and finally decide this, hopefully, after
lunch, or if they wanted to try, if they didn't have much deliberation, to do,
if they wanted to try to resolve it before lunch and I think I got a unanimous
_ response that most Commissioners had done enough deliberating on this and had
gotten enough input for the last at least six months, if not two years. They
were ready to vote, that's why I'm aware of the fact that some Commissioners
may be ready to move some of these matters.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me just go on the re...
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Just on the record. I've done an awful lot of reading on this
matter. There's an awful lot of reading to do. One of the things that I find
almost impossible, if not difficult, is really trying to compare apples to
apples. It's very difficult. There are the difference in the proposals as
presented here in the basically three or four different proposals. I guess
what really is going to have to be is that the Manager is going to have to
come back with some final proposal because it is not my intention, and I'm
putting this on the record, we are only today selecting a firm to go and
further negotiate and finalize a contract which would come back to this
Commission for approval and I want that understood, Mr. Manager. If it's
contrary, please tell me. As I look through these proposals, and if you would
look at the 27 questions which I asked, there is such a variation of the
different proposals, and I don't say that one compromises and the other, for
example, and I'll just use the one example. The sale of gasoline goes in one
proposal from one and a half cents of a gallon to another proposal, as.'I
recall, the high of eight cents a gallon. That's a hell of a gap. The rates
that are being introduced into this situation, I think that it behooves the
Manager when he takes whatever firm we select to sit down and final negotiato
with, he's hired to protect the City and it would be my hope and desire that
he has the freedom and the latitude to take the beat of all of the worlds .to '
El
53 June 22t i9s
come back to this Commission. All I'm saying is, whoever the successful
bidder is here today, as far as I'm concerned, if the items of 27 which I
incorporated in my memo, which has been published, are not met, that
individual will not get my vote. And I'm very, very clear about that as I'm
very concerned about the transfer or the sell out. I'm concerned about
collateral, I'm concerned about financing, and all of these proposals, almost
everyone of them, were different. So, I'm just putting on the record, very
clear, that when the Manager comes back, we still have a second bite at the
apple.
Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor...
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, before you move...
Mr. De Yurre: I need a clarification because that's not my understanding.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK. All right.
Mr. De Yurre: My understanding here is that we're making a selection of a
group here today, and we're accepting the terms that are being provided by
selecting that group. However, we will better - make an attempt to better
those terms and anything that is beneficial to the City, certainly that
changes the original proposal, would be accepted by this Commission. But it
is not my understanding, that's why I'm asking for a clarification, that we
can go back and say, either you give us this or you're out and we go to
another group. I don't think that that is what we're doing here.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. De Yurre...
Mr. De Yurre: Well, I'm asking the City Attorney. That's what I want.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: You will select the group that you find to be most
advantageous to the City and you will secondarily authorize the Manager to
negotiate a successful agreement with that group subject to the Commission's
further review and consideration. That is required by the charter as well,
that UDP contracts be approved by the Commission.
Mr. De Yurre: OK, but what my point is that whatever group is selected here
today, they have offered, they made their proposal. Now, provided they're in
a position wherein they're saying, this is my offer and if we select them,
then that's their offer. Whether we can gain additional from them, then
that's fine, it's in our benefit, but that does not put them in a position
wherein if they say, listen, I do not give you one additional cent or one
concession other than what I've proffered and what I offered at the Commission
from which you selected me, that's it. Then we cannot come back and say,
well, we don't want you now.
Mr. Plummer: That's not my under....
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: I think that the City always betters itself because we
consider the UDP/RFP a minimum and we always make every attempt to improve it.
The time to do that is in negotiations, not prior to selection because then
there is not a free and fair competition to compare to. If they start trying
Mr. Pluft b6r: ... and this Commission has to approve it or disapprove it.
Mr: Odio: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Right. Although the Commissioner, the Vice Mayor is tight also
that it would put us in a precarious situation if they came back and offered
exactly the identical terms that they had offered at today's proceedings And
somehow, for whatever reason, we felt that we ought to reject it. We would
have a tough time coming up with grounds, you're right about that too.
Mrs. Kennedy: Um hum.
Mr. Odio: Then I think I'm not a lawyer, but you need to it on the record
when you select, that it's subject to further negotiations and that the terms
as they are - that they have to agree that these terms can be changed one way
or the other.
Mr. Plummer: The point I make again, Mr. City Attorney...
Mayor Suarez: Well, what we're doing is in accordance with the City Charter
and Code. We're not going to draft a whole new set of conditions, Mr.
Manager, for further negotiation, but it is understood that we have in the
past, and I think Commissioner Plummer's adequately correctly pointing out, we
have been by negotiations been able to build in a variety of additional
safeguards, sometimes even get more favorable terms and somehow that process
works.
Mr. Odio: That's right. It does work. But let me give you an example, if
somebody came in with a proposal for 60 years and you have decided you only
want to award the contract for 25, they would have to agree to a change in
what they originally proposed, so that's why you need to...
Mr. De Yurre: Well, but I think there's a consensus here that we're talking
about 25 years to begin with.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, that would indicate less favorable terms to the City
because I think all of us see a shorter lease as more favorable than a longer
lease.
Mr. Odio: OK.
Mr. Plummer: Let me just understand now. Two points.
One, the City Manager,
Mr. City Attorney, is free to negotiate anything with
the proposer that's
selected.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes...
Mr. Plummer: As long as it betters the proposal to the
City.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: As long as it's an improvement and
not anything worse, of
course.
Mr. Plummer: Even though a substantial change to the better.
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Plummer: OK, Number two, that that contract that
he finally negotiates
i
has to come back for this Commission's approval.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, that's correct. That's in the
resolution before you
today.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you. OK.
Mr. De Yurres The point is, theoretically, that the group that Sots selected
today, we find them acceptable, if not, we wouldn't
select them. That's
-i
number one. Now, when the administration comes back
for us to approve the
negotiated contract, then there may be changes which
are beneficial to uo_'
Rut, In reality► you know, theoretically, We Would have
to accept that because
55
June 32,_
•
4
It +certainly will not be any worse than what we're admitting to here abd
Agreeing to here.
Mrs. Kennedy: Of course.
Mr. Plummer: Except one fact you're overlooking and you're getting verb dose
to my offering a motion that I don't want to offer, that's throw them all out
and go to rebidding. Now, the reason I say that...
Mr: be Yurre: Not if you got, you know... Not if you got three votes that
are, you know.
Mr. Plummer: ... OK, the reason I don't want to do that and the reason 1 say
that is the point that I just made. I see some very fine points in different
proposals and some that are negative, and I'm saying that I want the Manager,
which with ever team is selected, to have the latitude to try to get the fine
points out of every proposal. That's what I'm here for, that's what we're
here for, is to do the best for this City that we can.
Mayor Suarez: He has that latitude, we've clarified that.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mr. De Yurre: OK, we're ready to go.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, before we...
Mr. Odio: I think the resolution is clear.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Kennedy wanted to make a statement. Last
statement, Commissioners and...
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me just say for the record that much has been made about
the last statement, fact that this is a very difficult vote for me and because
I have friends in all three sides. It's also difficult for all...
Mr. Dawkins: And one enemy running against you.
Mrs. Kennedy: Right. It's also difficult for all of my colleagues here. But
I don't think it's any different from many other votes that we've handled on
this board. This will probably be my last vote on one of the City's most
valuable pieces of land and I only have one thing in mind which is to do the
best thing for the City of Miami. That's all.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Mayor. -
Mr. De Yurre: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to make a motion, but before that, I
got to ask the question I've asked of everybody else.
j Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir.
Mr. De Yurre: Would this group be willing to give first crack at employment
to the employees of Merrill -Stevens that are presently there today?
Mr. Plummer: Half of them are already there.
Mr. Traurig: If selected, we will absolutely give first choice in employment
to people who are presently employed at the boatyard at 2640. Yes, sir.
Mr. De Yurre: Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: You heard it before, half of them right now are Merrill -Stevens
in exile.
Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor, first of all I want to congratulate all of the
people who were involved in this process because, you know, I've been what? -a
year and a half now. Since I've been here, this has been going on, and I know
it's been going on for a way longer than that, and I want to congratulate the
administration and all the citizens that were involved on these boards in
making their recommendations. You know, certainly like J. L. just said, you
know, there are good points to every presentation and we've seen things that
t ; we like in each one, But the one that strikes the chord with me is the one
P -
a'=
b Juno 22 P A 949
z
all
wherein we're herb to prevlde a service to the beating lndustry; to the
boating peopla. And the one that I feel does the best job is the Dinner trey
Boatyard group which is this last one that was presented. Another thing that
also impresses me of this group is the fact that they got the financial
backing to go ahead with the project without having to get the financing from
a lending institution if it needed to be done. I just feel that, hopefully,
when the administration gets a contract, that it'll be something that may even
be better, hopefully. But certainly, I'm satisfied with what I've seen today
with that group and I would make a motion to select Dinner Key Boatyard as the
group to head that process.
Mayor Suarez: So moved. Do we have a second? Do we have a second?
Mr. Dawkins: I'd second and under discussion. I'd planned not to vote for
either one for two reasons. Number one, I said I would not vote for anyone
that had a restaurant, and all of them got restaurants. I was not
particularly happy with the minority participation, but when I sit here and
hear that individuals made their presentation were allowed to make
modifications and justifications and nobody said anything, and the minute that
this group attempted to do the same thing, make the simple modification or
justification, they go to the charter and everything to find excuses not to do
it. That's unfair in my opinion. For that reason, I'm going to vote with
this group even though I don't like any of it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Under discussion.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Kennedy.
Mrs. Kennedy: Look into the selection committee, it's a very close vote.
_ Merrill -Stevens received five first place votes, Dinner Key Boatyard received
three, Dinner Key Marina received one. Importantly, two of Dinner Key
Boatyard votes come from members appointed to represent the marine community.
Merrill -Stevens received only one such vote, Dinner Key Marina, none. Dinner
Key Marina was first in four out of six of the criteria for committee
evaluation, financial capability, overall project design and minority
participation. And then finally you have to look to the Waterfront Board,
whose members are appointed by this Commie ion to represent the marine
community and seven out of nine members have endorsed Dinner Key Boatyard.
Only two sided with Dinner Key Marina and one of those has since changed his
mind. None backed Merrill -Stevens. So, in light of all this, I think that
Dinner Key Boatyard best serves our community and that's where my vote will
go.
Mayor Suarez: Anything further?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, one other thing, Mr. Mayor. Dr. Dunn, I sincerely hope
that your reputation and all means more than the rumor I've heard that you are
rented and that you will sell out when this is finished. Only time will tell,
sir. I do not need an answer. Time will tell.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll on the motion.
t
� •j
a
+ r r
t � i
-r
�
� t
k
--• - � 3avtz.4�sl�5JfvF_'�}n`�s-�`,�3tih.rr'nF�v:{_�LS`xi�, ��.P.y�Y`��nbK � � ''c
.� i.. i' a lv «�3 n
f
�y�,, y�dyiYl♦�
WOLUT#ON 90. 64-*1
A RESOLUTION SELECTING DINNER KEY BOATYARD, J.V. AS
THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT OF
THE 2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE PROPERTY FOR TO
PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, LEASING AND
MANAGEMENT OF A FULL -SERVICE BOATYARD, MARINA AND
ANCILLARY MARINE -RELATED RETAIL USES ON APPROXIMATELY
12.57 ACRES OF CITY -OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTY;
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH SAID PROPOSER; REQUIRING
THE AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS `
(MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) AND TO COMPLY
WITH THE CITY'S MINORITY PROCUREMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE;
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS; AND FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE NEGOTIATED
AGREEMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ITS REVIEW,
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION;
FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE HEREIN SELECTION OF DINNER
KEY BOATYARD, J.V. AS THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER DOES NOT
CONFER ANY CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS UPON SAID PROPOSER
UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN
EXECUTED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was pase'ad
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
(Applause)'
THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT
12s52 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:45 P.M., WITH ALL,
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT.
X'
'k-
o-:
o aq%dy` x-5�i
44 -,
'4{i
US
-
0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. (A) ACCEPT STATE OF FLORIDA SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT ($30,000) -
Execute agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs to
provide technical assistance to Wynwood Safe Neighborhood Improvement
District.
(B) ACCEPT STATE OF FLORIDA SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT ($250,000) -
Execute agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs to
prepare a Safe Neighborhood Improvement Plan for Wynwood Safe
Neighborhood Improvement District.
Mayor Suarez: The Commission please come to order. Would Stuart Sorg please
come to order. Commissioners, the Manager had given us all - had distributed
a memorandum and attached supporting documents on the Wynwood safe
neighborhood improvement district agreement between the City of Miami, Florida
Department of Community Affairs. Does anyone have any problem with this?
That's an emergency item apparently.
Mr. Dawkins: Where's the lawyer? There's wording in it that I asked to be
stricken and I haven't seen it and didn't read it. Where's the lawyer? Let
me see...
Mayor Suarez: The Manager presumably sent it out to everybody. There's a
special kind of memo that skips the Vice Mayor, but that's not one of them.
Mr. Plummer: My question is, the Manager keeps saying he has no money.
Where's the $30,000 of City money coming from? What?
Mr. Elbert Waters: Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner, Elbert Waters, Planning
Department. Those dollars are in -kind services.
Mr. Plummer: What the hell difference does it make?
Mr. Waters: They're staff time.
Mr. Plummer: They're $30,000 of staff time that's not going to be devoted to
their regular job. It's money.
Mr. Odio: Do whatever you wane to.
Mr. Plummer: I'm asking...
Mayor Suarez: We are able to convince the state for matching purposes that
our time is worth a lot. It doesn't really mean that we're taking it from
something else and it's obviously a very needy neighborhood, so hope you...
Mr. De Yurre: Well, my understanding is that they talk about time that is
dedicated to Wynwood to begin with, is that correct?
Mr. Rodriguez: What would happen is that we have a certain amount of time
dedicated to different areas of the City and this is one the areas in which we
are working and the $30,000 as a match will be coming from that particular
area.
Mr. De Yurre: And it's my understanding then that we're actually not giving
anything than what we would give anyway ordinarily.
Mr. Rodriguez: We are basically just using our staff time as a match.
Mr. De Yurre: Except that we're earmarking it like you're saying is to match
the funds.
Mayor Suarez: He did.
Mr. De Yurre: We're using it to match the funds that we're getting.
Mr. Rodriguez: We're matching with services with staff time.
Mr. De Yurre: Which we would have given anyway.
59 June 22, 1989
0 0
Mr. Rodriguez: Anyhow.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, according to what I'm reading here, we get $30,000 - that's
the grant, is that correct?
Mr. Rodriguez: There are two grants. One of thirty thousand and one of two
hundred and fifty. They're two different contracts.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, so we're getting $250,000 grant and we got to match each one
of them.
Mr. Rodriguez: We have to match each one of them.
Mr. Dawkins: Whereas required matching funds - well, OK, I see $250,000 and I
see $30,000.
Mr. Rodriguez: Remembering in...
Mr. Dawkins: And the state of Florida has accepted what you're talking about
providing as inkind services to match - now, but you see... read with me now.
Whereas required matching funds for said grant in the amount of two hundred
and fifty dollars is available in the form of inkind services of forty-five
thousand from the City...
Mr. Rodriguez: By the City, right.
Mr. Dawkins: ... through it's general fund and community development• grant
and $205,000 from various community organizations serving the Wynwood
community.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mr. Dawkins: So that's going to come from - so $205,000 is coming from the
community.
Mr. Rodriguez: From the community in inkind services from the different
development corporations in the area and community time. The City, in that
match of two hundred and fifty...
Mr. Dawkins: And you have identified this to the state of Florida and they
have accepted what you wrote.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mr. Dawkins: Where is that?
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, this is basically the grant, the application that we
made. What is happening with this is that they... we have to get... we
received bids from them on June 12th or 13th and we have a deadline of the
16th. We didn't have any Commission meeting before that. We brought it
before you today so that we have an action on this.
Mr. Dawkins: My only problem is that you provide what you are doing because
this community does not get anything to start with and I do not want to be the
one who sits here and gives this community false hope and you not being able
to provide this community with what you are promising. That's my only
problem.
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, in this case what we are doing is trying to help the
community to get more money.
Mr. Dawkins: I don't want... you see, you see, now you are cleaning it up.
Now you come back and tell me you are trying to help the community. Then when
you don't follow through, then you tell me, Commissioner, I did not promise
you we were going to meet these needs of the community. I told you we would
try. Now, I want you to tell me now...
Mr. Rodriguez: We will follow through, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, you are going to tell me you are going to meet there,
You see, this community needs help. Either you guys are going to do this or
you are not going to do it.
60 JuAe` 22, 1904
Mrs. Kennedy: Now, Sergio, the Florida Department of Community Affairs is
waiting for our verbal agreement as of, when today?
Mr. Rodriguez: We are supposed to have signed this on the 16th and we ask
them to postpone this and we have a meeting from you. This is basically just
to agree to something you have approved already. It is just to make sure that
the contract is signed with a contribution that we from the beginning assume
that we are going to have in staff time as a match.
Mr. Plummer: They are giving $250,000.
Mr. Rodriguez: They are giving $250,000 and also they are giving $30,000, two
different...
Mr. Plummer: OK, as I read here, OK... I want to know what in the hell the
money is being used for. I am reading here they are going to identify crime,
they are going to record crime, they are going to survey crime. I don't find
one damn thing in here what they are going to do to help solutions of crime.
Mr. Rodriguez: Let me see if I can get...
Mr. Plummer: No, I'm reading...
Mr. Rodriguez: I am trying to explain to you, but I have voices in my back
and I'm trying to concentrate.
Mr. Plummer: They are going to have demographics, including population, age,
race, sex, income, employment, education, housing and poverty. Then the crime
activity, which this is titled, is to type the frequency, the severity and the
location of criminal activity. Hell, I can do that from a police computer. I
don't need $250,000 wasted. Now, determine from surveys and other research
techniques, the level of crime as perceived by the neighborhood. They all
will tell you the same, it's bad. Compare the types of crime in a district on
a per capita citywide... what in the hell is this $250,000 going to do to
help? Are they going to hire policemen?
Mr. Rodriguez: The Safe Neighborhood Improvement Act, what basically allows
you to do is find out through a design, a physical design, how...
Mr. Plummer: We know that! We've got a department in the Police Department
right now that does crime analysis. They've got the computers.
Mr. Rodriguez: If I may finish.
Mr. Plummer: We've spent millions on computers. Now, hey tell me that this
money is going to go to make the solution. I don't need to know when you got
a food program how many hungry people. They're out there. Don't spend the
money on a survey, spend it on the food.
Mr. Rodriguez: If you want to follow what we are supposed to do if you
continue reading, you will see...
Mr. Plummer: Well, you throw this at me. I can only look at so much of it at
a time.
Mr. Rodriguez: OK, that's up to you. If we don't apply today, we...
Mayor Suarez: Is it a fair assumption that we are going to do more than study
the problems of crimes and analyze it and re -analyze it.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I read in here that addresses the
solution of crime is the closing of certain streets.
Mr. Odio: Commissioner, we don't have to accept the grant if you don't want
it.
Mr. Plummer: Hey, maybe we want to if you tell me that you need something
more than what you've shown me here.
Mr. Bill Rios: Commissioner...
bl ,Tuna 22, M9 -
Mr. Plummer: i don't want to deny Wynwood $250,000 if I can take the money
and get more policemen.
Mr. Odio: The grant applications are specific in some cases. If you deviate
from grant application, you don't receive the money. So if you want to change
that, I can apply for some other funds and not this one.
Mr. Rios: Commissioner, my name is Bill Rios, I'm the executive director of
the Wynwood Community Economic Development Corporation.
Mr. Plummer: And doing a damn fine job.
Mr. Rios: Thank you sir. Let me explain. The State has provided a money to
fight crime from a different and unique perspective. That is that the
environment itself causes crime and this is a new philosophy in addressing the
issue of crime and what has been provided is two different types of monies.
The first monies, $250,000 and $30,000 are planning grants to plan specific
activities that will impact crime and in order for you to plan that, you need
to ascertain certain information and collect data. The $250,000 and $30,000
is to provide for that planning initiative.
Mayor Suarez: Is that money used for and available for determining how many
people in the ranges of 18 and 25 years old in that area are unemployed, for
example, which we need very badly to know?
Mr. Rios: Yes, it would provide for those types of statistics that would
impact the objectives that are going to be...
Mayor Suarez: Now, $250,000 sounds like a large amount of money.
Commissioner Plummer and the rest of us would like to see some of that money
used for child care, jobs, cleaning up, very fundamental services.
Mr. Rios: The $250,000 is very specific. They are for planning purposes
only. If within those $250,000 you plan that perhaps what you want is
additional police, then the State provides on a matching basis...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, we know that.
Mr. Rios: The implementation dollars that you can utilize to implement any of
those issues that you have addressed.
_ Mayor Suarez: Oh, I remember, this is from the... the cycle they have is
first you do the planning and then you ask for the capital improvement monies
under the Safe Neighborhood jobs, Safe Neighborhood... whatever the rest of it
is.
Mr. Rios: That is correct.
Mr. Rodriguez: And the idea will be that through these monies you can decide
what streets will be closed based on traffic analysis, which one to put fences
around.
Mayor Suarez: There is a lot of money for planning. When we need monies for
implementing, is what the Commissioner...
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, that is what is available and we applied for it and were
successful in getting.
Mr. Dawkins: But still nobody is answering J.L.'s basic question, OK? You
got a $250,000 grant, you got $250,000 of in -kind services, you got $500,000,
what are you going to do with it. That's all we are asking! Now, if you are
telling me that you need data and you need this and you need the other and you
got in -kind services from the City of Miami, we've got staff that can get you
the data, we got computers that can get you the data, we got all these things
In -kind service, so now what are you going to do with the $250,000 cash?
That's all I need to know.
Mrs. Kennedy: Bill, why don't you give us the guidelines for the use of that
money?
Mr. Dawkins: Once you
duplicate the services.
0 0
but and buy computer time. We've got people that we got to donate to you who
are statisticians, so we can donate that, so don't go out and buy that. What
are you going to buy with the $250,000?
Mr. Rios: And the $250,000 buys certain things. One of the things that they
do buy, for example, expertise in the area of CPFED, crime prevention...
Mr. Dawkins: In the area of what?
Mr. Rios: CPFED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. We have those
specialists right now who can effectively fill the needs for CPFED specialists
on...
Mr. Dawkins: And approximately how much would that cost?
Mr. Rios: That has been determined that it would cost about $38,000 to bring
someone...
Mr. Dawkins: So, $38,000 from a quarter of a million is nothing.
Mr. Rios: Commissioner, that's one item. We would also have to conduct
public hearings, special mailings, we need three public hearings that would
have to be paid for out of physical dollars.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, public hearing, I donate the City Hall for the public
meeting. You don't have to buy a space. Now go ahead from there. What else
you got?
Mr. Rios: Well, we have mailings, etc.
Mr. Dawkins: Mailings?
Mr. Rios: Right.
Mr. Dawkins: I can't donate the mailing. The U.S. Government won't do that.
Go ahead.
Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Mayor.
Mr. De Yurre: Why don't we do the following, because I think it's important
that we get a breakdown of the $250,000.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, this neighborhood, you see, you don't have to run, OK?
We got to run, we don't know who else is got to run.
Mr. De Yurre: Yes, we are always running.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but you see, and every time we go out campaigning, we
promise this neighborhood we are going to do this, we are going to upgrade the
neighborhood, then when we get elected, we don't do nothing. Then as soon as
an election year, we come up with some more promises. This is an election
year, that's why you find $250,000 available for Wynwood. But I don't want no
promises, I want production. Now, you tell me what you are going to do in
Wynwood with $250,000 so as I campaign, I can say, this is what we are going
to do. They can't say Miller Dawkins lied the last time and didn't give us
nothing.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Mayor, were you proposing to apply for the grant and
then later have more oversight?
Mr. De Yurre: Can we accept the money and then subject to
getting a
breakdown►
on what it is going to be
used for. You know...
Mayor Suarez: We don't
lose anything by that, and at least we get
this item
out of the way and go on
to the next items.
Mr. Plummer: OK, let me
get just one thing on the record.
I'll go along
with
that and if don't use it,
then we can send it back, is that
correct?
63
June
2�
Mr. De Yurre: I got no problem with that. When we don't have to give out
$2504000 of...
Mrs. Kennedy: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Is that correct it we don't want to accept it, we can send it
back?
Mr. Rodriguez: We can send it back if you don't want it.
Mayor Suarez: And Mr. Rodriguez, in case we don't send it back, and as
another additional way of expressing to the State, a view of life, would you
draft a letter explaining how we feel about having you know, these monies
being straight -jacketed and being constrained for planning when we need monies
for actual implementation of programs. you know, the State has a
$23,000,000,000 budget, we'd love to get our hands on some of it to improve
our neighborhoods. We know what the needs are, we don't need to study them
too much more.
Mr. Rodriguez: If you remember, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: Let me have an understanding. Accepting the grant and we
finalize, we use it. Am I to understand that that is under the full control
of the City, those monies?
Mr. Rios: No, the City...
Mr. Plummer: Wait, whoa.
Mayor Suarez: The motion as it is going to be stated would have that kind of
a proviso and that kind of a condition.
Mr. Plummer: The City would be totally in charge of those monies and
responsible for.
Mr. Rodriguez: The contract would be between the State and the City, so we
have the control of the money, yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: OK, that's what I want to make sure.
Mrs. Kennedy: This is another tool for fighting crime, Mr. Mayor. I think
that as the Commissioner says, we should accept the grant. Also, Bill, let me
ask you while I have you there, will this also advise us as to the legal
implications of the special taxing districts, special assessments, and so
forth?
Mr. Rios: Yes, Ma'am.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mr. Rios: And this is the money that would also be used to do the Foreign
Trade Zone feasibility study and application.
Mrs. Kennedy: The Enterprise Zone?
A AR -SOLUTION WITH ATTACHMENT, ACCEPTING A STM OP
FLORIDA SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $10,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FSXECU2
VHS ATTACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, FOR THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO THE WYNWOOD SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
r:
+n
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on z'
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
RESOLUTION No. 80-577.1
A RESOLUTION WITH ATTACHMENT, ACCEPTING A STATE OF
FLORIDA SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $250,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE PREPARATION OF
A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE WYNWOOD
SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, these resolution *Vere'
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYESs Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
S. ESTABLISH SPECIAL CHARGES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE OF ORANGE BOWL
STADIUM BY MITCHELL MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC. - for a
gospel music concert and oration by Reverend Jesse Jackson.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dawkins: The other one is, I hope everyone has been given something
called a fact sheet here?
Mr. Plummer: On?
Mr. Dawkins: On the use of the Orange Bowl, where we are supposed to make
revenue of a $172,600 and they asked that I do this. Anybody...
Mr. Plummer: I don't know what you are talking about.
Mr. Dawkins: Somebody explain it, if you guys didn't give it to them.
Explain it, Mr. Ruder.
Mayor Suarez: What is the fact sheet about? What is the item about?
Mr. Plummer: Wait, wait. When did you give us this fact sheet?
Mr. Albert Ruder: Early this morning we put it on each one of your desks.
Mr. Plummer: Ahh, what a way to run an airline!
Mayor Suarez: What is the emergency or the urgency of this?
Mr. Ruder: The urgency is that we just were able to negotiate a deal for the
Orange Bowl with the Mitchell Memorial Highway Church of Christ, who is
bringing a gospel type of concert including Jesse Jackson.
Mayor Suarez: Why does this have to go before the Commission?
Mr. Ruder: Because the best deal. that we were able to negotiate was a $15,000
versus ten percent with a cap of $60,000 and the Code does not provide a cap,
so the only way we could get this deal is if we put that cap at $60,000.
Mayor Suarez: We've got to make a minor modification in the Code provision as
this today?
Mr. Ruder: Right. The revenue potential is $172,000.
Mr. Dawkins: That's the rules. Yes, no, he did. No, I didn't have nothing
to do with it. No, me and Jesse Jackson had nothing to do with this.
Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with it.
Mr. Dawkins: Anybody got a problem with it? So moved.
Mr. Plummer: The only... what is required of them to pay up front in advance
of the event?
Mr. Ruder: They
would have to pay the
normal deposit.
— . Mayor Suarez:
Which is what?
Mr. Ruder:
I think it is $2,500. I
would have to
check that out. I just
can't recall
at this moment. They would have to pay
the normal deposit that
we charge.
Mr. Dawkins:
OK, I so move that they
pay the amount...
with the stipulation
that the minimum deposit be paid.
Mayor Suarez:
So moved.
Mr, Plummer:
What? Second.
Mayor Suarez:
So moved and seconded.
Any further discussion?
Cali ths'r07l
66
the following resolution was introduced by Commissioner brokitia, who
tobved its adoption!
RESOLUTION NO. 89-578
A RESOLUTION WITH ATTACHMENT, ESTABLISHING SPECIAL
CHARGES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF THE
ORANGE BOWL STADIUM BY MITCHELL MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC. FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE
"YEAR OF HOPE," A GOSPEL MUSIC CONCERT AND ORATION BY
THE REVEREND JESSE JACKSON AT SAID STADIUM ON JULY 14,
1989; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM,
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND MITCHELL MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC. FOR SAID EVENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution vas passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES3 None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Suarez: Like with any other item of this sort that we have to make a
change in the Code just to adapt to the particular situation, I hope you
consider at some point proposing a more flexible ordinance that gives you the
ability to not have to bring this back...
Mr. Ruder: We are working on that right now, a major Code revision.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
6. CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES DEPARTURE OF JUDITH E. SECHER, A MEMBER OF HIS
STAFF - Direct Administration to prepare appropriate Proclamation.
Mayor Suarez: We have to recognize, or we should recognize an out going
member of our legal staff, Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, Mr. Mayor, we have...
Mayor Suarez:
We should recognize an out going member of our City Commission
too, but...
Mr. Fernandez:
I would like to acknowledge this afternoon Judith E. Secher,
who has been
an assistant city attorney and a police legal advisor for the
last almost six years. She is leaving...
Mayor Suarez;
We see this name all the time coming up in all of these matters
—
involving police
cases and we never meet the person behind the name and she's
had a distinguished
service.
Mr. Fernandez;
And I would like for her to approach the podium so that she is
recognized by
you. She has served the City with distinction. She has given
her very best
to the Police Department. I've also asked Chief Burke to be
here today, because Chief Anderson is out of town, so that together, we the
City Attorney
and the Police Chief or his representative whom she has served -
extremely well
for the last six years, we're able to give her due recognition,
She is leaving
on July Tth, you won't be meeting again until after that and so
te , 4-
67Cv
y
I thought that this would be an apropos time for you to thank her for the job
well none.
Mr. Plummer: Is due recognition $97,0007
Mr. Fernandez: She is not making that much, are you Judy? Oh, here she it.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. City Attorney, would you make sure that we have the
appropriate memento or whatever we usually do in a situation. I think other
than that, we ought to do at least give her a hand for her fine work.
(APPLAUSE)
Mayor Suarez: As for the assistant chief, just find out where he buys hie
suits, that is the only thing we are interested in.
7. (Continued Discussion) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO GIVE TERMINATION NOTICE
TO "MERRILL STEVENS MARINE CENTER AT DINNER KEY ASSOCITES, LTD."
Request Merrill Stevens to vacate premises no later than November 1,
1989 (See label 3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I broach a subject? Is the Manager here?
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: A thing of concern was raised, Mr. Manager. Merrill Stevens of
course, was not the successful bidder.
Mr. Odio: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: In the previous statements about Merrill Stevens, had they not
been the successful bidder, they were afforded 120 days to evacu'Ite the
premises and take all of their equipment with them. The question was raised
and I assume that that is the still the case, 120 days?
Mr. Odio: No, I told Jimmy Merrill that what I think would happen is, number
one, we have to negotiate a contract. I don't believe I can bring a contract
by July 13th, that's impossible.
Mayor Suarez: Realistically, when would we be in a position of having to give
the land over to the successful bidder, at the earliest?
Mr. Odio: You would have a contract in front of you by September and that
wound mean they could have their land... I think 120 days would be too much at
that time. I think maybe what we should do...
Mayor Suarez: So ninety days?
Mr. Odio: Notify Jimmy Merrill...
Mr. Plummer: I don't know what it takes to move all of that stuff, I mean,
you
know.
Mr.
Odio: Why don't we put
him on
notice now that
they are to
vacate by..,
_
Mr.
Plummer: Well, I think
they were
on notice this
morning,
then.
Mr.
Odio: ... October 1st.
Mr.
Plummer: That would give them,
July, August,
September?
�-
A°
Mr.
Odio: Unless we cancel
that 30
days before.
+,
Mayor Suarez: That is more
than 120
days there.
x�
Mr.
Odio: Unless, and what
we can
do, is say we
want YOU to
MQve..by �9ctQber
,1st
and if 30 days before that time...
r
,
P1$y$i ► That'* lees than, 120 gets.
"tj ''ghat would be 90.
` Mr. bd ib t to it November 1.
Mr. Pluist'der:
0
Lot me just, you Know, tot Mead for the l6bot-4.
Mayor Suares: Almost 100 days.
Mr. Plummer: .. but I AM saying is, why not, why wouldn't you do it and bit
the new contract with the company nosing in effective November 1st, which
q
Mr. 'Odio: Fine, fine;
Mayor Suarez: OK, do we need that in the form of a motion, are you going to
try to do that within those parameters?
}` Mr. Odio: I think November lot and we'll have to finish everything by them
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mayor Suarez: I think you understand that is the consensus of the Commission.
Mr. Plummer: OK, I will so move that termination notice be given to Merrill
Stevens and that they vacate the property and turn it back to the City by
November 1, 1989.
8. COMMISSIONER DE YURRE EXPRESSES NEED TO REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY'S SALARY
City Commission agrees to discuss City Manager's, City Attorney's and
City Clerk's salaries during budget hearings.
Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Mayor.
Mr. De Yurre: Yes, just you know, to bring it up, it's been over a year that
our City Attorney, Mr. Fernandez has been employed as City Attorney and I'd
just like to see if we can put it on the agenda to review his work performance
and the possibility of any adjustment with his salary, if any at all.
Mr. Plummer: Oh no.
Mayor Suarez: The City Attorney is one of those officials of the City who was
selected by the Commission who runs for a fixed term, unlike the City Manager.
I think he is the only one, along with the City Clerk, if I'm not mistaken, so
his evaluation comes up automatically upon any general election, which would
be November.
Mr. De Yurre: Well, is it a four-year period, or what? - two-year period?
Mayor Suarez: It's four... it's been up to now, every two years, because it's
any general election of the City of Miami, which is every odd year. -
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me voice my opinion. I think the City Attorney is
entitled to a raise like anybody else around here. I guess what we would
argue about is how much, but I think it would be proper to do it at budget
time and in the budget is the same way he handles all of the rest of his
people. I think that would be very appropriate, but I don't think you should
do it...
Mr. De Yurre: Well, I jut throw it out because he doesn't have any contract
like you know, the City Manager, I think he gets an automatic raise, or
whatever, and his is pretty much up in the air.
Mr. Dawkins: You get automatic raises?
Mr. Odio: I have received in five years, five percent increase, if that's
what he is referring to.
Mr. Dawkins: No, you didn't answer my question. Do you get automatic raises?
Mr. Odio: I think I am due another five percent next year.
Mr. Dawkins: Next year? When is next...
Mr. Plummer: If you're here that long!
Mr.
Odio: If
I'm here that long.
Mr.
Dawkins:
Next
year?
Mr.
Odio: Which I
might not want to be.
-
Mr.
Dawkins:
Next
year, next fiscal year, or next...?
Mr.
Odio: I
think
I am entitled, at the end of the month of
January, another
five percent.
That
would give me a ten percent increase over
five years.
Mr.
Plummer:
Is there
any truth to the fact that you want to
be appointed the
Commissioner?
Mr,
Odio: No,
they
don't make enough money.
70
,7uAq 421'. 1 _
x1
Mr. Dawkins: And I'd like to bring up the Manager's salary also while we are
discussing raises.
Mayor Suarez: I'll just warn everybody that for myself, I'm thinking of
reductions for everybody, so...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, that's good. Well see, you and I may as well shut up,
because our votes will cancel out each other.
Mr. Plummer: Well wait a minute, hold now. If you are going to be fair, we
appoint three people. We appoint the Manager, the Attorney and the Clerk and
if you are going to consider, I think we ought to consider all three.
Mr. Dawkins: I have no problems with that.
Mrs. Kennedy: That's only fair.
Mayor Suarez: OK, so be it.
Mr. Dawkins: But as the Mayor said, we don't have his vote, so you've got to
work to get two other votes, whoever is going to sponsor this.
Mayor Suarez: I wasn't saying that necessarily as to the City Clerk, because
that salary is substantially lower than the other two. Anyhow...
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Manager, just pray that the person replacing me likes you
as much as I do.
---------------------
9. CONSENT AGENDA.
Mayor Suarez: The consent agenda is comprised of item CA-1 through CA-3 and
we are about to take it up collectively. If there is anyone that wishes to be
heard on any of those items? Let the record reflect that no one has stepped
forward, in which case I will entertain a motion on items CA-1 through CA-3.
Mrs. Kennedy: So moved.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? If
not, call the roll. -
THEREUPON, UPON MOTION DULY MADE BY
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY AND
—
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PLUMMER, THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPRISING
THE CONSENT AGENDA WERE ADOPTED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTES
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
; 4r
=
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
N093 s None,
a
ABSENT: None.
1
1 tj ff.p y
r
3
,3. ' b 3-4 kr.� , r 7
YtE
f S —
l
• l• yi Y _
1
I
t!�k
7
1 '4h
_.
1
SSS 4C43k R _
f�
)
• . .
is ., _.. ..... . S .5...;•
!
4.1 RXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH BELAFONTE TACOLCY CENTER, INC - for i"It ent oh
of dropout prevention component of Summer Youth Employment & 'Tralftiftg
Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-580
A RESOLUTION WITH ATTACHMENTS AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE BELAFONTE TACOLCY CENTER,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,600 FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE DROPOUT
PREVENTION COMPONENT OF THE FY'89 JTPA TITLE II-B
SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
9.2 ACCEPT PLAT: HIGH POINT ESTATES.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-581
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "HIGH POINT
ESTATES", A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND
ACCEPTING THE COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND
POSTPONING THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND
PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
9.3 ACCEPT PLAT: ARBORETUM REPLAT.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-582
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "ARBORETUM
REPLAT" A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PROVIDING FOR THE
RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
10. EXECUTE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS - between the City (Purchaser) and
David Abraham; James Kirk, John K. Durkin & Barbara Ryan; Graham C.
Miller, Trustee; Joaquin & Hortensia Trias; and Irving Zuckerberg _
(collectively "Sellers") - for purchase and sale of properties regarding
acquisition of "Federal Law Enforcement Building".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Item 4, Department of Development. What is this about? It
doesn't seem like a...
Mr. Odio:
This is for the Federal Law Enforcement Building, the
GSA building,
We had to
buy the properties
listed here that were approved by you a while
back when
we appraised them.
Of course, we're being totally
reimbursed by
the...
Ms. Arleen
Weintraub: Yes,
r,
c
Mr. Odiiit .. by the Federal governmett for these properties purchases
Mr. Plummert Question, has the Pederal government signed off on this that
they are in concurrence?
Ms. Weintraub: 1e6.
Mr. Plummert Ate I to assume, since 1 have not seen that all of the Appraisal*
that this is in within fine percent of the appraisals?
Ms. Weintraub: It is 10 percent.
Mr. Odio: Ten percent.
Mr. Plummer: It is the average of two appraisals plus ten percent?
Ms. Weintraub: It was the higher of the two, plus ten percent.
Mrs. Kennedy: Ten percent over the higher of the two appraised...
Mr. Plummer: That's not friendly taking. That's not friendly taking. Sorry,
the State law on friendly taking, which is what I thought was being interposed
in here, is you have two appraisals, you take the average plus ten percent,
that's called a friendly taking.
Ms. Weintraubt Yes, GSA did. The federal government...
Mr. Odio: The federal government accepted this purchase price and they are
paying...
Mr. Plummert Just for one example, OK? Tell me in that particular
neighborhood what building is worth $1,800,000?
Mr. Dawkins:
The post office.
Mr. Plummer:
Post office isn't included. This is from 4th to Sth Street...
Mr. Odio: Is
this near Biscayne...
Mr. Plummer:
No, no, this is from 4th to Sth Street, from Miami Avenue to lot
Avenue, is that correct?
Me. Weintraub:
That is correct, it doesn't go through.
Mr. Plummer:
And what building in that locale is worth $1,800,000?
Ms. Weintraub:
That is where the Trailways Bus Depot is located today.
Mr. Plummer:
That's been vacated.
Ms. Weintraubt
No, that is in operation still. Trailways is there today.
Mr. Plummer:
OK. Hey, they are paying the tab!
Mayor Suarez:
I entertain a motion on item 4.
-
Mrs. Kennedy:
So moved.
Mayor Suarez:
Moved.
u
Mx. Plummer:
Second. -
Mayor Suarez:
Seconded. Any further discussion? If AQTr, call the �cAl1.
� _ ., .-:
y
..�.,�l�t�sl
,, -.. .. „-.. ,• ;:- ,. .. .( �« - ,.-: _.. ._ ....... a ....,. ,..... ,1%.xPYb4t�n"n,r x`+l��"..rsn"�.,�;_s ..:. ""rus _i, -.,
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, *ho-
sbovsd its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-583
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE FIVE AGREEMENTS OF PURCHASE AND
SALE FOR PRICES AS STATED HEREIN BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI ("PURCHASER") AND DAVID ABRAHAM, JAMES KIRK,
JOHN K. DURKIN AND BARBARA RYAN; GRAHAM C. MILLER,
TRUSTEE; JOAQUIN TRIAS AND HORTENSIA TRIAS; AND IRVING
ZUCKERBERG (COLLECTIVELY "SELLERS"), FOR THE PURCHASE
AND SALE OF PROPERTIES (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN) FOR THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE OF $4,518,100;
FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SAID PROPERTY TO BE
APPROPRIATED IN CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 311014, ENTITLED
"FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDING" FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDING;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE WHATEVER
STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE
SELLERS AS EARLY AS PRACTICABLE; SAID AUTHORIZATION
BEING CONDITIONED ON THE APPROPRIATION OF THE
NECESSARY FUNDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYESs Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Suarez: Have you given any thought, Mr. Manager, to a selection process
for the developer of that building, that would be something other than what we
went through this morning? Thinking...
Mr. Odio: Well, I think what happened this morning was good. I think it
was...
Mayor Suarez: Well, I know, but I mean, if we could select down to a certain
number of qualified developers, meeting certain minimum criteria and then from
that point forward, go with objective factors like costs in a blind selection
system, that would really... I've discussed it with you before, I don't know
what parameters we're working under as far as the Federal government.
Mr. Odio: Well, the first thing we are doing is qualifications and once that
is done, then we go on and finish it.
Mayor Suarez: Are their still 12 in the basic RFQ process?
Ms. Weintraub: Two of the 12 have withdrawn.
Mayor Suarez: So we are down to ten.
Mr. Odio: There are ten.
Ms. Weintraub: Ten, that is correct and we are reviewing their professional
qualifications. From those qualified, we have anticipated then going for an
RFP based on design and price, so in a sense, we are short listing prior to
them going through that.
Mayor Suarez: What I am thinking is, that if, for example, as we had this
morning, we are down to let's say three of the ones most recommended by the
very subjective process. That is always,involved in an evaluation co11mittoe
43e22
i.
in an RFP or a UDP process and then from that point forward, we can say, all
three of these are qualified and we simply from that point forward go to a
competitive price bidding. I mean, whoever gives us the lowest price and do
it sealed.
Ms. Weintraub: We had envisioned a combination of lowest price and beat
design, because a person would have some needs set.
Mr. Odioi Let me...
Mayor Suarez: That's what tricky, you know, because then we can never say
that we objectively decided from one point forward.
Mr. Odio: The problem is that, and as I remembered negotiations with GSA, is
that they insist in the design part that it is as important to them as the
price in some cases.
Mr. Plummer: Question. Go ahead.
Mayor Suarez: How involved are they going to be in this selection of the
qualified ones? They have like a veto, is that...?
Mr. Odio: They will veto. They will have...
Mr. Plummer: We are not making... why are we even involved, period?
Mr. Odio: I wish we... you decided this. I mean, as far as I am concerned...
my concern is, as far as I am concerned, Commissioner, you wanted it this way.
I'd rather they choose it. That is their building.
Mr. Plummer: What is the maximum amount of money that the City can obligate
itself for?
Me. Weintraub: On this project?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: That's a crucial parameter. It is basically the bondable
capacity generated by the lease payments as agreed upon with the Federal
government less all the costs involved.
Mr. Odio: They have $62,000,000 to do the project, so I guess if somebody
comes in with a bid of eighty, that does it, but they do... I think that they
should do the whole selection process and pick the last candidate as far as
I'm concerned.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you what I think should be done, and I am just
giving you one opinion. I think that they ought to do the process and
surrender the three names to us.
Ms. Weintraub: I don't think they would have a problem with that.
Mr. Plummer: Hey, that means that the three names they select to us, the
three finalists, are all in their concurrence, OK, and I think that's the way
that it should go and say, City Commission, here is three groups, take any one
of the three, that's the way I think. If they got veto powers, it's the same
—
i
thing.
—�:
Mayor Suarez: Let's see
well if you ever got down to three like that my
preference would be then
to do it on a totally objective basis as price
F_ competition and once they
have selected it down to three, just like this
morning, you know...
Mr. Odio: Right.
Ms. Weintraub; Then you could go to who is ever lowest bid based .on
acceptable three designs.
Mayor Suarez; That would
be my preference. I don't know that we... ire aro
not going to decide this
today, but I just want to throw that out for the
Commissioners to consider.
We might see if we do it on a blind bidding -
process that they'll come in
a lot lower then, you know,; if it his wJd@Jy ksnQW4
what we expect to pay,
Mr. Plummer: Just for my edification, that $62,000,000 figure that you throve
out, that is strictly for the property and the building. It doesn't include
furniture or all the rest of that.
Me. Weintraub: That is correct. No, I believe it must include furniture and
fixtures and equipment. It is up to that amount. It includes also the cost
of issuance.
Mayor Suarez: Furniture, fixtures and equipment or fixtures and equipment,
you said?
Ms. Weintraub: Furniture, FF&E, is in that price.
Mayor Suarez: That clarifies it for me, FF&E.
Me. Weintraub: Furniture, fixtures and equipment.
Mayor Suarez: Furniture, fixtures and equipment. Thank you, give me the
complete...
11. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM B. BRICKELL, et
al - concerning City's interest in Brickell Park and burial ground -
Grant request by Williams Group to extend closing date on a scheduled
real estate transaction, part of the settlement process.
Mayor Suarez: OK, item 5. What do we have on the Brickell Park settlement
agreement, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. City Manager, somebody.
