HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1984-12-12 Minuteski
EA-
�m-
Ll
COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1984
OF MEETING HELD ON
(SPECIAL)
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
RALPH G.. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIANIq FLORIDA
DECEMBER 12v 1984
ITEM SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE
NO. NO.
I
COMMODORE BAY
PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF
ZONING 3471
MAIN HIGHWAY FROM RS-1/1/1 TO RS
1/4, DENIED BY
MOTION 84-1346 M-84-1347 1-34
2
COMMODORE BAY
PROJECT - DENY REQUEST FOR CHANGE
OF ZONING AT
3471 MAIN HIGHWAY FROM RS-1/4 TO
D
P MU/4
M- -84-1348 34
3
DENY REQUEST
FOR ISSUANCE OF A MAJOR USE SPECIAL
PERMIIT FOR
COMMODORE BAY PROJECT: 3471 MAIN
HIGHWAY.
M-84-134934 -35
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 12th day of December, 1984, the City Commission
of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the
City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in
special session.
The meeting was called to order at 6:12 O'Clock P.M. by
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the
Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.**
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo*
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
r
*Commissioner Carollo entered the meeting at 6:15 P.M.
**Commissioner Perez entered the meeting at 6:20 P.M.
ALSO PRESENT:
Randolph B. Rosencrantz, City Manager
Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney
==-_- Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Mayor Maurice Ferre who
then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
1. COMMODORE BAY PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR CHANCE OF ZONIIG
3471 MAIN HIGHWAY FROM RS-1/1/1 TO RS-1/4, DENIED BY
NOTION 84-1346.
Mayor Ferre: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is a
Special City of Miami Commission Meeting, the purpose of
this Commission Meeting is three -fold. First of all, there
are three items before us, Item 1 is the changing of zoning
classification of 3471 Main Highway, Miami, Florida;
secondly is a similar affiliated matter and thirdly is again
a similar related matter with the Commodore Project. Mr.
Manager, the Chair recognizes you.
Mr. Rosencrantz: Mr. Mayor, I believe the City Attorney has
comments that she would like to make at this time.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Madame City Attorney.
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, at the last Commission
Meeting you asked that my office research the legal
questions raised by the opponents to the project and they
were numerous and we pretty much followed a schedule of
submission by the opponents and the applicants in terms of
their legal responses to the arguments raised by the
opponents. We have met with the applicants the day after
your last meeting and we met with the opponents' lawyers
yesterday evening and we have gone over the entire file and
basically what we have concluded is that the file does
reflect some notice defects that occurred in the process.
We, therefore, would recommend, if the Commission were so
RT 1 Dec. 12, 1985
a -0
inclined, to refer back to the Planning Board the
application for reconsideration. We believe that although
the opponents were very weighty and were very persuasive, we
think the better view is the one that the Planning staff has
followed, that is a two step zoning process with a referral
to the Zoning Board and not to the Planning Board. We
cannot resolve the questions of the surveys. If you recall,
there was a question of whether or not the State owned
certain portions of the land in question and whether or not
the City owned certain portions of the land. That is
something that my office simply cannot determine who owns
it. However, the applicant, I have just learned this
evening, has reduced his project in terms of FAR and has
deleted any reference or usage of that land that the State
may have owned. With respect to the City's property, they
are contending it is going to take an ultimate or conclusive
survey, ultimately and if that occurs the project again
would have to be reduced. I understand they are going to
object also to the ability of you to send this application
back to the Planning Board. They will probably object on
the basis that there is no authorization in the City Code
for you to do that. You can basically approve it, deny it,
but you don't have the authority to do that. It is my view
that once you have jurisdiction you can then send it back to
the Planning Board to get further information to consider
further information to review the entire application and to
let the property owners who have may not had the notice that
was required in the first place to come and attend and to
participate.
Mayor Ferre: Do the proponents, the applicants for items 1,
2, and 3 wish to state anything into the record? If you're
going to say something say it into the microphone, please,
so that there is a record of it.
Mr. Howard Scharlin: My name is Howard Scharlin, my address
is 3615 Battersea Road. I am speaking on behalf of the
applicants. We have requested that the Commission authorize
a recycling of the process before the Planning Advisory
Board and then hopefully back to the City Commission with an
opportunity for proper notice in any situation in which it
wasn't given the first time around so that to the extent
that any of the public have been denied due process or have
been denied an opportunity to review the materials in the
file and to speak their minds concerning the meaning of
those materials before the Planning Advisory Board and
before this Commission, those deficiencies will be corrected
and a full and complete hearing with all material open to
the public and available to the Commission will be
presented.
Mayor Ferre: All right, do the opponents... I'm sorry.
Mr. Ken Treister: Mr. Mayor, ... Ke
3660 Battersea Road, Coconut Grove.
would like to go to is on the 19th
Planning Advisory Board. And I would
I think the City Attorney might have
would like to to the Planning Board ae
Board. Thank you.
a Treister, and I'm at
The meeting that we
of this month to the
also like to mention,
inadvertently said, we
opposed to the Zoning
Mayor Ferre: All right, now we hear from the opponents of
this project.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, may I ask a question? Madame City
Attorney, they have requested the 19th, is it possible to
advertise within that period of time?
Ms. Dougherty: In anticipation that you might defer it
back, we have permitted the Planning staff to advertise 10
RT 2 DEC. 12, 1984
days in advance, however, that is totally within your
discretion if you don't defer it then we will send out a
notice this weekend saying that it won't be heard.
Mayor Ferre: All right, now we'll hear from the opponents.
Mr. David McCrea: Gentlemen, my name is David McCrea. My
residence address is 6755 Royal Palm Drive. My office
address is 777 Brickell Avenue. I am speaking on behalf of
my two children who are students at the St. Stephens School
and I am also speaking as council for my father, Sloan
McCrea who is a property owner in the City of Miami at 1990
Tigertail Avenue. With respect to the notice issue, since
Commissioner Plummer just raised that, let me address that
issue first, if I could. I understand that in a letter
dated approximately December 3rd, the developer requested
that the matter be referred back to the Planning Advisory
Board. In anticipation of that, the City Attorney's Office
authorized the publication of notice in anticipation of a
hearing of the Planning Advisory Board on December 19th and
I've been told by the City Attorney's Office that this is a
process that is quite normal and is known as bootstrapping
or something like that. Frankly, I object to a hearing
being scheduled before the Planning Advisory Board for a
hearing that is not legally permissible yet. How can the
matter be scheduled for a hearing before the Planning
Advisory Board when the City Commission hasn't even rendered
a decision on whether or not it should go back yet? and
frankly, I think that ... Never mind, I won't say that. I
find it very frustrating, as an opponent to this project,
that that occurred. I have just received a few moments ago
the City Attorney's response to some of the arguments that
were raised by the opponents and the rebuttal presented by
the proponents and I have not had an opportunity to study it
but I note that with respect to the developmental impact
study which is one of the arguments that I have made, and
that is that under article 28 of the City's, Zoning
Ordinance, there are specific materials that are required to
be placed in the file 'by the developer and the City
Attorney's opinion states that this office would advise that
the law does not require all of the elements to be located
in one document, and if the file contains statements
concerning all of the above required studies the application
is in compliance with the Zoning Code. Well, I suppose my
question is is the application in compliance with the Zoning
Code or not? I say it is not, I think the developer
probably says it does, and I would like a resolution of that
issue. Further, with respect to the issue of submitting
this matter back to the Planning Advisory Board, I have
studied the City's Zoning Ordinance and I find no provision
of the City's Zoning Ordinance which entitles the developer
to have the application go back through the process -
through the Planning Department, through the Planning
Advisory Board and back to the City Commission after they've
gotten to a second hearing before the City Commission. It's
just not there. And as a matter of fact, Sec. 2802.7
provides that upon transmission of the recommendation of the
Planning Department and the Planning Advisory Board to the
city Commission, a public hearing shall be held unless the
application is withdrawn by the developer. As far as I can
tell, there is no specific authority in the Zoning Ordinance
for the City Commission at this time, after this application
has come this far in the process to be referred back.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let's get that clarified. Madame
City Attorney?
No. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, it is our view that you do have
the authorization to do that. There is a specific provision
that, it is known as the 90 day provision, for example, that
RT 3 DEC. 121 1984
says that you can refer it back to the Planning Board and
that would stay the 90 day requirement for legislative
action.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you.
Mr. McCrea: For the record, I will dissent from the City
Attorney's opinion, but I won't bore you with two lawyers
going back and forth.
Mayor Ferre: We only have one lawyer here. You represent
your dad, the City Commission is bound by the City
Attorney's decision.
Mr. McCrea: I understand.
Mayor Ferre: Now, if you dissent from it it's not before us
it is before a court of law.
Mr. McCrea: I understand, Mr. Mayor. The next thing I'd
like to raise is I believe that we have found a fundamental
flaw in this application in that by virtue of the Zoning
Ordinance it is required to be denied. Specifically, I am
referring to the fact that the legal description of the
property which is attached to the major use special permit
includes land which is actually bay bottom which extends out
from the natural shoreline to the U.S. Harbor line or
somewhere thereabouts and I do have ... The document that
we are holding up is a copy of the survey that is on file
with the City Planning Department and Huber is now pointing
to the natural shoreline of the property which abuts
Biscayne Bay, the line that I have just pointed to is the
U.S. Harbor line and I'm not a surveyor and I don't know
precisely how much of that provision right there is included
in the legal description but it is there. I believe the
developer has referred to it in his rebuttal remarks to the
arguments of the opponents and pursuant to Section
3502.1(e), only the owner or the agent or attorney for the
owner is entitled to file an application for a change of
zoning with respect to land and under Section 2304.1 only
the owner, his agent or lessee of property is entitled to
apply for a Special Permit with respect to land. Section
2303 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that when an
application for a Special Permit requests action which is
not in accordance with the standards and requirements set
forth in the zoning Ordinance the application and permit
shall be denied. In summary, the application which is on
file with the City requests the rezoning of property which
is not owned by the developer. I know the developer
disputes that but the State, there is a letter in the file
from the State of Florida dated June, 1984 which states that
the bay bottom belongs to the State of Florida and not to
the developer. Therefore, I have concluded that this
application must be denied because it asks for the rezoning
of land which does not belong to the developer.
Mayor Ferre: That is also a legal question and, Madame City
Attorney, are you ready?
Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, again, I'm not a surveyor either
but I understand the developer has not requested rezoning on
that land and he specifically told me just before this
hearing that he is going to amend the application to the
extent there Was to delete the FAR's that they may have
calculated that land in it.
Mr. McCrea:
attached to
relates to
description.
