HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1981-12-15 MinutesCITY OF -MailAF�11
OF MEETING HELD ON December 15, 1981
( P & Z )
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HAL L
RALPH G.. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
INV
CITYI 111C�HIAF&IDA
TTfm NON
P & Z SLLEC'T DECEMBER 15, 1981
I
_ 1
FORM COMMITTEE TO REINSTATE "CITY UNDER GOD" EVENT.
2
MXD-1, MXE-2, MXD-3 DISTRICTS -DISCUSSION AND
TEMPORARY DEFERRAL.
3
SPD-1 CENTRAL ISLAND DISTRICTS -FIRST READING
ORDINANCE -DELETE PORTIONS PERTAINING TO PARKING.
4
SECOND READING ORDINANCE -REVISE ARTICLE XIV-1-
C2A DISTRICTS AMEND ARTICLE XXIV-SIGNS.
5
DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL: CHANGE OF ZONING
OMNI AREA.
6
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ARTICLE XV-1 CENTRAL
1
COMMERCIAL CBD-2 SECTION 7 (d)
AMEND ARTICLE XXV BASE BUILDING LINES CHANGING
}
ZONED STREET WIDTHS IN THE OMNI AREA.
7
DECLARE INTENT OF CITY COMMISSION TO MAP AREA IN CBD
DISTRICTS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH SECOND READING.
8
PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS.
9
APPEAL ON GRANTING OF VARIANCES BY TRINITY CATHEDRAL:
1744-56 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE.
s
10
DEFERRAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF PLAT: OAK VIEW ESTATES
TIGERTAIL AND S.W. 17TH AVENUE.
11
20 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO BE IMPOSED IN MXD COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
12
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD MXD-1 - MXD-2 AND MXD
3, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICTS AFTER
THE C2A DISTRICTS.
13
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD ARTICLE XIV-2 COMMERCIAl
RESIDENTIAL MXD-1, MXD-2 AND Nn-3 DISTRICTS
14
FIRST READING ORDINANCE:CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUND
BY MIAMI RIVER, METRORAIL R.Q.W., S.8 ST. AND
BRICKELL AVENUE, FROM RCB,C2, C4 AND WR TO MXD-2
15
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA
BOUNDED BY S. 8 ST., METRORAIL R.O.W., S.W. 13
ST., S. MIAMI AVENGE AND BRICKELL PLAZA
FROM R-CB AND RC-1 AND C-2 TO MXD-1.
16
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA
BOUNDED BY X.W. 13TH ST. METRORAIL R.O.W., S.W.
_
15 RD. AND S. MIAMI AVENUE FROM RCB TO MXD-3.
17
DISCUSSION ITEM: LOCATION OF NEW STADIUM AND
STATEMENTS REGARDING USE OF ORANGE BOWL AND MIAMI
STADIUM PROPERTIES.
18
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT S.E. BANKING CORPORATION AND
GERALD D. HINES IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
OF CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
FOR DUPONT PLAZA.
pRDrWCE
RFSOWTI0��i! 0, PAGE N(
M-81-1068
DISCUSSION
ORD. 9359
ORD. 9360
ORD. 9361
DISCUSSION
FIRST READING
M-81-1069
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
R-81-1070
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
I FIRST READING
I FIRST READING
FIRST READING
DISCUSSION
R-81-1071
ITEM NO$
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
ItQEX
04t00tTiISSIQ'i OF MIAt'II, FIARIA4
P 6 Z SLLECT DECEMBER 15, 1981
BRIEF DISCUSSION: CABLE T.V. KNIGHT BIDDER
INVOLVEMENT.
OUTDOOR RESTAURANTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUNDEI
BY S.W. 9 ST., I-95 R.O.W., S.W. 15RD, S.W. 3 AVEN.
S.W. 13 ST. AND METRORAIL R.O.W. FROM R-4 TO R-T.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA
BOUNDED BY S.W. 8 ST., I-95 R.O.W., AND METRORAIL
R.O.W. FROM C-4 TO C-2
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ARTICLE XI-2
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-CB DISTRICTS, SECTIONS,
1,5,6,10 AND 12.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA
BOUNDED BY MLA.*fI RIVER, BRICKELL AVENUE,
S.E. 10 STREET AND BISCAYNE BAY FROM RC-1
AND C-2 TO R--CB.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ARTICLES III, XI-3
AND XI-4 AS THEY PERTAIN RO R-CB RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE DISTRICTS.
APPROVE WYNWOOD COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN.
DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF VACATION AND CLOSURE
OF ALLEY: N.W. 32 AND 33 STREETS AND N. MIAMI
AVENUE.
APPEAL ON DENIAL OF VARIANCE: 551 S.W. 8 COURT
(APPEAL FAILED)
GRANT ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE: 1399 S.W.
FIRST AVENUE.
ACCEPT PLAT: PAWLEY DEVELOPMENT CORP-PLAT.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: WATSON ISLAND, F.E.C. PROPERTY
NOGUCHI, MUSEUM, R.F.P. FOR MIAMARINA, ETC.
DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO RESEARCH FEES PRESENTLY
BEING -CHARGED FOR PERSONS WISHING TO APPEAL ACTIONS
OF THE ZONING BOARD.
APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO UNDERTAKE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MOST QUELIFIED FIRMS
TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WHICH IS FAIR, COMPETITIVE,ETC.
ACCEPT RIGHT OF WAY DEED OF DEDICATION-
A.L. KNOWLTON.
DIRECT CITY CLERK TO READVERTISE ALL VACANCIES ON THE
ZONING BOARD AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
PAGE 11 2
rI RAN PAGE NO,
IDISCUSSION
I R-81-1072
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
I FIRST READING
FIRST READING
R-81-1073
I DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
R-81-1074
R-81-1075
I DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
I R-81-1076
I R-81-1077
IDISCUSSION
90-91
92-93
93-94
95
95-103
103
104
105
105-106
107-108
108
109
109-111
111
115-119
c
101 ND.
36
37
.INV
C4'6T S 10FffAMI; &IDA PAGE # 3
P s Z &UC"� DECEMBER 15, 1981 &0SO1L TIPAGE NO
LUTIO�f 0.
DISCUSSION OF HISPANIC WORLDS FAIR.
APPOINT ONELIO CEJAS TO CITY OF MIAMI FESTIVAL
ADVISORY BOARD.
DISCUSSION
R-81-1078
119-120
120
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 15th day of December, 1981, the City Commission
of Miami, Florida met at its regular meeting place in the
City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regu-
lar session.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 O'clock A.M. by
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the
Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT:
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
ALSO PRESENT:
Howard V. Gary, City Manager
George F. Knox, City Attorney
Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Dawkins who
then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
1. FORM CO"ClITTEE TO REIIZSTATE "CITY WDER GOD" EVENT.
Mr. Plummer: Good morning Ladies & Gentlemen. This is a formal session; this
session devoted to zoning. Mr. Gary, do you have any announcements before
going into the regular agenda?
Mr. Gary: No sir.
Mr. Plummer: Does any of the Commission have anything they wish to say before
starting into the regular agenda.
_ Mr. Gary: I have one comment. On the non -zoning agenda we have an item up for
discussion which is Item No. 3 which was to deal with the sports authority. This
is a non -zoning item. Mr. Horeau called me yesterday and he said ne has a meet-
ing beforethe County Commission to deal with the new stadium and that he would
like to postpone that from 9 until 11 o'clock. I checked with the Mayor and he
said that Was okay, so he is scheduled at 11 o'clock. I anticipate that he will
be here as well as members of his Board and Staff to discuss the new stadium and
the whole sports authority actions of the past.
Mr. Plummer: That is this morning, Mr. Gary?
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Alright-, once again for the record, let me reiterate what I said to
the Mayor, and that is, that I will be absent from this meeting unfortunately,
between the hours of 10 and 12 noon. I will be back after the lunch recess.
Commissioner Perez, you have something you wish to bring before the Commission?
01 DEC 15 1981
C r
Mr. Perez: I would like to recognize here that would help a group of ministers
and priests representing several churches. They formed a non -denominational
committee that wants to bring back to Miami the City Under God worship and I
would like them to have the opportunity to let us know what they plan in order
to assist that provision in the City of Miami.
Mr. Plummer: And who will be the spokesman? Alright, if you would go to the
podium, please. We would ask, since this is a non -agenda item, that you try
and keep it under three minutes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Plummer and Members of the Commission: We are
here because we believe very strongly that the City of Miami needs at this
time a reminder of the fact that we
we are a nation under God and that we also are a City under God, and these
gentlemen that are with me have participated in the past in this program, a
City Under Gbd and it has produced a lot of blessings for the City of Miami,
and we feel'at this time in order to express to the entire community the
fact that we need divine help for the problems that we have and the fact
that we need a unifying principle that this would supply, we would appreciate
very much if the City of Miami would again reinstate this program and celebrate
a day in which we declare ourselves to be a City under God.
Mr. Plummer: And in what way, Father, can this City assist you in reinstating
that program?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, in the first place, in declaring this to be soux,&-
thing that the City of Miami would undertake as its own project in coopera-
tion with the religious community and in establishing a date for this and
then giving the support of the City of Miami to the project.
would like to
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you this for a matter of timing, because as you can
see from the calendar, we do not meet again until the 14th of January. When
are you proposing that this event take place?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER NO. 2: We do not have any specific date. All we want
is that the City of Miami acts to support our request and I am sure that we
will have this, a City Under God in some date between January and February,
because we need to select the place and we need to select the date. In the
past, the City of Miami has done all the preparations needed for this kind
of service.
Mr. Plummer: Alright. Commissioner Demetrio Perez?
Mr. Perez: I am asking that in the past we have celebrated this event in the
first month of the year, no? I think that was the tradition in the City of
Miami. What I propose to the fellow members of the Commission is to try to
appoint a committee in order to organize this event and to try to extend the
participation within our different community groups. I think that is very
important that we have tri-ethnic participation in this committee and in this
activity. I very proud that we have the presence of several members of the clergy.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, and I represent a bilingual congregation, both
Spanish and English.
Mr. Perez: What I try to propose to the other members of the Commission is
to try to get this tradition - I think it is very important that we have the
City under one God at an interdenominational service. I propose the appoint-
ment of a committee for this purpose and they have the opportunity to call
the other members of different churches in order to have an interdenominational
representation on this committee.
Mr. Plummer: That's in the form of a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by
Mr.' Carollo. Is there any discussion? Mr. Gary, do you need any sense of
direction from this motion?
Mr. Gary: I think the consensus is that we move forward to get this done, so
we have no problem.
Id Mr. Plummer: If anyone needs prayer here, it is the City Manager. Of course
he would be happy to work. No further discussion? Would you call the roll.
02
DEC 15 1981
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Carollo entered meeting at 9:10 A.M.
and Mayo- Ferre entered at 9:15 A.M.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 81-1068
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE THE
NECESSARY STEPS TO FORM A COMMITTEE TO OBTAIN CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
FOR A PLANNED "CITY UNDER GOD" EVENT, TO BE HELD AT A FUTURE DATE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Joe Carollo
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
2. MXD-1, MXD-2, MXD-3 DISTRICTS - DISCUSSION & TEMPORARY DEFERRAL.
Mr. Carollo: Is there anyone that has an emergency this morning for the Zoning
and Planning Agenda?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, Mr. Vice -Mayor. Mr. Keith Swenson has asked that he be heard.
He is speaking for 150 Brickell Avenue residents and he has to leave at 9:30 and
I'd ask that we give him permission to speak, please.
Mr. Carollo: What item is that please?
Mr. Dawkins: What items are they?
Mr. Swensen: It is the Brickell area transit study, and I am not sure which
item it is on your agenda, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Is there anyone else here that has an emergency this morning
that has to leave shortly? Anyone else? Alright, Mr. Clerk, what item is
that on the agenda?
Mr. Plummer: There are five, I believe. All of the different items are five.
Mr. Carollo: There is 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c). We will start with item 5 and
then proceed to Item 1 on the agenda.
Mr. Swensen:• Thank you. For the record, my name is Keith Swensen and I am a
resident at 2260 S.W. 27 Way here in the City of Miami. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak out of turn. I do have a very important business engage-
ment that I have to leave for. This past year, I had the distinct honor to
serve as the co-chairman of the Brickell area transit study group, the citizen's
group that worked with your Planning body and developed the study that is lead-
ing to the zoning proposal which is before you today. I would like to address
that role of that committee and the specific report of the committee, because
.I feel that it is extremely important to your deliberations. First of all, let
me point out, and I am sure this is easy to understand, the committee was about
as highly diverse as any committee might be, with residents, property owners,
a few tenants, and certainly some very major real estate interests, development
interests, represented realtors and the like. As it happens, my position and
my role was simply working as a commuter into the area daily. I am employed by
ld
ri
I DEC 15 1981
General Development Corporation with offices at 1111 South Bayshore, General
Development, as you probably know, is Florida's largest builder and developer
of homes and land. However, our financial interests are not particularly in-
volved here, other than the fact that we have roughly 500 employees that
commute daily into the Brickell area that eat and enjoy and shop in the area.
and so on. It is in that context that I work with the planning committee.
Today you will deal with the fundamental issue of the report, and that is the
type of land use and the intensity of land use that you will cast in place
with the zoning ordinance. The committee, the planning committee developed
the report with two minority reports. One of the minority reports essentially,
if I may paraphrase, was interested in holding the density down, hold back on
development. The other minority report was the other end of the spectrum, -
let's let development occur pretty much at will, let's raise the density,
let's raise the intensity and let the market control entirely. The majority,
and I think that is what is particularly a point of interest to you in your
deliberation's - the majority felt, that in fact development is, the continued
development and redevelopment of the area at a very high intensity is, in
fact, logical. It is to be expected, and in fact to be welcomed as a tax
reducer and as a means of the constant rebirth of the City of Miami. However,
in order for that to be accomplished effectively, it is is necesssary for you,
as a Commission with your ordinances, your zoning ordinances specifically, to
sit in control of that, and to do that to utilize really what amounts to carrot
and sticks kind of procedure of setting basic intensity criteria, the floor
area ratio at a level on one hand that encourages development and on the other
hand also encourages the use of the so-called carrot, the bonus factor to ex-
pand and develop in a broader kind of character. We have a very heavy office
complex there now. We are part of that at General Development Corporation.
But we recognize that the area needs residential uses. It needs other kinds
of commerce. It needs that to really fully round out as a vital, strong area
and one that will support, and in fact encourage the use of the transit system.
I feel very strongly that the citizen report that you have before you is a
solid report. There were anywhere from 50 to 75 or 80 people that attended
each of those meetings. We gave a lot of long, hard study and we certainly
commendthat report to you and hope that in fact, you will adopt it and effec-
tuate it with the kind of intensity ratios that are suggested. Thank you very
much for the opportunity of addressing you and particularly at this early hour.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else, or any questions?
Mr. Swensen: If there are any questions or anything, I would be happy to ans-
wer them before I leave.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Manager, you had requested that we postpone for a
little bit Items 1, 2 & 3, and you just heard a statement on Item 5. What
are your recommendations on the process? I assume we are still not ready for 1.
Mr. Gary: Yes sir. We would like to have No. 1 postponed until we notify
you that we are ready.
Mayor Ferre. And that means 1 and 2?
Mr. Gary: No 2 and 3 are okay.
Mayor Ferre: I notice that we have a conflict here. It says December 15th
and it says 9 A.M. is the formal City of Miami Commission Planning and Zoning
and there is the Committee of the Whole agenda at the same. It is totally
contradictory now. Would the Administration please clarify that now? We
obviously can't do both.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, the Planning and Zoning agenda is the regularly scheduled
meeting, because we were not familiar with how long that was going to take;, we
just prepared both of them simutaneously for the mere fact that the Sports
Authority, which is a major issue that you wanted to bring back today, Mr.
Horeau,along with his committee members will be down here at 11 o'clock, right
after the County Commission leaves.
Mayor Ferre: They are at the County Commission meeting right now, so there is
no way that they can be here until that finishes.
Id Mr. Gary: Well, lie told me that he would be here at 11.
0 .. Jol
Mayor Ferre: Well, I guess the point I am trying to make, and I don't know
who is responsible for the agenda.
Mr. Gary: That's me.
Mayor Ferre: No, but I am reading this, but it is impossible for us to have
two agendas that are as complicated as these agendas are, both starting at
9:00 A.M. and you know, in one day, how can you have two continuing agendas?
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if you would like, from now on we will be happy to, on
the zoning meetings that don't deal with regular items, have those scheduled
at times after the regular zoning meetings.
Mayor Ferre:, Either way, Idon't think it is fair to people to get them down
here. I would assume that the Committee of the Whole discussion of Watson
Island is informatory and informational in nature.
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: That the University of Miami James L. Knight Center is infor-
mational in nature.
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: That the Sports Authority is certainly informational, but cer-
tainly there might be some action.
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre. Hispanic World Fair is informational in nature.
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody here on any of those items? On the formal
City Commission meeting that you have with regards Southeast Banking Corpora-
tion and Gerald Hines, that is a very important thing for us.
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody here on that? Okay, and the Deed of Dedication
for the Lot 11, A. L. Knowlton, record in Plat; is there somebody here on that?
Iam talking about Item 7. How about Item 8, filling of a vacancy. Would it be
alright then, Mr. Manager to say that it is safe to assume that we are going to
take up the Committee of The Whole and the Commission meeting in the afternoon?
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: Because I don't think we are going to get to it this morning,
unless somebody has a serious problem on that.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I personally would appreciate the Mr. Horeau being
informed to come in the afternoon, as I have already announced that I have
to be vacant from the meeting from 10 A.M. to 12 noon and I do serve on that
committee and I would appreciate being here when that matter comes up.
Mayor Ferre: Would you make sure that Mr. Horeau is told that this matter will
come up in -the afternoon? Does anybody have any objections then, of taking
the agenda that says Committee of the Whole and formal City of Miami Commission
meeting, Items 1 through 9 and delaying them until this afternoon, rather than
9 A.M. and 11 A.M. the way it is stated here.
Mr. Traurig:Then does that mean starting at 2 o'clock?
Mayor Ferre: I would hope so, yes sir. I would certainly hope so.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for clarification, another question I would ask is
that we had announced that the second comprehensive zoning meeting was going
to be this evening at 7 o'clock. Is that still scheduled for Bayfront Park
Auditorium?
0 DEC 1 51981
Mr. Gary: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I may have to be absent tonight. Alright. We now are on Item
No. 2, on second reading, Planning Department, this is ordinance No. 6871
3. SPD-1 CENTRAL ISLAND DISTRICTS - FIRST READING ORDINANCE -
DELETE PORTIONS PERTAINING TO PARKING.
Mayor Ferre; Special Community Commercial. We have had it in the past on
First Reading. Under discussion, what do we do?
Robert Traurig: If you have skipped Item No. 1?
Mayor Ferre: We did, you are right. The reason for that is, that we have a
citizen, and I think you know her: Janet Cooper.
Mr. Traurig: May I make just a very simple statement on that? Because we
have had so many postponements with regard to this, I would like to suggest
that we delete from the ordinance everything that has to do with the parking.
We will come back as a separate item on parking, deal only today with ground
level open space, which is a very simple thing to resolve. We will even go
back to the Planning Advisory Board and come back to you on parking.
Mr. Carollo: That would be fine, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Do you have a problem with that. What is your problem, Janet?
Janet Cooper: First of all, the City Attorney has ruled that that is not
appropriate to split the ordinance like that. That was his ruling in the
past when I made that suggestion before we got to the level that we are at.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, the question to specfically is as follows:
We have two issues here. One. deals with open space and the other one deals
with parking. There is a request of the applicant that we pass the open space
provision today, and that we defer the discussion on Second Reading on the
parking portion to another meeting, is that correct?
Mr. Traurig: No, just deny the other, you know, as if it never existed and
will start a whole new process, rather than to defer. You can approve part
of an ordinance and deny part of it.
Mr. Plummer: If you deny it, you cannot reapply for a year.
Mr. Traurig: Withdraw it then.
Mr. Plummer: That is a different ballgame.
Mayor Ferre: The purpose is not the applicant, but the island, and..
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, that itself is impossible. They are not
the applicant, so they can't withdraw it. The Department can, who is the
applicant.
Mayor Ferre: I think the question really is this: The applicant is the De-
partment. The affected party are the people on Claughton Island. Now, they
want to get one thing moving, but they want to rethink the whole question of
parking on Claughton Island. Now, the question is, do we grant a continuance,
or pass the open air portion of it, or do we deal with the whole subject today,
that is the point.
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, I would just like you to know, that if the Department
goes along with this request that is now being made by the attorney for the
owner of the property on the island, that it is extremely apparent as to who
the true applicant is in this thing.
en 1
Mayor Ferre: Alright now.
What is your position with this?
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, as you know, the Department has tried to work and
continuously propose this legislation, which we think is proper. We had,
with regards to the question that was just raised, we have no problems with
separating the two issues. The open space issue is not one of controversy,
and we would recommend that we move ahead on that, as we have not been able
to resolve completely the language of the second part, fine. The language
should be resolved before this Commission acts on it, but we see no reason
the open space can't go ahead.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Attorney, then unless I hear otherwise, your in-
structions are, that I guess we have to divide the ordinance into two portions?
Mr. Percy: The ordinance is up for Second Reading, Mr. Mayor. You can de-
lete portion's of the ordinance and adopt it as is. Those deleted portions,
since this is a textual change to the zoning code, can be brought back anew,
starting with the Planning Advisory Board at any time. You can act on this
ordinance today by deleting the parking provisions as has been suggested.
Ms. Cooper: I object, because Fir. Mayor, what apparently happens is that we
gone through this ordinance so well and in such detail and brought it to a
point where it is apparently unacceptable to the developers of the property
where they don't want to comply with what this Commission has suggested.
Mayor Ferre: What they have to do now is a lot worse than what is being pro-
posed that they adopt.
Ms. Cooper: Well I think they would rather attempt to use their expertise
in trying to go through the Planning Advisory Board, bringing it back. You
are trying also to make me continually come back. This has been going on
for a year, and I think they have got themselves into a fix that they don't
like and now they are trying to get out of it.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Bob, what?
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, with all due respects, she is wrong. We understand
that the parking still has need for refinement, the parking language. We
have to proceed with our planning with regard to the ground level open space.
It is part of our overall exercises now for the future.
Mayor Ferre: But you are repeating and we understood, and that is not the
question. The question deals strictly with legally the vehicle we have got
to use to do this - delete that portion of parking, pass it on Second Read-
ing - and that means that with regards to parking, you are at take 1 again.
Mr. Traurig: That's correct and we understand that and we will take our
chances on that and it is very simple to delete every reference to sub -section
1 of section 10 of the ordinance and all references to the required off-
street parking and then to the other members of the Commission, it is only
required the deletion of some very minor language in the proposed ordinance
change as submitted by your staff. We urge you to do that, the result of
which would be, you would approve the ground level open space provision and
we would be back to suqare 1 as you say on the parking.
Ms. Cooper: Then it would be a denial on the parking.
Mayor Ferre.: Let me ask you this so I understand it. Even though this is
a Department initiative, you have been interested at times, in working out
a process where there is not as much parking required in phases 3 6 4.
Mr. Traurig: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: Now, we started, and that has been modified two times. You
are now down to a new idea which everybody seems to be encouraged with, and
that is, to have a pool area for parking. Now you don't want that.
Mr. Traurig. No, we are happy with that, but Ms. Cooper brought up the
whole subject of the tram at a meeting with staff yesterday, and that is a
very complicated thing. How often would we run a tram from what location
to what location? When would we commence the tram operation? How many trams
07
DES 1 1981
Mr. Traurig: (con't) would we have? It will require a very considerable amount
of discussion between us and the other interested parties in the community. We
are willing to have those discussions at another time, since the parking pro-
visions of this ordinance change will not take effect until we finish the first
three phases.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Percy.
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Mayor I would...
Mayor Ferre: Please, please. Mr. City Attorney, my specific question to you
is, can we delete as Counselor has stated that portion referring to sub -section
1 without killing, in other words, leave it pending so that it can be discussed
in January?
Mr. Percy: We believe that if that portion of the ordinance is not included
and adopted today with the main portion of the ordiance, it would have to be
treated, I mean you would have to start it over then, so it would be with-
drawn if you don't choose to deny it.
Mayor Ferre. How long would that process take?
Mr. Percy: As soon as you can get it before the Planning Advisory Board;
it is probably a 60-day process.
Mayor Ferre: We would review it sometime in the summer.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I don't hear an answer. I think you asked him "can
we split it?"
Mayor Ferre: He said no. He said there is no way to split it.
Mr. Percy. The question was whether or not you could suspend it, the portion
that you delete, and bring it ack without starting before the Advisory Board.
Mayor Ferre: The answer is no; the only thing that we can legally do, is to
delete certain portions of it, and start over again on the parking question.
Now, since phase 3 6 4 are not going to begin - is that correct - within the
next six months?
Mr. Traurig: Correct, yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: You are saying that they are not?
Mr. Traurig: Phases 4, 5 & 6 won't. Phase 2 will; phase 3 probably...
Mayor Ferre; We can start the planning on phase 3 tomorrow.
Mr. Traurig: The construction won't start, but the planning has to be in
detail.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, we nece to bring this to a head now. Janet?
Ms. :ooper: One more point. I will not object to this on the condition
that the Commission goes ahead and deletes from the ordinance the parking
SPD as it is now that would allow them to reduce the parking if they a com-
bined residential and office space. This was something both Mr. Reid and
Mr. McManus suggested be done and I would like to see that done at this time,
rather than'putting it: off.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. McManus?
Mr. McManus: That is right. We had suggested deleting the combined park-
ing and commercial benefit.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. Mr. City Attorney?
Mr. Traurig: But that is when the basic parking requirements were being re-
duced. Until such time as they reduce the basic parking requirements, I
think we ought to leave all questions of parking requirements as they pre-
sently are. We are going to come back to staff and to Ms. Cooper and talk
about the overall parking requirements. We have got to resolve that ground level
open space now. Parking can be the future.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. McManus? Your answer to that?
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, in the interest in supplying the Commission with the
full package, I would again suggest that the Department be allowed to with-
draw that section dealing with the parking.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Janet, your last statement and then we will see what
the Commission would want to do.
Ms. Cooper: I just feel a little confused the statement that Mr. Reid made
at the last meeting that that was erroneous and bad planning; that it should
be deleted now and should not be dependent upon any future application. It
should not necessarily be avoided by any actions that the developer could take.
Mayor Ferre:' Alright, further questions from members of the Commission? What
is the will'of the Commission?
Mr. Carollo: I think that the main problem that this Commission is having
was pertaining to parking. I see no ojbection as to why we could not approve
that part of Item 1, deleting the part pertaining to parking. I would move
it, on that basis.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? There is a second. I will read the ordinance
as now deleted, after which, if there is no further discussion, call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY MODIFYING SUB-
SECTION (3) OF SECTION 7, ARTICLE XXI-3, SPD-1 CENTRAL"
ISLAND DISTRICT PERTAINING 'TO GROUND LEVEL PEDESTRIAN OPEN
SPACE AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING
DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY
REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2,
THEREOF: BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR
PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT: AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of November 19, 1981,
it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the
ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title
and passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9359.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
� J
DEC '� 5 �581
4. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: REVISE ARTICLE XIV-1 - C2A DISTRICTS
0 AMEND ARTICLE XXIV - SIGNS.
Jack Luft: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission. At the last hearing on
the C2A, which is revision amendments to the commercial zoning for Coconut
Grove, the question was raised by Mr. Dawkins as to whether we had addressed
the concerns of 24 different familes that had sent in objections. Between
that time and this time we have attempted to contact every one of them. I
did contact 12 of them and in speaking with them, 11 of them did change their
minds and they no longer have objections. We in addition advertised twice in
the newspaper this particular issue consistent with Mr. Dawkin's request.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Commissioner Dawkins, are you satisfied with the pro-
cedure as followed? Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on Item 2 on
Second Reading? If not, is there a motion? Moved by Dawkins, is there a
second? Alright, second by Commissioner Perez; further discussion? Call the
roll on 2.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS
AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR
THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE XIV-1 SPECIAL
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - C-2A DISTRICT BY: A.
DELETING PARAGRAPH (j), SUB -SECTION (57) SECTION
1 USE REGULATIONS AND RE -NUMBERING SUBSEQUENT
PARAGRAPHS (k) AND (1) TO (j) AND (k) RESPECTIVELY;
B. ADDING NEW PARAGRAPHS (f) AND (g) TO SUB-
SECTION (1) SECTION 3. CONCERNING LIMITATIONS
ON USES; C. BY AMENDING SUB -SECTION (3) SECTION
3 CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON USES; D. BY DELETING
PARAGRAPH (a) SUB -SECTION (1) SECTION 4 CONCERNING
FRONTAGE 014 PEDESTRIAN STREETS AID SUBSTITUTING IN
LIEU THEREOF A NEW PARAGRAPH (a); E. BY AMENDING
PARAGRAPH (c) SUB -SECTION (1) SECTION 4 CONCERNING
OPEN SPACE ON PEDESTRIAN STREET; F. BY AMENDING
PARAGRAPH (a) SUB -SECTION (1) SECTION 5 CONCERNING
LOT AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL USES; G. BY AMENDING THE
FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 9 CONCERNING FLOOR AREA
PREMIUMS; H. BY DELETING SUB -SECTION (1) SECTION
9 CONCERNING FLOOR AREA PREMIUMS AND RE -NUMBERING
SUBSEQUENT SUB -SECTIONS (2) (3) (4) AND (5) TO (1)
(2) (3) AND (4) RESPECTIVELY; I. BY AMENDING SUB-
SECTION (3) FORMERLY SUB -SECTION (4). SECTION 9
CONCERNING FLOOR AREA PREMIUMS; J. BY DELETING
THE RE -NUMBERED SUB -SECTION (4) SECTION 9 CONCERNING
FLOOR AREA PREMIUMS AND INSERTING IN LIEU THEREOF A
NEW SUB -SECTION (4); K. BY ADDING A NEW SUB -SECTION
(5). SECTION 9 CONCERNING FLOOR AREA PREMIUMS; L.
BY DELETING PARAGRAPH (b) SUB -SECTION (1) SECTION 10
CONCERNING ON SITE PARKING AND INSERTING A NEW PARAGRAPH
(b); M. BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH (d) SUB -SECTION (1)
SECTION 10; WITH RESPECT TO REFERENCE NUMBER THEREIN;
N. BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH (e) SUB -SECTION (1) SECTION 10
CONCERNING PARKING; AND BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of November 19, 1981,
it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Commissioner Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the
ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title
and passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
1d SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9360.
DEC 151981
10
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
Mayor Ferre: Now take up 2 (b). Alright, it has been moved by Carollo,
seconded by Perez. Further discussion on Item 2(b)? Read the ordinance
and call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED-
AN•ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED,,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI BY AMENDING ARTICLE XXXIV SIGNS, PARAGRAPH (a)
SUB -SECTION (2) SECTION 6 CONCERNING SIGNS IN THE
C2-A DISTRICT; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SEC-
TIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of November 19, 1981,
it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the
ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title
and passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES; Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9361.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
5. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL: CHANGE OF ZONING - 0TvI AREA
Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item No. 3.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, for the record, Joe
McManus, Acting Director of the Planning Department. Mr. Mayor & Members of
the Commission. Item 4 immediately following, you are going to consider a
change language.
Mayor Ferre.: We are on 3 now.
Mr. McManus: You are going to consider a change language on the CBD-2
district. Item 3 is mapping that district. I would suggest to you that it
would be inappropriate to map the district when you are going to immediately
consider thereafter changing the language of it. I would therefore request
a 30 day deferral.
Mayor Ferre: Defer for 30 days on the mapping.
Mr, McManus: On 3 on the map.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, Mr. Fine.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, we think that is wholly in-
appropriate. This mapping has been before this Commission on several occasions.
The text of the ordinance is basically, in my opinion, 90 some odd percent been
agreed on in terms of being presented to you all before. There are several
changes that are here; there is a moratorium for 90 days. What happens is, they
continue to defer and defer and we will never finish mapping that area. There
are people who have very substantial investments in that area, very substantial
plans to improve that property; a moratorium is in effect. We think without
being presumptuous you are going to pass the revisions that are being brought
to you by the Planning Department and we see no reason to defer this. Now, if
they would like to take Item 4 first, and then do Item 3 and pass that today,
that would be fine with us.
Mayor Ferrer• Alright, I think in the first place, and it is my opinion that
we should really take up 4 before taking up 3. It is also my opinion that if
it passes on First Reading, then Ithink we need to discuss the legal impact
of holding it in abeyance for 30 days, the mapping. It is my opinion also
that we have put a moratorium. Now the moratorium has run out. Is it still
in effect? So if there is a moratorium,see! Dan Paul objections - he called
me to tell me yesterday - is that he thinks that we should not map it at this
time until this thing is in place. But the answer to that is, if there is a
moratorium - he is concerned that somebody will pull a building permit - but
if there is a moratorium, then there is no way to pull a building permit, is
there, Mr. McManus? On the record, sir.
Mr. McManus: That is correct, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferrer Alright, that means therefore, that there is more than one
alternative in solving this problem. I think the interest of the property
owners is one that we have to take into consideration. If they have sub-
stantial monies that are involved and that every time that we delay them 30
days, it costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest expenses.
And I think indeed if we are trying to attract proper types of development
and vested equity investments in this community, we need to be reasonable
about these things and not unreasonable, so I hope that somewhere there is
a middle ground.
Mr. Plummer; Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, again, I will be walking out the door in
17 minutes. So what is obvious to me is if you start this issue, I am going
to hear some of the testimony, but not be here for the vote. I am sorry, but
I have to leave, so I just want that understood.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, we understand.
Ms. Massey: Annette Massey from Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. As the devel-
opers traffic survey shows, it is actually necessary that the planning be
done before the development. If the development precudes the planning, there
is no planning, and I think that the Department and Staff recommendations
for a 30 day deferral is absolutely proper. In addition thereto, your com-
ments, Mr. Mayor, in regard to amenities should precede mapping is the only
logical way to go.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you Mrs. Massey. Alright, now. The Chair will rule
unless there are objections, that we will take up Item 4 first, and then we
will take it from there. Now, so let's take up Item 4 at this time.
F6.IRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ARTICLE XV-1 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
CBD-2 SECTION 7 (d)
AMEND ARTICLE XXV BASE BUILDING LINES
CHANGING ZO,:ED STREET WIDi'tIS IN THE
OMN I AREA.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission: The consideration here
is for amendments to the CBD-2 zoning district, which as you know, is intended
to be applied in the Omni area in a two block area to be south of the
Government Center. Upon the direction of this Commission, we were directed to
go back and to examine certain pedestrian amenities, and also to look at the
possibility of widening streets. Mr. Luft of the Department is going to
continue that discussion.
Id
12 DEC 15 1981
Mr. Luft: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Our obiective here is to introduce concepts that will provide for public
amenitv and public welfare in the development of the CBD-2 zone is specifi-
cally in response to this Commissions request for such concegns as improved
sidewalk areas, thru block connections, prizes, amenities. o what we nave
provided here then is an approach, an amendment to CBD-2 district that changes
in essense the context that the district was initially presented. You re-
call, the first district provides for a series of bonuses - bonus incentives
that if the developer so cfiose, 'by providing certain additional amenities
to the public, her could achieve a higher floor area ratio. In view of the
fact that the floor area ratio has been increased, we are now recommending
that those amenities, those specific packages that you requested now be re-
quired; that in fact what are going to be discussing here in a moment are in-
deed those requirements as we would propose them. We feel these are reason-
able; they Are minimum requirements; they will provide substantially for the
welfare of the public in this area. I would suggest that beyond simply
beautifying the street, we are suggesting here something that is more funda-
mental. We are suggesting a basic concept for Biscayne Blvd. What we are
suggesting is that between 20th Street and 13th Street we face the possibil-
ity of an area that will emerge into what will probably become, what we would
hope would become one of the great urban centers of this region, an urban
center that reflects the best quality of the major city. This qualities are
best defined in terms of the streetscape, the actual street lights, the images
that are presented. What this package of amendments intends to do is advance
that idea in such a way that developers can indeed pursue the various courses
that they have set out for themselves. This does not restrict, we feel, un-
fairly the flexibility to present the kinds of development packages that have
been envisioned all along. But it does effect a compromise to the extent that
what was heretofore largerly internal environment, massive development with
amenities on the inside which intend to impart and to turn them inside out
to address with equal attention the streetscape, the public street environ-
ment, the innerphase, the transistion between where the public is on the side-
walk and where they ultimately are going inside. The first issue that we
dealt with was that of the circulation plan, the fundamental question of
movement, particularly in terms of vehicles. Okay, I would apologize to the
people on the side of me, because the arrangement of this hall does not allow
everyone to view it. The concept here, Biscayne Blvd. remains as a traffic
corridor as it is today, two way local lane boulevard. What we are suggest-
ing however is that east -west streets, in this case, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th
are going to be facing increased burdens. We are talking about a substantial
amount of traffic, floor area ratios of up to 12. Those streets have been
carefully studied by Public Works Department, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cather. In
their opinion and in our opinion to effecitvely plan for and accomodate the
traffic that we expect to see in this area, we are suggesting that a minimum
zoned right-of-way of 70 feet be established along these primary east -west
streets. That would mean that as development occurs, as new projects come
forward,the City would request, would expect developers to dedicate whatever
land may be necessary, in some cases on 15th Street it would be 5 feet, in
other cases such as on 13th Street, it might be 10 feet to make that full 70
foot available for additional lanes of traffic.
Mayor Ferre: That 70 feet - as I recall, Flagler is 65 feet wide, right?
Mr. Luft: I would say that is close, yes.
Mayor Ferre: As I remember that... Roy you remember Flagler Street is 65
feet wide, isn't it? 70 feet. Will you test me so that I can remember,
Mr. Campbeli, when you are talking about widening the street to what more
or less Flagler Street is, which is not really that wide. What are they now?
Mr. Luft: The various dimensions are 50, 60, 65 feet.
Mayor Ferre: You are talking about going from a minimum of 50 to 70 and in
another case from 60 to 70.
Mr. Luft: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: So what people will be giving up would be either 10 feet or 5
feet.
13
Mr. Luft: From either side, that is correct.
Mayor Ferre: I would assume that would have to be equally distributed.
Mr. Luft: Yes. It would have to be a continuous dedication all along the
street affecting equally all property owners.
Mayor Ferre: What happens to buildings... are there any big buildings that
are there?
Mr. Luft: Yes, Omni.
Mayor Ferre: 20 years from now you will end up with everybody 70 feet on the
property ling and then there is one big building that is only 60 feet.
Mr. Luft: Well, in this case, the only buildings that we see as a problem
with would be Omni and possibly Jefferson's. But there is extending the en-
tire length of the block for both of these blocks either side of Biscayne
Blvd at 15th, and we can accomodate with the dedication the necessary movement
lanes for the time being for the people mover as well as the east -west as in
on 15th with the dedicatiop from the south side.
Mayor Ferre: Now, the people mover, I see you do not have the station in
front of the cathedral or in front of the cathedral.
Mr. Luft: The cathedral is right.. I believe it's over in here.