Mr. Odio: What they are basically asking, I hope it hasn't changed since I
last saw him, is that we delayed the closing to give him an opportunity to
finalize some development projects he is putting together for that property
and I agreed that I would recommend subject to that he would give us the down
payment, the $500,000 he had agreed to do and they also give us the demolition
money for the property there.
Mrs. Kennedy: Have they agreed?
Mr. Odio: Well, like I said, I hope he hasn't changed. That's what I told
him, the only way I could recommend...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, so what you are saying is, unless, I mean, I want to be
sure... unless they give us the $500,000 and a demolition fee, you do not
recommend that we extend the date? Is that correct?
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you.
Mr. Odio: If they don't want to do that, then they go ahead and close 30 days
from the date or something, but not the amount of days that they wanted in
total.
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
Mrs. Kennedy: How long of a delay are you asking for?
Mr. Mike Williams: We need approximately 120 days. There are several issues
that were not reviewed when all these discussions were going on to have: this
L, lot take place that are more critical to the development than a lot of people
have realized to date. For example, at this point in time, you cannot even
" turn into Brickell Park, off of Brickell Avenue. There is no access to the
park. As a piece of property, that obviously we proposed all of this and
offered to pay several million dollars as well as settling the $rickell City
issues. We need several items taken care of. Our counsel, we have spent well
past $500,000 in costs in the last seven months, doing various drawinga,
trying to meet all of the requirements, even if there was zoning on it today
would have to be met all presupposing pp point in then
,. , presu vain that that happens at some
76 J�,?
r {
> Et
0 0
future. There is absolutely no way to finish those items in the roughly 100
days we've had to work on it. It is just impossible.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, would I be correct in saying that the Manager says to insure
that your client follows through and fulfills the promises made to the City of
Miami, he wants certain criteria monetarily met to insure that it's done and
then I hear you saying that we refused to put this up because we're not sure
we can do it, is that a correct assumption?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, I'm not saying we can't do it, I'm telling you and I
want it on the record that every issue that we have uncovered is a resolvable
issue. It is not...
Mr. Dawkins: All right, what is your justification... all right, the Manager
has said what he wants. Now, give me your reasoning other than telling me
that you cannot meet the time restraints placed on you by the Manager. Give
me another reason, and if you are sure that given the extended time, that you
will meet the obligations promised us, what's wrong with why not put up the
money the Manager asked for? Explain to me why.
Mr. Williams: Because there are certain issues that neither myself or the City
or the Commissioners and the good job they do, that cannot assure us the
issues will not be... excuse me...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, that's what the Manager is saying. The Manager is saying
that these can't be so now you put up a bond to show me that if you
don't follow through, I have not wasted my time and the City's time and that
we are compensated for allow you to tie us up.
Mr. Williams: We're not going to spend $500,000 to find that out
Mr. Odio: Well...
Mr. Dawkins: All right, so then, well, I'll vote with the Manager.
Mr. Odio: If you remember, we almost had to call a special Commission meeting
December 31st, because the urgency of purchasing this property and all of a
sudden now. I think it is a good faith gesture, he is saying, and he told me
that they are going ahead with the transaction to place the $500,000...
Mayor Suarez: What is your recommendation?
Mr. Odio: That we get $500,000 that we are entitled to get and the demolition
monies.
Mr. De Yurre: Now, was that money under contract supposed to come at this
point in time?
Mr. Odio: Sir?
Mr. De Yurre: Were we supposed to receive that money at this point in time?
Mr. Odio: At the closing.
Mr. Williams: At the closing.
Mr. Williams: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
Mr. De Yurre: What I am saying is, if we had a contract and now you are
saying that under the terms of the contract for various reasons, which are
beyond your control and our control and everybody's control, you havenot
closed yet as scheduled.
Mr. Williams: That's correct.
Mr. De Yurre: So... which is not our fault and not your fault.
Mr. Odio: Well, this purchase, the purchase of this land was not subject to
development. It was subject to that somebody wanted to buy... switch
properties.
Mr. Williams: Wait, wait.
Mr. Odio: It was not subject to development.
Mr. Williams: Time out. It was on the record in very long conversation that
we're just not spending $14,000,000 for a park.
Mr. De Yurre: And needless to be said, I'd love to see that developed.
Mr. Williams: Obviously. So would we.
Mr. De Yurre: No, I don't think there is any problem with that. However, you
know, you've checked our budget. We're in trouble, you can talk to the City
Manager. You know we are strapped for money and I'm sure that, you know, and
life, which is a give and take, you might say, listen, you know, I'm going to
take from the City and they're not getting their money now, it will take
another year to develop this thing which means another year without tax
dollars for what the development is going to be like. You know, maybe in our
good heart, we might say, let us kick in an extra "X" thousands of dollars on
top of the $500 at the time of the closing. You know, good natured type of
benevolences from your part and you never know what you might find on this
side.
Mayor Suarez: We rushed through, there's the point, we rushed through and
under very difficult trying circumstances, one of the most complex deals in
the history of the City of Miami because of your deadline. If you now seek
120 days, which presumably means that you have no obligations at all during
that period of time, so you want just a flat out delay of all the things that
we worked to put together, the Commissioner is implying that maybe you ought
to get something in return.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, before I comment on that, which I certainly
understand you, Mr. De Yurre. There needs to be some clarification made. We
keep getting the blunt of what we had as deadlines. All we did a year and
one-half ago was come in and said look, you guys are suing each other for
something. We can go in and create a swap that everybody wins, the Brickells, the City, ourselves, of course, and the property owners that are surrounding
that particular item. We were given a contract on Riverpoint that expired
December 31st of last year. We told everybody associated with this in May of
1988 that we had seven months to fix this problem. We did all the things we
were told we would have to do to fix it. It got fixed at 6:30 December 31st.
Now, what the Commissioners have got to understand is
that we were given a
document that we left with on New Year's eve that effectively
was no good
until we got an extension on a piece of property we're
not even going to end
up with. We've spent a lot of money on that piece of property
that we have no
intention of owning. That's the piece that the City
wants. Now, what you -
need to understand is that on January 5th, before we got
the extension another
lawsuit was filed by a third party that blocked all of this.
We were required
over the next ninety days to...
—_ Mayor Suarez: Who was that third party and what was the
cause of action, what
was it?
-
Mr. Williams: The third party was Mr. Carl Sachs.
He was the owner of
Riverpoint and the party that took it into bankruptcy.
7.
78
p
0 0
Mayor Suatez: Oh, I see, but this is not like an interested citizen worried
About civic matters. This is someone who had a private interest in all of
this.
Mr, Williams: No, no, what it was was monetary damages that he felt he was
owned. Well, what happened is since we were now the ones that were in the
middle, we were forced to spend $87,000 to settle that lawsuit. That's public
document also. The problem was is that we had to do that to deliver to you
what you asked for, so all of this is a constantly moving piece in this
puzzle. By the time we got finished with that, the document you had
originally approved to close on April 21st, was 21 days short of expiring. It
was April 1st by the time we got the lawsuit settled and the extension done.
We have yet to be able to do what we have to do, and that is as a real estate
developer, we've got to do the necessary reporting and studies to develop
something that's going to be good for the City and good for us. The last
thing we want to do is throw something together, that Brickell Avenue has
another several square feet of empty space on it. What that causes is an
immediately need to have more time so the first extension, we had not even
been able to start our work and it needs to be clarified, we've spent a lot of
money to keep this going when we could have long ago said, there is too many
things associated with this.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, when do you expect your project to be completed? I mean,
your estimation?
Mr. Williams: You mean a closing, or a swap of the land?
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, the closing, development, complete development of the
property.
Mr. Williams: OK, the project has grown somewhat since we spoke in December.
It expands onto several parcels of property and the planning has now, and it's
important that you know, will probably involve the hotel next door so that we
can open up what will be the new Brickell Park to more of a people flow, make
it an actual part of I guess a personnel transfer throughout that development
and actual use. Of course the City has reason to have that happen. The
completion of...
Mayor Suarez: Personnel transfer?
Mr. Dawkins: What is the estimated date... -
Mayor Suarez: Let me see what that means.
Mr. Williams: The completion of phase...
Mr. Dawkins: No, no...
Mayor Suarez: What was personnel transfer?
Mr. Williams: People being able to flow through the use of the park,
Mayor Suarez: People walking through the parks is now personnel transfer, all
right.
Mr.
Dawkins:
All right, what is
the estimated date of completion?
■,
Mr.
Williams:
When we did this
in December, it was two years before we would
start.
We have
now moved that
time frame up a good deal. We are projecting
to
be able to start within eight to nine months, which is about six months
short
of our
original two year goal. You need 18 months to complete the
tower, so you
are looking at 24
to 26 months.
Mr.
Dawkins:
So 24 months is two years.
Mr.
Williams:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Dawkins:
And two years onto
90, is 92,,, Is that correct?,.
Mr.
Williams:
Yes, sir.
{<
Mr.
Dawkins;
Mr. RQdrigusz. In
your professional,,.
E
i
7r' t ,
f
{ 4 a
mt. Rodriguez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: ... estimation, a piece of property purchased today for
$14,000,000 would be worth approximately what two years from now?
Mr. Rodriguez: I couldn't tell you that.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, estimatet
Mr. Rodriguez: I don't have expertise in that area, I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, who does? Who does, Mr. Manager?
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask another question while you got your pencil out.
What is the price, the amount they are paying the City? What is the City...
how much are we getting out of this?
Mr. Williams: The settlement agreement allows for $1,815,000, of which
$500,000 was proposed and placed in the park fund.
Mr. De Yurre: Inner City Park.
Mr. Williams: I'm sorry, inner...
Mr. Plummer: So the balance is $1,300,000.
Mr. Williams: The balance is $1,300,000, which is required to sit in an
escrow account until...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me? No, that's not the point. The point is that he is
asking to delay the closing 120 days, which means that the $1,300,000 will not
be paid of course until the closing. Now, get your calculator out and tell me
a $1,300,000 and a bank at a normal interest rate, what would that be?
Mr. Williams: I need to make something clear. We are the recipient of the
interest on that $1,300,000 for the first...
Mr. Plummer: Not now you are now. You were before you came here today.
Mayor Suarez: It's about $100,000 a year. Assume $100,000 a year.
Mr. Plummer: Hey, you know, that is fine, for you to be the... you own
_ everything! You know, this table, this dining table here is two ways. Now, I
have no problem to give you the 120 days, but if you got $1,300,000 of my
money, I want to know what's $1,300,000 in normal interest. I'm not going to
gouge you... maybe a little. What is the... I'm, you know...
Mayor Suarez: It is about $110,000, $120,000. You take 120 days, take a third
of that.
Mr. Plummer: You are delaying my $1,300,000, it's only fair to me, that if
you are delaying, giving me that money, that that interest should come to us,
whatever we... if we had the money without your delay, OK, we would have it in
the bank and there would be no more interest accrued. I just got to tell
-
you...
Mr. De Yurre:
But J.L., you are missing one point too. You know, we are
talking about
a construction of a building
that is going to be delayed four
months. How much are we going to be losing
in tax dollars for that delay of
that building?
Mr. Plummer:
For that I'll give them a freebie.
Mr. Williams:
Actually, it will be six
months early from the original
projection.
Mr. De Yurre:
That's four months more than
what it could be, had you closed
on time.
5;
Mr, Williams:
Well, let me make it clear, there are things that we .certainly►,.
can close tomorrow morning, that's not...
.
_
.. �60
{
F
3
lF ;.3 !i—u4_jd.l..:.+2:'r.-:4 � �zsn..: a`.t^i�.,.d•N$."" '�`Nltx S'r'E�sr„r,a"
Mr, Plummer: Fines
Mr. De Yurre: Goods So we got noting to worry about.
Mr. Plummer: Go.
Mr. Williams: Time out.
Mr. De Yurre: Well, let's go to the next item.
Mr. Williams: There are items that are going to be required from the City
before we can get issues straightened out and we've already started our
meetings to do that and those are the issues that we can obviously cannot
control. We are working through the City's requirements to do so.
Mr. Plummer: The one thing, Mr. Williams, that was m,.e absolutely clear to
you in buying that property, that under no circumstances were you to assume
that the changes that you need or require for that property were guaranteed in
the buying of that property.
Mr. Williams: We are not suggesting that they are, Mr. Plummer. We are...
Mr. Plummer: Well, I am just saying that, that you are saying to the City.
Look, all I'm saying, you had a date to close. You are not going to close,
which means we are not going to get our money. I think anything beyond that
date, now I am not asking you that you shouldn't have the interest up to that
date. I'm saying for the 120 days you are asking an extension, we are
entitled to that amount of interest.
Mr. Odio: When you buy a house or a property, like I bought mine. The moment
I made the offer, I had to put my money up. All I am asking him, he was going
to do, put a deposit, we won't touch the money. Put a good faith deposit,
where he would lose it if he backs out. I don't want to recommend that. But
that's what we all have to do when we buy property. Now, why would he get a
free ride all the way through?
Mr. Williams: I'm going to make something pretty clear. We haven't gotten a
free ride on anything. All we've done so far is spend a lot of money on
issues.
Mr. Dawkins: You spend money, sir, trying to make money. Don't keep crying
on our shoulder that you spent... you didn't spend money benevolently. You
spent money in the hopes, sir, that you were going to make money. That's the
American way. -
Mayor Suarez: Is there any of your...
Mr. Dawkins: And reap a profit.
Mayor Suarez: Is there any of your expenditure resulted to date in a direct
benefit to the City or to the citizens of Miami?
Mr. Williams: Well, yes sir, it is, because our commitment to spend $765,000
on the Brickells so that the lawsuit goes away, probably is some benefit. Our
commitment to
spend the $87,000 to settle the other
lawsuit...
— Mr.
Plummer:
You are a smart businessman. OK, how
much did you spend so far,
— a half a million dollars?
Mr.
Williams:
About $675,000.
Mr.
Plummer:
OK, fine and when is your deadline to
pay the City? When is your
deadline to close?
Mr.
Williams:
As it presently sits, June 26th.
Mr,
Plummer:
And you are saying there is no way you
r
can make that?
Mr.
De Yurre:
He just said he could close.
4;...
�M1
r
Mr. Williams: I'm saying that we'll walk away from that $675,000 a lot easier
than we'd walk away from $14,000,000 more. If we do not have issues resolved
that are... that are issues, don't look at me, look at any real estate
developer. They are obvious issues. If I can't drive into the park, there is
nothing to build on the park and it's not worth $14,000,000.
Mr. Plummer: I don't disagree with you there in any way, shape, or form. But
I'm saying is, as a prudent businessman, I don't think you are going to walk
away from $675,000 for a mere eight percent on 120 days of one point three.
That's what you are looking at. You've got to...
Mr. Williams: I have no problem in committing...
Mr. Plummer: You had to pay $87,000 to keep your options alive to settle the
other lawsuit.
Mr. Williams: What I can commit to is a discussion with the City Attorney as
we go through this documentation which obviously is going to have to be
approved by him. We can assume in this document that interest would start -
accruing as of the date as through we closed as presently planned on the 26th
and then when we do close, pay you...
Mr. Plummer: When does the 120 days start running?
Mr. Williams: ... that day. Well, no, no... the 120 days will start running
according to the resolution, as soon as we have all the documents signed to do
so. We will, however...
Mr. Fernandez: The idea behind that is, because there are so many parties
involved and we are really in privity of contract with the Brickells, not with
the Williams group, we will need at least 20 days to get all the parties to
sign.
Mr. Plummer: Is he not asking us for 120 days starting the clock on June
26th?
Mr. Fernandez: No, he is actually asking for 120 days, actually 140 days, if
you look at it that way, 20 of those 140, so that all the documents could be
properly executed so that then he can work with properly executed documents
for 120 days. That's a clearer way of putting it.
Mrs. Kennedy: You know, it is very fair, we can't tell you how much the
property is going to be worth. There are so many intangibles. Do you have
both properties? What is the density you can build? I mean, you are talking
about so many different figures and so many...
Mr. Williams: Now you can understand our problems of not being able to handle
that in 100 days.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager, the gentleman said that he spent considerable
amount of money, clearing out, I assume, the title to the property. In the
event that he does decide, not he or his client, not to purchase the property,
does that put us in a position where if we get ready to sell it, we got clear
title and we don't have to go through the things he went through?
Mr. Fernandez: No.
Mr. Dawkins: Why?
Mr. Fernandez: OK, because the property in Question really was the subject of
litigation between the Brickell heirs and the City. There was a reverter
provision in the deed that we got from the Brickells back in 1920, which said
that if the City ever ceased to use this property for park purposes, it would
automatically revert to them. They have made assertions in court that we had
intended to use this property for something else other than park and that was
good enough to get them in court. We were litigating the issue whether our
Intention as expressed in an RFP constituted abdication of our property
purpose. The issue is being resolved by us getting the Point property right
at the mouth of the river and we will be getting that and we have agreed to
include in that warranty deed that is coming to us certain restrictions that
the City will continue to use that for park purposes. If this whole deal
unwinds, the result will be that the City will then get the Brickell Park back
again and the Williams walk away...
82 June
Mr. bawkine: We'll have the Point.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, if they in fact, own the Point, or whatever they have
with the Point right now.
Mr. Dawkins: And we would have to continue to use the Brickell property as A
park.
Mr. Fernandez: As a park and period, that's right. We're limited to what we
can do with that.
Mr. Williams: Keep in mind that part of this settlement agreement, I think it
was your effort, Mr. De Yurre, that lead to restaurant use or potential site
for a restaurant on the new park, so there are several benefits in this
settlement that do accrue to the City.
Mr. De Yurre: You have to deal with reality and the reality is, you've got to
pay up something to get 120 day extension, so you've got to make an offer of
something. That's pretty much the bottom line here, sr we can get onto
another item.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't we table...
Mr. Williams: OK, like I said, I have no problem in assuming that the
property closed on the 26th, let interest accrue whenever we close, that
interest is accrued and it is paid an extra...
Mr. De Yurre: On top of the one point three.
Mr. Williams: In excess, yes.
Mr. De Yurre: So you are talking about paying interest on the $1,300,000 from
the date of the 26th, when you were supposed to close, to whenever you close.
Mr. Williams: Really, we have a difference of opinion, here. The five
hundred is what the City gets. The $1,300,000 is for Brickell Park. The City
doesn't get any...
Mr. De Yurre: Whose park is it?
Mr. Williams: It's the City's and the Brickell's
Mr. Fernandez: No, no, it is the City's park, it is not the City's and the
Brickell's. There is a restriction on the deed that we will be getting from
whoever gives us the property, where the City commits to use it in perpetuity
as a park.
Mr. De Yurre: So in reality it is $1,800,000.
Mr. Fernandez: In the nature of the agreement, yes. It is one point eight
five, the sum total. The $1,300,000 is to be put in a bank account bearing
interest and for the first two years that that money is there, the interest
goes back to the Williams. After the two years, then the interest begins to
come to the City, if the money has not been used to do the park.
Mr.
De Yurre:
So we are talking eight percent of $1,300,000, which
is good.
It
is a good number to throw out.
Mr.
Williams:
It' about forty or fifty thousand dollars.
Mr.
De Yurre:
$1,300,000, eight percent from the 26th to the day of
closing,
-
Mr.
Plummer:
Let me ask another question.
Mr.
De Yurre:
Is that fair enough?
Mr.
Williams:
That's what I hear myself saying and you agreeing to.
Mr.
Plummer:
Is the $500,000 already been paid to the City?
-
Mr.
Pernanders
No,
�'
l+Jr. �►illiams: No.
1�1r. Plummer, None of it has been:
Mr. Fernandez: No, closing .
Mr. Plummer: It's not $1,300,000, it is $1,800,000.
Mr. De Yurre: Well, we'll settle for $1,300,000, it's...
Mr. Plummer: No, no, settle hell. Wait a minute. Why would we settle for
less? It's $1,800,00, and nothing has been... I was understanding that
$500,000 had been paid.
Mr. Odio: No, that's what I wanted him to pay.
Mr. Williams: We will pay interest on $1,300,000 as though it closed on June
26th.
Mr. Plummer: But you owe me $1,800,0001
Mr. Dawkins: All right, I move that this be denied so we can get some
here. I mean, continue this, and do whatever you are going to do here.
Mr. De Yurre: I'll make the motion, eight percent interest on $1,300,000,
starting on the 26th of June, until the date of closing, not to exceed 120
days.
Mr. Plummer: If I get a loan for $1,800,000, I'm only going to have to pay on
$1,300,0007 I hate to say this, but can I do business with your bank, Mr. De
Yurre?
Mr. De Yurre: I have many banks. I'll give you a choice, I'll give you a list
with 27 banks on it, in fact.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I will have to vote no. If you owe me $1,800,000, you need
to pay me interest on $1,800,000.
Mrs. Kennedy: I can't go for that either.
Mr. Dawkins: I'll be voting no, because if you owe me $500,000, you need to
give me my $500,000 and then start negotiating. Don't hold my $500,000 and
then negotiate, tell me about $1,300,000.
Mrs. Kennedy: Remember the Salvation Army, it's for the needy, not the
greedy.
Mr. Plummer: B00000.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion, do we have a second? Or do we have a
substitute motion? Or do you want to table the -item and. pending further.
negotiations? We've got to go on to next item.
Mr. Plummer: No, I'll make a motion that... did that motion die for a lack of
a second?
Mr. De Yurre:
It looks that way.
Mr. Plummer:
I'll make a motion
that we grant the
extension from June 26th,
based on eight
percent interest
of the $1,800,000
until the time of Closing,
not to exceed
120 days.
Mayor Suarez:
So moved.
-
Mrs. Kennedy:
And if he doesn't
close then...
Mr. Plummer:
If he doesn't close...
4
Mayor Suarez:
We're back here negotiating
again.
'
Mr. Plummer:
I'm sure, you know,
we'd meet again In
Sept* Ord r ;t
4A
44
r r
y1 'kys..ir ny rr c35-
`:
— — —
n
Mr. Ie lrufre: Second.
MAYor Sugress Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, tall the rbll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plunm r, who
fabved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-584
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, WHICH SETTLED THE LITIGATION IN THE U.S.
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH FLORIDA BETWEEN WILLIAM B.
BRICKELL ET AL AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, CONCERNING THE
CITY'S INTEREST IN BRICKELL PARK AND BURIAL GROUND, BY
EXTENDING THE DATE FOR CLOSING ON A SCHEDULED REAL
ESTATE TRANSACTION, WHICH IS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT
PROCESS, BY 140 DAYS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE HEREIN SETTLEMENT UPON THE
APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY;
FURTHER PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE CITY'S
FORBEARANCE AND APPROVAL FOR SUCH EXTENSION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
r
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
> Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
s=
Mayor Suarez: This is obviously contingent on him accepting...
Mr. Fernandez: Of course. He has his choice. It's really more interesting
than that. The Brickells, who I don't believe are here today, must accept
putting that in their contract with the Williams and so, you know, and
negotiate. -
Mayor Suarez: And assumes all the other parties agreeing to the extension.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: Right, otherwise, Mr. Mayor, I need instructions from you, —
because if in negotiating this with them, it is a no-go, then I need
instructions on how to proceed.
Mr. Dawkins: Bring it back to us, we'll make a decision.
Mr. Plummer: We'll have to decide the first session in July.
5 Mr. Fernandez: There you o.
g
a Mr. De Yurre: What I'd like to see is a report on how much money:,we maxa for
the City up here.
Mr. Plummer: He'll let you know at budget time.
-------------
4W
12. BRIEFLY DISCUSS AND FABLE PROPOSED DISCUSSION ON GENERAL ANTONIO MACEO
PARK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Item 7. General Antonio Maceo Park. What is the status,
Commissioner Dawkins?
Mr. Odio: Commissioner Dawkins.
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, they were supposed to come here and they got into a
discussion as to...
Mayor Suarez: OK, we'll table that until...
Mr. Dawkins: We'll table that because the Law Department is looking at it to
tell us where we are legally.
(THEREUPON THE ITEM WAS TABLED)
13. DISCUSSION CONCERNING LENGTH AND FORMAT OF CITY COMMISSION AGENDAS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, let me tell you something, you and I are going to
come to bad news! When we set 20 items for zoning, that was not numerical,
A,B,C,D,E,F, item 1-A,B,C,D,E... no. Item 1 is item 1. Now you are
stretching 20 items out by putting an A, a B, a C, a D.
Mr. Odio: And an E.
Mr. Plummer: Forget itt -
Mr. Odic: Explain, that is not...
Mr. Plummer: Was it the rest of the Commission's understanding that 20 items
is 20 items? I don't care how you number them, or letter them.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, if there is 20-A, than 20-F is twenty...
Mr. Odio: Mr. Commissioner. Can I explain something?
Mr. Plummer: Hey, 20 items is 20 items, with the exception of what we said
before, you can put all in-house you want at the end where it doesn't affect
people sitting here and if we get to them, fine, and if we don't, toughs
- -- ti
�,Vni
Mr. ()dib: Ro, no, we arty not.
Mt. Ro�iliguet2 To clarify that...
Mayor buareal If we can't stick to the 20 item limit, W641have to het b"'t
to the Commission and say we'll have to have a special seebio , Remember,
that"$ the whip that we always... what is it, 251
Mr. Rodriguez: As you mentioned, the in-house items will not tbutt, tip: tht
20 i and those...
Mr. Plummer: You can put them beyond as long as it doesn't require people's -
Attendance.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. --
Mr. Dawkins: And OK, and why not do this then...
Mr. Rodriguez: You have all eight of those.
Mr. Dawkins: ... why not take the in-house and put them 20-whatever, after
20.
Mr. Plummer: There you go.
Mr. Dawkins: And then if we got the time here, without...
Mr. Odio: I'll tell you what...
Mr. Dawkins: ... inconveniencing the citizens, then we can do it.
Mr. Odio: I have a solution. We did that with the Consent, you have a
Mayor Suarez: Yes, in-house
items can always be taken up as long" as they,
don't require public hearings
by State law.
Mr. Plummer: Exactly.
Mayor Suarez: Or City Charter.
-
..
_ {
y 1J T k� 5 4 1 9F} f. ?M'�'S { R' �,} t " • {' , 'F
x tr' f yyA nmR q
:;.�
'r
ry
� �r� i.Y" .I.`• 4
r' f � J y� z'Wt£ � l j-„il$��`.^ { r�vA�64 �`.3��f+��+'4' t �
E
14. DISCUSSION CONCERNING AREA -WIDE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) FOR
VIRGINIA KEY/KEY BISCAYNE.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-A. Who do we hear from...?
Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, PZ-A is on here
seeking the Commission's guidance, looking forward to a Board of County
Commissioner's hearing, it has been rescheduled to July 26th to consider the
question...
Mr. Rodriguez: 25th.
Mr. McManus: 25th... of an area wide DRI for Key Biscayne. The
Administration's position, recommendation to you is that we appear at that
hearing of the Board of County Commissioners in opposition to that proposal.
Mr. Plummer: Well, tell them what I did yesterday. I raised holy hell up
there yesterday, OK? - and let me tell you the outcome. The outcome and the
inference was from the County Commissions who sit there, namely Harvey Ruvin
and Charles Dusseau, that Virginia Key was going to be included.
Mayor Suarez: About the South Florida Regional Planning Council.
Mr. Plummer: That's... no, well, let's take the time frame. July 25th, Metro
is having the first of a public hearing to establish whether or not to do a
DRI of Key Biscayne. The second portion of that to be decided is whether or
not, if they do a DRI, as to whether Virginia Key would be included in that
DRI.
Mayor Suarez: But, you are saying you did all of this, you gave them hell at
the South Florida Regional Planning Council?
Mr. Plummer: Yes air, yesterday morning. OK, now I'm of the opinion and I
think this Commission has expressed itself that Metro can do the
unincorporated area, that's fine, that's their bailiwick. If there is a DRI
necessary for Virginia Key, the 1,067 acres we own, we'll do it. We'll do it,
but not Metro, so that's what I just wanted to tell you. That came about
yesterday at the approval of the new Key Biscayne Hotel, as to whether or not
that should have been handled yesterday because of the possible DRI for Key
Biscayne and that's when I made those thoughts known.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, there is an element here of what you might call planning
jealousy or turf war, or whatever, jurisdictional dispute. We don't typically
like other sister jurisdictions to take over functions that we think are
clearly ours and on the other hand I did speak to your group the other day and
I became convinced that I don't think we'd do any harm to ourselves by being
participants in a joint application for a DRI with the County, if it serves
the purposes of our properties and if we don't have to pay for the planning of
it and so on, but...
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Maxwell...
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Maxwell, legally, where do we stand with Dade County being
the home rule charter mother hen and our desires not to participate in a DRI
over land which is in another domain of the City of Miami? Where do we stand?
Mr. Maxwell: It would be my opinion, Mr. Dawkins, that the City of Miami
would have jurisdiction and the County does not have jurisdiction to imposes
DRI on incorporated areas of the City of Miami. -
■
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you. Go ahead.
LE
Mr. Maxwell: And say without the City's permission.
Mayor Suarez: Right, but if we had adjoining lands that for-whatovpr;reeson,
- I am not concluding that this is the case, but it may be the cave and maybe
s
3
88 Jura 22, 1�
0 9
this Commission as a policy matter would conclude that. If we had adjoining
lands that were under our jurisdiction and the County's and we thought it was
a good idea to a joint area wide development of regional impact and if the
County then said, and we'll pick up the tab for the expenditure aspect of it,
wouldn't that also make sense without giving up any of our faculties?
Mr. Maxwell: The last statement that I made just now, Mr. Mayor, was that
unless we join into and agree to and so by virtue of an interlocal agreement,
we could do that if we'd like to.
Mayor Suarez: See, what happens is the County kind of moves on these things
with acting as if we don't even exist, Gene, and all of a sudden, you know,
there you have it. We feel like a step child here in all of this process.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, one person's vote only, OK? - I'm tired of doing things
with the County and if jointly, and all the revenue goes to the County, i.e.,
the port, they cannot get to the port unless they go over my roads, but all
the money that is generated by the Port of Miami goes to the County, but yet
we want to do something collectively. All right, I told you not to let them
come on our road, bringing port over. Now, you are going to come and tell me
that jointly I want to let them do something on Key Biscayne where I know I'm
not going to benefit, so I just, me personally, I don't want to do nothing
with the County unless I'm going to run it and they want to do it with me.
Mrs. Kennedy: Sometime ago I asked the Administration to do a master plan for
Virginia Key, which this Commission approved. I guess that this would only
delay that action.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think what has to be considered, the DRI process takes
two to three years, OK? That's number one is the processes that we've seen so
far. That which affects Key Biscayne and the people are very much concerned
about, and legitimately so, are not the same aspects that I see existing of
the problems on Virginia Key. They are concerned about the overload of
schools, the lack of fire and medical rescue protection, the environment as
far as the water and the sewage. To me, this does not affect Virginia Key.
Mayor Suarez: They are concerned I think mostly about transportation over
the...
Mr. Plummer: Well, they are concerned about the roads, as I said.
Mr. Eugene Stearns: Commissioner, can I take a minute?
- Mr. Dawkins: No wait, please wait until we finish here, OK? And they are
- also concerned, which I am, if I were living over there... if you increase
anything, you got to increase the waste disposal unit and they already got a
shipment, they already got the tanks and everything, they blow the evil, foul
smell one way, so now, if you develop this, these people on Key Biscayne still
will pay a deeper penalty. So, just don't say that it's transportation and
it's this and that's all. It's all of it combined, J.L., and they are not
going to ask us if we do this DRI, can we go somewhere else and develop a
human sewage waste facility. They are going to go right out there and put
more drying bins or whatever they got and it's going to be worse.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you know, then what scares me, is and in a DRI, as we saw
in the DRI's for downtown, you are then asking to be limited to a certain
amount of retail, a certain amount of hotel rooms, a certain amount of
everything as you know it was outlined. It is definitely, in my estimation,
going to cost this City money if we go into a DRI jointly with someone else.
Mrs. Kennedy: Preliminary cost estimates are $500,000.
Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. I'm not talking about studies. I'm talking about,
let me give you an example. One of the provisions in the DRI for downtown, is
I stand corrected, was that we cannot between now and 1995, build more than
600 hotel rooms. If we do, we have to swap off with retail space. If we do,
we have to do this. We have to take and we have to make sure to get the DRI
downtown, that the peoplemover would be in place. If we didn't, we were
subject to real heavy penalties at the end.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, may I hear from him? I cut him off twice, please.
89 Juno 22, 1989
Mayor Suarez: Yes, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns: My name is Gene Stearns, I em an attorney, offices in the Museum
Tower and I represent the Key Biscayne Council. I think the big....
Mr. Plummer: Are you paid, sir?
Mr. Stearns: No, Mr. Plummer, I do this for free, for the love of my
community and Dade County. I might remind you all, that you don't know, my
grandfather was the first City planning director of this City, he started in
1927 and ran it until 1954.
Mr. Plummer: He's also been referred to as getting us into this mess here
today.
Mr. Stearns: He got you into this mess and it's the absence of intelligent
planning that brings me here today, Mr. Plummer. But I might say that I think
the point you all are missing here, and it is a very critical point, is that
Key Biscayne and Virginia Key represent an excess of 90 percent of the public
beaches in all of Dade County, all of Dade County and the citizens of the City
of Miami use those public beaches at Cape Florida, Crandon Park and Virginia
Key, every Saturday, Sunday and holiday and less so during the week and what
we are dealing with here is, this a resource that people that don't have money
to have pools in their back yards, don't have money to have fancy equipment to
exercise on, this is the public's playground. And what we are dealing with
here, so we all understand the issue is there is only one road on and there is
only one road off. These two barrier islands in the center of Dade County,
are the last two barrier islands that essentially serve as a public resource.
We are dealing, certainly, the group that I represent speaks for in excess I
would say sincerely of 90 percent of the people that live in Key Biscayne, but
we are speaking for more than that. We are speaking for, I believe, all of
the people of Dade County who see this problem as a long term problem into the
next generation. Now, where you all make the mistake is, if you look at it
individually for the City of Miami only and you say to yourself you don't want
to cooperate with Dade County because they get theirs and you don't get yours,
I recognize that sad history, but I'll tell you what's going to happen is
this. We are in an age now, where it is first come, first served in the DRI
process. The first person to apply gets to use up all of the available
capacity. The next person uses up what's left, and so on and on and on. When
you have a condition when there is one road on and one road off, an
environment where the planning environment is changing every day, you are
going to quickly find yourself in a position where the City of Miami will be
the last proposed development and as the last proposed development, that is to
say, private developers are already well along their way, in one case, for two
major resort hotels, convention centers the size essentially of the
Fontainebleau.
Mayor Suarez: What you are saying is the principal parameter will be the
capacity of the roadway on the causeway...
Mr. Stearns: Precisely.
Mayor Suarez: ... and that it could restrain us from doing what we want to do —_
in Virginia Key because whether we like it or not, we are linked up by this
one causeway.
Mr. Stearns: Precisely.
a
Mrs. Kennedy: Well, what are the preliminary traffic projections at peak
hours on the Rickenbacker Causeway?
Mr. McManus: We are currently talking about levels of service on the
Rickenbacker Causeway day and weekends, assuming the Hemmeter and VMS projects
and all other known projects on Rickenbacker Cause...
Mayor Suarez: Those are the two 800 room hotels.
Mr. McManus: Right, from "D" to "C", OK, that is the projected level of
service. The capacity, the allowed level of service on Rickenbacker Causeway, in level of service "R." There is ample capacity on the causeway given every
known project people have in mind, to accommodate future traffic.
90 June, 22
Mr. Stearns: Those are the numbers I might point out that come from the
developers, transportation planners. When we first got those numbers, we
looked behind the numbers, just to give you an illustration. He picked two
weeks in December to do the first set of numbers and we said, wait a minute,
that doesn't look right. We went to the Rickenbacker toll booth and counted
the cars on a daily basis and low and behold, the two weeks chosen to do the
study were the two lowest traffic volumes in the entire 24 month period, which
preceded it, so what you have here in the area wide, is the opportunity to
hire independent experts, not the developer's experts, to do that analysis.
Mayor Suarez: Although I think the technical problem on the loan on that
causeway is really a different one. It has a lot to do with what they
consider to be peak hours and what we view, the citizens of Key Biscayne
consider peak hours.
Mr. Stearns: When your citizens of the City of Miami use that causeway, it's
on Saturday, Sunday and holidays and that has nothing to do with what you just
heard. When they want to get to the beach...
Mr. Plummer: Oh, no, no, it is an average. That's what the lady said
yesterday, it's an average.
Mr. Stearns: Mr. Plummer, let me tell you...
Mayor Suarez: Well, but the peak hours usually under the County's analysis is
on commuter... but it just the wrong hours of the day, I mean it has nothing
to do with weekends which is what the main problem is in Key Biscayne.
Mr. Plummer: The level of service on weekends is not the same level he
talked. That is the level of service for seven days, which five days is
totally little or no traffic, it was during the off season wherein this level
that he has spoken to is the average of seven days including weekends.
Mayor Suarez: But the whole, that contradicts the whole concept of a peak
hour, I mean, if you have on Saturdays and Sundays the worse conditions in Key
Biscayne, that is what you have to analyze, and apparently their analytical
abilities in the County just don't extend to considering what happens during
that time in Key Biscayne, it is a phenomena that is unheard of anywhere else
in the County, which is just the one cause we are leading to, you said 90
percent of all the available beaches?
Mr. Stearns: 90 percent of all the public beaches in all of Dade county, it's
like, it's really...
Mayor Suarez: But it would behoove us to figure out a way to close that
spigot somehow, and to adjust that variable without having to do it, the DRI,
I mean I eliminated my concerns about it. I am willing to vote for it, but...
Mr. Dawkins: See, you lost me though. See, when you started out, you won me
over when you said that this is the last public beaches in Dade County and
that this was available for all people and that we are happy to know that the
people from the City of Miami come to Virginia Key and to Key Biscayne to the
beaches, but then you turn around and tell me that that was just an interlude
to tell you that I want to put these hotels over there and I don't want you
crowding up this roadway when I want my people coming in this hotel.
Mr. Stearns: No, that's... Mr. Dawkins, I've gone the opposite view. I don't
represent the hotel interests. I think the public ought to anticipate, before
those conventions are built, those convention centers are built, two
Fountainebleaus, we ought to figure out, is that construction going to prevent
your citizens from getting to those beaches?
Mr. Dawkins: That is what I thought you was... no, no, our citizens, all of
us.
Mr. Stearns: Absolutely and I...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, all of us, don't just say me, because see, it
looks like... we are talking about all of Dade County.
Mr. Stearns: There are two issues here. One is, is there going to be an -
independent analysis of impact. That's the first thing.
91 June 22, 1989
Mayor Suarez: And don't be so magnanimous - also Key Biscayne residents too,
who happen to also drive in and out at that time.
Mr. Stearns: Well, we have a selfish interest, but we couldn't convince you
with our selfish interest, I will be very candid with you. We are talking to
you about a community interest and clearly we're not saying you are not in my
back yard. We recognize, we live with Cape Florida State Park. We live with
Crandon Park, we live with Virginia Key, very happily for many years. The
issue is, on Memorial Day, I can tell you, you can't get on and off and we add
two major...
Mr. Dawkins: On Sunday you can't get on.
Mr. Stearns: On Sunday sometimes you can, sometimes you can't, depending on
whether it rains or not, but I'll say this to you, we are here at an issue
where are you going to be in the process or is the process going to go by you?
Are you going to participate in the planning process and say, look, before all
this is carved up and used up by other people, are you going to participate,
or just let it happen? And I would submit to you that you should be there
supporting an area -wide study which you participate in, not as passengers, but
as pilots.
Mayor Suarez: What's the harm in doing our own? Let me echo J.L. Plummer
here. How much would it cost us to go ahead and proceed with our own area -
wide DRI?
Mr. Rodriguez: To start with, we don't know whether we need to do one for
ourselves, because we believe that we have in our...
Mayor Suarez: We don't know whether we need to do one for ourselves.
Mr. Rodriguez: No, because it would depend on, there has not been a clear
establishment where the aggregate development that we have in Virginia Key
will trigger the need for an area wide DRI. If we were to, for example...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, this is really kind of the opposite of what DRI's were
meant for, is what the problem is.
Mr. Rodriguez: The issue is, why go through a process that will take us a
while if we might not have to do it at all for the area which is within the
jurisdiction of the City and ownership of the City?
Mr. Dawkins: We must do it simply because we can no longer go idly by, OK?
If we do not participate with Key Biscayne it will be lost and then we will be
out there by ourselves.
Mr. Stearns: That's exactly right.
Mr. Dawkins: See, so you know, I am in favor of not doing nothing and I don't
mind going to wherever we got to go to say leave it like it is, OK? But now,
and if they rule against us, I don't have no problem with that either.
Mr. Stearns: A vote against that area wide is a vote pro -development on Key
Biscayne, so we all understand it here.
Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait, we are getting to an interesting technical question
here. Why do you oppose our joining the County if the County would pay for
the study and if this is the only way that we can assured that this bottleneck
of the causeway will not impede our wanting to develop portions of Virginia
Key if we wish and want to do that?
Mr. Plummer: Automatically you've placed yourself under certain restrictions.
Mayor Suarez: But if in fact we are joined together by the physical
restriction of the causeway, unless... I guess you are saying that we really
won't, we are not anticipating that to become a problem as far as a
transportation corridor.
Mr. Dawkins: Simply because if you pay me, I bring back what you want, not
what somebody else did.
92
Juno
2Z,
1909
Mayor Suarez: Do you foresee a problem much more, much quicker than the
Planning Department does, I guess.
Mr. Stearns: Well that's because you all don't have any current plans for the
property. If you were thinking about it, and the problem is because you are
going to be the last people they are asking to use the property, you face the
real reality in the present growth management environment, that when it cofhesi
time to use the acres that the City of Miami owns, that it could be very well
possible, if not likely, that all of the available capacity is gone, used by
private interests.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question, maybe it is interesting. Mr. City
Attorney...
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, air.
Mr. Plummer: ... is the City of Miami... I'm just going on the vein that he
is following here... is the City of Miami in a position as an interested party
to force a lawsuit on any development on Key Biscayne itself, to demand that —
the road must be adequate, monies be provided to increase the road so that it
does not cut off our ability to do what we want with Key Biscayne? And I say
that predicated yesterday on the fact that the VMS project had to put up...
don't hold me to these numbers, $162,000 of which part of that money was for
Brickell Avenue and 26th Road and Brickell Avenue and 25th Road, I believe,
they had to put up, the developers, to get their project approved. Now, that _
was tinder the DO, (development order), not the DRI. Now, are we the City in a
position to say to the County that... —
Mayor Suarez: The DEO?
Mr. Maxwell: DO.
Mr. Plummer: Development order.
Mr. Maxwell: Development order.
Mr. Plummer: OK, that's what they were seeking yesterday, VMS. Do you call
it by a different name?
Mayor Suarez: No, no, development order must be granted pursuant to something
parallel to a DRI, or just didn't fit under DRI. It is not a separate thing,
but they didn't need one, I guess.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, OK, but what I am saying is, under the DRI process, are we
in a position to say, hey, Dade County, because we are a vested interest and
the owner of Virginia Key, that you cannot approve anything without
establishing a fund for further widening or whatever?
Mayor Suarez: It's like a inverse public condemnation, you know. The use of
our property has been restrained by someone in another jurisdiction, overusing
theirs.
Mr. Plummer: That's the point I am trying to make.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't believe so, Mr. Plummer, in this particular instance,
because we would have to first exhaust administrative remedies and the County
has, in my opinion, allowed for situations like the one you are describing by
virtue of having adopted its impact fee, its transportation impact fee -
ordinance which is supposed to remedy that exact type process.
Mr. Plummer: How about the MPO? Does the MPO (Metropolitan Planning
Organization) do anything in relation to any of these things?
Mr. Maxwell: Well, as far as planning goes, but not...
Mr. Stearns: But Mr. Plummer, I have an answer to your question.
Mr. Plummer; Wait a minute, let me answer the Mayor. The MPO can do a hell
of a lot of nothing, they have no money. —
' Mr. Stearns: I have an answer, Mr. Plummer, for your question.
a
s_
' 43 June Us 1909
Is 16
a
Mayor Suarez: But I mean, couldn't they propose an ordinance to restrict or
to regulate the use of that causeway because of the unique continue conditions
for Key Biscayne?
Mr. Maxwell: They control the traffic regulations over ...one second.
Mayor Suarez: The reason I asked about the MPO, is as I mentioned to you,
that we should have representation on the Metropolitan Planning Organization
as of whenever the Governor does the appointing.
Mr. Stearns: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Plummer asked the critical question in my view,
which is can you ask VMS to put that in the plan? The answer is an individual
DRI, no. The critical difference between an area wide DRI and an individual
DRI is the allocation of development rights. Let's say you want to preserve
yourselves rights for the next 20 years. You don't know what you want to do
with your property. As a participant in the area -wide process, you simply sit
there and say, we want to reserve for the Virginia Key, City of Miami
development rights.
Mayor Suarez: That just wasn't what the DRI's were intended to accomplish at
all.
Mr. Stearns: The area wide DRI only has existed for a few years. It is a new
concept and it allows local governing agencies like yourselves and the County
Commission to work together and you say all you do in the table is this, you
say, guys, we don't care what you do with yours, but we want to make sure that
in the planning process, you reserve for us, "X" amount of rights for future
development and that is the process which is opt out of that process, I would
submit to you that's a serious mistake. You should be asking the County to do
it, because it is only one road, one road off, and you should be participating
to the extent of making certain that Virginia Key has reserved for future
generations for the City of Miami, the right, so that your access is not
deprived. And I might add, incidentally, that when that process is concluded
in an area wide DRI, when you develop your property, you don't have to file an
individual DRI. Automatically, every piece of property within the subject
area is at that point exempt from individual applications, so right now, for
example, you run about 900 boat slips.
Mayor Suarez: See, we don't have to file an individual DRI as it is, we don't
have to file an area wide DRI as it is. What you are saying is, again, going
back to the argument, we anticipate that we will be constrained by the
causeway and the flow of traffic.
Mr. Stearns: Mr. Mayor, first of all, I...
Mayor Suarez: More than anything else.
Mr. Stearns: Mr. Mayor, I disagree with you. You do have to file an
individual DRI after you are a DRI developer, you do. The fact...
Mayor Suarez: Well, we don't anticipate doing anything on our part of the
island that would require a DRI, that I am aware of, I don't...
Mr. Stearns: Let me give you an example of why
I think you... you have 900
boats.
-
—
Mayor Suarez: Do we have anything at all in the
Master Plan that would ever
—_
require a DRI?;"
Mr. Rodriguez: We don't have any specific proposal
for that at this point and
something I want to...
Mayor Suarez: But I mean, in our Master Plan, we
don't envision anything that -
would require DRI approval, for God's sake, it is
basically very, very low use
for the island.
Mr. Rodriguez: The only possibility that might be
a possible DRI depending on
what it would be proposed if you were to get a proposal in the future is the
tip of the Virginia Key facing and Fisher Island and
again, there have been no
RFP's on this and if there was to be an RFP,
it could carry with it the
condition that they will take care of the DRI themselves. 1 want to clarify
something on the issue of the roads, because I
think the capacity of the =
_
goads, this is an important issue.