The application has a legal description
it and it says that the Major Use Special Permit
the land within the bounds of that legal
RT
4
DEC. 121 1984
Mr. Ken Treister: May I suggest, Mr. McCrea, if you read
the legal description and tracked it on the survey which it
is next to you would find it does not include the bay
bottom.
Mr. McCrea: I have been told otherwise, I may be incorrect,
but I believe that is in the...
Mayor Ferre:
The record now stipulates that that is
your
y'-
statement.
Mr. Scharlin:
It is my understanding that the
legal
description is
next to the application and next to the
Qv�`''''
survey which
has been produced does not include the
bay
a
bottom.
Mr. McCrea:
That is a question that is ascertainable
only
i
by a survey.
Mr. Scharlin:
As an additional thought, even, if for
some
reason we had
been in error in the way it was written,
and I
don t think we
have been, the application as is submitted
does not request an change of zoning which you
q Y g g
are
s=.
referring to,
for any area which is beyond the high
water
mark. So the
ob3ection that you re making which would
refer
to our asking for a change of zoning of someone else's
property is really irrelevant. We haven't asked for it.
.,x.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the record now clearly states
that's your position. Let me, if I may, let me ask you a
question. Are you in any way using those bay bottoms in
' your calculations for FAR?
Mr. Scharlin: No, sir, we are not.
Mayor Ferre: So in other words not only are you not asking
for a change of zoning, you are not using it in any
calculation at all.
Mr. Scharlin: That is correct. Not only are we not
including it in our legal description, and not only are we
not including it in any request of change of zoning, we are
not including the area which is involved in the submerged
land between the Harbor Line and the High Water Mark in our
computation of floor area versus Floor Area Ratio.
Mr. Plummer: For clarification, I think that is a true
statement but it is only a part of a statement and I think
that the full statement is that it was on the original
application. You have subsequent to that withdrawn it which
you're entitled to do. I think the point they're raising,
the original application which was heard before the lower
board was predicated on that application, that they have now
withdrawn is the point that is trying to be made or the
difference that is trying to be drawn.
Mr. Scharlin: The legal description that was annexed to the
original application did not include the bay bottom. There
was a use of the submerged area in the computation of FAR.
Mr. Plummer: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre:
understand.
Mr., McCrea: I
addition to me,
that it needs to
manner.
And that has been since withdrawn. I
will let others address that question in
but I won't concede the point and I think
be resolved in a technical and scientific
RT
A
DEC. 121 1984
A
Mayor Ferre: Well, see, the thing that concerns me, Mr.
McCrea, and to your associates, is that you're all lawyers
and you're all talking legal language and the problem is
that this is not really a court of law and neither are we
judges and there's not one of us that is a lawyer here. I
know you're preparing yourselves for legal action in court
and what have you, and I will allow you to put all the
statements you need into the record but I do think it is
important that we move along.
Mr. McCrea: I will do so now, and I won' t belabor that
...
point anymore. I would also submit that the as I
.:= ..,.
understand it, I have been told that the FAR was originally
calculated on the basis of that land being included but that
is fairly readily ascertainable, I would think. In
addition, I would also submit that at the time of the filing
of the Major Use Special Permit Application dated June 15,
1984 by the developer there was no specification of the
zoning process through which the developer proposed to go to
get from an RS-1 /1 to a PDMU Zoning Classification. And
14-
again, pursuant to Section 2303 the application should be
_;:.,
;._.:....
denied on that basis.
T.'
Mayor Ferre: Well, what is before us at this time is not
the denial of the application but a request. Lucia, help me
word this - that this thing be routed back to the Planning
Board on the 19th. That is the issue before us now. What
you're addressing may or may not be but I think the issue
that this Commission now has to decide is whether or not we
route it back to the Planning Board or what other
alternative procedures we pursue. You're giving me all
kinds of legal arguments as to what is a violation or what
is or isn't and I don't think that is what is before us.
Mr. McCrea: Let me clarify, Mr. Mayor, and make ...
Mayor Ferre: You're addressing yourself to a court and what
I'm really asking you to do is to address yourself to this
Commission.
Mr. McCrea: I am addressing myself to the Commission, Mr.
Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: On the issue before us.
Mr. McCrea: On the issue before you, because tonight there
are two alternatives as I see it.
Mayor Ferre: That's the point.
Mr. McCrea: And I believe that the City Attorney would
concur with me in this judgment. That is (1) in the opinion
of the City Attorney it can be referred back to the Planning
Advisory Board.
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. McCrea: And she is the lawyer for the City Commission
and I recognize that. In my opinion it cannot. Secondly,
it would also be permissible tonight for the City Commission
to vote on the application to deny the application.
Mayor Ferre: That is correct.
Mr. McCrea: It would not be permissible tonight, as I
understand it, to go forward on a motion to approve the
application because of insufficient notice and also because
of the fact that the application is not in compliance with
Article XXVIII, although I'm not too sure that the City
Attorney totally agrees with me on that. Now, let me ...
RT 6 DEC. 121 1984
Mayor Ferret The issue before us, therefore, as you have
put, and if I can put it a little but more succinctly is
either we send it back to the Planning Advisory Board at
their meeting on the 19th or subsequent meeting or we
proceed for a denial of the project. Now, I will put on the
record that my position remains the same - If it comes to a
vote I am voting for denial of this project for the reasons
that I have already stated. Now, if there is not a majority
feeling on that then I think it would be appropriate for it
to go back to the Planning Board and that is something that
this Commission has to determine. What else are we going to
do with this thing? You're saying that it can't be moved
for approval.
Mr. McCrea: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferret Because of improper notification, right?
You're saying all we can do here is either deny it or send
it back to the Planning Board. Now, I will entertain a
motion for denial and I've got no problems with that, I
would vote with that.
Mr. McCrea: There are some others who would like to speak,
and I've probably taken more than my fair share, so thank
you for the opportunity to be heard.
Mayor Ferret Thank you, Mr. McCrea.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, in the essence of time, Mr. Mayor,
if the motion is to be denied and that motion is the
prevailing motion, why waste everybody's time?
Mayor Ferret Precisely.
Mr. Plummer: If, in fact, that motion is made and does not
prevail then I think it would be in order to hear the
remaining testimony.
Mayor Ferret I think you're right. I think that would
certainly cut through an awful lot of people waiting. Now,
I know you lawyers really are chomping at the bit to talk,
aren't you. You know, here you are and you hear a
Commissioner saying ...
Mr. Plummer: Well, you have to understand, Mr. Mayor, that
only Mr. McCrea who is being paid by his father is a poor
boy, the others get paid by the hour.
Mayor Ferret The question before us, as Plummer has now I
think very properly brought to a head is that we should
first consider the question of denial on the face because if
it is denied then there is nothing else to do, is there?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, wait 18 months.
Mayor Ferret Now, if there are not sufficient votes for
that then I think we can get on with the other issues, can't
we? Do you want to argue with that issue? Can I limit you
just to that point?
Ms. Janet Cooper: I think we need to do it in three steps,
perhaps. If you feel that as a time saver you want to poll
the Commission now and see if there is a vote for a denial
then I would have no objection to that on the condition that
you would then reconsider a denial after you have heard the
rest of the testimony, but I certainly have testimony to
present to you on the issue of denial that I think will be
persuasive, if we haven't already been persuasive to the
majority of the Commission. However, I am prepared to
RT 7 DEC. 12, 1984
address the legality of whether or not this Commission may
refer this back to the Planning Advisory Board, particularly
at the request of the developer and I will address either
one you prefer.
Mayor Ferre: Janet, that would be out of order because this
is not a court of law. The City Attorney has ruled that it
is proper for this Commission, if it wishes in its majority
to refer this to the Planning Board. Now, I'm not going to
challenge that. I you want to challenge it you can
challenge it in court which is the proper place in the
United States of America for these things to be challenged.
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, may I point out something to the
City Attorney that she may have overlooked in support of
that argument?
Mayor Ferre: Fine, you can talk to her and talk her out of
it all you want but please do it on your own time.
Ms. Cooper: I think we're here to make a fair decision
based on the Code.
Mayor Ferre: I will allow you to make that presentation as
long as you limit it to a reasonable time, Janet. As a
matter of fact, why don' t you just go talk to her. If you
want to put it on the record that's fine too.
Ms. Cooper: No, I would rather state it so that you'll hear
it too.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm not going to hear it because I'm not
a lawyer and I don't understand. This is a legal issue.
This is between you lawyers. She has to rule, if you want
to convince her be my guest.
Ms. Cooper: I'll be glad to step aside, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Be my guest, put it on the record, convince
her.
Ms. Cooper: Ms. Dougherty mentioned the 90 day rule which
is part of Article XXXV, Section 35-13. That pertains to
changes of zoning and it is under that provision for changes
of zoning that an item may be referred back to the Planning
Advisory Board. Ms. Dougherty has told us in meetings
yesterday that in her opinion these three applications, all
three of them, the two requests for change of zoning and the
application for major use are not traveling under Article
XXXV but are all traveling under Article XXVIII. Now,
Article XXVIII says the public hearing shall be held unless
the application is withdrawn. Here, what we have is a
request by the applicant not to have the hearing held and
not to have it withdrawn but something other than what is
permitted by Article XXVIII and that is to have it referred
back at his request to the Planning Advisory Board. That is
not one of the options set forth in 2802.7• In addition,
2803 says the City Commission may approve a final
application for Major Use Special Permit as submitted, deny
the final application as submitted or approve the final
application with modifications. It is very clear. There
are three options for the City Commission. The Commission
can approve it or deny it or approve it with modifications.
I don't see any language in Article XXVII which the City
Attorney has ruled is the guiding principle of these
applications under which this could be referred back,
particularly when it is done so at the request of the
applicant when the language says that the public hearing
shall - mandatory language - shall be held, unless the
application is withdrawn. I think that we have no choice
but to deny this application today.
RT 8 DEC. 12, 1984
A
Mayor Ferre: All right, now, you've heard the argument of
our distinguished counsel here, are you ready to change your
opinion, Ms. Dougherty?
Ms. Dougherty: No, air, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you very much. Is there
anything else now at this point? If we can get Commissioner
Carollo back, I assume then, Mr. Plummer, we're going to
follow the procedure that you've outlined and I think that
would be proper and then we can take it from there.
Mr. Huber Parsons: Mr. Mayor, my name is Huber Parsons. I
have a policy argument to make to the Commission, not legal,
hopefully it is common sense as to why it should not be
referred back to the PAB.