Mayor Ferre: Oh I see. Okay. I guess that is the Knight property, the
Herald Plaza.
Mr. Luft: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: So in other words, if the development should occur in Herald
Plaza, you would either put a station at that time, or people would have to
walk down.
Mr. Luft: Yes sir. This is Bicentennial Park Station. It crosses over the
expressway to the Omni Station. That transfer facility connection to Omni,
and then on to the transfer station here at the vicinity of the School Board
offices. at the corner of 2nd Avenue.
Mayor Ferre: What you are saying is the only place you envision problems are
at Jefferson's and Omni for the widening of those streets.
Mr. Luft: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Luft: In addition, we are suggesting that the exit ramps on 2nd Avenue
and the Interstate Highway will want a fork that continues straight through
to Biscayne Blvd, that since there is only a short stretch of one-way streets
for one block, that those attempting to move north into this area be allowed
to make a left turn and go north on 2nd Avenue toward Lindsey hopxins ana to
the rear of these properties. That is important, because today, all traffic
is forced to Biscayne Blvd. And there is a tremendous problem of congestion
in the 13th Street Biscayne Blvd. area and that is in part due to the fact
that the traffic off the Interstate is forced to go through that bottleneck,
so by moving it up 2nd Avenue would help relieve some of those problems.
Mayor Ferre: Jack, could we cut through all of this because Plummer has got
to leave in about 7 minutes and could we assume that you think that there are
potential traffic solutions to the complicated maze of streets and street
widths and all of that?
Mr. Luft: Yes. he believe that these improvements will acceptably handle the
traffic that is envisioned in this development. The yellow area merely indi-
cates that...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Jack. I only have one question. We are not dealing
just with City streets. U.S. 1 is a federal road, I-95 and the exits therein
are a combination, as I understand it, of federal and state. Now, you know,
it would be nice for this Commission to pass what we think is great, and then
14 � � r 151981
Id
Mr. Plummer: (con't) the others tell us to go fly a kite, as they have done
for so long down at the S. E. 2nd Avenue. So, I think you have got to address
that problem too.
Mr. Luft: The recommendations that we have made here can be accomplished by
this Commission in connection with the Metro -Dade Transportation Department,
which is supporting this particular effort. It would not require federal
action on the Interstate.
Mr. Dawkins: The one question is, if we are going to work in conjunction
with the County, who is going to pay for it, the City of Miami or Dade
County?
Mr. Luft: :'or the most part, we are talking about the developers paying for
this.
Mr. Dawkins: And in the part that you are not talking about the developers
paying for?
Mr. Luft: Yes, that would be a discussion of the so-called impact fees that
we will bring up later on.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, I am going to ask my question again. Perhaps you can
answer for me. You say the developers will pay for part of this development
of the streets. Who will pay for the other part?
Mr. Campbell: Commissioner Dawkins, Mayor Ferre, for the record I am George
Campbell representing the Department of Public Works. As Jack mentioned,
there are ways of discussing the impact fee situation whereby the developers
would put up funding for the redevelopment of the streets when this becomes
necessary. All the streets which you are talking about running east and west
here are City streets - under City jurisdiction for operation and maintenance
and reconstruction. Biscayne Blvd. of course is a federal highway and we
don't envision any changes to the physical structure other than the boulevard
itself. This portion of 2nd Avenue is already zoned for 70 feet and it is
already pretty much built to that, with a couple of minor exceptions, so that
we don't envision that that would have an impact on the City funding. We
would probably enter into when this is redeveloped, when 2nd Avenue would be
redeveloped, then this would be either a joint City -County, or a County only
project for the redevelopment. We don't envision that in any foreseeable
future being necessary.
Mr. Dawkins: Well why the City streets, why is the County going to fund the...
okay..all I need to know from you two is, if this is passed and when time comes
to develop the streets, you are telling me the City of Miami will have to float
no bonds or nothing; you two are telling me, as a Commissioner, that the City
of Miami will have to float no bonds or come up with no money to pay for no
development of these streets. Is that what I hear?
Mr. Luft: That is correct, provided that our recommendations can get an
impact fee which are not a reality yet, are moved on by this Commission.
If that approach is taken, yes, that would be the case.
Mayor Ferre: That is a major change, a major step forward. In other words,
what we are saying is, that this governmental body can go on record as saying
that people who are going to develop these projects have also now got to real-
ize that we can no longer afford to do some of the basic things that we used
to be able to pay for before. We need our money for police and fire and other
things and we can't put our money into things that are public amenities that
will accrue to the benefit of the developer and that they are going to have to
carry the burden of that. That is a brand new thing in American government,
and if this Commission accepts it, then I think what Jack is saying is that
that is how it is going to be paid.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner J. L. Plummer left meeting at 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Luft: Very quickly then, the yellow areas merely indicate that we are
suggesting predominant access to these major new developments be off of the
streets on either side of Biscayne Blvd. That would be 2nd Avenue, and N. E.
Bayshore Drive, not Biscayne Blvd. We are not looking for curb cuts, drive-
ways, turnarounds, We are talking about entrances and exits for automobiles
off the the streets to the east and west of Biscayne Blvd., and finally, we
15 DEC 151981
0 0
Id
are suggesting that there are some narrow, almost alleyway type streets - 15th
Terrace, 14th Terrace, 13th Terrace - that divide these blocks, cut them in
half; they represent an impediment to cohesive logical development. They are
not necessary in circulating and in fact, they complicate turning movements oru
Biscayne Blvd. It would be better off functionally and in terms of the deve-
lopment package without them and we are suggesting that the policy of recog-
nizing a willingness to abandon or close these streets upon the request of
developers be part of this package.. That in turn, does compensate, in fact
even more so, although that is not the reason we are doing this. The effect
is to give back to the developer more land than in effect we are asking them
to dedicate for the widening of the street on the 70 foot right-of-way. So,
there is no net loss to the developer, in effect, but that is not the real
reason that we are proposing it. We are doing it for more logical development
and to simplify traffic handling.
Mr. Perez: Do you think that big change would create the traffic problem
in the Bayshore Drive area?
Mr. Luft: Would the closure of these of these 13th Terrace, or 14th Terrace
would creat a traffic problem on Bayshore Drive? No, quite the contrary.
We feel it will help the circulation of the traffic by reducing extraneous
and multiple turning movements onto and off of those streets. These are very nar-
row, alley -like streets; we think the traffic, particularly here on 14th,
coupled with 13th and 15th will more than handle the transit access needs to
this eastern area.
Mr. Dawkins: Jack, will you elaborate on something you just said that has me
a little puzzled. You said that we are going to give back to the developer
more land than he is taking, and something you said, but I want to be sure
that what you are saying to me is that, if necessary for the developer to
give up more than we are giving him, that we will not, that we......
Mr. Luft: The deal is not that we are supposed to give them back more than
they are giving us. All I am saying for your purposes to understand is that
we would require 70 foot right-of-way for the street because the public needs
that. We are also saying, some streets can be abandoned because they are
extraneous they are superfluous, they complicate things and in fact, they do
not help the City get more logical type development, a better development
package. For that reason we would close it, and in the process of closing
it, they would get some additional right-of-way back, in some cases even
more than what they are giving, but that is strictly a side -effect.
Mr. Carollo: Where is the Herald building?
Mr. Luft: The Herald building is right here, this location.
Mr. Carollo: Is this going to cause any traffic problems for them?
Mr. Luft: Well, the Herald has pointed out to us that they use the alleyway
at 13th Terrace to cut through to their parking garage at this point. They
do that because the turning movements are controlled in a certain way at 14th.
In looking at that, we can, change those turning movements at 14th to accomo-
date that flow into the Herald parking area at the same time as closing this,
so we don't feel there is any problem.
Mr. Carollo: Is the 70 feet that you are asking, is that going to affect them
in any way?
Mr. Luft: Not the Herald, no.
Mr. Carollo: I just wanted to make sure that Mr. McMullen doesn't get so up-
set that he burns out his press at us.
Mr. Luft: Yes, we considered their concerns on this. Okay. addressing is the
open design framework. While this looks complex, there is some really basis
issues here. Very simply, Biscayne Blvd. is recognized as the most important
visual and functional corridor through the area. This is where the heart of
our efforts and our concerns rest. The dark gold band, along either side of
Biscayne Blvd. simply indicates that in addition to the present 20 foot side-
walk width, we would be requesting a full 15 foot setback that would be
mandatory to be developed as widened sidewalks, thus providing a 35 foot
Id
pedestrian promenade the length of Biscayne Blvd. That promenade would have
to be developed with additional landscaping, benches, pedestrian amenities,
kiosks and the like. That, we feel, would provide a very highly urban,
sophisticated and significant amenity for that boulevard, particularly to
the pedestrian. In a lesser fashion, we are suggesting that these light green
areas around these perimeter streets, that also would apply to 15th Street
as well. The full is set back. On 14th and 13th and 12th, we are look-
ing at a fifteen foot setback for the first 18 feet of building height. That
would provide us with again widened sidewalks, additional landscaping and
amenities, but it would allow the buildings to come back out within five feet
of the sidewalk above that 18 foot level, and then continue up at that point.
We have a cross section here that explains that very simply. This would be
the Biscayne Blvd. cross section. the curb lying here, and this being the
pedestrian promenade area. This would be the situation as we are proposing
it where it would be a fifteen foot setback, the first 18 foot of building
height, and then it could come back out to within 5 feet of the current de-
dicated right-of-way line. This would provide in this space here, two story
space for additional landscaping, widened sidewalks where sometimes we have
four and five feet now today on these side streets, we could get a much bet-
ter package along these other side streets there. I addition, we are suggest-
ing that there be created a series of urban plaza spaces what we will call
transition space. We see one of the major issues in the Biscayne Blvd. area,
of simply trying to reach into the these massive buildings like the Omni
Shopping Arcade, when tends to turn to the inside. It tends to bring the
amenities inside, away from the street and the building really doesn't reveal
itself; it doesn't express itself inthe public street environment. The pur-
pose of these green plazas as you see them depicted along this street here,
particularly emphasizing Biscayne is to open up rooms off of Biscayne Blvd.,
large plaza areas that would allow pedestrians walking along the street to
look into and sense the activity that is going on in the building, to in
fact provide a transition state to move from the public to the private environ-
ment. These two pages of design guidelines for these plazas again effect an
after use phase, encouraging the cafes, the retail, the exhibits, demonstra-
tions, performances; these kind of things concur in the large outdoor rooms,
so that they are not just another stage setting for big buildings. They are
in fact, spaces that are used by people. That would then allow the developers
to bring their internal arcades out to the street with rather, we think,
substantial and meaningful entrances. We have indicated that the corner of
13th and Biscayne ought to be the focus of the major water feature - again
the impact fees would come into play - counterbalancing the water feature on
the south side of Bicentennial Park. We think this can be a focal point, an
entrance to this major complex for the people moving through the area. We
are finally suggesting revision to the sign ordinance, consisting of what we
feel to be the essential nature of this area, which is one of high intensity
commerce, of trade, of business, of hotels, of a lot of people moving with
activity. We are suggesting that the sign ordinance, the graphics, the ban-
ners, the pennants, the moving lights displays, the kinetic sculpture, all of
these things can contribute to the visual display that arguments this kind of
activity passage. Right today it is a very conservative, a very constrained
ordinance that tends to deaden the facades of these buildings and subdue them
far beyond what we feel is necessary. George, do you have a second? Trying
to move quickly, I think that basically..... oh, one last point. The red line
that you see here, bordering the green on Biscayne Blvd. and on 15th Street,
means very simply mandatory retail at grades. We are adjusting that, if we
are going to really turn some of these buildings inside out, at least at the
first four levels - if we are going to present the pedestrian the street
lights along the boulevard, we are going to have to have an activity edge
at grade. .We cannot afford to have blank walls; I am sure if we go a little
further south on Biscayne Blvd. you will sense what I am talking about. We
cannot have the marble walls. We cannot have the parking garages with head-
lights glaring at you. We cannot have the vacant lobbies. We need window
space, display space, retail activity and all of that that it brings with it
in order to make this a meaningful, exciting pedestrian experience, so we are
mandating at least two-thirds of the frontage where you see the red line be
in retail shops, not in bank lobbies, not in stock broker's offices, but in
active commercial uses.
Mayor Ferre: But you give leeway.
Mr. Luft: The other 30% can be those sorts of things.
*17 DEC 15 1981
Mayor Ferre: In other words, if somebody wants to put up a bank. Lets take
particularly, I am thinking of specific party. I don't know whether Charlie
Gotlieb is still here.0h, Cadillac -Fairview is talking to Sears, and specific-
ally they are planning - you represented Bob? - in the Cadillac -Fairview Sears
project which is a major, major development for Miami. They are concerned
about two things. One, that they may want to have an internal plaza and
secondly that, in other words, if that green space, if they don't mind, but
they may want it somewhat separate, they may want to tie it into the con-
necting walkway and the second thing is that they want to make sure that they
have the ability to put a bank lobby down on the ground floor of the building,
and I think that is a reasonable request.
Mr. Loft: Yes, they would be permitted to do that, and up to one out of every
three shops.or spaces could be the bank, the stock broker's office, airline
ticket agency, those sorts of things. We recognize their need to be there,
the desirability, we just don't think they ought to dominate the entire space.
Okay? And then finally, in connection with through block connection, which_
you referenced the Department to, where we close the street, the publicly
owned street, we are saying that in some form, if that street is to be given
up by the City, there must be maintained through that private development.
a continuous pedestrian movement system that reaches from 2nd Ave. to Biscayne.
It could be privately controlled; they could lock it up at night, but during
the day, we have to be able to move street people through these blocks, because;.
Mayor Ferre: The theory being that if somebody is on 15, he doesn't have to
walk all the way to 17th to get to Biscayne Blvd. He has walked through the
middle of the block and....
Mr. Loft: That is right. It is not so hard to drive around the block, but
it is a very distinct inconvenience to the pedestrian to have to walk around,
so the two -block connections are implicit wherever there is a street closure.
Mayor Ferre: Questions? If not, let us hear from other governmental agencies.
fir. Kenzie? Does the DDA have any comments on all this?
Mr. Kenzie: For the record,, my name is Roy Kenzie. I am Executive Director
of the Downtown Development Authority. I reviewed the ordinance and proposed
changes to the ordinance at our board meeting on Friday unfortunately, be-
cause of the nature of the quickness of how the ordinance was put together
and changes that have taken place, the board did not have a full chance to
through all the language and full discussion of it and so the postponement
of the first portion, the mapping, and the fact that it is coming up for
second reading will help them go through additional material before the second
reading. However, there are two points which we discussed....
Mayor Ferre: But that has not been decided yet.
Mr. Kenzie: Yes, I know, that is okay. But there are two points which the
board ask at least that the staff work on and to bring to Commission in dis-
cussion of this item today. The first was in the case of the plaza definition
in the ordinance. the CBD-2 zoning ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: Is that the same concern that Cadillac -Fairview...
Mr. Kenzie: This addresses that concern and tries to resolve it the concern
but still provide plaza space. What we are doing there is in general is to
say that there should be one or more plazas per project, the aggregate of the
plazas to add up to at least 5% of the development which is consistent with
the language thus far and with the major plazas there be no more than 5000
sq. ft. in size. However, the change that we propose is that projects we
are building envelops are proposed to cover plaza spaces below, that as you
go up, if you have a plaza space, that you can go up 50 feet and then as you
go half way into the plaza, you can drop down to 35 feet and then go the re-
mainder of the portion so the building can cover the plaza, but the build-
ing is set up high enough to allow light and air to penetrate into the plaza.
If they do that, and use that provision, then they also have to provide in
addition to that 2�% additional plaza space. You are getting the 51 plaza
whic is covered, the cover with the building up above a certain height to
allow light there to penetrate and if they do that, they have to provide
another 2�% plaza space in another area. If it is interior, they have to
cover at least half of it; if it is exterior, it is open to the sky.
Mayor Ferre: Alright Jack, why do you object to that? I see you shaking
your head.
Mr. Luft: Two things. You start dividing up the 5% sq. ft. at the site of
the plaza, we are going to end up with spaces that we feel are too small and
not meaningful. We are looking for signicant entrances and activity space
where things can happen. If they have two or three of these spaces that are
1% of the site, 1111%, we don't feel that is signicant. I think we are opposed
to multiple space. We want at least the one; if they want to provide more,
fine. Secondly, if you cover over a space, in effect cantilever the building
out and cover the space over. In our opinion we think that is tantamount to
creating a very nice lobby for the building, but the purpose here is to pro-
vide a real transition between the public street environment and the private
interior environment, with natural lighting and atriums. If they want to en-
close it and air condition it, that is fine, but the glass, the natural'
lighting, you have been to Houston, you know what I am talking about. We
think it is essential to provide the kind of space that does give that transi-
tion,and a large, interior lobby, we don't think does it.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. The argument here as I sense it, Roy is that some of
the developers like Cadillac -Fairview don't mind putting up a plaza, but
they want it enclosed so that it is part of their inside. I think what Jack
is saying, and I have to agree with him is, is that when you are only deal-
ing with a 5% factor and you start chopping that up with the 2'% , what you
end up with is many little plazas that really don't accomplish what we are
trying to do, and what we are trying to do is keep our eye on the ball here
is, we are trying to, with this mammoth construction coming with an F.A.R.
of over 10, which is larger than what Gould on Ball Point, okay? We need
to have some breathing space, and some green area down at the ground floor.
I don't think it is acceptable to say, okay, we will let you build it inside
the building in some internal plaza as long as you go 50 feet and then come
down to 30 feet or whatever it is, you can cover half of that internal plaza.
That does not accomplish the same purpose.
Mr. Kenzie;: What we are saying there is that the major plaza space that is
created within the project has to be at least 5000 sq. ft. and that if they
do the option on the 5% space of covering it and providing enough glass so
that light and air can penetrate into that space so that trees and plants
can grow and it can be an open space, that if they take that option in ad-
dition to that option, they would have to provide another 2�% of the site
in open plazas, so instead of having 5% plaza, you get 5%, plus another 2;1%.
You are actually getting more space, but some portion of that space is going
to be covered, but it will be covered at a height, so that light and air can
penetrate into it.
Mayor Ferre: You are not cutting down?
Mr.Kenzie: No, we are not cutting down, we are taking 5% as the minimum
amount that would be allowed under any conditions. If they decide they want
to glass in this one, then they would have to provide 2�% additional that is
open.
Mr. Dawkins: You still cut the public off from the access, because the per-
son who owns the building and glasses it in is still attached to his build-
ing and just like he says, the public does not have access to it.
Mr. Kenzie; On the one that would be covered, on the other one it would be
open.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no. First we are talking about 531 feet, am I right?
Mr.Kenzie: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: And then you are going to add 2;� ft, which makes 7'11 ft.
Mr.Kenzie: No, percent. Percent of the site.
Mr. Dawkins: But of the 7' ft, 5' ft. going to be covered.
Mr.Kenzie: That is percent of the site. We are saying of the total site,
right now as the ordinance stands, 5% of that site has to be a space which
is open from the ground all the way to the air. Okay. What we are saying
is, wt, agree that 5 of the space should be there at the plaza, but that there
id 9
Uc� 151981
Mr.Kenzie: (con't) should be some flexibility in the plaza ordinance to
allow the developers and architects some flexibility in designing their
project. Citicorp Building in New York is a large tower that comes down
at about 50 ft. from the ground, the columns come down and they have a large
plaza, but the building covered the plaza above 50 feet for a good portion
of it. What we are saying is, that if you have a plaza, that you can take
the building down... this is the street line here... this is the street. Up
50 feet from the street the building could be up there and then it sort of
cuts back in, so that the light can penetrate into the plaza itself, and if
they do that and glass it in so that it becomes like a greenhouse, sort of,
then they have to put another 2k% somewhere else on the site that is open
to the air.
Mr. Dawkins:. But the 50 ft. that we will be able to drag in and the 50 ft
ahead, that will still be a straight line from the building to the ground
within glass.
Mr.Kenziet 50 feet from the ground to the bottom of the building would be
open, would be glassed or open.
Mayor Ferre: That is the part I didn't understand. I think what you are
saying is not as drastic as I thought it was in the beginning. What you are
saying in effect is that if somebody wishes to do that, then the penalty they
have to pay, they have to give an additional 2�% of totally open space. For
example, if you have a 100,000 sq. ft. block there and you are talking about
5000 sq. ft. being open green space, if they in turn want to come down like
Citicorp Building in New York, 50 feet and do something like that enclosed
in glass, then they would have to give another 250,000 sq. ft. of open space
somewhere else in the building.
Mr.Kenzie: Right.
Mayor Ferre: Jack, that is not acceptable to you?
Mr. Luft: You are creating an indoor room. We are looking for an outdoor
room.
Mr. Kenzie: The second item we have to discuss is the item concerning the
floor are ratio provision of the ordinance. We are very concerned that the
amount of floor area ratio granted, based on the traffic studies and obser-
vations and other developments in the downtown Brickell and Omni area. If
you recall, in the Brickell area - the Brickell area at one time of course
was all residential - and the zoning was changed there to allow commercial
development, and the commercial development that has occurred in the Brickell
area over the last 8 to 10 years ranges in the area of about 2.7 F.A.R.
average. throughout Brickell, with a maximum being the Palace, which I think
is about 3.2. So if you look at all of the Brickell area and look at all
of the buildings on Brickell and look at the Palace and the condominiums
you are looking at F.A.R. development of about 2.7 to about 3.2 F.A.R. Now,
if you go downtown and you look at Gould's development on Ball Point, you
are looking there at about 6.8, 6.9 F.A.R. for that total development on the
point of 4 buildings, parking garages and everything else. If you look at
1 Biscayne Tower and Amerifirst Building, which are the two most dense build-
ings downtown, that is 17 F.A.R. That is about as dense as we have.
Mayor Ferre: That doesn't include the parking.
Mr.Kenzie:No, we don't count the parking as part of that, just count the
rest of the structure.
Mayor Ferre: But the parking is part of the bulk, see that ie •ahy there
is so much confusion in this town about the F.A.R. We keep going in circles
on it, and the fact is that it isn't. You keep saying it is a 17 F.A.R. It
isn't a 17 F.A.R. It is a 17 F.A.R. if the garage wasn't there, but the
garage is there.
Mr. Kenzie: Right, so it is actually more.
Mayor Ferre: It is probably close to what - 25 or 30?
Mr.Kenzie:. No, it wouldn't be up that high, because the floors are half
t
floors, they have added say 5 additional floors onto the building, regular
floors. because they have parking floors about half the size of regular
floors.
Mayor Ferre: I have asked this question a dozen times, and nobody ever gives
me an answer. Volumetrically, including the parking - you can't ignore the
parking, the parking is there - what is the F.A.R. of the 1 Biscayne Building
and the other, Amerifirst?
Mr. Kenzie: I am not sure I have the figures and sizes of the floors and
calculate it out as half the size of an office building..
Mayor Ferre: I did it roughly one time and I ended up with something like
25 F.A.R. 40,000 sq. ft., okay? And you have a building of 40,000 sq. ft.
as the print'of the land and you have 40 stories at 40,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Kenzie: 38 stories, but first 10 stories of the building are really only
5 building floors, and so you reduce the 38, because you are counting those
as 10, and it is really only 5, so I think it would probably be in the 21
F.A.R. range, somewhere around there. I am just guessing the F.A.R. on that,
on those two buildings on that block.
Mayor Ferre: Would you write and send me that? I'll make you a bet that it
is over 25.
Mr.Kenzie: Yes, I will work that out for you. You might be right. I am
just guessing. Figuring out parking floors are not full sized floors, office
buildings would be about half height. What we are suggesting anyway in terms
of F.A.R. in the Omni area - in the transportation studies that were completed,
it said that if we were to build the area at 12 F.A.R., that the transportation
system proposed, that would be all the changes, the additions, the metro, and
the people movers and everything else going up in there, that the road systems
could not handle that intensity of development, if it were developed throughout
the site. What we are suggesting is some changes in language that would reduce
the size allowable for F.A.R. for non-residential uses that would allow high
F.A.R. for residential uses to encourage residential development in the area.
What we are saying is for non-residential uses, an F.A.R. of 6, if building
entrances are more than 1200 feet walking distance from a rapid transit station,
or 600 feet from a people mover station; and then 8 F.A.R. if the main building
entrance is less than 1200 feet, or 600 feet from a DPM - so 1200 feet from
a rapid, 600 from DPM, so if you are close to the people movers station, you get
2 more F.A.R. then if you are too far away. So, that buildings that are close
would have better accessability can afford the greater density. So, for non-
residential uses, if you are close to rapid or peoplemover, you would have 8
F.A.R. For residential uses we would allow for a completely residential tower,
with some commercial use of the ground floor, 12 F.A.R. Then we have a formula
which would allow a mixture of uses - mixed use development, so that if you are
doing a commercial project and put some residential in it, you can range between
the 6 or 8 and 12 on a formula, so it would be possible for you to do a building
that would say, have 8 F.A.R. commercial and 4 F.A.R residential. What we are
trying to do is to encourage the residential development, which is extremely
difficult to get, and by giving a high bonus for residential, we feel we can
achieve that and second is to allow for mix use development which is something
that the consultants in the transportaiton studies thought was a desirable end
in that area.
Mayor Ferre: Jack, your reaction to this? I think what he is saying is, let's
lower the density a little bit; 12 is too much. What we ought to really do is
go back to a basis of 6 and then climb up on a bonus of up to 12 with a heavy
emphasis on residential.
Mr. Luft: I will let Mr. McManus answer this one.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, The Department was not
instructed to undertake this survey of the floor area ratios. However, we
entirely support what DDA is now talking about with perhaps the one exception
that rather than having an ultimate maximum of 12 F.A.R., we would suggest that
it be 10.5.
Mayor Ferre: I will tell you why I agree. I called up Marty. You and I talked.
and I asked you what was the maximum projected - one of your clients has a pro-
jected building - and you told me that between the commercial and the residential
was 10.5. No? Well tell me what it was. 10.5 was substantially larger than what
GEC 1 i981
Gould is doing at Ball Point.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, for the record my name is Martin Fine, 2401 Douglas
Road. It is very interesting to me that ask..(INAUDIBLE - NOT ON MICROPHONE)
We understand that Southeast Building is 11.9, so I don't know how much
F.A.R. Mr. Gould has. That seems to be a big mystery. The fact of the matter
is that traffic report and the Planning Department have encouraged residential use
and we are in accord with that concept of the mixed use development and I
think I may have not made myself clear to you. The propsed building that we
have is about 11.5, 11.6. What we are suggesting some formula and we had
a copy here apd we have given it to the City Attorney or to the City Manager.
What we are really saying is that in a mixed use development, we are suggesting
that Section 7,•Item C be amended, that is, B & C and that for residential use
it go from 9.0 to 10.5 and for entire buildings which include both residential
and non-residential uses, that it go to 12, provided 75% of the building is in
residential. My. Mayor, may I just take a moment so we save some time and
share with you and the members of the Commission the fact that we have been
working on this ordinance in excess of 6 months. This is not something that
has just come along and thrown a sheet of paper on the table and asked you to
deal with it. We think this is wholly realistic. Your Planning Department has been
very receptive and very responsive and very cooperative. We think we have
been very cooperative with neighbors and people who object. We also think
there are people here who comment and bring up some of these points in an
effort not to try to get the ordinance passed, but to stop any development
in that area. And we would hope that what we resolve today, the development
that is going to take place, that it is going to take place in its proper
fashion with proper amenities. Mr. Paul, for example, at the last hearing,
banged the table and screamed and said "the public isn't being protected, let's
mandate the amenities". The amenities are now mandated. He said, and you
said and others have said that F.A.R. wasn't a problem. That if the amenities
were there, F.A.R. is no problem. Now at some point, we simply have got to
come to some conclusions, and there are developers who are ready to move ahead
in a responsible fashion. These people are not out to build every inch and
square footage that they can possibly build. They are out, there is Cadillac
fairview union management, Mr. Iloilo, others, to do a creditable job for them-
selves and for the City.
Mayor Ferre: Are you saying that what is being proposed is acceptable to you?
Mr. Fine: I must tell you that I didn't have an opportunity to readwhat DDA
is saying, but what we have submitted here clarifies it. We have previously
shown that to your Planning Staff and we think that is an appropriate and
clean simple way to achieve that objective.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. Any other governmental agencies that want to speak
before we get to the private sector? Alright. Now we will get to the private
sector.
Mr. Emilio Calleja: When the Cubans first came to Miami, they split. The
merchants, all the merchants, the Cuban merchants that came over, most of
them went to S. W. 8th Street and developed their businesses there, but the
bulk of the Cuban Jewish merchants went downtown. They have been there since
the early 60's, they have thrived; they have taken an area that was pretty
downtrodden and downgraded and slummish, if you like to say it into a very
viable merchant's oriented, high commercial area, which attracted first the
local Cubans, then the Brazilians, then the Venezuelians, then the Argentians,
attracted a lot development, attracted a lot of retail, which wasn't going to
be there, if they weren't there. And they have been slugging away at this for
15 - 17 years. I am sure all of you know what I am talking about. A lot of
them became developers. They sank their money right into downtown. They
bought old buildings. They refurbished them. They turned it into a vibrant*
commercial center with over 500 new stores opening in the past couple of
years. So now, we have a situation downtown where this proposal to go to a
12 F.A.R. from a 2 F.A.R., if I am not mistaken, as officially known, is going
to downtown what the Brickell area did, when their F.A.R. went up. Land values
went up and all of the construction that could have gone to the core of down-
town went to Brickell Avenue and a lot of the amenities. So now what is hap-
pening is we are saying, okay, we want to do the same thing. We want to go
up to the Omni area. We want a 12 F.A.R.
Mayor Ferre: Are you opposed to this?
22 DEC 15 1981
Mr. Calleja: Yes. I want to keep the F.A.R. which is an F.A.R. of
2 the Omni area has 5 or 6. I want to keep it as low
as possible. I want to bring people to live. It is alright for the density
to stay as high as possible. Get people to live downtown first, and don't
choke off the commercial core, which will. There are stores right now that
are very shakey. We lost a lot of summer trade that we are not making up
for in the local because of inherent situation and that is going to kill it.
That is going to choke off trade downtown if we build another downtown 15 -
16 blocks away. Give us a chance. Give us two years and then go ahead and
do it. There is a lot of commerce waiting to come in, waiting to see who is
going to go first, Cadillac -Fairview or the Federated people. I want down-
town to get it. I am selfish. I want the core to get it. Give us a chance
first, and then go out to Omni.
Mayor Ferre: Emilio, for centuries and centuries in Europe, in Western Eur-
ope and then in the United States, there were no zoning laws; there were no
regulations of any kind. And what determined what got built where was the
marketplace. People did things depending whether or not they had the money
to put it up and that is how most European and American cities grew. Some
we like a lot, and others that we don't. Now, in the past 80 years, many
people in this country and the sophisticated Planners from universities that
come up with all of these very complicated zoning rules and regulations and
what have you. I have got to tell you that I don't think American cities,
those that have very stringent rules and those that have very loose rules like
Houston, I question whether or not the market place has done the better job
of determining what cities look like then all of these very, very heavy burdened
layers and layers and layers of what you can and can't do. In other words, free
enterprise system really works in every sense. Now, the other thing I wanted to
tell you was, that like tell me that if were in charge of all the agricultural
community in South Dade, or in Ocala, that you are not going to let him go up
and grow tomatoes or his brother-in-law, or me to grow my lime trees and go
out and put in new limes trees because the people, Mr. Kendall, and those who
own the lime groves in South Dade County already have a vested interest and
because the prices are going to fluctuate if there are too many lime trees pro-
ducing limes, that we should restrict any more lime trees from being planted.
My answer to you, as I see it now, and with all due respect, because I think the
merchants, whatever their nationality or religion, color, age or whatever, what-
ever the people are, and there are a lot of people in downtown of all types.
That is wonderful, and I commend them. They have all made a lot of money.
_ Some of them have made very, very large fortunes of money. Now you know, let
somebody else have an opportunity to grow with this community. It is going
to be a big city. We are not going to limit this. This isn't New York where
you are going to say you are going to limit this to Fifth Avenue from 50th to
60th Street. If the area of Park Avenue and 70th grows more than the one on
Fifth Avenue and 50th, well that is the way it functions, and I can't tell
you...I went through the same discussion yesterday. I want to help Olympia-Yorki,
and the Cadillac -Fairview and the Oxford Group. All three of them are in here
competing, so to speak, and they all have very major projects. How in the
world can Miller Dawkins or J. L. Plummer or Joe or Demetrio or myself say
that we are going to take a preference to one project over another. We can't
do that. I can't tell Ted Hollo - listen, one of the best things that happened
in this community is what Ted Hollo decided to do 15 years ago. You say, well
that has hurt downtown. I don't think it has hurt downtown. I think it has
helped downtown. I can't, for the life of me, I think we have got to deal
with the reality of the situation. I know that growing brings change. But,
thank God we live in a free society Where growing is allowable.
Mr. Calleja. I realize that, Mr. Mayor, but the problem is, the land values.
What you are saying is, that let free enterprise take its course. True, but
right now you can influence free enterprise by the land values. They are
much higher in the core area and much lower in the Omni area.
Mayor Ferre: This isn't going to decrease the land prices. Right now, I
understand that there have been appraisals in the downtown core area. Now
it seems the land there is worth $200 a sq. ft. That is unheard of, you
know? But you say that I remember the time when you said $25 a sq. ft. was
unbelievable. $200! You know, if you talked to somebody that just came
back from Hong Kong, like Mr. Cheezem's partner, that is nothing. They are
paying $500 a sq. ft., so that is compared to what? All I am saying to you
is, that the downtown property owners have done pretty good.
Mr. Calleja: I understand that, but there is something in the future that isn't
going to be Kosher, unless we act, and that is why we are coming before the
Commission and a lot of these people are going to get hurt and a lot of the core
area is going to shutter up and close up, and then what is that going to do to
the big developers? They are not going to want to go there, and that is what
is happening.
Mayor Ferre: Emilio. We have nothing to do with the Allapattah merchants,
okay? Nothing to do with that. They have all moved in, you know Mourey Press-
man and all those people in Allapattah. There are 550 stores that have opened
there in the last 3 years. The City Manager can't control that. He can't tell
them not to open up stores. Now, you know what they are doing? They are tak-
ing away the.business from downtown. They are competing. All those little
shops in Allapattah, 550 of them, are now selling television sets, and they are
selling merchandise, the same merchandise that they are selling downtown.
There is nothing we can do about that, and I am just telling you any way you
slice it, you are going to have competition, and you have to roll with the
punches, and that is the way this system works.
Mr. Calleja: I realize that, but what is going to happen - this is my last
statement - you are going to have two downtowns. You are going to have an
enclosed fortress type downtown to the north a safe one, where you just drive
in, shop and you go out, or you are going to have a downtown like we are try-
ing to do, with sidewalk cafes with the ordinance we are coming up with today,
and give us an open type of atmosphere, more of a European downtown that you
were talking about. Those are the many options.
Mayor Ferre: Emilio, how many does downtown is Chicago have, or Los Angeles, or
New York? What is downtown New York?
Mr. Calleja: We are not there yet. We are not there yet.
Mayor Ferre: What is downtown Atlanta? You know, you go on Peach Street...
what is downtown Houston? What is downtown Denver? What I am saying is, is
that we are getting to be a big city. You can no longer look upon the down-
town area as five square blocks, which was how we used to look upon it 20
years ago. We have got to deal with the reality of today, not the reality
of 1950. Now I understand the concern of the merchants, and I think we have
got to be reasonable in response to this, but there is no way that we can
limit competition.
Mr. Carollo: Maurice, what I have been seeing for quite some time is that
the competition that we have been getting has been from areas outside the
City of Miami, like for instance, one of our greatest competitors is downtown
Coral Gables. We are losing a tremendous amount of businesses to downtown
Coral Gables. Now, if there is to be competition in a system like ours, and
there always is, then I would at least rather see competition within the
boundaries of the City of Miami itself. And I agree -I don't think there
is anything wrong with having 2 or 3 different downtown areas. Every major
city has one. I grew up in Chicago, so those different downtown areas, tall
buildings, that was a way of life for me for many years. But I think that
as indeed we are going to become a major city, indeed we are going to solve
the problem that a major city has, if indeed we are going to get the adequate
money for our Public Safety Department, like our Police & Fire Departments, I
think we have to take that step that indeed is going to bring us into being a
major city- like Miami is almost there and being. And I think that yes, we
are going to have to develop arteries to the downtown areas that might even-
tually develop like your saying to different downtown areas themselves. But
I think that if we don't do this, then Miami is not going to grow into the
major city that it is destined to be. I think what Marty Fine was saying
and requested is basically the same thing with some differences that Roy
Kenzie was saying and asking for. I don't see that much difference in what
they were asking for. And I think that this will be a very positive step
for our future, not only for the future of that Omni northeast area, but
for the future in itself for downtown Miami and the future of all the neigh-
borhoods of the city.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, any further questions? If not, who is the next speaker
on this?
Mr. Paul: For the record, my name is Dan Paul, 1300 S. E. First National
Bank Building, Miami. I think the Planning Department has done a spectacular
Job in improving this Omni ordinance in providing public amenities that were
not there before when you had an F.A.R. as high as the one that you have.
F.A.R. doesn't particularly concern me. I'm more concerned about the amenities.
There are two suggestions that I have for improving what is here before you.
First, 15th Street at 70 feet is definitely too narrow with the people mover
on it. It ought to be 80 feet and this is your last chance to ever do any-
thing about 15th Street, because you are already locked in on the north side
of 15th Street with Jefferson's and Jordan Marsh.
Mayor Ferre: Now, wait a minute. Let me stop you right now. Do you disagree
with that, Jack and Joe? I think that makes a lot of sense to go to 80 feet on
15th Street..
Mr. Luft: 70 feet is an absolute minimum.
Mayor Ferre: That is not my question. The man is saying that he thinks that
15th is such an important artery and since the people movers are already going
to be there, we have got to go to at least 80 feet. My question is, do you
disagree with that?
Mr. Luft: I don't disagree that 80 foot would be highly desirable, particular-
ly since the people mover is going to eliminate one moving lane of traffic.
We did recommend 70 feet, because we felt that was an absolute minimum that
we could live with. 80 foot would be desirable and probably with the people
mover in there, it would work to better advantage.
Mayor Ferre: Joe, do you have any problems with that?
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, I just had a brief
consultation with Mr. Ca:.pbell of the Public Works Department and we think
the 80 feet would be des,"trable.
Mr. Paul: Second is, I think that the 5% of the site area for plaza is too
small. It ought to be 7% and that is somewhat like the DDA proposal. I
don't think that considering the size of the structure and the large F.A.R.
that you have there that 7% of the site area for the public plaza is too
great. Then you will have significant public plazas as opposed to, as Jack
was saying, little tiny enclaves here and there. Those are the only two sug-
gestions that I have.
Major Ferre: Let me then turn to Roy and say Roy, under your theory where
you have an enclosed plaza, you have to give an additional 2�%. If we go to
7%, in a way that really helps to solve your problem, doesn't it? Well sure.
What is Administration's reaction to that?