_
10 0
Mayor Suarez: Well, it seems to be the key issue here, it is the only thing
that establishes the linkage between what we want to do with our property
which I think pleases you, because it is very low use and you see in our
Master Plan, which is really a Master Plan of restrictions, not a Master Plan
of development and you know, the only thing that really binds us together is
this roadway, as far as I can tell.
Mr. Rodriguez: In relation to that issue, the information that we have on the
level of service that we have at present in Rickenbacker is a level of service
of "B" and "C." In the Master Plan for the County, that level of service is
allowed to stay... to reach the level of service "E." In the case of the
City, because we calculate the level of service in a different method, we have
a little more capacity to serve our area without violating the level of
service requirements of concurrency of the Comprehensive Plan, so that why we
don't believe that we have a problem in that sense. The only issue that
hasn't been identified...
Mayor Suarez: Well, if Key Biscayne became...
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... intensely developed, with or without DRI's in the next few
years, we could get to a point that by not having a DRI conceivably, an area
wide DRI, our intention of developing something on our side of Virginia Key
would be hindered. You are just saying you just don't anticipate that
happening.
Mr. Rodriguez: No, what I am saying also that I believe and we haven't been
able to get a confirmation on this from DCA, even when I have been getting
verbal agreement that it is OK from the Regional Planning Council, that we
believe that through our Comprehensive Plan, we have basically established the
level of service that we have in that area and that we are not violating that
with the proposals that we have on Virginia Key, which is basically...
Mayor Suarez: We are not violating with the proposals we have for our
jurisdiction, but if all of a sudden, Key Biscayne...
Mr. Rodriguez: ... a portion of... right, including the assumption from Key
Biscayne.
Mayor Suarez: Including...?
Mr. Rodriguez: Including assumption from Key Biscayne.
Mayor Suarez: It's a technical... we have a technical division of opinion
here and...
Mr. Rodriguez: The other issue, which I think is important, that I don't
think has been mentioned, which argues for the consideration for DRI though,
is that we have property within the County's jurisdiction, which is owned by
the City.
Mayor Suarez: In that area?
Mr. Rodriguez: In that area, in Virginia Key.
Mayor Suarez: Specifically on the opposite side of the causeway there?
Mr. Rodriguez: Opposite side of the Wometco area, you know, in the side of
Horatio's and so on, moo we have property...
Mayor Suarez: All right, we have City property located in County
jurisdictional... wow, within County jurisdictional boundaries and we are
Mr. Rodriguez: It is very complicated.
Mayor Suarez: It. is just the way that the laws have been written to confuse
everybody.
Mr. Rodriguez: After we looked at the whole situation, we felt that it was
not in our best interests for the City to tie ourselves down to a DRI jointly
with the County, I mean to do a DRI.
Mayor Suarez: Well, you know, it is a policy decision. We can argue about it
forever.
Mr. Stearns: Let me make one point, Mr. Mayor, because you did make a
statement, I think that you ought to realize that the threshold that triggers
the DRI requirements for you for example, is 300 boat slips. That's all it
takes to trigger a DRI requirement so what you may regard as a minor
development may in fact, be a DRI development. You have for example,
already...
Mayor Suarez: We don't have a projects before us requiring 300 slips?
Mr. Dawkins: May I hear from Bob Traurig.
Mr. Stearns: The question is, what the future is. You don't know and that's
really the issue.
Mayor Suarez: And Gene, you know, we can't be so afraid of what the future
holds that we don't think we will come up with solutions for it. I...
Mr. Stearns: You ought to be at the table, through.
Mayor Suarez: Nevertheless, yes, because of that possibility, because it
seems to be the only way to give Key Biscayners a little bit of a hand in
dealing with the County, I would have no problem in doing a joint
application. I think it is a very complicated thing, as long as it doesn't
cost us anything. I'm very interesting in annexing Key Biscayne to the City
of Miami, by the way. Do you want to do... we love the tax base)
Mr. Robert H. Traurig: During your deliberations on this subject... Robert H.
Traurig, 1221 Brickeli Avenue. During your deliberations on this subject, I
would suggest you take the following into consideration. First of all, Dade
County's Planning Director, Reginald Walters has already made a very, very
thorough study of the impact of all future development on Key Biscayne and
Virginia Key and has recommended to the Dade County Commission it not have an
area wide DRI. Number two, the ADA, the Application for Development Approval
filed by VMS and the ADA that was filed by the Hemmeter interests and the
Woody Weisner interests, which is the old Sheraton Royal Biscayne Hotel, which
took into consideration all known projects, including each of them. There are
only four projects that could have major consequences on Rickenbacker
Causeway. One is...
Mayor Suarez: You are saying four projects that could have major consequences,
now on the drawing boards or four projects that could potentially be ever
built in Key Biscayne?
Mr. Traurig: There are only four major tracts that could be developed that
would have a significant impact. One is the VMS project and that is already
covered in the traffic analysis by David Plummer. The second is the Hemmeter
project. The third is the tennis center and the fourth is the Seaquarium and
consequently all of
those projects are already being looked at and so...
Mayor Suarez: What
is faulty in the analysis, Bob, is that none of these take
into account people
just going to the beaches, which we are...
x
Mr. Traurig: Yes,
they do. Yes, they do, they take into account the
background traffic,
they take into account the County's plans for expansion,
they take into account the queuing problem on Cape Florida and they take into
account generally all
of the traffic issues...
Mayor Suarez: They
don't take it into account very well, because the quouimg
problem on this side of the light on Federal Highway blocks up my traffic to
f,
my house and I'm on
the City side of Key Biscayne.
90
ti
i
1%
Mr, Ttaurigs That's a regulatory problem and not a capacity problem and if
you...
Mayor Suarez: I know it is a big problem because I see traffic stacked up
there...
Mr. Traurig; would like to hear from David Plummer, no relation, as J.L.
always says...
Mayor Suarez: He's from the good looking side of the family.
Mr. Traurig: ... so that you will be able to understand the totality of the
traffic issues, I am sure that at your next meeting he would be happy to be
present.
Mayor Suarez: You know, one possibility to get us out of this, and by the
way, Bob, I assume you are doing it just...
Mr. Traurig: There is excess capacity, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: You are not representing any of the interests?
Mr. Traurig: Yes, I am.
Mayor Suarez: Which ones, so we can have that on the record.
Mr. Traurig: We are representing VMS. I just happen to have been here, I
wasn't here for this issue, but I would like you to know that the conclusion
is that there is substantial excess capacity, surplus capacity.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, let me add...
Mayor Suarez: One possibility, if I may, procedurally is to have... one
possibility that occurs to me is to not act on this today and possibly have a
workshop on it. I don't know, it doesn't sound like I am going to prevail on
considering the joint application for a...
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor...
Mr. Plummer: ourselves, because I don't know that We...
Mayor Suarez: Wait, you've got a better suggestion, Joe You want to see it,
J.L., what he's got to get us out of this?
Mr. Plummer: Fine.
Mr. McManus: The Board of County Commissioners is going to have a public
hearing on ,July 25th. Dade County Planning Department is in opposition to an
area wide DRI. What we are seeking from the Commission is just your advice
whether it is appropriate for us to appear before the Board of County
Commissioners in concert with the Dade County Planning Department in
opposition to the area wide DRI.
the peak hour of the peak day of the peak season of the peak year, there
*houid not be a tie up on the Rickenbacker Causeway. And we don't... we
don't...
Mayor Suarez: Well, the peak hour of the peak day of the peak season of the
peak year is the day he has his boat race out there.
Mr. McManus: All right, we don't...
Mr. Plummer: Come on, now that's not fair. That's not fair.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, you don't design public facilities for that peak.
Mayor Suarez: And it's not his boat race, he doesn't make any money off of
it.
Mr. Plummer: Whatever your motion is, I'm voting against it.
Mayor Suarez: He just derives emotional satisfaction. He doesn't make any
money from it, don't get me wrong.
Mr. Plummer: You're lying, I made money this year.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, we don't... public, Mr. Mayor...
Mayor Suarez: You made money for you? For us.
Mr. Plummer: No, for us, fifty-four thousand.
Mayor Suarez: Oh.
Mr. McManus: Public agencies don't design for that peak, peak, peak nor does
private enterprise. Imagine if Dadeland were designed to accommodate all the
parking they need the day before Christmas.
Mayor Suarez: Well, what they're saying is that the analysis is based on
commuter peak hours and the problem in Key Biscayne is the converse of
commuter traffic. It is weekend traffic and special events traffic, not
commuter, not people going to work.
Mr. McManus: What they're saying is, if you take Memorial Day Weekend...
Mayor Suarez: Yes. Take that.
Mr. McManus: Or Fourth of July weekend. We're saying is, that is not the way
to design public facilities for that peak, peak. You have to design more for
an average. Otherwise, you're putting in all this over capacity for handling
one peak.
Mayor Suarez: Well...
Ms. Betty Sime: Could I just add something?
T
Mr. Mctfoowell: 'des, I am.
Mr. Plummer: Are you a registered lobbyist?
Mr. McDowell: Yes, I am.
Mr. Plummer: With the City?
Mr. McDowell: I believe we have filed with the City, I cannot swear to...
Mr. Plummer: Don't believe, sir, so that you don't go to jail or I don't for
listening to you, sign the little card.
Mr. McDowell: I will sign the form before I walk out.
Mayor Suarez: Last statement. No, no, no. We require you to fill it out.
Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no.
Mrs. Kennedy: No, you have to do it before.
Mr. Plummer: You'll sign the little card now and then you can do it acid
welcome to Internal Revenue.
Mayor Suarez: M--. Sime.
Me. Sime: My name is Betty Sime, I live at 240 Harbor Drive on Key Biscayne.
I am chairman of the Key Biscayne council. I have lived on Key Biscayne for
26 years. The purpose of the Rickenbacker Causeway is to accommodate the
public, not the people going to the hotels, but the working class people to
have access to their recreational facilities.
Mayor Suarez: Everybody uses the causeway. Go ahead, Mrs. Sime.
Ms. Sime: OK, I just want to tell you in the impact statement, when the high
bridge was to be built, it states this purpose. The purpose was for access to
the recreational facilities. There's a total refusal of Dade County in the
Planning Departments...
Mayor Suarez: And your homes, and the hotels and anything else that built in
Key Biscayne that you need a vehicle to get to.
Ms. Sime: ... to consider the uniqueness of the area.
Mayor Suarez: Unless you use a helicopter. Go ahead.
Ms. Sime: Well, the purpose is stated clearly in that it was to provide
access to the recreational facilities. The recreational facilities are, as
you have said, weekends, special events, holidays. In reference to the
research done by Mr. David Plumer who is hired and paid by VMS, the question
was asked by our council, will you please consider the special events on Key
_ Biscayne and Virginia Key? He came back and said, I have researched the
special events. Here is a list of 17 special events; eleven of those
seventeen were localized. One was story telling at the Key Biscayne Library.
One was St. Christopher's Fair.
Mayor Suarez: They don't need to go over there, they can come here and hear a
lot of story telling.
Ms. Si:u9: Well, these all involved, do not involve hardly any to - this was
his research. These are the kind of statistics that I'm telling you is being
accepted by the County. It is an unfair situation, the statistics are not
telling the true situation. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: That's what I remember you were telling me, yes. I don't know
that we can solve this technical problem at this point. Counselor, do you
want to make a last statement?
Mr. McDowell: If I may.
s Mrs. Kennedy: Before you do, excuse me a second. Mr. Mayor,..
SQ
Maydt Suaret: This is set as a discussion. Commissioner Kennedy.
Mrs. Kennedy: If cost is a major factor, wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the
County to pay for it?
Mayor Suarets Yes. It's always reasonable to ask the county to pay for
everything. The problem is, do we get into a joint DRI application, area*ide
DRI application with the County or does that...
Mr. Plummer: They got to have our permission. Is that correct?
Mrs. Kennedy: Well....
Mayor Suarez: ... as our Planning Department keeps saying, is that
unnecessary?
Mrs. Kennedy: I know what the planning is saying and I was just talking to
them but on the other hand, if they are going - excuse me a second -- if
they're going to do it anyway, why don't we take an active participation in
the process?
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I am told that they cannot do an area DRI
including Virginia Key on the City of Miami owned property and jurisdiction
without our permission.
Mayor Suarez: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer; So what the hell are we arguing about?
Mayor Suarez: They can do it on Key Biscayne and it affects, it affects the
causeway.
Mr. Plummer: But what are we arguing about? They got to get our permission
to do it.
Mayor Suarez: It affects the causeway is what they're saying.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's not true.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me?
Mayor Suarez: It affects the causeway which affects what we can do in our
part of Virginia Key.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the legal counsel here says no, that's not right, and I'd
like to ask him why it's not.
Mayor Suarez: Well, it's an integral part of a DRI for Key Biscayne will be
the causeway because that's how you get there. But, go ahead.
Mr. Plummer: But the property that is owned and jurisdictionally under the
City of Miami...
Mayor Suarez: They cannot do it, areawide DRI for that.
—
Mr. Plummer: ...
is not part and they cannot include it without the City of
Miami's permission
according to the - is that correct?
—
Joel Maxwell, Esq.:
Yes, sir, now there may be City properties
outside of our`
corporate limits.
_
Mr. Plummer: I understand that. That's in their jurisdiction.
Mr. Maxwell: They
can do that.
Mayor Suarez: But
they're saying, if we get our requests in by
doing a DRI at
=
the same time or
jointly with the County, we also will be
planned `for is
_
future planning of
the causeway and I guess our Planning Department ins saying, .
that's not a realistic problem ,to consider at this point,
i
i
a ;
100
Mr. Plummer: What I was going to suggest because all of this might be for
naught, they might not do a DRI at all. Why don't we see what happens and if
they pass a DRI, then we can discuss whether or not we want to join with theta.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, and I would want to have at least a neutral stance from
the City's standpoint. I think at one point, we passed some kind of a
resolution saying, we don't want this to - our area to be included. i think
we should be totally neutral. Jurisdictionally, they cannot include our area
so there's no need for us to say, don't do the areawide DRI.
Mr. Plummer: I think we're arguing about nothing here.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. McDowell: Mr. Mayor, if I may...
Mayor Suarez: And I think, Joel, that would reflect the consensus of this
Commission. I don't remember what we passed in our prior resolution but we
have a legal opinion now that says they cannot include the City of Miami's
area anyhow so we're not taking a stand as to a joint...
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Mayor...
Mr. Plummer: Well, they can of the property that is outside of our City
limits that we own.
Mr. McDowell: Which is the Marine Stadium and all of the restaurants and all
of the marinas and you own the entire north side of the causeway between the
point where the bridge comes down on Virginia Key almost over to the NOAA
station. You own all that land and it's within Dade County political
jurisdiction and, indeed, and...
Mayor Suarez: Why? Does anybody know why? It means life is confusing enough
without having to have land located within Dade County jurisdictional areas
that is not under our planning jurisdiction.
Mr. Rodriguez: We have these all over the City. We have property which is
within the City that is now - that is owned by the county, I mean... Miami
Springs is another situation which is another weird one that we have property
outside...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, but the county is a larger jurisdiction and it would make
sense for them to have property within our geographic jurisdiction that is
theirs. But why do we have land that is... all of which could be under our...
Mr. Plummer: Because they wanted the higher taxes, that's why.
Mr. Rodriguez: Some point, maybe what we should do is try to annex...
Mr. Plummer: Same way with jai alai.
Mayor Suarez: Is annex it...
Mr. Rodriguez: Some point in the future, we should try to annex the property.
Mayor Suarez: We should try to annex it. We're going to annex Key Biscayne
too, the way we're going.
Mr. Plummer: Have you ever seen the City line on jai alai? _
Mayor Suarez: It's really a mess.
Mr. Plummer: In their generosity, we got the parking lots, they Bnt the
fronton.
Mayor Suarez: What a mess.
Mr. McDowell: If I may, I would suggest to you that that in itself would have
a major impact on this City because your Virginia Key master plan, in fact,
calls for substantial redevelopment and renovation of the Marine Stadium and
those areas and potential redevelopment of that area. So you will be affected
by a county areawide...
101 ,Ju9
0 0
Mayor Suarez: I don't call it substantial redevelopment. Improvement of the
Marine Stadium so it won't fall apart is one thing, but substantial
redevelopment, that's your...
Mr. McDowell: I think if you look at your master plan, it calls for potential
substantial redevelopment of those parking lot areas, consolidation of the
marina with upland dry storage and reutilization of that parking, expansion of
parking which would, in fact, be controlled by the areawide DRI, et al,
etcetera.
Mayor Suarez: OK, so that would be controlled by the areawide DRI if the
county chose to go that route. If the county doesn't choose to go that route,
it's not affected, obviously.
Mr. McDowell: There's one other thing that I think you should be aware of.
In the event that the county goes forward with an areawide DRI and you are not
a participant, and, in fact, don't oppose it, once the development order is
issued for that areawide DRI, any future development on the rest of Virginia
Key which is not included, would have to consider that areawide DRI as
committed development. Anything that was included in that areawide DRI would
be grandfathered in and anything you wanted to do on the rest of Virginia Key
would then have to assume that that was already built, whether it was or not
and that, I believe, could have a ...
Mayor Suarez: Because it came first in time?
Mr. McDowell: Once the development order is issued as in the case of your
downtown...
Mayor Suarez: Because it came first in time, what you're saying.
Mr. McDowell: Yes and...
Mayor Suarez: Even though it's not our jurisdiction and...
Mr. McDowell: Your downtown DRI, for example, is vested right now. If
someone wanted to do, for whatever reason, a private DRI within the confines
of the downtown area, they have to assume total buildout.
Mayor Suarez: That's different, you were not addressing that. You were
saying outside of the confines of the DRI, it would still, somehow, affect us.
Mr. McDowell: What I'm suggesting to you is if an areawide DRI is approved
and the excluding of Virginia Key and that is then considered as committed
development, it may, in fact, use a substantial portion of capacity of that
bridge, which could have an impact on your future development of the remaining
acreage on Virginia Key.
Mayor Suarez: That's the same argument we've heard already and they don't
agree with it because they don't think it will ever happen.
Mr. Plummer: You can also go through the process of a development order.
Mayor Suarez: So why do you repeat it?
0 0
Mayor Suarez: That's why we don't think there's a problem.
Mr. McDowell: You have the concurrency requirement in the State Statute so
that the level of service that's been established, regardless of what anybody
ever proposes out there, there will always be...
Mayor Suarez: Doubtful of the concurrency in many, many areas. This is not
one of them. We don't have any great plans to develop much of Virginia Key so
we don't see we should...
Mr. McDowell: What I'm suggesting is...
Mr. Dawkins: You going to leave an open space in the beach?
Mr. McDowell: It has been suggested to you contrary - the argument against
the areawide overall is that it has been suggested to you that you have to do
that to protect the public's access to those beaches. I suggest to you that
the state law and concurrency and the level of service established both by
this City and by Dade County, protects that interest more than sufficiently.
And we would ask and I think it would be in the City's best interest to, in
fact, oppose the areawide DRI and as a property owner out in that area that
has an interest in developing, or even preserving the use of your own property
in the future and if not, I would certainly think that you would want to join
in and be involved in that process. For your information, since you may not
have seen it, I do have copies of Mr. Walter's recommendation to the County
Commission which I'd be happy to give you if you'd like it just for background
information.
Mayor Suarez: What is your recommendation, for the record? Because I'm all
confused as to what you're recommending.
Mr. McDowell: I would suggest that it would be in this City's best interest
to follow your staff recommendation. Which is, in fact, to oppose the
areawide DRI and in the event that the county decides to move forward with
areawide DRI, that, in fact, you be involved as a joint areawide DRI covering
both of those islands since there is only one causeway. But I think your
staff has concluded that that is really not necessary as has county staff.
Mayor Suarez% Which translates to, if you can't lick them, join them.
Mr. McDowell: I think that's an accurate characterization of it, yes.
Mayor Suarez: OK, Commissioners, do you have any ideas, suggestions, or do we
just leave this as a discussion item? And move on to the next item which
people are waiting to be heard on. I tell you one thing, for Key Biscayne,
you can count on all of our support to make sure that the wrong things aren't
built that add to the congestion on the causeway, whether we define peak hours
as the county seems to def ine them or we def ine them in some other way. I
know that it affects my own standard of living because not only occasionally I
go out to Key Biscayne, but because just in front of my house the stacking
takes place and the queueing takes place.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bet you don't do that in It's the only
way you can participate...
Mayor Suarez: Well, I'm not convinced of that but I would be willing to vote
for that but apparently there's not much support for the concept here unless
somebody moves it. Wait, wait, Gene. Because we have to move on to other
items. Does anybody have anything else to add, any proposal, motion or...
Mr. Plummer: Not at this time.
Mrs. Kennedy: I agree with the Mayor, by the way. I don't have any problems
with that but I guess at this point, it's just a discussion item. And we're
not supposed to take any action, correct?
Mayor Suarez: Don't hesitate to come back and seek further our help in
dealing with the county as to what you think ought to be done about Key
Biscayne and about the causeway, which obviously you - joins us with Key
Biscayne in an inextricable manner. Yes.
Mr. Stearns; Is the City staff authorized to appear to oppose the areawide?
103 June 22, 1989
Mayor Suares: No, no. No.
Mr. Stearns: OK.
Mr. Rodriguez- The directions that you're giving us no* is that we don't
appear and that we don't oppose or support it. That we take a wait and aes
position.
Mayor Suarez: Right, now understood that they cannot include the area under
our jurisdiction in any kind of an areawide DRI. You ought to be there to
monitor that.
Mr. Maxwell: So the (notion is that they attend for purposes...
Mrs. Kennedy: There's no motion.
Mr. Maxwell: Well, the direction is that they attend only for purposes of
monitoring.
Mayor Suarez: That they what?
Mr. Maxwell: Attend the meeting only for purposes of monitoring.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I mean, we always want to make sure that you speak on our
legal rights if they try to include our area in there, areawide DRI.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but what about if they're asked by someone - some
Commissioner - what is the City's position are they to answer how?
Mr. Dawkins: Ask that City Commissioner to come here.
Mr. Rodriguez: At this point, we don't have any direction from the City
Commission as to...
Mr. Plummer: You'll come back to this... you'll have to go back to your
Commission for further instructions.
Mr. Rodriguez: We have to come back to you to get - right, sure.
Mr. Plummer: Fine.
Mr. Dawkins: No, they have to come - let one of those Commissioners come
before us and ask us.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, and we're interested in what they plan to do about the
problems in Key Biscayne and about how they plan to control growth and traffic
on the causeway. Solid Waste and sewage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend zoning atlas by applying Section 1610
HC-1 at 3744 Stewart Avenue (Marjory Stoneman Douglas House) (Applicant:
Planning Department).
Mayor Suarez: PZ-1. I thought there was a motion on that right away.
Mr. Plummer: Yes. You.
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, I moved it.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded, J. L.?
' , Mr. Plummer: Yesfine.
j, n
= Mayor Suarez: Any further discussionY It not, :east the Qrdinancs Call t
' roll on FZ-1.
104
7 r
9 0
AN ORDINANCE --
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY APPLYING THE HC-1; GENERAL USE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE MARJORY
STONEMAN DOUGLAS HOUSE, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3744
STEWART AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND MAKING ALL
NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NUMBER 48 OF SAID ZONING
ATLAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of June 22, 1989,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On
motion of Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the
Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. -
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10598.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public. _
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1G. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Change zoning atlas from RG-2.1/3.3 to RG-2.2/7
at 1918 Brickell Avenue (Applicant: Paul R. Sadovsky).
-------•------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-2.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-2, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it's an
application for a zoning change and it's a first reading and it's a change on
the land site of Biscayne Boulevard, 19... I mean Brickell Avenue, excuse me,
1918 Brickell Avenue and the change requested is from RG-2.1/3.3 which is
multi family with medium density to an RG-2.2/4.7 which is a high density
residential district. The Planning Department recommend denial of the
application. However, the applicant is willing to downgrade that application
for an RG-2.1/5, that is leaving the same type of use and increasing the FAR
only. That is...
Mayor Suarez: This was the item that got us into a big confusion about
ownership and everything else, is it?
= Mr. Olmedillo: The
ownership.
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr.
Mayor, Commissioner Plummer was the one
who raised the -
ownership question
and he's not here right now. I think that
we should wait -
for him.
Mr. Dawkins: What
is staff recommendation?
i Mr. Olmedillo: We
recommend approval as amended. That is the
RG-2.1/5 which
increases only the
number of square feet but not the number of
units.
� Mr. Dawkins; OK, is
that what you're going to speak to?
Mayor Suarez: And
wasn't there an opponent...
Mr. Jeffrey Bercow:
Yes, sir.
R
S
105
JUAP
Mr. Dawkitai Or era you going to speak differently?
Mr. Bercow: We're going to speak for the RG-2.1/5, staff's position.
Mr. Dawkins: What staff is recommending. OK, i move it and Trait for J. L.
Plummier to come and.. .
Mrs. Kennedy: The staff is recommending... I second. I have no problem.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded.
Mr. Dawkins: .., we got to wait till J. L....
_
Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone that wished that is here in opposition to thin?
"Wasn't there someine that dropped an opposition on this...
Mr. Dawkins: J. L.
Mayor Suarez: ... between the last meeting and this one? _
Mr. Plummer: I'm here.
Mayor Suarez: No member of the general public?
Mr. Olmedillo: I'd like to mention... -
Mr. Plummer: There was some here in opposition.
Mayor Suarez: OK, and you're still here on opposition.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I'm really not in opposition.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't you come up to the mike and just state that on the
record? And if there's anyone else that opposes this, we'll have to hear from
you. We have a motion and a second already. Sir, why don't you go ahead and -
put your name on the record and say you're no longer in opposition.
Mr. Julius Sperling: My name is Julius Sperling. I live at 1915 So. Miami
Avenue, directly behind the property.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Sperling. Anyone else that opposes - J. L., did
you want to ask some questions before? —
Mr. Plummer: No, the matter that I was trying to get cleared before was to —
—
the ownership and whatever else it was because of the full disclosure. That
matter's been resolved.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Neil Litman, Esq.: My name is Neil .Litman. I represent the purchaser. We're
not here in opposition, but to clarify and if you need any clarification. _
Last time there was...
Mayor Suarez: I hope not.
Mr. Litman: Last time there was a need so we appeared for that purpose. _
Mayor Suarez: Apparently it's been resolved. Is there anyone here An ,
opposition to this matter? If not, read the ordinance. Do you.need to.put in_.
the record anything else, Guillermo?
_
Mr. Olmedillo: Just one thing that the applicant proffered a covenant with
_
restrictions.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, please, state the terms of that or the outline of it.
i
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, there's a height limitation, there are aotbaak
limitations to it.
•,
Mayor Suarez: What do you need tostate in the record?
10[a`
.r
Mr. 01thbaillot I just wanted to put that on the record that there's a
covenant and I would like the applicant to speak to that issue.
Mayor Suarez: Is this properly in the record now? Do we need to state
aiiyththg verbally? Please help the so are can get on to the vote.
Jeff Bercow, Esq.: We do.
Mr. Olmedillo: No, not really. It's in the package ar_d...
Mr. Bercow: We do need to state something in addition.
Mayor Suarez: Please, counsel, put it in record, somebody.
Mr. Bercow: One of our neighbors to the west of us on South Miami Avenue have
raised a concern regarding the one foot strip exclusion in our covenant. We
have excluded the one foot strip between our property and their property. We
did that because the same type of covenant - for the record, my name is Jeff
Bercow, 200 So. Biscayne Boulevard, in Miami, representing the applicant, Paul
Sadovsky. We offered this covenant because the same type of covenant was
proffered and accepted by the City Commission on 2100 Brickell Avenue. We do
not have any problem with removing the one -foot exclusion if that is the City
Commission's desires and we have discussed this with the City Attorney's
office. They've indicated it does not affect the legal sufficiency and we are
willing to proceed on that basis.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you counselor. Anyone else? If not, read
the ordinance.
AT THIS POINT, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD BY
TITLE ONLY.
Mr. Dawkins: Before we vote, Mr. Mayor, may I ask my fellow commissioners one
thing. They proffered $5,000 to the park improvement fund. I've been out to
the parks and according to the staff, money is short. Some places they only
delivered one football and the other stuff. Instead of the park improvement
fund, I'd like to know if this commission would be in attune and if they
donated the $5,000 to recreational...
Mayor Suarez: Programs...
Mr. Dawkins: No.
Mayor Suarez: ...and equipment?
Mr. Dawkins: Not capital equipment, equipment.
and etcetera.
Mr. Plummer: Athletic equipment.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, athletic equipment.
Like balls, ping gong balls
Mr. Plummer: Hell, you're giving the Police Department $85,000.
Mayor Suarez: OK, that'll be fine with me if that's what's needed.
Mr. Plummer: gore or less.
Mr. yernandet: That they have proffered?
Mr. Dawkins: I don't know. Jeff, he asked you a question, the City Mahaget i
City Attorney. Mr. City Attorney, you asking hits a question?
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: Ask him.
Mr. Fernandez: Is it clear in the covenant that you have proffered when the
money will, in fact, be
Mr. Bercow: I believe that it is at CO or a building permit.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no. Building permit. I can't wait till you get a CO.
Mr. Plummer: You got to pull the permit in how long?
Mr. Olmedillo: There's no limitation to that, sir.
Mr. Fernandez: The way that it stands right now, it's really rather uncertain
when and if the money's going to come in.
Mr. Dawkins: We going to get it...
_ Mr. Bercow: Prior to the issuance of any CO and that was the same conditions
that were in the covenants offered for 2100 Brickell and 1550 Brickell. We
simply followed those forms.
Mr. Dawkins: My vote would be that they donate the money when they get the
building permit. Now, that's what my vote is.
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, now. Hold on. All right, let's get this
straight. Then tell me how many months they've got in which to pull the
building permit?
Mr. Olmedillo: Once you have changed the zoning, it stays unless you change
it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, that's the point. They could change the zoning and never
pull the building permit.
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Mr. Plummer: So, no, no, no. Come on, Jeff. We're talking about $5,000.
Let's don't be petty here now.
Mr. Bercow: Commissioner, we have a contract to sell this property subject to
a covenant that provides for these types of conditions.. I can't, today, agree
to that.
Mr. Rodriguez: Between first and second reading.
Mr. Bercow: If you'll give me the time to take it back to my client who's not
here today and we can discuss it at second reading.
Mr. Plummer: Well, then, let's do it this way, OK? We'll give you an option.
This is approved subject to the five thousand dol... no, you can't make it so.
Well, you can volunteer.
Mr. Bercow: OK.
-
Mr. Plummer: Do I hear you volunteering that it is
subject to the
being paid prior to enactment of law?
`t
INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mr, Plummer: Isn't this second reading?
r
Mr. Rodriguez: This is first.
r
logi
{
t ,
*t. P1tftWr4 'this is second readifit. this is first?
Mrs. kafittedyi This is first reading. ,.
Mr. 01th6dillo: First reading,
Mr. Plumber: Well, Ox, wait a minute, extuae me, first f`eadtfig, you gent ttlt
the second reading to come back with an answer.
Mr. Aercows That's correct.
Al
Mr. Plummer: Sure, that's fine.
Mr. Bercows OK.
t `
Mr. Plummer: First readings OK? {
Mr. Dawkins: Call the roll, Madam Clerk.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 1918
BRICKELL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (AS MORE PARTICULARLY bl
DESCRIBED HEREIN), FROM RG-2.1/3.3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
TO RG-2.1/5 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL; BY MAKING FINDINGS;
AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37
OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. uu;
r 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3,
SECTION 300, THEREOF; SUBJECT TO CERTAIN COVENANTS;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE. '
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commmissiona- jg
Kpnnodq_and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AT$S:,;, Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy �4
Commissioner Miller Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre s
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NO$Ss None.
y ABSENTS None.
The City Attorney read -.the > orditt�sgas into' the public reezard` apd'
announced that copies were available-to.-the.members of theCity Commission,,and
to the public.
COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Y
x;
Mrs. Kennedy: Again, for the record, this is not including the numbe;r, i�
units but increasing the FAR, correct?. T # a n s
Mr. Bercow; That's correct. ¢�
t _ +
rock - E +. xtl-ia
Mrs., Kennedy: Yen.
mr ,z, � 3mf��
a Mr, Plum elr s Same amount.
CQMM=TS MADE FOLLOWING ROLL C y
, u '
r Mr, .Aorcows,, Thank you.
-�k '�����
"y�;,
Op
'� �h�zr '
�Ji„'C`•�zu� �. _ � i t� ✓as "t - � 3 �` `�*,; -q,.4" � �r ��t ,
.
:.._.� -----------------------------------------------------------.
17. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend toning atlas - Change atlas from RG-1/3
to CO-1/7 at approximately 4220-40 N.W. 14th Street and 4253-55 N.V.
12th Street Drive (Applicant: Charles Traficant).
Mayor Suarez: PZ-3.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-3 is another application for rezoning and it's to
go from an RG-1/3, a duplex zoning, to a CG-1/7, for property...
Mayor Suarez: It's first reading. Planning Department recommends approval,
Zoning Board recommends approval...
Mr. Plummer: No, I got a question on it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir.
Mrs. Kennedy: PZ-3...
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: On page three of the backup material, twice previously on this
same location this application was denied. My question is, what has changed
to change this to an approval?
Mr. Olmedillo: When we did the comprehensive plan for 1989 - remember the
February 1989 plan - we looked at the properties which were west of this
particular property. Originally, those were designated for duplex also but as
you may remember also, this is what the airport uses as a very large parking
lot.
Mr. Dawkins: Too much cover.
Mr. Olmedillo: There, an open... very large parking lot for employees of the
airport and we saw that if this particular property was just kind of pressed
between the parking lot area and the CG liberal/commercial area to the north,
during the comprehensive plan hearings, we saw no need to have an isolated
duplex district there for just a portion of the block.
Mr. Rodriguez: The area has become more commercial. The general area has
become more commercial in use.
— Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you a secret. The county is planning on
taking over the authority of the zoning of that area. I don't know how
they're going to do it but I understand the county wants to take over the
jurisdiction of that area because it relates to the airport in the same way _
they wanted to take over the zoning on both sides of the Metrorail. Be aware, _
I told you. OK? Is the applicant here? Is the applicant here on item three?
You're the applicant? Do you have an attorney or...?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On behalf of my grandfather.
Mr. pluftbb r That do you intend to use this property for?
Ms, Traficant: At this time, we don't have specific intentions of dev 16piftt
the property but given the fact that everything in that area is cotftg fcill, We
want to increase the value of our property holdings.
Mr. Plummer: And what are you doing in return for the City?
Ms, Traficant: What are we doing in return for the City?
Mr. Plummer- Um hum.
Ms. Traficant: We'll be paying more property taxes on the value of the
property.
Mr. Plummer: That doesn't tell me anything, you're paying taxes. How long
has your grandfather owned the property?
Ms. Traficant: He's owned the property for about forty - thirty years.
Mr. Plummer: OK, now is what you're asking us to do is to double the value of
the property. Now, what are you going to do in return for the City?
Ms. Traficant: Well, we have several different ideas that we have for the
property. -
Mr. Plummer: And ... no, no, no...
Ms. Traficant: I'm sorry, I don't know what I'm supposed to say.
Mr. Dawkins: That's right, darling.
Mr. Plummer: Well, OK...
Mr. Dawkins: You are very intelligent...
Mr. Plummer: I feel this is unfair, I really do.
Ms. Traficant: I'm really...
Mr. De Yurre: Where's Al Cardenas?
Mayor Suarez: We have a volunteer.
Mr. Dawkins: We got a volunteer that will assist her.
Mr. Plummer: If she'd have been an ugly girl, he wouldn't have walkedso
fast.
Mrs. Kennedy: A volunteer to convince her of a voluntary covenant.
Mr. Dawkins: Stay right there, Bob, now.
Ms. Traficant: I would be very willing to contribute to the City in the form
of a donation to day care center or whatever specific...
Mr. Dawkins: I'll be so glad Rosario's leaving, I don't have to be worried
with day care no more.
f Mrs. Kennedy: Day care center will do it, yes.
} Mr, Plummer: I have no problem with that. But you have to volunteer a
' number.
}
Ms. Traficant: Five thousand dollars.
Mrs. Kennedy: I so move.
Mr. Fernandez: An ordinance... h` s
=. Mrs. Kennedy: Read the ordinance,
qL
,z1 a
a
11Z?" L` f.., S R3ur`Y A S
,: _ _
IbL
Mt. btwkinet I'ta going to second this only because Rosario will be gone the t
can get some money for parka and not day care from now on.
Mayor Suarez: We have...
Mr. Plummer: I haven't got a black olive tree in so dastsn long it's unreal.
Mrs. Kennedy: I hope my legacy in day care centers continue long after #'M
gone.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion with a voluntary donation. Do we have a
second? Did we...
Mr. Dawkina: I second it.
Mayor Suarez: Did you read the ordinance, Mr. City Attorney?
THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, BY
TITLE ONLY.
Mr. Plummer: For the record, you did volunteer to make that check payable
prior to this becoming effective in law.
Ms. Traficant: I can make the check payable whenever you want.
Mr. Plummer: Damn. Wheel Traurig, you did a good job.
Ms. Traficant: I'm really sorry. This is my first experience and it's such
A...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, you're doing well, darling.
Mr. Plummer: You're way ahead of the game, I'm telling you. Wait till you
-
get Traurig's bill, that's going to slay you.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
t
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4220-40 NORTHWEST 14
STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND 4253-55 NORTHWEST 12
STREET DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN), FROM RG-1/3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ONE
AND TWO FAMILY TO CG-1/7 GENERAL COMMERCIAL BY MAKING
z_
FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON
PAGE NO. 27 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF
ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN
-
ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner .
Dawkins and was passed on its first reading by title by the following votes
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
_
Commissioner Miller Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
`'
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the ' public
ret�cirti lsnt
announced that copies were available to the' members o the city Commission Spd
to the public.
_, k
�s x:
j
is a--WVRT
it. bISCUSS AND CONTINUE TO THE OCTOBER PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE - to amend Miami
comprehensive Neighborhood Plan concerning area generally bounded by
N.W. 12th and 27th Avenues between N.W. 36th and 38th Streets/SR12 to
change designation of abutting properties.
----------- --------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-4.
Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, I would like to continue this item to October
meeting because the Planning Advisory Board last night when they acted on this
continued the item till September.
Mayor Suarez: I'll entertain a motion to continue the item until October.
Mrs. Kennedy: So move.
Mr. Plummer: So be it.
Mr. Rodriguez: The October Commission Meeting of (Tape 12) Planning and
Zoning.
Mayor Suarez: The Planning and Zoning meeting in October. So moved and
seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll. -
ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER KENNEDY AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER PLUMMER, PZ-4 WAS CONTINUED TO THE PLANNING AND
ZONING MEETING OF OCTOBER, 1989, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
- ABSENT: None.
19. AMEND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MAJOR USE SPECIAL
PERMIT - for the 1111 Brickell Avenue Project (a DRI) - reference
amended Major Use Special Permit, add additional development of gross
_ square feet of retail and hotel use, add parking spaces and square
footage of loading area, delete office use and parking use, change gross
building floor area, provide for traffic mitigation alternatives, etc.
(Applicant: 1111 Brickell Associates Limited).
Mayor Suarez: PZ-5.
Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Mayor...
Mr. Plummer: Here's that bad one..,,'.:;
Mr. Dawkins: What is staff recommendations on five?..
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, stuff
reaommsadatlon,�
r
PZ-5 is approval. This was discussed at your last meeting.,
in May. The-Qnq
item under contention at that point, I believe, was that the
applicant had.np
'
sufficiently clarified the ownership. And I think in the
,last page -',of th4
agenda package there is a description of the ownership and that is the result_
of, as I understand it, extensive research from the law firm and the Cy has
reviewed it and I think the Law Department is the position
it aatia#ie�a: t})}
Law Department,
Mr. Dawkins: So, Mr. City ,Attorney...
:
.:
{
a
f
a
3
i -
t
Mt. jbrgs Fernandez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: ... what's the Law Department's recommendation on this?
s Mr. Fernandez: Hold on a second, Commissioner, please. Is this it? This
ownership statement that has been provided to us by counsel today, ter.
{ Plummer, is rather thorough but in reading it, we have some concern that it
does not, in fact, go all the way down through to the five percent requirement
with sufficient specificity as we believe the code requires.
Mr. Plummer: I didn't ask the question, but if, you know, I think it's only
right if we're going to defer it. Is this first reading? No, this is not a
first or second, it's a resolution.
Mr. McManus: It's a resolution.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, what's your recommendation? Do you recommend that we get
more information, sir, or that we defer it until you get more information or
what?
Mr. Plummer: The only recommendation he could make is to comply with the law.
How can he recommend anything else?
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, now J. L. Plummer is advisor to the City Attorney.
Mr. Plummer: And it's free.
Mr. Dawkins: And I mean free too. He don't have to pay for this. -
Mayor Suarez: Oh, this was the very complicated ownership scheme that we were
trying to ascertain who was who and who was on first and who was on second.
Right?
Al Cardenas, Esq.: For the record, Mr. Mayor, my name is...
Mr. Dawkins: Wait, I'm trying to keep from hearing you, God knows I am.
Mr. Cardenas: Well, I pay attention pretty well to this message. —
Mr. Plummer: Who is M. M. Worms?
Mr. Dawkins: Now I guess I have to hear from you.
Mrs. Kennedy: A New Yorker.
Mr. Cardenas: Great guy.
Mr. Plummer: No, it says here Paris.
Mr. Cardenas: Do you want me to explain? Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Cardenas, please explain.
Mrs. Kennedy: Oh, the bank?
Mr. Cardenas: OK, for the record, my name is Al Cardenas with offices at 1221
Brickell Avenue and we had prepared a memorandum and an affidavit which were
submitted to the City Attorney's office, providing the information requested.
The long and short of it is that W.M.M. Worms and Company is a French company
in existence since 1848. I provided - we provided the names of the four
individuals who are the hundred percent shareholders of the eventual concern
once you went down the chain of ownership here. There was - and that covered
all of the managing and general partners in this limited partnership. There
were four individuals, they're fully disclosed in the memorandum that were
provided to the City Attorney's office and I'm representing to you, tas
attorney for these clients, that that's what I have been represented and
accordingly, we've provided memorandum setting forth the chain of ownership.
The second matter that I want to bring to your attention is thera—.was an
affidavit also presented which set forth that none of the limitod partnera ih
_'. the partnership own five percent or more interest in the venture.
1`r
Y,
L f
i� Juno
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask the City Attorney a question. I mean, are we in _
order to proceed or not? If we're not in order, than I'll hold my questions
till we are. -
Mr. Fernandez: I don't believe you're in order to proceed, perhaps as to the
five percent interest, the affidavit, if, in your opinion, the affidavit is
sufficient, you may so find, but in terms of the requirements of the code
where it must go down to the lowest individual to be able to get individual
recognition or character, that's what I don't think that the list theyhave
provided us does satisfactorily. 1%
Mr. Cardenas: Well, may I repeat what I've said. It said M.M. Worms and
Company is a partnership in France, formed in 1948. There are four partners,
all citizens and residents of France. Jean Phillipe Thiere, Nicholas Clive
Worms, Claude Pierre Brausellete, and Claude Jansen. Excuse my French.
Mayor Suarez: It's a lot better than most of the...
Mr. Cardenas: I thought it was funny but I guess I... It says M.M. Worms and
Company or the Worms Group is engaged, through subsidiaries, in various
financial services etcetera, etcetera. And it says, pertinent data on each of
the entities involving the ownership. It says M.M. Worms and Company,
shareholders a hundred percent and it's these four named individuals. Worms &
Company, Inc., shareholder, 100 percent; M. M. Worms and Company, 1111
Brickell Corporation, shareholder, 100 percent, Worms and Company, Inc. W.R.
Brickell Corporation, shareholder a hundred percent, Worms & Company, Inc. W.
R. Development Partnership Limited, shareholder, a hundred percent, 1111
Brickell Corporation. W.R. Bayshore Associates, a hundred percent partners.
W. R. Development Partnership, Ltd. and 1111 Brickell Partnership, Ltd. I
mean, the whole thing is a chain of command. I don't know why... I mean,
there's no gap as I read it. 1111 Brickell Associates, Ltd., one hundred
percent. General partner, W. R. Bayshore Associates. So, I mean, there are 1
layers of ownership, all broken down from top to bottom and I don't see a
mystery in it. I mean, I'm sorry. I mean, it goes back to the four
individuals that I have cited here and those are all the general and managing
partners and there are limited partners, none of which own five percent or
more and have submitted an affidavit to that effect. I don't see the mystery
in it. I mean...
Mayor Suarezr Well, the mystery is how the complexity of it for people who
don't usually deal with these kinds of things, you know.
Mr. Cardenas: I understand, Mayor. I understand.
Mayor Suarez: Besides the mystery, what is the objection here? Are we going
to have a problem in dealing with this item?
Mr. Plummer: I don't know. I have no problem dealing with it if the City
Attorney is satisfied. I raised the question at the last meeting. I did not
see this until today. Now, the City Attorney has looked at it and I'll abide
myself by whatever his...
Mr. Dawkins: What's your recommendation, sir?
Mr. Cardenas: Onward.
Mr. Fernandez: It is our consensus of opinion here amongst my colleagues that
in fact, what they have submitted to us, even though rather thorough, does not
satisfy the requirements of our code 2-308 in that it does not specifically
identify natural persons sufficiently. As you remember, you have instructed
us to prepare an amendment to this ordinance where the requirement of five
percent would also satisfy the partnership disclosure. That is in the making.
That will be coming to you, hopefully, at next City Commission meeting. There
i is also, if you're satisfied with what they have presented, there is a waiver
provision that's applicable but you have to have notice, published notice, if
3 you intend to exercise that waiver provision. So those are two possible ways
of dealing with that.
! Mr. Dawkins: Counsel what natural persons did you name? Name them again.
f
Mayor Suarez: That's exactly what I was going to ask. —
— 115 Juaw 220- 1909
I 12M,
Mr, tfirde&*l
Mr, Dawkins:
0
bX, bc..
Name them Again.
Mayor suares: Are these the natural parsons that Are the principal a"ack of
this project?
Mr. Cardenas: Yet, the Jean Phil...
Mayor Suarez- And they just put into many different layers of corporate
structure, is that the idea?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, air.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, the name...
Mr, Cardeftset Jean Phillips Thierai
Mr. Dawkins: is that a natural person?
Mr. Cardenass Yes.
Mr. Dawkinst That's one. Go ahead.
Mr. Cardenast OK. Nicholas Clive Worms.
Mr. Dawkinst Another natural person, OK?
Mr. Cardenast Yes. Claude Pierre Brausellete.
Mr. Dawkins: Another natural person. OK?
Mr. Cardenas: Right. And Claude Jansen.
Mr. Dawkins: Another natural person.
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, air.
Mr. Dawkins: Now, they own what?