Mayor Ferre: Let me express again where we are and then you
tell me if it fits within that and if it is to that point
then I will allow you to speak, otherwise, we need to move
along. What has happened now is that the City Attorney has
ruled and has reaffirmed her position that this Commission
can send this properly back to the Planning Advisory Board.
Now, I made the statement that it doesn't make much sense if
it is going to be denied and my position is for denial for
the reasons I stated before. If there are three other
members of this Commission who feel that way that it should
be denied then I think sending it back to the Planning
Advisory Board is just a waste of everybody's time. On the
other hand, if that does not occur then I think we can get
into the discussion as to whether or not to send it to the
Plannin,; Board and vote on that. Now, I'll tell you up
front my position is this: If somebody makes a motion to
deny this project I'm voting with it because that is my
position from the beginning. If somebody doesn't make that
motion and it is not denied, I would vote to send it back to
the Planning Board because I think ...
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, let me save your some time, air,
I'll make a motion for denial.
Mayor Ferre: All right, we have to see if there is a
second.
Mr. Plummer: The motion was to deny?
Mr. Carollo: To deny, and the Mayor said he would vote for
the motion for denial and I made the motion for denial.
Mayor Ferre: I've said that on the record. There is a
motion for denial. Is there a second?
Mr. Perez: I was in a phone conversation, could I get what
is the motion?
Mayor Ferre: The problem is this: Okay? They want to
make, the developers of this property are asking that they
go through a process where they can correct some things that
evidently are in need of correction in their viewpoint.
Now, the City Attorney has ruled that it is proper for us,
and we can send it to the Planning Board for a
reconsideration of these things and then it will come back
to us for a vote. I made a statement that if there is a
feeling that this project should be denied then it is a
waste of everybody's time. Plummer made that statement. So
I said that my position is from the beginning, and I'm
opposed to this project because of the traffic impact on
Main Highway. That has been my position from the beginning.
When Commissioner Carollo came back into the room he said, I
RT 9 DEC. 12, 1984
repeated this, he said to save time, "I make a motion to
deny." I am now asking for a second. If we deny, it is
dead for IS months. If we don't deny, then I'm saying out
front that I will be voting to send it back to the Planning
Board. That is where we're at. There is a motion on the
floor. Is there a second to the motion, twice? There is a
second to the motion. All right, there is a now a motion
and a second that the project be denied. Is there any
further discussion on the motion of denial?
Mr. Carollo: There is further discussion. Mr. Mayor, when
this first came before this Commission, no way was I under
the impression that there was going to be the kind of
projects going up right in that same area that we now are
aware that are going up. right next to the Mayfair you have
a huge project going up. You have others that are being
planned. there is no way in the world that we can make a
downtown Miami out of that part of the Grove. That area
just cannot hold that traffic. So we're either going to
have to deny down the line all these projects or the people
that want to build there are going to have to come to some
realities of what the situation is before we can let anyone
go ahead and build. It is impossible to let that project go
and some of the others that are wanting to build very large
projects go because that area there is going to be a
nightmare to get through. Rush hour traffic is going to
last until 9:00 in the evening.
Mayor Ferre: Are there further statements?
Mr. Ken Treister: Mr. Mayor and City Commission, I am a
little shocked to know that, I thought under due process we
were supposed to have a public hearing on this project. I
was told at the last meeting by you, Mr. Mayor, that the
opposition had a few days, a specific amount of days to put
objections to this project. They gave it, and the
instructions you gave the City Attorney, opponents and
proponents was very clear. They were to give objections,
the City Attorney was to give us a chance to answer, the
City Attorney was to report back to this body and give her
legal opinion. There was no discussion at that meeting as
to the merits of this project. Tonight we have had no
discussions as to the merits. The City Attorney, in
response to your request ...
Mayor Ferre: You're right. You've got a right to do that,
by the way, and I might remind you that the last time this
thing went, Mr. Treister, the vote was 4 to 1, I was the
only dissenting vote on this.
Mr. Treister: I remember that, but if I can continue
tonight, the City Attorney was very clear in saying that as
to the issues that didn't require us going back to the
Planning Board she ruled that we did properly apply and that
since the opponents asked us to give more notice to the
community and the City Attorney, and we told the City
Attorney that we would do that by reapplying and she said
that if we did reapply you had the authority to allow us to
reapply. So here you have a City Commission getting
opponents saying give the community more time, or they said
that. We're saying ...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We most certainly did not.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, he didn't interrupt you, let
him finish his statement.
Mr. Treister: They said that we didn't give proper notice,
so we're saying we would like now to give proper notice,
even though there was never a ruling that we didn't, but we
RT 10 DEC. 12, 1984
l*4 0
said to the City Attorney we needed that time. We are
k
u,
asking the City Commission to go back to a Planning Board
which you appointed which duty is to analyze these and
report back to you their findings. We assumed when we came
here tonight that by reapplying we were conforming to the
request of the opposition except for those matters which
�.Y
didn't refer to reapplying which the City Attorney told us
tonight she agreed with us. So I thin that in fairness to
the community we have to have our consideration reconsidered
by the Planning Board. We would like then the opportunity in
the sequence of having two public hearings or one or
whatever the sequence is, before the City Commission. But
we did not come here for the public meeting because we were
bowing to the opposition's comments that said that we should
a
give more notice, and we're doing that.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, and please correct me, if I'm
wrong, this matter has been up before this Commission, there
was a presentation that was made. The presentation was
"
proper in form, there was a vote taken by this Commission.
expressed my opinion in the beginning that I was opposed
%`°
Aft,.
to this project, a beautiful project, architectural)
P j r P j r y
beautiful, I think it would be healthy for the Grove. I had
one reason that I opposed it - it did not have access to
.1,..,,..
McFarlane Road as originally thought and it was my opinion
that a project of this magnitude would negatively impact on
Main Highway. I was opposed to it. That is the basis for
my opposition. Now, the matter was voted on, there was a
whole series of legal arguments that were presented before
this Commission. I asked the City Attorney to deal with the
legal arguments - she has, she has now answered. Now,
technically, we are here after this to consider this
project. Now, this Commission can reject this project, as I
understand it at this point, or it can send it back as
;y.,,.r,��,..,•,_
requested. I think this Commission has the authority to do
that.
Mr. Scharlin: Mr. Mayor, if I may. bast time in November
when a number of legal arguments were raised I said that in
substance due process had been done and the Commission had
before it all it needed but a lot of technicalities were
being raised. You said, and the City Attorney said there
was no way that that could be resolved here, it needed a
full consideration by the City Attorney with all things
before her. She has obtained that, and if you read her
opinion, she has indicated that in one or two areas the
notice requirements were deficient. Therefore, as suggested
by the opponents last time we were not properly before you,
we had not properly been before the Planning Advisory Board
and, therefore, an approval would be subject to a valid
attack by them in court because they said due process hadn't
been done and a denial would not have been proper.
,. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Lucia, you have to rule on
that, that is a new argument now. The question is can we
_-' properly vote at this time for either approval or denial?
Mrs. Dougherty: This is Second Reading and it has been
r noticed for Second Reading, we're at Second Reading, we have
had a public hearing on the Second Reading, this is a public
hearing though.
Mayor Ferro: Is this a valid motion that is on the floor?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: In other words is the motion to deny properly
before this body?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes.
RT 11 DEC. 12, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Can this Commission conclude this by voting
for the denial tonight?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: This is the second public hearing.
Mayor Ferre: This is the second public hearing.
Mr. Scharlin: A point of information, if I may.
Mayor Ferre: Hey, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander. I told Janet Cooper that we were bound by the
ruling of th a City Attorney and I'm telling you the same
thing.
Mr. Scharlin: I'm assuming, if I may, Mrs. Dougherty,
assuming that the Commission were to vote tonight to approve
the application, as I read your item 1, you say that it was
properly pointed that there was not a proper notice for
amending the neighborhood plan. Would an approval be an
effective approval or would it be subject to an effective
collateral attack in court?
Mrs. Dougherty: They could approve it but it would be
subject to a collateral attack.
Mr. Scharlin: Then properly we're in a situation where we
can be denied but we can't really be effectively approved
and that is why we are asking for the opportunity to go back
before the Planning Advisory Board. We thank the opponents
for having raised and called everyone's attention to the
fact that notices were not properly given, and it wasn't our
fault that they weren't properly given, everyone tried. So
it's not as though we're tricking anyone. However, the
Commission is here, they can say sure, we don't want to hear
anything, but if they were to vote to approve it it wouldn't
be effective. It is not fair then, if you're looking to do
justice as a Commission, for you to place us in a position
where we can't win, we can only lose. So, in light of that,
I suggest that our request that it go back for a proper
unfolding of due process as it is created in your ordinances
can occur.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, the Commission has not
placed the applicant in this position, the applicant has
placed the applicant in this position and that is a
distinction not without a difference but a distinction with
a difference.
Mr. Fraser Shuh: Your honor, my name is Fraser Shuh of 6963
S.W. 128th Place. I'm here on behalf of David Sweatland and
the Camp Biscayne Homeowner's Association which is in the
Camp Biscayne Subdivision as. recorded in Plat Book, 107,
Page 49 and my comment is essentially that what Mr. Scharlin
is arguing at this time is that if you turn in a faulty
application the Commission can't deny it, they have to refer
it back which is a ridiculous argument. Obviously you can
deny it.
Mayor Ferre: Sir, your argument is superfluous because the
City Attorney has already ruled and who are you arguing
with? With who? You're arguing with Mr. Traurig? Well,
Mr. Traurig, this is not a court of law. Oh, Scharlin, I
see, I'm sorry. You know, if you want to go argue with him
you can step outside and argue with hire but right now, you
know, the City attorney has already ruled. All right, now,
is there any further discussion?
RT 12 DEC. 12, 1984
Mr, Treister: Mr, Mayor, if this Commission votes to return
it to the Planning Board we would obviously like that and we
would then go home and do our homework and go before those
boards. If the Commission wants to deny it then we have the
right to put on a presentation on the merits.
Mayor Ferre: You absolutely do.
Mr. Treister: What we would like to do is obviously let the
lawyers fight this out, and I think the City Attorney has
already ruled for us, if the Commission wants to hear it
tonight without going back to the Planning Board then we
want the obvious right to do it. We have a problem in that
we thought that the opponents did not want us to hear it but
_
wanted us to go back and they spoke for four hours last
month telling us to go back, we, therefore, did not bring
obviously our consultants and our constituency and would
like, we thought tonight it was crystal clear that you asked
the City Attorney to make a ruling, she made a ruling and we
thought that based on that ruling we were going to make a
quick appearance here, that the lawyers would then say yes,
they were right, we would start over this application.
Mayor Ferre: That's what I thought too, but it didn't ...