Mr. Luft: 7% will provide the 10,000 sq. ft. plaza for the Cadillac -Fairview
project and if there is a project north of Jefferson's. 10,000 sq. ft. is
the figure we settled on originally. 7% would provide that, and in an effort
to accomodate developers concerned, we moved back and forth, we went to 5%.
I personally feel more comfortable with 7%.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. 10,000 sq. ft. is not much bigger than this open space
here in the lobby, so when you stop to think and put it in your mind, you are
talking about that whole block where Sears is, this is not that much of a
plaza space to be talking about.
Mr. Paul: That is why I suggested it be made 7% instead of 5%. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, let's hear from ... do you have any reaction to that?
(INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ON MICROPHONE)
Mayor Ferre: Now, why can't you be as agreeable with him as he is with you?
Bob, do you and your clients have any problems on that?
Id Mr. Traurig: Well, I would like to address a number of issues, and I will
start out by talking about the 7%. I think that... and now I am addressing
this on behalf of Cadillac -Fairview and Homart. Homart is the real
estate subsidiary of Sears and I am really talking about a two block area
Jnrr
Mr. Traurig: (con't) from 13th to 15th and from Biscayne Blvd. to N. E. 2nd
Avenue. What Roy Kenzie was saying earlier, which Jack Luft was opposing, would
give 7'% on those two blocks and we would be very happy with that kind of an
arrangement. Jack was opposing what Roy proposing because he felt that there
should never be anything above the plaza, and what Roy was saying is that if
we had that open ceiling of the plaza with nothing above it for the first half
= of the plaza, for the first 50 feet above, we would still get the same feeling
of great open space and it would give some design flexibility to the developers.
Our position is that we would be happy to have the 5% in that plaza and another
_ 21% elsewhere and we strongly support what Roy was proposing and so, we urge
you to consider that Roy's description of the project is a valid one, and we
ought to have some opportunity to build above the plaza area. Now, I would
like to talk about other aspects of the ordinance, both on behalf of this
two block area and on behalf of Central National Bank. First let me mention
Central National Bank. Central National Bank is the one with Chuck Hatteras
as president:of directly across the street from Omni.
Mayor Ferre: There are two Central banks that have just changed their name.
They are now called Eagle, aren't they?
Mr. Traurig: This is Eagle. Their position, Eagle's position has been that
they don't really have a major parcel, and they really want to build a bank
building, and they want to build a bank building as their principal offices
!} and they don't want their Biscayne Blvd. frontage to be in retail, because
it wasn't within the design concept. It has already been worked out by
the Candela firm and which it has really gone way beyond just the talking
stage. Obviously we can live with whatever the community feels is best for
the community, but to'mandate that 65% of all of the Biscayne Blvd. frontage
has to have to have the windows, transparencies and with store fronts and
to only leave a very small portion of their block for their banking opera-
tion, is totally contrary to what they had planned. We urge you to consider
that maybe the 65% is too much; that maybe some lesser percentage could be
applied if you in fact agree with what Jack has proposed and that is that we
have to have to have a walking street with a store front.
Mayor Ferre: Bob, the simplify and cut through - is there any way, Jack that
we could somehow grandfather in those structures that already have a banking
facility there? I understand what you are saying. Here is a bank who came
here and bought a bank and has no other purposes but to have a bank and now
you are saying that if they go in and build a building, what they have they
can't have, because they can only keep 33% or a third rather than 100% of
what they now have for their banking purposes. So my question is, for
those existing banks and think there are only two that I can remember, who al-
ready have bank lobby's on Biscayne Blvd., so they would not be denied, if
they so wish, when theybuild their buildings to duplicate what they already
have. Would that be acceptable? Just tell me how you feel about it?
Mr. Luft: I think 30% is very generous for a bank. I think you can provide
all the services you want for counter walkup services. Essentially, what they
want to do is put people sitting at desks behind windows along that frontage,
and it is not necessary. No, I think 30% is more than adequate. If this
Commission —if there is a hardship —and there needs to be a variance on that,
this Commission can give special variances on somebody who comes in, they lay
out their plans and say "this is the special problem, we need relief" and you
can give them a variance.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I am Eagle Bank and I say to you, "Jack, I already own a
building and.the whole 100% of it. It is a small lot and you are not going
to move me, and you can't make me change it. Now, if that is what you want,
then I won't do anything. I just leave my little two-story bank building
here."
Mr Luft: Do you really think they are going to do that? Omni is not going to
care. They are going to build a big building there, you can count on it. It
is going to be very big and hopefully a lot of people will go to it, and I am
only concerned that we be consistent with what we do from 20th Street all the
way to 13th. If we are not consistent, we are opening a can of worms and I
don't think we are ever going to get out.
Mayor Ferre: It may be that..I think Jack may be right. You are just going
to have to be retained by the Eagle Bank to come in and try to get a variance
��� �.1 19
2s
V W
Mr. Traurig: We wanted to call it to your attention, Mr. Mayor. Let me
address some other issues. On the plaza activity linkages - we think And
I am talking really about R.T.K. & L. out of Baltimore wnicn is one of the
world's most outstanding architectural firms which has been doing the work
for Cadillac -Fairview and Holomark. They believe that the specifics outlined
here don't grant them sufficient architectural flexibility; that it isn't
necessary to mandate all of the architectural features, because there might
be some tradeoffs, and you now have a provision in this ordinance that every-
thing has to be reviewed by the Urban Development Review Board. It is a total
site plan approval process. That is a group of very outstanding people who
have served this City well, and we think that if you give some guidelines as
to plaza development and they can utilize that as guidance, that we are all
well served, but to say that we must have a certain number of trees and we
must have them in a certain configuration, and we must have certain kind of
seating and -we must have certain types of widths, etc. makes it difficult for
the architect to design. Actually, you know, it mandates to him and he can
draw it out, but it doesn't give him the flexibility. We urge you to consider
that lack of flexibility.
Mayor Ferre: Bob, let me answer that one. You have a pretty good track re-
cord, I would say at this Commission and at the County Commission of winning
variances. I voted for many of them myself that I think make an awful lot of
sense. Now, what we are doing here is we are not chiseling anything in stone.
You know, if anything, this Commission has a record of giving too many vari-
ances. We have been criticized off and on for that. Seems to me that what
we are doing is trying to set some guidelines so that we can all live with
something that is reasonable, because you and I both know that there is going
to be ... when Cadillac -Fairview comes here and says "I am going to, "we are
willing to spend two hundred million dollars'�to this project, but we cannot
live with this and this and this", you know that this Commission or a future
Commission is going to be as reasonable as past Commissions have been, with-
in reason.
Mr. Traurig: And I am confident that this Commission will be reasonable al-
so, but the words that are used in the ordinance are that the plaza shall
be provided in accordance with the following design standards.
Mayor Ferre: Why not?
Mr. Traurig: And we just fill in a two -block area, we have got to have some
design flexibility and not have it mandated, but if you are speaking the
sense of this Commission and that is if at an appropriate time we come back
here, you are going to deal with us in a very reasonable way, we are satis-
fied with that assurance.
Mayor Ferre: We have got to start someplace, you know. I know this does not
satisfy everybody. I don't know if Ted Hollo is still around here, but I
think Tibor Hollo has ..... We are talking about going ou feet. Now,
what does that do to that Red Coach property there? Now, we may have to say,
"well, we are going to have to give them a little bit extra somewhere to make
up for that". You know, because when you are saying instead of 70 feet, we
are going to 80 feet, and I think that is going to affect that Red Coach
property, which is a small property.
Mr Luft: Mr. Mayor, all we are saying is that we are very precise in what
we give the developer. We want to be just as precise as to what they give
the public,'and that is why the standards.
Mayor Ferre: Alright Bob, I am sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Traurig: Next point. I just call these things to your attention because
I will be back some day to remind you of them. On pedestrian connections,
we intend to seek the closure of 14th Street. I don't know if that sits well
with Staff, but when we intend to do it, because that will integrate the
two blocks,this ordinance says that we must have a thru block connection on
the same area which is now public right-of-way. We have no problem with the
two -block connection between the Boulevard and 2nd Avenue, but it may not
follow the same configuration because of the dictates of the development
itself. We merely call that to your attention.
Id
27
DEC 1519 81
tip
Mr. Luft: No, it does not say it has to be exactly within the right-of-way.
It says that for the basic dimension between the two streets that are left
open, when you close the streets in that vicinity, there shall be a way to
walk on one side or the other.
Mr. Traurig: I thank you for that.
Mr. Luft: Okay.
Mr. Traurig: How I really want to get into the meat of my remarks here.
Page 8 of this proposal talks about historic preservation. This is something
which is a very emotional issue. A lot of people in this community have
strived hard to preserve some of the historic vistas.
Mayor Ferrer• Bob, let's at least go right to it. Are you taking about the
Sears' Tower?
Mr. Traurig: We are talking about the Sears' Tower. We are saying to you,
we can't preserve the Sears' Tower. No way'
Mayor Ferre: Alright, let me ask you, is that still in there, or has that
been removed, the Sears' Tower?
Mr. Luft: Sears is still there.
Mr. Traurig: I think that this Commission has to understand why. You know,
it is not an arbitrary position on our part. We have an understanding that
Sears cannot discontinue operations during any phase of this, so we have to
build a new store for Sears in another location on these two blocks and then
another department store is going to take the Sears' location. When it does
that, it doesn't want the Sears identification to mar its marketing impact.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, let us see if we can cut right through. Joe, let me
interpret. The issue before us is this. The Sears' Tower on Biscayne Blvd.
has been earmarked specifically by the departments and classified as a his-
torical monument, which in a way, really creates a problem for development
of that property. Now, I think what Bob is asking is that we not classify
that that way and I think we could cut through it, take a consensus on it
right now. I don't have any problems, because I don't think that that is
going to be that much of a loss, whether that tower is there or not.
Mr. Carollo: I tend to agree, Mr. Mayor, I really don't see the effect you
will have.
Mayor Ferre: Miller, how do you feel on it? You don't have any problem
with that? Demetrio? You have a consensus here of four votes that that
should be removed as a historical —go ahead.
Mr. Traurig: Well, having received that assurance, which was the major ... I
will just briefly tell you that we do have some other problems and that is
with the see -through corridor situation, but I think that a liberal interpreta-
tion of the ordinance will benefit us. We have one parcel which is an inde-
pendent parcel that is actually the parking lot immediately west of where
Arthur's Resturant is right now, which, because of its configuration will
mandate to us that we have north -south orientation on that building, and we
can't have an east -west. So consequently, we are going to have to come in
with the plan which will have some north -south building. We just want you
to know thht that will occur. We think that the staff has done a super job.
We urge the passage of the ordinance with the changes that we have suggested.
Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, next speaker? Mr. Hollo.
Mr. Hollo: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Board. My name is Ted Hollo.,
444 Brickell Avenue, Miami. I also concur with the number of recommendations
of the staff. I think it is creating a magnificant Biscayne Blvd. in that
area. It is truly very much in line with creating New World Center. I have
a particular and peculiar problem that you are all aware of. I have had a
possible plan in this particular district that was 132 ft. wide. A few years
ago the City
28 DEC 15 1981
t
Mr.Ted.Hollo: (eont'd) : I also concur with a number of the recamendations
of the staff. I think that creating a magnificent Biscayne Boulevard in that
area truly is very mu::h in line with creating New World Center. I have a
particular and peculiar problem that you are all aware of. I have had a
parcel of land in that particular district that was 132 feet wide. A few
years ago the City has asked me to relinquish 9 feet of it, which I have done.
Now they are asking me to give up more out of my 123 feet, that goes from block
to block, my entire width in that block is 123 feet, now I'm asked to give up
more plus I'm asked to go back with a very sizeable set back at side street
line.
Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about the Red Coach property?
Mr. Hollo: Yes, your Honor. I am at a loss, really as to what will happen
to the property that, right now, is very difficult to develop in a proper
fashion. I was told by the Department that - oh, we'll give you back some
of it in the back street. Upon consulting my deed I find that the property
they would give me back on the back street doesn't came to me, it canes
back to -the original grantee of the easement, it's in my deed.
Mayor Ferre: Who is that?
Mr.Hollo: Mr. Hawkins, I think, originally, who was....
Mayor Ferre: That's fran the property, right?
Mr. Jack Luft: Our Law Department has reviewed all these reversions and
I'd like for our Law Department to respond.
Mr. Terry Percy: I have not reviewed the one that Mr. Rollo is referring
to now with reference to that particullr grantor so I could not offfer you
an opinion.
Mayor Ferre: Well, would you look into that because I the that's a very
germaine point, if we are asking him to give an additional 10 feet now ..
we've already got him fran one hundred and thirty...
Mr.Hollo: One hundred and Uu_rt-y, two to a hundred and twenty three.
Mayor Ferre: ....one hundred and thirty two to a hundred and twenty three...
Mr.Hollo: Now they want five more feet fran the 123.
Mayor Ferre: Well, maybe 10... if we go to eighty feet how much would it be?
You obviously cannot shop it up from Jordan Marsh?
Mr.Hollo: Well, I'm at a loss really because all the three corners are
totally built up; one is 1440 building, the other one is the Jefferson store
and the third one is Ou ii which is Jordan Marsh.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let me ask you this. As I see it from that marking, the
street is 50 feet wide?
Mr.Hollo: Sixty feet wide. Currently, the zoned right of way is 60 feet,
your Honor.
Mayor Ferre: So if we vacate that street....
Mr. Hollo: Do you mean the small street?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Hollo: No, I think that's only a 25 foot street.
Mayor Ferre: Twenty five foot.
Mr.Hollo: Yes, that's only a half -street.
Mayor Ferre: This was the little alley that you went to to get to the
parking lot of the Red Coach.
29 n�
Mr. Hollo: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: That's a 25-foot street.
Mr. Hollo: That is correct.
Mayor Ferre: So, if we vacate that, then we surely. would have enough land
there to make up for what we are taking at the other end.
Mr. Hollo: Except that the deed does not provide for it. The Florida law
is peculiar. If the grantor of the easement retains reversionary rights
then it goes back to the original grantor, not to the assignee.
Mayor Ferre: Well, we have a legal problem here, how are we going to deal
with that, Terry?
Mr. Percy: I suggest that we take a look at the plat and the deed that
Mr. Hollo is referring to and to see if we could resolve the problem.
Mayor Ferre: The problem is that we are talking about moving on something
on First Reading so that we would have time to look at it on second reading
and solve it.
Mr. Percy: Correct.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I don't know has the rest of the Ccmmission feels but
I certainly ... I think we have to be very careful not to before confiscatory
you know, and unless we can give him some relief samehow.... Roy, do you have
a suggestion as to how to solve it?
Mr. Roy Kenzie: If we went back to the original language that I proposed
on the F.A.R., on that site, the Red Coach site. the allowable F.A.R. would
be 8, since he is served by the People Mover Station directly next to his
project. Now, I would think that because of the circumstances -the planned
street width and the additional property that you are taking from him that
he would have grounds to ocme back to the Ccffu. ssion based on the design of
his building to discuss a variance which would allow him to go up to 12,
which is the same as residential variances through the area. That site is
a peculiar site and if you look at all the other developments that are pro-
posed in the area, the guidelines that we've established suggest an F.A.R.
meets with the developer's desires, yet reduce the overall F.A.R.....
Mayor Ferre: I get your point, but I think what .'Mr. Hollo is saying is
look if you are going to do sanething like that I want it done before I
finalize this, don't just let me hand in limbo, and I think he's got a
valid point, so I think between now and second reading either Terry Percy
has to clarify the legals of it and if we can do it that way that's one
alternative or we may have to do it another way which is what you are revam-
mending, and Jack, you are going to have to vane back to the Camtission
with a recamended solution to this particular problem.
Mr. Hollo: I would agree to the solution that Roy suggested except that
to go through a vaiance procedure would be another 8 to 10 months.
Mayor Ferre: That's my point, in other words, if we are going to do it,
we've got to do it now rather than force you to go through a variance
procedure, I understand.
Mr. Carolle: Mr. Mayor, can we stipulate that before this ocmes back for
a second reading, that we do get an answer to Mr. Hollo's problem.
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you say 'a solution', rather than an answer.
Mr. Carollo: That's correct, I think that if we could give him some relief
at this level it'd be fairer all around than for him to have to go through
the whole process of variances.
Mayor Ferre: Does that meet with your approval, Miller ... Demetrio, do
you agree with that? So you've got a consensus here now of four members
on that point.
All right, now, what else do we have. Does anybody else want to speak
on this issue?
L;V DrC '� 5 "^81
Ms. Janet Cooper: Janet Cooper, 1901 Brickell Avenue. I'll have to address
the issue in more or less reverse order than the one they came up. In
dealing with Mr.Hollo's problem I think it is helpful to try to solve it
beforehand but I don't know that what Mr. Kenzie has suggested is a solution
because, as I understood it, his problem is not one of F.A.R. but of set -back,
and increasing the F.A.R. certainly isn't going to alleviate any setback
requirements, so I am at a loss as to how that is going to solve the problem.
Mayor Ferre: Well, it compensates him for what you are taking away. You
are taking away 10 feet and if you let him build a little bigger building
then it compensates.
Ms. Cooper. Well,..As far as the whole issue of variances is concerned I've
no problem granting variances when there is a hardship and I've spoken in
favor of saiie that have been proposed and requested but I don't like the tone
of -cane in, and if we like what you are proposing better than what would be
mandated by the ordinance we'll give you a variance; because a variance is
specifically to alleviate a hardship, not merely because a particular group
of people like something better than others.
Mayor Ferre: Janet be practical, you've been around this eatmission and
the County Commission long enough. You know as well as I do...
Ms. Cooper: I know the way it's done.
Mayor Ferre: ...I agree with you that that's not the way things should be
done. But thefact of it is that that's the way they are done in the United
States of America, it isn't just Mimi.
Ms. Cooper: It's not the way it's done in Coral Gables and I just take this
opportunity to point out that this Commission really needs to take a look at
what is granting hardship variances for. And as far as what raised that issue, the
designs request on the urban plazas, I've looked than over again and they ap-
pear .... they don't tell you where to put trees, they tell you the minimum
number of trees, and I think that that offers sufficient flexibility for a
good architect and a good planner to work on the required number of trees
and provides seating at a specific height that's convenient for people. Those
kinds of things I don't think they are overly restrictive in the proposals
that are ... in regard to the plaza activity. I also agree with Mr. Paul that
the urban plazas should be increased to 7% and that 15th Street should be
widened to 80%.
Mayor Ferre: Eighty feet.
Ms. Cooper: Eighty feet, I'm sorry. The F.A.R., although that wasn't
originally before you, I think is too high as it is and I don't think it
should be increased. I think tht Mr. Kenzie's proposal would result in
nearly every building being built in this area being built at a 12 since
you could have the same office space as you would otherwise and then add
on, so what's the point of not doing it?
Mayor Ferre: Doesn't that serve a public purpose, if everybody adds on
and builds more apartments? Isn't that what we want?
Ms. Cooper: Well, there is some public purpose, but to live in an area
where it is all 12 F.A.R. would became extremely oppressive. I don't
think that people like living in that kind of environment, I don't think
that they will, and I think that an F.A.R. of 12 is too high.
Mr. Carollo: Janet, you know, if you go to any major city in the United
States -Chicago, New York, Houston, Los Angeles- you are going to find that
on the contrary, we are still approving F.A. R.'s below what they are in
areas very similar to this, and the bottom line as I see it is that if that
wtrole northeast area is ever going to get built up -and I'm talking about
from Onu-d on, past 79th Street to our City limits,- if we are ever going
to encourage enough developers to go there and build that area up, and in
return that is going to encourage a lot of people to invest more and help
Overtown, Culmer, we've got to start doing it now by approving this, because
if we don't do this, it's not going to move on. If this is approved, what
it is going to do in my opinion is encourage developers to move up, past
Omni, and then move a little more, and move a little more until we finally
develop that whole northeast area of Biscayne Boulevard that we have dreamed
in doing. I see no other way of doing that but by starting with this here,
now.
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Carollo and other members of the Commission, as many of you
remember, I am not opposed to development....
Mr. Carollo: I'm not saying that.
Mr. Cooper: ....and I am not suggesting that you bring it back to a 2 F.A.R.
I've never suggested that. I've stood here on many occasions on this particular
ordinance and spoken in favor of increasing the F.A.R., but increasing it to a
reasonable level, I think that the 10.5 that is currently asked is more than
adequate. I think by raising it to 12 you are raising it too high, that's my
only point, I'm not suggesting that we go back to single family homes on this
property, I••am suggesting, however, that there is sane limit, and I think that
when you are dealing in a City like Miami, where there is such an emphasis on
out -doors because of the climate that we have --,we don't have a Chicago weather,
we don't have a New York weather, we have an environment that emphasizes sky,
breezes, sun light, open spaces ... if you have a City where the sun doesn't
shore anyway, what's the harm of building up the building and blocking off the
sun light, but if we have a city such as Miami, where the entire —not the entire
but a major portion of the appeal of bringing people to Miami and people want-
ing to live in Miami is that outdoor, sunlight, open environ ment,then I think
it's foolish to go so high in F.A.R. that you are going to delete that purpose
and you just block it. That's the only point I made. Now, the Mayor asked
me to evaluate the property, the proposal, and I've taken an active part, I've
spoken at all the hearings, I've evaluated this proposal and I think that what
was proposed by the Planning Department is wonderful and I think that it should
be passed. There is one concern, however, that has not been adequately ad-
dressed, and that is the problem of building columns in the set -back area.
Now,the only one evidently armngst the public who really has a concern in this
area and it is something that the more I study it and the more I investigate
it the more convinced I am that this needs to be addressed is...we are attempt-
ing to make a feeling of openess, access on the road, and in doing that we are
setting back the buildings 15 feet on Biscayne Boulevard and 15th Street,
ecopletely 15 feet all the way up, and that's fine, there is no problem on
that. on the other major cross -streets, however, that 15 foot set back is
only for the first 18 feet of height. I remember that the first time it
came up before you we were at 9 feet and at my suggestion the Commission
raised it to 18 feet to give more of an open feeling, what that has resulted
in is developers suggesting that what they are going to do is plant columns
within that 15 foot set -back -support columns,- and I believe that to allow
then to do that will eliminate that entire open feeling that you are trying
to create by having the 15 foot set -back and by raising the height of that
set -back to 18 feet. Now, the Planning Department responded by suggesting
that a 1 to 7 ratio be put in the ordinance saying that you can't have more
than one foot of column for every 7 open feet suggested, in many cases, you'll
have a three-foot column and a 21-foot separation. That , in some ways, deals
with same of the problems, it doesn't answer in anyway satisfactorily, as
far as I can see. Number one, I don't think there is sufficient ratio; number
two, it doesn't deal with any other dimension other than the frontage, so could
have a column that's very deep ... it doesn't deal with the placement of the
column. I suggest, first of all, my initial suggestion is that the building
should be cantilever, with no columns. It can be done, it has been done and
I think that would create the feeling that we are trying to create.
Mayor Ferre: Very expensive if you have a big...
Ms. Cooper: It is expensive I understand. Short of that, I think we need to
put in some very stringent restrictions. I think, for example, that they
should not be permitted at the edge of the 15 feet, I think they should have
to be set back at least 5 of those feet so that you get a bit more of an open
feeling. I suggest that the total size of them should be controlled and
restricted so that they don't have to be any bigger than absolutely necessary.
Mayor Ferre: Janet, let's see if we can cut through that. Do you have a
ocmment on this?
Mr. Luft: I am not technically capable of specifying to the architects what
size their columns ought to be. I think as long as we have seven feet...
32 DEC 15 1981
Mayor Ferre: That's not the question.
Mr. Luft: The question is...I think there are regulations to protect the
public interest, it gives us a colonade, it provides for arcades, it provides
seven feet of open for every....
Mayor Ferre: Again, that's not the question. book what she said if I can
sun rize it in two sentences is that she feels that on the 7 to 1 ratio that
you are talking about and allowing these columns to cime down, is going to
create ... it really circumvent what you are trying to do because ... all right,
you don't have a building but if you've got a 3 foot column every 24 feet on
the center, then what have you really acocnplished? I guess that's what she
is saying.
Ms. Cooper: ,That's what I'm saying.
Mayor Ferre: And what she is saying is either they have to be cantilevered, to
force people to go to that expense or, if you don't cantilever, at least set
back 5 of those 15 feet so that those columns don't come through to the totally
of the 15 feet.
Mr. Luft: Mr. Mayor, Let me point this out....
Mayor Ferre: In other words, is what she is saying reasonable or is it un-
reasonable?
(BACKGROUND STATII•INT PLACED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Janet, do you understand?...So in other words,...
Ms. Cooper: Then my point was incorrectly expressed, it should be set back
5 feet from the edge of the building, was my suggestion. If this Ccmnission
passes this on....
Mayor Ferre: I think the question is this: in your drawing there, rr. Luft,
on that cantilever that you are talking about which is a lu foot cantilever,
can they put a column all the way through?
(BACKGROUND STATEV= PLACED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: No, it can't be an arcade if you've got a column. If you
have got a column the width of that, there is no arcade. How are you going
to get through it.
(BACKGi2DUND STATEMTS NOT PLACED = THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, as far as arcades go, there is a provision in the
ordinance that back behind where the building is at that first 18 feet of
height, that's where arcades go, arcades don't go in the set back area.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I don't know whether I agree with what she is saying but
Jack, one thing that I think I do agree with is I want you to put in black and
white in this, that if a column does ccme dawn, that there must be the ability
to walk through. That doesn't say that. Does it say that? Yes, or no, on
the record.
Ms. Cooper:• That's only one diremion, Jack, that's the prldblem..
Mayor Ferre: Can you amend this so that it specifically says -you can bring
your oolum,.t down to the ground but there Waist be a way for people to walk
through, because otherwise what you are doing is you are putting up barriers
every 24 feet, let's say.
(STATED a NOT PL%= RM THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Ms. Cooper: Okay, if this Catmission....
Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, let's get one thing at a tame, now. Is that
acceptable? Is that acceptable mmbers of the Ccamdssion?...Okay .
■
33
C 4
Mr. Carollo: Jack, would you cone to the mike?
Mr. Luft: We are trying not to come up with too many of these, what I consider
picky little concerns about the width.....
Mayor Ferre: That's not...
Mr. Luft: We've got an Urban Development Review Board; we've got a Design
Panel of professionals who are reviewing this....
Mayor Ferre: Jack, that's not a picky thing, that's a...I think what she is
saying makes a lot of sense, and what she is saying is that if you are caning
down with these columns what's the value of the set back if it becomes a barrier
every 20 feet where you have a column coming dawn and you can't walk through
that, so there has got to be a way in that 15 foot set -back area where you can
walk through: these colonades so that there is a connector.
Mr. Luft: Yes, we can put that language in and we can do that before the
next reading....
Mayor Ferre: And if I sense, the Camni.ssion accepts that so you've got 4
votes here that accept that.
Mr. Luft: We've got a Design Board of professionals who are looking at these
things and .... they are not going to....
Mayor Ferre: Jack, we are talking about before the second reading.
Mr. Luft: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right. Anything else?
Ms. Cooper: I'm going to bring next time for the next reading a slide show,
pictures of buildings that have columns and the feeling that it creates, because
my point is, partly what you said, Mr. Mayor, that it should be access to walk
but also, I think, this Commission has to make a decision as to whether it wants
to provide the feeling of open space that that set -back is going to require or
whether it wants to have the feeling that's going to be accomplished by allowing
the columns, and I've been doing a study of this and, in my inspection of build-
ings with columns, it eliminates that feeling. You may not have a physical
building there but the feeling that the columns create is one that the building
goes there and you don't get that open feeling; so I'll bring you the pictures
next time, thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker.
Mr.John Maddis: John Maddis, 3051 Lime Court, Coconut Grove. I would like
to address myself to sane of the comments the Mayor made earlier about free
enterprise working. Yes, free enterprise does work, works very well with
development but one of the basic concepts of free enterprise is that no one
gets a free ride. What the developers are asking today is for a free ride,
they are asking for you and me, as taxpayers of this City to pay for public
improvements necessary to make these workable projects. If you read the Barton
Ashman Traffic Impact Study it very carefully analyzes what will be needed
by 1985, what will be needed by the year 2,000. Those absolute necessities
to provide a minimal traffic flow so that we have a minimal amount of traffic
congestion. What the developers are saying is -we'll go ahead with the develop-
ment and then we'll look at these improvements. Well, who is going to pay for
these imprdvemnts? Free enterprise says there are no free rides, then why
do I have to pay for the free ride of the developer when he wants those improve-
ments? I don't think that's just. I think the Mayor hit it right on the head
when he said we have to look at a new concept in government and that concept is
impact fees. At a time when we are losing are fight against crime we have to
address....
Mayor Ferre: Well, what are you arguing about, isn't that in here?
Mr. Maddis: It is not in here, sir. Until impact fees are mandated by
ordinance before development, you are not going to go back and get the
developers to kick in.
Mayor Ferre: Who are you here representing?
34 DEC 1. F,1Q81
W
Mr. Maddis: I am representing myself, a taxpayer of the City of Miami, sir.
Mayor Ferre: All right, now, impact fees, Jack.
Mr. Luft: The issue of impact fees was discussed at the Planning Advisory
Board and at that level the Board passed a motion to the effect that an impact
fee yes, is appropriate for Omni but we shouldn't be making it a part of this
District but it should be a City-wide approach for all high intensity areas -
we are talking about Brickell, Downtown, wherever. You cannot discriminate
against Omni with an impact fee in that district. So we are caning back with
a Citywide ordinance .
Mayor Ferrel Wait, wait a minute, because we are running out of time. Let
me make a statement to you. I am telling you publicly and I am making a public
declaration that I think that the time is now gone when the public sector can
afford to make all these tremendous improvements. The private sector can put
up a project and make a profit. Now, they are arguing -and I think it is a very
valid argument- that they pay taxes. When they put up a $100,000,000, we are
going to get $1,000,000 worth of taxes a year. The counter argument is that
we have services that we have to pay for such a police, fire and the picking up
of trash and what have you. And that the real state taxes -the ad valorem
taxes- is not sufficient to pay for that and we've got very little other fund-
ing ability. Therefore, I want to tell you that I agree on a reasonable impact
fee. It cannot be confiscatory in nature. Now, Marty Fine has been working on
legislation where with tax increment of some sort what we are doing is borrowing
from the future value to pay for public amenities and I think that the middle
ground so that you understand where I'm caning fran- is if, and when, and where
we can do that, we are going to say, -okay, we are going to freeze your taxes
and we are going to take an increment of growth and use that to make public
amenities, and that's been done in Kansas City, it's been done all over Cali-
fornia and many places, and we should have been doing this 30 years ago.
Mr. Maddis: Sir, I agree with Tax Incremental Finance Districts. They have
been used all over this country and I approve of their use. What I am saying
is by voting this ordinance up, by voting for the amenities, by voting for the
retrapping without addressing the question of impact fees, that even though we
are going to do it on a City-wide basis, you are not going to do it on time to
capture the capital cost demanded by this project as staged by your own staff.
And that's what I'm talking about. The improvements of the Metro system, the
improvements of the streets -the streets widened-, all those I have to pay for
because we haven't addressed the impact fees. If we were to defer this or-
dinance for 30 days and had the legal staff work full time on it perhaps we
can cane up with an impact fee or tax incremental finance district legisla-
tion. Those are tools to use before development goes forth. All the Planning
Department staff's recatmendations point to impact fees and unless we address
that I am going to get hit with their taxes, and yes indeed, development should
go forth and I approve of development in the area but I don't want to have to
pay for it and I would hope that the staff looks at that before they put the
cart before the horse and allows development to go forth. —you are not going to
recapture any money fran them for the impact they have created for traffic
later on down the pike. You have to do it now, before the development is ap-
proved. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker.
Mr. Carollb: Your name for the record, Ma'am.
Dr. Jane Theede: Dr. Jane Th eede 150 S.W. 7th Street. High tides and heavy
rains put this whole area under water. I was late so I didn't hear any dis-
cussion on wizat the City or the developers plan to do for alleviating flooding
situations in these times. The other thing that distresses me is not doing
something to make 14th Street a two-way. I'm wondering if the Camtnission is
aware that 14th Street is the only connection to the medical center between
5th and 6th Street to 7th Avenue and 20th St. to 7th Avenue. As it now stands,
when I I m caning fran my home on Venetian, I go 15th and either turn left on
Biscayne Boulevard or wind my way through to the Overtown area in an effort
to get to 2nd Avenue or going over to 7th Avenue. Now, this is a bottle neck
with the current traffic situation that we have. When you increase the
35
/-1
4
density of this, this is going to be a bottle neck which I think we are going
to find unresolvable unless it's done now before any building is done. So
these are my two things and I do have a ccmnent. I think that for us to view
the idea of making enough amendments or adjustments to this ordinance for these
buildings, I think we are already setting ourselves up for problem. If they
can't find an architectural firm that is capable of building within our ordi-
nanoes I think they should find another architectural firm. I think all over
the United States we have capable architects and I think they should find
others because this ordinance is not unreasonable. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker.
Ms.Annette Massey: Annette Massey, Trinity Cathedral I want to reiterate the
point about -who pays, when. I call your attention -each of you has a copy
of the transportation analysis- and you'll find you have yellow underlining
of what the developers paid for in this fine report that tells us on pages 2,
13, 14 and 17, in the copies that you each have marked, that all of these
things must be done, planned, before any development is permitted and envisions
the Downtown People Mover that each of us talks about as if it's a reality
paid for. It is not a reality, we do not have the one that we wished we had
now. There is no proviso. I call attention again for the need for impact fees,
not just this district, obviously, but the necessity of getting.the horse before
the cart and working on impact fees forthwith before this matter is adopted.
And integral in that is the problem of public safety. So I urge you to think
in terms of the developer's report and seeing that it is working functionally
and paid for not by the individual citizens but by the developers who will
benefit -as well as citizens, of course- city-wide. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I'm glad, Ms. Massey, that you tempered your statement by
saying, -as the developers benefit and the citizens too, because I think a
happy medium is really what we are trying to find, and I think that we have
to understand that, yes, the developers are going to make money, thank God,
that's what this system is all about but....
Ms. Massey: But Let's not have a
Mayor Ferre: No, that's between you and your President and I would hope
that you wouldn't....
Ms. Massey: Our President, sir, our President, regardless of who voted for
him and who did not.
Mayor Ferre: You are of his party and I am not but he is.
Ms. Massey: Quite wrong.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, is that right?
Ms. Massey: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: I understand that you've had some very interesting carrots
at your law classes about some some of the things that happen in this Com-
mission.
Ms. Massey: Hopefully they are interesting, and are still accurate.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I would hope not in sane cases that I've heard.
Ms. Massey: Hearsay.
Mayor Ferre: okay. Is there anybody else in the public that wishes to
speak on this. Now, as I understand it what we've done is we've mended
sane basic areas, one we've accepted the widening on 15th Street to 80 feet;
we've also, as I've sensed it, are going to a 7% rather than a 5% for the
plaza, there were no objections in that area; we have a problem ... we've
also withdrawn the Sears tower as a historical monument; we've also recog-
nized that Mr.Hollo's so-called Red Coach property has a problem which we
have to deal with and the only thing that we have not dealt with is the
question of F.A.R. We have the proposed F.A.R. by the Administration, which
as I understand is acceptable to everybody; we have Roy Kenzie's recommenda-
tion to lower the F.A.R. and move up in the scale -which is not acceptable
36
DEC
to Mr. Fine's client; and then...I guess that covers it then.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, there was a discussion about the columns , I
believe we were instructed to add some language there.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, there was a discussion with regards to columns and
the ability that 15 feet doesn't have campletely blocked off .... so you
have a colonade of columns 15 feet wide. I've never seen a 15 foot wide
column, but that could happen. Okay, we'll deal with that at the second
hearing..
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to mention that the suggestion that was
made by Mr. Kenzie on the F.A.R. is acceptable provided in paragraph (c)
after 12.0, language is added'based upon the following formula'and you
continue the language, and we have no problem with that.
Mayor Ferre:' Is that acceptable to everybody?
Mr. Fine: I'm sorry, excuse me...
Mayor Ferre: In Section 7, subsection l(c)...
Mr. Fine: Yes, after the semi -colon and uses on the second line, -"; up
to 12 based on the following formula" and then the language that is already
there.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, the Planning Department will continue to reowr end
instead of that 12 a 10.5.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. Now, that's the only issue that we have not addressed
and let me just express myself as saying that I think 10.5.... we started off
at 6, right?...and we've gone up to 12, and I frankly think 10.5 is a happy
medium, and I think we went a little bit too hog wild too quick and when you
stop to think -and I would remind this Ccamission that on Brickell Avenue we
used to haggle as to whether it would go fran 2.3 to 2.9, you know, and it
wasn't just in the "Santa Maria". In all these projects on Brickell Avenue
we spent hours arguing about whether it was going for 2.3 or 2.9, and whether
it was 3.2 to 3.8..we spent hours, hours, literally, into the night, in one
project -Nick Morley's project, the other project -the one on the River that
Lacasa represented, and on, and on, and on; and we spent hours haggling about
going fran point this t point that, and here we are going from 6 to 12 which
means, at 12, it's higher than the Ball Point —and I frankly think that 10.5
is more than generous and if we start at a 6 base F.A.R. and go up to 8, as
Roy reccmmended and up to 10.5, with the exception of Marty's project which
is up to 11.5, I don't ... it's the only one that I've heard of that is in any
way affected, and even when I talked to Ted Hollo, about two to three weeks
ago, I asked him whether 10.5 was acceptable to him and he said,-iaell, he'd
rather have 12 but he wouldn't mind 10.5.
Mr. Carollo: I think the difference -I think this should be pointed out -
between Brickell Avenue and this Omni area, is that this area is in practical
terms, strictly a true, Downtown business area. Of course, we are trying to
encourage a mixed residential area also but Brickell Avenue, especially the
area in Brickell Avenue where all these projects you mentioned are going up,
that was not strictly a stereotype business area, and I think that is the
major difference.
Mayor Ferre: But that doesn't address the issue as to whether 10.5 is suf-
ficient win Ball Point doesn't have that much. In other words, 10.5 is a
very ... you are talking about 30 or 40-story buildings, and since I think
everybody is pretty well satisfied with 10.5 -and I don't mean to put it
this way, Ted, because I have the highest respect and regard for you- but
even if Ted Hollo is willing to aooept 10.5 I think 10.5 is not too bad.
I mean, that's pretty generous. But whatever the majority wants, what's
the consensus.
Mr. Carollo: Well, I just feel that if we are to build up the whole north-
east area -I'm not just concerned with the Omni area- we should try to work
out the best solution possible. If the people that are going to build there
are satisfied with 10.5 and, as we've heard here, that is acceptable to our
Department...
Mayor Ferre: That's the recamendation.
C
Mr. Carrillo: That is the reacnnendation they have given, correct.
Mayer Ferre: Do you accept that?
Mr. Carollo: I would accept that, I would just like to hear from all the
other parties involved and make sure that they are going to be in agreement
with that.
Mayor Ferre: Does anybody object -of the developers- Marty, other than your-
self since you've expressed that you would prefer to have 11.5...