-.,
Mr. Cardenas: They own a hundred percent M-Wo rms Company.'' of M�
Mr. Dawkinst Now, and as you...
Mr. Cardenasi Which is the eventual owner, a hundred percent owner,;'of
this...
F.
Mr. Dawkinsi No, no, no, now you let me ask some questions, OK?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, air. OK.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, now. Now M. & M. Worm own what?
Mr. Cardenas; They own a hundred percent of Worms & Company, Inc.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, and then you go down and say the next layer of, It: to
what?
a a hundred percent of 1111 Brickell.
Worms Company, Inc. own . . ....... -
Mr. Cardenas:
Corporation.
Mr, Dawkinst And then, all you keep doing in telling me that Brickell QwA 0 j.
Worm own and all that's owned by these four people, 41 pg;-%
tv 1`
Mr. Cardenasi Yes, air,
Mr. Dawkins: So
what's the problem, Mr. Attorney?
'Mr. Fernandez: Well, if that's in fact what he is saying,
No, no, that's what he said in plain Unallphi"z—
Awk M
-A
Q NO 6 is r
-Q �4R
X5
AE
NAM
:
E
Mr. Fernandez: That's not exactly necessarily what we read froth the docuiaent
that he presented to us a few hours ago at most.
Mr. Dawkins: OTC, all right, put it in...
Mayor Suarez: Well, if there's a discrepancy, we have to know what that is.
i
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, if there's a discrepancy, well you and him work out... what
is it...
Mr. Plummer: I got a suggestion, we send Rosario to Paris to check it out.
Mayor Suarez: What is the discrepancy?
Mr. Dawkins: ....I don't see no discrepancy, what a discrepancy legal?
Mayor Suarez: From what he just told us to what is in his application.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I suggest we send Victor to Paris to check it out.
Mrs. Kennedy: For a year?
Mr. Dawkins: I raised it, why don't I go?
Mayor Suarez: One way or two way ticket?
Mr. Plummer: Because you're running.
Mr. Cardenas: A long way.
Mr. Dawkins: I mean, can we accept what he said, Mr. City Attorney?
Mr. Cardenas: One way.
Mr. Plummer: Where are we?
Mayor Suarez: What is the discrepancy between what he said and what was
presented to us, if any?
Mr. Fernandez: Did you swear him in, by the way? If he's sworn in, then,
perhaps, I may be willing to accept what he's saying. I'm just kidding.
Mayor Suarez: Don't kid us at this point. Just tell us what the law is.
Mr. Fernandez: We're really trying to decipher whether all the partnerships,
because there are several, they really only have as general partners those Y.=
four individuals that were originally mentioned.
Mr. Cardenas: No, they have as partners corporations which are owned by them, -
that's correct.
Mayor Suarez: But there are no other individuals that are going to come back
to haunt us? The taxpayers are not going to find or the residents of this
community that we have approved the project involving some nefarious people
that are on bond or out of jail or in jail or something? I mean, these are
the people, these are the natural persons that are involved in this project?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes. None of these people, to my knowledge, are in jail.
Mr.
Plummer:
Are they
alive?
Mr.
Cardenas:
They are
natural persons.
Mr.
Plummer:
No, no, no. Are they alive?
2^
Mr,
Cardenas:
They are alive.
Mr.
Plummer:
Now, who is signing the check
for your services?
i
Mr.
Cardenas:
Norman Zucker, that I got -
he's pretty much alive too,. Z ,oath
tell
you that.
7 .,
Mr. Cardenas: Norman tucker, Z-u...
Mr. Pluttner: Zucker?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, that guy is alive, I
Mr. Plummer: You 'better be sober when you say that.
Mrs. Kennedy: ... if they are alive, he's going to bury them.
Mr. Cardenas: It's Z...
(Laughter)
Mr. Cardenas: Oh, gosh. It's Z-u...
Mr. Plummer: Is that like Messerschmidts?
Mr. Cardenas: It's Z-u-c-k-e-r.
Mayor Suarez: Commission meetings are not usually this funny.
Mr. Plummer: Have we lost something in the translation?
Mr. Cardenas: And he's from New York and we talk frequently.
Mr. Plummer: How does he fit into this picture?
Mr. Cardenas: He is the United States representative for M. M. Worms and
Company. And is a quite successful and respected businessman. That is the
United States principal for this company and has been for many years.
Mayor Suarez: Any particular reason why you didn't...
Mr. Cardenas: I will tell you for...
Mayor Suarez: Counselor, counselor...
Mr. Cardenas: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... any particular reason why you didn't give us a chart that
shows all of these ownerships like a flow chart or something?
Mr. Cardenas: Well, we should have. I will tell you, and you're right,
Mayor, it would have simplified matters to visualize it. Let me say also the
following. Look, M. M. Worms & Company was founded in 1848. It trades on the
public stock exchange...
Mayor Suarez: Are they related to the bank, the bank of Worms? The Worms
Bank? -
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, it is the Bank of Worms and they own...
Mayor Suarez: Well, that's a pretty old established bank, I
mean, if that...
-
Mr. Cardenas: These four individuals are amongst the wealthiest and, moat
respected industry and business people in France.
Mayor Suarez: Are they the,same people that are involved in Cocowalk orsgtne
of the same people?
`
you know, they've been involved
Mr. Cardenas: Yes. And, y y
in investmenta in
Aa3
the United States for decades and they're well known and
respected. Their
companies trade in the public stock exchanges.
Mr. Plummer: I don't care.
Mayor Suarez: OK, we're going to clarify, Mr. City Attorney,
as we come up
with a better ordinance, not only exactly how far diaclosure
goes and given'."',
tatuxal parsons, but also how we can, somehow, visuaii a
it if it'$ not. a
a, r s
"r
t
r 1-
.7ue r
'
ff4P
! k.
�;
t r s
all
z
simple structure so that it isn't as confusing as what the Vice Magoi'e
looking at which looks quite confusing. I mean, as narrated there without a
structure, it's quite complex.
Mr. Plummer: is a motion in order to allow us to proceed that we accept that
which has been proffered?
i
Mr: Fernandez: You may accept what has been proffered so long as What is
being proffered is being represented under oath to you...
i
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: ... that it is complete and accurate and they assume the
responsibility for it being in compliance with the law.
Mr. Plummer: Swear him.
Mayor Suarez: They certainly do because...
Mr. Plummer: Swear him. Let's do it.
Mayor Suarez: OK, would you swear him in and make sure that everything he has
stated has been correct.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.
Mayor Suarez: Counselor, is everything as to the ownership and the ownership
structure of this entity that you have stated to us correct to the best of
your knowledge?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, it is.
Mayor Suarez: Let's go with it.
Mr. Plummer: OK, let me ask a question. Sergio, am I reading correctly, as I
remember, that anything that has a line drawn through it is deleted?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: And is there...
Mr. Rodriguez: Where are you now?
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me?
Mr. Rodriguez: What page are you so I can follow?
Mr. Plummer: OK, page 67 at the bottom , page 6 of something. Now, the
question I have is it deleted and something else is added...
Mr. McManus: That's correct, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: For example. One -of the things is the revolving doors at the
major project entrances. That's got a line running through it. That's a
safety factor. What substitutes that?
Mr. McManus: Substituted by 14 at the bottom of the page incorporating energy
conservation me...
Mr.
Plummer:
Wait, wait a minute. Page fourteen?
I don't have a page
four...
Mr.
McManus:
Item 14, item 14.
1:
Mr.
Rodriguez:
Item 14 on the same page.
Mr.
Plummer:
Huh?
Mr.
Rodriguez:
Same page.
Mr.
McManus:
Same page, item 14. At the bottom of the
page.
119
,7uAe,ggq }
t
Mr. Mctylshust You're substituting energy conservation features of the Florida
1 Energy Code.
i
Mr. Plummer: But that's not speaking apples to apples. I'm talking about
revolving doors, is that not a safety factor?
Mr. McManus: In this context, Commissioner, it was an energy conservation
measure where you're regulating the flow of air. It's not a safety in this
context, it's not a safety.
Mr. Plummer: OK, in the same context then, how does computerized elevator
control system speak to energy of air? I don't understand that.
Mr. McManus: What they're saying is, you program the elevators to handle the
demonstrated peaks in the elevator system so as to reduce the energy utilized
by the elevators. So you don't have just elevators going randomly but they
are programmed ahead of time to handle the peaks on the floors.
Mr. Plummer.: And that does relate?
Mr. McManus: To energy conservation.
Mr. Rodriguez: The item 14 that you have at the bottom of the page is an all
encompassing language that will cover all of those.
Mr. Plummer: OK, then tell me, how does it relate in the increase of total
gross floor area...
Mr. Rodriguez: What page?
Mr. Plummer: From page 65 where you've struck through one million, four
hundred twenty-seven six forty-six and now show, I assume, one million, five,
five, six, oh, oh, oh.
Mr. McManus: That's very clear, Commissioner, that there is overall increase
in the size of the project, that's one of the things under consideration here.
They are adding and subtracting spaces, they are adding gross - some 60,000
gross square feet of retail, 170,000 gross square feet of hotel use and some
truck loading bays and they're deleting 50,000 square feet of office use,
60,000 gross square feet of parking use. But overall, they're going from a
million four, 27,000 square feet, to a million five, five, six thousand gross
square feet.
Mr. Plummer: But why...
Mr. McManus: You're going from a million four to a million five.
Mr. Plummer: Why is that advantageous to the City? Where do we benefit _by,
allowing them to increase by more than 100,000 square feet?
Mr. Cardenas: That I can tell you.
-
Mr. Plummer:
I don't pay you.
Mr. Cardenas:
I understand.
_
Mr. McManus:
Generally, Commissioner, we have found we, the City, are better
off if we have fewer larger projects than more smaller projects. And what
this does, it
builds in a lot of efficiencies in the site in terms of entrance
and exits and there is an increase of 100,000 square feet but the trade-off
within the -
also within a 100,000 square feet, they are giving up retail ups
which generates
traffic and substituting...
Mr. Plummer:
But, it was my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that
what we were
trying to develop in the Brickell area was a mixed use. Now, -a
mixed use is
a little bit of everything, it's retail, it's residential, it'p
f..
Office, it's
professional, and yet you're saying that we're better off with
less retail.
Now, that to me is restricting the so called mixed use which. 1
thought we were
trying to develop.
120 J"a 22, 194
;
r
{
-9
Mt, 4tatdenaa t Wa Y to doubling the retail.
Mt. #todriguet: in reality, they are doubling the retail.
Mr. MdManust They're increasing the retail..
l`
Mr. Rodriguez: They're increasing the retail and they AM adding h6te14..
i
Mr. Plummer: What did you told me they were giving up?
Mr. Rodriguez: I'm sorry?
Mr, plummar: what did you tell me they were giving up? 's
Mr. Rodriguez: They reduced the office space: r
Mr. McManus: Office use, =-
Mr. Plummer: The office space.
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes.
Mr. McManus: Office space. They're increasing hotel use.
Mr. Rodriguez: And retail.
'T
Mrs. Kennedy: This is going from 56,000 to 118,000. -
Mr. Plummer: OK, the other...
Mrs. Kennedy: The additional increments that we see here will be charged
against the DRI, correct?
Mr. Rodriguez: The DRI. Right, only the addition.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mr. Plummer: And are there any increase in hotel rooms?
Mr. McManus: Yes, sir.
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes.
Mr. McManus: There is...
0
Mr. Plummer: Because that...
�r
Mr. McManus: ... increase of-256 roomsf
n
Mr. Plummer: That's a hotel rooms?
Mr. McManus: Yes. Z
Mrs. Kennedy: A 173,000 square feet.
Mr. Plummer: All right, now, that's fine. This is,tupdeX the DRi, CorrBCtiu
Mr. McManus: Yes. N w}
h}}b 4r�44 3 � •f
Mr. Plummer: OK. t'},'�_�
+iy
Mr. Rodriguez: Downtown' DRI.
et,g'r• a -�ale � �� ����§`�-y
} Mr. Plummer: All right,. ` and what is ot�r >. otaix oaga lty �r salt ik ►+�>` i� RA
° '
k the DRI?
;< ,
"
Mr., McManus: Approximately-4 thoues. d
r -
Mr. Rodriguez: For this area. o r
z A F Jt` �. � F '� 'Fi�.a �" �� f#� , r 2 Y>r�e Yaq`,,, tt l k Sgy�z 5'c�Lc � �• s-
t
—r�Fr,-L4�;y! t � i t t� �an;,.ti z t'fy'f� t��PhKf'4-Fi� � ��.�'�eC�•y fi� �.2 �, � .+ -
�':F' e5 ".p 1 - 7 l . rbif' Xk'� f..C.lY,�Y'illX ✓ da .i°� `�a� a+ �'m 4di R
Mr. Plummer: OK, now that's a thousand and this take away 25 percent of it in
this one...
Mr. McManus: Swoop,
Mr. Plummer: One swoop. All right? See, this is where I was trying to warn
before. That means that right now if Olympia York who proposes a thousand
hotel rooms - you can't do it. You just can't even do it. If, in fact, the
building that just fell on Flagler Street is supposedly going to have 600
hotel rooms, you can't do it.
i
Mr. Rodriguez: No. What you can do, if I may correct on that, is we can
trade some of our development credits which are in offices spaces or different
type of uses for hotel units.
Mr. Plummer: But, they're only going to allow you to trade off so much,
Sergio.
Mr. Rodriguez: We are allowed base and trip generation and we have a right to
establish by which you can do it up to the amount of development credits that
we have. Remember, that with the DRI...
Mayor Suarez: And we're not coming up on those limits yet, I mean, if we do,
that might be a very happy circumstances because it means that we have a lot
of development.
Mr. Plummer: This particular time, the point that I'm making, you cannot have
an application today for a thousand rooms under the DRI without having...
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, you could. You could and then what we have to do, we
have a bank of development credits for the whole area.
Mayor Suarez: We have to draw from another account in the bank.
Mr. Rodriguez: And we draw from that account and we may exchange some coins
of development credit for different types of coins, eh?
Mr. Plummer: You got to have it approved.
Mr. Rodriguez: You approve it.
Mr. Plummer: We, the City, or...
Mr. Rodriguez: You, the City.
Mr. Plummer: ... OK. Mr. Mayor, let me tell you a little sight of relief.
Joe was there yesterday. Miami Beach has applied to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council for a reexamination of the formula for hotel rooms.
But I drove home the point yesterday was that Miami Beach is fine to establish
the vehicle but they don't come before the City of Miami. Or anyone else. We
all have the right to apply for reformulation of hotel rooms.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I would think if they do a new formulation, it would apply
to any existing areawide DRI.
Mr. Plummer: No, Miami Beach was trying to do it for themselves.
Mayor Suarez:
They wanted to do it just for themselves?
Mr. Plummer:
That's the original...
Mr. McManus:
Well, they've applied to the Regional Planning
Council to adjust
the hotel criteria
throughout the region so we would benefit
with Miami Beach.
Mr. Plummer:
Well, of the original request was for them and then they said,
Awe
have to do
a formula that would apply all the way.
-
Mayor Suarez:
They recognize that they live in a
region that has
interdependencies
and so on...
g
A
Mr. Rodriguez:
We follow your... yes, and you follow your request, yes.
B.-
122
Mayor Suarez:
That's what regional planning is all
about.
Mr. Rodriguez:
You gave us, by the way, there were
some instructions given by
the Commission
to follow up on that and we did follow with Regional Planning
Council and that's
what we're doing. That's what you
did, yes.
,
9
'
Mayor Suarez:
OR, anything further on this item?
Is there anyone that wishes
to be heard on
PZ-5? Let the record reflect no one
stepped forward.
j
Mr. Plummer:
Let me ask only one more question.
l
Mayor Suarez:
Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer:
Parking. Number of parking spaces?
Mr. McManus:
There are 1111 parking spaces.
Mr. Plummer: 1111. OR.
Mr. McManus: Approximately. There's eleven hundred parking spaces.
Mr. Plummer: And, all right•, how does that equate? I'm sure there's a
formula, many formulas that must kick in? I'm assuming for each hotel room is
one parking space. What is required? Are they way above or they at or are
they below?
Mr. McManus: They're above the requirements.
Mr. Plummer: How much?
Mr. McManus: Above our requirements.
Mr. Plummer: How much? See, the day has got to come where we're going to
realize that there's got to be visitor parking which we don't provide for
today.
Mrs. Kennedy: Well, you say the traffic impacts caused by the incremental
additions is really marginal because...
Mr. McManus: Because of the shift...
Mrs. Kennedy: Sure.
Mr. McManus: ... in other words, it's shifting over towards hotel rooms.
Mrs. Kennedy: You delete approximately 79,000 gross square feet of office use
and then the retail and hotel uses generate day long traffic but the office
uses generate peak hour traffic.
Mr. Cardenas: Well, a hotel will never generate as much parking requirements
as the office...
Mrs. Kennedy: Right.
Mr. Cardenas: ... obviously or retail but so we are lowering the amount of
required parking but in essence increasing parking with what we're doing which
ought to be your major thiust. We had, for example, in loading alone, we had
6,000 some square feet of loading, we're now at 39,000. And parking, we have
increased the number of parking spaces from 1021 to 1125 while decreasing the
square footage and the office space so I think that should be a significant
statement.
i
Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner Plummer, I think that we can say that
approximately 10 percent over the amount required.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez: Based on the statement from Mr. Cardenas.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Anything further?
L N.
Mrs. kiannedyt Second.
Mayor §uartti Moved and satanded. Any diseussl6fi? Call the t611:
The following resolutioh taeg introduced by Commissioner Daw*iftgo who
i moved its adoptions
j RESOLUTION NO. 89-585
A RESOLUTION AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
! DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
(RESOLUTION 85--1095; OCTOBER 24, 1985). FOR THE 1111
BRICKELL AVENUE PROJECT, AT APPROXIMATELY 1111
BRICKELL AVENUE. A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT,
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 380, F.S., AND MAJOR USE PURSUANT _
TO ZONING ORDINANCE 9500, BY AMENDING FINDINGS OF FACT
TO REFERENCE THE AMENDED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT; THE
DEVELOPMENT CONDITION BY ADDING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
OF APPROXIMATELY 62.072 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
USE, AND 173,500 GROSS SQUARE FEET (256 ROOMS) OF
HOTEL USE, 104 PARKING SPACES AND 32,746 GROSS SQUARE
FEET OF LOADING AREA (3 TRUCK BAYS) AND DELETING
78.981 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USE AND 60,983
GROSS SQUARE FEET OF PARKING USE AND CHANGING THE
TOTAL GROSS BUILDING FLOOR AREA OF THE PROJECT FROM
1,427,646 TO 1,556,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET; CONDITIONS
10 AND 11 TO PROVIDE FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION
ALTERNATIVES; CONDITION 12 TO MOVE THE DEVELOPER'S
TRIGGER DATE FOR THE METROMOVER BRICKELL EXTENSION TO
1995; BY DELETING EXISTING CONDITION 14 AND REPLACING
IT WITH A NEW CONDITION 14 REQUIRING CONFORMITY TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE; BY DELETING
EXISTING CONDITION 18 AND REPLACING IT WITH NEW
CONDITION 18 PROVIDING PROTECTION AGAINST DOWN -ZONING
UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1995; BY DELETING EXISTING CONDITION
19 PERTAINING TO A CROSS -ACCESS AGREEMENT AND
REPLACING IT WITH A DEADLINE FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT 24 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE; BY AMENDING CONDITIONS 20 AND 24 TO CHANGE THE
DEADLINES; BY DELETING CONDITION 26 IN ITS ENTIRETY
AND SUBSTITUTING A NEW CONDITION 26 AS A REFERENCE
PARAGRAPH AND CHANGING THE TIMELINE (FIGURE 1)
PURSUANT TO THESE AMENDMENTS; BY MAKING EDITORIAL
CHANGES IN EXISTING CONDITIONS 27, 28, AND 29; FINDING
AND CONFIRMING THAT THESE CHANGES DO NOT CONSTITUTE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 380. F.S.,
AND THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL HOTEL AND RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM INCREMENT I OF THE
DOWNTOWN MIAMI DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS (RESOLUTIONS 87-1148 AND 87-1149; _
DECEMBER 10, 1987), AND INCORPORATING THESE FINDINGS
IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO =
SEND COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO AFFECTED AGENCIES
>=
AND THE DEVELOPERS; AND CONTAINING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 1,4
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on {»>
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
'- 5
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution was pass#,,
and adopted by the following vote: �'4 Y "'gc
g
AYE61� Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.�,� "am
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
:f> Commissioner Miller Dawkins '{ xh
a; Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
N4E$ _ None.
V,t4r' Mayor Victor Do Yurl+R, ;, ' 3 ` -'n r <e'`^.�..,o''ar*,_t,'
Yp +
F t
Mr. Cardenas: Thank you.
20. AMEND DRI AND MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT - for Terremark Centre Project at
approximately 2601 South Bayshore Drive - extend buildout date, etc.
(Applicant: Terremark Centre, Ltd.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to be reflected as abstaining or...
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, Mr. Mayor, as Vice President of Terremark, I'm reclusing
from voting and stepping out of the room.
Mayor Suarez: Abstaining on PZ-6, Commissioner Kennedy. PZ-6, what is the
basic DRI amendment?
Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you're probably aware
of the Terremark project on Bayshore and Aviation. It's now topped out, the
whole development is moving along...
Mayor Suarez: Did you say if we're aware of it? Very aware of it.
Mr. Dawkins: How could we miss it
Mr. McManus: What we have here is in a request to extend the date of buildout
in the development order from four years of the of the effective date to
December 31, 1991, because...
Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry, Joe, to extend what?
Mr. McManus: Date of buildout. In other words, we've set...
Mr. Plummer: Completion?
Mr. McManus: You have to substantially complete the project by a certain
time. The current reading in the development order is four years from the
effective date of the development order. What we want to do is change that to
December 31st of 1991 and the reason for that is there was an appeal filed by
two of the Grove neighborhood associations...
Mayor Suarez: Is there something more to be built over there than what we
already see?
Mr. McManus: No, because they've started the residential structures on the
back part of the project on Tigertail. What we're doing is saying that we
changed the date of buildout to 1991 based on the long appeal period which
lasted for a year and a half.
Mr. Plummer: But, but I guess the question that the Mayor and I both are
asking, from what I see over there presently today, are you saying that
they're not going to be completed by two years from today?
Mayor Suarez: What is there left to build?
j
Mr. Ttaurig: Pardon me? {
Mr. Plummet: Have you been sworn In?
i
Mayor Suarez: Please swear him in.
i
Mr. Plummer: Of all people you should forget.
Mr. Traurig: I was sworn in early this morning, sir.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NG.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.
Mayor Suarez: Bob, something's missing somewhere, it's a very simple
question. That structure looks to me like it's almost complete...
Mr. Traurig: But, not the...
Mayor Suarez: ... finished, endo. What would require you to amend the
development of regional impact so that you would have four years from a
development order to complete what? I mean, what else is there to complete?
Mr. Traurig: Because the original development order was dated January 240
1985. It was amended in November 26th, 1985. Because of the appeal, which
didn't become final until May 8, 1987, there was a delay in the commencement
of construction. There is a question with regard to whether or not the
development order has lapsed. We want to be sure that there is no question
even though our legal position is that the litigation...
Mayor Suarez: But there's nothing else to be built. It's just to comply
technically with the four year requirement.
Mr. Traurig: That's right. That's all it is, it's just a technical...
Mayor Suarez: You're not adding anything else there?
Mr. Traurig: Just the residential buildings on the north side on Tigertail
which are already permitted.
Mayor Suarez: Permitted.
Mr. Traurig: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Not built.
Mr. Traurig: Correct.
Mayor Suarez: Where are you going to build them?
Mr. Traurig: Right where the plan shows, right on Tigertail. ,To establish a
residential face on Tigertail so that it will not be a commercial structure
all the way to Tigertail.
Mayor Suarez: There's no space anywhere near that building. What do you
mean, on Tigertail?
Mr. Traurig: What you see, it...
Mayor Suarez: I see a massive structure that takes
up almost all of the Grove
and it seems to be encroaching out and taking
City Hall pretty soon too the
-
way it's going.
Mr. Traurig: The part that's along Tigertail is
a residential area.
-
Mayor Suarez: And there's no structure there?
It doesn't reach -all the way
out to, . .
Mr. Sergio Rodriguezi It's already there.
Bob Fitzsimmons, Esq.; On the back of the
perking lot is a reeidomti�l
development.
t ;.
r
0
Mr. 'Rodriguez: That's a residential area.
Mr. Traurig: Yes, it's under construction.
Mr. Rodriguez: Those units you ate over there are townhouses that were part
of the condition for approval of that project. To separate the...
Mayor Suarez: When are those townhouses going to be finished building?
Mr. Rodriguez: I cannot answer that.
Mayor Suarez: That's almost completed too, right?
Mr. Traurig: They'll, be done in a month but the issue - the question is...
Mayor Suarez: To comply with the four year requirement.
Mr. Traurig: That's right.
Mayor Suarez: OK, counselor, any...
Mr. Fitzsimmons: My name is Bob Fitzsimmons. I live at 2512 Abaco Avenue.
The only thing I'd like to clarify is while the building appears to be almost
completed and they expect occupancy, I think, in October, we're concerned that
if the development order is extended, does that affect the infrastructure
improvements? In other words, does that give them an extra two years after
the CO (Certificate of Occupancy) to actually put in all the road changes and
everything else that's required.
Mayor Suarez: Good point.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Because that will impact our neighborhood.
Mayor Suarez: What about it? What infrastructure improvements are left to be
built in connection with the project?
Mr. McManus: They were obligated as the project progressed to do at certain
points to provide certain infrastructure in terms of the storm drains out in
Aviation, for example, are starting up a shuttle service back to the Coconut
_ Grove Metrorail station. This particular change here does not affect any of
those other dates.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you what it does affect. Traurig, would you
inform that gentleman you're talking to, save me a phone call. The next time
I go over that big hole in Tigertail and Aviation and the front and of my car
gets out of line, I expect you to pick up the tab.
Mr. Traurig: Well, either Mr. Diaz... j
Mr. Plummer: They've been out there working on that sewer line and somebody
needs to fill up those holes.
Mayor Suarez: And that applies not only to the Commissioner, but any other
citizen.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Diaz, or the people with whom he's associated would be happy
to take that under advisement, sir.
Mr. Plummer: He'll be there with a oho... Do you recommend this?
F-
�....�
i
MAkyot buarets Clarification is that it does not affect the requirements ss to
infrastructure.
Mr. Dawkins: In other words, will the infrastructure be completed along with
the building and that whenever the residential is finished, the road is
finished. That's what's it's...
Mr. McManus: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
s Mr. Dawkins: That's what you're asking, Bob?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Yes, the residential as well as the road requirements. 1
understand they're restriping the intersections - they're building out the
intersections and I think they come on a scale based on occupancy under the
DRI or something.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, no. On completion of the building.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: OK, so the infrastructure will be completed before CO is
issued?
Mr. Dawkins: Um hum. I hope so. Is that correct? Is that a correct
statement?
Mr. McManus: Yes, sir. Yes, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Well, are we going about the business...
Mr. Dawkins: Bob, that's what you understand also?
Mr. Traurig: Manny says it wasn't a requirement but it will be done at
approximately that time.
Mr. Dawkins: Why wa... all right, from staff...
Mr. Traurig: Because we're in the process of completing it now.
Mr. Dawkins: Staff, why wasn't it a requirement?
Mr. McManus: In the development order usually requires that the - everything
is substantially completed by the time we give the CO.
Mr. Traurig: Manny points out that it said that before there is a CO for
200,000 square feet in the office structure, it's got to be completed. So it
wasn't when we get the CO, initially it's just a question of how many people
can occupy the premises at the - prior to the time that those physical
improvements are completed.
Mr. McManus: Commissioner, we're talking difference between a partial CO for
part of the building and a final CO at completion of the whole building. And
our position is that by the time that final CO is issued, all the requirements
will be met.
—
Mr. Dawkins:
No further questioning.
Mayor Suarez:
No further questions.
We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
Mr. Plummer:
I made the motion.
Mayor Suarez:
If not, call the roll'.
' F" '
r :
t
525 �)
1 i�
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-586
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ORDER (RESOLUTION 85-72; JANUARY
24, 1985), AND MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT (RESOLUTION
85-73, JANUARY 24, 1985), AS AMENDED (RESOLUTION 85-
1136; NOVEMBER 26, 1985), FOR TERREMARK CENTRE
PROJECT, LOCATED AT SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AT AVIATION
AVENUE; A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 380.06 FLA. STAT. (SUPP. 1988), AND MAJOR USE
PURSUANT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY AMENDING
CONDITION 23 TO EXTEND THE BUILDOUT DATE FROM FOUR
YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER
TO DECEMBER 31, 1991; FURTHER FINDING AND
INCORPORATING AS A CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT SAID CHANGE
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 380.06(19)(e)2, FLA. STAT. (SUPP. 1988),
AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING; DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO SEND COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO
AFFECTED AGENCIES AND THE DEVELOPER; AND CONTAINING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Miller Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSTAINS: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mr. Traurig: Thank you.
------------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------- -------
21. DISCUSS AND DEFER TO THE JULY 27TH MEETING REQUEST FOR VACATION AND
CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF S.W. 30TH AVENUE LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.W. 28TH LANE AND NORTH OF THE METRORAIL RIGHT-OF-
WAY (Applicant: Public Storage Properties XIX, Ltd.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-7, street and alley closure.
Mr. Jim Kay: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, PZ-7 is a public hearing
with regard to the vacation and closure of S.W. 30th Avenue in connection with
the plat entitled CSB Subdivision. It come to you with the recommendation of
the Plat and Street Committee and the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Dawkins: What's the staff's recommendation?
Mr. Kay: Staff is recommending the closure. R'
4
pluffart OK.
Mt, !)&*king: Does she object?
Mayor Suarezt Do you want to = I guess you're the propohtht; go ahaadj to
first.
Steve Helfman, Seq.t Yea, thank you.
Mayor Suarez:
Are you in opposition, ma'am?
Mr. Helfman:
For the record, my name is Steve Helfman representing the
applicants. One
CenTrust Financial Plaza.
-
Mayor Suarez:
Why don't we get everybody sworn in,
Madam City Clerk?
Somebody's got
to remember this.
Mr. Dawkins:
And swear everybody else in.
Mayor Suarez:
Who is going to testify against this item?
Mr. Dawkins:
For or against this item...
Mayor Suarez:
PZ-7, raise your hand. Just, you sir?
Either way on this
item. Raise your hand, please.
AT THIS PJINT
THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH
UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.
Mayor Suarez: Counselor, proceed.
Mr. Helfman: The answer to your question is that, no, it's not owned by one
owner, but all the owners on either side are applicants here.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK.
Mr. Helfman: And, just for the sake of brevity and time, the departments,
Public Works, Dade County, Planning Department are all recommending approval..
In addition to that, we would like - I would like, on behalf of the owners, to
proffer to the Commission a $5,000 voluntary contribution to be used by the
Commission at their desire, either towards the Park Improvement Fund or any
other public purpose. And I'd just like to reserve some time for rebuttal, Alf
-
please.--
Mayor Suarez: What is that avenue there, Jim?
- r
Mr. Plummer: Thirtieth.
Mr. Kay: S.W. 30th Avenue. -
Mr. Plummer: 30th Avenue.
Mayor Suarez: I know you guys do these things just so we can't see what
avenues they are so the... actually, ~the one that - 30th Avenue? Now, yoµ .
can't see it at all, that's real cute.
Mr. Kay: I don't know where it is but - yes, 30th Avenue. x
t
Mayor Suarez: Thank you,
o
Mr. Dawkins: Thirtieth. 4
Mayor Suarez; What in the one - Oh,.OK, we got 30th :ourxt,ighiGs
allright. Ma'am. Give us your .name and address, please. F>
Me. Karen Confalone: Hi. Karen Confalone, 3300.,,,'2,5;
s
Mr. Plummer: I can't hear you.r`
Mr: Dawkins; Pull the mike .to you, please.
75 yj
Js
g —
'c
Mayor Suarez: Can you direct it towards you? It's more a matter of direction
than actually a matter of closeness, but...
Ms. Confalone: Karen Confalone. Is that OK? 3300 South Moorings Way. My
husband and I own the property in red except for the piece next to the blue.
And we oppose the closure of this street. And I believe he's wrong about bade
County approving it, because I've been talking to Rita Fenwick from the bade
County Manager's Office and they were not notified of this street closure and
I spoke to her as late as 11:00 o'clock today and they do not make any
recommendations for this because they have not had a chance to study it. In
their original RFP, which, I guess, is a proposal for the Coconut Grove
station, they had this street as being opened in the future as another access
to the Coconut Grove station. If anyone missed the turning on 27th Avenue,
they could make a right because there would be a traffic light at 30th Avenue
and then, therefore, get to the station. We own property around this area, as
you can see, and we think that it would impact this area that hasn't even -
Public storage is the first developer in this area and I think that the
closure of this street would, at this time, would be premature.
Mayor Suarez: What use do you have of the property? Is it a house that's
your property?
Ms. Confalone: We have commercial and residential.
Mayor Suarez: That's the zoning, but what do you have there, what kind of
a... how are you using your property?
Ms. Confalone: Houses on the triangle and there's apartments in the other red
area. And then we also have property just down the street.
Mayor Suarez: Apartments where, I'm sorry?
Ms. Confalone: On the left hand side of 30th Avenue.
Mayor Suarez: If you say the red area, I guess that covers a multitude of
sins there.
Ms. Confalone: And see the corner, it says by the 26th, that's currently `-
apartments, but we're changing it.
Mayor Suarez: How much of that, of all those what look to me like four _
different properties, do you own?
Ms. Confalone: We own all of those.
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to buy City Hall too?
Ms. Confalone: Excuse me?
Mayor Suarez: All of the areas painted in red are the same ownership?
Ms. Confalone: The red area at the bottom.
Mayor Suarez: The red area at the bottom. I love all the color schemes that
we have here that is so good for identifying things. Let me ask then our
Public Works Director, Jim, what are those areas? Is that all residential
Mayor Suarez: Where does the neighborhood begin over there is trying
to get at?
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: Mr. Mayor, what you have on south of that line is
like body shops, car body shops and things like that. On the north side of
that line, you have residential units; duplexes, little apartments. It+s a
Mix.
Mayor Suarez: And they own the whole bit?
Mr. Olmedillo: Apparently.
Mayor Suarez: South of the line, north of the line, west of the line?
I
` Mr. Olmedillo: Apparently.
Mr. Dawkins: No, apparently, the lady say she... not, apparently, she says
she own it, yes.
Ms. Confalone: Then T.L. Jackson owns beside them.
Mayor Suarez: Why do you object to the...
Mr. Dawkins: And he owns the other red?
Ms. Confalone: He owns...
Mr. Tom Jackson: The other little red...
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, you don't own the big red, just the little red.
Ms. Confalone: Beside the blue.
Mr. Jackson: The little strip on the east side of the blue.
Mayor Suarez: And your objection to the closure is what?
Ms. Confalone: It's because it was - I think it's premature because we don't
know what the development of that area will be at this point. Public storage
is the first development in that area and it's right next to the Coconut Grove
station which makes it a developable area and Dade County, in fact, to look to
_ that in their proposals for the future of that area when they put in the
Metrorail station.
Mayor Suarez: And how do you conclude or what makes you not want to have that
street closed there? That alley, what is it being used for now?
Mr. Kay: It's presently unimproved. It's a dead end street. There's no
pavement on there now.
Ms. Confalone: But it might in...
Mayor Suarez: Do people use it to turn around or what do they...
Mr. Kay: It's just an unimproved street in the
City of Miami. A 'short
deadend street.
Mayor Suarez: When you're saying it's premature,
what is likely to' happen
that would make it a good idea or a bad idea in the
17
future? I don't know what
you mean by premature.
Ms. Confalone: Because of any further development
into the area, because of
traffic flow or whatever, it might - the street
may be needed as another
access into that area. Because the other access is
27th Avenue.
Mayor Suarez: How would there be an access to anywhere? I don't understand F
it, Can you go through?
Ms. Confalone: Yes, to U.S. 1.
,Y
Mr. Kay: Well...
T ;.:c L
(C
kl
7i
t �
L U
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: She would like...
Mr. Dawkins: It deadends into what?
Ms. Confalone: U.S. 1.
Mr, Kay: It dead ends into the rapid transit right-of-way:
Mr. Dawkins: Does it dead end into the right-of-way or can you get under the
right-of-way? I mean, under it to U.S....
Ms. Confalone: You can get under the right-of-way.
Mayor Suarez: What's there? I mean, we're trying to get a physical
understanding what's there. You guys...
Mr. Kay: What we have is a....
Mr. Rodriguez: What she's trying to do, I think, is to try to get access,
eventually, maybe in the future, to Dixie Highway. If that street were to be
open and connected all the way through to Dixie.
Mayor Suarez: Well, what is there now? Is there a wall there now? Is there
a fence? Can you go under the...
Mr. Kay: There is a barricade, traffic barricade at the end of the street,
dead end street, where the rapid transit property line is. Beyond that, you
have the rapid transit right-of-way which is landscaping and a bicycle path...
Mr. Rodriguez: Bicycle path...
Mr. Kay: That sort of thing.
Mayor Suarez: And right now, obviously, you cannot go through there to U.S.
1...
= Mr. Kay: No, no you can't.
Mayor Suarez: ... it's not intended to go through there to U.S .... OK, is
there any idea that it might someday be an access to U.S. 1?
Ms. Confalone: Yes, according to Dade County.
Mayor Suarez: Wait, from the Public Works Department standpoint.
Mr. Kay: I can't imagine because to put a traffic light there would, I think ;}
- in this area, cause some considerable problems on U.S. 1. I have no
information from Metro Dade County.
Mr. Plummer: Did you ever try to get out the exit by the Boys' Club? You
take your life in your hands.
Ms. Confalone: That's true.
Mr. Kay: Adding even ten seconds to rush hour traffic, as a hold up on there,
would cause great problems on U.S. 1.
Mavnr SuarA2: You were saving ves on that. The Countv Pave you some
V
4P
Mr. Helfman: We're not building any structure in that area. I have softie...
Mayor Suarez: Will you put picnic tables there?
Mr. Helfman: I have some prepared rebuttal and I'd like to hear the rest of
the objections and then I think I can answer all your questions
satisfactorily.
Mayor Suarez: Well, just...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, well, just tell me, what's the advantage of closing it?
When you close it, what you going to do with it? And if you're not going to
build on it, how will you - why do you want it closed and will you landscape
it or what? And that'll be enough for me.
Mr. Helfman: OK. Commissioner, if you will, for a moment. First of all...
Mr. Dawkins: No, I don't - will not for a moment.
Mr. Helfman: OK, the answer is, is that if there will be no effective
closing, that it is not a public right-of-way now. It is unimproved, it is a
grassed area, it is barricaded by a permanent guard rail because nobody wants
anybody going through there. Dade County, as recently as yesterday, provided
me with the letter stating that they have absolutely no objection to the
closure. In fact, my conversations with them, it's dated June 21st, "...It
appears this closure, as proposed, will not have any significant impact on the
operations of Metrorail, thus, our Department has no objections to this
proposed action."
Mr. Plummer: Mugger -rail.
Mr. Dawkins: I will ask you again, sir.
Mr. Jorge Fernandez: Please proffer that for the record.
Mr. Dawkins: I'll ask you again...
Mr. Helfman: Yes. The answer is, is that we are...
i
Mr. Dawkins: What advantage will it give the gentleman who own both...
everybody on both sides of it to close the street?
Mr. Helfman: The advantage is they will have additional property as part of
their overall sites. My client has already a site plan approved and they've
commenced development on their portion, the non -closed portion. It will be ?
landscaped, there will be a pedestrian access easement which there is not now -
to and through the Metrorail area that's a platted easement and it will be
landscaped and used for parking.
Mr. Dawkins: But you will build on this certain portions of it.
Mr. Helfman: There will be no improvements per se. No structure as...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, why close it then?
-
Mr.
Helfman:
Excuse me?
Mr.
Dawkins:
Well, leave it like it is if we're not going
to do anything to
Mr.
Helfman:
Because we're using it
for landscaping and parking. .
Mr.
Dawkins:
Well, then, they don't
want it landscaped.
Mr.
Helfman:
Yes, but... we are the
owners of that property
and when it is io
longer - the
standard is not whether
they want it landscaped
or not,
Mr.
Dawkins;
You own it?
-
Mr.
Helfman:
Yes. We own.,
13444
Wtl�
Mr. Dawkinas Well, why are you asking me to close it if you own it?
Mr. Helfman: Because it was dedicated by the plat for public right�of way
purposes. When it's no longer used for that purpose, the property owner is
entitled to come in and ask that that dedication be vacated which is what
we're doing. This has been barricaded for, I believe, close to eight years.
It is obvious that it's not being used for public right-of-way purposes.
Where's no better example and so we're asking for that dedication to be
released so that's the reason we're here. More importantly, I'm not quite
sure, this objector is the seller...
Mr. Dawkins: All you need to speak...
Mr. Helfman: ... they sold us our property. They owned all this property
here.
Mr. Dawkins: All you need to...
Mr. Helfman: I don't....
Mr. Dawkins: All you need to speak to is the fact that this was dedicated as
a right-of-way and it no longer being used as a right-of-way. OK?
Mr. Helfman: That is correct.
Mr. Dawkins: Now, speak to that now and let's get out of here, please.
Mr. Helfman: OK, that is correct and, in fact, the only objection that she's
raised is that the County may potentially somebody want to use it and they
specifically told us, for the record, I'd like to enter the letter...
Mr. Dawkins: What will your client get from this? See, you keep...
Mr. Helfman: My client...
Mr. Dawkins: No, I tell you what, I'm...
Mr. Helfman: My client., Commissioner...
Mr. Dawkins: You all Pet through this, I'll be back when he's finished.
You just lost my vote.
Mr. Plummer: For the record, who is Public Storage Properties XI - Fourteen,
Ltd.?
Mr. Helfman: That is a limited partnership that is a group put togethe,: b,
the Public Storage Company as we all know it, the storage company that uses
their orange design and so forth.
Mr.
Plummer:
Who's the owners? It's not in here, Mr. Sergio.
Mr.
Helfman:
It should be. There was a full disclosure...
_ Mr.
Plummer:
We have contiguous owners of William Roncalo...
Mr.
Helfman:
That's correct.
Mr.
Plummer:
... Alicia Roncalo, and Guido Roncalo.'
Mr.
Helfman:
That's correct and if you look at the disclosure of interest
that
was filed, there's an extensive disclosure of interest in
accordance with
the
standards
of the City of Miami's Law Department and your
ordinance. It
was
filed of record on April 4th - excuse me April 3rd, 1969.
Mr.
Plummer:
Do you have it? May I see...
Mr.
Helfman:
Yes, I can...
Mr.
Rodriguez:
Where is it in the packet?
Mr.
Plummer;
Do have this, -Sergio? Because.: if you do, it's not in my backup.
matorial.
1$
Juno 221 49 9
#' 0,
Mr. Rodrigue:t: I don't have it in my backup, I'm looking for that. We don't
have the attachment that you have. We have the front page of it. If you want
to, we can look in the record to see if it was left.
Mr. Plummer: No, well, I've got it here...
Mr. Rodriguez: No, I want to make sure that we have it in the records also to
make sure we have the same...
Mr. Plummer: I'm just looking over the names.
Mr. Helfman: For your information, there are nearly 4,000 people who have a
limited partnership interest. The standard...
Mr. Plummer: We're only worried about those over five percent.
Mr. Helfman: I know, the five percent, that's correct.
Mr. Plummer: OK, you want to make a copy of that for your file? OK, have not
your objections been resolved by the - well, read that letter, I guess, into
the...
Mr. Fernandez: The City Clerk has the letter already as part of the record.
Mr. Helfman: I have the original. It's dated...
Mr. Plummer: Well, read it into the record that they say they have no
objections to it being closed. That was her objection.
Ms. Hirai: It is signed by Mr. Mario Garcia as chief planning and
development, Metropolitan Dade County.
Mr. Plummer: Does it state they have no objections?
Ms. Hirai: Yes, it says, in the second paragraph, "... it appears that this
closure, as proposed, will not have any significant impact on the operations
of the Metrorail system. Department has no objections to this
proposed action."
Mr. Plummer: All right, well that was your objection. Now, do you have other
objections?
Ms. Confalone: I spoke to Rita Fenwick from the Dade County Manager's Office
this morning and she said that they weren't notified and, therefore, hadn't
had time to study...
Mr. Plummer: Well, obviously, they have.
Mayor Suarez: OK, now, I asked her why should we not do this and let me ask
you, if you're finished with your inquiry?
Mr. Plummer: I'm just...
Ms. Confalone: I had one more. We did sell them that property at $53 a foot
just, I think, in August of last year. So, if in the future, you did have to
condemn this street because you did find that the area needed access to U.S. -
1, I mean that's quite a bit of money, I would think for the City to pay,
where, right now, it's not costing anything to keep it closed.
Mr. Plummer: But why is that your objection?
Mayor Suarez: Oh, you mean as a citizen? Are you a resident of the City of
Miami? s
Ms. Confalone; I'm a citizen. That's right and I own, you know, we have `
property in the area.
Mayor Suarez: Do you live there though?
Ms. Confalone: We do not live right there, no,
136
Me. Corifalone% Yes.
Mayor guaret: Where?
Mo. Conf alones In Coconut Grove.
Mayor Suarez: Now, my question to you is, why do you grant to do this?
Mr. Helfman: If there was any opportunity for this to be used as public
access to U.S. 1, we would be the first people to have it wide open. We have
a major business fronting on U.S. 1 and we would be the first people begging
you not to close this. There is no....
Mayor Suarez: But that's a nice hypothetical, that doesn't answer my
question. Why do you want the street closure, the alley closure, whatever you
call it?
Mr. Helfman% As to Public Storage, who will benefit one half of the right of
way, we are using it for open space area and parking. As to our adjacent
owners, the Roncelos, I understand that they are going to extend the business
that's operating there into the 25 feet of right of way that they would
obtain.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Rodriguez, is - or Mr. Kay, or somebody, is there a less
restrictive, less definite, less irreversible way of doing this? I mean, they
don't plan to build a structure there? Can't we give them a temporary use of
it or something in case we change our minds later?
Mr. Rodriguez% Well, I think what Mr. Helfman is saying is that for the
compliance of the Zoning Ordinance to give them more flexibility in their use
of their property. They are trying to use half of the right of way for that
purpose. And that way, they comply with open space requirements and parking
requirements so that give them more uses of the property so it to their
advantage to try to get half of the right of way for the part of the property
and the other half of the right of way to the other one. So, basically,
they're trying to make the best possible use for the property, thinking that
it will be no need in the future to connect to Dixie Highway.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, did you say the land in question was purchased from this
lady?
Mr. Helfman: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Dawkins: Did this lady put in a covenant or anything to demand that you
all don't close this street?
Mr. Helfman:
No.
Mr. Dawkins%
All right, so evidently,
nobody was concerned. I move it.