-.
Mr. Treister: Well, I think it is totally unfair for the
community not to have this go back to the Planning Board.
.
Mayor Ferre: It's not the community, Ken, it is the City of
Miami Commission that is making the motion. You know, the
motion was made by Commissioner Carollo not by the community
and it was seconded by Commissioner Dawkins. Now, so, the
point is it is not the community, you have got a Commission
here that is about to take a vote for denial.
Mr. Treister: Mr. Mayor, we heard from people saying they
wanted due process. They wanted full exposure. When we now
suggest that the inference is no, we don't want it. For
instance they said to us originally...
Mayor Ferre: Now look ...
Ms. Cooper: Excuse me.
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me. I think what they want is they
want a denial of this project, I understand.
Mr. Treister: Well, that's true.
Mayor Ferre: Now obviously, Mr. Treister, you have rights
At
and there's no question, and they have rights
and right now
the situation is that it was my opinion that
the way this
thing was going was that it was going to go
back to the
Planning Advisory Board but that's not the
will of the
majority of this Commission so, you know, that's
where we're
}
=K
at. Now, you want to add anything, Janet, germane?
Ms. Cooper: I just wanted to clarify that
the opponents
.... .
�;.
never said that we wanted it sent back to
the Planning
.`
Advisory board, this was a request that was
made by the
a°'.
developer.
_::_.
="
Mayor Ferre: Who are you arguing with?
Ms. Cooper: I'm just providing information.
Mayor Ferre: For whom?
No. Cooper: For the record.
RT 13 DEC. 12, 1984
PJ
Mayor Ferret
I see, all right.
Ms. Cooper: And furthermore, the Commission said that we
would have a legal opinion on the 12th, if the legal opinion
was that it could proceed we would immediately proceed to
the merits, if it ran over we would carry it over to the
20th. We're here prepared.
Mayor Ferret Is there anything else you want to add?
Howard, is there anything else you want to add?
Mr. Treister: We want a public hearing if it is going to be
tonight.
Mayor Ferret You have a right to that, sir.
Mr. Treister: And obviously we'd like to have it go back to
the Planning Board.
Mayor Ferret That's not the motion before us now.
Mr. Scharlin: Three short points, Mr. Mayor. First, the
City Attorney has indicated that if you vote in favor of it,
if you were to vote and end up voting in favor of our
application it is her opinion that your action is
successfully attackable in court because we haven't properly
noticed it.
Mayor Ferret All right.
Mr. Scharlin: So ...
Mayor Ferret But that's not the motion before us.
Mr. Scharlin: I understand. But we have requested that it
go back for a hearing before the Planning Advisory Board.
In the alternative, if the City Commission feels that it
doesn't want to do that but wants to consider the
application on its merits I would appreciate a deferral to
the next meeting so that we can have our experts who can
once again satisfy you, we believe, on the issues of
traffic...
Mayor Ferret I have no objections to that, if that is the
will of the rest of this Commission.
Mr. Scharlin: But I don't think it is appropriate to
suddenly push it through this way without giving us the
opportunity to properly present, properly to satisfy you on
your concerns concerning traffic.
Mayor Ferret Look, fair is fair and I have no objections to
that if that is the will of the rest of this Commission. I
am willing to vote on it right now but that is up to ...
Will you let me run this meeting? Thank you. Now, that is
up to this Commission to make that decision. Now, there is
a request now by the applicant that this matter be deferred
to another time certain so that they will have an
opportunity to make a presentation which they are not
prepared to do tonight.
Mr. Scharlin: Sir, our request primarily is for a return
for reconsideration at the PAB and then moving forward with
the application.
Mayor Ferret Mr. Scharlin, there is a motion before this
body right now which I have accepted as Chairman, and it has
been duly seconded, that this item be denied. Now, you are
requesting because you are not prepared to make your
presentation tonight at this public hearing that this item
RT 14 DEC. 12, 1984
be deferred. Now, I have to turn to the maker of the motion
and see if that is what he wishes to do because otherwise,
in parliamentary procedure there is a proper motion which I
am going to call.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I stand with my motion. At no time
am I hearing from the developers that they are willing to
scale down the project, that they are willing to find
another road that is different than just to Main Highway.
There is no possible way, with the new developments that we
were never made aware of that are going up in that area that
that street, that part of Coconut Grove can handle the
traffic of that project and the others are going to
generate.
Mayor Ferre: You stand on y your motion.
Mr. Carollo: I stand on my motion.
= M
Mayor Ferre: Does the seconder of the motion stand on the
s`-•;;
motion?
Mr. Treister: Commissioner Carollo, we are scaling down the
project. We have not had a chance to present it because we
were told that this was a legal argument tonight and not on
the merits. Secondly, we have provided an alternate access
to our project which again, we would bring up at our
��'�'- � � `
presentation. So we request that you
p q y give us a chance and
'
the City Commission y give us a chance and the community given
a chance to see the project
p sect on its merits as it has been
amended, scaled down and other exits.
Mr. Carollo: Ken, scaled down to what?
Mr. Treister: Well, we have re -submitted this and we would
go to the Planning Board.
Mr. Carollo: You're going to have 10 less units maybe, or
5?
Mr. Treister: Well, I would like the opportunity to, you
know, intelligently present it. But we would like the
opportunity of going back to the Planning Board, coming to
you on two hearings and hearing this on the merits. So far,
we have only discussed the legal issues which the City
Attorney agreed were not valid and this Commission asked
that that be her direction.
Mr. Carollo: Well, Ken, you still haven't answered my
question, you plan on scaling it down to what?
Mr. Treister: Well, without going through it in detail, we
are scaling down ... I forget, the floor area...
Mr. Carollo: 30%, 40%, 50%?
Mr. Treister: It's not 50%, but it is ... It is 15,000 or
20,000 square feet of - 20,000 square feet of buildable
units.
Mr. Carollo: Why don't you speak to me in percentages.
Speak to me in per cent, what per cent are you planning on
scaling it down?
Mr. Treister: Somewhere between 5 and 10% and we have also
changed the traffic flow significantly and we have hired
additional traffic engineers to present to the Commission a
comprehensive analysis of this are and we would like the
opportunity of three public hearings. Now, we'd like two
public hearings,'we'd like one public hearing but obviously
RT 15 DEC. 12. 19134
ON �
we don't want the opponents saying they should start back
and then when we start back they say oh no, they can't start
back and we're sort of on a merry-go-round here but we would
like to do it in some kind of order. We would like to go to
the Planning Board on the 19th and we would like to come to
the Commission during the month of January.
Mr. Carollo: Ken, let me say this to you. Five per cent,
even ten per cent is really nothing in scaling the project
down. It is a beautiful project, you went through it with
me, I love it, but it is way too big for that area comparing
everything else that is supposed to go up there also. At
the same time, what I'm seeing is that, you know, you say
5 - 10%, well, maybe the 5% might end up being 2% or 3%.
Mr. Treister:
No, it is a
definitive
number.
*' n
Mr. Carollo:
And I know
that
as a
developer what you're
hoping is that
in the time
you
have
between you 11 be able
Ax:;:';.".
to call enough
people so
they
could
call us and pressure
three votes into
voting for
it and
I'll assure you what that
is going to do
g g
with me is
going
g g
to close
m mind even more
Y
than it is right
now and I
hope
you could read and
understand me.
Mr. Treister: Let me explain why we're going back to the
Planning Board. We thought that we did it properly and we
did it the way the City wanted. We do not need time. We
would like to have a full hearing and no legal problems but
we thought that we were going to be sued on this issue and
the City was going to be attacked and we thought that it was
proper to go back and do it exactly the way the strictest
interpretation of the law would be. So based on that, we
respectfully request that this be rescheduled to the
Planning Board and then properly heard.
.> Mayor Ferre: Sir, that is not before us. Again, I want to
remind you that that is not the motion before us. What is
before us is a denial. It is not a question of sending it
back to the Planning Board, it is not going back to the
�4 Planning Board with this motion. Now, the question that Mr.
- Scharlin made was whether or not there would be a deferral
of this vote until you had the opportunity at this public
hearing to make a presentation. I asked the maker of the
g
t motion whether or not he was willing to do that. The answer
was no. I asked the seconder of the motion if he was
willing to do that. The answer was no. I'll ask the City
Attorney, and that is the last thing I could do that I feel
�,:- - �.". •.ors" Y.`. r,^,
to try to be of assistance to you and that is, is this
constituted as a bonafide legal second hearing if this vote
is voted upon and it asses in its majority? Have we given
P P
the applicants and the proponents a proper and a fair
hearing and a fair opportunity for them to present their
-� case at this public hearing?
_M1y
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, this is a
g y: y • , public hearing
and the
applicant should have the opportunity
to have a
hearing
before you on the merits.
f,
Mayor Ferre: The applicant is saying
that they
are not
prepared to make a presentation tonight.
Now, I don't
think
.'-
there is any legal jeopardy on our case
because of
that, is
there?
Mrs. Dougherty: I agree, that is true.
Mayor Ferre: I'm asking a question on the record. Is there
any legal jeopardy in our voting at this point for denial?
RT 16 DEC. 12, 1984
I- � ]�
Mrs. Dougherty: There is not except that they are permitted
this evening to have a public hearing if they want to
present evidence to you tonight.
Mayor Ferre: Let the record reflect that I have not at any
time denied them that right. You have that right now.
Mr. Treister: But Mr. Mayor, can I ask the City Attorney?
Mayor Ferre: Please.
Mr. Treister: I hate to be an adversary with the City
Attorney who just ruled for us, but didn't she tell us prior
to this meeting that we, or warn' t it at least not legally
or specifically, but wasn't the inference that to clear up
some of these inconsistencies or technical ideas that we
properly should go back to the Planning board, that tonight
would be a ruling on other items and that weren't we led to
believe that this would not be a full public hearing on the
merits?
Mrs. Dougherty: Not by me, I can tell you that I made a
specific statement that I cannot talk for what the City
Commission would do. I could not tell you that the
Commission would give you the right to go back to the
Planning Board, that is not something that I was authorized
to do. That is totally within their discretion. That is
not something that the staff can do, that is not something
that I can do, that is in their discretion whether or not
they want to refer it back.
Mr. Treister: Can I ask, Mr. Mayor, another question,
please?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Treister: If you deferred this to another City
Commission Public Hearing and the City Commission voted for
it, would that be a legal vote?
Mrs. Dougherty: The answer is it would be a legal vote.
Mr. Treister: Even though you ruled that we should go back
to the Planning Board?
Mrs. Dougherty: The answer then is unless somebody
challenged it it would be legal. If it went to court it
would be subject to attack.