Mr. Fine: Let me just say this. I don't want to beat -a dead horse. What
we are saying is that we think 12 is appropriate and if you would consider
10.5 then recognize that the site in question at 13 is irregularly shaped,
potentially lends itself to some further hearing at variance, we are willing
to be resonable and try to get under way.and get this mapped and get this
done today:
Mayor Ferre: Yes. You know as well as I do ... and I've been watching this
for 15 years that in Miami things function that way. And there is no use
blaming this Mayor or Bob High, or this Commission, or that Commission.
Mr. Fine: I think we ought to be grateful that it functions that way
because we are building a pretty good City.
Mayor Ferre: Well, okay. Excuse me, Dr. Theede, I'm asking the developers.
Does anybody else have a problem with this? We are following your recomTenda-
tion. Now, Commissioner Dawkins, do you have a problem? Is that acceptable
to you? Is the reeamendation of staff acceptable to you? (INAUDIBLE RESPONSE
NOT PLACED jagm THE PUBLIC RECORD) Okay. Now, Dr. Theede.
Dr. Theede: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and any of these buildings
are going to last our lifetime. I think, I follow along with Janet inasmuch
as if we get too much concrete too high we are going to lose the attractiveness
of Miami. I've travelled all over Europe, in fact all over the world, and I
find that people are much happier with buildings of moderate height. We want
to maintain a happy City, we've got enough crime here and if we increase the
anxiet'.es of the people we are going to increase the crime. So, I frankly
think, as I said when I was campaigning, I want a 20-story ordinance through-
out the City. I don't think that the City should ever allow any building
over 30 stories because we are going to lose our beauty when we do.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you, doctor.
Mr. Dawkins: May I have one.....?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: I have a concern to voice. I an still opposed to the dropping
from the buildings to the streets of glass, aluminum or anything else because
I have to agree with Jack in that I think that this is just another roan that
will be added to the structure, but that's just my personal opinion and
therefore, I just wanted to voice it.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, that's where we are at, in other words, we
have not changed that as of right now. So, in other words, what you have
said speaks for all of us and that seems to be a consensus. What makes me
feel that way is if one goes to the Airport and one walks downstairs in the
baggage claim area, and then one has to go outside, you can readily see
where each airline -if he were to block off his baggage claim area- you
would not be able to flow through freely because it's blocked off and you'd
have to go out, so that's why I voice that opinion.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I'd be willing to make a motion for approval...
Mayor Ferre: Cn First Aeadi.ng.
Mr. Carollo: On First Reading, based on the Department's recommendation.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Ferre: And as amended.
Mr. Carollo: And as amended, certainly.
38 DEC 15 i�%E1
0
Mayor Ferre: Okay, it's been moved and seconded, further dismosion... cm
First Reading only, 4(a), read the ordinance.
Mr. Terry Percy: Before we do that, for assistance with the next draft,
could we have summarized those amendwnts that the Commission is adopting
in this motion.
Mayor Ferre: Well, that's what I've been doing. I did that into the record,
when everybody finished talking I said -what we are talking about is this,
this, this and this, and then he added one other thing that I had forgotten
or the oolumns and I think we've covered everything.
Mr. Percy: Very well, I'll get it fram the record.
AN ORDDW4M AMENDING ORDIIIANCE NO. 6871, AS X*NDED,
THE CCtpREH zrm zagiNG ORDnmNCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI, ARTICLE XV-1, GENITAL OWERCIAL CBD-2 DISTRICT
BY A. DELETING SECTION I, CONCFMING PURPOSE AND SUB-
STITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SECTION 1; B. AMENDING
SECTION 3 CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON USES BY DELETING
PARAGRAPH (1) AIM SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW
PARAGRAPH (1) ; C. AMENDING SECTION 5, CONMIVING FROM
AND SIDE STREET SET BACKYARDS AND MINIMUM DISTANCIE
BETWEEN BUILDINGS BY DELETING PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) AND
AND SUBSTITUTING A NEW PARAGRAPH (1); D. AMENDING SECTION
5 CONCERNING YEARDS AND MLND4L]M DISTANCIE BEI%U24 BUILDINGS
BY RF�ERING PARAGRAPH (3) AND (4) ; E . AAE:IDING SECTION
7 FLOOR AREA RATIO BY AMENDING ITEM (a) AND DELETING ITEM
(d) OF PARAGRAPH (1) ; F. ADDING A NEW SECTION 9 OCNCERNING
PUBLIC AME24ITY REQUIRII=; AMID BY REPEALING ALL ORDIN NC E
CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS MiEREOF IN CONFLICT AND OONTAIIdING
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by CaTmissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Camdssioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plumier, Jr.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Com-
mission and to the public.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferre: In voting yes, I want to thank those of you from
the public to express your opinions and I think you are really
serving this City well by doing it. There are a lot of good
ideas that have come out of here. Some of you, of course, repre-
sent clients, if not in this area in others as lawyers, but
others, of course, do not, and I want to very particularly com-
mend Janet, you, and other individuals who take of your time
since you have no personal gain and you spend hours and hours
reviewing this. I know you create havoc, some people have lost
a lot of hair, others have grown grayer since you have become
an activist, and I might say that I don't always agree with you
but I want to publicly, one more time, commend you and Dan Paul
and others who take of their time and come here to fight these
things. And I want to just point out that this is a very major
important change in the City of Miami. It is really amazing how
smoothly it has gone. We have not had, traditionally, in these
9 DEC 1 5 4 r1
things that I've been in, people scream and they insult each other, and
have all kinds of division and yet, we have found a happy ocmpmdse and
we've kind of juggled it around and we've gone from 70 feet to 80 feet,
we had to take into account Ted Hollo's problem and we did this, and Dan,
you, in particular, are to be con ended for bringing this issue up when it
was almost gone..see-through corridors, set -backs, green areas, plazas...
And Roy Kenzie's input has been very valuable. And to the staff, who worked
diligently, especially to Jack Luft and to Joe McManus, sincere thanks.
Ckay, now, that covers 4 (a) do we need to do 4 (b) ?
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AM M ARTICLE XXV BASE BUILDING 101ES
CHANGING ZONED STREET WIDINS, IN nE C MNI
AREA.
Mayor Ferre: All right, 4(b).
Mr. Carollo: Move.
Mayor Ferre: All right, it's been moved by Carollo, seconded by Perez,
further discussion, read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AHMED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONLTG ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI, ARTICLE XXV BASE, BUILDING LINES CBD-2 DISTRICT
SECTION I BY: A. INSERTING A NEW SUBSECTION (28 A)
AND RENUMBERING EXISTING SUBSECTICI (28-A) to (28-B);
B. BY ADDING A NEW SUBSE TICN (28-C); C. BY DELETING
SUBSECTION (30) AND SUBSTITUTn4G IN LIEU THEREOF, A NEW
SUBSECTION (30) ; D. BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (37 A) ;
AND BY REPEALING ALL ORDINXXEES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS
THEPMF IN 00NF1ICT AND CONTAIN NG A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Camussioner Carollo and seconded by Cannissioner
Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comnissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announoed that copies were available to the members of the City Can -
mission and to the public.
FOLLOWING ROLL CALL:
Mr. Jack Luft: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted you to be aware of that Ms. Joyce
Myers probably played the most central role in the fashioning of this whole.,....
Mayor Ferre: Joyce, ...now you embarrass me, and I apologize to you. I
can't think of anybody who has been more dedicated or murder worker than
Joyce Myers, and I really ... in fact, I'll tell you what, we'll make up for
it this way. Let's have a good hand for Joyce Myers. I'll tell you, if
every one was as dedicated, and honest, and diligent as Joyce Myers we
wouldn't have any problems in government so, we are proud.
50 DEC 1 5 1981
U
7. DECLARE LT rV OF CiiY CallISSIaN M 11AP AREA Li C3D
DISrLMCTS SL UIPIA.•r DUSLY 17red SECOiO RDADLiG
Mayor Ferre: All right, now we get to the question of the mapping, which is
3, is that correct? All right, Mr. McManus, tell us why you want to map this.
Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Mayor, we are suggesting a 30-day deferral of the map-
ping because there is currently 30 days remaining of the 90-day building
mratoriun'that this Ccrrmission instituted and will allow better timing with
the ending of that moratorium.
Mayor Ferre: McManus, I have a very simple question to you and an answer to
Dan Paul on this recrnuiendation, on what you are saying. Don't we have a
moratorium, in effect?
Mr. McManus: We do.
Mayor Ferre: When does that moratorium run out?
Mr. 14c,14anus: It will last approximately 30 days.
Mayor Ferre: So what is the difference whether we map now or nor since you
can't, in effect, you really cannot pull a building permit anyway, and by
that time we'll have a second hearing on this?
Air. 14amanus: I think it is clearer. We are talking about changes in the
ordinance itself but the mapping is clone after those changes have been put
into effect.
Mayor Ferre: Well, then, let me reverse it and put it to Marty Fine, since
he is the one that wants this thing mapped. Marty since you can't pull a
building permit and since we passed this on First Reading and it went fairly
smooth, and God willing in January we'll pass it on Second Reading, then
tell me, what's the big rush in mapping it today?
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, let me share with you and the Comnission if I may,
without rushing, because it is really urgent to show ...the developer here
is in good faith and yet we don't want to be caught in a Catch 22. Firstly,
may I say, in order to show the good faith of the developer, we would recom-
mend that the moratorium be extended for 60 days so that all of the work
can be acccrrplished. But we are afraid is going to happen if you don't map
it today, is that every time after the ordinance is passed that is up for
mapping, someone will talk about impact fees and say you can't pass it until
we finalize that, that's City-wide, that may go on for a year, maybe challenged
in the courts, sa:rieone will say there isn't enough police protection so we have
to wait until we do that and make sure we get that done and we think that this
area is really —there is a possibility that same people may just say don't
ever map this area because these other matters won't get done. And I think
that's grossly unfair to developers who are paying taxes and had huge invest-
ments. Now, one of the favorite past time down here is that people who don't
represent, interests cast dispersions and derogatory kinds of things about
s developeras if they are all terrible people. So in order to came forth
and make sure that we are not trying to slip in and get a quick building
permit we are saying that the moratorium now that expires on January 22nd,
extend it for 60 days to March 22nd, finish your zoning at the next meeting,
it's effective 30 days thereafter and if the changes are made and impact
fees are done, fine. These people —no one is ready to rush in and get a
permit but we think it's urgent to map this area today.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, Mr. Paul.
Mr. Paul: Mr. Mayor, I think it is totally inappropriate to pass the map-
ping ordinance and not defer it until at least you have finalized the zoning
ordinance. I've never heard of a procedure where you map an area before the
11 DEC 1 ;gg1
zoning ordinance has been finalized and I see no harm that can possibly be
done to any developers by deferring the mapping until the second reading of
the zoning ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: What's your purpose in all this, Dan?
Mr. Paul: So you don't lose your bargaining power.
Mayor Ferre: Bargaining power of what?
Mr. Paul: With the developers, if you map....
Mayor Ferre: We've already passed it on First Reading.
Mr. Paul: •I understand, but Mr. Mayor, one thing that you are overlooking
is the fact that you now nave, hL effect, already the old zoning ordinance,
without any of the public amenities in it, and the only thing that is prevent-
ing the developer fran coming in and pulling a building permit under that
old ordinance is the building wratorium.
Mayor Ferre: Whl is going to build a building with a 2 F.A.R. when they can
build it with 12 F.A.R.?
Mr. Paul: No, no, no, you are totally wrong, it's a 12 F.A.R. in effect,
that's what you are...
Mayor Ferre: Oh, that's right, that's right.
Mr. Paul: What you are dealing with now are its to a zoning ordinance
which is already in effect.
Mayor Ferre: Question, why don't we extend to a 60-day moratorium and that
solves your problem?
Mr. Paul: That won't solve the problem.
Mayor Ferre: Why not?
Mr. Paul: Because then you are going to have developers oaring when you
arrive at the Second Reading claiming that they already have a vested
right because you have got —and have granted them zoning pursuant to this
ordinance which is in effect. We went through all this before when we
determined that legally, the safe thing to do was to defer the mapping.
It would be different if you hadn't already passed the original zoning
ordinance without the public amenities but that is now in full force and
effect.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. Fine.
Mr. Fine: One of the things we don't want to do is ask you to sit as a
Court of law but Mr. Paul knows and Mr. Knox and Mr. Percy can tell you
that zoning does not vest any rights in any property owner. Now, we are
not going to come in and rush for a building permit, the fact of the matter
is we are asking you to nap this area with the moratorium in place for an
additional 60 days. Anything more than that I can't think of to display an
evidence good faith. Now, Dan can pound on the table as he dial last tine
and panic sane people into doing some things but the fact of the natter is
that there is no vesting of any rights when there is zoning and he knows
that, and your City Attorney knows that.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. Questions from members of the Cannission. Anybody
has a question?
Mr. Carollo: I don't have any questions, Mr. 2•fayor, but I have a statement
to make. Marty, I don't think that anyone is going to panic any member of
this Camussion into doing anything, whether their name is Dan Paul or Tan,
Dick or Harry, with all due respect to Mr. Paul. He's made his point of
view, you've made yours, now it's going to be up to us to decide. I don't
A I*
care about what any of our bureaucrats would say out of indeed being
panicked or not being panicked, and I hope that that's understood by
the people that work for this City, if they work for this Conmission
they are bureaucrats, that no one fran out in the streets -I don't care
what their name is- is going to be making any decisions. The guys you
are going to listen to are sitting up here, not out there anywhere.
Mayor Ferre: Ohter questions or statements, Janet?
Ms. Janet Cooper: I was just going to say that if, someone like the
gentlemen who was up here earlier talking about impact fees, or any
other proposal that they would like to see passed City-wide, that's
not going to prevent this Commission from doing what it thinks is right
in mapping an area, but I do think that as Mr. Paul said, it makes good
sense to map the area alfter the ordinance is adopted or at least ap-
proved; and I think it's putting the cart before the horse to map it
first, before the Second Reading. I think that the developers have
indicated that there is nothing that they can do in this 30 days anyway,
it will not create any additional harm or any additional hardship on the
developers, and I think that it makes sense to do things taking the first
step first and the second step second. And I think that in order to keep
things orderly in this City since no harsh will cane to anyone that it
ought to be put off until after the Second Reading.
Mayor Ferre: What is the will of this Commission then? You've heard
arguments on both sides.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I really don't see any ha-mm whatsoever in doing
as Mr. Fine has stated, I just don't see the jeopardy that Mr. Paul has
suggested. And he might be right, but I certainly don't see that, I mean,
it's up to us to decide and I don't think that we have to play that sort
of game now putting the so-called gun to anybody's head because we are going
to make the final decision anyway, and if we say 'no' that's it; so I really
don't see that problem that has been presented by some people here.
Mayor Ferre: So, what's your motion?
Mr. Carollo: My motion is to put a 60--day moratorium....
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the 60-day moratorium. That will be
step one of two steps.
Mr. Carollo: 'That's correct, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Sixty additional days, it will take it to March 22nd.
Mr. Carollo: March 27th?
Mayor Ferre: Twenty second.
Mr. Carollo: The twenty second is correct.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Perez: I second.
Mayor Ferre: Second by Commissioner Perez.
Mr. Perez: Before I vote, Mr. Mayor, on the First Reading, I think
it is very realistic and necessary for the orderly growth or that area
and that is why I second this motion.
Mayor Ferre: All right, on the moratorium now, call the roll.
NOTE FOR THE RWORD: At this point, the roll was
called and the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
ABSIIdT: Commissioner J. L. Plummmer, Jr. (over)
.6 DEC 15 1981
Nam FOR THE ram m (cont' d) : Hm&wer, no nuTber
has been assigned to the hereinabove motion inasmuch
as, due to further discussion on this issue, the mover
of the notion withdrew his motion, and the seconder
withdrew his second.
_ Mr. Traurig: Could you define the area on which the moratorium has been
declared?
Mayor Ferre: Same area on which the moratorium exists now.
Mr. Traurig: Does that include Flagler Street?
Mayor Ferre: It does, it does. Do you have a problem?
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Codina is about to draw a building permit.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I certainly have no concern about the Flagler Street
portion, and I certainly would have no problems -because the Codina piece
in the Flagler area is such a small portion of this- and that's really not
where we are at. And he's already gotten his P.A.D. process, it has nothing
to do with any of this, and I really think it would be unfair to penalize
him. He went through the P.A.D. process, got approval, came before this
CcnTnission,..no he didn't come before us because he didn't get any variances.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, Planning can check it but I believe it was presented
in two different sections, one was the Cm i area and one was Flagler. You
can pass it for Omni and not have the moratorium on Flagler.
Mayor Ferre: Is the sense of your motion for both areas or for just the
O mi area?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, look, let's play the cards on the table, on Codina
that has been brought up now. I think we'd be doing a great injustice to
a man that has been following all the procedures, in fact, that hasn't gotten
any variances, by now throwing this over his head where he can't get his
permit. In fact, that might cost him considerably if we do this. So, I
think we should limit it to the Omi area.
Mayor Ferre: Let the record reflect that the legislative intent of this
Commission and by the maker of the motion ... do you accept that? We are
talking about a moratorium in the Omni area.
Mr. Paul: Mr. Mayor, that absolutely won't work. You are going to put
into effect that zoning ordinance without the Zoning amenities for the
whole Flagler Street area. I don't know what Mr. Codina's problem is but
you are now talking about putting into effect that zoning ordinance, the
original one, with an F.A.R. of 12 and no public amenities. We are right
back to square one. What kind of foolishness is this?...
Mayor Ferre: No, I think what we are trying to do is...
Mr. Paul: You've got to defer the mapping or otherwise the moratorium,
if you start carving exceptions out from the mapping area you are going
totally open loop holes as wide as the Grand Canyon in this process.
Mayor Ferre: Dan, Dan...
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Paul I would suggest that you calm down, sir, I don't
think anybody in this Commission is deaf, we could hear you, sir, I think
it would serve of more benefit if we could all keep calm in presenting
our point of view.
Mayor Ferre: The motion has nothing to do with the mapping, we haven't
gotten to that point. The motion has to do with the moratorium. The
problem is that Codina went through a P.A.D. process, it took him 6 months
of hard work, didn't get any variances, went through the whole thing, the
thing was accepted unanimously, I think at the Planning and Zoning Board
-✓wasn't it?, and he is about to pull a permit, and what we are about to do
46
4 DEC 1 5 1981
is to penalize him for .ollowing our rules and regulations and our laws.
And I think that's a rather unfortunate and unfair thing. Now, the Flagler
Street area is a very small, limited one block area, and that I know of,
nobody else is anywhere near pulling a permit, much less doing anything
in that area.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Mayor, Codina obtained through variances some time
ago an approval on a project -I don't know if we are talking about the same
project or not- but if it is, under the previously existing zoning, it has
nothing to do with the CBD-2.
Mr. Traurig: Yes, but that's the problem he got it under C-4 and C-2 and so
now he can pull his permit and begin to develop, but once you map it as CBD-2
and impose a moratorium on CBD-2 he will be wiped out from what he already has.
Mayor Ferre: Now, wait a minute, you don't follo what's going on here. Carollo,
is making a motion of putting a moratorium for sixty more days which takes us
into March, ok? Now, the second motion he is going to make is that Item 3
be postponed for thirty days. I'm sorry, that the mapping be accepted. In
other words, vote for 3A and 3B. Now, what Bob is saying is that once you do
that you have got Codina in a bind because he got h is variances in the old
system, but now you are remapping, but you haven't passed the new Zoning. So,
in effect, what you are doing is just confusing the whole thing. Now,.... So,
where are we?
(BACKGROUND CO?DIENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Now, how do we solve this problem?
Mr. Fine: I'm not sure I can tell you how to solve it, but I think once again,
you can read in the legislative intent. The fact that it's not to apply to
any particular property which had previously been approved in the Flagler
Street area and for which a zoning hearing was held.
Mayor Ferre: Terry, is that legal?
Mr. Percy: Yes, I believe it would be grandfathered at any rate, but that
suggestion is correct.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, is that acceptable to you?
Mr. Carollo: I think that's the ideal solution.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. In other words, your motion is that we extend the moratorium
until March 22nd, except those areas....
Mr. Carollo: For those properties that have already been grandfathered in.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, is that acceptable to everybody then?
Mr. Percy: Additionally, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: In other words, Flagler is now back in, Dan. The only thing
is those that have already passed are grandfathered in.
Mr. Paul: Well, what's being grandfathered? That's the way we lost the
fifty foot building setback along the bay front by not knowing which projects
were grandfathered in and which ones weren't.
Mayor Ferre: The only one that's grandfathered in and the only one that's
passed the process is the Codina Project on Flagler Street. There is no other.
Mr. Paul: Well,'you better say that then instead of saying..(INAUDIBLE)..
Mr. Carollo: What't grandfathered in, Mr. Mayor, I think is anyone htat has
gotten all the permits and requirements up to this point in the old zoning
that we had. Whether it's Mr. Codina or whomever elas it was. I don't know
if there is anyone else there or not.
Mr. Paul: You are referring only to things that permits have been issued on?
Is that what you are referring to?
Mayor Ferre: He hasn't had this permit. He is about to pull his permit, that's the point.
Mr. Carollo: He is about to ask for the permit now, but.....
15 DEC 1 5 1%0
C P
Mr. Paul: When you start mickey mousing around and not doing it in the orderly
way this is the problem you get yourself in. If you defer the mapping ordinance
you won't be in this problem.
Mayor Ferre: What in effect, he is saying is that he is...
Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. Mayor, if you could excuse me, he might have a point.
I remember some years back before I was sitting on this Commission, Mr. Perez,
Mr. Dawkins, because of a lot of this mickey mousing that he is talking about
that's how the Miami Herald "buit that building out there withoug a fifty
foot setback", took two of our city streets away from us without giving the
City anything for it and built on top of that, built more in bulk than anyone
had up to that point, but well, you know, it's funny, people don't talk about
the Miami Herald when it's to their benefit.
Mr. Paul: That is a terrible project, it should have never been built without
the setback.
Mr. Carollo: Well, you got any ideas so we can get rid of it, Dan? I'm open
for suggestions.
Mr. Paul: I have got ideas of how you can put a bay walk in front of it whenever
you are ready to listen.
Mr. Carollo: Well, hey, I will listen to that. In front of it and in back of
it if we can find a way and all sides of it.
Mr. Paul: But don't do it again. Do the thing orderly, finish your zoning
ordinance on your second reading and then adopt your mapping ordinance and
you don't affect Mr. Codina that way and you then are able to proceed in an
orderly way and not get ourselves in a whole bunch of lawsuits from developers
who are rushing in seeking permits or something under old ordinances with
variances or otherwise.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, as I understand the motion now, is that we extend for
sixty days the moratorium in both areas with the exception of those buildings
that have gone through a process and gotten their variances and that... is that...
Mr. Henry Block: May I ask you a question about that?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Block: Henry Block, 8363 Southwest 98th Street, Miami. I represent the
owners of the building at a 172 West Flagler Street which we intend on pulling
a permit for rehabilitation of that building without seeking or requiring any
zoning variances of any type. It is a little confusing in this discussion as
to whether a building of that type which doesn't require a hearing before the
Planning Advisory Board and does not require any variances under the existing
C-2 or C-4 zoning, whether that would require, you know, fall under the
moratorium. That certainly would impact us severely.
Mayor Ferre: Can you answer that technically or legally, Terry?
Mr. Percy: That is simply remodeling, the use of the building is not changing.
We don't think there will be a problem.
Mayor Ferre: That's you answer.
Mr. Percy: Mr. Mayor, before the vote is taken on the motion, I think it
ought to be clear for the record that the intent of the Commission as we
interpreted is not... is to instruct the Building Department not to accept any
building permit applications?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr.FtnP. Mr. Mayor, you made a statement earlier that this is such a major
activity and yet it's gone smoothly and I want to help contribute to the
continuation of that. You know, we always seem to be capitulating some of
the developers and I would make this suggestion to you. We would be willing
to say don't extend the moratorium, don't map it today, but pass a legislative
intent that it is your intention to map this simultaneously with the passage
of the CBD-2 ordinance and not get hung up with impact fees, traffic studies,
Metrorails, all the other things, police protection, because then we will
16 DEC 151981
1b 16
really find out where we are at.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. Marty, look, you know, I understand what your hang up is
all about and I want to tell you that if I were your client and if I were you
I would feel exactly the same way because...
Mr. Fine: If I were my client, I would fire me, because I think this thing
has dragged on for so long and we have been the victim of a lot of really
bad hearings and meetings.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, but it served the public purpose and I think we have done
a good job. We are now... we have gotten an improved ordinance. Now, the
question is... was really mainly, due to you. Since you wanted this thing
mapped now...
Mr. Fine: And we are willing to withdraw it.
Mayor Ferre: ... and I appreciate that, because I think that hopefully solves
the problem for now as long as we pass it as legislative intent, because I
think that there is no question that there may be hidden agendas that we don't
understand.
Mr. Fine: And I'm really asking if you and the City Attorney concur can you
read something into the record which says that you are doing this to follow
an orderly process and it is your intent to map it at the next... at the
meeting when the second reading of CBD-2 is passed.
Mayor Ferre: Does that satisfy everybody, now? Anybody object to this? Does
that solve the problem?
Mr. Carollo: I just wish Marty would have been more enlighten a few minutes
ago.
(BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: I think... with all due respects, I think you have got three
votes here on this, but on the other hand I think you are wise in doing what
you are doing and I commend you for it. What's the will of this Commission?
Mr. Carollo: I think before we proceed, I think the wise thing to do at this
point and time is to withdraw my motion and hopefully get the second withdrawn.
Mayor Ferre: You withdraw your motion. Alright, now, would you then make a
motion that it is the legislative intent of this Commission to pass simultaneously
the ordinance which rezones this area with the mapping? You move that?
Mr. Carollo: I will move that, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Would somebody second it?
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Carollo: This way I don't think anyone would get their feathers ruffled
or get all excited.
Mayor Ferre: Carollo moves, Dawkins seconds, under discussion. This satisfies...
Ok, call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 81-1069
A MOTIQN OF THE CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING ITS LEGAL
INTENT TO PASS THE CBD-2 MAPPING ORDINANCE (AS DESCRIBED
IN AGENDA ITEMS 3(a) AND 3(b) ) SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE
SECOND AND FINAL READING OF THE CBD-2
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
47 DEC 1 51981
C
AYES: Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Perez, Vice -Mayor Carollo and Mayor Ferre. -
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Plummer.
FURTHER DISCUSSION:
Mayor Ferre: Now, is there a motion then that Item 3A and 3B be deferred
to the next Commission Meeting.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, continued.
Mayor Ferre: Continued, I'm sorry.
Mr. Carollo: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion for continuance by Carollo, Perez
seconds, further discussion, call the roll.
THEREUPON THE FOREGOING MOTION TO DEFER AGENDA ITEM NOS. 3A and
3B to the next Commission Meeting was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, and seconded by Commission Perez, and was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Perez, Vice -Mayor Carollo and Mayor Ferre.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Plummer.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: ITEM 9 WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT
8. PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS
Commendation Presented to Mrs. Esther Corona in recognition of her
work on behalf of the needy at Centro Hispano Catolico.
Commendation Presented to Florida Lions Athletic Association and
its president and founder, Mr. Jose Prieto, on the
occasion of the third anniversary of its founding.
9. APPEAL ON GRANTING OF VARIANCES BY TRINITY CATHEDRAL:
1744-56 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
Mayor Ferre: We will now take up Item #12 on the Zoning Agenda. This is
Trinity Episcopal Church, is objecting the granting of variances on a five
hundred fifty-three room hotel parking garage at 1744 North Bayshore Drive.
The applicant is the Florida East Coast Properties. This was recommended for
denial by the Planning Department and the Zoning Board granted it unanimously
six to zero. Alright, Mrs. Massey, the Chair recognizes you.
Mrs. Annette Massey: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, on October 6, 1981,
Trinity Episcopal Cathedral respectfully requested this hearing and attached
IS DEC 1 Ed 11981
-14 VW
its check in the sum of five hundred dollars to appeal the Zoning Board which
unanimously ignored the Planning Department. Each of you has a copy of a
memorandum or a brief. A copy has been served upon the City Attorney and
likewise, Mr. Watson, Counsel for Mr. Hollo. Our greivances are basically
fourfold. The first is that the September 21, 1981 decision of the Zoning
Board granting the variances requested by Florida East Coast Property violates
Article 21, Section 2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. You will notice
in the brief that we address ourselves to each of the criteria mandated by the
Zoning Code, namely, special conditions and the ones that follow thereunder.
I need not read them to you, you have in front of you and they are a matter
of public record and I ask you to take judicial notice of your own Code. And
I call your attentions gentlemen to the appendix "A" that is in fact, the
application for a variance in on it's very face it does not comply or comport
with the Code of the City. In addition thereto, you have appendix "B". There
is no transcript of record of what transpired before the Zoning Board. In
appendix "B-1;' you will notice that the Clerk's office has provided the following
information. ."Due to technical difficulties with the Commission's Chamber's
audio and recording equipment no sound can be heard on the primary four track
recording system and only faintly audible sounds can be detected in the backup".
In other words, we have no transcript of record, we only have the vote and the
resolution. But we do know clearly by the application that on its face it
violates all six requirements that are mandated by the Code. We also, know
that in our Code under 21 Section 2, that this City Commission has the authority
to overturn the decision of the Zoning Board. There was no showing before
the Zoning Board of any undue hardship and in fact, it was the recommendation
that the zoning variance be denied by our Planning Department because of the
absence of such a showing and I call your attention to the recommendation of
the Planning Department which is cited in the brief that states "Denial". There
is no hardship that justifies the requested variance. The floor area ratio
requested is approximately twice what is permitted, which indicates there is
no undue hardship and a denial of the lot coverage would substantially comply
with the zoning requirements if the intensity of the development was reduced
to that permitted by R-5 zoning. There have been no significant changes from
the previous submission in April other than architectual style. Recent
rezoning and proposals made by the department suggested rezonings in the subject
area, but was not deemed appropriate northerly of 17 Street and the fact sheet
likewise, appends a diagram of the "Miramar Property". The third point to
reiterate the first point. All six requirements for a variance, none has been
met. Number two, you have the authority to overrule the Zoning Board and I
suggest the responsibility for failure upon the record to show any undue
hardship. Number three, notice was inadequate and it was inadequately posted.
It did not accurately describe the property involved or that a City block was
to be taken. It does not comport with the general Comprehensive Zoning Plan.
It does not comport with the Statutes of the State of Florida. It does not
comport with the Code of this Commission and therefore, we urge that this
Commission reverse the Zoning Board. Do you have any questions?
Mayor Ferre: Any questions of Mrs. Massey?
Mrs. Massey: Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Watson?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I have one brief statement to make to the City Manager.
Mr. Manager, can you place in our next agenda an item for discussion as to
five hundred dollars that the citizens are having to pay in order to come
before this Commission it they are in disagreement with any kind of structuring
that might be going on next to them or in their neighborhoods. I think that
every citizen should have the opportunity without having to pay five hundred
dollars to crime before this Commission if they are in disagreement with any
action that has been taken or might be taken in their neighborhoods. I don't
recall exactly when this Commission implemented this five hundred dollar
fee. I think that it's wrong and I think that it was a mistake that was
made. And you know, I just... next door to you, Howard, they were going to
build a five story structure, I think you would be the first one over here
complaining and if on top of that you had to pay five hundred dollars because
may be the Zoning Board or who knows who said it was alright, you know, we
all would be ticked off. So, I think that we should give our citizens that
right, that I think they have to come here before us without having to pay.
Now, I would like to bring that up for discussion, because I would like to
do away with that.
r11
L
19
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir?
Mr. Dawkins: I do not know if such a rule exist, but I too feel that it is
improper and an unjust tax placed on the citizens and if'such a rule does
exist, I would like to move that such rule be strickened...
Mayor Ferre: (COMMENT INAUDIBLE).
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Mr. Mayor, you and I were the only ones present at the time
that the Commission imposed this new proposition. I will get into it as
Joe has requested at a later time. There were reasons and very good reasons
of why, but more importantly, let me just say to you very quickly, there is
an alternate:of paying the five hundred dollars. We recognize that some
people couldn't afford it and some should not pay it. One, any Commissioner...
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, if we are going to get into this...
Mr. Dawkins: I withdraw my recommendation until we discuss it further.
Mayor Ferre: Put it on the agenda, the next Zoning Agenda for discussion
as a matter of general principle and then we can all talk to it. And send
a memorandum as to what your recommendations are and where we are and what
you think we ought to do. What the alternatives are. Ok.
Mr. Jack Watson: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, my name is
Jack Watson. My address is 126001 Old Cutler Road,Miami,Florida and I represent
the applicants Florida East Coast Properties. I'm not here this afternoon to
try to tell you what the law of zoning is. You have an able City Attorney
to do that. I'm sure however, though if anyone was to ask the City Attorney,
that he would tell you that every single solitary zoning case is decided on
it's on merits and nothing else. Secondly, I would like to tell you that
and I would refer to a provision in your Zoning Code and in Mrs. Massey's
brief concerning the definition of variances. And it say a variance is a
means of relief which is available only when some peculiar circumstance as
to size, shape or natural features of the parcel of land and sometimes this
its location is such that a literal and application of the provisions of this
ordinance would impair the owners right to some reasonable use of•the property.
Now, let me say to this Commission that we don't have one variance... I mean,
one hardship, we have got two. I take the position that the hardships here
is the fact that this property--- if you will take a look at it--- is an
irregular shaped piece of property, it's a pie shaped piece of property...
Mayor Ferre: Its' a what?
Mr. Watson: A pie shaped type of property. And that secondly, as to it's
location, it's located right next to the C-3 zone. Now, this property has
been owned by my client for many years and this whole neighborhood has changed
during that period of time and to try to tie him to the existing zoning regulations
would deprive him, in my opinion, of a reasonable use of the property. You
couldn't really construct anything to make a reasonable use of it. Now, your
Zoning Board and the lower board found by a unanimous vote that sufficient
hardship did exist to grant the variance. Mrs. Massey's attack on this appeal
apparently is just a legal attack. I did not hear her discuss anything about
the merits of the case and that's what I would like to get into now. We decided
to go the variance route because of the fact is, is that if we were to ask for
a change of zoning it might permit many uses that would be objectionable to
the neighbors. As it stands today we have had a great out pouring of the
neighborhood all in favor of what we want to do. Now, neither Mrs. Massey,
nor the church took the time to come down and even appear before your Zoning
Board. They are here today on the basis of some type of a legal arguement,
but I heard nothing as far as the merit. In getting into the merit I want to
first introduce my friend and my client Ted Hollo, who you all know will say
a few words to you and I know your time is limited. We have our experts that
are here from out of town that got to get back. So at this time Ted, would
you take over and say a few words to the Commission?
Mr. Ted Rollo: Honorable Mayor and members of the Board, I am Ted Hollo,
4444 Brickell Avenue, Miami. We have been on this case approximately a
year now. We have finally have gotten to the Board level in April of last
DEC 15 1981
year, April of this year. We have been asked to modify the plan. We have
done so. There was a great number of objections at that time to the plan.
I will just briefly give you the chronology of the plan. Finally, in October
we have represented the plan after many, many meetings with the neighborhood
and the plan has received, if you see it on the agenda, all the proponents
were here, thirteen proponents, everybody speaking in favor of our plan from
the neighborhood. This time we didn't bring all these people here, but only
a couple of them who represent their neighborhood. They all want this plan
They are all in favor of this plan. It's a very comprehensive beautiful
building very much nestled between the C-3 zoning around it. Your current
consideration on the CDB-2 also brings the zoning up to this property, the
CDB-2 zoning. We are not asking for twelve FAR. We are not asking for ten
and a half FAR. We are asking for 3.9 FAR which is about one third of what
you are approving right next door to us at present. In the October meeting
we have gone through the total merits of the case with the Board. The Board
has unanimous;y approved this plan. Everybody who spoke was in favor of the
plan including, Janet, who is here somewhere. You liked the plan, you said
at that time. And all the neigbors came up to us to present themselves in
favor of the plan. There was no opponents. None, whatsoever from Trinity
or from anywhere, because the people at Trinity don't live in Miami. They
live outside of Miami. Everybody. All the congregants left Trinity a long
time ago. We have presented our case. We have had a unanimous approval. We
have used one of the finest architectual firms to do this job for us. We have
gotten the finest traffic study people who are in town now. We asked them
to please come back and present it to you, see what impact our project will have
on this property or on properties in the neighborhood and with your permission
we would like to call upon our architect who will present you our plans, what
it is all about. We do feel that it will become a veritable credit to
this community.
K. Smith and Partners Architects from Dallas, Texas. We were the first
commission to develop some plans for the proposed site here for a hotel project.
We were given a set of plans that were developed by a previous set of architects
that we felt fail to meet all of the criteria that would lend to a successful
project in the area.
(BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Carey Hogue: While we are waiting for the screen to be raised I would
like to draw attention to this site plan of the project showing the adjacent
Omni Development here and the other two adjacent apartment complexes to the
north of the site. Now, If you will notice the way the hotel is oriented,
this is the main ship of the hotel tower here. The hotel is a twenty story
structure sitting on top of a four story, five story parking garage and with
this orientation we felt like we were impacting the neighborhood in the least
possible way. What we have done is with these apartment oriented this way.
Their main view of course, is this direction and with the one on the north
out here. Now, we felt like the previous architects had turned the tower in
an east/west manner and that was blocking the main portion of the view from
these occupants here. Also, from the Omni Developement that was interfering
their clear view of the water now. And we feel like that with this type of
orientation that we have impacted the area the least as far as the visibility
of the neighbors. Ok,... you know, I have got a number of boards here and
I don't want to particularly go through everyone of them in great detail unless
somebody has some questions involved with them. Ok, yes, if you will notice
the rendering of the hotel structure on the wall behind me here and then if
the Commission members would please refer to this handout that I gave to them
it is an analysis of the setback requirements for the property on the first
page and the'second page refers to a diagram indicating what the maximum
height of the building structures could be. Now, if you will turn to the third
page still, there is a isometric cone drawn that indicates the area by the
zoning ordinance that it can be built under. Now, if you will notice the
way that the...
Mayor Ferre: Well, wait a minute, we have a little bit of a legal problem
here. Terry, you explain it on the record, because I don't want to create any
problems that are going to jeopardize you legally, Ted.
Mr. Percy: The applicant of the appellant in this instance has indicated
that there no record transcribed from the Zoning Board hearing.
Mayor Ferre: Arid the applicant is Trinity Church, Mrs. Massey. Alright.
Mr. Percy: Yes. And our staff confirms that, that is the case. The tape
malfunctioned and they have... this Commission don't have a transcript of
this matter in your packet. So, we want to continue the matter to see if a
transcript could be extracted from that tape and or a stipulated facts. You
have to have a record to review this appeal and there is not a sufficient
legal record.
Mayor Ferre: Jack? Where is Jack Watson? Did you hear that. He is saying
that we cannot be hearing this unless there is a record of what happen and since
the tape malfunctioned he... our City Attorney is recommending that we continue
this matter so that they can try to reconstruct, whatever the heck that means,
the record so that we can deal with it legally. Now, do you concur with that?