Mayor Suarez:
So moved.
Mr. Plummer:
I'll second it. I see
no reason not to do it, put it back on
the tax rolls.
Mayor Suarez:
Moved and seconded.
Any further discussion? If not
were you going
to make a statement?
`
Mr. Rodriguez:
Oh, that's right.
Mr. Jackson:
I disagree, I think the
property should...
Mayor Suarez:
Give us your name and address
before you disagree or spree.
Mr. Jackson:
My name is Tom Jackson,
T. L. Jackson, and I'm the neighbor,to
the east, the
little red strip property.
And it was my understanding bank.., -
Mayor Suarez:
And what is that property being used for right now?
j
k
k
QQ4 j Q
S:iYu>`.�.k.+i
0 0
Mr. Jackson: Office and industrial use. And I think - I don't want to get
into all the arguments about it, but I think, you know, when the Metrorail
came there, it was our understanding there would possibly be some access to
Dixie on there. My traffic situation now is worse from my office, when I come
out on 27th Avenue, I have either that exit or have to go around by the Boys
Club. Maybe another exit would relieve the situation for people that come and
go to my office.
Mr. Plummer: But Dade County has said they're not going to do it.
Mr. Jackson: I have a very small piece of property but I think the City
should...
Mr. Plummer: Dade County says they're not going to do it.
Mr. Jackson: ... keep this property. Let them landscape it.
Mr. Plummer: But, sir, you heard the letter from Metropolitan Dade County who
would be the one to put that road in. They're not interested.
Mr. Jackson: So, you feel that they should give this property to these
people.
Mr. Plummer.: Well, sir, if they're not interested, Dade County, the person
who would put that road in or access - more access to U.S. 1...
Mr. Jackson: They would be the only one. No other...
Mr. Plummer: Sir, there's nobody else can do it. Matter of fact, it's Dade
County and the Federal, because U.S. 1 is a federal highway and trying to get
another ingress or egress off of U.S. 1 is difficult.
Mr. Jackson: But this is City property.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, we understand it's City property, but they have said, they
who are responsible for putting in the roads, that they're not interested.
Now, it's just...
Mr. Jackson: So, you give it away.
Mr. Plummer: No, sir, we're not giving it away. We're taking back $5,000
voluntarily covenant for public use of the City of Miami and putting it back
on the tax rolls.
Mr. Jackson: Well, I had just hoped it would maybe be in some future date,
some relief to the traffic in that area. I'm not sure how it might be used.
I can't dream of the manner.
Mayor Suarez: You can move the mike up to you. Mister City Plan...
Mr. Jackson: I say, in some future date.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I'm going to follow up on your line of questioning here.
Once again, pretty simple question, I think. Why would we give this to him
permanently if he doesn't have a permanent use for it at this point? Why
wouldn't we just let him use it for a period of time? Is there a less
restrictive way of doing it?
Mr. Plummer: Because there's no provisions to give it to him on a temporary,
Unless you leased it to him.
Mr. Kay: Mr. Mayor, if a property is being replatted and in this case both
sides are owned by the same party, they do have a right and an opportunity.to
in the replat, to close that street. Now, that goes through a committee,..
Mayor Suarez: Are you saying that property already belongs to them, but
there's an easement to the City to use as a right of way?
Mr. Kay: I look at it as public right of way.
Mayor Suarez; I don't care how you look at it..,
l$�".
0
Mr. Key: But it's...
Mayor Suarez: ... is that a correct statement or not, what I just said?
Mr. Key: It reverts back to the ownership.
Mayor Suarez: Is that property owned by them up to the middle of the road
because of the ownership on both sides and because of other provisions of our
code, an easement to be used for roadway purposes. Is that what we're talking
about? Are we giving them back their easement?
Mr. Kay: Let the City Attorney answer that question.
Mr. Fernandez: That's a fair representation of what the law says.
Mayor Suarez: OK, that partly answers your question. We're not giving them
anything they don't already own, we're just giving them the right to use
something that would otherwise be theirs.
Mr. Rodriguez: We kept it in custody for a while until we decided that we
don't need it anymore, so we're giving it back to them. In the meantime, the
owners... in the meantime, we're getting them in the tax roils again. If you
were to think that there was a need to use it in the future, we keep it open.
Mayor Suarez: Suppose we change our mind and we decide we need that roadway,
how much is it going to cost us to get it back or what procedure do we need to
use? Is it reversible in any way, what we're doing today?
Mr. Rodriguez: Condemnation.
Mayor Suarez: Condemnation's the only way.
Mr. Kay: Oh, condemnation.
Mayor Suarez: Which will be at the market price at that particular time.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mr. Kay: That's correct.
Mayor Suarez: Wouldn't it make more sense for us to say if we ever needed to
take it back and we can prove a public need and a public purpose, that we
would get it back for today - at today's market price and not the market price
at that time?
Mr. Plummer: No, because we're not getting that much.
Mr. Kay: That's true, we're not - we're not actually selling.
Mr. Plummer: If she sold it for $53 a square foot, there's more than a
hundred square feet there, I'm sure.
Mr. Kay: There's six thousand...
Mayor Suarez: Well, I - you know, I'm not convinced that - I agree with you,
I'm not convinced that you need to close this at• all. But, anyhow, we have a
0 0
Mayor Suarez: Were you sworn in earlier in the other...?
Mr. Plummer: No.
Mr. McDowell: I was not - no. I apologize.
Mayor Suarez: You missed even then, all right. Hopefully, you told the
truth.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.
Mr. McDowell: One other item that hasn't been discussed that is part of this
whole discussion is the linear park that was part of the Metrorail system. At
one time, I was the director of building and zoning for the City of South
Miami and was very involved with construction of Metrorail, the planning of
it, representing the City of South Miami. There was a very lengthy discussion
and part of the environmental impact statement on Metrorail specifically
required the construction of that bike path, pedestrian path, and linear park
underneath Metrorail. I would suggest to you that even if they wanted to put
this road through in the future, you would have to go back and probably amend
the environmental impact statement for the entire Metrorail system in order to
be able to cut their road through. That, coupled with the traffic conflict
that it would create on U.S. 1, the potential for crossing, well, the crossing
of that bike path, the hazards of the pedestrians using that bike path, I just
can't... and, in addition to that, the land the Metrorail owns, the right of
way, was acquired with federal dollars. They own that. There isn't - the
Metroriil right of way is owned fee simple. It is not available as a public
right of way for vehicular traffic. I would suggest to you that the chances
of ever cutting this road through are about one in a million and to go back -
the expense of going back to amend the environmental impact statement, for the
Metrorail system in order to cut through that one roadway to put a driveway on
U.S. 1, I would suggest is just ridiculous.
Mayor Suarez: I am familiar with those environmental impact statements, they
don't mean anything.
Mr. Dawkins: But you still - nobody has told the Mayor why it should be done.
Everybody keeps telling you, you know, what....
Mr. McDowell: The reason it should be done is that eliminates the potential
conflict with a specific bike path pedestrian and linear park that was created
as part of Metrorail. And Metrorail has opposed the creation of additional
roadway crossings in the past in other areas and, indeed, I think if you look
at your Metrorail line, particularly in the Coconut Grove area, Metrorail
= specifically closed several access points to U.S. 1 as it was constructed.
Mayor Suarez: Why wouldn't we do this for a period of time? Year, two years,
three years, five years, why would we do it indefinitely? - give up our right
of usage of that that some day we may need to have back. Why wouldn't we not
do this on a temporary basis? Why would we do it indefinitely? We are giving
back property we may some day need back.
Mr. Fernandez: The City Code provides for a test, four questions, that
according to how you would answer those four questions and you had been
addressing them under different guides. It seems to say that if the property
_`• owner abutting the public right-of-way that is being set to be closed, meet
that standard, the closure must be given to them.
Mr. Dawkins: Read them all.
Mayor Suarez: And those four are?
Mr. Fernandez: Is it in the public interest or would the general public
benefit from the vacation of the rights -of -ways or easement, that's number
one. Is the general public no longer using the rights -of -way or easement,
including public service vehicles such as trash and garbage trucks, police,
fire and other emergency vehicles? The third one, would there be no adverse
effect on the ability to provide police, fire or emergency services? Would
the vacation and closure of the rights -of -way or easements have a beneficial
effect on pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area?
140
June
22,
1989
Mayor Suarez: All of those questions are pertinent to my prior question,
because all of those questions might be answered affirmatively today and not
affirmatively five years from now, so my question is, Mr. City Attorney, it
there is an answer for it, why can't we do this for five years? When must we
give them permanent property rights over that property?
Mr. Fernandez: Well, I wouldn't know all of the answers, but one answer that
comes to mind right away is that this portion would be deeded back to them and
then it would become part of their... in unity of title, whichever other May
they proceed to incorporate that back into the existing property, getting a
title opinion, for example, if they ever decide to sell. In transferring this
property that would be a problem or a cloud in their deed.
Mayor Suarez: Precisely, that's what I would want it to be. I wouldn't want
it to be able to just pass it on and convey it and make value out of it,
Anyhow, I've asked all my questions.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner.
Mr. Dawkins: I withdraw my motion, I hope J.L. will withdraw his second.
J.L. ...
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: I'm withdrawing my motion and I move that this be continued
until all of the Mayor's concerns are addressed and bring it back at that
time, at the next meeting.
Mr. Plummer: You are asking for a deferment until the next meeting?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, because the Mayor has some concerns that he needs...
Mr. Plummer: The policy around here when one Commissioner asks for more
information it is granted and I will respect that of my colleague. You cannot
ask me or any of my colleagues to vote when he doesn't have sufficient
information. I will second the motion for deferment.
Mayor Suarez: Well, I appreciate that, but don't use it for that reason, my
problem, I'm not satisfied and I'm not going to be satisfied the next time
around. I just don't see why we should give this...
Mr. Plummer: So then it is not that you are not satisfied, it is just you are
not going to vote for it.
Mayor Suarez: That, you got it!
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mayor Suarez:
The answers don't satisfy me.
Mr. Dawkins:
OK, well then, there is no sense in deferring
it then,
Mayor Suarez:
Right.
Mrs. Kennedy:
Then there is no reason for deferral.
Mr. Plummer:
There's no reason to defer,
Mr. Dawkins:
There's no point in...
Mayor Suarez:
Exactly.
Mr. Dawkins:
I'm still...,
Mr, Helfman;
For the record, very briefly, I'd like to state that we havmet
each of those
criteria and that this is not a function of
discretion under
your Code, that
this is within the subdivision regulations
if we meet the
criteria, as your City Attorney has advised you, you must do
this. It is not
something that
is within the discretion of the Commission. Once you meet the
criteria as in
platting, it merely a ministerial function
to approve those
site plans.
141
June, 22;
4
Mt. Fernandez: Well, I —
Mr. Dawkins: But Steve, what the Mayor said is; and which is feasible, in the
event that all those red areas that this lady owns is developed and the
traffic becomes so intense, it may become necessary to have an exit, and the
Mayor feels that that's going to eventually be developed. I think now, I hope
I and he just don't see closing it permanently.
Mr. Helfman: Commissioner, in order to accomplish that, you would have to cut
through 100 foot Metrorail right-of-way as shown on our tentative plat. You'd
have to go through an environmental impact statement. With the traffic
problems on U.S. ...
Mayor Suarez: There was an article in The Miami Herald that you remember,
that suggests that the best thing we can do with Metrorail is to abandon it -
altogether. I mean this is not totally out of...
Mrs. Kennedy: Steve, why wouldn't this be feasible for a period of time,
let's say, five years, as the Mayor proposed?
Mayor Suarez: Why would you accept it for five years?
Mrs. Kennedy: What are your objections?
Mr. Helfman: I£ there are particular questions that we can answer, I'm happy
to go with the deferral until the next meeting, but I don't think that your
Code provides for a temporary vacation of right-of-way. Either it is, or it
isn't!
Mrs. Kennedy: I see, Ok, alright.
Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, I think in a sense he's correct. He's correct in
that. I think you either approve, or disapprove and when you do it, they have
to go through a process of replatting. When they replat, they do incorporate
that into their property and it doesn't make any sense to do it for a
temporary basis. I think you can vote for or against and then, you know...
Mr. Plummer: Let me give you a possible alternative, because right now we're
deadlocked, OK? How about a possible alternative of you offering a voluntary
covenant that at any time a public need has been established that you will
_
turn the property back over at the same figure that you gave it.
Mr. Helfman: I think that's a valid proposal, but I can't respond right now,
because I have too many owners on either side. I would request that it be
deferred until you next hearing and I can address that concern and if it...
t
Mr. Plummer: I move that it be deferred,
-
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
—s
Mayor Suarez: So moved, second. Any further discussion? If not, call ;the r'
roll. A little more time to fight your battle,
MOTION TO DEFER =
UPON MOTION DULY MADE BY COMMISSIONER PLUMMER AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY, THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED TO THE MEETING OF r
-
JULY 27, 1988 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE OF THE COMMISSION:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
a
Commissioner Rosario Kennedyk 3., -
-
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
_
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez r
NOES: None.f
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
®
u July Mr. Rodriguez: So it is continued �d to 27 tll.
r,fr
t
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. APPEAL DENIED: UPHOLD ZONING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO
ALLOW CONVERSION OF EXISTING BAR TO A SUPPER CLUB - at approximately
2721 Bird Avenue (Appellant: Howard Weisberg/Applicant: Castlewood
Realty Corp., Inc.).
Mayor Suarez: PZ-8.
Mrs. Kennedy: PZ-8 is a very simple matter. It has been approved by the
Zoning Board, it has been approved by the Planning Department and we just
dispose of it.
Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone that wishes to be heard on PZ-8?
Mr. Olmedillo: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, this is an appeal.
Customarily we hear from the appellant first and then from the applicant and
staff will fill in as you see necessary.
Mayor Suarez: The appellant is not the property owner?
Mr. Plummer: This is an appeal by a neighbor?
Mayor Suarez: OK, then he is the objector then. All right, sir.
Mr. Howard Weisberg: My name is Howard Weisberg. I live at 2975 Washington
Street, Coconut Grove. I represent the...
Mr. Plummer: Everybody's got to be sworn in that's going to testify.
Mayor Suarez: Including attorneys, please.
(AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.)
Mr. Weisberg: I represent the Coconut Grove Civic Club and North Coconut
Grove Homeowner's Association. The North Grove Homeowner's Association Board
had a vote, unanimously voted to oppose this variance. Also, I support the
Planning Department's recommendation which says the proposed supper club shall -
be open only until 3:00 a.m. for the protection of the adjacent residential
neighborhood. Now, we are the residential neighborhood and the supper club is
a misleading term, because as a supper club, it only means that it is a bar
that is open to 5:00 a.m. The bar will remain the same, it will have the same
number of bar stools. It will have the same number of tables. The only
change will be it will be open until 5:00 a.m. It is completely surrounded by -
residential neighborhoods. It's a single family neighborhood with children.
It's not a singles area. The people in favor predominantly do not live in the
neighborhood. The police presence in Coconut Grove is concr'itrated downtown,
which would be the appropriate place for a late night bar in Coconut Grove.
Where would the extra police protection come from to cover this bar the extra
hours? The area was planned under SPI-13 as a neighborhood service area, not
a downtown district. There are no other late night bars in the neighborhood
or surrounding area. The residential neighborhood would become a haven and a
magnet for all late night drinking. The word would be the last call for
alcohol in Coconut Grove is on Bird Road. It would also create a hardship for
the other bars in the neighborhood and they would request an exception to
compete with the late night activity in the neighborhood area. It would put
drivers on...
Mayor Suarez: What is the effect in terms of hours of operation, Guillermo,
of this application? I'm not clear on what we are talking about.
Mr. Olmedillo: The application is up to 5:00 a.m. and it was approved that
way by the Zoning Board. Planning Department had recommended to stay until
3tOO a.m.
Mr. Plummer: What is it presently?
Mr. Olmedillo: 3:00 a.m. +;
Mr. Plummer: It's presently until 3:00 a.m.?
Mr. Olmedillo: Until 3:00 a.m.
Mr. Plummer: And they are asking to go to 5:00 a.m.
Mr. Olmedillo: And they did ask to go to 5:00 a.m. and they were Approved by
the Zoning Board and it is under appeal now, before you.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mayor Suarez: No, no. The petition, unless I'm reading it wrong, seeks to
convert an existing bar to a supper club.
Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, but I believe this is not the grounds for
appeal. The grounds for appeal is the time...
Mayor Suarez: What is the effect of converting an existing bar to a supper
club in terms of hours of operation?
Mr. Plummer: Two hours.
Mr. Olmedillo: That you can open it until 5:00 a.m. if you consider it, if
it's granted.
Mayor Suarez: A bar can only stay open until 3:00 a.m. A supper club until
5:00 a.m.? Is that what you are telling us? That's what our Code says? What
is the reasoning and the rationale behind that distinction if anybody could
tell me?
Mr. Plummer: Supper club was not just for the purposes of drinking. It
provided a show. There were other amenities that had to be included in a
supper club.
Mayor Suarez: Do we have any facilities of this sort, supper club, club,
whatever you call it, that are open all night?
Mr. Plummer: No, only the...
Mayor Suarez: That have no restrictions on hours?
Mr. Plummer: No, there is none because...
Mayor Suarez: Is a supper club the one that can go the latest or earliest?
Mr. Olmedillo: 5:00 a.m. is the latest that you can open within the City.
Mayor Suarez: And the rationale being, what about a...
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, food, liquor and entertainment mixed.
Mrs. Kennedy: Would you have live entertainment?
Mr. Weisberg: Excuse me?
_
Mrs. Kennedy: Would they have live entertainment?
Mr. Ronald Book: No. We've agreed not to have
live entertainment,
Commissioner Kennedy.
Mr. Plummer: That's part of the provisions. To give
you an example,
Les
.t
Violins is a supper club.
`-
Mayor Suarez: I could swear the petition reads to a supper club without
live
entertainment.
Mr. Plummer: A supper club what?
Mayor Suarez: Without live entertainment, that"s what I
am reading here+
.f:
Mr, Books Yes, that is correct, Mayor.
144u:.
10.9
;;
V 0
Mayor Suar*t: There will not be live entertainment?
Mr. Book: Ve were willing to give up the live entertainment if...
Mayor Suarez: You'll kill all entertainment at 3:00 o'clock anyway.
Mr. Book: Absolutely right.
Mayor Suarez: You know, these ordinances don't make all that much sense to
begin with, let alone the changes here. And the correct way to get an extras
two hours of operation is to get a special use exception?
Mr. Plummer: It's the only way.
Mayor Suarez: I mean a special exception to convert an existing bar to supper
club, what a Byzantine way of doing things. All right, sir, I'm sorry I
interrupted you.
Mr. Weisberg: Well, this will put drivers who are drinking from one bar to
another on a residential streets from 3:00 to 5:00 a.m. It will bring all the
people leaving the bare at 3:00 a.m. in downtown Coconut Grove into a
predominantly residential neighborhood that is made for residential use.
Mayor Suarez: But it is as bar now.
Mr. Weisberg: yes, but it's closed at 3:00 o'clock. It is consistent with
all the other bars in Coconut Grove.
Mayor Suarez: It is a short term bar as opposed to a long term supper club.
Mr. Weisberg: Well, it's not fair to put the only bar open till 5:00 o'clock
in a residential neighborhood.
Mayor Suarez: It doesn't sound like it's fair to have it all in a residential
neighborhood, but...
Mr. Plummer: Well, but you can't consider... let's be honest now. Bird Road
itself is not a residential neighborhood, OK? I'm sorry.
Mr. Weisberg; Well, Bird Road is completely surrounded by residential
neighborhood.
Mr. Plummer: Of course it is, and so is Flagler and so is SW 8th Street and
Coral Way.
Mr. Weisberg: But they don't have 5:00 o'clock bars while this will be one.
Mr. Plummer: Some of them do.
Mr. Weisberg: I don't know of one other one in the area.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the point I wanted to ask, because you know, this is not
just a neighborhood bar, it is also a bar and package store. What happens to
the package store aspect of it? Is that open until 5:00 o'clock also? - or
just the bar? No sir, not from you, I don't pay you.
Mr. Joe Genuardi: The package store would have to close at 3;00. Only the
supper club is permitted until 5:00 a.m.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mr. Dawkins: But you could purchase liquor through the bar that was closed
while you are in the supper club.
Mr. Genuardi: Well, the supper club is supposed to offer liquor in
conjunction with serving the food, so they are supposed to be able to sit
there and eat while they are drinking.
Mr. Plummer; Joe, what do I remember? Isn't there a percentage of what has
to be the supper club has to be? You got to order a meal, is that what it
was?
145
June 22 1900
OIL
V
Mr. 06huardi: Yes, you have to have a full...
Mr: Plummer: You have to have a meal to order liquor, is that correct?
Mr. Genuardis Correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: So if I were to walk in there and a person only has a drink Af►d
has not ordered food, it is in violation?
Mr. Genuardi: That's right, yes.
Mayor Suarez: The purchase of packaged liquor in the City is prohibited
beyond what time?
Mr. Genuardi: 3:00 a,m.
Mrs. Kennedy: How many seats and bar stools are you proposing?
Mr. Plummer: A whole lot.
Mrs. Kennedy: How many seats and bar stools?
Mr. Plummer: No increase.
Mr, Book: 107, Commissioner Kennedy. —
Mrs. Kennedy: 107?
Mr. Book: Yes.
Mr. Weisberg:
According to their filed letter, they have 107 seats. 70 are
chairs and 37 are bar stools. There are no planned renovations in the seating
plan in the restaurant. They invited me to see the other Conch Key Joss,
which was open
to 5:00 o'clock, which they said was in a similar neighborhood,
in a similar
facility. It happens to be in a shopping center across the
street from an
expressway. I asked the waitress what time the food was served
to, they said
the food was served till 2:00 a.m. The kitchen closes, alcohol
continues till
5:00 a.m.
Mr. Plummer:
No, that's illegal, according to Mr. Genuardi. They cannot .
serve alcohol
without food. Now, excuse me, if I'm wrong I want to know it,
but my understand
is, that a person cannot walk in and order a drink without°
_
ordering food.
Is that correct, or not?
Mr. Genuardi:
That's correct. The liquor is supposed to be served in
conjunction with
the service of food.
Mr. Plummer:
So in other words, if they didn't order a hamburger, they
—
couldn't order
beer. -
Mr. Genuardi:
That would be correct, yes, air.
Mr. Dawkins:
And if the kitchen was closed, then the liquor store must be
closed.
Mr. Plummer:
If the kitchen was closed, the bar is closed.
Mr. Genuardi:
They would have to close, yes.
Mr. Plummer:
It's just that simple.
Mr. Wood: It's
also in a different community, Commissioner 91ummsr,;;
a
z
Mr. Plummer:
I'm sorry?-
Mr. Wood: That's also in the City of Hialeah and it is not a supper club and.,
it is in the middle
of a residential community.
i k
Mr. Plummer:
Well, you know, here again, a bar you only go to drink,. that's
y
16
4
Mr. Weisberg: Right, it is two more hours of bringing people Into B
teaidential neighborhood. What': out main point.
Mayor Suarez: We know that now. Anything else, counselor?
Mr. Weisberg: Well, the only thing, there are two other establishments in this
neighborhood. Where are is Carlos' and I don't remember the name of the
Italian.
Mr. Plummer: Bucciones.
Mr. Weisberg: No, they could claim hardship after this one is open froth 3:0
to SOO o'clock and they'd have a good case and it could become, this in the
middle of a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think Bueciones has a liquor license. I think they got
beer and wine, but I don't think they have liquor.
Mr. Book: you are correct, Mr. Plummer, he has a SAS license and Pietro has
a...
Mr. Plummer: Carlos in The Grove I know damn well has a liquor license.
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, do I know.
Mrs. Kennedy: You go there all the time, huh?
Mr. Book: Pietro testified in favor.
Mr. Weisberg: Well, we are basically worried about a residential neighborhood
becoming less than it is.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you... are you finished?
Mr. Weisberg: Well, I just want to say this. You know, this is already
problem area for the neighborhood. It's drawing people into the neighborhood.
We feel the late night hours will only draw more people that don't belong in
this residential neighborhood. This area was supposed to be a service area
_
for the residents in the area.
_ Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you a question. Have you had the opportunity to look
up the backup?
-
Mr. Weisberg: Yes, I've looked at those letters.
Mr. Plummer: There has got to be over 100 letters in this backup, I'm
estimating...
Mr. Weisberg: May I say a word about the letters?
Mr. Plummer: Let me put it on the record, OK?
Mrs. Kennedy: I was just going to do that.
Mr. Plummer: There's got to be at least 100 letters of people, the addresses,
_
some of them are my neighbors, who state that they are in favor and they are
all of and around the neighborhood.
Mr. Weisberg: May I read some of the addresses - 34 Camillo Avenue, Coral,
T"
_ Z
' Gables.:_
g.,
Mr. Plummer: 2770 Shipping.
r
Mr.
Weisberg:
But they...
r I
I .
Plummer.
3028 Shipping.
Mr.
Weisberg:
Those are put on
*A �� �' H 5 �'� � _ � �� � � ♦� .'4
_
..?. as +2 � ,� .y � f,Y ,f+
f
t
92
i
:
0 0
Mr. Plummer: 344 Center Street. Well, let me look doom at the bottom, then.
Mrs. Kennedy: 3201 Aviation, Swanson Avenue.
Mr. Plummer: OK. 3617 SW 27th Street, and I am not trying to argue their
cause. PO Box, I don't know what that is. 3066 Shipping, 2977 Bridgeport, to
I mean... 2973 Bird, 2732 Bird, 2963 Bird, 3216 Gifford. So I'm just saying
that these are letters of people from the neighborhood.
Mr. Weisberg: There are many that are from Perrine and Davie too, but I mean,
that's not the point. We also represent a homeowner's association with 300
homes that are constantly worried about the over development of that
neighborhood. We are worried about the accidents that people drinking from
one area to another, I can put the statistics up of fatalities of people
driving from 3:00 o'clock in the morning until 5:00 o'clock in the morning and
it's staggering, according to the United States Department of Transportation
and the percentage of these people that are legally drunk is absolutely
staggering. Between 12:00 and 4:00 a.m., 80 percent of all fatally injured
people were under the influence of alcohol. 40 percent of all fatal crashes
involved an intoxicated driver or pedestrian. Now, this is the kind of
traffic that would be brought into a residential neighborhood filled with
children, women, families, it's not... they have to drive through these
residential neighborhoods to get to this bar, there is no other way in.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you know, isn't it kind of unfair to assume that
everybody that goes to have a drink is going to come out drunk?
Mr. Weisberg: I didn't say everyone, but we had quite a few accidents on
Aviation and I mean, it's a fact, it's a fact we have to live with. There are
consequences to everything that changes. What is the benefit to the
neighborhood of this bar opening from 3:00 to 5:007
Mr. Plummer: There are people in that neighborhood who want to have a drink
can go. That's the advantage, I mean, you know...
Mr. Weisberg: This is a fam...
Mr. Plummer: They would have to eat a hamburger or something...
Mr. Weisberg: This a family neighborhood, you know, we are not out at 3:00 to
5:00 a.m. in the morning. This a family oriented neighborhood of single
family homes.
Mr. Plummer: This gentleman wanted to speak?
Mr. Fred Pittone: My name is Fred Pittone, 2694 Inagua Avenue.
Mr. Plummer: Would you swear Fred in, please?
(AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.)
Mr. Pittone: I regret that I turned in my ballot marked green on the NE
corner, 27th and Bird, and I am directly involved in this, because I get the
noise. We have to call the police from time to time. Now, the place is a
popular place, and that's what troubles me.
Mr. Plummer: Fred, the people you call the police on, and we know, very
frequently, is EZ-Kwik.
Mr. Pittone: That's right, but they close at 2:30.
Mr. Plummer: You call the police three to four times a day on them and I'm
not saying that you're wrong.
Mr. Pittone: Not me, not me, not me, but they close at 2130 in the morning,
so at least give us a couple of more hours of rest in the morning. Now, we
have neighbors there, the green on the SPI is a vacant building. The one
directly west is a vacant building, they just meet there, I think it's the
Woods man's Club and mine, which I want to rescind that approval. Now, there
are families living on the southeast corner of Bird Now, we have an elderly
person in there, 90 years old. There are apartments there, an elderly person,
148 Tune 22, 1989
0
40 yearn old, she always calls us, she can't sleep because of the noise of the
cars that go up and down 27th Avenue, especially on Friday nights, Saturday
nights and Sunday morning. Now, we've complained, but nothing is being done
about it. Now, this noise is bang, bang, banging of their radios, happens
until 3:00, 4:00 o'clock in the morning. Now, something should be done to
protect the property owners there. Now, as far as the people who have signed
petitions, one lives almost in Perrine. He lives 221st Street and SW 103rd
Avenue. And another one, 45th Street, SW 79th Avenue. One lives 148th
Street, SW 187th Court. One lives in Coral Gables and 1 don't want to trouble
you with all the rest of them that live way out of the neighborhood, but we
are the ones that are going to suffer. Let's keep it until 3100 o'clock, and
when I approved that, I was under the impression and the understanding, that
was food and drinks, no drinks only. Other, let them leave it as a bar then
and it should be named perhaps, Breakfast Club, that's not far from breakfast
time and fresh in my memory is, maybe in yours, Commissioner Plummer...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, if they ask for another two hours, we'll be at breakfast
pretty soon.
Mr. Pittone: Maybe it's fresh in your mind, Commissioner Plummer, the
Candlelight and the Honey for the Bears, problems they caused our neighbors.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Dawkins: What's staff's recommendation on this?
Mr. Olmedillo: Planning Department recommended approval subject to a 3:00
a.m. closing time.
Mr. Dawkins: For everybody, liquor, food, everything at 3:00 o'clock
Mr. Ol.medillo: The entire shop closes at 3:00 a.m.
Mr. Dawkins: I move with staff recommendation.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Plummer: Well wait a minute,
rebut?
Mayor Suarez: Well, air...
are we going to give him the chance, -to
Mr. Dawkins: Rebut what, the 3:00 a.m. closing?
Mr. Plummer: Well, he hasn't had a chance to say anything yet.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, you going to rebut the 3:00 a.m. closing?
=`
Mrs. Kennedy: But, it's bound to...
Mr. Plummer: I'm sure he's going to be rebut the 3:00 a.m. closing.
Mrs. Kennedy: It's part of the process to give him the opportunity.
Mayor Suarez: I think he assumed that that would be acceptable, but obviously
it isn't. Go ahead.
='
Mr. Plummer: I've had too much beer, I'll be right back.
Mr. Book: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I will try to be as brief
a
as I can. We certainly do not agree with the 3:00 o'clock closing. I do not
�{
agree with the statements made by Mr. Weisberg or by Fred, and I didn't get
his last name, and I'd like to make some of those corrections. Number one, r
there are other supper clubs in existence in the City in the Grove community.
yr
There are four or five, I believe, at Mayfair alone. All of them have the
same restrictions and the same conditions that we are requesting, which is f
food and beverage until 5:00 o'clock and if there is any question as to
whether or not our kitchen will remain open until 5:00 o'clock a.m., I assure r
you that we will covenant to that condition. This is not intended to be a
5s00 o'clock bar, it is intended to be a 5:00 a.m. supper club, which is what x
the City's Code sets out.
149 MAP
MJ,.
M
0 0
Mayor Suarez: Let me ask a question, Ron. What gives us the right to
differentiate between those at Mayfair or any other structure in the Grove in
this particular one? Mr. City Attorney, City Planner, City Manager, City
anybody.
Mr. Rodriguez: In this particular case...
Mayor Suarez: How can a special use exception application be used by us, or
can it be, and if so, what are the grounds for denying one and approving the
ones that exist now in Mayfair, the supper clubs that he was referring to? -
five of them I think you said in one structure, right?
Mr. Rodriguez: You can put in the conditions, Mr. Mayor, in any of the
special exceptions that are reasonable. We believe the situation that we have
in Mayfair, which is a contained building within an area which is commercial
basically, is different than this one that is adjacent in parking.
Mayor Suarez: But they've got to come out eventually, after they leave that
contained building and there is five of them steering people out into the
general public and into the same residential. community presumably to create
the same kinds of problems as any other supper club might if indeed that is
the concern.
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, hopefully the argument that we have in this particular
case was that in that case they will come out through the commercial area, in
the case of Mayfair, for example, and it will surrounding commercial uses. In
this particular case, the property is fairly close to a residential area in
the back and there will be cars that might be parked in the back and for that
reason we believe that the limitations to 3:00 a.m. was the original one. At
the end the decision will be yours. Again, any special exceptions that have
conditions, that's one example of cases in which we're dealing with zoning and
special matters in which you can impose conditions and this is the one that we
felt was reasonable.
Mayor Suarez: Madam City Clerk...
Mr. Book: We are very sensitive to what the staff concerns were, and as soon
as we got the staff's recommendation, we went out into the residential
community, we went out into the commercial part of the community. We have
here an aerial photo of the subject property. Every one of these yellow dots
is a property owner contiguous or adjacent to the Laughing Loggerhead. Every
single one of those residences and every single one of those commercial
developments has signed a letter that is in your file today, every single
resident. In addition to that, there are a significant number of people here
in the audience today that are here to testify in support of a 5:00 o'clock
closing and there are two people who are immediately behind residential, who
have lived here for a significant period of time. One gentleman here with a
baby who has been here since 2:00 o'clock this afternoon, has a small baby,
has two children 12 and 10 and has a brand new baby that is three days old...
Mayor Suarez: I am very interested in what the relevancy of the baby is to
this dispute.
Mr. Plummer: The baby's a drunk.
Mr. Book: The baby lives immediately behind the Laughing Loggerhead. If 5:00
o'clock closing was going to cause them a problem, Mr. Mayor, they'd be
objecting to it. If...
Mayor Suarez: Is he just a resident? He's not an employee of any of this?
Mr. Book: No, he is not an employee, he lives immediately behind.
Mayor Suarez: That's not fair to bring a baby and try to convince us with the
baby.
Mr. Book: He was going to let each of you kiss him, Mr. Mayorl
Mrs. Kennedy: Is the baby bottle fed?
Mayor Suarez: We are going to need the other mike. Give us your AAA And .
address and give us the name of the baby, while you are at it.
150 June 22, 1909
Mr. Ken iticktor: Xen Ricktor, 2760 West Trade, and this is my daughter, Abia
1'ticktor1l. months. I just left the house, but we have a two day old baby, a
three old son and a 12 year old daughter. I live right behind the place, my
daughter's bedroom is right behind the fence, and the noise doesn't keep us up
or her. We don't even hear them, my Chihuahuas bark louder than the noise from
the Loggerhead and I don't see no problem with opening until 5:00 a.m. As a
matter of fact, my wife and I wouldn't mind going there, you know, to have a
dinner.
Mayor Suarez: And you have absolutely no pecuniary, compensatory money
involved in this at all?
Mr. Ricktor: Nothing. Just a resident behind the place that doesn't have any
complaint. And he's already put up a wall of about how many feet?
Mr. Book: Seven.
Mr. Ricktor: Well, it's more than seven feet, but it keeps the noise out and
I don't have any problem with it.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Mr. Ricktor: Thank you.
Mr. Book: Mr. Mayor, there are other people here who also live adjacent to
the property. I want to add a couple of other points. Number one, this
gentleman was so concerned, that he didn't show up at the Planning Board
meeting. Not only was he not there, but his so-called 300 members of his
association, not one of them showed up at the Planning Board. In fact, there
were no objectors at the Planning Board meeting. Furthermore, one of the
other civic associations showed up in support of our application that night,
thought they were coming to oppose it, when they realized the improvements
that we were going to make to the physical structure. This is the current
site, this is the artist's rendering of what will be done. There is a
significant amount of physical improvement to the building's outer structure
and landscaping is going to be done to improve the attractiveness of the Bird
area, which is one of the goals of this Commission. I want to reiterate to
you that every single adjacent and contiguous property owner, none of which,
Mr. Mayor, have any pecuniary, or other financial interest in the Laughing
Loggerhead, have signed off all this application for supper club and the
extended 5:00 o'clock closing time because they can close at 3:00 a.m. today.
Every single one has signed a letter that is in your file. In addition to
that, the Bird Avenue Merchant's Association met this past week and signed a
letter of endorsement and a resolution in support of this, which I will tender
to the Clerk. I would like, if I could, to ask everybody who is here in
support of this application to raise your hands. There is one other
gentlemen, Mr. Klemba, who is here with his hat, who also lives immediately
behind the site, who also has no pecuniary interest, Mr. Mayor, who is an
employee of Mercy Hospital in the emergency room, who is also here to testify
in favor of this application. He'd like to say just a few words.
Mr. Joseph Klemba: Mr. Mayor, I've lived in the area off and on for ten...
Mayor Suarez: Give us your name sir, please.
Mr. Klemba: Joseph Klemba. I've lived in the neighborhood for over ten years
and as he said, I work at Mercy Hospital. I've lived right near the Laughing
Loggerhead for years and there has never been any incidents to cause me to
feel anything bad about them staying open till 5:00 a.m., nothing. In fact,
I'd probably enjoy going over and having something to eat early in the morning
hours myself. I can only stand in support of this.
Mr. Book: To the second gentlemen who spoke in opposition, Fred, wherever he
is, I just want to confirm to you, because I know you visited with Mr. -
Flannigan, this is a Supper Club. Irrespective of what you heard the objector
state sir, this is a supper club that is for food and beverage and food will €
be served until 5:00 o'clock in the morning and the club that he went to sea
S`
is not a supper club and does in fact close it's kitchen at 2:00 a.m., air,
and so for any of misinformation that you were provided through the testimony
oftheobjector, I apologize for that in his behalf, sir. To close Mr. Mayor
and members of the Commission, this would be a significant improvement to
151
June
22,
1989
Bird. This would be a significant improvement to the community because of the
improvements that Flannigans will be snaking to this property, we urge your
favorable consideration of this application. Do, if you would, as the
Planning Board did, give us a year's trial. Let us try it. If there are
problems at the end of that year, you'll have another opportunity to address
this, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, and I'll answer any questions that you have.
Mr. Plummer: Who is the owner of Castle Wood Realty?
Mr. Book: Believe you have that within the file, sir. The gentleman's name is
Walter McManus. I'd like to introduce you to Joe Flannigan, who is here and
his sons, Jimmy and Mike Flannigan, who are the owners and operators of this
particular establishment.
Mr. Plummer: Is that also Big Daddy?
Mr. Wood: Yes, this is Big Daddy himself. If you can't tell by the character
drawing, you haven't looked up lately. OK, he...
Mr. Plummer: He doesn't show as an officer of this corporation.
Mr. Joseph G. Flannigan. My name is Joseph G. Flannigan. I'm the chairman and
chief executive officer of Flannigan's Enterprises and if you'll swear me in,
I'll be glad to proceed.
(AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.)
Mr. Flannigan: As some of you were familiar, I have been in the alcoholic
beverage business for many, many years. The tenure of the alcoholic beverage
business is changing dramatically and it has required us to change our method
of operation. I might say, I hope to say for the better. There will be food
served in the Laughing Loggerhead and to answer Mr. Plummer's question, this
particular Big Daddy is a franchise of the parent company which is listed on
the American stock exchange, under my name, Flannigan's Enterprises Inc. Both
of my sons had been raised in the alcoholic beverage business and it was my
opportunity the other night to meet for the first time the members of the Bird
Road Business Association, which we did not call, they called us. They called
us because the difficulty on Bird Road, with the number of indigenous people,
the people... what was going on in the street was horrendous. At that time, I
volunteered to help them or to try to help them to get rid of some of the
problems on Bird Road. We would, EZ-Kwik, and some of the other people will
be instrumental in hiring security guards which will be on duty from 10:00
o'clock in the evening until 6:00 o'clock in the morning on this property.
They will...
Mr. Plummer: Is that outside?
Mr. Flannigan: Yes, sir, absolutely outside. We have as much problem with
these people as you do. In answer to the ather questions here, these people
are not served alcoholic beverages... I don't know what you want to call them,
these street people are not served alcoholic beverages in Flannigan's and
neither are they allowed to... we don't serve alcoholic beverages for off -
premise consumption after 10:00 p.m. in the evening which is under the laws of
the City of Miami, nor do we sell off -premise consumption on Sunday at all,
because that is your locale statute. It's not the statute of the other
surrounding communities. We would like to clean up Bird Road. We have a very
substantial and we intend to make a very substantial investment in cleaning up
the neighborhood. We certainly spoke impressively enough to the members of
the business community and impressed them enough, that they were willing to
give us first hand a letter, signed letter of their support from Mr. Sorg and
some other people I never had the pleasure of meeting before. But we're going
to try to organize the community to get it together to clean it up. I would
ask the Commission's permission and help in do.ing this. You can't do it for
nothing, you've got to do it with money.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Flannigan, how do you relate to Castlewood Realty?
Mr. Flannigan: I was formerly president of that company and I merely... that
company is my landlord. It owned by a Mr. Walter L. McManus and his family,
They are my landlord, and I in turn sublease to the Loggerhead Corporation,'
which is owned by my sons.
�k
152 June 22, 1989
0 0
Mr. Plummer% But are you, do you own the property?
Mr. Flannigan: No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Plummer: You have a lease option?
Mr. Flannigan: No, I have a lease, but no option, unfortunately.
Mr. Plummer: OK, under disclosure, Mr. City Attorney, under disclosure, and I
mean, I know who this man is, everybody knows who he was. He was about 400
pounds heavier before, but... are we satisfied that they meet the requirement
of disclosure under that as Castlewood 100 percent owner, as the subject
property? But they are not controlling it. This gentleman under a lease is
controlling the property.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: They are a publicly traded company on the American stock
exchange and as such, they by, divulging that and listing Castlewood Realty
Corporation Inc. as the owners, I think, comply with the disclosure
requirement.
Mr. Plummer: All right. I understand that the reason that you won the
Zoning Board and you might lose here is because you brought the waitresses at
the Zoning Board hearing in miniskirts?
Mr. Flannigan: Not quite. Unfortunately, Mr. Plummer, I don't have any
waitresses in miniskirts today, but we did bring a number of our employees,
that is correct. That's their livelihood.
Mr. Plummer: Nothing wrong with it.
Mr. Bob Fitzsimmons: Mr. Mayor, may I address the Commission?
Mayor Suarez: Please.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: My name is Bob Fitzsimmons, I'm the president of the Coconut
Grove Civic Club, I'm the president of the Coconut Grove Park Homeowners'
Association, which is adjacent to this and I live at 2512 Abaco Avenue. I
also am a customer of this establishment, I go in there probably on an average
of once a week and I do eat there. We do have a concern though about changing
the rules here to allow it to open from 3:00 to 5:00 a.m. We want you to
follow the Planning Department's recommendation. This is not your typical
supper club. This is not a tablecloth type restaurant. You don't get greeted
by the maitre d' when you went in. There may be other establishments in
Coconut Grove or in this area that have this license, but this is not the same
type of place as Stringfellow's, or Regine's, or the other people that do have
a license to stay open till 5:00 o'clock. What we are afraid of is if this is
allowed, it is going to become a collector place for every other bar in town.
There is one bar open until 5:00 o'clock? Where do we go? We either go to
Tobacco Road, or we go here, and this neighborhood is surrounded by single
family, it is surrounded by low density residential and that's our concern.
We don't want it to become a collector area. Bird Road has enough problems
without this.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Rodriguez, is the granting of the special use exception to
a supper club, but limited to 3:00 a.m., is that in effect a denial of what
you are trying to do?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Rodriguez: It is reversing the position that has been taken by the Zoning
Board, that granted 5:00 o'clock, so you are reversing the Zoning Board's
decision and you are establishing a new decision of whatever hour you want..
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but in effect, they are open legally now until 3:00
o'clock.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, that is what I am saying. Is it in effect the same, the
same as denying it, is that...? -
Mr. Plummer: And the only difference is in your recommendation is that they
do what they are doing presently, but they've got to serve food.
153
Mr. Flannigan: That would be silly.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Right.
Mr. Plummer: That's what you are recommending?
Mr. Olmedillo: That's our recommendation.
Mr. Plummer: What advantageous is that to anybody?
Mr. Olmedillo: Remember, beyond that recommendation there is a decision by
the Zoning Board to grant them the 5:00 a.m., which is what you are looking
at.
Mr. Plummer: I understand that, but what my question is, in approving, what
did you approve for them by closing them at 3:00 a.m. which they presently cat:
do?
Mr. Olmedillo: Nothing, in effect.
Mayor Suarez: Why would you be recommending denial then?
Mr. Olmedillo: Because we said that if up to this point we have no problem,
no conflict with the activity and the neighborhood, we might as well leave it
as is, not creating any more opportunities for that to occur.
Mayor Suarez: Do then need a special use exception to function as a supper
club until 3:00 a.m. if they were just previously a bar?
Mr. Olmedillo: Not until 3:00, because they would stay until 3:00 the way
they are now, so that...
Mayor Suarez: This seems very obvious to you planners, but to us it looks
like you are saying, well, give them a supper club, and only give them until
3:00 a.m., only, they already can do thatl You know, so it is confusing to us
lay people. I hope you guys realize that.
Mr. glummer: It's mandatory they got to serve food.
Mayor Suarez: You could just as well said deny the special use exception, the
special exception, whatever it's called.
Mrs. Kennedy: We've gotten hundreds of letters from residents in the area
that have no objections. They are not going to have live entertainment. It
has been approved by the Zoning Board and by the Planning Board, of course,
that with a recommendation. I don't think this is such a big deal.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Well, they could not have live entertainment because they
don't have the parking to accommodate live entertainment, so that's one of the
reasons why they are sacrificing that. As he said, as with the alcoholic
beverage industry, as a whole, it changes at a certain point. After 3:00
o'clock, you get a different clientele. We don't want this clientele
collecting here, that is essentially the reason that we oppose it.
Mr. De Yurre: Let me take up that point. I think at 3:00 o'clock, if you
have been to... you may have been dancing or been doing as whole bunch of
things, at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you know, I find myself at times with
friends that we got nowhere to go to get a bite to eat and this, if my _
understanding is correct, you can get a bite to eat, and get a drink, or you
know, just share some thoughts for an hour or so, and kick around. In facts
there aren't that many places in the City of Miami where you can go unless you
go to La Carreta or go to Versailles on Sth Street to get something to eat.
This is a little bit different than that.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: To be honest with you, I'm not sure how the Code with
operate, but I am not sure they'd need this to keep serving food until 5:00
o'clock, but you are not going to this place to get food, necessarily, between
3:00 and 5:00 a.m.
Mr, De Yurre: They will be serving food till 5:00 o'clock,
154 J440 M 1904,
{
Mr. Vlannigan: May I ask Mr. Weisberg, who has also been in the other one of
out places, that has been converted. Is it substantially different than the
Loggerhead?
Mt. Weisberg: I must say, and my wife, that we could hardly tell the
difference. It's the same pecky cedar on the wall, it's the same bar stools,
almost the same place.
Mr. Flannigan: Were there tablecloths on the tables?