Mr. Treister: Well, in all due respects, as citizens we
have been told by our City Attorney that what we did or the
City did would be subject to legal attack. That means even
if we deferred this and it was voted on positively, you
passed it and affirmed it, that that might not be a legal
act, so, therefore, we respectfully request, and it is
apropos, that this motion be denied, that we be given not a
deferral but a chance to reapply legally according to what
the city Attorney requests and that we be given the due
process and the public hearings as set forth in these
ordinances.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, I just want to establish on the
record that due process has been followed, you have been
given that opportunity or you are not being denied the
opportunity this evening to present your case. I don't know
what this Commission is going to decide, I've stated my
opinion, you've had a motion and a second, I assume that
that is going to carry forward in the vote but I don't know
that for a fact until we vote. Now, you know, I have now
exhausted this whole thing, as far as I'm concerned I've
RT 17 DEC. 12, 1984
given you all the time and if you need more time please take
more time.
Mr. Treister: Mr. Mayor, could I ask another question?
Mayor Ferret Of course.
Mr. Treister: I said something which sounded logical to me
and you agreed, but now I want to make it clear. If the
Commission wants to vote tonight on this and if the
Commission voted against it in the next whatever minutes
they did.
Mayor Ferret Yes.
Mr. Treister: Then the public hearing would be closed and
we would not have the opportunity of presenting hopefully
persuasive arguments to win your favor or the opposition, in
the contrary, could not make arguments. On the other hand,
we do not want to make a long presentation tonight because
we thought that we were going to another board and do it
over. If you ask us to do a long presentation which we're
willing to do, we can stay here as long as you allow us.
Mayor Ferret Mr. Treister, I'm not asking you to do
anything, I'm just giving you what is your right.
Mr. Treister: No, but follow me for a second, Mr. Mayor.
If, in fact, you want to give us a chance to make a
presentation then we would like that opportunity only if we
knew that tonight was the final night and we weren't going
back to the Planning Board and coming back here in January
and coming here in January. If on the alternative we are
going back we would respectfully request that we do not
spend tonight, and we would have to have some time to do it,
to make a full presentation because of the - our reliance
maybe wasn't correct on the Planning Department which we met
with who is here tonight and confirm, and we thought the
City Attorney that this wouldn't be a full hearing. So,
what I'm saying in essence is if you're going to vote
tonight not to send it to the Planning Board, ...
Mayor Ferret That's not before us, Mr. Treister. There is
a motion for denial, there is a second and we're going to
vote on that first. That is the motion before this body.
Mr. Treister: Okay, but you see, the problem I have is say
you voted to deny it, then we wouldn't have a chance to make
a full presentation tonight. If you would rather us make a
full presentation prior to the vote then we would do it but
we've got to admit, and particularly I would like to address
Commissioner Carollo's comment ...
Mayor Ferret That may occur, there are three votes against
the motion but legally the procedure is very simple. There
is a motion on the floor made by Carollo seconded by Dawkins
and I'm giving you the opportunity that you may require to
speak on the motion at this public hearing and then I'm
going to call for a vote. Now, if the vote is, if there are
three votes for that motion the application is denied.
Mr. Treister: Mr. Mayor, are you saying then that right now
we would be given the opportunity, do you think it is proper
to make a full presentation on our project?
Mayor Ferret
think that is
saying that
presentation.
That is what the City Attorney has ruled and I
proper. I don't want you going to court and
we denied you any opportunity to make your
RT 18 DEC. 121 1984
Mr. Treister: Am I understanding what the Chair and the
City Attorney is saying is that you want us now to put a
full presentation on?
Mayor Ferre: I don't want you to do anything, I'm just
advising you of your legal rights.
Mr. Treister: Well, I assume what you're saying, and let me
paraphrase it again, that as part of this motion we will now
be given the opportunity to put on a full presentation.
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely.
Mr. Treister: On this project on the merits.
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely.
Mr. Treister: Now, here is the dilemma we have: is the
legal question that you posed that said that that was
illegal last week. You told us last week.
Mayor Ferre: I didn't say a word, the City Attorney told
you that there were certain aspects of this ...
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I call the question, let's vote on
it. Let's vote on it now, please.
Mayor Ferre: Now, you've got the right to do that and that
closes all discussion, but I'm afraid if you do that you may
be giving them a legal avenue to take this thing to court.
Mr. Carollo: Fine, we'll go to court and meet them there.
Mayor Ferre: You have that right.
Mr. Carollo: That's what we have a City Attorney for.
Mayor Ferre: When there is a call of the question,
technically, there is no further discussion. We now need to
vote on the call of the question and then on the main
motion. Lucia, so we document this properly, do you need a
second for a call of the question?
Mrs. Dougherty: No.
Mayor Ferre: And that's an automatic vote, is that correct?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll on calling the question.
The preceding motion failed to pass by the following
vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller Dawkins
Vice -Mayor Joe carollo
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer
Commissioner Demetrio Perez
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: They have not had their opportunity to exhaust
their administrative procedures, I have to vote no.
Mr. Perez; In order to give them a better opportunity to
make the proper explanation, I vote no.
RT 19 DEC. 121 1984
Mayor Ferre: I vote no because I don't think that they
should in any way be denied the right to say anything they
want to this evening. I think that they have proper rights
and they should not be denied. You can say anything you
want to. That does not change my final vote. My vote is
still against the project but I do not want to deny them the
right to speak.
' Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can we take about a 5 minute
recess? I have to make a phone call. That will give them
time to prepare whatever they're going to do.
k, Mayor Ferre: We'll take a five minute recess, that gives
you time to prepare any statements you want to make and then
we're going to take this to a final vote.
Thereupon the City Commission recessed at 7:18 P.M. and
reconvened at 7:37 P.M.
Mayor Ferre: All right, when we broke up a few minutes ago
to give you the opportunity for you and your associates to
discuss this matter and then make your presentation. I
P`t certainly will give you the time that you need to do that.
Mr. Ken Treister: Mr. Mayor, could I ask a legal question
or a question?
Mayor Ferre: You certainly may.
Mr. Treister: We would like the opportunity of going back
to the Planning Board as we have said before.
Mayor Ferre: That's not before us, Mr. Treister. It just
simply is not before us.
Mr. Treister: Well, can I ask the City attorney, because I
thought at break she told me, since she didn't think that we
would stand up legally if we got approval of this vote but
we would get a denial if we got a denial.
Mayor Ferre: You have asked that question before.
Mr. Treister: No, I have a new question, Mr. Mayor, she
told me, I thought, that if we got a denial we got a denial
but if we got an approval it meant that we were getting
three votes to go back to the Planning Board. Could you
restate or explain that?
Mayor Ferre: Madame City Attorney, on the record, you have
a question.
Mrs. Dougherty: What I stated was as a practical matter, if
you had the three votes to approve the application you'd
have the same three votes to send it back to the Planning
Board so there are some alternatives. You have before you a
motion to deny, the Commission can deny the motion or it can
approve the motion and if it wanted to approve the motion
then it would probably want to send it to the Planning
Board.
Mayor Ferre: That's correct, that's what you said before.
Mr. Treister: Do I understand then the debate today or the
public hearing now, is there three choices or two?
Mayor Ferre: There is one choice here, two choices, I'm
sorry, either yes or no on the motion.
Mr. Treister:
deny.
No, there is a motion still before you to
RT
20
DEC. 121 1984
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion properly made by a member of
the Commission, seconded to deny and that is what we are
discussing now. Now, you have a right ... No, sir, the
motion that failed was Commissioner Carollo called the
question. He has that legal right to call the question. We
^I
voted on that, we voted the question. I voted against the
.:
calling of the question because I do not want to deny you
the right to speak. Now, I also said on the main question
my position was still firm I'm against the project. Now,
I'm giving you the time that you feel is appropriate to
discuss this issue. Now, I think there has to be a
limitation to that Mr. Treister so either ou resent our,
...r..
case or - I don't want to advise you - you do what you think
is proper but we are about to vote on this issue. Is there
anything else you wish to say, air?
Mr. Treister: Yes, air. I would like, again, I've got to
talk in alternates, Mr. Mayor, because this vote affects
alternates. If we withdrew the application completely, we
would do that if we got a chance to reapply in less than 1
months.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let's ask the City Attorney. Madame
r; 4
City Attorney, there is a request now for a legal opinion as
to what occurs if they withdraw their petition.
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr.
Mayor, if
they withdraw
their
application they may not
reapply for
18 months. You
all,
=�•-�v•:
though, have the right to
waive that
18 month period
under
certain circumstances and
I think one
is when you find
that
there has been injustice
and something
else to insure
that
n =a-
the property is in compliance
with the
comprehensive plan,
I
believe.
Mayor Ferre: That right can be waived tonight or at any
time between now and 18 months. Anything else you want to
add to that?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, the standard is when it is deemed
necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate development
of the City in the context of the adopted Comprehensive Plan
or portions or portions thereof.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, so there is plenty of legal room for
this Commission, if it wants to, in its majority in the
future to give you the right to reapply before 18 months are
up.
Mr. Treister: One of the reasons we would do that, if we
did, is to answer Commissioner Carollo's suggestion that the
density was too high and the thought would be that we would
request the reapproval or the waiving of the 18 months in
order to reduce the density.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, that is not before us at this
time.
Mr. Treister: Mr. Mayor, in all due respects, if five
members of the Commission hays to vote on this I think we
have the opportunity to give the alternates - if it is
defeated it is defeated. If it isn't defeated we would like
to either withdraw and get the waiver of the 18 months to
start our process over or we would like the opportunity to,
we go back to the Planning Board. We are still struggling
with the problem.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, for the 10th time, that is not
before this Board. There is a motion of denial. You keep
talking about going to the Planning Board - that is not
RT 21 DEC. 12, 1984
before us. Now, I certainly, you asked a question about
withdrawal, was it answered to your satisfaction? You got a
legal answer from the City Attorney that says, as I
understood it, you can withdraw, if you do this matter
cannot be heard for 1S months unless this Commission in its
majority gives you the right to apply before the end of 1S
months.
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, I have to point out another
section that has just been pointed out to me by the
opponents. There is another Section 2310 which says an
application for an A, B, C, or D Special Permit may be
withdrawn by the applicant at any time, however, it may not
be reconsidered, the same application shall not reconsidered
within 12 months of its withdrawal.
Mayor Ferre: The same application.
Mrs. Dougherty: Right.
Mayor Ferre: But they're talking about a different
application.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but it says, I think the terminology is
substantial difference.
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, substantially the same application may
not be considered for a 12 month period.