Mr. Watson: I'm not going to... I'm never foolish enough to argue with the
boss, but I will say this, that in my experience normally a requirement like
that is like an old writ of certorari where a record was brought before you
and you reviewed that record and if you found that there was something wrong
with the record, then you could reverse the decision of the lower board. That's
not the case here. This a denovo hearing in that we are making the exact
presentation all over again, in other words it's live testimony all over again.
You are not being asked to review a record you are asked to being reviewed what
is heard here today. Now, if there is some technical... if your Code and I'm
not familiar with it, says that there must be a record, then there must be
a record and I'm not going to argue with it. I don't know that.
Mayor Ferre: So, it's got to be one way or the other. What you are saying
seems reasonable, in other words, that this is denovo, which means new testimony.
Now, the question is, is it in fact under the law new test...
Mr. Percy: We take exception. This is an appeal from the Zoning Board. The
Zoning Board can grant a variance and if it's not appealed permits could be
issued from those variances. An objector is appealing this item, so you have
to review what they reviewed to see if they erred.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Jack, we have a legal question which I am not capable
of answering and we have to look to our City Attorney for legal guidance. So,
he has... since this is an appeal, then evidently the record has to be part
and parcel of it.
Mr. Watson: well, can we come to this... suppose...
Mr. Hollo: If I may ask our City Attorney in his wisdom if he could please
enlighten me. What happens if the record burned or whatever happen to it?
It means that nothing took place? Is that what it means? And that we are
back to last April at this time?
Mr. Percy: It means that the Commission doesn't have anything to review or
to determine what the Zoning Board made their judgements on. All you have is
a resolution saying they are granted a variance.
Mr. Hollo: For that reason we are presenting everything again.
Mr. Watson: (INAUDIBLE)... and they approved it six to nothing.
Mayor Ferre: That's right.
Mr. Hollo: That's also in the City laws. It's in our laws that
if there is no record, then there is nothing to review. It's final.
Mr. Percy: Well, we would like an opportunity to review those tapes, Mr.
Mayor and see if a record can be extracted and if not we will make a recommendation
to the Commission.
Mr. Hollo: Ay gosh, you had four months to do that.
Mr. Plummer: Where is Mary Woods?
Mayor Ferre: Well, what we have here is a legal ruling by the City Attorney,
which unless you can convince them otherwise, we are bound by it. Talk them
out of it if you can .
Mr. Watson: No, I'm not about to try to do that.
52 DEC 15 1981
Mayor Ferre: Then under the circumstances we have to continue this case, that's
why I didn't want to go into a long explanation by the architect.
Mr. Hollo: Well, I would just respectfully ask the City Attorney if he could
enlighten me, please, what if he cannot decipher anything from the City records,
what position am I in? I am back a year now? Please, tell me that.
Mr. Percy: I don't want to be presumptuous, Mr. Mayor. We will endeavor to
have a record for this Commission to review on this appeal and if we are not
able to make a record we will research the law and make the appropriate recommendation.
I'm not prepared to give Mr. Hollo an answer to that latter question at this;
point. We will endeavor to create a record.
Mayor Ferre: Fine, but I don't know whether it's your department or Perez-Lugones's
department, but I have got to ask you, why do we have to wait until today to
get this thing... why wasn't this determined four months ago? I mean, why
does it have to come to a crisis now? If you knew that, that was a problem
that existed and if you knew that we had no record and if you knew that the
law says we have got to have a record before we take an appeal, then why do
you wait for today?
Me. Perez Lugones: We were aware, Mr. Mayor, that the two systems we had going at
the time, because of a malfunction in the entire system we had one blank
tape and a barely audible tape in the second back up system. We were not
aware that it was a"muse to have that transcript for an appeal. I have to
say that. If has been a legal decision from the Law Department that we must
have it and I can tell you that the second tape that we have is barely audible.
May be there is some way of electronically enhancing that tape. We do not
have that capability in coming up with a transcript.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I know of some people around here that are very good with
tapes and with barely audible tapes, may be we can get them to help.
Mr. Perez Lugones: If you have any suggestions we are open to them.
Mr. Carollo: I would like to ask a question. Mr. Lugones, you were responsible
for keeping those tapes and making sure that they are taken at the Zoning
Meetings, correct?
Mr. Carollo: How many other items do we have that same problem with?
Mr.Perez-ugones:Of the entire tape it was...I cannot tell you precisely, unless
I call my staff, how many of the items that were heard that night have the
same... I know that there are more than one item, but...
Mr. Carollo: Well, where are the tapes at? Are they in your office?
Me.Perez Lugones: They are in my office, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Can they be delivered in the next few minutes to the City Manager
so that he can be the custodian of whatever is left? I would be very grateful
if that could be done. Howard, can you make sure of that? If you could call
over there right now and they can be delivered to you immediately.
Mr. Dawkins: May I ask a question? What is the procedure or what has been
the procedure of reviewing these tapes after each meeting? What I'm trying to
say is, can you establish a procedure to ensure that this will not ever happen
again?
Mr.Perez Lugones: Now, in as much as our capabilities we try to do that. -
Let me explain the....
Mr. Dawkins: Ok, coming back to what the Mayor asked, my question follows
the Mayor's. It doesn't range true to me or sit well with me that four months
later you have just determined that you do not have the records of a meeting
that you should have.
Mr. Perez Lugones: Not quite correct, sir. We knew before that. what I lidn't
know is that it was a mandatory thing to have that transcript. Now, going
back and this is to clarify my position. For several months I didn't have a
transcriber secretary. We have several months backlog when we are not traLLSCLAbing
as we go along as we used to do because of the fact that the transcribing
secretary that we have before retired and it took several months to replace
that person. Now, when there is a question of an appeal, then at that point
we go back to that one particular item and we try to make the transcripts.
�3 DEC 15 i�$1
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Watson, I hate to tell you, but your building just collapsed.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me here again, now, Jack and Ted are both my friends
and I understand the dilemma. Mr. Percy, I now become concerned as a Commissioner
as to the liability that is possibly created. There is no question in my mind
that at this point, unless reversed, Mr. Hollo has been approved to proceed.
What position of liability are we, the City in, in effect, making this delay?
I am concerned about that.
Mr. Percy: Well, he is not approved until his appeal is disposed of properly
and this is the process by which that appeal is to dispose of it. It has not
been.. I don't believe you can proceed without a record and that's what we
are trying to determine. I don't see a jeopardy.
Mayor Ferre: .Look, there is nothing we can do.
Mr. Plummer% Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: We can't... you know, let's move along.
Mr. Plummer: May I suggest for the record since we are getting in very, very
high technical points. Mr. Percy, outline, I know the answer, but I think
for the record you should have that on the record and that is will the people
appealing waive their right of not having that record available? I think
it should be on the record.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, Mrs. Massey, the question to Trinity Cathedral through you
as it's attorney is will you waive the right of the record?
Mrs. Massey: No, sir, we cannot waive it. This is not a self interest. We
are doing this as a community interest.
Mayor Ferre: Very good, than you, for your answer. Anything else on this
issue? Then this matter is continued until the matter of record can be
clarified.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, one additional thing. Mr. Manager, can you get a full
explanation at the earliest time possible from Mr. Perez-Lugones as to why
that happened?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: And if it ever has happened before?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
• Mr. Carollo: I want to have the name of the main person responsible for all
this.
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would only request because of the problems existing
that Mr. Manager and Mr. Attorney, that this matter not be dragged out. That
this matter, if it is your opinion, that a tape cannot be established, that
you come back to this Commission with your recommendations as soon as possible.
It is unfair -to an applicant to put them through at what is obviously a
mistake on our part, that they should be delayed, I don't know if it's a
hundred thousand a month or two hundred, whatever it is. I just don't want
you to come back here on the fourteenth of... well, no, wait a minute. The
next meeting is not until the 28th, right, for Zoning? Alright, well, I don't
want you to come back here on the 28th and say "Well, no, we can't do anything,
blab, blah" and then it's delayed for another month. I think this Commission
needs assurances as well as the applicants, as well as the developer, that
you are going to make a determination and in a very short, reasonable period
of time that this Commission will have something to deal with, because it is
most unfortunate that whatever way, that this matter can't be resolved today.
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
CMG 15 11981
�4
Mayor Ferre: Alright, anything else?
Mr. Hollo: If I may make just one statement.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, Mr. Hollo.
Mr. Hollo: Ok, thank you, very much for the opportunity. We have started
over a year ago in this case. We came up last month in the month of November
at which time this was a well known fact already and it could have been
researched at that time. Each time we are coming to you, we bring staff in
from Dallas, we bring staff in from Chicago, they are all here. Besides
interest cost and delaying of the project cost, it's a very, very, costly
thing to us. Mrs. Massey has waited to the very last day for that appeal.
She was calculating something I was told about the reelections, etc. If it's
good for her that's very fine with me. The fact is that this is nothing else
but a beautiful delaying tactic from her part and we are coming to finally
to a point, there is a moment of the truth. What are the official answer
Are we going or aren't we? It's a very costly. It's a very frustrating
proposition. I do hope for the sake of developers who come to this town other
than me braving this for the last fifteen years, that you are more merciful to
them and give less heed to such caprice that was presented to you just before.
Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Janet.
Mr. Janet Cooper: Janet Cooper, I just need to correct the record. At no
time did I speak in favor of the project. I did not speak at the hearing
at which the variance was granted.
Mrs. Massey: Mr. Mayor, one thing in closing as the appellant in this matter.
We did not challenge in the absence of a record. We stated the truth and we
stated the facts and we stated also that no time was notice- adequate nor
was it adequately given and this has been carried through from the beginning.
Our appeal was timely. We have done everything openly, properly and we intend
to continue to operate that way.
Mayor Ferre: Fir. Watson, for one last statement, hopefully.
Mr. Watson: Yes, sir, as far as I'm concerned it will be. May I ask a favor
and that when your City Attorney issues you an opinion that he would give me
a copy.
Mayor Ferre: It is so stipulated. Would you please send both attorneys a
copy.
10. DEFERRAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF PLAT: OAK VIEW ESTATES
TIGERTAIL AND S. W. 17th AVENUE
Mayor Ferre: We have a hardship situation on Item 16 and somebody has to
leave. That's a very quick item which is a plat book, accepting the plat
on Oak View Estates. The Plat and Street Committee recommended denial. The
Zoning Board -recommended approval. Why was this matter recommended for denial?
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, the... at the time that the Plat and Street Committee
considered this item they felt that it was such an irregular configuration
regarding the platting, that they could not endorse it. However, upon review
by the Zoning Board, they did recommend it and it is before you at this time.
Mr. Plummer: Is this Item 16?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Say that again, Dick, just briefly.
Mr. Whipi)le: Well, as you know, the Plat and Street Committee is a committee
55 DEC 15 1981
with respect to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Plummer: Well, aware.
Mr. Whipple: Ok.
Mr. Plummer: I served on it with you, so...
Mr. Whipple: When the Committee looked at it they felt that it was a rather
irregular arrangements of sites and lots and on that basis they recommended
the denial to the Zoning Board. However, the Zoning Board considered that
and recommended it.
Mr. Plummer: May I see the parcel?
(BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Mayor Ferre: Well, what's the problem on this? Why would the Plat Committee
turn it down?
Mr. Whipple: It does meet the average width and the technical terms of zoning
and it does meet the required area in the technical terms of zoning. They
felt that the configuration of which was laid out wasn't the best and on that
basis they recommended denial.
Mayor Ferre: Do you recommend this or not?
Mr. Whipple: We were part of the Plat and Street Committee that recommended
denial originally. When it came before the Zoning Board the department
recommended approval along with the Zoning Board.
Mayor Ferre: The department recommends approval.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I may just for a brief second.
Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead.
Mr. Carollo: I have a little bit of unfinished business with Mr. Whipple.
Mr. Whipple, a few weeks ago I called your office on two occasions, I needed
to get a very simple bit of information from you. I was told you were not
in and messages were left for you. A couple of days later at the last meeting
that we had I approached, you told me you never received the information,
that you would get back to me the following day by noon and provide me a
very simple bit of information that I needed from your department. It's be
several weeks now and after leaving additional messages in your office, apparently
you are never there, at least when I call. I still have not even had the
courtesy of a call from you to try to answer a very simple question. Now,
may be it's that you are extremely busy or may be you are extremely important,
but I just hope that you will treat the citizens of this town a little better
than I have been treated and I would certainly hope that the City Manager
reinforces that anytime that any member of this Commission calls you, sir or
any members of your department or any other department for some information
that, that information is provided to us as quickly and as efficiently as
possible as stated in the City Charter.
Mr. Whipple:. Commissioner Carollo, two things. Number one, I owe you an
apology. I did attempt to call one time and did get delayed further. I do
have the information still to give you and it was at a particular time within
the department and particularly within the zoning area of which we were responding
to the new zoning ordinance. That is not an excuse, but that is the reason
why it bounced around and I never did get back to you and I apologize for that.
I also want to state that the Manager did bring this to my attention as did the
assistant City Manager and I was to get with you today before the meeting was
out and apologize at that time and also give you the information that you
sought.
Mr. Carollo: I certainly would appreciate that Mr. Whipple and I wanted to
make sure that I would get to you so you would understand that...
56
DEC i 5 1981
A
Mr. Whipple: We try not to treat the public and or Conunission or Administration
in that manner as best we can. Once in a while we do mess up or I mess up,
let's put it that way, and I apologize.
Mr. Charles Adams: Mr. Mayor and Commission, my name is Charles Adams. I
reside at 22600 Southwest I 167th Avenue and the Oak View Estates Project is one
that I have been working on for a while. One point of clarification. The
reason that the lots are somewhat irregular is that there are a large number
of oak trees of substantial size on the property and we are trying to preserve
those.
Mayor Ferre: Look, you have the staff's recommendation and the Zoning Board
recommend. Anybody have any problems with this? If not, what's...
Mr. Carollo: .Well, he mentioned oak trees.
Mayor Ferre: So, what's the will of this Commission, seeing that you like
oak trees?
Mr. Carollo: Can we get the staff up here again?
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Whipple?
Mr. Carollo: Just how much, Mr. Whipple, would is the hardship? Just how
mush is it really a hardship for leaving the oak trees there as it is? Do
you think the man is even close in having a hardship or not? Or do you think
that the hardship is being created in his part?
Mr. Whipple: There is two points. The plat is not before you for acceptance
on the basis of a hardship. This is strictly a... as we have discussed before
in front of the Commission, a ministerial action. They have met the technical
requirements of the law and it takes an official sanction by the City Commission.
So, there is not a per se hardship question such as we would be discussing
with a variance or something of that nature. Then to go a step further from
your question. I do have the tree survey here. There are a substantial number
of trees on the site. I believe that these trees have been properly respected
with respect to the lot lines even though the lot lines end up irregular and
you do end up with a rather different configuration of lots than what, let's
say you or I are accustomed to.
Mr. Carollo: Well, so then you are recommending this.
Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. Mayor, seeming that our department -is such in favor
of it and since I like oak trees so much, I want to see more of them in Miami,
not only in Ocala, I make a motion to accept it.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Perez, further discussion?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will vote against the motion and only predicated
upon precedent being set. There is a great number of applications of which
this Commission has seen fit in the past to deny. I have to say that the
applicants bought this piece of property realizing what they had and the
danger really is across the street, across Tigertail. As you know, Mr. Mayor,
we have had a number of applications before this Commission to split up some
of those rather large lots and to separate them into six, eight and ten buildable
sites. I think it was you, Mr. Mayor, who proposed before this Commission that
we not let this happen. I think you even went to the point at one time of
trying to establish an embassy row so that, that would be preserved of South
Bayshore Drive and not be split up into these lots and for that reason I will
vote against the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Oki call the roll.
ON POLL CALL:
Mayor Ferre: You got a problem with me. I am a property owner within three
hundred feet on Espanola. Now, you better... we have to check it out. If it
you know,... if it weren't that tight a vote I wouldn't have bothered too much
with it, because I'm not too sure whether it's three hundred feet, but I'm
pretty sure. Looking at this map I know exactly where my house is and in my
57 DEG ,, 5 1581
C ON
opinion it is within three hundred feet.
Mr. Plummer: Three seventy-five.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm less than that. In other words, as I read this map
the distance between this and this here is two hundred thirty-four and my
property... Well, I will get you the address and you check it out. if I can
vote it I will vote favorable, but I think that I have a problem with the
distance.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, in all fairness to the applicant can... why don't
we defer this then until we found out if you could vote or not.
Mayor Ferre: Sure.
Mr. Plummer: .I have no problem with that.
Mr. Percy: Or Mr. Mayor, you could vote it on a subject too. It's a
ministerial proceeding before you and I don't think there will be a problem
with you within this three hundred seventy-five foot radius.
Mayor Ferre: Well, sure there would, because the way the Conflict of Interest
law reads is if in my mind, in my opinion I will benefit financially by my
vote. Now, if I'm a property owner within three hundred feet of this, obviously,
I'm affected.
Mr. Percy: Your property won't be affected by it. If the applicant of this
plat meets all of the legal requirements.......
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, Mr. Percy when you step out
of the realm of law you and I are going to have a problem. If you to sit there
and to state that for the record, that his property value is not going to be
affected, I disagree sir.
Mr. Percy: That's not what I said, Mr. Plummer.
Mayor Ferre: That's what I heard you say.
Mr. Plummer: That's what I heard you say. Sir, I'm not going to get into
a hassle with you. It could enhance the value of his property or in my
estimation, it could depreciate the value of his property. Now, that's my
opinion, ok? But I definitely feel that there is a subject of...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Percy, everytime I have come on this thing I'm always told
the same thing. If in my mind I feel that I financially benefit by voting
on this thing I am precluded. Now, it is my opinion that there are no question
that, that affects the value of my land. Now, I own land within three
hundred feet of that lot and I.think that I am precluded from voting.
Mr. Percy: The applicant of this...
(BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest, sir, the maker of the motion suggest
that this item be deferred and I think it would be in order. Mr. Carollo,
if in fact that was your motion to defer I will second the motion to give
them the opportunity to have it clear for the record.
Mr. Carollo, Well, you know, I think it's only fair, because if it's that
close, then it might be three hundred , it might be a little more, you know,
give the people the benefit of the doubt and ...So, I withdraw my motion if
Mr. Perez withdraws his second.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, this matter is continued until the next Commission
meeting until we can clarify the distance as to whether or not I can vote
or not.
THEREUPON THE FOREGOING MOTION TO DEFER ITEM NO. 16
to the next commission meeting was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, and seconded by Commissioner Perez, and was passed
and adopted by unanimous vote.
DEC '151961
W
Ll
r
11. 20 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO BE IMPOSED IN MXD COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Mayor Ferre: We are on Item 5. Go ahead.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the next series of
items to be taken up together encompass an overall rezoning of the Brickell
district. The department has been working on this for a number of months.
We have met with the various property owners. We think we have agreement on
this. We met with the developers on these districts. Mr. Luft is going to
carry forth the discussion for the department.
Mr. Luft: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen,
the work that we are going to be presenting to you started with the announcement
of the Brickell Transit Station. The discussion that we are entering into
here really does center upon the effects of that new station and the response
that development, we feel, should take in regards to it. As you see on this
map here the Rapid Transit system will have a new station at loth Street and
the F.E.C. Railway. We are going to be discussing in a few moments the Brickell
Avenue area which is the non -shaded portion from here to the Bay. The current
Brickell Avenue area. However at this point in time we would like to focus
upon what we call a MXD district. MXD is a zoning classification that really
means mixed development. That is the grey portion from the River to 15th Road,
from the railroad tracks of the transit system over to Miami Avenue. This is
an extremely important district and it represents an extraordinary opportunity.
The likes of which the City has not found itself with in any other place.
Adjacent to Rapid Transit we have one singluar opportunity here and that is
residential. We know as a matter of fact, that office buildings in Brickell
Avenue have very nearly built out or commitment to development that can go
there. They are going to move West. In the next five to ten years you are
going to see signicant development pressures placed on this grey corridor.
The choice before you and the Commission here today is a very simple one and
I stress that it is a very different one than in Omni. The choice is simply
this? Do we want to foster a high density mixed development area with a
balanced proportion of housing as well as office and commercial and entertainment
activities. A living as well as a working community or are we going to in
essence accommodate the continued expansion of Brickell Avenue to the West.
We feel in our presentation that Ms. Myers will get into the details of the
mixed development district. We feel very strongly that the unique opportunity
we have here for fostering a true mixed development district. Office,
residential and commercial is extraordinary and it will not happen again.
The fact is this area, this neighborhood represents probably the best location
we have in the City, Downtown for getting substantial amounts of new housing
in connection with employment and entertainment and shopping. Better than
Park West today, because Park West is going to take a lot of work. Here
instead of spending the seventy-three million dollars we are talking about
North of Downtown, we are saying it can be accomplished by the private sector
with the right kind of incentives. The program that we have for you here
is a very carefully balanced one. It's based upon recognition of transit and
it's based upon a balance between the existing Brickell Avenue as it's growing
in the development pressures there and what we feel would be a reasonable
accommodation of those to the West. I would like to introduce Joyce Myers
who will go over the technical aspects of the MXD district.
Ms. Joyce Myers: Thank you, Jack. The MXD district as Jack pointed out
goes all the way from the River to 15th Road. There are three individual
areas within the district called MXD-1, MXD-2 and MXD-3. Those are differentiated
because of their location in relation to the transit system and secondarily,
there location with respect to the Downtown core area. There are some differences
in them in intensity, but the objectives of the MXD and most of the regulations
apply uniformly throughout. As Jack said to get the mixed development with
residential is qoing to require substantial commitment on the part of the
City to establish the guidelines for development and stick to them. The way
to got housing in this area, to guarantee that we get housing without requiring
it which we don't think is feasible, the way to insure it is through the
1�
f DEC '15 1981
floor area ratio. The trick is to make an offer to developers that's so
attractive to build residential that they won't want to refuse it. What
the MXD district proposes is to start out by letting them build as much office
development as they could today under the existing zoning regulation. And
starting out with that base amount of office development we say for every
square foot of residential development that you build we will give you an
additional square foot of office. An MXD-1, that base floor area ratio is a
three for office development, a three for residential development or a four
for a combined mixed use.
Mr. Plummer: That's FAR?
Ms. Myers: FAR. Then there is a bonus in addition to that up to an additional
two for residential development and then there are bonuses for retail development
at the ground floor for service uses, for theatres, for nurseries and out
door plazas that could potentially get a mixed development up to a FAR-7. Ok,
at this point I would like to hand out two minor adjustments in the language
of the ordinance that have been proposed by the Brickell Area Association
during meetings in the past week are related to the FAR.
Mr. Plummer: While you are doing that, let me ask a question. And may Ine
my question is not one that really needs attention, but as I look at this.
You know, I think most all of us here are very proud of the way that Brickell
Avenue has developed. It has become a show place. I am concerned that
based on what you are proposing here will in effect in a very short period
of time leave no room for what we would hope would be an expansion of the
Brickell. Now, so, I guess my question has to be, are we really defeating
another area of our community Brickell by cutting off expansion of some
very, very fine, fine businesses and business structures. Should we be
considering -that this what you are proposing should be flip flopped on the
other side of the railroad tracks or a divider which has always been, you
know, keep the business and the residents apart and that rapid transit could
serve as a distinction between the commercial and the residential. Also
keeping in mind of the very, very fine development to the South or to the
R-5 district of the Brickell Avenue.
Mayor Ferre: R-SA.
Mr. Plummer: R-5A. And I wonder if we are not self defeating by trying to
encourage residential on the East side where we should be trying to encourage
it on the West side leaving room for expansion and more of what we consider
to be fine of the Brickell Avenue. Now, I guess really my question resolves
down, should we have been... was this taken into consideration and if not,
should we consider it. I am in wholehearted accord of enticement. I love
the bonus system, but I'm just concerned that we are going to stifle what
we have really been proud of in the Brickell area by not leaving any room
for expansion and using the natural buffer. So, T bring that to you for
hopefully that you will comment on.
Mayor Ferre: You want to answer it? And I got some comments after you
finish.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Jack, let me follow up with one other point. You are
proposing here as I heard a potential FAR to 7. Now, there again, a potential
of 7 FAR which does not exist any where in that particular area could be
two natural boundaries. One is the Rapid Transit and then be cut off by the
other boundary of I-95 still leaving the true residential of West of I-95
that you could contain between those two... which are... I don't want to say
natural borders, because they were manmade, but between those two you could
contain the supposedly 7 FAR leaving still room on the East side of the
Rapid Transit for further expansion of the commercial. And it just seems
like to me that it's a natural sequence. You know, the Mayor has talked about
for so many years and I concur, that we don't have that from running from the
River to 15th Road and from 15th Road over. So, I just merely bring that up.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, you want to answer?
Mr. Luft: Commissioner Plummer, you are about ten years ahead us, alright,
which is...
Mr. Plummer: I hope it shall always be that way or increased.
DEC 51
1 981
Mr. Luft: Alright. Let me make a simple point, we don't argue the merits of
Brickell Avenue, we agree. It has served it's purposes for which it was setup
in 1971 and has become a prestigious office corridor for corporate development.
Brickell is based upon Brickell Avenue. It is a wide boulevard. It is based
upon an automobile orientation upon that drive down that street with wide
setbacks the buildings standing back from the boulevard presenting singluar
images as we go from the River South or North as you may be going. That we
don't have a Brickell Avenue to the West. What we have are some fairly
narrow East/West streets. And in fact, we are not talking about an auto
orientation to the West of Brickell Avenue. In fact, what we are talking about
is a pedestrian environment, we are talking about tens of thousands of people
coming off the Rapid Transit System and walking East and West. We are talking
about a different kind of dynamic in this neighborhood. We are talking about
a Downtown area now. Brickell, is in fact, modeled after a suburban office
center. It has... I think you are going to see increasing pressures upon it
that will be coming up in the RCB ordinance, amendments that are going to be
slowly working against the... what was achievable with an FAR of two or three
and lot coverages of no more than fifty percent ten years ago. In the next
ten years it's going to be much harder to do, but I can assure you on the
parcels to the West of that we are going to be looking more toward the Downtown
or the Omni's form of development, higher intensity, rather than the auto
oriented, beautiful boulevard of Brickell. Now, when I say you are ten years
ahead of me what I'm referring to specifically is that when we address the
area West of the transit station we are talking about an area where there are
some seven hundred residencies today. We are talking about apartment buildings
that have been built within the .last twenty years. We are talking about an
area that is still a good place to live. We hear a lot about Overtown.
We hear a lot about our neighborhoods in this town, but the fact is one of the
most viable, moderate cost, multiple family rental apartment areas we have in
Downtown is just that area from the Rapid Transit Station to I-95. It's an
excellent area to live in and many people want to stay there for the time
being. We are not so foolish as to suggest that right now or ten years from
now or twenty years from now that, that area should aways be that way. But
we see buildings that are in A-1 condition, that are providing moderate cost
housing and we are asking ourselves a simple question. Why rezone that today
well ahead of its time before it's lived out its useful role before a development
has ever, really gotten that far, because now we are all of the sudden leap
frogging the RCB area to the East. Before development has reached that why
preempt that? Why put speculative pressures on that? Why open it up to
office? Why lose seven hundred housing units now? We think that may be in
1980 or 1990, 1995 you are going to find that situation there. You are going
to find Brickell knocking on the door of 2nd Avenue and I think that's the time
that we can possibly move in that direction, but at this point and time we
think the character of that area to the East of the station has to be, will be
very different than that on Brickell Avenue. I think Mr. Alvarez, architect,
has a sketch here that he might like to show you as to how that kind of
quality development on Brickell can manifest itself with some different
regulations more pedestrian oriented, but still providing the prestigious
high quality that you see in the Brickell Avenue area. It's a little different
model that we are looking at, but I think our message here today is let's
proceed and let's work towards a unified cohesive development on the East side
of the station. Let's keep our seven hundred moderate cost housing units that
we have today because they are not going to be there very quickly if we move
with an MXD on the West side. You can write them right off the map. And then
ten years from now I think we will be looking at what you and the Mayor both
have told me in the past is inevitable West of the station, but not inevitable
today.
Mr. Plummer:- Let me tell you where I disagree with you and that is in the #10.
Bo Derek is a perfect 10, but I don't think yours is. Let me tell you why.
I think we are looking at --- what?---1984 that the Rapid Transit will be open?
Mr. Luft: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: I think we are looking more at a 3 or a 4, because I want to
tell you, you kr:ow and I know that, that area is going to blossom over night
once that Rapid Transit is in and all we need is one more gas shortage and
it's not going to be a four, it's going to be a 3, because people are going to
realize the value of living close proximity to where you work. Now, I merely
am--- I'm riot going to say I'm in opposition to you, but I see no problem with
thinking ahead, if in fact your 10 is correct. Because if you don't it's just
going to cost you double and triple. If you can't do something right the
�� DEC 1 D 1981
V
first time you have to make time to go back and redo it and that's expensive.
Mayor Ferre: Let's get on with it. I agree with you.
Mr. Luft:Let me be clear that the MXD we are talking about here is not a five
or ten year option, we are talking about for the next fifty years on that MXD
between Brickell and the transit station, alright. The next ten years is the
thing I would suggest we go slow on until we see that pressure really there,
because all you are going to do is boot people out of apartment buildings and
replace existing buildings with offices. I mean, offices in those apartments.
That's all that's going to happen now. I don't think anybody gains from that.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm in the middle of... between you and Plummer. I think
that it's not going to be ten years, it's going to probably be four or five,
so I think wg got to take one step at a time and that's what's before us now.
So, let's get•on with it. Alright, any other questions on this?
Ms. Myers: Well, I would like to complete my comments on this.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, complete your statement.
Ms. Myers: Ok. These adjustments that Jack handed out a moment ago. One
deals with an additional bonus for underground parking in each of the MXD
districts. The second one deals with the base FAR and MXD-2 and MXD-3. In
the ordinance as you originally had it the base FAR was 2. This adjustment
makes it a 2 for residential, a 2 non-residential or a total of 3. That enables
us to give the bonus for residential without penalizing developers in the
office building that they would also want to provide. An MXD-2 then with
mixed use development, a total FAR of 6 and MXD-3, it's slightly less 5.68
because here we are not giving a bonus for retail and entertainment uses. We
are transitioning an MXD-3 into a residential neighborhood and those bonuses
are not considered appropriate. The other significant features of MXD that
you ought to be aware of is that there are reduced parking requirements. There
are no lot coverage requirements and there is a ten foot setback area identical
to the Omni situation where we require them to develop that setback as public
sidewalk circulation space. But again, the single most important thing in
MXD is the FAR if you want to keep the mixed use concept. You can't have the
housing .if you raise the base FAR up to a point where developers have all they
want for office use. We have studied it very carefully looking at what developers
want to build in the way of office development in Brickell area today. We feel
that the levels that they are of a 3 is the farthest that we can go with the
base FAR without losing the advantage of the bonus. Another concern with the
residential development in here is whether or not it's really economically
feasible to develop residential. We would agree with some of the developers
that it would be difficult to build residential here that would compete with
the luxury bay front apartments. That's not what we are looking for in MXD.
We are looking for smaller units, middle income units that will be marketed to
young executives, single people who are willing to live and work near Downtown.
The problem is not that it's feasible, but that the market hasn't been tested.
We feel that it will work because it's worked in other places and an important
test case here is going to be a development that's already proposed.
Mayor Ferre: Is that the one that Raul Alvarez... Is that the one Raul Alvarez...
Ms. Myer: Yes, it is. Mr. Alvarez couldn't stay here to present this, but just
for your information, this is a project that has been designed in MXD-1. It is
primarily an office building, but it has forty-eight condominium units in it
shown here in the yellow. The developers, Winsel Corporation has told us
absolutely the only reason they are building that residential is because they
wanted bonus for additional office and if it weren't for that bonus and that
balance they wouldn't be trying it, but they are going to try it and we feel
that...
Mayor Ferre: Look, what you are doing I think is very exciting and I'm sure
everybody is pretty much in favor of it. I'm sure we will get some discrepancy.
I have got letters from Allen Morris and some of the property owners that think
it ought to be much, much more and then we have the stuff from the Brickell Avenue
people. Is there anybody here representing Brickell Avenue?
Ms. Myers: Mr. Pennekamp could not stay. He gave me his letter and asked
me to read it into the record, if you would like me to do that.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
%3`2
DEC 15 1981
Ms. Myers: Ok, I will read Mr. Pennekampis letter, it's addressed to the
Commissioners. "In the December 9, 1981 meeting of the Brickell Area
Association the Board of Directors unanmiously voted to support the recommended
zoning modifications in the Brickell Station Area Plan as revised on November
18, 1981 with respect to the mixed use district MXD-1, MXD-2 and MXD-3 and
the residential office zoning RCB district as revised November 25, 1981 and
approved with amendments by the PAB December 2, 1981. Your support for this
plan would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Brickell Area Association,
Tom Pennekamp, President".
Mayor Ferre: What is this? Is this a recommendation that we go to Item 2?
This you passed out.
Ms. Myers: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: J don't know what this is.
Ms. Myers: Ok. The Planning Department is recommending that, that be inserted
into the language of the ordinance...
Mayor Ferre: Why?
Ms. Myers: Because the way it read before we were requiring them to take away
office development from the base FAR in order to get the residential bonus.
What this allows them to do is not sacrifice office development in order to
get the bonus.
Mayor Ferre: I understand. This is your recommendation?
Ms. Myers: This is our recommendation, as is the other one to add the structure
for the underground parking bonus.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, any questions from the Commission? Are you finished?
Ms. Myers: Yes, I am.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, now, we have members of the public that wish to express an
opinion. We are getting late in the day. I would be very grateful... I'm not
going to put a timer on you.
Mr. Norman Burmaster: I will speak quickly and brief to the point.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I would be grateful if you would get right to it.
Mr. Burmaster: My name is Norman Burmaster. I'm with the Allen Morris Company,
1000 Brickell Avenue. We have been involved in this process as have a lot of
people over the period of time, and to come quickly to the main presentation,
I think that Mr. Plummer adequately reflects the concepts of development in this
area to the extent that we should not make a plan that's good for five years or
three years or six years. We ought to be talking about a plan to encourage
development now that in fact will be the highest and best use of the properties
through an economic life of forty or fifty years. Failure to do that will fail
to develop the area at all. We already notice that the pressure of additional
prime office space in the Brickell area is not resulting in the development of
the area immediately west of the Brickell area under the FARS of three that
currently exist in the area that... with bonuses. I think two seventy-five or
two seventy-eight is the largest FAR that's been built in that area. What in
- fact is happening, is that the consumer, the office consumer is electing other
sites such as Coral Way, Coral Gables and suburban sites. Now, particularly
with the proposal of the Omni zoning, I think that what we are talking about
here in establishing a base FAR of 3 in the area designated as MXD-2, which is
the area #2, I believe, on the display that is the closest to the Rapid Transit
Station, fails to recognize that this area is an area that is the only area
within the City and in fact the only area in all of Dade County that is proposed
to be impacted by not only the second phase of the People Mover System, but
also Rapid Transit itself. I would like to just very brief point a brief phrase
here in Section 1, under purpose of the CBD-2 and the reason I reflect that, is
because there are several similarities to the CBD-2 which was discussed this
morning and what we are talking about now in the Brickell area. In the first
paragraph it's defined that to promote residential development floor area ratio
incentives are provided. This district farther recognizes the substantial access
advantages and support afford by the proposed Downtown component of the Metro Rail
Transit system and awards increased development intensities to the site approximate
to the stations. That is in an area that just this morning we discussed and
63 DEC 15 i981
Op
agreed on allowing a base FAR density of six to eight for offices and an increased
density for mixed use of up to 10.5. Failure to respond to that same kind of
FAR density in the Brickell area will 'thwart the development of this
area until such time as the City recognizes the demands that will be there. In
a previous meeting Mr. Luft commented that the Rapid Transit System itself as
the amount of transportation of people that would be equivalent to, I believe,
seven lanes of I-95. Was that... sixteen, I'm sorry, lanes of I-95 coming into
the area. Now, we are talking about a system that does not involve automobiles,
it involves people. People paying fares to help pay the cost of development.
That's the fixed Rapid Transit System itself, not something proposed, something
there. What is proposed though, is a second phase of the People Mover and that
would reflect the same kind of motion of people that was recognized in the
Omni area this morning, also a proposed system and yet used as part of the
substantiation for increasing the density in that particular area. It is a
failure, I believe, a tragic failure on the part of our community not to
recognize the'potential that can be achieved by this particular development
East of the Rapid Transit System to satisfy the demands of the international
clients that so greatly have identified the Brickell area for their headquarters.
But in order to compete with the Brickell area properties it will be important
to create the kind of mass that we will be talking about in FARs of seven to
twelve. I would like to propose that Mr. Plummer's comments relating to the
traditional land uses are very significant. I do accept certainly that there
are areas West of the Rapid Transit Station which are very well maintained
properties that reflected the demands at the time of the development fifteen
or twenty years ago. My clients have no interest in that particular area. My
comments are only addressed to what I think should be recognized in the community
and that is that it is a traditional area. However, it only houses some seven
hundred ninety units. Most of those properties were not built in the 1950's
If you are familiar with the area, most of those properties are significantly
older than that. I believe that if the City moved today to increase the base
FAR density to an FAR of seven on the East side of the Rapid Transit System
and allow for the market to demand the use of the properties and also reflected
the residential nature in special increased density zoning on the West side of
the railroad tracks you would have a cohesive used area that would be more
traditional in the way that the consumers in this market place have looked to
the community. It would also be away in which lenders would be more responsive
to becoming involved and it would be away in which developers would be very
interested in looking at development. I am familiar with the Wetzel Project.
I would like to point out that, that is a proposed project and as of this date,
unless representatives are here that are more familiar with it than I, I'm not
aware that funding has been secured, major tenancy has not been secured and there
is no commitment that the property will go ahead. What we see here may be an
example of what can be done drawn on paper, but it's not brick and mortar
utilized by the community, nor is it anything that we feel is reflective of
the kind of demands that now exist in the area. We would like to see this area
developed along with Rapid Transit, not ten years or fifteen or twenty years
later and I would respectfully submit to the Commission that failure to
increase these densities beyond this base FAR of seven will result in a further
deterioration of the area rather than a building and as Rapid Transit comes
on line the traditional patterns of use will probably create more office
activity outside of the Brickell area and ultimately have a negative affect,
rather than what we should be looking at and that is supporting and implementing
a better plan for the development of Brickell area. Thank you.
Mr. Dawkins: Anyone else from the public?
Mr. Max Pyanic: Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Max Pyanic. I live in the 1800 block of South Miami Avenue. I
maintain my office at 59 Southwest 9th Street between Miami Avenue and lst Avenue
where I own the property. I also own property on loth Avenue... loth Street
and represent clients owning property on 13th and 14th Streets.
Mayor Ferre: Let me see if we can... if you will forgive the interruption. We
have got a whole bunch of people with the Saint Patrick's Day Committee that
have been here, some from early in the morning and most all afternoon and I have
told them they are a pocket item, I really can't take them out of schedule.
So they are going to be here for another two and a half hours. Now, in view of
that, Howard, they said that they would be willing to... if you would put it
on a regular scheduled item in January. Since the parade is not until March
I think they can afford to wait. Saint Patrick's Day is what, the 17th of March?