Mr. Weisberg: I don't see why you have to stay open till 5:00 o'clock to have
tablecloths.
Mr. Flannigan: Well, I am asking, we asked you to go to dinner, and I'm
asking you, was it substantially different? Was the atmosphere different and
was the clientele different? I understand you and your wife have been... were
they different than you had experienced before? Yes, or no, like the guy
says.
Mr. Weisberg: Well, they were different because we were there at
approximately 6:00 o'clock, and there were only five people in the place.
Mr. Flannigan: How many?
Mr. Weisberg: There were about five, maybe ten people in the place. I didn't
count them, but it was not crowded.
Mr. Flannigan: OK...
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Flannigan, you have to direct questions to the Chair and in
any event, this exchange is not really getting us further along. Any final
statements? - because we've got other matters including one that we scheduled
for 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Weisberg: Yes, as final statement, my idea of a supper club isn't a place
that would have over 33 percent bar stools. A supper club to me would be a
place that is predominantly tables where people would sit and eat dinner. A
bar stool to me is not a supper club. I would just like to leave you with
this one transparency as my final word.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, while we are waiting, I'm going to tell you, let me tell
all of you...
Mr. Plummer: Obviously this gentlemen has never been to Latin-American Cafe.
Mr. Dawkins: Let me tell all of you while you are waiting on that. At 5:00
o'clock in the morning I don't have no problems, I'm getting up, not going to
bed... —
Mr. Weisberg: As my final statement, you'll notice...
Mr. Dawkins: ... at my age.
Mr. Weisberg: You'll notice that the fatalities from 3:00 to 5:00 due to
alcohol related driving and we would rather not have even one in our
-_
residential neighborhood.
Mr. Tucker Gibbs: Mr. Mayor, one final comment. The petitioner has stated
that one civic organization from the Grove supported the petition before the
=
Zoning Board. That's correct. That organization was the Coconut Grove Civic
Club. Mr. Jim McMaster from our board and I spoke about this. It was his
impression when he spoke before the Zoning Board that the supper club was not
going to have any bar stools, the bar would be taken out, and it was on that
basis that we supported the supper club, because we felt it would be a supper
club, pure supper club as opposed to a bar.
{
Mr. Plummer: Well, you're in conflict, not with yourself, but then you had no
objection to the hours.
Mr. Gibbs: Not if it was going to be a supper club, at that point, no. They
question was the bar.
z
1 "v
155 .June 22 19$9
Mr, Pl3esmet't
And you are saying the difference between where you sit takes
the differente7
Mr. Gibbs: The issue is serving food. No, it is not where you sit, it is the
bar issue. It
was the issue of drinks, of getting drinks without food.
Mr. De Yurret
it's the same thing as Friday's. Friday's is a bar.
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, at 5:00 in the morning?
Mr, De Yurres
Well, it don't matter if you are going to drink, whether it is
2:00 or 3:00 a.m.
Mr. Gibbet I'm
just explaining to you what our concern was, that's all,
Mr. De Yurre:
OK.
r'
Mayor Suarez:
OK, Commissioners?
Mr. De Yurre:
Rosario, are you going to move?
Mrs. Kennedy:
Go ahead.
Mr. De Yurres
I'll move this item to grant them till 5t00 o'clock in the
morning.
Mrs. Kennedy:
I second.
Mayor Suarez:
So moved and seconded. Any discussion?
-
Mr. Plummer:
Yes. Mr. Mayor, one of the ways to keep them honest in my
estimation, is
a one year review.
Mr. De Yurre:
Oh, that also, just like was proffered here.
Mr. Plummer:
And if they know we are looking at the end of one year, they
_—
don't comply...
(WHISTLE!)
Mayor Suarez:
OK, any further discussion?
Mr. Plummer:
I'm going to be there at 4t55 in the morning and if I don't get';,
a hamburger...
Unidentified Speaker:
I'll buy you a beer.
-
Mr. Plummer:
Thanks.
Mayor Suarez: Please call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre, who
moved its adoptions -
i RESOLUTION NO. 89-587 -
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
BOARD AND GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN a
ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF F=
THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1523, T
SUBSECTION 1523.1(5), PERMISSIBLE PRINCIPAL USES AND "-d R—
STRUCTURES, TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING 4'
BAR TO A SUPPER CLUB WITHOUT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT FOR4sti
a THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2721 BIRD AVENUE, MIAMI,� �'t_
FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) AS PER
` ���
PLANS ON FILE; ZONED SP 1_ 2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION
HAS A
,
TIME LIMITATION OF
TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH TO OBTAIN A
d.a
BUILDING PERMIT AND
'
A REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICANT.
RETURN TO THE CITY
COMMISSION FOR REVIEW IN ONE
YEAR.
f+allowa :body
of
resolution, omitted here
aDd an
file ,in the Office
of
the City Cleric.)
s- a
a Y�
154
Vi-
Dpon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution vas pakstd
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor victor De Yurre
NOESt Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
ABSENTt None.
COMMENTS DURING ROLL CALL-
Mr: Dawkins: Yes, and I commission J.L. Plummer to be there at 5:00 o'clock
in the morning.
..------------------------ -----------------------------Y------------- _--._��.
23. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY APPLICANT
(GENERAL BANK) - to review Zoning Board's denial of Special Exception to
allow construction of surface parking lot at 3044 S.W. 7th Street (See
label 25).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-10. Ma'am, we have scheduled PZ-10 for 6:00 p.m., because
it has been postponed twice or three times, we are going to handle PZ-10 and
we'll be happy....
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: There are a lot of things unfair, but if you keep talking out
of turn, maybe your item won't be heard at all. This item has been postponed
three times, Ma'am, we set it specifically for 6:00 p.m. We'll be happy to get
to your item right after that, which means it's still... we will get to it
today, we have quite a bit of time before 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Olmedillo: This again is an appeal for property located in SW 7th Street,
3044 SW 7th Street and being an appeal again, the appellant speaks first. The
appellee...
Mayor Suarez: OK, PZ-10, what are you announcing, counselor?
Mr. Al Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, my name is Al Cardenas, with offices of 1221
Brickell Avenue. I have conferred with a client over the last few days and we
would like to at this time, regroup and come up with a new concept and
hopefully meet with the neighbors and withdraw the item at this time.
(LAUGHTER) Well, we'll be happy to proceed if that's the will of the
Commission. I'm just...
Mayor Suarez: Who is here on behalf of the opponents? Do they have an
association? Do they have a group? Anyone that we can hear from on the issue
of their withdrawal or rescheduling of this, however you want to look at it.
Mr. Tucker Gibbs: On behalf of the Coral Nook Homeowners' Association, yes.
Let's get together and talk.
Ms. Jean Familopolos: Talk about what?
Mr. Gibbs: He's withdrawing the item, correct? - to speak...
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, if we agree to sit down and talk with him.
Ms. Familopolos: No, we did alreadyt ?"
Mayor Suarez: Presumably he's ready for major concessions, if he wants to sit
down and talk.
Mr. Plummer: Wait, whoa. Who signed the... hold it a minute. Who signed the
appeal?
Me. Familopolos: He did.
Mr. Plummer: You signed the appeal, is that correct?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Plummer: Are you indicating for the record that you are withdrawing the
item?
Mr. Cardenas: Well, no, no, here's what I want 'to say. I haven't finished my
story. We would like to withdraw the appeal as long as we don't have to wait
the year or 18 months, whatever the ordinance says to refile a request.
Mr. Dawkins: You said you were withdrawing in order to meet with them and
come back at the next meeting, to try to work something out.
Mayor Suarez: How would that be accomplished legally?
Mr. Cardenas: Well, I mean, if you'd rather defer the item, that's fine.
Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait, let's find out. It is not a matter of rather or
not, it is a matter of how we would do it, even if we wanted to do it. How
would we do it.
Mr. Rodriguez: Continue the item.
Mayor Suarez: Continue is the only way, right?
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mayor Suarez: OK, now back to the question. Do we have basic agreement on
both sides here on continuing the item and trying to work out an...
Ms. Familopolos: I appoint Mr. Gibbs can talk for us, because I don't
understand, they are saying they want to withdraw. Withdraw what? What do
they want to talk?
Mayor Suarez: They want to talk with you. I don't know why they want to talk
with you, but they want to talk with you.
Mr. Gibbs: Can I speak with her for a second? May I speak?
Mayor Suarez: I guess communication is the beginning of wisdom, or something.
-'- Mr. Cardenas: Look, basically Mayor, from our
perspective, there are two
- avenues that we would like to proceed on. One would be, I think our preferred
- methodology, because we don't know how much time
we would want to do it to do
- this right, we would like to withdraw with a waiver of the time period to
_ refile; absent that, we would like a deferral on
the item, but for more than
September.
1
_i Mayor Suarez: Yes, a continuance until we could
give to... I don't know, let
j
me see how much they agree to, first of all.
1
Ms. Familopolos: We had them for three years, Mr.
Mayor, and all they want to
;
.,
talk with us is, straight walls, or walls with
holes. You know, for three
- years we've been fighting.,
Mayor Suarez: Put you name on the record.
,s
Me. Familopolos: Jean Familopolos.
-
9
Mayor Suarez: Are you going to have Mr. Gibbs be
a spokesperson for yourself?
Ms. Familopolos: Yes, but this was a shock to us. We didn't know what they
are going to do, so I like to talk with my client.
=.
x'
158
June 22, 1980
Eki
Mayor Suarez: Well, I've got an idea. Why don't you and Mr. Gibbs meet for a
couple of minutes and I'tn going to table this item, see if you can come up
with an agreement, not withdraw or defer, I'm just tabling it for the moment
so you tan give me your decision.
Me. Familopolos: OK.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Familopolos: Thank you very much.
Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor, how many people are here on this item? Shorn your
hands, how many people are here on this?
Mayor Suarez: Raise your hand and please don't speak out of turn if you need
to address us, go the mike.
Mr. Dawkins: In order to continue, then they got to confer with all of these
people.
Mayor Suarez: That's what they are getting ready to do.
Mr. Dawkins: They've got to confer with everybody.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, please confer, Tucker, Joe, and all the civic association
leaders.
(THEREUPON, THE ITEM WAS TABLED)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. DENY REQUEST TO AMEND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - previously
authorized by the City for property located at approximately 2210 S.W.
16th Street and 1600-02 S.W. 22nd Avenue - to modify certain
prohibitions against use of property for package liquor stores, lounges,
bars, or sale of alcoholic beverages, etc. (Applicant: Jemajo Corp.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-9. Ma'am, we'll get to your item a lot quicker than...
please.
Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-9, Mr. Mayor is a petition to amend a covenant which was
voluntarily proffered at the time of a zoning change which occurred for
property on 22nd Avenue and 16th Street SW. We're recommending denial for the
change, the Planning Department, that is, is recommending denial for the
change, because we feel that in adding the uses that the applicant is asking
to include will add substantial parking requirements which they cannot meet on
site and that will have a negative impact in the area.
Mr. Pablo Perez: I don't understand how...
Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait, swear in all of the people who are going to testify
on this item, both in favor and against. Who is here against the applicant?
Raise your hand, please, and if you expect to testify. Please swear in the ;
applicant and the opponents.
(AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. }
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.)
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
t
Mayor Suarez: Very good. You may sit down. You've just been sworn :in iA
case you testify.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, for the record py
name is Pablo Perez. My business address is 56 San Sebastian Avenue, Coral
Gables and I represent the petitioner.
U1 ID111 nmar. Ara vnn an attnrnAv. sir? .
0 0
Mr. Perez: I am an attorney, but I'm also the son of Mr. Perez.
Mayor Suarez: Are you being compensated?
Mr. Perez: I am not being compensated.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. Perez: If I may continue, I would first like to make a brief opening
statement as to what this matter is about. My father owns lots one through
five of Vedado subdivision in the City of Miami. What we are basically
talking about here is the southwest corner of 16th Street and 22nd Avenue in
the City of Miami. In 1985 when this lot was basically... there were three
various lots, five lots, they were empty, they were vacant. There was once a
gas station there, we bought those lots. They were still zoned R-1. We were
able to get a change in zoning and one of the things that we did was we
entered into a restrictive covenant. I have copies here. I don't know if you
have them in your files, but at this time, I would like to submit them to the
Clerk as my exhibit one of the restrictive covenants, which were signed in _
1985. The covenants as you can see, virtually prohibit every type of business
that could possibly be operated in that neighborhood. It outlaws residents,
hotels, private clubs, playgrounds, package liquor stores, restaurants,
tearooms, it bans the sale of any food products, including grocery stores,
meat markets and bakeries. I remember at the time Commissioner Plummer said,
well, maybe it's a good place for me to putmy funeral home there, because
that was basically the only thing that we were able to do. The point that
we're trying to make is the following. The reason why we are seeking a
modification of this declaration of restrictions is that it currently provides
no benefit, no ascertainable, no substantial benefit to the neighborhood and
the reason that that is so is because right across the street from our
shopping center there is a supermarket which sells beer, wine, pastries, food,
two blocks down on 22nd Avenue there is one supermarket and two blocks up on
22nd Avenue there is a second supermarket. If I may... _
Mr. Dawkins: Take the portable mike with you, please.
Mr. Perez: OK, if I may describe this. This is a picture of a shopping
center which we built and as you can see, many of the stores are empty. There
are 24 rentable units in the building. Currently, only 14 of those have been
rented. We have ten vacancies. Basically, since we cannot engage in the
retail business which involves the sale of food or liquor, we are very
limited. Currently, we have two doctors, we have a video store, we have a
travel agency, we have a clothing store, we have a pharmacy, we have a laundry
and various other businesses, but basically they have been... ten of these
store fronts have been empty.
Mayor Suarez: What is the modification you are seeking? To allow what?
Mr. Perez: We are seeking a modification which will allow us to engage in the
retail sale of foods and alcoholic beverages , beer and wine.
Mayor Suarez: OK, let me ask a question. What was the initial reason or
purpose behind the restrictive covenant that prevented those things here?
Mr. Olmedillo: This was a very heated argument between the neighbors and the
applicant at the time of the initial zoning change.
Mayor Suarez: I'm not interested in the argument between the neighbors. I
want to know the reason for the restrictive covenant. Why?
Mr. Olmedillo: The restrictive covenant was voluntarily proffered by the
applicant and it was an agreement...
Mayor Suarez: What sense did it make? Why was restrict certain uses and not
others?
Mr. Olmedillo: The ones that would create a bigger impact in this area were
eliminated.
Mayor Suarez: If the neighbors thought that food and alcoholic establishments
would create a bigger negative impact?
160 June 22, 1989
Mr. Olmedillo: This is what I recall from the...
Mr. Plummer: Can I give you a little help?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: OK. This was an extremely heated debate at the time. The
neighbors even with this covenant were extremely upset. This covenant was
supposed to limit this to professional use only. Basically it was for
professional use. There would not be a grocery store, there would not be a
restaurant, there would not be any alcohol served on the premises, which would
generate more traffic, more parking problems and that was the reason the
covenant. Now...
Mayor Suarez: Was the idea that some of the establishments that would be
permitted would not be the kind that would have as much traffic?
Mr. Plummer: And there would be not a long stay. It would more of an in -out
situation. Now, for the record which is here, this covenant has already been
modified one time.
Mayor Suarez: How did we modify that? I didn't participate in that vote.
Mr. Plummer: One of the main objectors was to the west, which were
residential...
Mayor Suarez: But what was the modification we made, the first one?
Mr. Plummer: The only one was to allow them to go west with adjacent lots for
parking.
Mr. Olmedillo: Two houses had to remain there.
Mayor Suarez: That made a lot of sense. And now why did they initially have
the obligation to file restrictive covenants? What had sought initially? Was
it a change of zoning from...
Mr. Olmedillo: A zoning change, a change of zoning....
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: From?
Mr. Olmedillo:... from a single family district to a commercial district.
Mr. Perez: If I may continue, I would like to...
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, let me just add one other thing for the
Mayor's benefit and the others. Their argument at the time was that
previously there had been a filling station was the commercial use. Even
though it had lost its grandfather clause, their argument at the time was that
this had been previously used for commercial and as such should be allowed to
be so again, that was the argument.
Mr. Perez: That is essentially correct, but I'd like just to clarify
something. As you said, Mr. Plummer, we voluntarily entered into those
covenants. It was necessary at the time in order to get the change in zoning,
but as you know, these covenants are not written in stone. If they were, then
we still would have black people and Hispanic people outlawed from certain
neighborhoods. These things change as circumstances change. Personally, I
believe there was never really an adequate reason to have these covenants in
the first place, but today we are faced with a situation where right across
from us, blatantly across
from us, we have
a supermarket which currently
engages in the sale of all
the products that
we are forbidden
from selling.,
They sell...
Mayor Suarez: Who owns that?
Who owns that establishment?
Mr. Perez: The name of the establishment is
Holdwin Market.
I believe the
owner may be here today. I
don't know if that
is correct, but...
off:
Mayor Suarez: Does anybody
know who owns that
establishment?
u
161
guns 22t 1980
Mr. Plummer: Well, I can tell you that is about as far from a supermarket as
you go. They do sell groceries...
Mr. Perez: Sir, they sell food, they sell...
Mr. Plummer: But, not a supermarket. It's not a Winn -Dixie or a Pantry Pride.
Mr. Perez: Sir, my point is whether you call it supermarket or a mini -market
or a mini -max is that they sell food, they sell pastries and they sell urine
and they sell beer.
Mr. Plummer: That is correct sir, and they are grandfathered.
Mr. Perez: OK, and they may be grandfathered but the effect of that is still
the same. The problem is, they are in the neighborhood, they are right across
from us and the existence of these covenants today virtually provides him with
a monopoly and it isn't really doing the neighborhood any good.
Mr. Plummer: But you agreed to that. You agreed to that!
Mr. Perez: Still, but circumstances change. Today we are facing a situation
where the benefit that was sought to be bestowed upon the neighbors are
destroyed because of the existence not only of this particular establishment
but if I may continue, SW 22nd Avenue, another supermarket which also sells
beer, wine, pastries, food. I've said it before and if you go in the opposite
direction, we have Remar Market. This is 1806 SW 22nd Avenue and they have
meats, vegetables, beer to go, frozen foods. One of the things that I'd like
to briefly touch upon is it has been rumored through the neighborhood that we
seek to operate a bar or some kind of a lounge and I think that the way our
proposed modification was submitted it's clear that the only thing that we
seek to do, the only types of businesses which we seek to operate would be a
grocery store, whether you want to call. it a supermarket or a mini -market or
whatever, restaurant and bakery, because one of the effects this covenant is
having, it's providing tremendous undo economic hardship on my client, my
father. The reason is because that particular neighborhood, you can't attract
certain types of businesses to come in. We had clothing stores there in the
past. We have in good faith tried everything and we're not magicians.
There's always, there's certainly types of businesses that we are going to be
able to attract, other types of businesses that we are not going to be able to
attract. The covenant also forbids any kind of stores which repair items,
anything which would produce noxious odors, so it's a very all encompassing
covenant, which is basically putting us at a tremendous economic disadvantage
while at the same time providing no ascertainable or substantial benefit to
the neighborhood. There is no logic, there is no reason for the continued
existence of these covenants. At the same time, we're not trying to operate
bars. My family is very well known in the business community. They've never
operated bars, lounges, their reputation is beyond reproach and I frankly, I
get upset that someone would even mention something like this, and the way
that our proposed modified covenant has been worded, it is clear that all we
seek to do is sell food, beer and wine, like you would in any normal grocery
store, Seven -Eleven, whatever you want to call it.
Mayor Suarez: Don't overstate your case, if I may give you one bit of advice.
Go ahead, finish up.
i
t
Mr. Perez: Basically, I would also like to say that we do have ample parking, g
ever since the two houses were razed next to our property, there is more than
sufficient parking to accommodate any additional traffic which would be
created. Again, you have to understand that the types of business that we
would be bringing in are not like your Pantry Pride or that kind of thing
where somebody would come in and you have them there for a very long period of
time. It would be a convenience type of a supermarket where people would
basically come in, get what they want, like a Seven -Eleven or something like
that and leave, so essentially we would not be creating any additional
problems. And the situation that we have across the street, it is blatant, I
mean, I just feel it's very unfair to saddle my client, my father, with these
restrictive covenants in the face of all this other competition. It's sort of
like a death -knoll to us. It is essentially putting us out of business.
Mayor Suarez: all right, hear the opposition. Do we have an agreement on the
prior item, PZ-10?
162 Jude 22, 1909
Mr. De Yurre: Can you explain to me why you are being put out of business
when what they are doing has nothing to do with what you are doing? Where is
that competition coming?
Mr. Perez: Well, we are the owners of the building.
Mr. De Yurre: I know that, but where's the competition coming in?
Mr. Perez: The competition is right across the street from us. The problem is
we have ten vacant units.
Mr. De Yurre: Understand what I'm asking. Where is the competition, wherein
what they are doing has nothing to do with what you are doing on your side of
the street? Where's the competition?
Mr. Perez: What I'm trying to say is right across the street...
Mr. De Yurre: Oh, you want to compete.
Mr. Perez: We want to compete. We are kept from competing.
Mr. De Yurre: Well then you are telling me... but don't say it's the
competition is killing youl
Mayor Suarez: It's like an opportunity loss, that's the argument on the
competition there. It's a tough one. On the prior item that we tried to
handle, is there an agreement or is there not an agreement? OK, and that is
to... can we announce, or do we need to vote on that?
Ms. Familopolos: No, we came to agreement. We'd like to be heard today.
Mayor Suarez: OK, so there is no agreement for deferral. All right, we'll
take up the item. Go ahead, continue the opposition on this item then.
Mr. Mario Ponce: My name is Mario Ponce. I reside at 2474 SW 13th Street and
I've lived in this neighborhood for 25 years. I'd like to present to the
Commission a petition in opposition from the neighbors to the releasing of
this covenants on this property, from these same neighbors that the shopping
portends to serve. Our main opposition to the shopping center is that we are
vehemently opposed to the further commercial intrusion of what is clearly a
residential neighborhood. The little supermarkets that the attorney alluded
to are tiny groceries, neighborhood groceries that have been there since
before zoning laws were in place. They are all small grandfathered in
groceries. They have no real competitive advantage over this shopping center and we feel that bringing in a supermarket would engender further traffic.
You'd have a lot more cars coming in and out in a neighborhood that is full of
children and older people and we are totally opposed to that. Secondly, we
are opposed to the kind of element that could come in because of the _
restaurant and cafeteria serving beer and wine. Just looking at SW 8th —
Street, we see the problems that these cafeterias create. You have bums
hanging out, you have crack being sold and the neighbors of what I call West
Little Havana are vehemently opposed to this shopping center because first of
all, the parking is inadequate, second of all, the zoning is inadequate. It
is a commercial intrusion into what has always been a residential neighborhood —_
and I believe that these covenants were designed just to get the shopping
center in and to come back later on like they are doing right now and cry that
they are losing money, that it is not working and we feel that it is a
strategy to later on release these covenants and we feel that the City
Commission should not be in a position to bail out a developer which is
obviously made a bad choice. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Mr. Ponce: We have further people that would like to speak.
Mr. Perez: May I rebut the comments that he made at this point in time?
Mayor Suarez: No, you had much more of an opportunity so far than they have.
We're going to let them speak. Keep each subsequent one, since he made most
of the arguments, I think they'd get repetitive, to no more than two minutes
and let me warn you, I can't tell you that momentum is on our side
Y Y y , You know,
163 June 22, 1989
0 0
if you overdo it and get into arguments repetitively, it just get to the point
that it really doesn't add to the discussion. I mean, he made very coherently
the arguments against what they are trying to do, so I don't know about the
rest of the Commission, but I can't see any reason for granting what he is
asking for. If you want to go ahead and... yes.
Ms. Dorothy Meyers: My name is Dorothy Meyers. I don't know if I am supposed
to swear in or not.
Mr. Plummer: Swear in.
Mayor Suarez: Did we swear everyone in that was... I thought we did? -
everyone that was up. Maybe we didn't swear you in.
Ms. Meyers: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I live at 2100 SW 15th Street. I've lived
there for 48 years and this is my first time in of a hearing, so please bear
with me. I feel I have a vested interest in the area in addition to concern.
First, the way I read this, this is going to modify a covenant against the use
of a package liquor store and a lounge. So if it is modified then,
hypothetically couldn't they open a lounge that would stay open much later
than the little grocery stores that sell only beer and wine and the people
take the beer and wine and leave. It's more important, we're six blocks
proximity to a junior high school. The cars now that the kids drive go by
like crazy. There's access to a bar, and most important, on the corner of
22nd Avenue and 14th Terrace, there are two apartment buildings that are under
HRS and they are halfway houses for mentally retarded and people with problems
that do not have to be institutionalized. These people have posed problems in
the area already without a bar. Many of them look very normal, there is no
reason they would refuse them entry into a bar to sit and have a drink. I've
called the police many, many times, it's on record, for the problems they have
created without a bar, lounge in the area. So that's my concern, thank you
for hearing me.
Ms. Maggie Ponce: My name is Maggie Ponce, I live at 2474 SW 13th Street. I
am speaking as a concerned mother. Not too many months ago, they have a beer
and wine license and there is a cafeteria, which we all know, Casablanca, my
son and I went and had breakfast there, and what do we see as we are coming
out? - a crack deal being done.
Mayor Suarez: I think as I told the presenter initially that you are
overstating your case.
Ms. Ponce: No, all I wanted to say is when I called the police, they said
that they...
Mayor Suarez: Because you know, crack deals can go on in all kinds of places,
I mean you are basically dealing here with land use and the restrictive
covenant that they now want to...
Ms. Ponce: But all I am trying to say is that...
Mayor Suarez: All right, if you want to interrupt me, go ahead.
-I Ms. Ponce: ... when I call the Police Department they said they didn't have
enough people to cover all those areas, so we are only adding more fuel to the
fire if we let one more be open.
Mayor Suarez: OK. -
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, whoa.
Mr. Perez: This is totally irrelevant. I would object to this.
Mayor Suarez: Please, please. We don't.., this is not a court, _
' Mr. Plummer: Do you remember the date and the time?
—' Ms. Ponce: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Would you please make sure that the Manager gets the date and
the time and the location? OK, I want to know that the Miami police tall you
that they would not respond to a crack deal. That's all recorded and I'd like
to pull that recording.
164 June 22, 1989
0 0
Mayor Suarez: OK, Ma'am.
Ms. Zenaida Decherd: My name is Zenaida Decherd. I live at 2179 and 2181 in
the duplex at 16th Street and 22nd Avenue, straight across from where...
Mayor Suarez: Well, kitty -corners from the shopping center.
Ms. Decherd: Yes, exactly. When they made the petition for the shopping
center, I signed it, but they promised that they would never put a grocery
there and a liquor store, because we have a little neighborhood grocery, a
little one, that has served the neighborhood longer than I was there and I
have been there 20 years and I think it is very unfair, number one, and number
two is they are going to sell liquor and beer also there is a high school,
Shenandoah , and it is going to be another school across the street and I
think it is very unfair. If they cannot make business, it is too bad, they
can rent the thing to something else, but I don't see any reason why we have
to have grocery stores selling beer and liquor and all that. That is
completely unfair and I am against, and besides they, the promised me
personally, because they went to my home and...
Mayor Suarez: Well, more importantly, they put certain promises in a
declaration that is filed in the court registry.
Ms. Decherd: Yes, they did, they promised me...
Mayor Suarez: That's more important than a personal promise.
Ms. Dechard: They promised me personally, they went to my home, not as a
corporation, but as two couples and I told them no, OK?
Mayor Suarez: I mean, for these proceedings, maybe not in other ways. OK.
Commissioners, do you want... last statement and you'll get a quick rebuttal.
Ms. Juana Carrera: (TRANSLATED BY SERGIO RODRIGUEZ) My name is Juana
Carrera...
Mayor Suarez: 2141 SW...
Ms. Carrera: SW 16th Street.
Mayor Suarez: 16th Street.
Ms. Carrera: ( TRANSLATED BY SERGIO RODRGUEZ) This is the second time I have
to come to this place for this controversial project, but it is necessary for
me to claim my rights and the neighbors and myself opposed to remove the
restrictions of this place, because that gives reasons to have other things as
you know, as this is how things are in the world today. This type of business
affects especially the kids that have to pass in front of the place, walking
to the schools which are close to the place. I appeal to the conscience of the
Commissioners for the love of God.
Mr. Plummer: For. what?
Mr. Rodriguez: The love of God.
Mayor Suarez: This is a very philosophical statement that is getting more and
more theological as time goes on here.
Ms. Carrera: (TRANSLATED BY SERGIO RODRIGUEZ) Don't forget to think about
their kids and everybody's kids and...
}
Mayor Suarez: Ma'am. Explain to her that the points are getting repetitive,
i
we've heard almost all of this and that sometimes it works against you.
Mr. Rodriguez: (COMMENTS IN SPANISH)
Ms. Carrera: (TRANSLATED BY MR. RODRIGUEZ) I'm only doing this because I have
to live in that area. Because I live there worrying out for my kids and for
my grandchildren. I have been trying to get close to the Commission and
explain to them what we all think about this, by phone, I haven't been able to
any other way. My God, I ask you, I pray that you, don't let us down in an
165 June 22, 1989
1
inheritance of something that could be resolved today for tomorrow. I ask the
Commissioners to vote no. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Mr. Perez: If I may make a quick rebuttal.
Ms. Virginia Fernandez: I was prepared to speak.
Mayor Suarez: At your own riskl Yes, quickly.
Ms. Fernandez: You saw me already. The only thing I wanted to say...
Mayor Suarez: The name and address.
Ms. Fernandez: OK, Virginia Fernandez and I live in 2031 SW 16th Terrace and
I am opposed to this because I understand what they mainly are interested in
is the license for liquor. We live in a very nice neighborhood, very quiet
neighborhood which is mainly made up of families with children and old people
retired and this location will be just one block from the playground and
school, Shenandoah, and you know that. You know that. So, for us it is very
concerned to have something related to that kind of business.
Mayor Suarez: Playgrounds I use myself and my kids, many times.
Ms. Fernandez: That's true. That's why I tell you you know about it, so we
are very concerned and we are worried what can bring this situation to us in
the neighborhood. That's all.
Mayor Suarez: OK, final rebuttal and we're done with this item.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, if I may make a brief rebuttal.
Mayor Suarez: No more than two minutes, Madam City Clerk.
Mr. Perez: In the last few minutes I have heard that my honorable family has
been associated with crack dealing, liquor stores...
Mayor Suarez: Now you are overdoing it again.
Mr. Perez: ... child molestation, this is totally irrelevant, inaccurate and
false. Our present zoning permits the operation of every single type of store
or business that we seek to operate, OK? As far as crack dealing or liquor
stores... let me address the point of liquor stores first. I think it's clear
from our petition that we do not seek to engage in the sale of hard alcoholic
i beverages other than beer and wine or packaged liquor.
Mayor Suarez: We understand that you will not be selling any legal narcotics.
Mr. Perez: We will simply be selling beer and wine that you can get at any
supermarket in the City. There is no benefit presently being bestowed upon
the neighborhood due to the existence of these other businesses which are
currently taking part in the types of businesses which we are prohibited from
operating. It is unfair. If we are basically made to comply with these
restrictive covenants, it puts the City Commission in the place of planning a
central economy and determining who can operate what type of business and what
can't. Our zoning allows us to sell these types of things. The restrictive
covenants may have made sense at one point in time, but they have absolutely
no reason or logical purpose for existing today. This community cannot afford
to cause another investor to go out of business and frankly, that's what's
going to happen.
i
Mayor Suarez: OK, thank you for your statement.
i
{
Ms. Blanca Mesa: Mayor, I...
Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait.
Ms, Mesa: I've been here since 2:30 and I had to go get my baby.
Mr. Dawkins: I've been here since 8:30 a.m.
166
Mo. Mesa: I'd like to just say one last thing on behalf of the community.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, you were involved in this matter, but you had to be outside
because of the baby? -
Ms. Mesa: I was here since 2:30 until about 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Suarez: Are you related to the gentleman nodding his head back there
behind you?
Ms. Mesa: No, it's just that I've been here five hours.
Mayor Suarez: Or is he just a kind of supporter of your procedural argument
at this point?
Mayor Suarez: All right, go ahead, very quickly.
Ms. Mesa: OK, I just want to make one last comment. One thing is, I moved to
the neighborhood two months...
Mayor Suarez: Did you give your name, please?
Me. Mesa: Yes, my name is Blanca Mesa and I live at 1836 SW 15th Street which
is close by and the last argument I wanted to make is recently the Commission
found $2,000,000 to revitalize 8th Street for the Latin Quarter District and I
think that if you are going to go back into the residential neighborhoods,
expand their commercial use, that is contrary to what you are trying to do on
the other half. Don't open up residential neighborhoods to more commercial
use, expanded commercial use. There is plenty of empty space front, store
front, at 8th Street and Coral Way. They are all within walking distance of
this neighborhood. Their petition in fact states this would be for the
betterment of the neighborhood. In fact, the majority of the neighbors oppose
this and if you don't channel, you've heard of suburban sprawl, this is urban
sprawl. You should be channeling commercial uses to the commercial corridors
that are now deteriorating. You have that same grocery story, it could open
up on 8th Street. The restaurant, you could open up on 8th Street. This is a
community of kids with schools and parks. You should be careful and listen to
your professionals in your Planning Department. That's why you have Planning
Department. They recommend denial. The community doesn't want this expanded
use. They are basically slapping the face of the community when they promised
to abide by the restricted covenants and now wanting them to be lifted
afternoon calendar.
Mayor Suarez: We've kind of hinted at that by the fact that they've had one
modification already and now they want a second.
Ms. Mesa: Many modifications. Each time they have gone before the Commission
they've won and yet each time the Planning Department has recommended denial.
Why is that? - over the opposition of the neighborhood. We're the ones that
are supposed to benefit and we oppose this.
Mayor Suarez: OK, Ma'am.
Mr. Perez- There is nothing inherently illegal or immoral from seeking a
modification of a covenant. It is our right to do and we have done so in the
past and I don't think we should be chastised for exercising one of our
rights.
Mayor Suarez: If it was a declaration of restrictive covenant, the whole idea
is that you were going to comply with it and the more you change it, the more
it leads us to believe that you didn't really have the intention of complying
with it anyhow. Commissioner? I move to deny the application. I don't know
what, if it's really denying the appeal or what it is.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: This is a motion to deny the change, it's like an amendment
to the covenant.
Mayor Suarez: OK, the applicant is the property owner, right? -- atthis
point?
ti -
Mr, Olmedillo: That is correct,
107 Juno U, 109
Mayof 5uaraz: So I move to deny the application.
i
Mr. De Yurre: Do we have a second?
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Mr. De Yurre: Any further discussion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Mayor Suarez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 89-588
A MOTION TO DENY REQUEST BY APPLICANT (JEMAJO
CORPORATION) FOR MODIFICATION OF COVENANT REGARDING
PROPERTY AT APPROXIMATELY 2200-2210 SW 16 STREET AND
1600-02 SW 22 AVENUE TO MODIFY PROHIBITION AGAINST USE
OF PROPERTY FOR PACKAGE LIQUOR STORES/LOUNGES/BARS OR
SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, TO ALLOW SALE OF BEER AND
WINE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYESt Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOESt None.
ABSENT: None.
25. , (Continued Discussion): APPEAL WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT (GENERAL BANK)
CONCERNING PRIOR REQUEST TO REVIEW ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL
EXCEPTION - to construct a surface parking lot at 3044 S.W. 7th Street
(See label 23).
Mayor Suarez: Now, PZ-10 is back on and this is, you know I forgot to
clarify, General Bank is not related to... counselor?
Mr. Al Cardenas: Yes, hi, Mr. Mayor. Apparently we did not get acceptance
from the neighborhood to our proposal to mutually consent to a withdrawal with
a waiver of a time period within which to refile.
Mayor Suarez:
I was just going to ask a procedural question before I forget.
General Bank
is not related to General Federal?
Mr. Cardenas:
Yes, it is one and the same.
Mayor Suarez:
Why was I told they are not related? Who are the principals?
Mr. Cardenas:
Pedro Ramon Lopez at al.
Mayor Suarez:
OK, Mr. Vice Mayor, it's all yours. Madam City Clerk would you
reflect me as
abstaining on this, please?
?.
Mr. Cardenas:
Basically, what we'd like to do as I told you earlier, is we
met with neighborhood opposition regarding this proposal. They're here. We
k=
feel it is a
good and solid proposal, but we want to go back to,the drawing.
board and I don't know how long going back to that drawing board is going to
take and the
client has asked me to seek a waiver on the time within which to
refile after
withdrawal. As you know, there is a 12 month time period.
involved and
we'd like a waiver of the time period so we can spend a few
b
months thinking about what's appropriate if anything and then come back if°
need be and I
frankly think it's a reasonable request.
i�
iY N-
140
Mr. Plummerz Let me ask a question, try to cut through some of this. To the
neighbors, is there one who's a spokesman? You know, the lady.
Ms. Jean Familopolos: There's several of us.
Mr. Plummer: Oh my God!
Ms. Familopolos: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you. Under any circumstances, any) - is there
anything that will appease the neighbors, whether it is landscaping, lighting,
you know, because if your answer is emphatically no, there is no way we can be
appeased under any circumstance, then the deferral, or the withdrawal I don't
think is going to accomplish anything, Al.
Mr. Cardenas: I do.
Mr. Plummer: OK, well, you do? OK?
Ms. Familopolos: Put homes. Put a home on it. It was a house there.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, that's not the application. I was just trying to cut
through, if there was some way that I could beat him in the head to get them
to agree to, then let's try to do that, all right? And if there was a reason
for the deferral, then you know, that's a different story, but if there is no
reason and nothing can be accomplished, well then you know, I don't want to
spin my wheel. I have said to you before, basically I am in sympathy with
you, but I have to say for the record that you know, in this Commission it's
always the other way around. We have to beat people to get them to provide
more parking. People don't do that normally. People don't want to provide
the adequate parking in the beginning. Now, that's why I say to you, you know
that there maybe was some area of compromise. These people, as I understand
it, unless I'm wrong, what they are trying to accomplish is parking spaces,
whatever with the setbacks or whatever they are, you're saying you don't want
them, I understand, so take it from there. You know, what I've always seen,
when you don't have adequate parking, and they're no damn fools, they are not
buying the property because they just have a good heart and they want to
provide more, they need it. They are obviously needed.
Ms. Familopolos: No, they don't need it, sir. We had pictures and we had
slides to show you all day long it's empty. The only time that it was full
was Calle Ocho Festival. That's the only time it was full.
Mr. Plummer: Hey, I look. All I tried to do was maybe find an area of
compromise. You're saying there is none.
Ms. Familopolos: Commissioner Plummer, you could go there any time you want
during the day, all the hours or the first of the month, you will never find
more than 30 cars and that belongs to the employees.
Mr. Cardenas: My client's first request to the Commission is to consider a
motion to waive at least part of the 12 month period within which we to
refile.
Mr. De Yurre: How much?
Mr. Cardenas: Well, we obviously would like a total a total waiver but say,
six months, be Solomonic about it. I mean, don't give me a total waiver and
don't let us wait twelve months. Say, six months in which to ref ile the
application. I mean, I think it's a simple, basic request.
Mr. Plummer: Al, the problem here is simple. You know, if these people
hadn't have been brought out on three different occasions, I would vote for
it. OK? But they've been brought out at their inconvenience on three
different occasions, and it wasn't the Commission's fault. We just ran out of
time.
Mr. Cardenas: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Now, to say to these people, hey, another deferral ,meAns a u'
fourth time.
169 > ..4440 ' 22, ' 909
Mr. Cardenas: Well, I'm not asking for a deferral.
Mr. Plummer- Well, you know, withdrawal is the same thing, you're asking
us...
Mr. Cardenas: No, it's not, no, it's not. I mean, this item may never come
back again.
Mr. De Yurre: Well., he has a right to withdraw.
Mr. Cardenas: I mean, I have an absolute right to withdraw. All I'm asking
I mean, I don't need Commission action to withdraw...
Mr. Plummer: I understand that.
Mr. Cardenas: I need Commission action tprovide a reasonable time period
within which to think about it, and that's what I'm requesting. Now, the law
says without a waiver, there's a 12-month time period. There are other
alternatives. A deferral; I'm not asking for a deferral. I'm asking for a
waiver. I'm not asking for a full waiver, I'm asking for a waiver of six
months. This matter may not come back again. It may come back... if it does,
in another form, all I'm asking is for a reasonable time period, to sit back
and think about what may be appropriate use of the land and what to come back
to you with. If it's nothing, it's nothing. But I don't want to be - have a
clients penalized for a 12-month period.
Mr. Plummer: Catch-22. Hey, you know, I'm not going to be the one to put
these people to the inconvenience of coming back again unless I felt there was
an area of compromise. I hoped to God there was because providing more
parking, but they're saying, no, there is no area of compromise. Now, that's
what I think is...
Mr. Cardenas: Well, there's no areas to compromise as to what's before you.
Mr. Plummer: Well, that's another subject.
Mr. Cardenas: I mean, I... you know, I think it's a common courtesy, it
hasn't been the fault of the Commission or the applicant or them. It's not
like we've requested deferrals before to inconvenience them. It's just that s
time has run out the last two times we've been scheduled. We haven't
requested a deferral before.
Mr. Plummer: It's not your fault, I understand that. And you all don't want
to go for that.
Mr. De Yurre: Are you going to withdraw then, flat out? ''•:
Mr. Cardenas; And you all don't want to...
Mr. Plummer: Hey, Al, I've made my record clear...
Mr. Cardenas: OK.
Mr. Plummer:
ever
OK? I understand the concerns of the residents.
b
Mr. Cardenas:
OK.
J�
Mr. Plummer:
I merely asked was there any way at all of a compromise on this
application that's before us? The answer is no.
Mr. Dawkins:
Al, I sympathize with everyone. I sympathize with the
neighbors, I
also sympathize with the bank, and the thing that makes it
difficult up
here is, we encourage businesses to remain within the City of
Miami, and here's an entity that says it needs more parking with which to
remain here.
But yet, we have neighbors who say they do not need the parking
'.
to remain here.
Mrs. Kennedy:
That's right.
}
_t
Mr. Dawkins:
Only time will tell. But now, as they say, they're not going to
compromise.
So now, when the... I hope that they don't tome in here saying
that bod
's arkin on their rasa and on their streets beta se I 't
170 ,Tuns 22, 1989
f
atop that, bob. The, bank has tried to offer something where it would not be
shy parking on their sidewalks and on their streets. But they say this Woh't
happen. go, it's nothing that we can do. They say there is to compromising.
96, even if we were to quote, unquote, defer this, when we come back, we got
the sane determined people who are saying they're not going to compromise.
to, no, to defer it, we'd only come right back to the situation, in by
opinion, where we are,
Mr. De Yurre: ... withdraw it?
Mr. Cardenass OK, well, we'll withdraw the item.
Mr. De Yurre: OK.
Mr. Cardenas: We'll withdraw the appeal.
Mr. De Yurre: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cardenas: OK.
Mr. Dawkinss OK.
Mr. De Yurre: Item eleven.
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute. Don't go away thinking you've won a big
victory because you're going to be back in 12 months. You know that.
Me. Familopolos: We know that,
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Ms. Familopolos: It's a whole history, all the history. We've been fighting
it for two years. Wait, it's all right,
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Plummer, can I ask you a question? If they turn
around and...
Mr. Plummer: Can you speak up a little bit if you're asking me of the...
Unidentified Speaker: Yes, if they turned around and tore down that beautiful
home where they could have sold to a resident, we wouldn't have had that '
problem and they didn't notify any of you people or us but.,.
Mr. Plummer: Ma'am, ma'am, I'm sorry. You cannot speak to the issue when its
withdrawn.
Unidentified Speaker: Oh, OK.
Mr. Plummers OK7
Mr. De Yurre: Thank you.
Unidentified Speakers All right. Well, answer me this. Why,'in 18 months,
would they...
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry?
Unidentified Speaker: Why, in 18 months, .:they can come beak it, itlp, +
withdrawn? y p�
% 5
Mr. Plummer: Twelve months.Y
- -_ - t''r '. �w 1 >"j. � is 'i �v.'7iL �'k s '� ✓SAC "r�2r � � .ts.
Mr. Dawkins: Because that's the law. r th3
Unidentified Speakers Why can't they build up?_`* r x
F3*
yMr.
Dawkins: That's the law.�T
'JiKE33i+jl
Mr. Plummers What do you mean, build up?
sip ;
Unidentified Speakeri, Why catty t they. MOO ;.� P�!� .1 s1pi� Y,
t t don't.
,nx + _
tFh; ,.
+F"1 &
_ r
�f
Mr. Plummer: Oh, they could.
Mr. Dawkins: tecause they don't want to.
THEREUPON, THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN RY APPLICANT.
-------------------------------------------- ----- - --- -- -
2b. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
1989-2000, Future Land Use Plan Map - change land use designation of
three -block area bounded by N.W. 15th and 17th Streets, between N.W.
28th and 30th Avenues, from Duplex Residential to Single Family
Residential (Applicant: Planning Department).
Mr. De Yurre: Item eleven.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-11 and PZ-12 are companion items. You may
remember that at the last Commission meeting there was an item...
Mr. Plummer: They made a mistake.
Mr. Olmedillo: ... to rezone property located within 15th and 17th Street and
between 30th Avenue and 28th Avenue, Northwest. The Commission asked us to
come back with the item with a companion item for the plan amendment to have
the Commission consider bringing this back down from a duplex which is
proposed in the comprehensive plan to a single family land use designation.
So PZ-11 addresses the issue of the comp plan designation, bringing it back
from duplex to single family. And PZ-12 addresses the zoning issue of
classifying this for an RG-1/3, duplex again, from an RS-2/2 which is the
existing zoning district that there is. As you know, we explained to you
before, that due to constraints placed to us by the state, we would, by
September 1st have to have adopted zoning which will be in compliance with the
comprehensive plan approved in February 9th of 1989 by this Commission.
Mayor Suarez: Now, when you say the Planning Department recommends denial,
what do you mean by that? The Planning Department has to recommend something,
the applicant is the Planning Department. How can it recommend denial?
Mr. Olmedillo: Remember, we were under instructions of the Commission to
bring the issue back to you as a plan amendment from duplex to single family.
1 In our planning study, which we submitted to you with the comprehensive plan,
we expressed to you that we saw, from the planning point of view, that this
3
area should be reclassified as duplex area. Now, we're recommending denial of
going back to the single family...
Mayor Suarez: You recommend that we maintain the comprehensive master plan
designation as duplex.
Mr. Olmedillo: For duplex.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. And then the corresponding zoning... A
9
Mayor Suarez: Denial.
Mr. Rodriguez: Denial of the...
Mayor Suarez: I'll deny your salaries. No,
Mr. Rodriguez: You can do that.
Mayor Suarez: You're saying denial of what someone proposed to do, I don't f
really know who.
172
r
{
Mt. olt,edillo: And to present to you - to present you with that option of -
going back to the single family.