Mayor Ferre: A 12 month period.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, maybe I'm out of order, and if I
am, please tell me so. There is one question that is in the
back of my mind that hasn't been answered. Maybe, Madame
City Attorney, you can answer it and if not, then Mr. Sergio
Rodriguez can. The contention is basically on the due lack
of notice. Is that impetus on the developer or is that on
the City? What I'm really saying is that that mistake or
that flaw, is that a City flaw or is it a developer flaw?
Is there any impetus on the developer or anything he failed
to do to bring about this area of insufficient due notice?
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Commissioner, the notice responsibility
is the City's. Other objections that may be cured by reason
of going back to the Planning Board are the developer's
responsibility.
Mr. Plummer: So what you're saying is there was
responsibility on both that was not met.
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Is that your ... Okay.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion?
Mr. Treister: Well, on that point, Mr. Commissioner, could
I have the Planning Department answer that too, because we
worked directly with the Planning Department and we met so
many times and of so many months and we even re -applied once
based on their direction. I respectfully say that we did,
I'd like the Planning Department...
Mayor Ferre: Let's get the Planning Department to give us
an answer to that question.
Mr. Rodriguez: For the record, Sergio Rodriguez, Planning
Director. Obviously, when we sent the notice we were under
the impression that we were doing the proper notice and that
is the way we pursued the whole issue. So the question
RT 22 DEC. 12, 1984.
whether, what is not clear is what you are saying about the
notices. Is the defect in the notice refers to a mistake
that had been made by the applicant because of the property
being described as being of a certain size or what?
Mr. Treister: No.
'. Mayor Ferre: Is there an answer?
fi.g5 •• .
-Y'r= Mrs. Dougherty: I wasn't referring to that as part of the
>.; notice.
. Mayor Ferre: Okay, further discussion before we take this
to a vote?
Mr. Treister. City Commissioners, we would like to address
these different points on our application but again, and I
think it is in order, Mr. Mayor, before you tell me it
isn't. We would like to talk about traffic which is very
germane, and you mentioned it and Commissioner Carollo did.
We would like to point out to the Commission that we have
three traffic consultants because we are concerned with
.;: .
�traffic because if we build a project that doesn't work
we're in more trouble than anybody else. We hired Mr.
at."> Plummer, a very eminent traffic engineer who presented this
report - no relation. He is not here tonight because we
didn't ask him to be here because we didn't think we were
going to have this presentation. By the way, I'm leading up
to a request for a deferral but let me go over it with you.
We hired a Mr. Miles Moss because we were concerned with
3v traffic. He is the ex -traffic engineer, one of them from
the County. He worked very diligently on reports on the
,:.
traffic which we do not think is a problem and they
corroborated it. We then hired Mr. Rice who did a traffic
and parking study in the City of Coconut grove. Neither Mr.
Miles Moss nor Mr. Rice are here tonight and again, that is
f` further reason we would like this to be deferred. On the
environment which is an important consideration to us and
everyone in Coconut Grove and I'm sure the Commission, we
K hired Mr. Tab Bradshaw, a very eminent landscape architect
who is not here tonight because we had understood that we
u%. wouldn't be making this presentation and, therefore, we
would like deferral. We hired another gentleman, Mr. George
'r Allen ...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, so that the record properly
reflects, because I don't want to get into a legal problem.
v You said you understood. Who led you to understand that
this matter would be deferred tonight?
:a
Mr. Treister: Both the Planning Department and the City
Attorney, and I'm not trying to be critical, I don't want to
be adverse to those friends.
Mayor Ferre: The Planning Department told you that this
>' thing would be deferred.
Mr. Treister: They thought it would be deferred.
Mayor Ferre: They thought it would be deferred.
n.
Mr. Treister: And the City Attorney didn't legally state
that it would, but thought that it would be.
Mayor Ferre: All right, on the record, Mr. Rodriguez, so we
can ...
Mr. Treister: And I don't want to be adverse to them
because they're great people and they're my friends and
they've done a great job, but ...
RT 23 DEC. 12, 1984
Mayor Ferre: I understand that but I want to make sure that
we don't get into a legal bind in here. Mr. Rodriguez, did
you or anybody in the Department that you know of at any
time tell Mr. Treister or anybody that this matter was going
to be deferred?
Mr. Rodriguez: As Director of the Planning Department, I
never inferred that this item would be deferred tonight, me
as Director of the Planning Department.
Mayor Ferre: You said that it would be deferred?
Mr. Rodriguez: No, we never said that. Now, as to whether
any other members of my staff have indicated that, I don't
know.
Mayor Ferre: Would you please poll your staff and send a
memorandum for the record to the Clerk to make that clear.
Now, Madame City Attorney, did you tell the applicants that
this matter would be deferred tonight?
Mrs. Dougherty: I did not tell them it would be deferred
tonight, I did tell them it was my guess that it probably
would be.
Mayor Ferre: I see, I think that is fair. We need to get
that on the record.
Mr. Treister: That is a fair statement and that is the same
type of statement that I think the Planning Department gave
US*
Mayor Ferre: All right, go ahead and conclude your
statement.
Mr. Treister: We hired a Mr. George Allen who is a famous
man.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, the Herald said it too.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, the Herald said it.
Mr. Treister: Look, let's face it, gentlemen, this is maybe
a little ...
Mayor Ferre: Wrong again.
Mr. Treister: We would like it deferred, we would like an
opportunity, if this motion is going to be heard, to have a
proper presentation. Mr. George Allen was hired by us, he
came to our other meetings, he is not here tonight because
we thought and we were led to believe, and the City Attorney
just corroborated that even though she didn't legally state
it that we wouldn't have a public hearing. We hired Mr.
Manly Boss who is a botanist ...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, you know, I'm trying to be as
polite and as generous as I can to you but reading off a
litany of names of people that should be here that are not
here doesn't in any way change the issue. Let the record
reflect, and I accept it, that you do not have the people
that you would normally have here to testify on your behalf.
Mr. Treister: And the reason I'm saying this is I'm asking
you, Mr. Mayor, to vote for a deferral and other members of
the Commission to vote for a deferral in fairness to the
fact that you're asking us to make a presentation when we
were very led ...
RT 24 DVC. 121 1984
Mayor Ferre: Mr, Treister, I am opposed to the fact that
you only have one access or two accesses on Main Highway and
I told you from the very beginning that unless there was an
access to McFarlane Road I was opposed to the project. That
r` is the basis for my voting against it. I voted that way the
first time around, this is the Second Reading. I have not
changed my mind. Now, I apologize to you, you're a friend
of mine, you're a great guy, Mr. Scharlin is a fine man, the
Planning Department spent a lot of time and effort on this,
but you know, you either believe something or you don't
believe it and you either stick to your convictions or you
don't and I am where I am. Now, you're asking for a
deferral. You've already asked. Commissioner Carollo said
no. Commissioner Dawkins said no.
Mr. Treister; No, I just asked for a deferral, Mr. Mayor, I
didn't ask for it before their vote. But I am scaling down
Mayor Ferre: You asked for it about a half an hour ago and
we've been going on and on and I've let you do that so that
you can't say that we didn't give you an opportunity to say
everything that you wanted to say.
Mr. Treister: Mr. Mayor, then I would like then, I'm trying
. w_.. to ask for a deferral. If you' re saying, and I would like
the Commission to tell me whether you want a full
presentation on the traffic, density, environment, and I
'`. would be glad to give it but I'm ...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, you have now taken a half an
hour going around in the same circle and we are where we
were half an hour ago and that is unless Commissioner
Carollo and Commissioner Dawkins change their position I
have a valid motion for denial in front of me. Now, you
have now taken up a half an hour of this Commission's time
in going around in a circle and now you tell me you want to
make presentations.
Mr. Treister: Well, is this, in fact, a public hearing on
the issue on the merits?
Mayor Ferre: It is, and I'm giving you every right to speak
on the public issue.
Mr. Treister: Okay, well, I'm going to start speaking on
the issue.
Mayor Ferre: Fine and I'll tell you, so that we can
reasonably end this because you know, it seems to me, Mr.
Treister, it seems to me that I'm going to hold you to
presenting new information. If you're going to repeat what
you said before I don't think that serves any purpose, we
heard the argument before and I'm going to hold you to a
reasonable time. Now, how much time do you need to make
your presentation?
Mr. Treister: Well, first I must ask will the opposition be
limited to only discussing the new issues?
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely the same time.
Mr. Treister: No, I don't mean that.
Mayor Ferre:, Only new arguments, that's correct.
Mr. Treister: Because see, last month you asked them to
limit their legal arguments at a certain date and yet you
allowed them tonight to make additional arguments and I just
want to know the game.
RT 25 DEC. 12, 1984
Mayor Ferre: Sir, their additional legal arguments have
nothing to do with the basic issue. What I said was we were
down to two things, either a denial or sending it back to
the Planning Board and there was a motion for denial and
that is where we're at. I haven't given anybody any extra
rights that the other side doesn't have. I am now asking
you how much time you need to present your statement.
L. IN'3_.
Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, Jack, have you taken sides in this
='
or are you still neutral and for the City?
Mr. Jack Luft: Commissioner, I spoke strongly at the First
=
Reading in what I always believe to be the best interest of
the City. I have been here 15 years, I believe in this
City. When Mr. Treister first came to us with this project
I was severely critical of it on the traffic question. I
i
was a doubting Thomas. I was particularly concerned about
i
the mid -afternoon traffic, the 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. because
that is the project peak. All I'm saying to you is that I
presented to him some very stiff arguments. For several
>;
months we battled and I asked him to prove to me and I went
=..,.
to other outside people, I went to the County Traffic
.
X,I ,'--
Engineer and I asked for as much advice as I could get from
him, from his consultants and from independent people from
the other side to try to weigh my recommendation to this
Commission because I feel I owe it to you to give my best
professional advice. I gave that to you and I stand by it.
I believe the project merits your consideration as I
recommended it.
r=-,
Mr. Carollo: Jack, I think that is great, I appreciate it,
I'll make sure the Mayor sends you a Certificate of
Appreciation. However, I think it is very wrong for any
City employee of the Planning or Zoning Departments that are
,, ..
giving an opinion whether it is favorable or not for a
developer to be sitting down with developers because the
image that it projects to the public is a very erroneous
image. That is the point I'm trying to make. You are
entitled to give your professional opinion no matter how
right or wrong it may be but I think it is wrong for you to
-r'�;;n`=,,_
be sitting down with developers because that creates a very
ugly image to the public and I hope you can understand that.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Luft, thank you.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, you let Mr. Treister talk and I
�.�;.
want to be sure that I understood what he said. We said we
,,..,.
would either deny it and he asked for a deferral and then
Mr. Treister asked what would happen if he withdrew.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: And the City Attorney gave him an answer to if
he withdrew.