See, so that they can afford to wait. Will you therefore, Jack Eads, yes,
would you schedule the Saint Patrick's Day Parade issue in the January meeting
as a regular scheduled item so that they can go home? We have got about seven
or eight people waiting, ok? Now, number two, let the record reflect Mr. Whipple
64 DEC 15 1981
A
or Perez-Lugones, that your preliminary thing is that my property in Espanola
is two hundred fourteen feet away, so I am within the three hundred feet and
therefore, I do have a conflict and will not be able to vote on this. Now,
the last thing I want to tell you is the last speaker said he would be short,
but he was ten minutes and I would appreciate your being a little bit shorter.
Mr. Pyanic: I would plan on being much briefer than that, Mr. Mayor. As
quickly as possible, what I wanted to say at this time is that from my standpoint
as a property owner in the area, certainly I cannot object to Mr. Bummaster's
request for greater FAR ratio, that's nice for me. But in my capacity as a
person who lives and works in that area and really has placed my investments
there because I felt it was such a great area, I would like to say that the
purpose behind all of the public meetings that took place concerning the Rapid
Transit Station and which lead to the plan which you passed and now the zoning
which is in front of you, was the idea of taking and accepting what a wonderful
thing Brickell Avenue was. What a great jewel and success it was and is as
an office building area and to recognize that the RCB zoning didn't create any
incentive for residential development and therefore, this plan developed. And
now to go ahead and raise the FAR ratios of Brickell Avenue from a 1.5 base
to a 3 base with a possible up to 4 is going to change the remaining character
of the street. The plan was to go ahead and see Brickell fill out and develop
and most of the sites are already committed towards some sort of development
along the lines that it already is and to see then, the remaining setback from
Brickell area towards the expressway start to fill in with greater develop and
then to bring residential into the area to keep a vibrant twenty-four hour a
day community with retail and theatre and arts and other things that would
make it worthwhile for people to be there on evenings, weekends, nights and
make it a better community to live in. I would like to say that I very much
approve of the plan as it has been...
Mayor Ferre: Thank you... I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but you have
been talking for four minutes and I still didn't know whether you were for or
against it.
Mr. Pyanic: I'm sorry. I'm very much in favor of the plan. I think that it
is a plan that will need as you have mentioned in the past, Mayor Ferre, to
be revised from time to time in light of the rapid growth of the area and that
special emphasis should aways be looked at to the immediate area surrounding
the Transit Station. Thank you, very much.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. Are there any other speakers on this issue?
Ms. Jane Theede: Dr. Jane Theede, 150 Southwest 7th Street. I have property
adjacent to this. First of all, I am very much in favor of it, but I do take
issue with several people that have spoken. First of all, Mr. Luft, tt,:s area
has already hit speculative areas. I have already been offered forty-five
dollars a square foot for my property, which I have turn down.and I'm not even
in this area. I am proposing in the block that I'm in that none of us sell
our property, that we unite and go home calm, we lease. That we go home calm.
We don't sell the property, we lease it. And I think that this is the only
way that with any sensibility and sensitivity this area is going to grow, otherwise,
property values are going to be so excessive that we are not going to be able
to maintain viability economically in this area. Now, instead of being ten
years ahead on this plan they are technically obsolete. Gasoline has already
caused people to start looking towards Downtown. The thing I would like to
call to the Commission's attention is in the City of Madrid there is an area
in which they have done something similar to this. It has already now been
in existence -ten or fifteen, twenty years and it's perhaps one of the most
beautiful areas in the world where they have mixed residential, office and commercial
development and they have lots of open space. You walk there freely anytime
that you want to and you can't say that about all areas of Madrid, even twenty
years ago. I do take issue with the Planning Department in as much as I
believe that instead of limiting the MXD from here to here, that it should be
brought on over I-95 right now.
Mayor Ferre: I agree with you.
Ms. Theede: No, wait just a second. When you open that Transit Station people
are going to start looking for office buildings within walking distance and
that your Transit Station is going to be the fossa of development and
Brickell Avenue is going to be forgotten. Now, what we have got to do is to
bring these two areas together harmoniously. You can't deny this. That area
is going to go first. My property is about eight hundred feet from ti�'T�ansit
65 �jtt 151981
development. I am an industrial zone which you A that you weren't going
to touch unless I asked for a change. Yet they are offering me forty-five dollars
a square foot this distance in an area that's not even changed. Now, you can't
tell me that the property values where those apartments are, that somebody is
not going to jump them like a June bug. -You know, if I had plenty of money
I would be in there right now buying up everything in sight. I just don't have
that kind of money and I'm not that much of a gambler. If I was a gambler
whether I had the money or not at these interest rates I would be taking it.
So, you know, let's face reality. I think the first thing that your department
is going to have to do and the Commission is going to have to do, there are
three dinky buildings that were built on Southwest Sth Street, almost backed
up to that Transit Station. I can't understand how anybody in the Building
Department or the Zoning Department ever permitted those to be built and I
think the first thing you are going to have to do is put a building moratorium
on it and say, if you are not going to build something big and pretty, you
don't build. Now, you only repair what is necessary and when it gets dilapidated
to a certain point you tear it down. Now, we are going to have to start
being that pogitive with this area.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, thank you, Dr. Theede. Janet, keep it short.
Ms. Janet Cooper: I'm trying. Janet Cooper, 1901 Brickell. When this ordinance
came before the Planning Advisory Board the FARs were lower than what's been
proposed in the adjustments. They made sense then. They don't make so mucn
sense now. One of the reasons is that the RCB district which is immediately
adjacent to it and closer to the Bay was going to be and I have just checked
and it's still proposed to be five, except that those properties adjacent
right on the Bay would be allowed a maximum of six. Here we are allowing
six West of Brickell. So, it doesn't make the whole thing seem like a system
that makes any sense. Also, the MXD-3, which is immediately adjacent to the
area in which my organization, Save Brickell Avenue is concerned had previously
a maximum of 4.68. We are not trying to fight development and we supported
development in the proper area and this is the proper area, but bringing that
MXD district up to 5.68 is too much to put adjacent to a residential area
that has now a maximum of 2.2. The parking required in MXD-2 and MXD-3 is
one space per dwelling unit. I think that reduced parking when you are very
close to Rapid Transit is a good thing, but I think that you are not close
enough to the Rapid Transit and People Mover in those two districts to justify
that kind of a reduction in parking requirements. So, I think while the reduction
in parking is a good thing for MXD-2, which is right around the Transit Station,
that it's bad to reduce parking in the MXD-2 and MXD-3 to that extent. And
lastly, I raised before the Planning Advisory Board the issue of the River walk
which was suggested as a bonus by the Planning Department. I suggested to the
Planning Advisory Board that they may get a requirement rather than a bonus.
They agreed and I think it was unanimous. I can't remember and I don't have
my notes. But they also agreed to make the River walk requirement unanimous.
Last night I was informed by the Legal Department that they removed it. I would
like you to put it back in. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I agree with that.
Mr. Dan Paul: For the record, my name is Dan Paul, 1300 Southeast First
National Bank Building and I want to speak to the last point that Janet raised,
because we are about to give away the River walk and the Bay walk in these
two ordinances and it is essential if you are going to raise the FAR and I
have no hang up about that. These areas deserve a higher density without any
question, but for goodness sakes make that higher density conditional on
dedicating a River walk of twenty feet and a Bay walk of twenty feet and the
way to get around the legal hang up, is very simple, don't make it a bonus,
but provide that those increased FARs don't apply unless they do dedicate that
River walk and that Bay walk.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Dan, to get right down to it, why did we remove that?
Mr. Percy: The Law Department recommended that the mandatory pedestrian walkway
provision be deleted since that's more restrictive tnan the Charter aLuandment
permits presently and it's set up on a trade off basis in which we had less of
a problem with the confiscating feature and we didn't think it would withstand
a legal challenge.
Mayor Ferre: Confiscating, we are giving these people a tremendous boost in
the value of their property by doing what we are doing. As far as I'm concerned
I will tell you, I don't know how the rest of this Commission feels, but you don't
have my vote unless you have chiseled into stone there that the people of Miami
Latin and Anglo, White and Black, male and female, Christians and Jews can
walk on that water.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question, Danny to you or to the department.
66 DCC A r 1�g
Mr. Plummer:(Cont'd) I think what I hear from the legal department iR, that that
stipulation is only going to apply to those people who own property adjacent
to the river. Now, as you can see and I can see, that which is proposed, it
says I assume is down to S. W. 8th Street in the MXD-2. Now, how would you
say to a person on the river "we are going to give those people south of you
the same rights, but you have got to dedicate or you have got to give them
the property."
Mayor Ferre: Give them a little extra.
Mr. Plummer: That's what it would seem like to me. Those people who are
going to be giving up something have got to be given the incentive to give
up in return,
Ms. Cooper: I don't mind giving them extra so long as you make it a require-
ment, and I see no difference...
Mayor Ferre: Right. Mr. Manager, to you and to the Department and Terry...
I don't know how the rest of this Commission feels, but I go along with what
Plummer just said, and that is, we are going to have to give those people
along the waterfront a little extra, but it has to be mandatory. It is no
"ifs".
Mr. Carcjllo: It is beginning to look like the Dan Paul - Janet Cooper show
here and our department is getting gonged down.
. No, the Department was right. The Department had it in there
to begin with.
Mayor Ferre: Heh - partnership here!
Ms. Cooper: We work on things that we think are meritorious
Mr. Paul But let's be clear that when it goes back that the bonus is
only on top of the existing F.A.R., because otherwise you will have a legal
problem and to answer the question you asked, Commissioner Plummer, there is
obviously no reason in treating riverfront property differently from other
property. As you know for environmental and all sorts of reasons, people
are not permitted to fill, the different setbacks that are required along
the river, but I think you could do it without the bonus, but I think in fair-
ness, that you ought to give the bonus once you have made it a mandatory re-
quirement to dedicate the river walk. In order to save time, this same prob-
lem exists in the next one that is coming up also.
Mayor Ferre: In order to save time, you have heard Plummer's expression,
do you want to mend anything he said? Okay. You all concur?
Mr. Carollo: What we are talking about is what this Department has placed
before us, right?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but, the Department deleted the waterfront walk provisions
based on a legal constraint and what we are trying to do is get around it and
the way we do it, ! think, is by saying that we will give you extra, but it
is mandatory.
Ms. Coopers And as it is written now, it is not mandatory; it is optional.
Mayor Ferre: Janet, I am trying to get a consensus here now. Is there a
consensus to agree or disagree.
Mr. Carollo: Maurice, let me tell you what I think. I think that if the
people in our Department need Dan Paul to show them how to do this, then
we should fire whoever the hell we have working for us and hire Dan Paul.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm afraid his price might be a little higher.
Mr. Carollo: Yes well, don't worry, you know, I am sure someone is taking
the bill somewhere. You know, I don't object to any citizen. It is there
right to come before this Commission. But, you know, it is getting kind of
embarrassing for us sitting here that our people that work for us who are
supposed to be our experts. You know, everytime they give something to us
Id 67
DEC 15 1981
they are being told that it is not exactly right, it is being changed. Well
darn it, you know, I wanted for you to give it to us right from the start, or
you know back up when they are giving it. Who is running the Planning and
Zoning Department anyway, Dan Paul and a couple of other people out there in
the community or our experts that are being paid darn well for it?
Mayor Ferre: Okay. I think you have a valid point, but the question still
remains, is it right or wrong.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me voice another concern
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. I am trying to get a consensus here, because we
don't have a consensus.
Mr. Plummer:' Well, I think it is pertinent, Mr. Mayor. To the Department, are
there any of the properties now existing in that area which is being talked
about for the river walkfront, that 20 feet setback would in fact forever keep
that property from being used ... my question is, are you in effect, completely taking
up a person's total ownership if he dedicates the 20 feet?
Ms. Myers: They are required to setback 50 feet by the Charter Amendment.
Your family says that the 20 feet adjacent to the water has to have public
access.
Mr. Plummer: Fine. I have no problem there. I didn't want to do like the
expressway did - leave a lot of 12 foot lots, 14 foot lots chopped up.
Mayor Ferre: Regardless of who said what, and who is behind what, the question
is, do you agree, or don't you agree. We are trying to get a 20 foot..
Mr. Plummer: I will settle it for you by making a motion that it be imposed,
the 20 foot public right-of-way access be imposed upon this development. And
then we can speak to the Senate...
Mayor Ferre: And that is the development you are talking about, the MXD-2.
That is what we are talking about, isn't it?
Mr. Plummer: Basically, yes.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, it is in the form of a motion. Is there a second? Is
there any discussion on it. Does anyone have any problems with this?
Mr. Plummer: For discussions purposes and on the record, we will then speak
at a later time to an incentive for those particular people affected, or
those properties affected. Okay.
Mayor Ferre: They are going to have to come back on Second Reading on this
issue. Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 81-1070
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCES GOVERNING MXD COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL,
MIXED USE DISTRICTS, THAT A 20 FEET PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR
ACCESS BE IMPOSED UPON THE MXD-2 DISTRICT (ONLY MXD DISTRICT
WHICH BORDERS ON THE WATERFRONT).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
NOES: None.
G8 DEC 151981
Mayor Ferre: Alright, what else have we got?
Ms. Cooper: Don't forget the parking and the F.A.R. in MXD-3 which I sug-
gested be reduced back to 4.68 rather than 5.68,please. The parking require-
ments for IUD 2 & 3 which I say is 2.0 at one space per dwelling unit and
the MXD-3 F.A.R. I suggest not be raised an additional point to 5.68. I
think it should be left at 4.68.
Mayor Ferre. Do you want to speak to those two issues?
Mr. Luft: I repeat, the F.A.R. has been very carefully constructed. I am
sure Janet has, as much as she has studied Claughton Island, she has not
studied MX:D; and we very carefully constructed these F.A.R.'s, and we abso-
lutely do not recommend going from a 4.68 back to to a 3.68; a 5.68 to a
4.68 and we do not recommend tampering with their parking. Parking is only
1 to 500 for the office already. That is a very modest change, and when
you are building that many parking garages on Brickell which are sitting
vacant every night and all day Saturday and all day Sunday and we are not
using those for residential parking and we are going right back to where we
are building double parking garages, Mayor you commented earlier today, "Do�
we realize on One Biscayne how much mass is involved in tnat parking garages,
and now we are going right back to building parking garages as though rapid
transit wasn't within that 1500 foot walk. In Claughton Island fine, but
not here.
Ms. Cooper: My comments was regards only to residential parking, not office
parking, and only in the districts that are not within a 1500 foot walk of
rapid transit.
Mayor Ferre: Janet, this is on First Reading. I will be happy to discuss
it with you at this point. Somebody else may want to make the motion, you
don't have me. Anybody want to discuss this any further. Alright, what is
the will of this Commission on Item 5(a), as amended?
Mr. Plummer: The only amendment is that motion of mine?
Mayor Ferre: The only amendment I know of is your motion, plus there is an
insertion of a section which they passed around.
Mr. Plummer: It is called "Proposed Amendment to M.
Mayor Ferre: That's it. Okay. Is there a motion?
Mr. Plummer: This is relation to the underground parking. Maurice, are you
in favor of this?
Mayor Ferre: First reading, I am in favor of it. I have no problem with it.
Mr. Plummer: I will move it, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, it has been moved and seconded. Further discussion.
This is on first reading. Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITI.ED-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III - ZONING DISTRICTS -
SECTION 1 BY ADDING: MXD-1, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
MIXED USE DISTRICT, M)M-2 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
MIXED USE DISTRICT, MXD-3 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CON-
TAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
69 DEC 15 1981
04\
a
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
NOES: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the members of the public.
13. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ADD ARTICLE XIV-2 C0101ERCIAL -
RESIDEidTIAL MXD-1, MXD-2 AND MXD-3 DISTRICTS.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, how about 5(b).
Mr. Bill Colson: Mr. Mayor, can I ask you a favor? We have an agenda
item on southeast that is later. I have a lecture at the Urban League...
Mayor Ferre: We will take you up as soon as we have finished this. Mr. Uolson,
and for those others that have come in recently, throughout the day I have been
saying that if anyone has a time constraint problem..I'm sorry,Rick Horrow has
to be at Key West this evening and he has to go in just a little while. I pro-
mised to take him first and I will take you second. If anyone else has a time
problem of this sort, please let me know. Alright, just state what your pro-
blem is and we will take you accordingly.
Ms..inanne Holzhauser: I am not sure which one it is, but the one concerning
permission for vendors to operate in Coconut Grove, which is a part of another
ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: The question is not what the issue is, the question is what
your hardship is here with time.
Ms.Joanne Holzhauser: My hardship is very simple. Today I am the one who
has to go to the grocery store and cook supper and I think that was Item 1
on the agenda. I've been here all day.
Mayor Ferre: Which agenda? See that is the problem. We got in a real bad
bind. We have 2 agendas today. Alright, I want to go to the grocery store
too -Okay, we got anything else? Alright, we are on 5(b). Does anyone have
a problem with 5(b). Let's see if we can get through all these things now.
Mr. Plummer; How does (b) differ from (a)?
Mr. McManus: The (a) item is just a title change in the earlier section of
the ordinance. In (b) you are getting down to the substance.
Mayor Ferre: But the substance we have already discussed. Alright, as amended
is there a motion on first reading? Moved by Carollo, seconded by Plummer.
Read the ordinance.
DEC 1 51981
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.6871, AS AMENDED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XIV-2 COMMERCIAL RESI-
DENTIAL-MXD-1, MXD-2,MXD-3 DISTRICTS, PROVIDING FOR
INTENTS, USE REGULATIONS, LIMITATIONS ON USES, FLOOR
AREA RATIOS, SETBACKS AND MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN
BUILDINGS, HEIGHTS, PEDESTRIAN STREETS, PARKING
RETAIL FRONTAGE, PEDESTRIAN SPACE THEATRE, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE, SIGNS AND SITE
AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL; AND BY REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON -
FLICK AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Plummer
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor ,Maurice A. Ferre.
NOES: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the members of the public.
14 FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUNDED BY
MIAMMI RIVER, METRORAIL R.O.W., S.8 ST. & BRICKELL AVENUE,
FROM RCB, C-2, C-4 AND WR TO MXD-2.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY THE MIAMI RIVER ON THE NORTH, THE RAPID TRANSIT
(METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST, SOUTH 8TH STREET ON
THE SOUTH AND A LINE APPROXIMATELY 190' WEST OF AND
PARALLEL TO BRICKELL AVENUE ON THE EAST FROM R-CB RESIDEN-
TIAL OFFICE, C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, C-4 GENERAL COM-
MERCIAL AND W-R WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL TO MXD-2 COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND BY MAKING ALL THE NEC-
CESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF
SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF, BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS: OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Plummer
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:'
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
NOES: None
71 DEC 15 119$1
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to members of the public.
15. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUNDED BY S.
8 ST., METRORAIL R.O.W., S.W. 13 ST., S. MIAMI AVE & BRICKELL
PLAZA FROM R-CB AND RC-1 & C-2 TO MXD-1.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion on 5(d)? Perez moves. Plummer seconds. Further
discussion..'Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY SOUTH 8TH STREET ON THE NORTH, THE RAPID TRANSIT
(METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST, SOUTHiT ST 13TH STREET
ON THE SOUTH AND SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE AND BRICKELL PLAZA (SOUTH-
EAST FIRST AVENUE) ON THE EAST FROM R-CB RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
COMMERCIAL AND C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO MXD-1 COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND BY MAKING ALL THE NEC-
NESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF
SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF, BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Plummer
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
NOES: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the members of the public.
16. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUNDED BY S.W.
13TH ST., METRORAIL R.O.W., S.W. 15 RD., & S. MIAMI AVE. FROM
RCB TO MXD-3.
Mayor Ferre: Take up 5(e).
sion? Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
Plummer moves, Dawkins seconds. Further discus -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN
AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET ON
THE NORTH, THE RAPID TRANSIT (METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY
ON THE WEST, SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD ON THE SOUTH AND
SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE ON THE EAST FROM R-CB RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE TO M)�M-3 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE
E2 DEC 151981
DI R1CT, AND BY MAKING ALL THE NEQMSARY CHANGES
IW E ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A ..,RT OF SAID
ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION
IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF, BY REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF
IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and an-
nounced that'copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the members of the public.
17. DISCUSSION ITEM: LOCATION OF NEW STADIUM AND STATEMENTS RE-
GARDING USE OF ORANGE BOWL AND MIAMI STADIUM PROPERTIES.
Mayor Ferre: I am going to ask Commissioner Plummer to introduce generally
the subject, since he is the Vice -Chairman and I guess now the Acting Chair-
man since we have a resignation of Steve Muss of the Sports Authority, if you
will explain where we stand and where we are at.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you personally appeared at the last Sports Authority
meeting and you gave your personal opinions and somewhat, you felt, the feeling
of other Commissioners relating to the turning over of the Orange Bowl and Base-
ball Stadium to the Sports Authority in toto. You outlined a number of, what
you felt were requirements, if in fact, that transfer was going to take place.
Mayor Ferre: Please make sure that the record reflects that I was speaking
for myself and that I was saying to the process that I thought that there was
consensus on these general areas, but I couldn't obviously guarantee it.
Mr. Plummer: Yes sir, I said that you were speaking for yourelf personally,
but also expressing, you felt, the consensus. Among those things, No. 1 was
that the City of Miami, in turning over that property would have to have
greater representation on the Authority. You, No. 2, that the name "Miami"
should exist in the new facility. It did not have to be the Miami Orange
Bowl in your expression, but it would be the Orange Bowl in Miami or something
with the wording, Miami included. One stipulation, No. 3 that you made was
that absolutely no way would be there any guarantee or monies derived from
ad valorem taxes for the new facility. I believe that was most of the points
that you made.
Mayor Ferre: The 4th one was that it had to be, the new stadium had to be
within the boundaries of the City of Miami. With regard to that stipulation
on ad valorem taxes, let me make sure that ... it wasn't quite that drastic.
I think what I said was that I would assume that there would be no ad valorem
taxes. And if indeed the Sports Authority or the Metro County Commission wanted
to go to a7d valorem taxes, then we would want the opportunity perhaps to
retain our priorities. It wasn't a statement de facto that there would be
no ad valorem, but that we assume there were no ad valorem and if there would,
then we wanted have a little input into priorities.
Mr. Plummer: Alright. Well, bringing up to date and the reason for Mr.
Horrow's appearance here todaywere to let the Commission give an expression
to Mr. Horrow, from the full Commission relating to those points, keeping
in mind that you made those prior to selection of the Buena Vista site. One
of the main ingredients of selection of the Buena Vista site was that the
acquisition of land basically would be a wash, as referred to, because the
City would donate those two facilities to the Sports Authority and that in
fact, that monies derived therefrom would be sufficiently, hopefully to pur-
chase the Buena Vista site. As you know, in opposition to the Opa Locka site
73 DEC 15 '1981
which is already owned by the County, it was stated for the reasons of the
vote that neither site would need dollars to purchase - additional dollars.
As such, Mr. Horrow has appeared here today. He is the Executive Director
and I will tell my members of my Commission has done a job that has been
tremendous in the Sports Authority. He, with Mr. Muss has just devoted
an untiring amount of effort, hours in trying to meet an almost impossible
time table laid out by Mr. Muss from its inception. I have always requested
and will continue to do such that Mr. Horrow understands that this Commission
will give him hopefully today a consensus, a sense of direction of where they
are coming from and where they will be going to. He then hopefully will take
this information back to the Sports Authority in its next regularly scheduled
meeting which is January 12 so that the members of the Authority can take
all of that into consideration before it reaches the Metropolitan Dade County
Commission. •Let me state for the record one thing that was not made apparent
along the way. The actual site selection will be made in its entirety by the
Sports Authority. The Metro Commission will only speak to the bonding of the
new facilities if in fact it will require bond.
Mayor Ferre: You are kidding. I didn't know that.. You mean to say that the
Metro Commission will not impose their will?
Mr. Plummer. The Metro Commission does not have, if I recall the wording, the
site selection will be done by the Sports Authority. It is not subject to the
approval of the Metro Commission. Now, Mr. Mayor, you know, and I know, that
the bottom line is dollars and that is where they will get to express their
opinion and their will, because everything else can go by the board. Now
that is not a problem at this point. I don't know of any problem existing
between the Sports Authority and the Metro Commission for them to exercise
at the very end that perogative of saving "no dollars", which in effect would
kill. So, all I am saying is I hope that the members of this Commission,
whether by motion or resolution will give sufficient information to Mr. Horrow
to carry back to the Sports Authority for its next meeting.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, before you vote, I would like to say a few
words on this.
Mayor Ferre: I will recognize you at the proper time.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Before you vote.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Plummer, what I would like to know is, I have a statement last
Sunday that the Sports Authority chose the Buena Vista site with the City of
Miami. Was this a final decision?
Mr. Plummer: Well, how final is final Mr. Perez? Let me say this to you.
By a six to three vote, they selected that as the primary site. Now, of course,
it is subject to a number of things. One, and the big one, is negotiating with
the FEC for the acquisition of that property as opposed to their proceeding
under condemnation procedures. Now, that is number one, and that is the big
"if". You know, if they can't negotiate with FEC, then it is out the window,
so what I am saying to you is, that first and foremost, my opinion of what
the authority did was picked that as the primary site. If it hits stumbling
blocks insurmountable, no, it is not cast in stone. But it is the full thought
of a six to three vote that that was the site to be selected and to proceed in
that way, unless they hit a complete brick wall, at which time they would then
go back to the drawing board and pick another primary site.
Mr. Perez: But we have understood that a member of this Sports Authority, I
think Mr. Masvidal made that statement last Sunday, the problem of Buena
Vista.
Mr. Plummer: You mean that it was not a final decision? Well, no, excuse me.
In my estimation, a final decision would be the equivalent of the purchasing
of that property, or the total rejection. That would be the final decision,
as far as site is concerned. My understanding of our action of the Authority,
if in fact it can be negotiated, and if the City of Miami is willing to give
up its facilities to provide the funds, then that is the site.
Mr. Perez: Then it is independent of the City of Miami now?
Mr. Plummer: Well, it is independent only to such extent that if the Sports
Authority does not have the dollars in which to negotiate for the site which
is privately owned, then, you know it is not independent, no, not at all.
74 DEC 51981
014
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I have a few things I would have to see before my
vote would go along in.....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Carollo, may I interrupt you, because Maurice there was one
other main important thing that you made that was a part of the criteria you
all might want to speak to. That was, that if at any time the new facilities
were to be defunct or not exist, that it would revert back to the City of Miami
or the equivalent of what we gave in the same way that we did with the Water
Department when it was transferred to Metropolitan Dade County. It was with
the proviso that at any time that those facilities were not being used, or it
went defunct, that it came back to the City, so there was another provision.
I wanted to bring that to your attention.
Mr. Carollo:: No. 1, I am greatly disturbed that here again is another major
committee that has been formed in this county and again, you have one token,
I use the expression, Hispanic. The County Commission had six appointments
to make. They did not name a single Hispanic to that Commission. Over 40%
of this County is Hispanic. There are nine members on that Board; only one
is Hispanic. Maybe there are people on the County Commission that think
that the Cuban or Puerto Rican kids don't like to play football or baseball?
Maybe there are people in this community that think that all we like is playing
dominoes. I got news for you. Over 40% of the taxpayers of this County, and
I say taxpapers,because I am talking before the Muriel boatlift, the census
stated that 40%, almost 41% of this County was Hispanic. If over 40% of this
County is Hispanic, I think that this committee, it is a very important com-
mittee deserves more than just one token Hispanic to be a member of it. And
this City deserves a heck of a lot more of a representation than a third of
of the members that it has now, especially if you need a tckee to eet vnur
laundry.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Carollo: Right, but I am saying that the City only has a third of the
board members, so what I am looking for is for the City of Miami to get an
equal representation in that board so that we can appoint people from the
City of Miami, especially people that make up the City of Miami. That is
No. 1. No. 2, I also am a strong believer that this stadium has to be built
in the City of Miami and has to have the name of Miami in it somewhere, whether
it is Miami -Dade, or Dade -Miami, but Miami has to be in that name. Thirdly,
when this is all finally built, I want to see the City of Miami get some tax
revenue for it. I don't want to see this being a tax-exempt stadium. I think
that the citizens of Miami..
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Carollo: Exactly, the commercial part, Maurice. To make what I am saying
perfectly clear, I am not referring to the stadium itself, I am referring to
the commercial activities that are going on at the stadium. I don't think
that our citizenry should share that double burden of that and last, but not
least, if again for some unexpected unforeseen reason, the Sports Authority
dissolves, that it is not either the Orange Bowl or the baseball stadium comes
back directly to us, if they haven't sold already, then we get the equivalent
of whatever monies was derived from us. And, a fifth one, which goes hand in
hand with appointing additional members from the City to the Sports Authority.
We have no say as to whom the County is going to appoint there. We don't
get to, you know, give our blessings to say "yes, we approve this guy; we
don't approve that guy". I don't think it is fair that whomever the City
appoints, the County gets to give its approval to.
Mayor Ferre: It is worst than that. What they do is, we appoint and they
have a right to veto, so in effect, it is their apppointment, not ours.
Mr. Carollo: Well in essence that is what I am saying, Maurice, that, you
know, whoever they want gets appointed, whoever they don't, doesn't get
appointed. Those are the five points that I feel very strongly about and
if we are going to be talking about giving something as important to us,
that has been a big money getter for us, like the Orange Bowl; it has over
80 acres and then the baseball stadium that has an additional large amount
of acreage, then we had better make sure that the interest of the people of
Miami is protected and we are just not going to be turning in another nice
plum so that the County could run it. Those are the five points that I would
like to see, sir.
75 DEC
15 1981
Ok 04,
Mr. Plummer: Joe, would you express even a little bit further, if you would.
Of your five points... (GAP IN TAPE).
Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, wait, Joe 6 J. L., wait a moment. I would respect-
fully recommend that we riot do that today. I think Commissioner Carollo has
expressed his opinion very, very strongly, and I...you don't know whether
you are ready to cross the bridge until you get there. Why should we now,
at this stage of the game cast this thing in stone and then all of a sudden,..
I am sorry, cast this thing in concrete and then end up having to ... you know,
you never know what is going to happen. I think that it is good that we ex-
press our positions for public record, but I don't think that we ought to
get to the point of saying "well, that is non-negotiable, that is negotiable",
I don't know what is really negotiable until they make ... you don't know what
they are coming up with.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor...
Mr. Plummer: Let me just answer that please. Mr. Mayor, the only reason I
am asking that was for this purpose. Iam not trying to kill it, but the
Sports Authority is looking to the City Commission to know whether to pro-
ceed to negotiate or not.
Mayor Ferre: Fine, then let's each Commissioner express his position in
specific terms, but without casting in stone. For the moment you say "I
want to know if that", obviously Carollo is going to say, and I am going to
say, all of my positions are non-negotiable. Okay? And the next thing you
do, is you kill the Buena Vista site automatically, and I don't think we
want to do that, quite yet.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I would like to say that based on the opinion that
I have, I mean the information I have at this time, my position is this.
We do not have equal representation & I am not in favor of giving up the
Orange Bowl, nor the Miami Stadium unless. from that day on, whether it is
equal numbers; I have no difficulty with whether the county has 15 members
and we have 5, but I want the County to have one vote, and the City of Miami
to have one vote. Now however you work that out, that is fine with me, but
coming to the bed tax, we topk a beating. I will help you understand what
I am saying, if you have a problem with it, okay? When it comes to the bed
tax, we take a beating. When it came to you people taking the Tourist Develop-
ment money -not you people, I mean them- you take it, money that was earmarked
for renovation of the Orange Bowl, everything was done with it but what the
City of Miami wanted done with it, so unless this board promises me that
there will be one city, one vote, then I am not in favor of it. The other thing
I have is that when this facility goes defunct, I want to know who is going to
pick up the tab, the City of Miami, the County or the investors, and then I
will be ready to vote.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, Demetrio, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Perez: Yes. I think we will have to be very strong in the name of the
City of Miami. I think that the name of the City has to appear in the pro-
ject in anyhow. I think that we have to be very strong in that matter and I
support that equal representation from the City of Miami at the time that
that have to vote. I think that we need one vote as the other part of the
committee, but the name of the City of Miami is very important. That is my
position and that is what I want to explain before the vote.
UNIDENTIFIED'SPEAKER: Mayor, may I say a few words before you...
Mayor Ferre: Yes sir, after the elected members of this Commission finish
speaking and we are not finished speaking yet. Anybody else? I want to
just add this additional thought. We are on a very think thread, at best.
It isn't because of Joe Robbie's attacking it and McMullen is now on a new
tangent about roofs and non -roofs and how sits in a ski cabin, or whatever
it is in North Carolina with a heated television set - what the hell does
that got to do with any of this. But off he went, and of course that is
how he reaches logical conclusions, sitting in front of a fire in a cabin in
North Carolina with the heat of his television set and so then he had this
awakening, and of course all he is doing is adding more fuel to the fire.
Instead of trying to limit, I have finally come to action No. 2 about how
things happen in Miami. Action No. 1 is, it is not what, but who. You
always deal on who, not what. What is being proposed is not important, it
is who is proposing it. And if I like him and I get along with him,then it
d 1 DEC 1 519C9
Id
is okay; if I don't then it is a bad deal. Never what, always who. Action
No. 2 that I finally concluded after having watched 11r. MuMullen function
and others in the editorial department of the press arcund here, is you
never control, you never hold back. If you got anything to say, even if it
destroys the ultimate goal, it doesn't matter. You say it and you just put
it out there just to say it. Logic has nothing to do with it, and so here
this man sits in front of his fireplace in the log cabin and comes to the
conclusion that... if you take it to its ultimate conclusion, he has killed
Buena Vista. Of course he doesn't realize that, because he doesn't ever
think things through to its ultimate conclusion. The next conclusion ob-
viously is, that Mr. Thornton and the FEC is not going to go for a football
stadium on the Buena Vista yard. It doesn't make any sense and the last
time we went through that rigamarole, it took us eight years of court battles,
and we still•are not out of court of fighting the FEC. Now there is only one
way we can go to the Buena Vsta site and that is with the concurrence of the
FEC railroad, and the FEC railroad is not going to concur to put a football
stadium, which is used 15 times a year and which is what McMullen is basical-
ly recommending. Now, I want the coliseum as much, if not more than anybody
else in the downtown area of the river. But I want you to understand that
if it requires the sacrifice of that coliseum so that we can get a major
sports facility done, then I think we have to have restraint and constraints.
We are all going to have to give in a little to get this. Because I will
tell you one thing. If we are not going to ad valorem taxes to build that
stadium, then the only other way it can be done is by selling sky boxes,
by selling seats on a condominium basisby putting up commercial projects
wrapped around the stadium, but going to live television shows, political
conventions, rock concerts, boxing matches and just keep things going that
are money producers into that facility. If you don't do it that way, then
you are talking about some subsidies from the tax payers. If you are going
to go to a subsidized stadium like New Orleans went or like Houston, or
others and in those days they could afford to do it - then I think we have
got major, major problems. If we are going to go to ad valorem taxes, then
I think Buena Vista, and in my opinion, Opa Locka and Lake Lucerne are dead.
I just don't think it is going to pass because it doesn't have that kind of
a priority, and that is why I made that point of saying that if we go to
ad valorem taxes, then I want to have the opportunity to revisit, because
I think we can take the cream, which is the coliseum, put it in downtown and
make it pay for itself. That part is easy to do. Then we may just have to
build a football stadium and it is going to cost $40,000,000.... Joe Robbie
used to say 30 million, now he is up to 40. That means it will cost 50
million dollars. And we may have to limit just having a football stadium in
Opa Locka or Lake Lucerne for 50 million dollars and then we will have to
worry about baseball sometime in the future. We might take the Orange Bowl
and convert that into a baseball stadium. We can do that for 20 million
dollars. We have a study that we can dust off of the shelves and we had
all these things studies over the past years, so I think we have got to be
very careful that we are not the culprits in this thing and that we are not
the ones that kill this opportunity. I think hangs on a thread anyway and
I don't want...I would hate for this Commission to be the responsible body
for killing this project which I think is important to the well-being of
this community psychologically any otherwise. Let us give them a chance to
see it through.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I take my time, since I have heard everything
that you have said and of course I sit there as your representative and just
take my time, Mr. Mayor to express my disappointment in the resignation of
Mr. Steve Muss as chairman. Mr. Mayor, I have never seen a man who dedicated
himself, his efforts, his time and a great deal of his own money to do what
he thought was the will of this community. I sat and watched the frustration
that he was feeling, because he is a man of the private sector who goes about
the business and does it and does it now. And he was not so much familiar
with how you have to deal in the public sector, and those people will always
express their opinion. Mr. Mayor, this man at the inception of the Sports
Authority set a time table that I would have bet my bottom dollar was un-
achievable, but he has done it, and to this point, at the point of his resig-
nation, he has worked himself and Mr. Horrow at a pace that was unbelievable
to bring us about to this. And I think that this City owes Mr. Muss a thank
you for what he has brought us to to this point and the disappointment that
he will not be continuing. You might agree or disagree with his point, but
the man was dedicated to what he thought was the best for this community.
77 DEC
1519gi
Mr. Plummer: (con't) We fully understand that no
the committee, and the greatest failing that could
has been started and brought to this point, not to
and desire that whoever the new member is that is
the Metro Commission meeting, whether he is for or
a, whatever, that he join with the spirit that has
committee to proceed and proceed now. I just felt
the record, Mr. Mayor.
one person can make or break
occur is for that work which
continue, and I would hope
appointed on January 5th at
against a site or a dome or
been felt within this
that I had to put that on
Mayor Ferre: Let me add my voice to yours in publicly thanking Steve Muss for
what I know was a hard thing for him to do. He took a lot of flack and a lot
of heat and some of us can go home and go to sleep and forget about all this
stuff from here around here all day, and others can't, and Steve Muss is one
of those who' can't. I know that it has been a real burden on him and he
really tries and I think this whole community owes him a great debt of thanks.
I am sorry to see him go. It is an inopportune time for him to leave, in the
j middle of this very difficult task, but I respect him, and I respect his right
j to resign, and I thank him and I wish him well.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I will bring that message to him. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else? Alright. Ernie?
Mr.Fannatto: Ernie Fannatto is my name and I am president of the Taxpayers of
Miami and Dade County. You know, I think Mr. Plummer's point was taken very
well when he was at the Sports Authority and the approximate price of the
Sports Authority was, - Commissioner Plummer, would you tell the Commission,
after the interest and 30 year obligations, how much was the total price?
Mr. Plummer: Mr-Fannatto, the price for the Buena Vista site was....
Mr. Fannatto: No, no. I mean the total price containing all the obligations
of the interest and principle of the 30-year obligation.
Mr. Plummer: On the Buena Vista site, it was $720,000,000. On the Opa
Locka site it was $760,000,000. Let me for edification clarify. On the Buena
Vista site, for total construction of the facilities amounted to $202,000,000,
as I recall and the thing that caught most people off guard was that the debt
service on the monies for that amount in the 29 year obligation was
$510,000,000 for debt service. That same debt service in proportion applied
to all three sites.