Mayor Suarez: OK, your recommendation is we don't follow that possible
suggested option. OK and the affected property owners that triggered all
this, are they even here?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, they're back in here.
Mayor Suarez: No, no, no, I meant the ones that want it - OK, there is see,
OK.
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, they are.
Mayor Suarez: Who does it make sense to hear from first? I guess...
Mr. Olmedillo: Just to put on the record. I would like to put that the
zoning board, on the zoning issue, voted four to three in favor, but that
constitutes a technical denial.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ...can I give this to you?
Mr. Olmedillo: And the PAB last night, at the hearing last night, voted
against the change back to single family.
Mayor Suarez: OK, so both voted against it, that change back, no?
Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, sir. Let me clear that up because you may
not have that correct.
Mr. Dawkins: I sure don't understand it. I don't understand it.
Mr. Olmedillo: No - yes. The Planning Advisory Board, last night, heard the
item to bring it back to single family, and they voted denial of that item.
So they would like for the area to remain duplex. That's the Planning
Advisory Board. The Zoning Board voted denial of the zoning change from
single family to duplex.
Mr. Dawkins: How did they get the single family homes ,in there?
Mr. Olmedillo: They are there today, they were...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, how did they get in there? You see, you're telling me
that...
Mr. Olmedillo: Originally...
Mr. Dawkins: ... you see, you got me confused because you're telling me that
over here we are denying them the right to build some single family homes, but
the Planning and Advisory Board recommends that you take it back to duplexes
but
they - somebody else recommends that you don't hold the duplexes,
that you
go
back to single family. You've got me confused.
Mr.
Olmedillo: Let me go back...
Mr.
Dawkins: OK, please do.
Mr.
Olmedillo: Originally it was a single family districts Bpth...-..i
Mr.
Dawkins: Originally, it's a single family district.
I,
Mr.
Olmedillo: It was a single family. Then in February. 9th of
1889, by
?
decision
of this Commission, we presented to you with a comprehensive
plan for
the
entire City which...
Mr.
plan comprehensive in
Dawkins: Wait a minute, hold it now. The com p p
the Ono
that
changed it from single family to duplex.
r „
Mr.
Olmedillo: That is correct, sir.
f
173 Juno,
2ti,
r{
4 0
Mr. Dawkins: Now, go ahead, I'M with you now.
Mr. Olmedillo: Now, in a previous hearing before the Commission, you
instructed us to go back and revisit and present you with an item that you may
choose to take, to take it back from the duplex designation back to the single
family designation. This is the item that was before the Planning Advisory
Board last night for their recommendation to you, and they voted to retain the
duplex designation.
Mr. Dawkins: So, all the people who purchased homes in it thinking that it
would always remain single family, because of the master plan, it got changed
through the master plan and not by the developer.
Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct.
Mayor Suarez: OK, who does it make sense to hear from, Sergio, first?
Mr. Olmedillo: I would suggest the original applicant, the PZ-12.
Mayor Suarez: I think so because they're on the same side as you so far.
Mr. Jose Alonso: Good evening, my name is...
Mayor Suarez: Do we need to swear them in? Swear in both the property owner
applicant - I guess he's the applicant - and I don't know who's the applicant.
I guess Planning Department is the applicant and all of the opponents of what
he would like to do which is duplex. Raise your hand, please and be sworn in.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.
Mr. Alonso: Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Jose Alonso. I
own property in the area that is being addressed as the three blocks in
question. Our item, which is item PZ-12, our application was to change the
zoning to comply with the master plan land use amendment as applicable to lots
15, 16, 17, and 18 of block four of Maysland's subdivision. The inner City
pocket, as it stands right now, those three blocks were flanked by RG-1/3 on
three sides and RO-3/6 on the north side. The land use presently of all the
neighboring land is congruent with that which is being suggested by the master
plan land use amendment. Additionally, our four lots, particularly which are
on 17th Street, are across the street from a 34-unit apartment building.
Seventeenth Street has substantially greater traffic than any one of the
arterial avenues that cross the inner -City pocket and we definitely feel there
is a very viable request that would give some life to those lots instead of
the single family residential concept. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Ms. Maria Tercilla: My name is Maria Tercilla. I live on 1617 N.W. 29
Avenue. If I am no mistaken, the last hearing was in May twenty-five. I hear
here that was for 90 days, then the Commission act make the decision to make
it in July 27th and today is June twenty-two. I received the letter for this
citation for date about this matter, but I resent that yesterday it was a
hearing for whom I was not notified. Neither one of my neighbors was notified
either. About what the other side told about, they...
Mayor Suarez: I guess - excuse me - I guess on a study of that sort, do we
notify? What are our notification requirements on that kind of a...?
Mr. Olmedillo: In a larger area even, if you give me an opportunity, I'll
explain why it came back in June instead of July.
Mayor Suarez: Well, I was just wondering about the notification requirements.
No particular reason. She should have gotten then a notification?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nobody did.f
Mr. Plummer: See, that's why I suggested before we send all these letters -by
certified mail.
a
Ma. Tercilia: About what the other side said about the apartments in May 23,
when vas the other hearing, one of my neighbors that couldn't appear here
today, Mrs. Babun, told that that isn't - that building don't belongs to out
neighborhood. That belongs to another part of the City, not to our
neighborhood. And, as I told before, we would like our neighborhood to keep
us a one family residence unit. Thank you.
Mr. Ramon Muristani: My name is Ramon Muristani, I live at 1651 N.W. 29th
Court. I bought my house there thinking that they were going to build 12
houses there. And, you know, I never thought they were going to build
duplexes there, OK? -and all of the people that - all of the persons that
bought there are affected by that. Also, about the hearing of yesterday,
nobody was notified. And let me make this Commission aware of that one of the
owners of the Maysland Croup is a member of the Planning Board which I
don't...
Mayor Suarez: What about that issue?
Mr. Olmedillo: The notices?
Mr. Plummer: No.
Mayor Suarez: No, the issue of a member of the applicant or the property
owner being a member, being a...
Mr. Olmedillo: I defer to the Law Department.
Mayor Suarez: ... member of the Planning Board? I presume...
Mr. Dawkins: You don't know whether they belong on there or not?
Mr. Rodriguez: Oh, yeah.
Mr. Dawkins: You don't know whether we have one or not?
Mayor Suarez: I presume that they - that he has abstained on all matters
having to do with this?
Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Lopez clearly identified his conflict. Last night at
the Planning Advisory Board meeting, reclused himself, left the meeting room.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. McManus: And did not participate, did not vote.
Mayor Suarez: OK. As far as his being here, obviously he's entitled to be
present and watch our proceedings.
Mr. Muristani: OK, the majority of the neighbors there are opposed to it. I
got signatures there.
Mayor Suarez: OK, those are introduced into the record. How
many are there,
roughly, just so we can say that?
Mr. Muristani: There are a lot of them, but...
Mayor Suarez: How many, roughly?
Mr. Muristani: Twelve or fourteen, something like that.
l
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. Muristani: Also, I think with due all respect, in this
Commission here;
is supposed to represent the interests of the community and
in this case, of
the neighbors. And, you know, this not to represent, you know, a company that
is trying to make more money, and they don't care who they
step on, and I
-f
don't think that's fair.
Mr. Emilio Franco: Emilio Franco, 2940 N.W. 17th Street.--
Mr. Pedro led
everybody to believe that everything that was going to be
-built there v►as'
houses, first of all. Second thing, him, himself, agreed
that across the
street, there's 34 units which there's not enough parking for thew to begin
«
a
175
Juno 22, 1909
� f'
with, which most of the times are on his side of the street parked. Where is
he going to put all of the extra space for the parking?
i
Mr. Dawkins: Administration, the administration...
r
Mr. Plummer: The answer is, he doesn't get a building permit unless he
demonstrates the required parking.
Mayor Suarez: There's no issue of waiver of any required parking here.
Mr. Plummer: It's no request.
Mr. Dawkins: OK? You satisfied with the answer, sir?
Mr. Franco: Not really.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the answer's simple, sir. He cannot draw a building
permit unless he has met the required amount of parking by our law so if he
doesn't have adequate parking, he can't get a building permit.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but the gentleman say the building is already there and the
parking is inadequate. Isn't that what you're saying, air?
Mr. Franco: Correct.
+
Mr. Plummer: Well, that's not the point. The point is to get a
building
permit. If he complies with the requirement of parking, he gets his
building
permit. Now, you might say, well, they got four cars to a family and
that's a
problem. That's always a problem.
Mr. Franco: Well, from what I've seen from the gentleman, he also agreed
about the trees being removed; they're all dead. So he hasn't really
complied
with anything he has said to.
3
Mr. Plummers That's possible.
f
Mr. Dawkins: From the administration. Did the administration go
out and
}
explain to the residents that what is being done is the law and
that the
-
master plan changes is something that was brought about and it's
going to
happen. Did you explain that to the residents?
Mr. Olmedillo: Not this time, sir, but in the previous public hearings, both
at the Zoning Board and at the City Commission, we did so.
Mr. Dawkins: Why didn't we go out and explain to these residents where we are
and why we're here so that these residents would know that this change came
about because of, and it was explained to them?
Mr. Olmedillo: Commissioner.
Mr. Dawkins: Now, when will the master plan go into effect?
Mr. Olmedillo: Well, the master plan went into effect February 9th when you
gave it the...
Mr. Dawkins: All right, then you see, these residents should have been told
that when this project that you're in started, we had laws that said this,
Since you bought your home, the laws have changed and as of February the 9th,
this area where you are living in that was zoned single family will be zoned
duplex and there's nothing that can be done about it because that's the law.
And then, these individuals would not have come here, you know, under the
:J
pretense, I guess, of thinking that they could get the relief they seek from
the Commissioners whom they voted for in asking us to do something that can'tt
be undone.
Mr. Olmedillos I realize your question, sir, but when we went through the
proceedings of the comprehensive plan, we had extensive public participations
and extensive public hearings. That is to give opportunity for all the groups
's
or the citizens and all the property owners in the City to participate. We
fully complied and in excess complied with the provisions of the state
legislation with the City's requirements of public hearings. We regret that
�{
we did not reach every single owner or every single neighborhood in the Cityl
but the record shows that we did give it a good try.{
176 ,June 22, 1909
Mr: Dawkins: Did you have a group meeting, air, anybody over there?
UNIDM4TIFIED SPEAKER: No.
Mr. Dawkins: You see, this... I mean, you know, we can sit up here and make
all kind of mistakes, but the staff gets paid very well to make some
sacrifices and go out and meet the needs of the citizenry. Now, I just cannot
understand - I will not accept the explanation that we tried to meet and we
satiF-fied a part of the need when we've got citizens who come up here who do
not understand why they're here. I mean, now whatever we have - and this is
no reflection on you, OK? Whatever we have to do to be sure that citizens
understand what's happening, then let's do that. Because it just... I mean,
I'm sure if they had known that this master plan, land use plan, dictated that
where they are as of February the 9th, was zoned for duplexes, then they would
have understood that there's no relief, so the best thing I could do is either
try to sell my house or adjust to it, But now, they come down... yes, ma'am.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well...
Mr. Dawkins: Go ahead, go ahead. Yes, go ahead, Mr....
Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Commissioner, actually item eleven gives you the
opportunity to revert that position. If you want to, you can go back to
single family for that area, so that's exactly what we have this item here for
today, in front of you.
Mr. Dawkins: Say what now?
Mr. Rodriguez: Item eleven on the agenda, PZ-11, is precisely to allow you,
if you want to make the decision as a Commission, to amend the comprehensive
plan and to change the area from duplex to single family. So if you want to
do that, this is exactly what we have now. This is a hearing in which they
are expressing the opposition to the duplex. You are here to make a decision
if you want to change from duplex to single family in the area and we go
through the amendment to the comprehensive plan and we continue. You
instructed us to do that. And that's what you have here tonight.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask a question of the applicant. I guess the
applicant on 12. When did you purchase this property?
Mr. Alonso: We purchased the property June 17th, 1988.
Mr. Plummer: So, whet, you bought this property it was zoned single family?
Mr. Alonso: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Alonso: What is additionally correct,
by way of reading whatever the notice is
Commission or the Planning Department was
so...
Mrs. Kennedy: Right.
if I may, is that we were advised
for public hearings that the City
recommending the change to RG-1/3,
Mr. Plummer: Yes, understand, but it was speculative. It was not a
guarantee.
i
Mr. Alonso; We learned that subsequent to buying the,
you know, buying the
land. It was advertised for everyone.
Mrs. Kennedy: But to revert the plan designations to single family would
create a district totally unrelated to its surroundings.
it
Ms. Tercilla: I want to say that even the constitution
can be a amended. And
I don't know the reason why I received this letter about
this hearing to heard
that in February 9th, in which I don't have any part,
because nobody notify
me, they already made a decision, Why then they say me
- send me this letter
about this hearing? And as I say before, even the
constitution can be
amended.
F �
77'
June 22 1 ; 018,
r
Mayor Suarez: Yes, and the constitution has to be amended by one of two
different nays, all of them requiring more than a majority of the people
consulted. Here, you can amend anything you want if three out of the five of
us agree with you. So that's what you have to do. Don't worry about the
procedural aspects of this. You are here. Make your arguments, give it your
best shot and we have to decide. We're....
Ms. Tercilla: Right.
Mayor Suarez: That's what our job is.
Me. Tercilla: Right.
Mayor Suarez: So, we can amend the constitution that we have here which is
the master plan in this case.
Me. Tercilla: Right. That I understand.
Mr. Alonso: If I may.
Mayor Suarez: Final statement and we got to bite the bullet as we always do.
Mr. Alonso: Some issues have been alleged to and the fact that we're - our
intent, the original plan was just to inject some additional lucrative
measures to our development by seeking a duplex designation for the four lots
in question in our application. The pocket that we're speaking of right now
it has been said in a statement that some 14 people turned in some statements,
or written statements, opposing the change or the master plan land use
amendment, recommendation or adoption, to RG-1/3. RG-1/3 is still an elective
measure. It does not necessarily oblige anyone to construct a duplex. The
duplex, even at that, the duplex, from the standpoint of flood coverage,
coverage in the City of Miami, is only a three percent difference; forty-three
percent for single family and 46 percent for a duplex. It is not endangering
anything. Additionally, some of the gentlemen that have expressed a concern
or greater than that - a rejection on the basis that we were actually
confounding our proposed development in their interpretation. The gentleman
that spoke lastly made us - he had proposed, he had asked us if we could give
him a corner lot and we proposed that the corner lot that we had were
available on 17th Street. The traffic was unbearable for his interpretation
of a single family and, therefore, he elected to move to lot 13. The
gentleman that spoke in reference to the parking requirements and the parking
concern has a part time mechanical service out of his house and he usually
occupies half the block anyway. We should not get involved in this, you know,
insignificant volleying.
Mayor Suarez: Well, any violations or any misuses or incorrect uses of
property have to be reported to the City. They don't - this is not
necessarily the forum to resolve it.
Mr. Alonso: There is and I am certain that the Planning Department has done a
thorough study. There is unauthorized duplexes in the area today.
Mayor Suarez:
Yes, you were pointing them out recently and I have
not been
able to check
it out. I have not been able to travel to that area
but I am
persuaded - myself, I'm persuaded by the Planning Department's study
so I have
no particular
problem with denial of the change.
Mr. Alonso: Thank you.
T
Mayor Suarez:
Commissioners, anything?
Mr. Dawkins:
Yes, J. L. Plummer got a motion.
Mrs. Kennedy:
I'm ready to make a motion too.
Mayor Suarez:
Commissioner Kennedy.
Mrs. Kennedy:
To grant the applicant's request to change the zoning
from RO-
1/i to RG-1.
Mr. Fernandez: This is item twelve,
17$
J" l4
21*1
1989
Plm Xotntdy
Mr. Fernandez:
C
I'ie sorry, I'm bt eleven.
No, no, it's item twelve. Item 11...
Mr. dimedillo: is the comprehensive plan amendment.
Mr. Fernandez: ... doer not do that.
Nara Kennedy: I had to step out of the room; so things have moved hart
quickly.
Mr. Fernandez:
'Yes, that's right, so you're really talking - no, but that's
right, you can either deal with item eleven or twelve now, an you wish,
because they're...
Mrs. Kennedy:
Well, `chat would be the appropriate... -
Mayor Suarez:
Well, let's go with the comprehensive plan first.
Mrs. Kennedy:
OK.
Mr. Fernandez:
So then...
Mr. Olmedillos
And the comprehensive plan, if you want the area to remain
single family,
you will vote positively on PZ-11.
Mrs. Kennedy:
OK, then I move to deny.
Mr. Fernandez:
All right. -
�.
Mr. Dawkins:
Wait a minute now.
Mr. Plummer:
You move to deny eleven. -
r
Mr. Fernandez:
Correct. n
[
Mrs. Kennedy:
No, twelve. _
Mr. Olmedillo:
Eleven, eleven...
Mr. Fernandez:
No, no, eleven, I'm sorry.
Mr. Plummer:
Eleven.
Mayor Suarez:
Eleven, eleven, eleven. a
Mrs. Kennedy:
You just said we're on item twelve.
Mayor Suarez:
Move to maintain the duplex zoning... -.-
Mrs. Kennedy:
Yes.
Mayor Suarez:
... which had been previously incorporated into the
comprehensive
master plan.
Mrs. Kennedy:
On PZ-11.
`y
Mr. Fernandez:
OK.
"
i t t. yf�F Ls 4
Mr. Dawkins:
That's your motion, madam
Mayor Suarez:
'tight.
Mrs. Kennedy:
That is correct.
f _
Mr. Dawkins:
To maintain the single family..
p 70
1
1 s F�WWI
a
Mrs. Kennedy:
. No.
:'ire Rodriguez;
No, a � a� 3r £��•d t� d � s t,e
Asa`
x , {�)
{ - i .}ri?F
f 4y 4r`IV r
#
1in ,
}
v3"
C.
Mjky6k Suereg, The dupleit zoning which had been put into the ct ,rehensi�►g
thester plan.
Mir. Pluimi►or: So you're moving to deny eleven. s
Mrs. kathedy: That's what I...
Mr. Olm6dillos Right...
Mr, Rodriguezi Right...
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mayor Suarez: To deny changing it back to tingle family.
Mrs. Kennedy: To deny _ or grant the applicant's request, which was they
approach, which is the same thing.
Mr. Fernandez: Which is twelve.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mayor Suarez: OK, do we have a second? OK, I'll second.
Mr. De Yurre: We have a first and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Fernandez: Reading ordinance... this is item eleven...
Mayor Suarez: Don't think you have... don't think you have to read an
ordinance, I mean, to deny a change.
j
Mr.
Fernandez: Oh, that's right, that's true.
You're correct.
i'
{
Mr.
De Yurre: Call the roll.
Mr.
Dawkins: Wait a minute, now. What are we voting on because I'm confused.
Me.
Hirai: Eleven was the first reading. This
is a motion to deny.
f
Mayor Suarez: This would be to retain that as
a duplex.
!
C
Mr.
Dawkins: Huh?
f
t
Ms.
Hirai: Eleven was the first reading. This
is a motion to deny that first
reading ordinance.
Mr.
Olmedillot Commissioner...
in
a7.f
Mr.
Dawkins: So that would mean that, if I vote yes. I'm voting that it be
jduplexes.
Mr.
Olmedillo; Correct.
Mr.
Fernandezt Correct.
j
Mr.
Dawkins: If I vote no, I'm voting that it
remain single family.
Mr.
Olmedillot Correct.
a r.1
Mr.
Dawkins: Huh?
.
n{A
R
Ms .
Hirais That's it.
,s`x airy{
Mr.
Dawkinst I pay her, not you, shut up. OK,
all right, OK, now I kAQw.wha Yfrw t
m
doing.
ON 140TION:DULY.MADE BY COMMISSIONER KENNEDY AND SECONDED BY MAT
SUAREZ, THE FOREGOING MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE,
ft„31,.
7 k fi
r+"
2
AYES: Corimis,ioner Rosario Kennedy
Mayor Xatier L. Suarez
1469St Cotanissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Miller Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Suarez: OK, does that mean we don't really need to act on pZ-121
Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, no, no, no. That means that then...
Mr. Olmedillo: You cannot act on PZ-12 then.
Mr. Fernandez: That means that you must then go back and now read eleven if
you intend to pass eleven.
Mayor Suarez: Very good point, very good point, because you got to have a new
ordinance then.
Mr. Fernandez: Right.
Mayor Suarez: Eleven...
Mr. Dawkins: What did we vote on, 12 or 117
Mr. Olmedillo:
Eleven.
Mayor Suarez:
Eleven, but now since it was denied to go to duplex and it's
now at duplex,
we must vote a new ordinance in that would bring it back to
single family.
Mr. Plummer: Correct.
r
Mayor Suarez:
It's PZ-11. It is now in the comprehensive master plan as a
r
duplex.
Mr. Fernandez:
Mr. Mayor...
='
Mr. De Yurre:
Now, we're going to vote on now...
x
1
Mayor Suarez:
Changing it to a single family.
Mr. Fernandez:
Mr. Mayor. Point of clarification. You're now considering
number eleven.
Mayor Suarez:
Right.
Mr. Fernandez:
Number eleven is actually changing the comprehensive
neighborhood plan.
Mr. Plummer: From...
±'.
Mr. Fernandez:
To - from, allowing duplexes, to the way it was before
_
February which
is only single. Now, that does not preclude you from looking
at 12, because
the application...
"-
Mayor Suarez:
You're right.
Mr. Fernandez:
... for twelve is still pending, 'is validly in front of '�►pn
and this...
Mayor Suarez;
Although at that point, it would not be in accordance with the
;
comprehensive master plan so that would be...
Mr. Fernandez:
Well, no, no, no, no. Because the comprehensive master pjen
had...
ti
Mayor Suarez;
Would not be in affect...."
lt�. ier�►hdezt will have to be approved by Tallahassee.
Mayor Suarez., Aha'! So, at least what the intent of what we want to do with
the comprehensive master plan. All right.
Mr. Fernandez: Do you follow?
Mayor Suarezt Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: OK,
Mayor Suarez: But we have to act on PZ-11.
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Mayor Suarezt Denying it doesn't make any sense without acting now to
implement a new ordinance. So, I'll entertain a motion on that, PZa11.
Mr. Plummer: That would be to approve, would return it to the single family.
r I move to approve.
Mrs. Kennedy: To, to....?
Mr. Plummer: To approve it which takes it back to single family.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. De Yurre: I'll second.
Mayor Suarez: To approve the Planning Department's application, if you Mann
to look at it that way. OK, read the ordinance. Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF
ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI �
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED FOR THE THREE -BLOCK AREA BOUNDED BY
' NORTHWEST 15TH AND 17TH STREETS, BETWEEN NORTHWEST
28TH AND 30TH AVENUES, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), BY CHANGING THE
DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM DUPLEX
RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; MAKING
FINDINGS; INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT THIS
ORDINANCE TO THE AFFECTED AGENCIES; AND PROVIDING A _
REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE
;. DATE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner De
Yurre and was passed on its first reading by title by the following voter
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. _
Commissioner Miller Dawkins _
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre �
j a=
4- NOES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read" the ordinance into the public record :ands
4Anoupcod that copies were available to the members, of --the: City -Gom-M- 10eion :mod 4 `
to the public, �Y{ 011
F
:..0 ?�i''ressz'Ir' >{y.,fiR"k x7`
44
:._...------------------------------------------------------------_-�_.___�
27. (A) DISCUSSION CONCERNING ARTICLE IN "MIAMI TODAY" IN CONNECTION WITH
THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
(B) INVITE JOHN BLAISDELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MIAMI SPORTS & EXHIBITION
AUTHORITY - to appear before the City Commission at its next meeting.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have a copy of the Miami Today and I'm sorry to
interrupt the zoning. But let me tell you, if what I'm reading in this
article here is correct, I'd like to invite the DDA to be at the next meeting
of this City Commission. When they are hiring an attorney to challenge this
City Commission, that takes chutzpah.
Mayor Suarez: Not a wise move.
Mr. Plummer: Not at all.
Mayor Suarez: Well...
Mr. Plummer: And especially with their budget coming up and three votes of
this Commission will abolish them.
Mayor Suarez: Before...
Mr. Plummer: Let me just read to you and I'm not saying this is gospel.
Miami's Down...
Mayor Suarez:
Before you do that, may I intercede as chairman of that
agency...
Mr. Plummer:
Surely, sir.
-
Mayor Suarez:
... since I was not present that day and just give us an
opportunity to
meet. I guarantee you that no action will be taken to hire any
attorneys to do
anything until I've had a chance to meet with the DDA board.
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Mayor, I appreciate that, but I would still like that they
f
be invited to
be here at the next meeting even to say that they have been
given words of
wisdom by you.
Mayor Suarez:
OK, now, when you say they, you mean - you don't mean the
"
staff, presumably
the board.
=z
Mr. Plummer:
I'm saying this...
Mayor Suarez:
All twenty now...
Mr. Dawkins:
Whomever made the decision.
Mayor Suarez:
All twenty-nine members.
Mr. Plummer:
Miami's Downtown Development Authority plans to test its power.
God help them.
As an independent government agency by challenging the City
3
Commission's selection
of administration building.
Mayor Suarez:
You had to read that, right?
Mr. Plummer:
When hell freezes overt
Ma's. Kennedy:
And I'm going to miss that vote.
Mr. Dawkins:
Well, they have a right to challenge us. Like we have a right
to abolish the
board.
Mayor Suarez:
That's what I was afraid that somebody might say to them.-
Maybe by that
time, they'll be here, contrite, understanding this is not the
way you deal with the Commission.
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Manager, would you also, in this same newspaper, invite Mr.
Blaisdell to the
City Commission. And I would like to know where the money is
1B3 ,dune 22,1969'
comitig from, why the Sports Authority's executive director is making all kinds
of trips about performing arts center which I don't know, as a City
Commissioner, what's going on.
Mayor Suarez: I presumed, by the way, when I read that, that he had been
asked to do that by the Manager, I...
Mr. Plummer: I don't know who asked him to do it. Now, they're telling me
they're crying poor mouth and ain't got no money, but they all just flew to
Houston and Dallas last weekend. Where the hell did the money come from?
Mr. Dawkins: What's wrong with them taking a junket? That's all right.
Mr. De Yurre: All I know is that I'm going to propose Miller Dawkins to take
over the Bayfront Park project.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I...
Mr. Dawkins= Now that Rosario's gone, that's my project.
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Somebody ought to tell Miami Today to quit printing some of
these things that they're not being particularly helpful.
Mr. Plummer: Keep going, Mr. Mayor, I only read the front page.
Mayor Suarez: It gets interesting.
Mrs. Kennedy: It's better, right?
28. DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE - concerning request for zoning
atlas amendment from RS-2/2 to RG-1/3 at 2900-2922 N.W. 17th Street
(Applicant: Maysland Group, Inc.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dawkins: PZ-12, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-12 now - OK, the posture here is, we have, in place an
ordinance that permits what they want so the argument is not so much if its in
technical conformance with the comprehensive neighborhood master plan. The
argument is, what? -what are the criteria that we would apply here?
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: Now you have acted on first reading.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Olmedillo: And you have taken it back to single family.
Mayor Suarez: Right - no, no, but as to PZ-12 itself?
Mr. Olmedillo: It's...
Mayor Suarez: We intend
to go back to an ordinance that would prohibit what
they want to do at PZ-12,
but right now, it's still allowed.
-
Mr. Olmedillo: You could
vote on PZ-12 until the plan amendment goes through.
`
Once the plan amendment
goes through, in order to vote positively on PZ-12,
you would have to reamend. If the plan amendment goes through then the PZ-12
`x
will drop by itself, it's
moot.
Mayor Suarez: Oh I see
y
because if we made a variation of the - yes, of what
F.
will be the master plan,
even though today it's in conformance, a couple of
months down the road, we'd
have to ask for a modification of the comprehensive
master plan? Anyhow, all
of this may be a moot question if the Commission
feels the same way about
PZ-12 as they felt about PZ-11.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right, if
you take a second vote and turn it into...
- � r
,
1�a�af aratts •Ahdi i, being on the losing Aida of that ought to alt6W tht
1t6 tllillsi:onara Who Prevailed to make their wishes known at this point. 6h €+g=
Mrs. Xoth6dy I'm on the losing aide too.
Mayor Muaettt tonically...
Mr. Plurm br: I move to deny twelve.
Mayor Suarez:
Mr. Dawkins:
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. De Yurres
PZ-12 is moved to deny.
You second it.
Where'd everybody go!
,r
We're here. ;
Mr. Dawkins: We here.
Mr. Plummer: Oh.
Mr. De Yurres Still thinking about $ayfront Park and Miller Dawkins. t'li
second.
Mrs. Kennedy: No, you wouldn't.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. This is a denial, so I guess,we'r6':going
to have to read the ordinance. If it passes...
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Mayor Suarez: Any discussion? < If not, call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 89-589
'A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE FOR ""-
�.-
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 2900-2922 N.,W. tsk
:17 STREET FROM RS-2/2 TO RG-1/3. r. ,
Upon being seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote: �r,r
AYESi Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr, ': Y
Commissioner Miller Dawkins '
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre„F
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez J
NOES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
ABSENT: None.K.
COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL; 3`
�-
R �
Mayor Suarez: I vote yes ,because this' will be how .: in con fOrman witfj,
future comprehensive neighborhood master, plan.
75 sEt$igh-.�'a
4.
� A
•.. ., iiL, •.. ...y, ..�` ,.. .. .. - x... .a .._ ,..... Y .. a.. '1Y^ 2..'.': ..3t.. ..aci'LL.., niil. � .+: :k.,�� ��Sev'>'s.. . ,d=
I*
9
29. (A) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 - eliminate Transitional Uses
in Residential, SPI-9 and SPI-14.2 Districts, with provisos (Applicant:
Planning Department).
(B) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO DO PLANNING STUDIES CONCERNING COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS IN THE CITY THAT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SOME RELIEF FROM THE
ELIMINATION OF TRANSITIONAL ZONING.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: All right, PZ-13, Planning Department.
Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this is second reading
of an ordinance to eliminate transitional uses in residential districts and
retain some transitional protections in commercial- industrial districts. Let
me remind the Commission of the amendment which amended the ordinance and let
me read that to you just to refresh your memories. "No permit for
transitional use herein eliminated shall be granted unless a complete and
fully approved application for same was on file on this ordinance taking
effect." This being second reading, we are now looking ahead 30 days. "Such
a permit is the subject of appeal on the effective date of this ordinance.
The permittee, if the prevailing party upon conclusion of appeal proceedings,
may utilize such permit as approved or as amended during said proceedings." I
think the first reading the subject was thoroughly aired. Be happy to answer
any questions, but that concludes the present....
Mayor Suarez: Let me ask Mr. Sabines a question. (IN SPANISH: REQUESTS MR.
SABINES TO APPROACH THE MICROPHONE) This is on second reading and on first
reading, we didn't hear from the Latin Chamber of Commerce. Can you tell him
that in Spanish?
Mr. Rodriguez: (TRANSLATES QUESTION TO MR. SABINES IN SPANISH.)
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. Luis Sabines: (IN SPANISH: CONCERNING THIS ISSUE)
Mayor Suarez: Right, right... no, no this is my premise for the question. I
don't want the... OK, now, is there anyone - do you, yourself, or anyone of
the people who are here from the Latin Chamber or the group you're with - that
actually owns property that has transitional zoning right now? This is the
question I asked at the first reading.
Mr. Rodriguez: (TRANSLATES INTO SPANISH MAYOR'S STATEMENT.)
Mr. Sabines: (TRANSLATED BY MR. RODRIGUEZ) The only thing that I want to say
to the Mayor and the Commissioners, there will be some words by lawyer later
on, is... Like Commissioner Dawkins said before, this is a City where we want
to bring business. I respect everybody's opinion and what everybody wants to
think. But if everytime somebody wants to open a business to create
jobs... Because...
(Applause and shouting)
Mayor Suarez: Pleasel Pleasel I know, I know the godfather gets carried
away with the rhetoric and I know the troops get carried away when the
godfather gets carried away, but really we must have the ability to get
ourselves to the end of this discussion in a reasonable amount of time. We
have other items to go through so, please, the applause doesn't help. We
don't have an applause meter here, believe me, we don't act according to that.
Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, to finish, he said anytime that a business wants to
be open, if we're going to be putting some obstacles, that I think that's not
right.
Mayor Suarez: That's not what he said.
Mr. Rodriguez: More or less, I'm trying to remember.
Mayor Suarez: He said, "What are they going to do, they're going to put the.:
businesses on the moon," is what he said.
1$4 June 22, 1989
Mt. Sabines: Alcalde, Alcaide....
Mayor Suarez: Very lively image.
Mr. Plummer: I do not waive consecutive translation.
Mr. Sabines: (TRANSLATED BY MR. RODRIGUEZ) Mr. Mayor, your administration
have been characterized for trying to bring new business to Florida and if -
while they're here now cannot do what they want to do, then what are we all
about?
Mayor Suarez: I thought he was finished.
(Applause and shouting)
Mr. Sabines: (TRANSLATED BY MR. RODRIGUEZ) I respect everybody's opinion but
if I believe that we should allow people like this gentleman which is going to
bring 150-200 jobs to the area so in that sense, I'm...
Mayor Suarez: You know, I know where Fernando lives and I'm going to make
sure next time he doesn't leave with you and come together to the Commission.
I think the two of you are dangerous as a team here. Is there anyone - this
is the question I asked last time - that actually owns any one of these -
properties that would be affected by this?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There are a lot of people here, of course.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS Look, right over here. I own one.
Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait. Wait, wait. No, no, no, I mean of the people who
want it. I know the arguments of the people who don't want it. We've...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We want it. Let the people who want...
INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: Are you representing the group in some way?
Al Cardenas, Esq.: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Which group is it? The Latin Chamber?
Mr. Cardenas: The Latin Chamber, Mr. Sabines, Fernando Rodriguez Varadero....
Mr. Plummer: I'll guarantee you that's pro bono.
Mayor Suarez: OK, if you could give me one example of one owner of property
affected.
Mr. Cardenas: I will, but... right, but let me - right - well...
Mayor Suarez: One. Because I'd like to ask that person a couple of questions
about that property.
Mr. Cardenas: OK, let me first, for the record, give you again my name, Al
Cardenas, 1221 Brickell Avenue, I had met with Mr. Sabines and the directors
of the Chamber for basically they have the specific reasons and the global
reason. The global reason is that these are the merchants who own shops on
x
8th Street, Flagler, First Street, the avenues in the center of the City of
Miami, Coral Way and obviously they're concerned. They're concerned because
the City has always had an escape valve for a small business that grew
;_
somewhat and wanted a moderate size space within which to be able to park the
cars other than in the streets and all of these folks are looking at their own
'
t
respective small businesses and they're looking at the potential for growth
_t
and a potential for additional parking and they're saying, well, they're just
i
throwing away the key on those possibilities. And if they do throw away
transitional use, not on a case by case basis, but wholesale, then the only
AI
answer we have if we want to expand is find some place else and we've alread yy
fil,
I
built our clientele based on location and based on familiarity with that
{
location and is not - I represent both groups of people. The ones who think"
that a year or two from now they're going to need relief and there are three
I
187 ,tune, 189
�'..
i�
or four here who are in the immediate process of needing relief. And, not
only Are they against the ordinance but even assuming there was rationale for
adopting the ordinance, the way in which it's worded, its implementation, they
find patently unfair. And I'm referring to three people who are here and in
particular who have pending needs. And, for example, section 3 states, "...No
permit for a transitional use shall be granted unless a complete and fully s
approved application for same was on file upon this ordinance taking effect."
And then the section six becomes effective in 30 days. Now...
Mayor Suarez: But all that has do with is who gets sort of - who goes through
the window of opportunity before the ordinance becomes effective, that's all
that has to do with.
Mr. Cardenas: Mayor, assuming the City thought - right... assuming the City
thought that it was for the common good which we certainly don't feel that way
or our clients don't. It's for a common good to adopt these type of
restraint. At the very least, you got shop owners, property owners, people
who have property with immediate plans that you ought to give them some
reasonable time to implement that process.
Mayor Suarez: OK, give me an example on S.W. 8th Street. I presume that some
of them are on S.W. 8th Street, right?
Mr. Cardenas: Give you an example on 32nd Avenue. Victor, you want to make
mention of your particular situation?
Mayor Suarez: Thirty-second Avenue and what street? What part of the City?
Mr. Cardenas: One block south of Coral Way.
INAUDIBLE COMMENTS IN SPANISH NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Twenty-three forty S.W. 32 Avenue.
Mr. Cardenas: Twenty-three forty S.W. 32nd Avenue.
Mayor Suarez: That's not a very good example for you because that area is
extremely stable residential community.
Mr. Cardenas: Well, he has a beautiful plan...
Mayor Suarez: I was thinking of S.W. 8th Street. You gave the example, which
I understand it when I got Mr. Sabines' letter, I thought maybe we kind of
went at this a little bit too wholesale because there...
Mr. Cardenas: Well, that particular corner...
Mayor Suarez: ... I can imagine somebody on S.W. 8th Street...
Mr. Cardenas: Well, the particular corner that we're referring to, I think -
I know what you're talking about, that neighborhood in general, but this
particular corner that he has in mind, I think anybody who's seen it will know
that what he has in mind is a vast improvement over what's there. I think
most of the neighbors in the immediate vicinity would agree with that. And...
Mayor Suarez: Let me ask a technical question. We
did the other day
that
-
shopping center - not the shopping center, the store on 17th Avenue that
ended
up, we approved the parking facility right behind it...
Milagros is the lady's
name, right?
,.
Mr. Plummer: Twenty-fourth. Twenty-fourth.
Mr. Cardenas: Right.
Mayor Suarez: Did that take advantage - did she
take advantage, at
some
point, of transitional zoning to put the parking back
there?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes.,;,'
i
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, sir,
`-
Mr. Cardenas: Yes.`±
X'"
a �
08
June
ry
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, she did. Right, I can tell you myself, for the last year,
I've been here on at least five or six applications that were obvious that the
expansion was necessary and took advantage of it.
Mayor Suarez: Now, if one of these people that you were able to bring up had
a - as you described before - a shop on S.W. 8th Street, OK? -any kind of a
shop and needed to provide additional parking for reasons we all know about
S.W. 8th Street, it gets very crowded. Does this, the elimination of
transitional zoning somehow impede our ability to take those situations into
account? I mean, let's say you got a shop owner on S.W. 8th Street. North or
south on the north or the south and of the street, it really doesn't matter,
OK? Southwest 8th Street has behind it on the north side or on the south
side, what is behind it on the adjacent? What kind of zoning is that?
Mr. Rodriguez: In most cases we have residential.
Mayor Suarez: Right, the lot abutting the one that's right on the street?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mayor Suarez: Is residential?
Mr. Rodriguez: Most cases were residential.
Mayor Suarez: OK, now, suppose one of these shop owners on S.W. 8th Street
bought the property behind him or her? I mean, I haven't found one yet
because that's one of the problems I have is all of this seems to be very
theoretical. But supposing one of them did, bought that property. Couldn't
they put parking back there if. this...
Mr. Rodriguez: That's transition.
Mayor Suarez: Couldn't they come and apply and say to the City, look, people
cannot park to come to my store or whatever it may be, my restaurant, and
they'd like to be able to park - I'd like to be able to let them park in this
lot that I just purchased behind me. And this would help traffic, this would
help the community, this would help stabilize... some areas of S.W. 8th
Street, the street behind it, let's take 9th Street, is in worse shape than
S.W. 8th Street, much worse shape and it's a very unstable area, specifically
S.W. 9th Street. I wouldn't mind having the ability, as a matter of public
policy, to allow parking in that street behind it if it helped traffic on S.W.
8th Street and if it didn't deteriorate the neighborhood.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, let me...
Mr. Rodriguez: One example that...
Mayor Suarez: Can that be done?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, one example that you have just today
so you make it
clear
was the General Bank.
That was a transitional use of
a case in which
they
wanted to use the lot
in the back which was residential
for parking and
that
was an example...
i
Mayor Suarez: Where was the address of that?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Look, a...
!
Mr. Rodriguez: Thirty and 31st.
it
Mr. Plummer: Well, let....
R
t
,.
Mr. Dawkins: Let me say something! Let me say something!
N,
Mayor Suarez: But I just wanted the answer to if we pass this ordinance,,
can we, do we have the ability to allow parking behind major commercial
ems'
,
thoroughfares and, if so, by what procedure?'
t
f
169 June 22, 198$'
`
3
Mt. Rodriguez: The procedure that you have to try to accomplish that is
through a zoning change...
Mr. Cardenas: Which you can't because of the size requirements.
Mr. Rodriguez: Because of adjacency out to the property, you can Ask for a
zoning change for the lots behind it.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Rodriguez: It will have to have the test of complying with the
comprehensive plan in some cases...
Mr. Plummer: It's not the way to do it. It's not the way to do it.
Mr. Rodriguez: ... but, in that case, if it were to come before you, then
you'll have the issue of covenants and so on to try to protect that property.
Mayor Suarez: Well, but on S.W. 8th Street and J. L.'s saying that's not the
way to do it - there may be a way, on S. W. 8th St. to give that kind of
relief other than....
Mr. Cardenas: I'll give you two examples.
Mr. Dawkins: There is a way to give it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, listen, there is a way to give it. Now. I'm against
trans... I'm against transitional use, OK? I am now, I was yesterday and I
will be tomorrow.
Mr. Cardenas: OK.
Mr. Dawkins: OK? Now. But, as he said, we do need relief. Now, I'll give
you - since everyone up here is looking for an example - no, translate for me
over there. OK? (TRANSLATED INTO SPANISH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY MR.
RODRIGUEZ) Since everyone here is looking for an example of where relief is
needed, take the E1 Dorado Furniture Store on 27th and 8th. Now, if you go in
the furniture store, you do not have any place to park. So, you do need
relief. But rather than transitional use, I would rather see us make S.W. 8th
Street, Biscayne Boulevard, or any other street that needed relief, and take
S.W. 8th Street and make it commercial from to the center line of 7th Street.
And make it commercial southward to the center line of 9th Street. And make
that a commercial corridor all the way down. Therefore, anybody with y
commercial on S.W. 8th Street could have parking either behind their building
on 7th or behind their building on 8th. Transitional uses do not worry me in
the commercial district. What has worried me is for speculators to buy
property in the residential area and then come in and tell me he has to have a
traditional use to enhance the value of his property. But businesses do need
relief. Now, the problem up here is how to do it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me give you a thought because _prior to the 9500 which
has been an absolute disaster in my book and even though the Planning
Department keeps telling me one of these days we might have a change and
that's been for 2 years, I think what we need to do is to go back to the old
use variance.
A use variance or a conditional
use, whichever terminology you
'
i
want, my opposition to transitional use is that
it's automatic,
Mayor Suarez:
By the way, if we're going to
choose terminology, I'dmust°
.`
rather go with the first one you said, which is
_
much more descriptive...
i
,
Mr. Plummer:
A variance?
Mayor Suarez:
. than conditional use, Yes, use variance,
Mr, Dawkins:
That's right...
=`
Mr. Plummer:
OK, all right, the thing that we need...
Pr=r
t
190
0
Mayor Suarez: Conditional use sounds like something you get to use up to a
curtain moment and then - phsst it ends or something.
Mr. Plummer* Well, you know, with a variance, we were able to apply any
regulations if we approved that variance and I think that what I'm trying to
accomplish, there are some areas in this town as the Mayor has said, that
relief is needed and justified. But not carte blanche which you have with
transitional use.
Mayor Suarez: Exactly.
Mr. Plummer: And I'm saying is...
Mayor Suarez: Exactly.
Mr. Plummer: ... is that each individual application would have to stand on
its own, come before this City Commission if they wanted to try for a variance
and then we can put, if we agree, the necessary safeguards of walls, of
landscaping, of lighting, of irrigation, of chainage, no ingress into the
residential area. That, 1 think, is what we need to go back to is a variance
that we can put any stipulations if approved, but more so to me it is not
automatic.
(Applause)
Mr. Cardenas: I think we're all in agreement with that. I think that's a -
you know, from our perspective, that may be the best approach. All I urge you
to do is, as you think of the appropriate approach, is don't adopt this and
leave everyone hanging. I mean, let's come back with a variance concept which
we think is fair because everybody should stand on their own merits and
consider that before you go ahead and pass something like this which leaves
everybody up in the air.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you the mechanics...
Mrs. Kennedy: That, Al, that makes a heck of a difference. I think that's a
very good point. I would go for that.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask...
Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: ... what is necessary to go about establishing a variance
procedure and how long approximately would it take?
Mr. Rodriguez: What you have now in process, is a special exception. Any
time you have a transitional use, you have to go to a process of a hearing. `'-
Mr. Plummer: And that is approved by the Zoning Director,..
Mr. Rodriguez: No. No, no, no...
Mr. Plummer: ... as a Class C per... huh?
Mr. Rodriguez: Special exceptions are approved by the Zoning Board,
appealable to the City Commission.
Mr. Plummer: But they don't necessarily come
before the City Commission .
unless it's appealed.
Mr. Rodriguez: You can make a requirement that
all special exceptions that
?w
relate to transitional uses are also to be brought
before the City Commission.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, but what we have now includes
a bunch of corridors in vory
tVx
stable residential areas of the City that we don't
want to have coming, here;
Z.-
all the time. That would be crazy.
Mr. Rodriguez: He's asking me a way to do it.
Mayor Suarez: No, but I think he's asking about certain
neighborhoods.
Mx." Rodriguez: One way to handle this might be ii...
Mayor Suarez. And certain corridors like S.W. 8th Street, maybe Biscayne
Boulevard. I like his idea of Biscayne Boulevard.
Mr. Rodriguez: One way to handle this if you want to is a special workshop or
meeting of the Commission in which we take the whole City, we shop the
corridors and we make a decision on the basis of what will happen in each one
of them.
Mayor Suarez: Yea, and by the way, I'm voting on second reading to eliminate
transitional zoning. I think that's been a disaster and I think we have to go
through with that. But...
(Applause)
Mr. Dawkins: But we got to give relief.
Mayor Suarez: But, I'm also very interested in pursuing...
Mr. Dawkins: The variance.
Mayor Suarez: Right, or - and I'm not sure if the variance is a good idea,
but the ability to grant the facility of people who already own - I don't want
speculators, I don't want to have to deal with people who might or might not
buy in the back who have purchased that property and own it to be able to put
parking - I don't want to use it for all kinds of other things - for parking
in certain commercial quarters in the City that need parking in the back
and....
Mr. Plummer: Well, excuse me, Mr. Mayor...
Mayor Suarez: ... that are not intruding into stable residential
neighborhoods.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, right now...
Mayor Suarez: A classic case is 8th Street and Biscayne Boulevard north of
the Omni.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think there's any opposition to transitional abutting
trans... I'm sorry, commercial abutting commercial to be used for parking. I
don't think there's any objection to that. In a commercial corridor, there's
no objection that I know of, from anybody. Not from me.
Mayor Suarez: Except that we haven't done that in the case of S.W. 8th Street
you told me before that the abutting properties are residential right behind
it.