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: So the three options that Mr. Treister
presented were answered, am I correct?
Mayor Ferre: I think so, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: But I just want to be sure that like you said,
every opportunity is given here to be fair and just.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Treister, the point now is
since I assume that you do want to make a presentation, how•
long do you want to make your presentation?
RT 26 DEC. 12, 1984
Mr. Treister: Five minutes.
Mayor Ferre: All right, sir, please proceed.
Mr. Treister; I would like to just talk about three items
that I don't think, and I assume, Mr. Mayor, that that is
going to be the opposition's rebuttal.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I will hold them to five minutes.
Mr. Treistert (1) On the traffic, and I'm addressing this
to you, Mr. Mayor, and to Mr. Carollo and others, and
quickly, the traffic in Coconut Grove is two -fold, the
negative traffic. It is in the morning in rush hour and it
is late at night at rush hour, that's (1) and it is the
weekends. And our Planning Department has scrutinized Mr.
j,..,
Plummer s report that says our traffic, because we do not
open the shops until after the rush hour begins and we have
very slow traffic based on traffic counts after the rush
hour in the afternoon occurs which is the slowest time of
shopping in the Grove, that we do not impact on the traffic
and in the reverse, since we are going to build a traffic
light in the Commodore Plaza Street, Main Highway, that we
will actually even improve the traffic coming down Commodore
Plaza. The weekend traffics, nobody can correct or hurt, it
is busy because Coconut Grove is busy just like the Orange
Bowl Stadium is busy after a Dolphin Game, and we don't want
j:°•;..-
people not to go to the Dolphin Games because of traffic and
;..
we don't want them not to come to Coconut Grove on weekends.
We do not impact on traffic during the evening, during the
day, during the weekday there is very little traffic in
Coconut Grove and I wish there was more because I am a
merchant there. We have three traffic studies, we have the
Public Works Department of your City that agrees with this,
we have the Planning Department and we have a statement from
"<
the County that we do not have to go through McFarlane as
you suggest, Mr. Mayor, so we have five people plus a lot of
n
common sense that says that we will not bring traffic. (2)
Second Mr. Carollo and others at the Commission
entrance,
asked for a second entrance we provided on our revised
"rt
plan, which I haven't had a chance to show tonight because I
don't have it here unfortunately, that we are giving a
k- 4^
second exit onto Main Highway based on the setback of the
Artist Pavilion. Third, I would like to reiterate that we
are building an Artist Pavilion, an artist colony, an artist
i `trJ
center which would reactivate the Grove House which would
now be a non-profit organization which will not occur if you
gentlemen do not vote for us at least to defer it tonight
and that would bring a subsidized artist school center to
Coconut Grove plus a branch in the black section of Coconut
Grove which would be an outreach program which we are
.
obligated as part of our development to give $110,000 to the
development of that outreach program so that black children
and white children can study and work together in the arts
and hopefully create an upgrading of the Grand Avenue area
as well as an upgrading of Commodore Plaza. Last, we are
reducing the density based on the fact that we lost the bay
bottom and we've agreed to reduce it by I think some 20 to
9
25,000 square feet which is some of the desires of the
opponents. So here we're bringing residential people to the
village center but we're reducing it because you have asked
us to. We're giving you an alternate access to Main Highway
because you asked us to and your departments, County, City,
�`
Planning, Public Works and three other people said there is
no traffic problem. There is only a traffic problem if you
drive through at rush hour and our project does not entail
that rush hour. But we bring moderate income housing to the
village center, instead of tearing down apartments we're
building apartments. We're building shops to the Bay and,
4.
if you gentlemen vote for us you're going to have a public
RT 27 DEC. 12, 1984
access to the Bay. If you vote against this you're now
bringing the elitist concept of only homes and highrises on
the Bay but no public commercial access. We now have parks
on the Bay but you gentlemen, I think, appreciate urban
development, you appreciate street life and I think you can
appreciate that you have valuable parks that do not link
with Commodore Plaza. We will be the link. If you vote for
us tonight you're going to have people a year or two from
now praising you for sidewalk cafes, for sidewalks, for bay
frontage, you're going to have people going to the
Playhouse, to the village center through our project to the
park. Conventioneers that you need badly will go from
Dinner Key along a boardwalk which we're paying for, and
just one last point ...
Ms. Hirai: Time is up, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead.
Mr. Treister: We're paying for a boardwalk on Peacock Park,
we're paying for a lot of improvements, we have spent a year
with the Planning Department, we've worked hard to give a
lot. We've given more, I think we have always given
everything. We respectfully that you for people approve
this. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Commissioner.
Mr. Carollo: Ken, one brief small question. What is the
estimated profit that you plan to make from this project?
Mr. Treister: Mr. Commissioner, we will sell - there are
two phases to this project.
Mr. Carollo: I'm saying the whole project. The estimated
profit that you and your partner plan to make from it.
Mr. Treister: I would love to give you a quick short answer
but let me just say that if we are lucky and we sell the
apartments at the prices that we hope to get on the
apartments we'll break even. On the apartments we'll break
even, I'll show you a proforma. If we're unlucky, and the
sales of condominiums have been unlucky, we'll lose money on
the apartments. We are hoping to break even on the
apartments to pay for the land and the cost of the retail.
The retail will be our profit. We will have about 22,000
square feet of restaurants or whatever, something like that,
24,000 and 30 some thousand square feet of shops less what
we're cutting back because of the reduced. There is a
chance we'll do well with those shops. If Coconut Grove
prospers we will get good rents, the place will be jammed
with people. There is a risk that they won't do well, and
we have many merchants unfortunately or fortunately in
Coconut Grove that have done poorly and some have done well.
Mr. Carollo: Ken, what is the bottom line?
Mr. Treister: We will own the 60,000 square feet of retail,
that would be our profit. We would then be subsidizing the
Art Center and the bottom line is I don' t know but we would
own 60,000 square feet of retail and we would have covered
our costs for the condominium in the optomistic view or we
would have some loss in the sale of the condominiums and
then, of course, hopefully make it up on the retail. I hope
that answers it ... There will be 60,000 square feet of
rentable, whatever that is worth, less the cost of the Art
Center.
Mr. Carollo: What should you be making as a profit? Let's
say at your worst predictions what kind of profits are you
going to be making?
8T 28 DEC. 12, 1984
Mr. Treister: The worst I can't tell you because we would
lose a lot of money. It is going to cost a lot to build, we
are not utilizing the land completely but anyway ...
Mr. Carollo: Ken, you've sold me. I've got to vote against
it, I don't want you to go broke. I mean you're telling me
you're going to lose money or break even on the condos
maybe, you're maybe going to make a profit or you're going
to lose a lot of money. Heck, you should be thanking us in
voting against it.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the opponents have 5 minutes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, before the slotted time
begins, a point of inquiry.
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You will remember at the last hearing
Mr. McCrea's point about Jello to the wall, we've seen it
again tonight. Where is the site plan or the description as
Commissioner Carollo asked for earlier about what the scale
down is? Where is the file? What are even they proposing?
Where is it?
Mayor Ferre: Look, you have five minutes to make your
presentation. I don't care who or how it is done. If you
want to take all five minutes and all the attorneys wish to
give you those five minutes that is up to you. Now, are you
all in accordance that she's your spokesperson?
Mrs. Joanne Holshouser: No.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you have five minutes and that is it.
If you want to take the five minutes ...
Mrs. Holshouser: I'm not going to take the five minutes.
Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to proceed?
Mrs. Joanne Holshouser: Joanne Holshouser, 4230 Ingraham
Highway, I'm president of the Coconut grove civic Club. I
am objecting to the traffic. Are we to assume that the
dwellers and the employees and the delivery trucks are only
going to come and go other than rush hour? There is no way
to prove that, it can't be done, he can't force them to come
and go any time but when they want. The second entrance is
going to be 30 or 40 or 50 feet from the first entrance, all
the traffic is going to come and go on Main Highway,
fellows, there is no other place for it to go. Reactivating
Grove House, subsidized artist schools, outreach programs,
$110,000, $110,000 is buckish to start an outreach program.
Who is going to maintain it? The subsidized villas, he is
going to give 22,000 square feet and subsidize it
permanently? I really think that needs a great deal of
looking into, it needs full covenants to run in perpetuity
before you do that. The density needs to be reduced a lot
more than that, 25,000 square feet is not really all that
much. The link with the bay that he is willing to pay for
is going to be the real thing that rapes Peacock Park. That
is going to go in there as a pedestrian walk which is going
to allow the fire trucks to go back and forth to Mr.
Treister's project• and I want to see a model showing the
mass of this project because I think people need to see that
and he can't preserve the hammock, it is not possible.
Mr. Jim McMaster: My name is Jim McMaster, 2940 S.W. 30th
Court. The fire hydrant lines for this project are going to
run through the middle of the garage roof. There are going
RT 29 DEC. 12, 1984
I
to be three hydrant lines on top of the garage area itself
and you might want to look at this. It is an unsafe
building, no building has ever been allowed in Dade County
with hydrant lines running through the structure like this
and I doubt it has been allowed in the nation. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, 3 minutes and 20 seconds left.
Ms. Cooper: Mr. McMaster is passing out a letter dated June
6th from the State of Florida telling the surveyor for Mr.
Treister that the submerged land is owned by the State.
That was June 6th. On June 15th, Mr. Treister filed an
application, the legal description includes the submerged
lands. I confirmed this with Bruce Linton from the
Department of Natural Resources today. He confirmed that
with Walter Pierce by telephone late this afternoon. I
would like to point out to you from a portion of the survey
that the submerged lands is 34,317 square feet. The total
reduction that Mr. Treister is offering to make is a
reduction because the size of his property is reduced, he is
not offering to reduce the density, the intensity of his
development whatsoever.
Mr. Ken Bannam. Mr. Mayor, my name is Ken Bannam, I'm a
traffic engineer. My address is 7700 N. Kendall Drive. The
Commodore Bay Traffic Study made six specific
recommendations in order to alleviate the impact of this
project. The first two of these need to be shown in some
greater detail. On pages 39 and 40 they are. (1) provide
an additional southwest bound through lane on Main Highway
from Fuller Street to Charles Street...
Mayor Ferre: You've got two minutes left.