Mr. Fannatto: Now gentlemen, as Commissioners, Mayor, you hear this. Isn't
this an astronomical amount of money, $700,000,000 debt that you are going to
vote away of the taxpayers' money, just because you are going to have a repre-
sentative on the Commission, let's be business. If you want to be business,
let's act business. I am going to tell you this here, this will never pay at
seven hundred and some thousand dollars. You know what Robbie pays you?
$425,000 a year. Do you know what the total income you get from the City of
Miami? Close to $800,000, with all the fees, the parking and concessions and
everything. Not even $1,000,000. You are going to have to pay $700,000,000
with these kinds of funds. Now, let me tell you about Mr. Horrow. I like him,
he is a nice fellow. But is he business. He comes up with an appraisal in
Texas. Now listen to this. In 1972, he said they built a stadium there.
Now, I am not interested in 1972, we had a good stock market was okay, the
interest rates were low, the prime rate was low, inflation was low, but this
is 1980. �1 want a 1980-81 appraisal. This is ridiculous. Then he comes up
with sky box. Now you are talking about sky boxes too, Mayor. He says in
Texas they sold $50,000,000 worth of sky boxes and the price $200,000 to
$250,000 for each sky box. I am going to ask you both. If you were president
of a corporation with the conditions the way they are today and the business
and people are laying off trying to break even, would you buy sky box at
$200,000 and $250,000? Why they are not going to buy those sky boxes. How
many do you think they are going to sell? 15 or 20? But yet they keep tell-
ing you that they are going to do what they did in Texas with the conditions,
172 would change the sky boxes. Now, going to the Orange Bowl. Gentlemen,
you are the employees of this....
Mayor Ferre. Ernie, we are not deciding anything here.
Mr. Fannatto: Wait a minute I am going to tell you again that I want to give
you some points.
78 iDkU 15 1981
0
Mayor Ferre: I know you like to get up on a soapbox and...
Mr. Fannatto: Yes, but you are going to have to decide and I think that you
should know some of these things.
Mayor Ferre: We are not deciding anything. This is not a public hearing;
I am doing this out of courtesy to you. Will you wind up your statement,
you have two more minutes and that is it.
Mr. Fannatto: Wait a minute, I want to go a little further here. Yes, well
I am going to give you a supreme court decision here, Mayor, saying that you
can take that stadium and can borrow on it, you can build and you can trade,
but you can't give it away without a referendum of the people. Now here is
an opinion hare and this is just the tail end of it. And you can't, even if
you use revfnue bonds, you can't use any other forms of money. You can't
use franchise money, the moment you do, you have to have a referendum and
here is the supreme court decision and I don't have it just like an average
person. This happens to come from some court of jurisdiction, the highest.
Here is what it says: "A referendum is required if other revenues, public
pledge, ad valorem tax or franchise monies are used". That means that you
don't have the right and anybody and step in and go to a court of jurisdic-
tion and get an injunction forbidding you from transferring the Orange Bowl
unless the public, through referendum.
Mayor Ferre: Do me a favor. Terry, would you get that information.
Mr. Fannatto: Yes, but Mayor I am going to get this typed and I am going
to give every County Commission one; I am going to give all you folks one;
I am going to give your City Attorney one; I am going to give all the press
one. I want the people to know the truth. This is not financially feasible.
If you folks were president, you were supposed to be directing a corporation,
and you were..
Mayor Ferre: You have to go, Ernie.
Mr. Fannatto: Wait a minute, let me finish. You would give away $30,000,000
the way conditions are, you know what? You would be fired tomorrow. And
maybe the taxpa;ers might, you know, we had a recall in the City of Miami.
This is not a threat, but by God, if you give away $40,000,000 of the taxpayers
money, you folks are not sitting on fair ground.
Mr. Carollo: Incidently, on that recall that we had, have we got a word from
the Elections Department on the election violation those people made? Thank
you Ernie, you reminded me of that.
Mr. Ongie: It's a confidential investigation.
Mr. Carollo: It is still an ongoing investigation? Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Mr. Colson, get up there quick. Get that microphone.
18. AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT; S. E. BANKI14G CORPORATION & GERALD
D. HINES IMPLEIM14TATION & FINANCING OF CONSTRUCTION OF
TRANSPORATION SYSTEM FOR DUPONT PLAZA.
Mr. Colsorf: I am asking the Commission if they would adopt resolution No. 6
on the non -zoning agenda, which is adopting the recommendation of the City
Manager, Jim is here, Jim Reid and Mr. McManus and the City Attorney and..
Mayor Ferre: Does anybody have any problem with Item 6. Does anybody wish
to speak to Item 6.
Mr. Carollo. I make a motion to move it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Reid: I would just like to put on the record something that Mr. Plummer
made explicit when the development order for this project was adopted, and
like to do that, having stated that we fully support this resolution in
solution. Essentially, this allows S. E. Bank to satisfy the responsibilities
under the development order and in terms of providing other financial arrange-
ments if there is not public monies committed to build the highway system.
Okay? Now, our current position in the City - this is our No. 1 legislative
item - getting the 14.6 million dollars, the 1980 dollars to build the bi-
furcated highway system.
13 DEC 15 1981
Mayor Ferre: Lots of luck.
Mr. Reid: Okay, that is our current position. If we are unsuccessful in
this, we may have to try and get an arrangement with the State as we did in
Omni, where they funded and the private sector loaned them the money.
Mayor Ferre: What is the price that we are doing it today? Are we trans-
ferring the burden from S. E. Banking to Hines?
Mr. Colson: No, no. S. E. and Hines are together. This is merely an imple-
mentation of our development order that is already in the development order
and..
Mayor Ferre:.Why is this legal instrument necessary?
Mr. Colson: Because our construction lenders want it.
Mayor Ferre: This is a requirement of a construction loan, then.
Mr. Carollo: I have moved, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I will recognize you in a second. Let me ask to your principle,
do you have the financing for both the construction and the permanent?
Mr. Colson: I think we will have it. It is not final. If we go to this
tomorrow, I think, we will ... it will dissolve.
Mayor Ferre: Both? So in other words, what I am trying to get at Bill,
is when are you RoinR to start construction because this said August and we
are in December. Okay?
Mr. Colson: The best example that I would give is that I would hope that it
would be immediately after the first of the year, I am talking about January.
Mayor Ferre: Is that optimistic, or is that... first of the year. In other
words, your financing is far enough in shape where you think you can get
going on this, you think?
Mr. Colson: Yes sir. You are out of my field a little bit
Mayor Ferre: That is why I am asking him through you. I just want to know
for the Commission, this is not on the record, I mean ..... Mr. Carollo makes
a motion..
Mr. Reid: Mr. Mayor, if I could just finish my point. This deals with S. E.'s
responsibilities and provides the funds either through this letter of credit
instrument. It still may be incumbent on the City of Miami and perhaps Dade
County at some point in the future if we are unsuccessful at getting state
monies to build this road to have to build a road. So I want to be clear
that while S. E. is meeting their commitment and we support this, that we real-
ly need to firm up that state commitment so that we are not left holding the
bags in teL of this obligation.
Mayor Ferre: In other words, if the state doesn't do it, the County and
the City are legally bound to build this $14,000,000 maze.
Mr. Reid: -The City and the County, or the City is legally bound for the
development order to use its best efforts to secure private sector financing
and to come up with, before certificate of occupancy is issued, other
financial arrangements. I just want to make it explicit on the record that
we have to do this.
Mayor Ferre: In other words, this is a best effort. We are not legally bound?
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, the way I understand it, is after we make our best ef-
fort, if we are not successful in getting the state to build the bifurcated
system, that the City becomes liable in terms of building it. Now, the con-
cern that I think everybody should be aware of is, you know, can we afford
it, you know, or should it be the joint responsibility of the City and the
developers in that area.
�O
I".
'%
Mayor Ferre: Are we waving it, are we waving it off here?
Mr. Gary; Well, I am questioning that.
Mr. Reid: What we are doing, Mr. Mayor is, we have to either do two things.
We have to have the public sector financing committed. That means the state
or some other public sector money committed to this project, or other financial
arrangements completed before we can issue them a certificate of occupancy.
What we are saying is in terms of completing other financial a.rranoements,
that they will have satisfied their obligations when they provided this letter
of credit.
Mayor Ferre: You are beating around the bush, and I don't want a. beat around
the bush answer. I want a straight yes or no answer and then elaborate if you
want. If the state does not fund the transporation needs in the Dupont Plaza,
is the City of Miami legally obligated to put the money up to build it, yes, or
no?
Mr. Reid: We are legally obligated, Mr. Mayor, to solve the problem before
we can give them a certificate of occupancy.
Mayor Ferre: Is the answer yes or no?
Mr. Reid: We are legally obligated to solve the problem before we can give
them a certificate of occupancy.
Mayor Ferre: They would have to then sue us to perform. Supposing he hasn't
gotten the funds. They have their building up. Three years have gone by
and the road works are not under way because they have not been funded by
the state. They now come to us and they say "give us a certificate of occu-
pancy", and we say "we cannot because the roads are not in". They then come
around and go to the judge and say "Judge, force the City of Miami to pay for
the transportation system so we can have our C. 0.". Is that right?
Mr. Reid: As far as we are suggesting here, Mr. Mayor, they have met their
responsibility when they provide this letter of credit. The question that is
still unanswered is the final funding in this thing, so it could come down to
us, yes.
Mr. Plummer: You are bringing out exactly the reason I voted against it
before. We were being placed in a position of jeopardy; that somewhere down
the road if the dollars didn't come from the state, that the City was going to
have to pick up a tab it couldn't afford, and that was the reason I voted
against it before and now —here we come. Now, Mr. Reid, I will ask you the
question today, somewhat as to the Mayor asked, as I asked before. Mr. Reid
where is that money going to come from? Don't tell me the State of Florida.
Don't tell me S. E , because their liability for dollars is spelled out. The
state's is not. And you answered then, and I don't agree then, and I don't
agree now, "Well, the County's got responsibility; everybody has got responsi-
bility". But the same bottom line is there; when it is all said and done,
it is going to be here, the City. And I said to you then, and I say to you
now, I don't know where we are going to get that kind of money. I didn't
accept then and I won't now that "well new construction is going to generate
more dollars".
Mr. Reid: Mr. Plummer, I remember your question and I remember my response,
and I think that we have to take the position that this is a legislative
responsibility of the state and they should meet it. Now, if we are going
to get into construction .... well, what is the alternative? The...
Mr. Plummer: The alternative is the danger, and the danger is, that we have
made a commitment and we can't live up to it.
Mr. Reid: The danger is that we need roads and the state isn't willing to
pay for them, and I think at some point in time we may come to having to use
the mechanism of tax financing which exists on the books so that
the City and County can pay for these roads, but to me that is the last
resort. We ought to be —and I think this Commission has expressed their
will on this in terms of a legislative program, so I don't have a definitive
answer. All I can say is we certainly expect those people who are building
Q1
DEC 1 � 181
expressways to continue to build them.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, who is going to second the motion to put the City's
neck on the chopping block?
Mr. Plummer: Let me see the motion.
Mayor Ferre: The motion in essence says that the City Manager's office is
authorized to execute an agreement between Miami and S. E. and Hines to pro-
vide the private sector front ending for the implementation and financing
construction of a transportation system of the Dupont Plaza, but in effect,
I am sure there is a sentence in here that very specifically puts the burden
on the City.
Mr. Colson: :Oh no sir, it does not. No sir, that is not in there. May I
explain where we are today? What is here is nothing different than is in
our development order presently. We are not trying to change it. We have
brought in the documents and we are required to put up as a loan in advance
to whomever, 20%. We then ask our construction lending people that are look-
ing at this to go ahead and let's put up the documents now; I am talking about
the form of the document, and that is all we are here on today. There speci-
fically is nothing new that is in that that has anything to do with the res-
ponsibility of the City to do anything. Mr. Reid will tell you we even dis-
cussed that, whether to put it in, and he said absolutely not and it is not
in there, so there is nothing I am submitting to you that is different from
the development order. This is simply to allow us to have a document way.
alright. when you call upon us and the public sector hasn't done it, we then
have to take the risk of putting up this money and try to get it paid back;
then our inflated dollars will have to be done. We are not changing the
development order here, and there is nothing new about a new about obligation
for the City in there, and it is absolutely what the.... on the contrary the
development order requires us to do something in the second year. We are step-
ping forward now and saying so that our construction lenders will know what it
is. We are stepping forward and saying, these are the documents, we will
do it now. Whenever called upon, we will put a letter of credit so you have
it, and there is a lot more to go into that financing package. We are volunteer-
ing ours now as to form, and that is all. There is nothing in here obligating
the City to anything extra that hasn't been previously in the development order
that you passed, and I urge you that we need this in order to go forward.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Colson is correct in terms of what is before you is the same
thing that you have approved in the past and the same thing as the develop-
ment order, but I just wanted to let the City Commission know that even in
the development order, there will be, or there could be, some commitment on
the part of the City with regard to the bifurcated system, and even though
it is alone, I agree with you, what is in the development order, even though
it alone, we still have to address the issue with the State Legislature, par-
ticularly in view of the fact that we may be responsible for building that
bifurcated system.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Gary...
Mayor Ferre: Well, look, I am ready to vote on this again. I voted for it
once before and I am going to vote positive, okay? Now, we have two new
Commissioners, Dawkins & Perez and I think that they ought to know what they
are getting into and I don't want them, I don't want Miller .... Carollo made
the motion; Perez second the motion, but I don't want Miller..Demetrio com-
ing to me two -three years from now and saying "what in the hell did you get
me into, why didn't you tell me that we were going to end up in this mess,
now that the state has refused to fund us and where are we?" I think there
is a potential liability up front, but of course the lawyers have to argue
that, if it ever comes to that. I am not saying that there is or there
isn't. There might be; I don't know. But what I think we have to understand
is, and unless we do something like this, you are not going to get that S.E.
building there, and you know the point is, Bill you know, to you and to Bob,
and to the other Chamber of Commerce types, with all due respects to you and
I don't don't mean the Dan Paul and other6. You guys, when the flag waving
comes along, there is Alvah, you know, and all the leaders of our commun-
ity saying what a great thing they have done, you know, and in the meantime
along the path that goes back miles and miles is the blood and guts of hun-
dreds of people who have toiled along the way and who stuck their necks out
g2
0EG 1 5 119a1
to unbelievable lengtns and without this continuous risk on the part of
these elected officials and the others that are involved there would be no
progress in the downtown, there would be no Convention/Conference Center,
Southeast Center Building, Gould and all that, and it is very easy to
criticize in the syndrome of being negative in this town, but I just want
these two new Commissioners to understand that we are sticking our necks
out for the private sector to proceed and do something of value.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, can I explain our situation a little bit different-
ly? You asked the question of Mr. Rand of when we're going to start.
Ptister Rand and Mr. Colson have replied to you that we are ready to start
right now but there is a provision in the Development Order that this City
Commission adopted which says that we have an obligation to guarantee 20%
of the cost of the bifurcation and you will not issue a certificate of occup-
ancy to us unless we have met that commitment by a certain deadline. The
agreement we have submitted to you is to assure you that we are meeting our
commitment. We don't want to get started if you are going to tell us you
are not going'to give us the C.O. So we are saying to you we want to give
you the assurance that we will have our financing when you need it. We are
prepared to lend it to you and we will get it repaid based on whatever agree-
ment we enter into in the future.
Mayor Ferre: You're putting us on notice, aren't you?
Mr. Plummer: Bob, that's called we take the risk, you don't.
Mayor Ferre: You're putting it to us.
Mr. Traurig: No, because you through the Legislature joined with all of us
in supporting Tax Increment Financing, as Mr. Reid indicated. We don't want
to use that, we want the City to be able to get the revenue from this project
for the other purposes of the City but if we fail in all other funding efforts,
that is always an alternative. We hope you don't have to go to that.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I understand and you're protecting your client and you're
putting us on notice and I just want these two new Commissioners to know
that what you're doing here is you're putting the City's head on the chopp-
ing block. Now, we've done it before and I'm going to do it again. You
know, I just want to leave the record straight. So that when the great rib-
bon cutting day comes and all the civic leaders like Dan Paul step forward
to tell us what a great thing we've accomplished, we, the Chamber of Commerce,
will remember how this was done.
Mr. Paul: Well, I want to step forward now because there is one thing in
here I don't think you should agree to and that is that this agreement in
the proffered letters of credit fully comply with the order's requirements
that other financial arrangements have been completed to finance construction
of the I-95 bifurcated ramps. I don't think the developer should be let off
the hook. If the City doesn't succeed in getting the money from the State
of Florida, the developers ought to be in it with you and maybe they'll have
to come up with some additional money at that particular time and that was
certainly what was intended by that phrase in the development order and I
don't think that this agreement should be in full satisfaction and let them
off the hook in perpetuity.
Mr. Carollo: Are you here, Mr. Paul, representing yourself or your client
in the DuPont?
Mr. Paul: I'm here representing my client? I don't have a client in DuPont
Plaza other than the DuPont Plaza Hotel so I'm not, I haven't consulted with
the DuPont Plaza Hotel about this matter.
Mr. Carollo: Okay, so you're here representing yourself.
Mr. Paul: That is correct. And I think that you ought to, I don't see any-
thing wrong with trying to nail down their agreement but I don't think you
ought to let them off the hook if everything goes wrong and you don't get
the State financing and you don't get the other money, then they're able to
dump the whole thing directly in your lap and you don't have any string at
that point to ask them to help and contribute. Frankly, maybe they'll have
to come up with some more money with inflation and that sort of stuff at
that time and I think that is not in the public interest.
83
Ok
Mr. Colson: This d6-- not change anvthina that is its ✓our development
order four. For instance, he said inflation. This requires inflated dol-
lars and it is the very reason that they do require inflated dollars that
that is in here. So there will be more money each time that it increases.
We have a 20% responsibility. You also have Mr. Gould coming back to you
and he has an 80% responsibility under that. And so we are simply doing
what we're required to do, we're implementing the very development order
that you passed. We're coming forward to do what we're required to do.
We had to put up the money for all the surface streets in DuPont Plaza in
cash - we've done it, we came in with a letter of credit and we did it.
We're having to go through a series of steps, we want to get this one out
of the way and we beg you to please pass this, it is no different than what
your development order is.
Mr. Paul: If you look at paragraph 6(b) on page 4, that is where the object-
ionable language is, that this agreement and proferred letter of credit fully
complies with:the order's requirements that "other financial arrangements
have been completed to finance construction of the I-95 bifurcated ramps" -
it's good-bye, I mean if you accept this letter of credit with the built-in
escalation each year you don't have any other call to get any further money
from the developers.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Percy, are you the attorney on this?
Mr. Percy: No, sir, Mr. Knox and a member of our staff has reviewed this
agreement and I think we could probably satisfy that concern of Mr. Paul's
by inserting a partial satisfaction of that obligation and to the extent
that the development order, Mr. Colson's argument that all the obligations
have been met and to the extent that they have been the language would be
superfulous, I think that the City would be better sarved by loosening the
provision including a partial satisfaction.
Mayor Ferre: Does that satisfy it, Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul: Well, partially satisfies, yes, I don't have any objection to
that.
Mr. Colson: Well, it won't work for us, a lender, the very thing Mr. Paul
wants is to say let's wait until some day and we will tell you what we need
for your part of the bifurcated. We went through Regional Planning Council
hearings, they said, "Your responsibility is to take upon 20% of 1980 dol-
lars and inflate that each year". And all this does is to bring in a new
letter of credit each year for that amount of money so that you always have
it. But to say that there is just an open ended check is what he would like
to open now. We can't build a building. Suppose it costs other, whatever
is inflation is there and it moves each year and that's what we're required
under this ordinance. And suppose Mr. Gould never builds a building, we
can't be tied to all of the future prospects of what may happen. This is
our responsibility of 20% of inflated dollars each year, we come back in.
That was found fair by you, found fair by the Regional Planning Council and
to change it now from the development order is an impossible burden for us
to build the building. You've taken a position on this before and you
shouldn't change it just because Mr. Paul wants to keep us dangling some day.
Mr. Paul: It's not a question of changing it, the development order requires
that other financial arrangements have been completed to finance construction
of the I-95 bifurcated ramps, there is nothing requiring you to accept this
as total satisfaction of that obligation. You ought to keep that open, unless
you know where all the money is coming from.
Mr. Carollo: Can we have an attorney? I mean I know we pay attorneys every
two weeks but I'm seeing that, you know, I keep seeing Danny Paul here today
and half a dozen other top guns and, you know, I sure would like to get some
enlightening from the people that we pay. Somebody else is paying all of
these gentlemen.
Mr. Colson: May I'answer, Mr. Commissioner, that we took this personally,
Mr. valentine is sitting there, and Mr. Knox, and we went over this with
them personally, it has been through Mr. Reid who knows the development order
inside out who was part of making this development order, it has been through
Mr. McManus but the City Attorney's Office said and told us that we could
come to you and say that they approved of it, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reid, this is the situation that I think Dan Paul is
QU4
pointing out here. On the one hand, these people are entitled to go to
their lenders and say, "Look, this is the full extent of our liability,
fund it, fund us, finance the project." It is totally unacceptable to the
lender for an open-ended commitment to exist on the transportation problems
of DuPont Plaza which the lender is going to say, "Why should you be involved
in that? That's a government responsibility, that's not part of your build-
ing responsibility?" That's their position. On the other side, Dan Paul as
a citizen is saying the City of Miami is potentially opening itself for a
major liability by inserting a paragraph or clause in there that says that
that is the limit on your liability and that it will never go up beyond that.
If, in effect, we end up having to pay for the construction of the transpor-
tation system, then we cannot look to them to help in any way other than
what you have already pledged to do.
Mr. Colson: We put up 20% in advance and we have to have mutual....
Mayor Ferre: ;20% of what?
Mr. Colson: We put up 20% of what....
Mayor Ferre: 20% of total construction costs?
Mr. Colson: No, sir, let me be.....
Mayor Ferre: Okay, 20% of what?
Mr. Colson: It's exactly that. We put up, it starts at 15,000,000, 14 some-
thing. At that time the City and the Regional Planning Council determined
that that was the cost. There are inflated dollars, they are in 1980 dollars,
we have to, and this points out that whatever the construction index of infla-
tion is every year, we have to increase that and that is 20% each year has
to be increased.
Mayor Ferre: Of the $15,000,000?
Mr. Colson: Yes, sir, of the dollar amount.
Mayor Ferre: So you are liable for $3,000,000 and increasing in proportion
every year.
Mr. Colson: Every year, and we give you a new letter of credit every year.
Mayor Ferre: And we're looking to you and you're not looking back to us on
that.
Mr. Colson: Oh, of course, not. We're looking to repayment over whatever
mutual terms, and that's exactly what it says....
Mayor Ferre: That we've agreed to, Okay.
Mr. Colson: That we agree to in the future, it has got to be mutual between
us. You've got a lock on us.
Mayor Ferre: Let me finish now. What he's saying is, what Dan Paul, as I
understand, is saying is suppose Gould all of a sudden folds and Olympia
York doesn't proceed and they've gone ahead with their construction order,
the building is finished, they come to the City of Miami and they say, "Give
us a Certificate of Occupancy" and the City of Miami says, "We can't, we're
precluded because under the order and this and that we can't do it until the
transportation system is finished". Immediately there is a question of lia-
bility and (2) if the Legislature and the County turns around and says, "Look,
we've got enough problems with building a Super Bowl, we've got enough prob-
lems with the rapid transit and the overruns on that, we don't have any money,
you're stuck, you solve the problem. Let me finish. You solve the problem.
Now at that point, the City of Miami has to come up with substantial amounts
of money. There is no way to look to anybody else for that and what, in
effect, we're doing really is foreclosing any other alternative solutions.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to respond to Dan Paul's point because I think
it is a good one. The problem is that this issue is essentially not opened
up by this agreement, it is opened up by the development order. So the
root cause for this problem is the development order. What they are attempt-
ing to do in the agreement is to narrow the City's options and to satisfy
their lenders that there aren't these open doors with respect to future fund-
ing requirements. Now, I think that there are two issues that can be dealt
1�'r � , r
.,/ 5 ` 14 1 �J 10 0
with in terms of language changes. One is to make it clear that if they
exercise, or if we agree that we want to exercise option A & B'under the
development order, that is borrowing the money from them, that we can do
it and this agreement says that. But that does not preclude us, or we
should require them to work with us on other financing arrangements if in
our judgement we deem that .is necessary (1).
Mayor Ferre: What are you talking about?
Mr. Reid: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'm trying to....
Mayor Ferre: If you, after this is all done and over with and if you came to
me and you said, "Look, I need another million dollars from you." I'm going
to say hey, buddy, you've got your contract, forget it. This is what you
get, that's it.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Mayor, I'm just saying that one way to deal with this issue
is to write in a requirement over and beyond the closure that they're seeking
tat they have to work with us in terms of satisfying other financial arrange-
ments.
Mayor Ferre: That's Mickey Mouse.
Mr. Reid: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'm trying to solve the problem now, I'm making
a suggestion. The other part of it is the 20%.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, the reason this issue is being brought up, there are
primarily two reasons. First of all, we have two new City Commissioners
that we thought need to be informed of the potential liability. The second
is that we are now going into, the State is now going into session and we
think it is important that the City Commission begin to work to try to get
the funding. I would suggest the only modification that should be made to
this, because we've already committed ourselves in the development order,
the only modification I would request that we make in this, and that should
be approved, is that we add 20% into the document. We're only talking about
dollars now and that would be the only modification I would recommend the
City Commission approve.
Mr. Colson: 20% of what, instead of making it dollars or whatever the con-
struction costs....
Mr. Gary: It's the same thing that's in the development order which says
20%.
Mr. Colson: And that would be of the, instead of inflated dollars, that
we would have to fund in whatever the construction cost would be?
Mr. Gary: Well, you know, I'm going to put everything on the table. I want
to make sure that you understand that you've got to provide front end of 20%
and Gould puts up 80% which equals*100 6. If you start talking about dollars
as a base.....
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you're missing a point. Let me tell you a point you're
missing, and I'm recalling from memory. The Mayor's question has not been
answered. Remember your question. 20% of what? $15,000,000 was not the total
cost of the complete transportation traffic. As I recall, that was everything
except the expressway. That is what we were going to look to the State for
and the County. Now, the Mayor's question is very very important which has
not been answered.
INAUDIBLE STATEMENT
Mr. Plummer: Fine, 20% of what?
Mayor Ferre: He answered it, 20% of the $15,000,000 which is the bifurcated
and it doesn't speak at all to the total cost and that's what I was trying
to point out.
Mr. Plummer: And that's......
Mr. Paul: The $15,000,000 for the bifurcated was only an estimate, it is
now in the process of being designed.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Paul, you're missing the whole point. It is much more
than $15,000,000.
�� DEC 519C1
Mr. Paul: Of course it is.
Mayor Ferre: Because the $15,000,000 is only our portion of the bifurcated
and if you add....
Mr. Paul: The estimate of your portion.
Mayor Ferre: Estimate, I stand corrected. But when you add what the State
is supposed to do on the expressway how much is that?
Mr. Plummer: Something that recalls in my memory in the neighborhood of
$50,000,000, $50,000,000 was the total with everything.
Mr. Traurig: No.
Mr. Colson: There was an estimate of $7,000,000, wasn't it, Mr. Reid, that
we heard?
Mr. Reid: Mr. Gary, I think, is making a very good point in terms of which
in effect would cause them to be committed to a share of the future cost of
the bifurcated ramps, whatever those ramps cost whereas this agreement simply
deals with inflation in terms of 1980 cost estimates. Okay? And the 1983
cost estimates for those ramps is 23.6 million dollars.
Mr. Colson: That is the 1983 estimate.
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Mr. Colson:'Then those are already inflated dollars ahead and we certainly
are responsible, that......
Mr. Plummer: Bill, that's on that portion. As you will recall, the pitfall
and the danger that I expressed then so loud, and I got defeated, was what
happens if the State doesn't come through. We are then under this obligation
to pick up the tab and all I said was where is the money coming from and no-
body could answer.
Mr. Colson: But you know there is another option, is that the bifurcated may
not be built and I don't agree with the statements that have been made here
that you have to go build it. If we're standing there alone and the other
three blocks are parks that's all we're here on.
Mayor Ferre: That's what I wanted to hear you say.
Mr. Colson: That's all we're here on is our part of it and this was the
deal that was made before and it was the Regional Planning Council....
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, counselor, I'm ready to vote. Anything else?
Mr. Paul: Mr. Mayor, I think you ought to clearly understand that if you
translate this into dollars that you are clearly amending the whole pro-
tection that you had on the 20% and the 80%.
Mayor Ferre: That's not what I understand.
Mr. Paul: Yes, but just as the City Manager pointed out to you, if you
translate the 20% into dollars and then only put the cost of living infla-
tion factor in you've done nothing to put in or to protect yourself as to
what the actual cost may be of that design. It may not be the $15,000,000
that was estimated a year and a half ago, the whole design....
Mayor Ferre: How do we amend this language so that we are covered?
Mr. Paul: Exactly as Mr. Gary recommends, to keep....
Mayor Ferre: That's what we're in effect passing.
Mr. Gary: No....
Mr. Paul: No, you aren't. You're translating the 20% into an actual dollar
figure based on an estimate that was way back.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Paul, City Manager Gary has specified that we should sub-
stitute 20% into this document. Now, I assume that that's what we're talk-
ing about as we vote on it. 8$7
DEC 15 19,81
A A
Mr. Paul: That will require rewriting it from beginning to end, you certain-
ly can't pass it today then.
Mayor Ferre: Well, we can certainly pass it as a motion of intent.
Mr. Paul: As a motion of intent, yes.
Mr. Gary: This is a resolution.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you have to rewrite it to put that in.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you'd better find out first if Southeast is acceptable to
that point.
Mr. Colson: We're back to the open ended thing that you said that no one will
lend us money.if there is, you know, we just can't build the building.
Mr. Traurig: Can I say something and try to put it into perspective? I
think that each of you who served on the Commission at the time the develop-
ment order was adopted remembers that it said 20% of 14.6 million dollars
which is the 2.92 million dollars that we're putting up the letter of credit
for and we've agreed here to increase the amount of the letter of credit
annually as inflation requires more protection for you. So we are doing
the 20% number, we're doing it as 20% of 14.6 million dollars which was a
number quantified in our development order. But in order to give you some
satisfaction and some comfort, let me assure you that you're asking us when
we're going to start construction. We're ready to start construction, we'll
be finished in two years, you're not going to start the bifurcation, the
State is not going to start the bifurcation until long after we finish.
But we are just saying to you we are going to guarantee that you've got,
you know, our share of the funding for when the bifurcation has to be built.
We're not asking you to build the bifurcation right now and use our money
and come up short, we're saying just make sure we don't get holding the
bag.....
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you're not talking to the issue, you're talking about
something else.
Mr. Traurig: Sure I am. The issue is 20% of 14.6 million, is the 2.92 mil-
lion that we are putting in the letter of credit today.
Mayor Ferre: No, it isn't, the issue is 20% of the total cost.
Mr. Traurig: That's not what the development order said, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Jim Reid, does the development order specify that? Read the
development order into he record.
Mr. Reid: Condition 17(a) ...front end 20% (2:92 million in 1980 dollars)
of the construction costs of the I-95 bifurcated ramps.
Mr. Colson: So it is an amount and it is 1980 dollars that inflate every
year and that's what we were required and.....
Mayor Ferre: Well, can't we substitute that same language into this docu-
ment?
Mr. Colson: That's what I think the document already has.
Mayor Ferre Is that what the document has?
Mr. Percy: Except the reference of 20%.
Mayor Ferre: Are you saying here, Terry, that the document parallels or fol-
lows word for word the development order?
Mr. Percy: With the exception of the percentage....
Mr. Reid: Except stating "front end 20V .
Mayor Ferre: Then just add the 20%.
Mr. Percy: Exactly.
Q8
0
DEC 1 5 1981
A
Mayor Ferre: And then we can't do more than the basic document does because
we're stuck with that, good or bad. So all I'm saying is add the 20% and
just pattern the document word for word and then with that as amendment we'll
adopt it that way.
Mr. Gary: And you can adopt it and we can make the corrections afterwards
so we can proceed.
Mr. Paul: Except the amendment suggested by the City Attorney that it only
partially complies.
Mayor Ferre: Dan, we have a document, the document is the order. Now, he
just read it and all I'm saying is what that says is what we're stuck with
good or bad - substitute that into here, you do that by adding the word 20%
and as I understand, you're parallelling it exactly and then we go on from
there.
Mr. Colson: That's acceptable.
Mayor Ferre: All right, is there further discussion? Is that acceptable to
the maker of the motion?
Mr. Carollo: That's acceptable, Mayor, the only thing I would like to add,
that if we do not have any further representation from our attorneys, when
Dan Paul comes up then I'm going to make a motion to retain Ernie Fannatto
to take Mr. Paul on.
Mayor Ferre: Don't say it seriously now. Where is Ernie? He'll be here in
a moment now, you watch and see.
Mr. Carollo: Ernie, you're going to be my attorney here.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, what else do we have?
Mr. Colson: It is just to parrot the language of the development order
and that's what they understand and we accept that amendment.
Mayor Ferre: It follows it word for word. We cannot ask for more than that
because that's what we have agreed to.
Mr. Colson: Thank you, we ask you for your vote then.
Mr. Gary: That's what I've been saying all along.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Is that acceptable to the sec-
onder of the motion? Further discussion? Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1071
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREE-
MENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SOUTHEAST BANKING CORPORATION
AND GERAND D. HINES INTERESTS PROVIDING FOR PRIVATE SECTOR
FRONT ENDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING OF CONSTRUC-
TION OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR DUPONT PLAZA AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THE RESOLUTION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ON ROLL CALL
�9
r,-
A
19. BRIEF DISCUSSION: CABLE T.V. - KNIGHr RIDDER INVOLVEMIIJT
Mr. Carollo: I'd like to bring something up as a pocket item. This came up
this last week. We didn't even have time to put it in the agenda and it will
take just five minutes. By the way Howard, I would like to compliment you
on the letter that you sent TCI at my request to make sure that everything
is developed. This has to do with the cable licensing issued by the City of
Miami, Mr. Mayor. There were two articles that appeared recently; one, a very,
very small article with a very, very small deceiving heading in the business
section of the Miami Herald which says:
"KRN to )Enter Cable T.V. Field." "Knight Ridder Newspaper Inc, which
suffered a setback earlier this year in its attempt to enter the cable
television business Thursday announced the preliminary agreement to form
a joint venture that will buy and operate cable T. V. systems. Knight
Ridder will join with Telecommunications Inc." remember them? "one of
the largest cable companies in the country to form TKR Cable Company,
a spokesman said. The new venture will buy certain undisclosed systems
from TCI and purchase systems from other companies."
And it goes on to a few other things here and finishes by saying that "finan-
cial details of the deal with Telecommunications were not disclosed." Mr.
Mayor, I am gravely, gravely concerned with this. I think that we now see
the hypocrisy, the damn hypocrisy of the Miami Herald and Mr. McMullen. These
people all along were hand in hand with TCI. This is why we saw editorial after
editorial trying to push their partner here, TCI, into the Miami license. Where
has the Miami Herald been for the last month, talking about this? The minute
third partner got a piece of the cake, Mr. McMullen went to his cabin in North
Carolina to dream about other things. This stinks. It really does. The only
word that I can use besides hypocrisy to describe the actions of Mr. McMullen
and the Miami Herald is prostitution and I am not talking about the type that
you got on Biscayne Blvd. I am talking about the lowest, wosst possible type
of prostitution that a human being can be involved in. My greatest concern
besides demanding from TCI - which they have not done up to now, Mr. Manager,
and you requested that of them after we spoke in a letter you sent out today -
TCI was supposed to divulge to this Commission, if you recall, everytime I kept
asking Mr. Paul Alden for the names of all their stockholders and people who
were to get money, he said "Well, it is in the ordinance. Ten days after
you will get it." Ten days after, well, a lot more time has passed since that,
and up to this date, we have still not received all the names of all the people
that got part of the action there, including Mr. Dan Paul. Now, what I would
like to find out immediately from our attorney is, is there any right, transfer
right, from TCI, - or for that matter, Americable - to transfer any of that
stock at a later time, like for instance after the system is built, to the
Miami Herald, or anyone else?
Mr. Dawkins: I'd like to pay you back on that first, though, Mr. Manager. I'd
also like to know if when you, you and I say the Cii:y of Miami - awarded the li-
censes to the Joint Venture, did they violate the contract or license drawn up
by you by dropping Americable or disbanding itself from Americable, or is Ameri-
cable, or what is it? I'd like to know, did they violate, and if so, what
grounds do we have for terminating the whole contract with both of them?
Mr. Plummer:'.Wait a minute. Excuse me, I am missing something here. What is
the possible violation you are bringing out?
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, I wasn't here.
Mr. Plummer: I understand.
Mr. Dawkins: So, when I voted, I was under the impression that you were award-
ing a cable contract to Americable and TCI. Now, according to this, it is no
longer Americable-TCI.
Mayor Ferre: No, no, no. You are completely....
Mr. Dawkins: Well, I wasn't here and I am trying to get it straight.
QOLd
DEG
Mayor Ferre: Ler me clear it for you. Let me explain where this thing is.
TCI and Knight Ridder Newspapers, - according to this article - are creating
a new corporation which is called KRN, and they are going to go after cable
communications systems in the United States. It has nothing to do with the
TCI-Americable Joint Venture in Miami.
Mr. Carollo: We don't know that yet, Mr. Mayor. This is what we are trying
to find out.
Mayor Ferre: I realize that, at this point. Now, as I understand it, and
this is the thing that, furthering what you said, if you want to verify with
the City Attorney, there is a written agreement between TCI and Knight that
they will not get into cable television at anytime in the future in any area
where Knight Ridder have a newspaper, but you have got to verify that in
writing.
Mr. Carollo: That certainly doesn't mean, however, that they would not have
influence with one of their partners that does have that system in where they
have a newspaper.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, you know that?
Mr. Carollo: And maybe this explains why, on the one hand, the Miami Herald
and Mr. McMullen went after Americable the way they did. They did not go
after TCI in an equal manner, and furthermore, if anything that we are
stating here is not accurate, I challenge Knight Ridder, the Miami Herald,
and Mr. McMullen to divulge everyting that has been put into writing between
their firm and TCI, so that the public can find out just how many months
back they were in bed and speaking to each other on this new joint venture.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think what we really need is a clarification as
to what the contract says in relation of transfer rights. I think that is
the key at this particular point and the only thing that we can speak to.
Mayor Ferre: I realize that, but that doesn't solve the problem, because I
can tell you what the transfer rights are. The transfer rights are that
they can sell the stock in three years. The simple answer is, according to
that, is that Knight Ridder Newspaper and the Miami Herald could buy Hermanow-
ski out in three years, but that.....
Mr. Plummer: No, Mr. Mayor, that was not as I understood.
Mayor Ferre: But, that is not the point.
Mr. Plummer: You missed the point.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, sorry. Pardon me.
Mr. Plummer: The point that you are missing is, that I very vividly recall,
is that the contract had wording that if a certain percent were to be sold,
it was subject to Commission approval. That is the key.