Mr. Cardenas: The problem our clients have is that I think that one day
workshop, the going back to the variance, the elimination of automatic on
=_
transition, I think everyone here will accept that. What is a major problem
to our clients is you're taking one step before the other. I think you ought
to do it simultaneously so there's a smooth going from one procedure to the
next. You don't just dump this ordinance on second reading and leave us in
the air.
-
Mayor Suarez: I hear you, but I was also hearing J.L. say something very
interesting. What you are saying is that whatever we do as to the relief
needed certain areas of the City, you would do it by corridors. You wouldn't
_-
do it on a case by case basis. I don't want to sit here and have to here and
have to hear variances on every individual lot owner who has a lot behind it.
-
Maybe we ought to decide on certain corridors.
Mr. Plummer: Your major problem with that Mr. Mayor is that the establishment
of commercial corridors at this present time will really not accomplish much,
&_
because let's use what Commissioner Dawkins spoke of, and that was of SW 8th
Street. The commercialism of the corridor is only half way on each side of
a--<
8th Street. It does not go to the middle line of 7th Street, it does not go`>
to the middle line of 9th Street."
s.
Mayor Suarea: No, but we might want to consider having that be a an allowed
use..
i.
192 Juno
0 0
Mr. Dawkins: With the parking _
Mayor Suarez: Yes, an allowed use in the lot behind certain corridors.
Mr. Plummer: You mean as a conditional use?
Mr. Dawkins: No, as a variance... now see, you are getting back to a
traditional use.
Mr. Plummer: You are saying as a variance. I have no problems with a
variance. I have none whatsoever, because in those particular cases...
Mayor Suarez: And of course we will have to have workshops and we will have
to consider what areas of the City were talking about. We can't just sort of
do because we all of a sudden came with the idea of two areas of the City.
Mr. Cardenas: The point is that for almost thirty years...
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Manager, isn't that... excuse me Al, for one second. Mr.
Manager, isn't that what we have at Centro Vasco?
Mr. Rodriguez: I don't recall exactly what is on the other side of Centro
Vasco, but I believe that we have over there a transitional use that we have
allowed and you have in the other parts of the City. What I was going to
explain to Commissioner...
Mayor Suarez: Well, because it was a transitional use was in effect at the
time, but I mean, now it might be that factually she's correct, that exactly
what we are thinking about.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. What I am saying is, I think in what Commissioner
Plummer is saying, that you are calling it a variance. In reality what you
are doing is a special exception, which is what you have now and that will
have to come before you.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I have no problem with that.
Mayor Suarez: And what you did is...
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute...
Mayor Suarez: ... where we concerned about certain areas of the City where
commercial uses were encroaching into stable residential areas, you brought
back an ordinance that wiped out transitional zoning for the entire City and
that's not what we had asked you for, but that's what you brought us back.
Mr. Rodriguez: I'm afraid to tell you that that is what you asked for.
Mayor Suarez: Well, I don't think that's what we asked you for, but at this
point...
Mr. Dawkins: As he said, that is not what we wanted.
Mr. Plummer: That is what we asked for.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, at this point, for myself, I am not willing to undo all of
that damage that you created. I would like to see this done by looking at
specific corridors now as exceptions to what would be the general rule if we
pass this on second reading and I think that will work out for all the
neighborhoods that make sense. z
3
Mr. Bob Fitzsimmons: Excuse me, Bob Fitzsimmons. If that's a special
exception that a very mild standard. A variance is a higher standard. So if q
you have someone that does come in and speculate and buys with the knowledge
that's a residence and tie has to prove hardship to come in there whereas in a s
special exception he doesn't. You are raising the standard.
Mayor Suarez: I don't like either one Bob, because either one is a case by
case and it really should not be case by case. A lot of people here don't
have the money to be hiring attorneys to come here, In an area where it makes
sense to have them, we should have them as an allowable use in a lot behind a
commercial area where we have tons of traffic and...
193 June 22, 1909
0 0
Mt, Cardenas: Mayor, our only request is that we know what you have in mind
doing. We agree with you. We know we need that safety valve you are willing
to provide...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, let me tell you...
Mr. Cardenas: ... but we don't want this adopted today.
Mr. Dawkins: Let me tell you... why?
Mr. Cardenas: Because it leaves us stranded, until you come up...
Mr. Dawkins: Why, how?
Mr. Cardenas: How? Because until you come up with a methodology for providing
that relief when necessary, there is nothing we can do. You leave us up in
the air.
Mr. Dawkins: But you see...
Mr. Plummer: No, no, that's not true. They can apply for a special...
Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute, wait a minute, J.L. I don't leave you there.
You and the rest of the speculators left me there when you came in and got
these special exceptions and took advantage of the homeowners. (APPLAUSE) You
know, don't put the monkey on our back. No, no, don't let people think that
we did that. You guys did that, but we realize that these individuals need
relief, see, but we don't want no relief in a residential area, so now what I
would like for this Commission to do, if I can ever get my Commissioner's
attention, OK? Well, what I'd like for us to do is, whatever we have to do to
pass the variance, and have the workshops, that we take a six... bring this
back in six months with a variance and then we pass it, but let's give us six
months moratorium that anybody who got... now hold it now, anybody who got
land as of today... all right, anybody who owns land as of today, then, we are
willing to work with you, but if you go out and buy some land and come back
thinking that I am going to work with you, you don't have my vote.
Mayor Suarez: That's an interesting idea. We previously on first reading
considered who would be exempted from the application of the elimination of
transitional uses. We concluded that only those people who had pending
applications as of the date of...
Mr. Rodriguez: The instructions that you gave us at the time was that any
application that was completed and accepted by the effective date of the
ordinance, which was 30 days from today...
Mayor Suarez: Today, presumably, and now Commissioner Dawkins is saying that
maybe it should have been extended to anyone who owned property as of today
and 1 don't know who has to file an application within six months, is that
what he is saying?
Mr. Rodriguez: I think that what he is saying is that anyone that owns
property from today and they have any... that might have an application
-
finished or processed within the six month period...
—
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. That doesn't accomplish anything.
—
Mr. De Yurre: No, he said he'd filed.
Mayor Suarez: The problem with that is of course, when you say someone who'Al
owns property today, they are going to figure out all kinds of ways of
convincing us that they were the owners of the property today.
Mr. Cardenas: We would have the Chambers.._
Mayor Suarez: But the time extension is one idea. I'm not sure I'm going to
vote for it, but...
}
Mr. Cardenas: Yes. The Chamber's concept is to emend two sections, three and'4.
six of the proposed ordinance, CAMACOL. Section 6..,-
s
{
194 Jun® 22,989
' u
tir. Dawkins: OK, that's one of my friends. OK, I thought you meant the other
Chamber.
Mr. Cardenas: No, sir. Thank you, that's right, CAMACOL. Section 6, where
it says, this ordinance shall become shall become effective 30 days after
adoption, we'd like for it to say, the time period that you are suggesting, in
that range and section 3, where it says, no permit for a transitional use
herein eliminated shall be granted unless complete and fully approved, is just
delete the words, "and fully approved," so it says unless a complete
application was on file upon this ordinance taking effect, so that if you
change the ordinance to become effective from 30 to 90 days and if you delete
the words, "and fully approved," then that means everybody's got to have a
complete application on file within that 90 day time period and that gives you
time to interaction with your ordinance and put things in proper perspective.
Mayor Suarez: And that gives 90 days for a bunch of people to speculate and
go buy properties and file applications, Al, that's the problem.
Mr. Cardenas: No, Mayor, it's almost impossible, because look, people are
going to speculate. You are going to have a complete application on file and
you've got to...
Mayor Suarez: Is that a legal term of use? Can we say a complete application
on file? Does that make sense?
Mr. Maxwell: It makes sense, but it doesn't solve the problem.
Mr. Plummer: That's right.
Mr. Maxwell: And it doesn't solve the problem because of the definition of a
complete application in our zoning ordinance. Among other things, it requires
that it be zoned by, I mean, that it be approved by the zoning administrator.
When the zoning administrator approves an application, it is completed, it's
approved at that point. That means that it's gone through the whole process.
That's it, they're in.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Mr. Mayor, respectfully, we just litigated this point with
the City. It's reviewed and signed by the zoning administrator, not
necessarily approved. You can go through the application process after that,
I think in subsequent applications. This might be something that could be a
resolution.
Mayor Suarez: Assuming now staff, Mr. City Planner, or Director or Assistant
City Manager, Acting, whatever, sir, or City Attorney. Assuming you wanted to
give a little bit more of a window of relief here for people to have a chance
to complete applications or whatever. What would make sense by way of relief?
To Commissioner Dawkins talked about six months. I think that's way too much,
but...
Mr. Maxwell: Extend the effective date of this ordinance. Make this
ordinance effective six months in the future.
Mayor Suarez: That's the simplest way to do it.
Mr. Maxwell: Provide for an effective date six months from now, 90 days from
now. That will allow applications in the pipe line to be completed.
Mayor Suarez: Are there a lot of applications in the pipe line?
Mr. Maxwell: I have no idea how many are there, but...
Mayor Suarez: Two? I have no problem extending the effective date of this
ordinance...
Mr. Maxwell: What happens is, the staff...
Mayor Suarez: ... and extra 30 days, 60 days, but I sure as heck wouldntt go
for six months. Now, we do need to look at special borders in the City -that
should have the ability to have parking behind those commercial corridors, I
mean, that's logical to me, and SW 8th Street is prime illustration.
Mr. Plummer: But it is automatic or as a hearing?
195 June 22, 1909
L]
9
Mayor Suarez. well, we're going to have to decide that.
Mr. Cardenas: Mayor, in August you are not meeting, so in essence, to be
practical about it, assuming you adopt this ordinance, folks are going to have
to be heard in September in order to be able to come under the gun, so for
this ordinance, the easiest way to do it, is to amend Section 6, but you've
got to have a time period for people at the very least be able to be heard in
September, so...
Mr. Plummer: Well, that's not practical either, Al, because really, we are to
damn taken up in September, let's tell the truth.
Mayor Suarez: I thought that wasn't right, I thought that wasn't what he
said, I thought if we left the rest of the wording of the ordinance, as long
as the zoning administrator had signed it, then it was already a completed
application.
Mr. Plummer: IN the pipe line.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Plummer: But how long are you extended it is the point I am trying to
make. September we have three budget hearings and two regular meetings.
Mayor Suarez: But that will constitute an appeal, which under the prior
wording, that appeal didn't have to be completed as long as it was approved up
to that point, so it didn't matter if the effective date is August or
September, anything up to that point that's been approved, even though it
hasn't reached us, still get's grandfathered in.
Mr. Rodriguez: What do you mean approved, you mean approved, or accepted
application, is that what you mean?
Mr. Maxwell: No, he is talking about two things. One of these provisions
deals with applications that have been approved but are subject of an appeal,
or, and the other provision deals with applications that have not been
approved yet, but were pending on the date that ordinance became effective.
Mr. Plummer: OK, what I am understanding, let me see if I understand it
correctly. Approval means when the zoning administrator signs the approval.
Mr. Cardenas: No.
{
Mr. Plummer: I know you want to be the Commissioner, but you got to wait
until next Tuesday._
Mayor Suarez: Guillermo is shaking is head too back there.
Mr. Plummer: OK, my understanding is when the application goes before the
zoning administrator and he approves is, there is still an appeal process, but
it is in effect, approved.
Mr. Rodriguez: What are you saying when you mean the zoning administrator's
signing it? I don't understand what you are saying by that.
Mr. Plummer: You are telling me that all of these have to be approved by the
zoning administrator?
Mr. Maxwell: All applications have to be approved.
Mr. Rodriguez: The application itself for a special exception or for
whatever. -
Mr. Plummer: OK, the application, you have to approve it. Now, once that,
whether you put a seal, or whatever the hell you put on it, that's approved.
There is still an appeal process. I think what the Mayor is trying to speak
to, is that once you put that seal on it, approved, it is in the pipe line and
the appeal time does not matter.
S
Mr. Fitzsimmons: But I think we had to distinguish what is approved and what'
is complete.
196 Jwho 22 14� .
L]
0
Mayor Suarez: We know that, we need some help from our City...
Mr. Plummer: No, I am not speaking to complete. Now, don't confuse ins.
Mr. Pitzsimmons: All right, well approve is a lot longer...
Mr. Plummer: Approved is when the administrator says that the application is
in order and approved.
Mr. Maxwell: As a complete application.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Commissioner Plummer, may I...
Mayor Suarez: Whatever you define it as. We want to be able to...
Mr. Rodriguez: We want to understand what you want.
Mayor Suarez: Give us a suggestion out of this jam, Mr. Rodriguez, air.
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, what I am trying to say, I think, that what you are
saying is an application that has been found complete and approved as complete
to be processed by a certain period of time.
Mr. Plummer: Is that with or without the appeal process?
Mr. Olmedillo: There is no appeal process at that point.
Mr. Rodriguez: You don't have an appeal, you have to go through a regular
process. You might have to go through the Zoning Board.
f
Mayor Suarez: All right, when the application, when the documents are
completed and...
Mr. Rodriguez: I think what you are trying to sunset is how many applications
are going to be presented prior to a period of time, so that you don't have
one zillion applications in the area after which you will not accept any more
applications. So, if you establish a clear date by which you will have
applications completed, found completed and approved, and that time could be
30 days, 60 days, 90 days, six months...
Mayor Suarez: Right, and if the effective date of the ordinance then was 60
days from today, from that point forward we couldn't even accept any
applications, right?
Mr. Maxwell: Not under the wording as it is now. You'd have to change the
wording.
Mayor Suarez: Right. If an application was already filed, that one continued
to its logical end or no?
Mr. Rodriguez: Not with the language you have now.
Mayor Suarez: No? Well, now far would it have to be along before so that it
would continue?
Mr. Rodriguez:
Mayor Suarez:
Mr. Rodriguez:
Mayor Suarez:
Mr. Rodriguez:
Mr. Maxwells
Mayor Suarez:
Mr. Rodriguez:
Mayor Suarez: I thought that we had always said that even beyond the
effective date of the ordinance, anything that had been approved what was...
Mr. Maxwell: Anything that was the subject of a complete application that was
the subject of an appeal on the date this ordinance becomes effective. It
would have to be the subject of an appeal on that date.
Mayor Suarez: So, if we change the effective date of the ordinance to 60 days
from now, anything that is pending appeal, also gets to go through its
completed procedure.
Mr. Maxwell: That's correct.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Mr. Cardenas: In summary, we're...
Mr. Eladio Armesto: Mr. Mayor, please. The homeowners, property owners were
affected by this.
Mayor Suarez: Put your name on the record.
Mr. Armesto: My name is Eladio Armesto. I am here with a group of property
owners who are affected by this measure and they would like to speak.
Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, is he speaking and representing a
group of owners or what?
Mayor Suarez: No, I guess not. I guess he is just trying to tell us that are
some property owners here.
Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, we've been chatting and basically are in accord
lawyer -wise as to what will be an adequate compromise for those concerned here
and those interested in the approval of this ordinance today and basically, as
I...
Mayor Suarez: You mean you have been chatting with Bob?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, and basically what we are talking about, is deleting three
words from Section 3, the second line, the words, "and fully approved," so it
says, "unless a complete application." We both think we understand what a
complete application is and are satisfied with that.
Mayor Suarez: But the effective date would remain when?
Mr. Cardenas: And the effective date would be 60 days.
Mayor Suarez: Sixty days, OK. But, as to all of that, I think we have no
problem, at least for myself. We will hear from people who don't like this,
but we at least have to get clear what it is that we are going to do, sir.
Now, we still have remaining what we are going to do about certain quarters in
the City, presumably, we are all in agreement that we ought to have workshops,
Mr. City Planning Director, sir, and what would be the most effective way of
carrying that out? A planning study, good old planning study, is that the
idea, where we look at certain corridors that are highly commercialized, that
have lot of traffic that might need parking behind them, that the communities
around them are now particularly stable, would not be affected negatively by
allowing parking? Can you come back and report to us and tell us whether we
ought to have a variance, as J.L. was suggesting or a commercial corridor, as
was suggested by Commissioner Dawkins, or an in between, or whatever.
Mr. Rodriguez: We will conduct a meeting, first going through the Planning
Advisory Board, there will be a hearing over there and then we will come back
to you and if you give us any date in which you want this to happen, we can do
it by that date.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, could be, you know, by September.
Mr. Rodriguez: September, I think, is going to be a difficult time for you to
have it.
198
Mayor Suarez: Or by September, meaning maybe, in October we'll actually get
to consider it.
Unidentified Speaker No. 2: Your honor.
Mayor Suarez: Does that reflect the consensus up here? What I've said?
Unidentified Speaker No. 2 Excuse me.
Mr. Dawkins: My concern is that although I am in favor of no transitional
use, I want to be as fair as I possibly can be to individuals who did not know
we were going to do this and might have in some way, you know, get caught,
So, I don't think 60 days is enough, but that's just my personal...
Mayor Suarez: Just to have the application in.
Mr. Dawkins: Huh?
Mayor Suarez: A completed application, not to go through the whole process.
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Plummer: And another thing that you are overlooking, OK, is the fact that
this Commission, I think in concurrence of all of us, is in favor of some kind
of relief, but it's got to be on an individual basis and not automatic. Now,
that's my feeling. Now, you know, as far as I'm concerned, you can kill the
transitional uses today with the wording that's here, because we are going to
work towards some measure of relief and the worst that can happen is that 60
days, or 30 days, or 90 days, before we put this new vehicle in, which we all
are in concurrence that on an individual application, if the merits are there,
that there is a potential relief. That's my feeling, now, you can do what you
want.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, so in 60 days the application must be in.
Mayor Suarez: I agree, except that maybe as opposed to individual cases,
certain areas of the City, so that we don't go case by case, we'll go crazy.
What could you possibly have to object at this point?
Mr. Herbert Simon: I don't know. I'm Herbert Simon. I've an office at 2721
SW 27th Avenue. We also have other properties on 27th Avenue. 27th Avenue
has been widened in the past so that the lots are very shallow. Many
businesses there...
Mayor Suarez: Herb, I think you are making an argument that would be properly
made as we have, the planning studies, as we have the workshops and as we come
back. I mean, I know that you would like to keep transitional zoning exactly
intact and...
Mr. Simon: No, what... yes, I would like to keep it.
Mayor Suarez: ... and you would like us not to pass it on second reading, but
I don't think we are headed in that direction, Herb.
Mr. Simon: I hope so. But, what I wanted to point out, that there must be,
as I think Mr. Plummer said a while ago, some relief for people who, they are
not all specula%, -ors, for people who can't see what's going to happen. _
Example, the State is, or Federal government, I've forgotten which, is going
to ban parking completely on 27th Avenue in the very near future and when they
do, there will be absolutely no parking from any of the businesses that were
built out to the side lot lines and have no way to get to the rear, or don't
have a rear lot. The only way...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, Herb, that may be a corridor, as Commissioner Dawkins is
saying, that may be a corridor that the department recommends back to us, that
I... let me tell you, you'd have to convince me on 27th Avenue, depending on ;
what areas of 27th Avenue you are talking about. I don't see those as being
the kind that we should make any allowances for, but maybe they will be,
don't know. You'll have to address that at the appropriate time, rY
s Ms. Grace Caxrido: Gentlemen, I think we have a solution. 44 `
T 199 JuA,'909d
x
t
_
Mr. Simon- I was hoping again that this is not just another quick reaction
and I'd asked for the same thing I asked before, that you...
Mayor Suarez: How can it be a quick reaction, if we spent two years on this
since he first brought it up?
Mr. Simon: Well, let me have a little bit of fun, Mr. Mayor... the same thing
as before and I now I don't think that we should pass anything tonight. I
don't say not to do something, that we need , that the neighbors need relief,
the business people need relief, but...
Mr. Plummer: You said that before. That's the same thing you said 30 days...
Mayor Suarez: We'll just go away.
Mr. Simon: What did I do, J.L.? What's your plan?
Mr. Plummer: Hey, as far as I'm concerned, the 60 days, and I would prefer
the 30, I'll go with the 60, everybody has their application in by that time,
is fine, if they don't, then they'll have to wait until this Commission
establishes a vehicle of potential, potential relief. It is not in any way
going to be granted in every case.
Mayor Suarez: And for certain areas of the City, please, don't get the
expectation, I hope, and I hope I'm reflecting the Commission consensus, that
you'll be able to do this on Coral Way in some other areas. I just don't see
that happening.
Me. Carrido: Mayor Suarez, my name is Grace Carrido, I'm at 3620 SW 20th
Street, and I'm the coordinator for the Miami Homeowners' Coalition. We are
against trans...
Mayor Suarez: The coordinator?
Ms. Carrido: Yes?
Mayor Suarez: What does that mean?
He. Carrido: That means that I get everybody together.
Mayor Suarez: You don't get paid?
Me. Carrido: No. We are against transitional zoning because it destroys
single family homes. Now, we are willing to come up with the compromise that
kill transitional zoning as of tonight and then have certain hearings for the
different areas that need the relief and let the people in that area decide
whether they want to go commercial or not and I do stress commercial, because
unfortunately when you have residential property and it's zoned residential,
it is worth less because it is abutting commercial and then the people who own
that property get ripped off unless they happen...
Mayor Suarez: The relative worth is not necessarily the only argument.
Ms. Carrido: Sir...
Mayor Suarez: I think the fact that we have to listen to the areas affected
is the correct approach, of course.
Me. Carrido: Right. But kill it tonight, kill transitional, use now. We've
lived with it for two years.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, I don't think anybody here means to not pass this on second
reading today, it is just a matter of the effective date and giving an
1 opportunity for people to complete applications that may not have gotten a
,. chance to do so. Sir, last statement.
Mr. bill Quesenberry: My name is Bill Quesenberry, I have a business at 735
NW 22nd Avenue. I'll give you the example you were looking for earlier.
We've been there since 1955. It was a small building with a parking lot. We
anticipated growth. We bought the lot next door and several years later built
on the parking lot.
g; -
200 June 22, i4�9
Mayor Suarez: Do you own the property?
Mr. Quesenberry: Yes, we own the property.
Mr. Plummer: Where is it located?
Mr. Quesenberry: 73... do you know where the old Shell City Liquor Store is?
Mr. Plummer: The Shell Liquor Store? Which one?
Mr. Quesenberry: 735... NW 7th Street and 22nd Avenue. it is now a Miami
Liquor Store, we're behind it. We are north of it on 22nd Avenue.
Mr. Plummer: Are you the liquor store?
Mr. Quesenberry: No, we are behind, we're their neighbors.
Mr. Plummer: On the south side, or the north side?
Mr. Quesenberry: We are on the north side, same side as the liquor store. We
are adjacent to them. We bought the lot next door. Several years later we
expanded our building on our former parking lot and parked on the new land.
Some years after that we further expanded to the original parking lot, a
second edition. We bought a lot behind us, the lot behind us is presently a
duplex. It is adjacent to a medical center. As I understand it, we already
have some of the restrictions that were mentioned earlier. We cannot have _
ingress -egress from 21st Terrace. My concern that I'm mostly hearing now,
because much of what's been said sounds all right, I don't have to plans to
expand so soon that I need to get an application in in 60 days. I may not
need to expand for a couple years.
Mayor Suarez: Well, we are putting in a procedure that might indicate that
that is a corridor that ought to have a whole different kind of treatment from
what brought the change in the ordinance in the first place, and you ought to
make your views known then.
Mr. Quesenberry: And if we are not in the corridor, we don't have to move.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Or if you are not in the corridor, you can apply for a variance.
Mayor Suarez: Well, it depends on bow we...
Mr. Quesenberry: Well now, that's what I wanted to hear somebody say. I
wasn't clear if you are suggesting that if you are not in the corridor, you
can't even ask for a variance.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I will be of a mind that says, if you are not in the
corridor, you won't be able to apply, but we'll have to see how the Commission
goes on it. He was thinking, I think J.L. is thinking more along the lines of
allowing on an individual basis, just about everything that was allowed before
under the old ordinance. I would like to limit that to certain areas of the
City and certain corridors. Anyhow, we're not at that point yet.
Mr. Armesto: Mr. Mayor.
?,
Mr, Plummer: Mr. Mayor, what you are saying, in a corridor,
let's understand -
each other. If what you are saying is, that what is
presently zoned
commercial is established as a corridor, or an overlay district
for the
potential of a variance to be granted, I have no problem with that, but the
way Commissioner Dawkins proposed it was to go to the middle of 7th Street
if
and the middle of 9th Street.
Mayor Suarez: And just rezone the whole thing commercial. No,
I...
1
t
Mr. Plummer: That I can't agree with.
-
y
'
Mayor Suarez: No, no. I also want to limit the use to just
-
parking, not to
just allow different zoning. OK, Mr. Vice Mayor, ready for a
motion? 1 know
we are all struggling with whether we make it 30 days, or 60
days, as
getting under the gun here, or getting grandfathered in and
I'm listening to
anything.
i
fi_
201
June 22, 1989
"s
�4
i
i
i
'
f
f
f
Mr. ire Turret I'll move it, provided it's a 90 day period that we are talking
about.
Mayor Suarez: Moved to approve the ordinance on second reading with a 90 day
effective date.
Mr. Maxwells Mayor Suarez, are you addressing the issue of whether or not we
have as completely approved application, or are you saying just a completed
application.
Mr. De Yurre: No, no, you make an application. You apply, now it may come
back that you need another piece of paper, and you know...
Mr. Maxwell: No, sir, this is an application for a special exception.
Mr. De Yurre: OK.
Mr. Maxwell- Special exceptions are approved at another level. Special
exceptions are approved by the Zoning Board. They can put their application
in, but the approval doesn't take place until it reaches the Zoning Board.
Mr. De Yurre: Well, I'm talking about applications.
Mr. Maxwell: So you need.., so we have language in here now that says, "and
approved."
Mr. De Yurre: Well, no, forget the "and approved."
Mr. Maxwell: You want to strike that. You want to strike that language.
Mr. De Yurre: Just 90 days to get in under the gun with the application.
Mr. Maxwells A complete application.
Mr. Plummer- All right now, let me ask this question.
Mr. Armesto: Mr. Mayor...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. If they have that application in, how long is it
before it must be acted on? Is it indefinite?
Mr. Rodriguez- No, you have... after they have the application, they have 45
days for the board to hear it and then if that is appealed, it will be placed
in the next possible Commission meeting, which is usually 30 days after that,
if it is appealed. So, you are talking about...
Mayor Suarez: What he means is, you can't just sit on a completed
application.
Mr. Rodriguez: No, of course not, but he was asking there was not much time.
No.
Mr. Plummer:
Yeah, forever, infinitum.
Mayor Suarez:
OK, so we have a motion. I'm going to vote
against, I think it
is excessive,
but I understand what you are getting at.
I think we are just
going to have
to vote and see what the policy is.
Mr. Armesto:
Well, what is the relief after 90 days? What
is the relief after.
90 days?
Mr. Plummer:
That's what we'll determine.
7
Mayor Suarez:
We are going to have hearings, we're going
to have the Planning
Department's..._
Mr, Armesto;
You have to tie this, Mr. Vice Mayor, motion
two, two motions.
Mayor Suarezc
Please, please, you are out of order, right now, We have A
motion. Do
we have a second on 90 days for the effective date, completed
s
application?
z 3;
as
Jul
202
.Tung 22, 190 .
�
j'
1
—
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
i
Mayor Suaredt: Seconded. Any further discussion. If not, clarification, Mr.
Planning Director?
Mr. Rodriguez: Just to clarify. So, we are understanding that you are saying
unless a complete application, and you strike out, "and fully approvedat
i
this point and you are moving the date from 30 days to 90 days.
Mayor Suarez: From today. So, it will be exactly 90 days from today for the
z
3
effective date.
Mr. De Yurre: OK, now what's the difference between a complete application
g
and one that's not complete?
Mr. Rodriguez: If it is not a complete application.....
t
Mr. De Yurre: In what sense, what could make it not complete?
Mr. Rodriguez: You have a loan requirements, like you have to show ownership,
you have to have certain documentation in place, you have to have survey in
_
place, for example. You have a list of property owners, all the list of
—
requirements that you have in an application that has to go before the board.
You have to have plans in place and so on. If by any reason you don't have a
complete application as defined by the ordinance, then at that point the
person after 90 days cannot apply for a transitional use, according to what
you have.
Mr. Plummer: Question. Are all of those applications appealable?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sure.
Mr. Plummer: To the City Commission?
Mr. Maxwell: To the City Commission.'
Mr. Plummer: Then I got no problem with 90 days.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion?
If not, call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING
x<
I
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY
ELIMINATING TRANSITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL, SPI-9"
AND SPI-14.2 DISTRICTS AND AMENDING SECTIONS 1591,
1595, 1596, 15145.1, 2018.2.1, AND 2018.2.2., AS
REQUIRED, TO EFFECTUATE SAID CHANGES; FURTHER,
AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGES 1
—
AND 2, BY DELETING COLUMNS ENTITLED "TRANSITIONAL
USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS" FOR RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR PENDING APPLICATIONS;
_
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 25, 1989, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of
Commissioner De Yurre, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was
—t
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adoptsd
by the following vote:
—�
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
— !
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOBS: None. k,
/$ENT: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy 7 -
L
i
r
R fih` MADE DURING ROLL CALL:
Mt. Plug ot. Once more I want to put on the record that any appiihatt6b thit
�4tiali.fiea under this within the 90 day period, is appealable to the City
C0ftt1s910b for final adjudication.
Mt. Maxwellt Yes air, your Code provides for that already.
Mr. Pluftmers Thank you airy I vote yes.
Mayor Suarez: At least we are on our way to a little more cogency Eft all thi61
I vote yes.
ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10599.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. City... do we need to give you specific instructions all
beginning the planning studies? OR, I'll entertain a motion on doing
planning
studies...
Mr. Plummer: So moved.
1
Mayor Suarez:... and bringing back .to us after the appropriate hearings...
Mr. Dawkins: Second. T=
Mayor Suarez:... the issue of corridors in the City that would be.entitled to
some sort relief from the elimination of transitional zoning. We have a
motion and a second, any further discussion? Call the roll.
TAPE 20
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 89-590 _
A MOTION INSTRUCTING CITY MANAGER TO HAVE THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT STUDY IN CONNECTION WITH COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS
IN THE CITY OF MIAMI THAT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SOME TYPE
OF RELIEF FROM THE ELIMINATION OF TRANSITIONAL ZONING;
FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING
RECOMMENDATION BY OCTOBER 1989 FOR COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION AND REVIEW FOLLOWING THE APPROPRIATE HEARING A`
PROCESS BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote;
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
',Yi"v'i" i''•z 3-.*".
�k' 5 ty
Nv
$;..4 g t i-•' ^'"`''` +{fit
£ ,�s• ter, • d� '.*b'2' .'`�''a h -..2ds $� f+ y. �E ♦ �'*'sr
Y
30. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
1989-2000 - Amend definition of Land Use Element, refine definition of
Residential, Office and Industrial, amend Housing Element Objective and
Policy, and delete certain policies as they pertain to Community Based
Residential Facilities, Adult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF),
Family Homes and Group Homes (Applicant: Planning Department).
Mayor Suarez: What do we need to act on today, Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo?
Mr. Olmedillo: We have PZ-21 and PZ-22, because of the time constraints and
the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Mayor Suarez: Are they Planning Department items?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes air. What happens is that what we have is that due to
time constraints, we only have one more opportunity to amend the plan this
year, the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Suarez: What is the substance of PZ-21 you want us to pass?
Mr. Dave Whittington: For the record, my name is Dave Whittington with the
City Planning Department. The Planning Department is the applicant for this
item, PZ-21. PZ-21 is an amendment which simply serves to provide better
language in the Comprehensive Plan in order to regulate certain uses of
property. This language will insure that the revised zoning ordinance will be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Suarez: OK, is there any controversy in this? Does anyone wish to be
heard on PZ-21? If not, I'll entertain a motion on it.
Mr. Dawkins: Move it.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. Call
the roll.
THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC
RECORD, BY TITLE ONLY.
NOTE: AT THIS POINT, CITY CLERK BEGAN ROLL CALL WHICH WAS
INTERRUPTED BY THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION AND THEN REPEATED AFTER
FOLLOWING LENGTHY DISCUSSION. SEE HEREINBELOW. .,
}�y
Mr. Plummer: Whoa. What is ordinance 10544 say? This just amends it.
Mr. Joe McManus: 105 is the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Plummer: This doesn't allow any more of these things to proliferate?
Mr. McManus: What we have tried to do is track the Commission's ideas about
closely trying to keep these things from proliferating.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Joe, the thing I'm trying to bring out, Mr. Mayor, as you
know, that northeast area is very, very much concerned and I don't see a
single one of them here tonight to speak to this issue and that disturbs me.
You know what I'm talking about? The northeast is very vocal about this and
they are not here to talk about it.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, yes, that's a good idea. Let's defer it.
Mr. McManus: Commissioner Plummer, PZ-20 does exactly what this Commission
told us to do with community based residential facilities. It lowers the cap
on the census track plan, increases...
Mr. Plummer: Joe, that is not my concern. My concern is that the people who
were here in very loud voice, are not here tonight to speak for or against.
Mayor Suarez: We are not talking about ACLF's,
facility) by any chance, are we, J.L.?
205
Mr. Plummer: Yeal
Mr. McManus: bK, what we are talking about, is moving up to PI-21, which is
amending the Corfiprehenaive Plan language along those general lines, sending it
off to Tallahassee for the folks up in Tallahassee to think about it for 90
days and have it came back here for second reading.
Mayor Suarez: And what is the effect of it, as far as ACLF, or anything else?
Mr. McManus: It tries to tighten up the language consistent with this
Commission's discussion about tightening up the language on community based
residential facilities.
Mr. Suarers What do you mean, tighten up the language?
Mr. McManus: Reducing the client population census tracts from three to tuo,
increasing the distance requirements from 1,800 to 2,500 between facilities.
Make all...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, but it is more restricted, so they would tend to favor it,
at least as an initial step.
Ms. Kennedy: Yes, Mr. Mayor, as Commissioner Plummer pointed, the northeast
is very interested in this item and I think that we should defer it until they
are here to talk about it.
Mr. Olmedillo: Let me caution you on one thing. We have time constraints.
Being a Comprehensive Plan amendment, you know that you take it on first
reading, then it is sent to Tallahassee for 90 days, it comes back for second
reading for you to enact it. And then there is a 45 day period after second
reading, before DCA files the intention to approve and then there is a 25 day
period of appeal after that intention to approve. When you add all of this,
' d h h th
that will be
the end of the year. If we don t o t e c anges now, en we
will miss the
opportunity of doing anything within 1989. Then you...
Mayor Suarez:
OK, I'm personally at the point of just deferring to
your
judgment, if
the rest of the Commission wants to defer to your judgment or
not. I mean,
we could argue about this forever!
Mr. Dawkins:
I voted the staff's recommendation.
Mayor Suarez:
OK, in which case we have a motion and second on this it
item.
We did, I think. Call the roll.
Mr. Dawkins:
We already voted on it.
AT THIS
POINT, THE CITY CLERK STARTED TO CALL THE ROLL ON DEFERRAL
_
OF THIS
ITEM.
Mayor Suarez:
Now we have total confusion. All right, let's clarify, I
understood that
the motion was to approve PZ-21, not to defer. What I
said, t
defer to the
judgment of our staff that we need to get this going, otherwise
it will take
forever to do what the people in the northeast want us to
begin
doing.
Mrs. Kennedy:
On first reading.
_
Mayor Suarez:
So it is not to defer, it is to approve as read.
Ms. Hirai: This is on first reading, then.
Mayor Suarez:
Right.
_ -
s
.}yam-yg
j,
{
Via.. ... _..
_....: .. ._
AN b"NANCB ENTIT1sED—
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED,
THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000,
BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO
REFINE THE DEFINITIONS OF RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, AND
INDUSTRIAL; AND AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVE
1.3 AND POLICY 1.2.3 AND DELETING POLICY 1.3.5 AS IT
PERTAINS TO COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES,
ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES, FAMILY HOMES AND
FAMILY GROUP AND GROUP HOMES; AND CORRECTING
SCRIVENER'S ERROR; INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO
TRANSMIT THIS ORDINANCE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; CONTAINING REPEALER PROVISION,
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins and was passed on its first reading by title by the following votet
AYESt Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
_
NOBS: None.
ABSENTt None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
31. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
1989-2000, Drainage Sub -Element, Policy - specify storm sewers to be
designed for a one -in -five year event, establish specific level of
service standard for remainder of sewers, define and designate Coastal
=°
High -Hazard area, etc. (Applicant: Planning Department).
..--- ...---------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -
Mr. Plummer: PZ-22?
x �:s
Mr. Oimedillo: PZ-22.
Mayor Suarez; I entertain a motion on 22. It's a companion item.
Mr. Dawkins: So moved,
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez; Read the ordinance. Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING ORDINANCE F.
10544; AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1980-2000, DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT,
POLICY NO. 2.1.3. SPECIFYING WHICH STORM SEWERS IN THE
CITY WILL BE DESIGNED FOR A ONE -IN -FIVE-YEAR EVENT AND
ESTABLISHING A SPECIFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD FOR
THE REMAINDER OF THE STORM SEWERS; COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SUB -ELEMENT, POLICY 4.1.2. DEFINING AND DESIGNATING
THE COASTAL HIGH -HAZARD AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI;
AND ADOPTING CONSISTENT LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS IN
BOTH THE DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT AND POLICY NO. 1.2.3(B)
OF .TIME CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENTI CONTAINING:"A
REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND:AN
L'
EFFECTIVE DATE.
IOU
k
}
b
t
LLi£
K' �
1
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AY98i Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Cotrmlissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
mots: None.
AM T - None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
32. REFER TO ADMINISTRATION FUNDING REQUEST RECEIVED FROM REVEREND ISACC
MICKINS, PASTOR, MEMORIAL TEMPLE BAPTIST CHURCH - in support of a
program addressing deteriorating outlook of the black male population
(administered by South Florida Character Molding Institute, Inc.) -
Request Administration's recommendation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Reverend, I believe the Commissioner intends to refer you to
the staff for the purpose of trying to identify funds for the various programs
that you are concerned with and I don't think there is any need to rehash
that, so that's not...
Mrs.
Kennedy: I move that we refer this to the City Manager to get in
touch
with
Reverend Mickins and come back to this Commission with a recommendation.
Mr.
De Yurre: Second.
Mayor
Suarez: With a recommendation of...
Mr.
Plummer: What's the request?
i
Mrs.
Kennedy: For a new program, identify funds...
Mr.
Plummer: Is this what he spoke to me about?
�ss
Mrs.
Kennedy: Yes.
Mr.
Plummer: Did you go to the Manager?
Mrs.
Kennedy: No, that's why I am referring him to the Manager. We're
moving .
-
to send him to the Manager. -
Mr.
Plummer: OK.
Mr.
Dawkins: Call the roll.
-
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, _call the roll.
-
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who
moved
its
adoption:
-
MOTION NO. 89-591
i
'
f"
A MOTION REFERRING TO THE CITY MANAGER FUNDING REQUEST
RECEIVED FROM REVEREND ISAAC MICKINS, PASTOR OF THE
MEMORIAL TEMPLE BAPTIST CHURCH, IN SUPPORT OF A
PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA CHARACTER
MOLDING INSTITUTE, INC. (SFCMI) WHICH ADDRESSES THE
DETERIORATING OUTLOOK OF THE BLACK MALE POPULATION;
FURTHER REQUESTING THE MANAGER TO COME BACK WITH A
-
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE.x°
w
208
� s
Upon being seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the motion was passed and
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
33. AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT WITH P.N.M. CORP. - for construction of
Bayfront Park Redevelopment Phase II.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor, we have one item here, is that the City Attorney's
item?
Mayor Suarez: Is that what we are talking about?
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, this is an item that is being presently in litigation and
this is an item that Public Works is actually bringing to you requiring you to
approve an addition to the contract as well as accepting the project so that
those items won't have to be litigated with P.N.M. P.N.M. is a contractor
that has been doing Phases I and II, principally Phase II, this is what this
is all about, Bayfront Park, so our request to you is that you approve this
resolution that the Public Works Department is proposing to you today.
Mr. De Yurre: Moved.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded, any discussion? If not, call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-592
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$218,360.00 IN THE CONTACT BETWEEN P.N.M. CORP. DATED
JANUARY 24, 1986 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BAYFRONT PARK
REDEVELOPMENT PHASE II CIP PROJECT NO. 331302, SAID
FUNDS TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ORDINANCE N0, 10521, WITH FUNDS ALREADY ALLOCATED TO
THE PROJECT; RATIFYING THE CITY MANAGER'S WRITTEN
FINDING THAT THE HEREIN INCREASE RESULTED FROM
_ EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF
FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, AND
ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SET FORTH IN THE
DOVAMAT l: AV TTJTC DVQnT TTTTAAT. ArrVDTTMn muv rnmVT VfPV11
C
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NCRS: None.
AB99MT: None.
34. FAREWELL COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER ROSARIO KENNEDY - in view of her
recently -filed resignation as City of Miami Commissioner Group IV.
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, let me just tell you that the time that I've worked
here as a Commissioner, side by side, I've put up with a lot from you guys, a
lot! - but I'm very proud to call you my colleagues.
Mr. Plummer: When are you leaving?
Mrs. Kennedy: This is my last meeting.
Mr. Plummer: (INAUDIBLE COMMENT)
Mrs. Kennedy: We'll get into that later, but let me just say that I just want
to thank everybody. I'm very proud to have worked with you to foster the
growth of the City of Miami. I am most proud to have served the residents of
the City and I'd like to thank them as well as all of the City staff who have
worked and helped me throughout my three and one/half years.
Mr. Plummer: So be it.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Plummer: Now, let me get off my chest, the first thing you do when you
get to Washington, is burn every member of the Supreme Court who said the
burning of the flag is not a crime.
Mr. Dawkins: Let's not go to jail listening to J.L. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Bastards!
Mayor Suarez: I've got a few that I think are more important than that when
you get to Washington, but we won't get into that just now.
35. MAYOR SUAREZ CALLS A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOR JUNE 27,
1989 -
for the selection of a new City of Miami Commissioner.
(Note:
This changes the previously agreed date - see label 2).
Mayor Suarez:
The special session has to be... I need a motion to have
it, or
I'll set it, we don't need a motion, but if it is agreed, it will be
Tuesday
morning, at,
you wanted to have it kind of on the late aide on
Tuesday
morning?
Mr. Plummer:
11:30 a.m. , because whoever is the new Commissioner is
got to
+
take us all the lunch.
Mr. Rodriguez:
Mr. Mayor...
3
Mayor Suarez:
10:00, or...
Mr. Rodriguez:
Tuesday morning, remember I remember I remind.,.
Mayor Suarez:
I thought you told me Tuesday morning was the date that
me hid.:'
available.
' r
20
S
- 1 -
Mr AbdtLjU&jt 1 o, have told Pau t*ibtk that %Gikday b6thift lid hM • tifvil
garvite board until i1:10 a.1h.
Mayor guarers Vhen it the date that we have availabial iiadt►eadsy ft5fttf4#
was it that you were awing?
Mr. Rodriguet: Yet, Vednetday morning...
Mayor Suarez: Or Tuesday morning ae have available at 1100
Mr. Rodriguet: After 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Pluamert 1100 Tuesday morning?
Mayor Suarat: 11:30 Tuesday morning? ire don't need to vote on that. i$il
Just...
mm sirm NO lURTm BVSINBSS TO cme ARE m CITY
tXSUIS$TC1N, 'fit l TINd WAS ADJOURNED AT 905 P.M.
Xavier L. Suarez
NA•TOR
}} 4
Asrssr:
Natty Hirai
CITr CLSRx f °�
Walter J. Toesun
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
I Ncomp 1RATEb � _
18
T �•h ! 5 H* �.. ��*r
i 3f .eY byt���Fii�4 1
1
CITY OF MIAMI
DOCUMENT INDEX
AfEEIM M%T& June 22, 1989
PAGE No: 1 of 1
r r ] Clille
SELECTION OF DINNER KEY BOATYARD FOR FULL SERVICE BOATYARD/
MARINA AT 2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE (FORMERLY MERRILL STEVENS SITE).'
ACCEPT STATE OF FLORIDA SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT
($30,000) - EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO WYNWOOD
SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
ACCEPT STATE OF FLORIDA SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM GRANT
($250,000) - EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO PREPARE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT
PLAN FOR WYNWOOD SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
ESTABLISH SPECIAL CHARGES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE OF
ORANGE BOWL STADIUM BY MITCHELL MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CHURCH OF
CHRIST, INC. - FOR A GOSPEL MUSIC CONCERT AND ORATION BY.
REVEREND JESSE JACKSON.
EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH BELAFONTE TACOLCY CENTER, INC. - FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF DROPOUT PREVENTION COMPONENT OF SUMMER
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING PROGRAM.
ACCEPT PLAT;i HIGH POINT ESTATES
ACCEPT PLAT: ARBORETUM REPLAT
EXECUTE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS - BETWEEN THE CITY
(PURCHASER) AND DAVID ABRAHAM; 3AMES KIRK, JOHN K. DURKIN &
BARBARA RYAN; GRAHAM C. MILLER, TRUSTEE; JOAQUIN & HOP,TENSIA
TRIAS; AND IRVING ZUCKERBERG (COLLECTIVELY "SELLERS") --FOR
PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTIES REGARDING ACQUISITION OF
"FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDING".
APPROVE AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM B.
BRICKELL, ET AL - CONCERNING CITY'S INTEREST IN BRICKELL
PARK AND BURIAL GROUND - GRAND REQUEST BY THE WILLIAMS
GROUP TO EXTEND CLOSING DATE ON A SCHEDULED REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTION, PART OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS.
AMEND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT - POR THE 1111 BRICKELL AVENUE PROJECT (A
DRI) - REFERENCE AMENDED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, ADD
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF GROSS SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND
HOTEL USE, ADD PARKING SPACES AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOADING
AREA, DELETE OFFICE USE AND PARKING USE, CHANGE GROSS BUILD -
R91 MAL COn
89-576
89-577
89-577.1
89-578
89-580
89-581
89-582
89-583
89-584
89-585
ING FLOOR AREA, PROVIDE FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES,
ETC. (APPLICANT: 1111 BRICKELL ASSOCIATES LIMITED).
AMEND DRI AND MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TERREMARK 89,586
CENTRE PROJECT AT APPROXIMATELY 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
EXTEND BUILDOUT DATE ETC. (APPLICANT: TERREMARK CENTRE LTD.)
APPEAL DENIED; UPHOLD ZONING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF SPECIAL
EXCEPTION TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF EXISTING BAR TO A SUPPER
CLUB AT APPROXIMATELY 2721 BIRD AVENUE (APPELLANT: HOWARD
WEISBERG/APPLICANT.; CASTLEWOOD REALTY CORP., INC.).
AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT WITH P.N.M, CORP, - FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF BAYFRONT PARK REDEVELOPMENT PHASE II,