Mr. Bannam: ...by prohibiting parking f
curve of Main Highway from Fuller Street
removing extended sidewalk areas from the
Main Highway from Fuller Street to Charles
see on the drawing here what this will do
The second recommendation was provide a
right turn lane from Commodore Plaza to
removing approximately 3 parking spaces f:
of Commodore Plaza and reconstruction of t
impact of this, of course, is going to
sidewalk to less than it was before t1
modifications out on Main Highway. Lan
reduced to below minimum standards. As
landscaping and utilities will be severely
project. Thank you.
?om the northwest
to Charles and by
northwest side of
Street. You can
to Main Highway.
southwest bound
Main Highway by
-om the west side
he sidewalk. The
be to reduce the
e City made the
a widths will be
you can see, the
impacted by this
Mayor Ferre: All right, any other speakers.
Mr. Jack Rice: Jack Rice representing C. G. McCormick. Mr.
Treister and Mr. Charles Kimbrough here, it says that that
kind of development that he has is highly profitable and it
leads to a need for rental units or condo units that are
needed in the Grove and says that it is economically
feasible. Now, he is telling you he is going to lose
money - that does not make sense. Secondly, the intensity
of this project is enormous. He only has three and a half
feet on each side of the building that stretches
approximately 300 feet. The building goes down in the
ground two stories for approximately 300 feet. The view
corridor is only 16 feet when everybody else has to meet 62
feet. This intensity of this project is just overwhelming,
not counting what you have to take away on the bay front
where he gives 15 when he should have given us 50,
Mayor Ferro: All right, that concludes your time and I
thank you very much for your patience and now I think we're
RT
30
DEC. 12 , 1984
ready to vote unless somebody at this public hearing has any
other statements that need to be made and that have not been
made or that change something legally or otherwise. All
right, seeing none, are there any final comments from the
members of the Commission? Questions? We're now ready to
vote. Call the roll, please.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 84-1347
A MOTION DENYING PROPOSED SECOND READING
ORDINANCE REQUESTING CHANGE OF ZONING
<.t CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY 3471 MAIN
HIGHWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SAID ORDINANCE,
FROM RS-1/1 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
;;. TO RS-1/4 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion
was passed and adopted by the following vote-
:::`'°;; ' AYES :
�r
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: My vote is against the motion for this reason:
There has to be, whether you agree or disagree whole or part
with the Department, there obviously is some merit for the
project. I am convinced that what is there presently will
not be developed as a single family residence. I think most
all of the people here were here and remember the Grove Isle
project and that is from what was originally proposed to
what was finally built was a great deal of difference and a
tremendous scale down. To deny this project this evening I
feel does not give the opportunity to the developers to
scale down. I think once they are faced, as Grove Isle was
faced with the fact that they are not going to get three
votes here this evening they would be more negotiable to
something else. I just think that there is some merit to
the project. I don't feel that the project as it is
proposed is proper but there was always the spirit of
compromise. I will vote against the motion.
Mr. Perez: I would like that both parties have a better
opportunity to discuss this issue, have a better opportunity
for explanation, for that reason I vote against the motion,
I vote no.
Mayor Ferre: Well, then the decision is mine. Mr.
Treister, Mr. Scharlin, Charles and those of you that are
associated in this project, I think that the associates here
are imaginative intelligent, they are the good positive kind
of developers, the kind of people that I think that make
communities prosper and they make them healthy. Ken happens
to be a personal friend of mine and has been for many years.
He is probably one of the best architects that we have in
this community and he is certainly a man that I have a great
deal of admiration for because he has taken architecture
beyond just the design of a building. He gets into
landscaping, he gets into color schemes and into furniture,
RT 31 DEC. 12, 1984
n
I
plantings, he's an expert on ferns and on palms. He is
really the kind of an architect that a community like Miami
needs and I think what he has done for Miami on different
occasions and Coconut Grove in particular I'm all in favor
of. I like this project, it is a good project. I think it
is a project that would help Miami and help Coconut Grove.
I like the aspect of the Port Venus approach. I like the
aspect of making the Bay accessible. I like the commercial
aspects of it. It's not overbearing, I think the 60,000
square feet is nothing - 24,000 of restaurant and 30,000
square feet of commercial is not an undue burden on that
property. The 190 apartments is a relatively small part of
the total, I do, however, think there is a traffic problem.
A traffic problem exists. In my mind it does, I think that
it is unlikely to succeed in having whether it has one or
two entrances on Main Highway - it is on Main Highway and I
think it is unfair to the traffic flow to the rest of the
Grove and what happens on Main Highway. I do think, and
I've seen the drawings of this fire lane and the second
lane, if that is carried through there won't be any Gumbo
Limbos or any of the vegetation left that amounts to
anything in my opinion. If you impose those seven wood
buildings that will be a potters house and the art house and
the Grove House and the second lane along with it I don't
think there is much left of the green foliage of that native
hammock there. So I just don't think that I am comfortable
with the traffic pattern as it is presented. If, as you
originally told me when you came to see me, and I was very
pleased with that project, you could have an exit on
McFarlane, and I want to tell the neighbors this because if
they go back and work something out with the diocese and
with St. Stephens Church and they get access on McFarlane
I'm voting with the project. You may say no, but you know
the vestry may change their position and the Bishop may
change his position and I don't know. If they get that
access, and I don't want you angry at me in the future,
because I like the project, I just don't like the traffic
patterns of it and, therefore, based on what I said at the
very first meeting, and I have not changed my position, I
vote with the motion and against the project as presented.
Is there anything else to come up before this Commission?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, legally there are three items, do
we deny all three?
Mayor Ferre: Madame City Attorney, do we need to go and
deny 1, 2 and 3?
Mrs. Dougherty: No, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Okay.
Mayor Ferre: By denying 1, 2 and 3 have been denied. All
right. Commissioner Dawkins wants to make a statement.
Mr. Dawkins: As Commissioner Plummer said, and as
Commissioner Carolle said, and as you said, the project has
merit but I was hoping, Mr. Treister, that as you made your
presentation that you would have said that you would get
with the residents and what have you and scale the project
down where it is acceptable to everyone and, therefore, the
traffic needs and everything else would have been met and I
too must tell you that in the event that a compromise could
be made between you and the residents or if you scale it
down I too will change my vote again in favor of the project
if it is scaled down some and what I think is presentable.
Mr. Treister; All
consultant just
happened to come,
RT
right, thank you.
came, he wasn't
unfortunately too
32
Mr. Mayor, our traffic
supposed to, he just
late. I would like to
DEC. 121 1984
suggest, if I could, that if the City Commission would allow
us to withdraw the project and waive the 18 months, we would
respectfully request tonight - waive the 18 months, please.
We would like the opportunity.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister, in the first place, as you
heard, it isn't 18 months, it is 12 months. You've got 12
h'
months. In the second place, i gave you the opportunity,
and I don't think I could have been any fairer trying to
help you to give you that latitude. You didn't take
s';;:
advantage of it. Now, after we've voted now you want to
come back and have us reverse - I told you what the vote was
going to be.
Mr. Ken Treister. I don't want you to reverse it, Mr.
Mayor. I would like you to waive the time limit so that we
can reapply and, as Commissioner Dawkins said and Mr.
Carollo said, scale down the project.
Mayor Ferre: You could have done that if you had withdrawn
your motion. You didn't withdraw your motion and now, there
is a vote, it has been denied and I think legally we can't
do that. Madame City Attorney?
x:
Mrs. Dougherty: There are two provisions, one is dealing
with the permit, the Special Major Use Permit and that is
not waivable. The zoning 12 month provision is waivable but
the permit one is not.
Mr. Treister: Does that mean that we cannot apply even with
the City's approval, the City Commission's approval?
Mrs. Dougherty: Not with the permit attached to it.
Mr. Treister: Would they waive the zoning? In other words
we would like the opportunity to re -apply, as Commissioner
Dawkins said, as Commissioner Carollo said, we would
appreciate if the City Commission tonight would waive the
zoning requirement for 18 months so we can work with the
neighbors, so we can scale down the project so we can re-
apply.
Mayor Ferre: You could have done that, and it was clear as
day to me and I was trying to help you on that but you
wanted to push it to a vote. You pushed it to a vote.
Mr. Treister: Well, I thought that we had to present it
tonight before we had the opportunity and now it has been
defeated as it is.
Mayor Ferre: That's right.
Mr. Treister: So, but you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Carollo, Mr.
Dawkins said they would like us to scale it down.
Mayor Ferre: I didn't say that, I've got no problem with
the scale, my only problem is traffic.
Mr. Treister: We would like the opportunity to go through
the Zoning Board, the Planning Board or whatever and have a
re -application on a new project because both the other
Commissioners and you, it is a good project if we could
solve these problems.
Mr. Plummer: Ken, let someone who spoke for the project you can't do it. The vote has been taken. Now you just
can't do it. I voted for the project. Okay? But the vote
was taken. You had the opportunity prior to that to
withdraw it, you didn't do it, you went ahead, you
proceeded. Now that's legal.
RT 33 DEC. 12, 1984
1
4
Mr, Treister: Well could , I just ask the City Attorney, if
at any time in the future on this property the City
Commission could waive the time limit or not on the zoning?
Mrs. Dougherty: For the zoning, yes, any time.
--------- --------------- -- - -------------------- ---
2. COMMODORE BAY PROJECT - DENY REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF _=
ZONING AT 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY FROM RS-1/4 TO PD-MU/4•
------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Ferre:
All
right, there
has been a request that we
vote on
all
three
items and
so as not to have a major
concern
here,
we voted
on 1, is
there a motion for denial on
2 ?
The
following
motion was
introduced by Commissioner
�. Carollo,
who
moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 84-1348
A MOTION DENYING PROPOSED SECOND READING
ORDINANCE REQUESTING CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY 3471
MAIN HIGHWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SAID
ORDINANCE, FROM RS-1/4 ONE FAMILY
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO PD-MU/4 PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT - MIXED USE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion
was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
3. DENY REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR COMMODORE BAY PROJECT, 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion on 3?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, there's a motion for denial.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 84-1349
A MOTION DENYING A PROPOSED RESOLUTION
REQUESTING ISSUANCE OF A MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE "COMMODORE BAY
PROJECT" AT APPROXIMATELY 3471 MAIN
HIGHWAY, ETC.
RT 34 DEC. 12, 1984
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion
was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
. IV, Vice -Mayor Joe Carelle
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
i-A
k,
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ejo
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else to come up before this
Commission? If not, we will meet tomorrow at 9:00.
THERE BRING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY
COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:24 P.M.
ATTEST:
Ralph G. Ongie
CITY CLERK
Natty Hirai
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
Maurice A. Ferro
N A Y 0 R
( S 9 A L )
RT 35 DEC. 12, 1984