Mayor Ferre: But, the point is that I think you are going to find out that
you are going to get different information, so let's get it in writing, and
I think Commissioner Carollo is right, and we have to go on record with
TCI, let them clarify it. Whatever it is, let's find out, okay?
Q1
DEW 1 � 'iSC)i
20. OUTDOOR RESTAURANTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN
AREA.
Mr. Roy Kenzie: Last Commission Meeting we discussed the possibility of
having outdoor cafes on Flagler Street. At that time for a two month per-
iod, we since have revised that from your recommendation to one month and
included in a new resolution issues covering liability and pedestrian flow
which were your two concerns. I have a copy of the new resolution which
I'll hand out to you.
Mayor Ferre: •Item 5, right?
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Roy, when does that commence?
Mr. Kenzie: It will commence tomorrow.
Mayor Ferre: They want to go into the Christmas holidays.
Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that, I just asked.
Mayor Ferre: Well, Roy, does this cover us for liability?
Mr. Kenzie: Following your instructions after the last Commission Meeting,
we met with the Law Department, Police Department, Fire Department, Planning
Department, Public Works Department, our own staff and worked out a series
of arrangements, approval procedures and reviews which involve insurance,
liability, Risk Management Office of the City, review by Planning and Pub-
lic Works, agreements with property owners and lessees, agreements of the
operators to keep sidewalks clean around the area, attached to the resolu-
tion are a set of restrictions that were created by the Planning Department
and Public Works Department governing the location of these. They have to
be permitted by the Police Department in terms of assuring adequate pedest-
rian flow, liability that restaurants carry now is in excess of what the
City requires and they have to hold the City harmless.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, any questions?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I have a question, Mr. Mayor. Roy, tell me in this docu-
ment where it says who can put up a restaurant.
Mr. Kenzie: It says that only those people who have food services existing
already can put it out in front of their establishment. You can't have a
food service away, far away and put it on Flagler Street.
Mr. Plummer: In other words they are limited to the boundaries of their
property lines.
Mr. Kenzie: They are limited to the boundaries of their property or....
Mayor Ferre: And they've got to have a restaurant there already.
Mr. Kenzie: They have a restaurant inside and they may put the chairs
outside in front of their restaurant, and if they can get the guy next
door to agree to put tables in front of his....
Mr. Plummer: But the guy next door who does not have a restaurant cannot
form a concession?
Mr. Kenzie: No, that's true, only those people with restaurants.
Mr. Perez: And do they have to obtain any new license?
Mr. Kenzie: No, the restaurant already has a license to operate. This is
a trial program for one month and the Commission requested to come back at
the end of the one month period and have a public hearing on this issue to
determine the final policy.
Ma�,or Ferre: What is the will of the Commission on this? DEC
92
M
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if I can, I just want to make sure so the City Com-
mission - it may affect your vote - is that the way I understand the reso-
lution, the insurance liability rests with the restaurants. Therefore, we
are limiting our liability, therefore, it makes it more palatable to do it.
Mayor Ferre: Does this have your recommendation?
Mr. Gary: Yes, it does.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1072
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY IN
AN AREA BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, ON THE
WEST BY RIVER DRIVE, ON THE NORTH BY 5TH STREET, AND ON THE
SOUTH BY THE MIAMI RIVER, FOR A PERIOD COMMENCING DECEMBER 16,
1981, AND ENDING JANUARY 16, 1982, BY EXISTING RESTAURANTEURS,
RESTRICTING SAID USE SOLELY FOR THE SERVING OF FOODS IN CON-
JUNCTION WITH AND CONSISTENT WITH THE OPERATION OF THE SUBJECT
RESTAURANTS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY
MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY,
PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE END OF THE TRIAL PERIOD,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
AGREEMENTS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
21. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUNDED BY
S.W. 9 STREET, I-95 r.o.w., S.W. 15 RD., S.W. 3 AVE.,
S.W. 13 ST., & METRORAIL R.O.W. FROM R-4 TO R-T.
Mr. Jack Luft: We're looking at the area west of the station that was the sub-
ject of Commissioner Plummer's comments earlier. What we have here is an R-T
Zoning District which is very simply a holding pattern. This is simply a resi-
dential of moderate intensity, very similar to the R-4, it does give them a
little break on the parking. It allows for less front yard set backs, it is
very similar to the new zoning ordinance that is coming into effect. I see
this district as being basically something that will hold the pattern, allow for
a reasonable in -fill development, primarily fixing up the existing buildings if
they want to expand or modify them and in three or four years time we'll prob-
ably be in a'.position to re -look at this.
Mayor Ferre: My question to you is, if two or three years from now the Depart-
ment or some member of the Commission wants to move MXD-1 to R-T, will it be
very difficult?
Mr. Luft: No, it will not. This is very similar to the R-4 there, it does
reduce some of the parking requirements.
Mayor Ferre: All right, what does SPD mean?
Mr. Luft: That is a commercial allowance, it would be something entire, it
is not part of this, it has nothing to do with it.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, are there any questions on this?
3 4'
u
J 1
Mr. Plummer: Yes, how far, the grey area, does the I-1 go south?
Mr. Luft: Here? It goes from 7th Street to mid -block between 7th and 8th,
it is just the properties that front on 7th Street.
Mr. Plummer: Just the properties that front, so that is, in effect, a
change.
Mr. Luft: No, that is existing. We're not changing that at all.
Mayor Ferre: That's industrial.
Mr. Luft: You've got the boat yard here and then you've got some marine sup-
ply things and a little motel along here on 7th Street and then you've got
the commercial on 8th Street.
Mayor Ferre: *That's right behind the 550 Building, J. L.
Mr. Plummer: No, it is further west.
Mr. Luft: This is the railroad tracks here. It is an existing I-1 District,
we didn't change it.
Mr. Plummer: Okay.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, further questions? What is the will of the Commission?
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY A LINE 150' NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO SOUTHWEST
9TH STREET ON THE NORTH; THE I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST;
SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD, SOUTHWEST 3RD AVENUE AND A LINE 140'
NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET ON THE SOUTH
AND THE RAPID TRANSIT (METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE EAST
FROM R-4 MEDIU14 DENSITY MULTIPLE TO R-T RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT
DISTRICT, EXCEPT FOR PROPERTY ZONED GU -GOVERNMENT USE AND
PR -PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL USE DISTRICTS, AND BY MAKING
ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A
PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIP-
TION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF, BY REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Perez
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
22. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUNDED BY
S.W. 8 ST., I-95 R.O.W., & METRORAIL R.O.W. FROM C-4 TO C-2.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY A LINE APPROXIMATELY 150' NORTH OF AND PARALLEL
TO SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET ON THE NORTH; THE I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY
ON THE WEST; A LINE APPROXIMATELY 150' SOUTH AND PARALLEL
TO SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET ON THE SOUTH AND THE RAPID TRANSIT
(METRORAIL) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE EAST FROM C-4 GENERAL COM-
MERCIAL TO C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND BY MAK-
ING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF, BY REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON-
FLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner Perez
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that conies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
23. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ARTICLE XI-2 RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE R-CB DISTRICTS, SECTIONS 1, 5, 6, 10 AND 12.
Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 8. This was deferred and this is that RC-B District
in Brickell Avenue. All right, Ms. Meyers.
Ms. Joyce Meyers: Mr. Mayor, the Planning Department was directed to re -study
the RC-B and to increase the floor area ratios which we have done in this
recommendation, at the same time we have made a number of other modifications
to the ordinance that we feel will guarantee that those higher floor area
ratios will result in buildings that are still somewhat compatible with the
form of the existing development on Brickell Avenue in terms of setbacks and
plaza areas and we have included some provisions to improve the quality of
those public -spaces and to provide better incentives for retail uses to en-
liven those spaces for residential uses to be included. The FAR's that are
proposed are a base of 3 and bonuses that could total a 5 FAR for mixed use
development on property fronting Brickell Avenue. There is a difference sug-
gested here in properties which abut to the bayfront. The properties that
abut the bayfront we could allow development to go up to a total of FAR 6
for substantial residential/office mixed use development.
Mr. Plummer: As bonuses?
Ms. Meyers: Through the bonus system, but the trade-off on that higher FAR
on the bayfront is that the maximum office development would be a 3.
Mr. Plummer: What is it presently?
Ms. Meyers: The base is presently 1.5. This proposal would double that to
Mr. Plummer: What is the Brickell presently?
Ms. Meyers: Presently 1.5 with bonuses that are getting developments up to
approximately a 2.5, 2.6.
Mr. Plummer: I would assume the answer is yes, go ahead, if you wish to
speak to the issue. Are you finished? All right.
Mr. Max Pianic: My name is Max Pianic again, I live on South Miami Avenue
in the 1800 block, I have an office at 59 S. W. 9th Street. I am against
the proposal to raise the FAR ratios of the RC-B zone, I feel that RC-B has
been a tremendous success, maybe not as it originally was intended to have
a mix of both residential and office development but it has been a tremend-
ous success as an office street and now to go and increase the FAR ratios
so dramatically and to change the whole character of the boulevard I don't
believe is in -keeping with the plan to see that the skyline tier back into
higher rise development in the MXD Zone. Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask you a question, sir. Presently you do have
a mix, not within the same piece of property but you have a mix of resident-
ial towards the water....
Mr. Pianic: Which property are you referring to?
Mr. Plt=er: Well, I am speaking from 15th Road down to llth Street is
all hich rise apartments.
Mr. Pianic: Not in the RC-B, there is a zone on the circle on the Point
View Addition that is an R-5 or R-SA, I don't recall.
Mr. Plummer: You're right.
Mr. Pianic: Okay. The only proposed site that I know of that there is one
site that has been proposed for I believe one apartment per floor or two
apartments per floor that is on the bay that.....
Ms. Meyers: No, that has been changed to an office development but the
Helmsley Center has residential.
Mr. Pianic: Has that been scrapped also? In that case.... There you,
so there is really nothing but Helmsley Center that is proposing any resi-
dential.
Mayor Ferre: Anybody else?
Ms. Janet Cooper: Janet Cooper, 1901 Brickell. This proposal will very
greatly affect the R-5A residential area because it comes so close it comes
immediately across, diagonally across the street from residential on Brickell
Avenue and I am in support of the ordinance with the exception that I think
a 5 FAR in the area immediately adjacent to the 2.2 FAR zoning of R-SA and
the R-5 is too high and it is too much of a drastic change. It will too
greatly harm the view of the people who paid a lot of money for their views,
in the Palace, for example, and I have no problem with it and with the high
FAR's in the more northern areas, but just like we did next door in the MXD
Districts I think it should be toned down right north of 15th.
Mayor Ferre: I not only agree with you, I might remind you, Mr. Mc Manus,
that I have.said on two or three different occasions at these Commission
Meetings that I wanted to get an envelope so that we would go from 26th
Road to downtown and what you're doing is it's not a gradual line, what
you're doing is you've got a stepped up thing. But if I were a property
owner ii, the Palace, what you're about to do is to really put up a higher
density immediately adjacent and I think it has to be a more gradual move
up.
Ms. Cooper: Thank you.
Mr. Robert H. Trau;ig: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Robert H. Traurig, 1401
Brickell Avenue. In response to what you just said, I would like to call
your attention to the fact that that entire parcel of property at approx-
imately 15th Road on both sides of Brickell is owned by Mr. Blumberg who
was supposed to be represented here today by Senator McKnight who unfortun-
ately, rather fortunately for Dade County, is up in Tallahassee with the
delegation and, therefore, couldn't appear before you. But he intends to
J
AN
build offices on that tract and we have already done an analysis and based
upon the ordinance as proposed to you by staff, he only gets about a 3.65
with all the bonuses that he's entitled to, maybe 3.7. So we're not going
to have the kind of bulk that Ms. Cooper is talking about on that particular
parcel because, as a matter of fact, he is somewhat disturbed by the fact
that the objective is to increase around a 5 and he is not even going to be
given the benefit that the City administration really intended and that was
to get a sufficient FAR but I would call it to your attention because Sen-
ator Mc Knight did call me to say that he couldn't be here because of that
and we-e it not for the'fact that you're raising the question about it hav-
ing too much bulk and too much FAR, I wouldn't even mention the fact that
they don't even intend to go to the 5 and couldn't go to the 5 because
going with office buildings.
Mayor Ferre: See, but that's fine, Bob, but David Blumberg may decide in a
year to sell the property and the guy who buys it may decide to go to the
maximum so thdt doesn't....
Mr. Traurig: Well,....
Ms. Cooper: Not only that, but when I saw Senator Mc Knight at the Planning
Advisory Board, he had initially pointed out that property as being the one
that he represented but then he later told me that he was wrong and his prop-
erty was further north so I don't know which to believe, but the possibility
exists, I just think it is too high in that one or two block area, possibly
two because it is right behind the R-5A area.
Mayor Ferre: Jack, if you see where the R-5 comes around in a curve, and I
think that's 13th. Is that 13th there? 14th. I think, if you draw a
straight line along that road to Brickell Avenue, and that area there is a
little bit more of a transition, I think it will soften the blow.
Mr. Luft: We draw a line and then what do we put inside that line?
Mayor Ferre: A lower density. I don't think you can go, I mean I think the
transition to Brickell Avenue where the Assumption Academy and all of that to
this mammoth stuff that you have right across the street, that doesn't fit
this envelope theory. In other words you're going like this and then it
goes like that.
Mr. Luft: I'm trying to understand it. The issue is not then purely height,
it is also bulk?
Mayor Ferre: I think it is bulk is what you're talking about.
Mr. Luft: We could put a height restriction in the RC-B within so many
feet of an R-5A, that wouldn't be too hard to do, but I think what she is
asking us is to go write a whole new zoning district for that piece.
Mayor Ferre: I think that is the point.
Mr. Traurig: (INAUDIBLE, NOT USING MICROPHONE)
Mayor Ferre: No, she doesn't want to reduce the height, I think what she's
saying is which is what I was saying also, Bob, is that if you look at the
maximum of 30 FAR which is what I think that One Biscayne Tower is, and you
go from there to 26th Road where you're down to 2, that we've got to have
some kind of a slope on the FAR.
Mr. Traurig:- That would be fine, and we would covenant not to achieve a
FAR of 5, we're only at the present time contemplating a FAR of under 4, and
if you wanted to put a cap on there of 4 or 4.25 or something like that and
that would satisfy you because it is substantially less than what is else-
where permitted that's fine.
Mayor Ferre: Jack, if that satisfies you that satisfies me.
Mr. Luft: I'm going to let Mr. Reid or Mr. Mc Manus be satisfied on this
one.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reid, do you understand what the problem is, Mr. Reid?
Mr. Reid: Mr. Mayor, what I suggest is that this is a First Reading, this
is a problem that has been identified.....
Mayor Ferre: No, sir, it's not a First Reading.
97 DES 1
�J {Jt31
A
Mr. Reid: It is a First Reading, Mr. Mayor. That the pr6bluin-'has-been-
identified and we come, working with Ms. Cooper and Mr. Traurig, come back
to the Commission for a proposal for that particular area.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, fine, that's acceptable to me. Further questions on
8 (A) ?
Mr. Traurig: I'd like to talk about the ordinance generally for just a moment,
I understand the time constraints and I'll make it very quick. I'd like to
call attention to a couple of inconsistencies which I think this Commission
should be able to resolve. You're trying to encourage residential and you're
asking developers to build more residential and you're giving them bonuses
and you're giving them incentives for residential. Along the bay, the resi-
dential bonus is that you can get an extra FAR of 2 if you go with residential
but inward of the bay, inland of the bay, for example on that parcel we're
talking about pr on the Four Ambassadors parcel or other parcels that are suit-
able for mixed use, you only give an FAR bonus of 1.
Mayor Ferre: Bob, let me cut through on that. I strongly feel that we need
to give that 2 FAR bonus to anybody who wants to build residential and that's
whether you're on the water or whether you're inland. That's the name of the
game of what we're trying to do. Do you concur with that? Do you have any
problem with that? Do you, J. L.? Well, you've got a consensus here. Did
you get the point, Mr. McManus?
Mr. Traurig: The next issue of inconsistency is that south of the Four Ambas-
sadors is a tract of land which is intended to be developed with an office
building. Now, if you don't build residential, obviously you shouldn't get
the kind of bonuses that the residential get. That particular parcel, because
it is on the bay, is subject to a provision where it not only doesn't get and
bonuses for residential, but it doesn't get the bonuses that everybody else
in the whole district gets. For example, at the present time the ordinance
permits for large tracts of certain frontage and certain depth FAR bonuses,
etcetera. In order to encourage residential development on the bay, the ordin-
ance presently says that you can only go to a 3 regardless of the size of your
tract, etc., unless you go for residential. We think that it is appropriate
to encourage residential by giving a bonus but don't take away the underground
parking bonus and don't take away the lot size bonus that everybody else in
the district would be entitled to. That would penalize people and we think
it would be unfair.
Mayor Ferre: What is your answer to that?
Ms. Myer: The Department's recommendation was that a 3 for commercial uses
on the bayfront was more than enough in any case and that any additional in-
crement on the bayfront should be residential.
Mayor Ferre: Does anybody disagree with that?
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me raise a question because Bob just brought a point
that is going to work against him. Here is my problem: Mr. City Attorney,
I'm a developer on that parcel Mr. Traurig just spoke of, that's the one just
immediately south of the Four Ambassadors. I go there, and I build a build-
ing and I provide residential and I provide office and I get bonuses which
allow me to go to a total of 6 FAR. Is that correct? All right, how sweet
it is. Tomorrow, I find out, as Maurice Ferre drove into my head, that it
doesn't work as it didn't work in the 100 Building on Biscayne Boulevard. I
tomorrow, take all of that residential and I sell it for office space, I turn
it into professional offices, radio stations, as did the Four Ambassadors.
What provision, if any, is written in to protect that which the Commission
is trying to accomplish preventing a developer after he has received all of
his bonuses and initially complied to revert back and later say, "I can't
afford it, it's not popular and nobody wants to rent as housing?" What can
this Commission say, "Hey, buddy, you got a piece of candy in the form of
a bonus and now you can't take the candy back." Are you going to say to a
developer, "Hey, buddy, you bought the candy, and if you go under financially
go ahead because you can't go back the other way"? I think there is an ap-
parent danger there that must be addressed, that if the man knows that he
is going to get a bonus, that there is a risk involved, that if it doesn't
work it's his risk. How many times did we change to accomodate the Four
Anl-)assadors? I think it was 7 or 8 different times that zoning changed,
ont, time so they could put in a restaurant, another time so they could put
in offices, a:iother time for Presideixon, and I can remember over the
Uc�d' 15 1ybl
years how many times that property changed and I think I will not vote for
it without something built in that says if you got a bonus you must live by
it and I don't see any of that incorporated in the ordinance.
Ms. Meyers: Okay, there is such a provision under the retail bonus, we
should add it under the residential where it says no certificate of occupancy
shall be issued once a bonus has been granted for any other use but that use that was implicit in the bonus.
Mr. Plummer: All right, so then, are you going to say, is that understood
or would be understood by a developer, that if it doesn't work out financ-
ially, that he has bought that obligation? Well, all right, between now and
the Second Reading, you understand what I'm looking for, the safety measures
that I'm looking for.
Mr. Traurig: the next issue - parking. I understand Ms. Cooper spoke very
articulately at the Planning Advisory Board, as a result of which they added
a phrase to the proposal that staff had originally made and that was that in
the new Section 12 on parking no parking spaces could be assigned. That was
to achieve a reduction in parking if you had mixed use because sometimes dur-
ing the day the residential people were gone while the office people were
working there. To say that no parking spaces can be assigned runs contrary
to the whole current market place and that is that so much of the area would
be sold as condominium and there should be at least some assignment of park-
ing spaces, but furthermore, there would always be key employees, the head
of the large firm that occupies, you know, 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 of the
space there. He should be able at least to have his own parking space, I
don't care whether it is on the 1st floor or the 8th floor of the parking
structure but he ought to be able to have a parking space assigned to him.
But somebody who buys a condo unit, and you're trying to encourage resident-
ial, should have the right to have one parking space assigned. Now, we have
been this route on Claughton Island where, obviously, the information which
Janet presented to you about the need for some common parking spaces was well
received by you, and I'm not saying that all the parking spaces can be sold,
I'm saying that all the parking spaces should not be in the common pool,
there could be some parking spaces assigned and we urge you on residential
to make it one parking space per unit can only be assigned and on the office
space that a certain number, a certain percentage of the office spaces could
be assigned. We urge you to consider that because we think you'd make it a
better development that way. The last point that I would propose......
Ms. Cooper: Could I address that while it is still fresh?
Mr. Traurig: Could I finish, and I'll be finished in one second. The last
point that I would like to mention is on the commercial space. At the pres-
ent time, the ordinance provides that no more than .25 of the FAR can be
utilized for commercial. We think that that is a little bit thin, we have
often discussed it with staff, they disagree with us, they feel that .25
is an adequate amount, but we know from - and I'm talking now about the
developers of the Four Ambassadors tract - we know from talking to a number
of people that they would like the opportunity to have some commercial on
the site and we think that the .25 is overly restrictive, we urge you to be
more liberal, we would suggest a 1 but we have been told that that is ex-
cessive, we think that, therefore, a .5 might be a more reasonable figure.
Mr. Plummer: When you say commercial, are you referring to retail?
Mr. Traurig:. Yes, that would include the boutiques and the other things
that are permitted as uses. One of the things that the ordinance says is
that no space can be more than 4,000 square feet. We don't like it, but
we can live with it. We would much prefer to have that one large Saks
Fifth Avenue on the tract but we can live with the 4,000 square feet.
What we would like you to consider is the opportunity to create a larger
number of square feet.
Mr. Plummer: Bob, what kind of a retail? Are we speaking of general re-
tail to the public or accessory retail to the building? There's a big
difference.
Mr. Traurig: We do not intend to be in competition with the DDA in its
district, but we want to be able to provide for the people who work on
Brickell Avenue who will be shopping during the noon period, they shouldn't
have to get in their cars, they shouldn't have to go long distances, we
99 r• - - -,
need more square footage to accomodate the people who will live in the resi-
dential in the district and also be working in the area so it would be retail
in the traditional sense. It would be boutiques and soft goods, etc.
Mr. Plummer: Retail accessory to the building.
Mr. Traurig: No, it would also, our objective is to be able to have a store
where the secretary who works down the street can come during her noon per-
iod and buy something for herself or her children.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but a matter of necessity or a matter of luxury? Look,
Bob.....
Mr. Traurig: It is defined in the Use Regulations applicable to the district.
Mr. Plummer: .As an accessory use?
Mr. McManus: Commissioner, let me break this down for you. Mr. Traurig is
talking about .5 which on the specific site he is talking about would allow
100,000 square feet of retail. Okay? Now, admittedly we have a restriction
in there of 400,000 square feet per establishment. All right, but I am sure
the impetus here is to establish a 100,000 square foot junior department
store, ground floor of Brickell Avenue and I would suggest to you that that
size and that dimension goes far beyond serving the typical office worker
on Brickell, that speaks of a much wider market.
Mr. Plummer: Joe, what I understand of what is proposing, if 100,000 is a
quarter then he would be requesting at .5 200,000.
Mr. McManus: The Department has recommended .25 which in this instance is
equivalent to 50,000 on this particular site and that it appears to us is
far beyond what provides a reasonable basis for providing for shopping ser-
vices along Brickell Avenue, coupled with the 400,000 squre foot restriction.
If you move it up to .5 you're talking about 100,000 square feet ground
floor retail.
Mayor Ferre: Gentlemen, we've got to break up here in about 15 minutes.
Mr. Traurig: I'm finished, thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me raise two points.
Mayor Ferre: This is First Reading, we can continue this wonderful argument
on Second Reading.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. McManus, when they spoke of parking, is there any parking
being designated, and I mean reserved, for visitors and guests?
INAUDIBLE COMMENT
Mr. Plummer: I'm not asking for answers but I want this stuff incorporated.
Okay? I go to a lawyer's office on Brickell Avenue and right now, every one
of the spaces.are reserved and I, as a client, can't find a parking space.
It's ridiculous. All right? Second point, and this is one I'm going to
hammer damned hard. What provisions of limitations are being imposed or
spoken to in this ordinance pertaining to restaurants and night clubs? If
we ever learned one lesson, let it be Menage.
Mayor Ferrer How about Montmartre? Don't you remember Montmartre?
Mr. Plummer: Oh no, that was on Coral Way. I'm speaking of the problem
that exists if in one of these structures you allowed another Menage and
we're going to be multiplying these things, I think that this is not what
this Commission would like to see in the Brickell area extended. And by
the way, for your information, I do intend to address that subject even
to Brickell avenue because I think it is getting out of hand.
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, in response to the comments that Mr. Traurig made,
first of all, although it is not the only time, it is notable that he and
I agree on the commercial space, I thought that .25 commercial space was
too restrictive and should be increased. I'll address the parking when
you're ready. The issue of parking, I am not opposed to assignment of park-
ing, that's fine with me and there was no added comments regarding prohibi-
tion of assigning parking spaces if they comply with the Code as it exists.
1V(�
The only situation where I suggested, and the Planning Board agreed, that
there should be a restriction on the assignment of parking spaces is where
they wish to take advantage of a benefit where they can reduce the parking
30% where there is a mixed use. Now, the theory of reducing the 30% park-
ing for mixed use benefits is that when somebody leaves their home a space _
becomes available for the office user and that when someone leaves the of-
fice at 5 it becomes available for the residential user and it is on that
theory that the parking could be reduced 30% and I agree with that but the
problem is that when you assign it to a residential user it is not avail-
able when he leaves his home and when you assign it to an officer worker,
even if it is the president of the company, when he's out of the office
whether it is evening or day time that is not available to the residential
users.
Mayor Ferre: I've got to bring this discussion to an end at this time.
Ms. Cooper: one more sentence. So my suggestion was that if the developer
wishes to take advantage of reducing the parking that he can't then have
the parking assigned and only if he wishes to take advantage of that re-
duction. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, now, we have a whole bunch of issues that are as
yet not really resolved and I recommend that what we do is pass this on
First Reading and revisit these issues on Second Reading. I think what
we need to do, I for one, Mr. McManus, I think the concensus here was that
there ought to be a 2.0 incentive for residential all over and I think with
regards to the second issue that was discussed Bob, I didn't sense that
there was much of a consensus for that and I think we're back to your posi-
tion on that. But he came up with an issue that I didn't think there was
much support on....
Mr. Traurig: .4v second issue was why penalize that tract on the bay and
limit then to the 3 wnen everybody else gets the bonus for underground
parking which you want to encourage.
Mayor Ferre: And he answered that and said because what we want is more
residential and that doesn't speak to it so I didn't hear anybody speak
up on it. You know my....
Mr. Plummer: Fine, as far as I'm concerned, there is no question that
there should be some benefits for providing underground parking space.
Now, the problem is that you jump in price from a parking space at $6,000
in one of these areas to like $15,000 when you start going under ground
and I think there should be some kind of a benefit for providing more park-
ing. Who could be opposed to that?
Mayor Ferre: Do you agree with that, do you agree with that? You've got
a consensus of people that agree with that.
Mr. Dan Paul: Mr. Mayor, don't forget the consensus you arrived at earlier
to carry over and that is on the bay walk.
Mayor Ferre: And the 20 foot bay walk is applicable to this as well.
Mr. Plummer: Which is also the same thing of the 50 foot dedication.
Mayor Ferre: Now, with regards to the commercial aspect of this, it is my
opinion, Dan, that to go up to 1.5 is just much too much. Now, let me
tell you what is going to happen if you do that. You've got, for example,
that property that you represent, your client's and they have what, a mil-
lion square feet or whatever that they're going to build? You know, you're
talking about a couple hundred thousand square feet of commercial and that
is a major shopping center and I'm not too sure that we want to encourage
if we're trying to get Cadillac Fairview and the Oxford Company and Olympia
York to build all these shopping centers with Federated Stores and with
Sears then what are we doing encouraging people to build something on Brickell
Avenue? Now, I think there has to be some, and I certainly would go along
with a .5 and even there I think you're going to end up getting some minor
Bloomingdale stores.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but Mr. Mayor, with a .5 is one thing but with a 400,000
maximum is another. Well, you know.
Mayor Ferre: Well, what is your recommendation that we do on this, Jim?
101
Mr. Reid: I lean towards the .5 but I think that we shouldn't have, in
effect, a regional, I think we ought to stick with the smaller stores,
4,000 square feet and shouldn't be in effect making this a regional or a
sub -regional shopping area bringing in cars from the outside.
Mayor Ferre: Does that have your agreement?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, fine.
Mayor Ferre: Does it have your agreement? I'm trying to get out of here.
Do you agree? Do you agree? Do you agree? All right, anything else?
Mr. Plummer: I have to ask the question, does the ordinance presently speak
to restaurants and night clubs?
Ms. Meyers: I-t does not have that restriction of size on a restaurant, a
night club. it permits them at any size.
Mr. Plummer: And you don't think it is necessary?
Ms. Meyers: No, but the Menage thing may, Menage is in a residential area
which is one of the biggest reasons for the problem that I understand.
Mayor Ferre: All right, I'll tell you, you address the issue of night clubs
for Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: And restaurants.
Mayor Ferre: And restaurants. And I think the sense is that we've got to be
very careful that we don't put night clubs that impact on areas where there
is heavily residential. Now, how you do that.....
Ms. Meyers: But we're trying to stimulate night time activity in an office
district that is dead after 5 O'Clock.
Mayor Ferre: I don't have any problems with your having a night club at
Southeast First National Bank.....
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but excuse me, she is talking about a mixture. You're
talking about a mixture of commercial and residential.
Mayor Ferre: I think where Plummer is speaking to which is my position, if
somebody decides to put a 300 apartment building that there shouldn't be a
night club there. Now, if it is a 30 story or 20 story building where it is
10 stories or 15 stories of offices and 5 stories of apartments then I think
that is different.
Mr. Plummer: How about, I'll give you an alternative. All night clubs and
restaurants above a certain square footage are conditonal uses.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, fine, then approach it that way. All right, is there a
motion on 8 with all those restraints and restraints?
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, ART-
ICLE XI-2 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE-R-CB DISTRICT BY: 1. AMEND-
ING SECTION 1 - CONCERNING USE REGULATIONS; 2. AMENDING
SECTION 5 - CONCERNING FLOOR AREA RATIO; 3. AMENDING SECTION
6 - CONCERNING LOT COVERAGE; 4. ADDING SECTION 12 - CONCERN-
ING PARKING; 5. AMENDING SECTION 10 - CONCERNING DEVELOP-
MENT PLAN REVIEW; 6. AMENDING SECTION 3 - CONCERNING YARDS;
7. AMENDING SECTION 9 - CONCERNING STRUCTURE PARKING; AND
8. AMENDING THE PURPOSE CLAUSE; AND BY REPEALING ALL ORDIN-
ANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CON-
TAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Plummer
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote-
102
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
24. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING OF AREA BOUNDED BY
MIAMI RIVER, BRICKELL AVENUE, S.E. 10 STREET & BISCAYNE BAY
FROM RC-1 AND C-2 TO R-CB.
Mayor Ferre: How about 8(B), is there a motion on that with all of the
amendments? Moved by Dawkins, seconded by Perez, further discussion?
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY THE MIAMI RIVER ON THE NORTH; A LINE APPROX-
IMATELY 190' WEST OF LAND PARALLEL TO BRICKELL AVENUE ON
THE WEST; SOUTHEAST 8TH STREET AND BISCAYNE BAY ON THE
EAST; AND AN AREA INCLUDING PROPERTIES FRONTING ON THE
EAST SIDE OF BRICKELL PLAZA (SOUTHEAST FIRST AVENUE)
APPROXIMATELY 150% IN DEPTH, EXTENDING FROM SOUTHEAST
8TH STREET TO 278' SOUTH OF SOUTHEAST LOTH STREET FROM
R-C-1 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE -COMMERCIAL AND C-2 COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL TO R-CB RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT, EXCEPT
FOR PROPERTY ZONED PR -PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION USE DIS-
TRICT; AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING
DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY
REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2,
THEREOF; BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR
PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner Perez
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
The Citx Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
103
25. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ARTICLES III, XI-3 AND XI-4
AS THEY PERTAIN TO R-CB RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICTS.
Mayor Ferre: B(C) has been moved by Commissioner Perez, seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins. Further discussion? With all the stipulations stated before.
Mr. Plummer: Where is this proposed to be applied, 8(C)?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: That is an amendment to the text.
Mr. Percy: It is a renumbering and re -titling of the text of the previous
amendments you jsut made.
Mayor Ferre: Is this all part and parcel of i?
Mr. Percy: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: CAll the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
AMENDING ARTICLE III - ZONING DISTRICTS - SECTION 1 BY
DELETING: R-C-1 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE -COMMERCIAL IMMEDIATELY
AFTER "R-CB RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE"; AND BY DELETING ARTICLE
XI-3 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE -COMMERCIAL R-C-1 DISTRICT; AND BY
RE -NUMBERING THE TITLE OF THE NEXT ARTICLE - ARTICLE XI-4,
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-CC DISTRICT - TO ARTICLE XI-3 RESI-
DENTIAL OFFICE R-CC DISTRICT; AND BY REPEALING ALL ORDIN-
ANCES OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND CONTAINING A SEVER -
ABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the city commission and to the public.
104 V 'i981
1v
26. APPROVE WYNWOOD COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1073
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE O YNWOOD COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
PLAN FOR THE WYNWOOD GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD AREA, GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY N. W. 36TH STREET ON THE NORTH, N. W. 29TH STREET
ON ThE SOUTH, I-95 OR 6TH AVENUE ON THE WEST AND NORTH MIAMI
AVENUE ON THE EAST: WHICH COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN
INCLUDES ACQUISITION AND CLEARANCE, RELOCATION, REHABILITA-
TION, STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND BEAUTIFICATION, AND WHICH PLAN
IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN; THAT AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE
CITIZENS REGARDING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S BUILDING AND ZONING
LAWS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
27. DISCUSSION & DEFERRAL OF VACATION & CLOSURE OF ALLEY:
N.W. 32 & 33 STREETS & N. MIAMI AVENUE.
Mr. Whipple: 11, Mr. Mayor, is simply the moving of an alley 50 feet to the
west, we're closing one alley, closing an existing alley and replacing it on
the west side.
Mayor Ferre: Does the Department recommend it?
Mr. Gary: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Where is it?
Mr. Whipple: The yellow indicates the existing alley and they will move that
westerly to the edge of the blue line on the proposed plat.
Mr. Plummer: Well, tell me what neighborhood we're in.
Mr. Whipple: We're in the Wynwood neighborhood, I believe, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any objectors? Does somebody want to speak against
this?
Mr. Plummer: Wasn't this the property that was up for re -zoning?
Mr. Whipple: No, sir.
Mr. Plummer: No, that was denied?
Mr. Whipple: I don't know of it being up, sir.
M
e%1
Mr. Plummer: Is this the same things that exists on the property a block
to the north and to the south?
Mr. Whipple: You have similar type conditions, the two blue squares on the
west side actually are being utilized for parking now, off-street parking,
this would unify their site and make it a total site.
Mr. Plummer: What advantage is it to the City?
Mr. Whipple: I don't know that there is any specific advantage to the City.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you know, I'll tell you what advantage. No, whoa
there. You know, without us doing this he can't do what he wants to do,
right? Wynwood is a kind of a depressed area that is in need of some up-
grading.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer, therefore, moves that this item be continued to the
next meeting. Is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: Now, somebody should explain to the applicant that he has to
volunteer what he going to do for the surrounding community....
Mr. Sherman Crawford: Commissioner Plummer, may I please? I'm Sherman
Crawford, I'm the attorney for the applicant, my offices are at 2801 Ponce
de Leon. At the public hearing that was held more than a month ago, there
were about 12 people here present concerning this situation. One person
spoke against it, the people that favored the application were very concerned
because of a problem that currently exists in that area and that is if you
look at the alley that proceeds one block south and two blocks north of this,
apparently in that particular area which, as you pointed out, was depressed,
vehicles have a tendency to travel extremely rapidly. The area in blue east
of that current alley is zoned C-4 and is heavy industrial and they have
frequent incidents of accidents because of heavy trucks and other equipment
moving up and back through that alley. What will be accomplished by moving
that alley to the westward is that road will no longer be a straight line
all the way through there and, in fact, it will break up what has become a
community drag strip. The commercial vehicles which are using that property
now will no longer use that alley because they will be.....
Mr. Plummer: Counselor, excuse me. Will you stipulate for the record that
this is of absolutely no value to your client, that you're doing it strictly
for community good and under no circumstances will you indicate that this
is not enhancing the value of your property? Will you stipulate that for
the record?
Mr. Crawford: Obviously I could not do that.
Mr. Plummer: Well, then it is obvious to me that this matter will be deferred
at my request....
Mr. Crawford: Thank you for your cooperation.
Mr. Plummer: No, listen to me because I don't want you to come back here at
the next meeting and not understand what is trying to be accomplished.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Plummer moves that this item be continued, Com-
missioner Perez seconds it. Further discussion? Call the roll on continuance.
The preceding motion introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded
by Commissioner Perez was passed and adopted by a unanimous vote.
28. APPEAL ON DENAIL OF VARIANCE: 551 S. W. 8 COURT
(APPEAL FAILED)
Mayor Ferre: Take up 13, appeal by Mr. Gonzalez, Armando Gonzalez. Dental
of variance on 551 S. W. 8th Court. The Planning Department recommends
denial, the Zoning Board recommended denial 4 to 2. All right, Mr. Gonzalez,
explain your case.
Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I have a letter here that they left in my office with
the signatures of all the neighbors that they left in my office yesterday
with the support of the neighbors and the picture of the case.
Mr. Carollo: This is the one that I asked you people to go see. Remember?
Mr. Armando Gonzalez: Okay, Mayor, I am requesting for this addition and I
was over here last time and it was denied.....
Mayor Ferre: Plummer wanted to go see it.
Mr. Gonzalez: I was getting a lot of signatures and everybody looks in favor
of the project so....
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I'm ready to make a motion to approve this.
Mr. Perez: I am ready to second because.....
Mayor Ferre: Under discussion, do you want to explain it a little bit?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think that in times like this I'm not trying
to take away from the Planning Department, but the reason that people come
to us for a variance is so that we could be humane. Yes, we have a book to
abide by and to direct us but, you know, youcan't put every instance that is
going to happen in a book and this is why people come to us. Now, I just
find it so hard to comprehend that time after time in zoning meetings here
we get all kinds of big developers, they come for 1001 variances, all kinds
of variances and we approve them without, you know, a flick of the eye and
here comes a poor man that just wants to add another room for a family be-
cause he can't afford to build him a house anywhere else, to buy a house,
and we're going to say no especially in neighborhoods such as this that has
a vacancy rate of less than half of one percent?
Mr. Plummer: You know, Mr. Mayor, I think traditionally over my eleven years
here that I have tried to be as humane as possible but I've got to tell you
I am very concerned where it states here that a setback is required - and
that doesn't bother me, the required setback, but what does bother me, he
is proposing to set back 9 inches. Now, if we granted this to the neighbor
on the other side that means to fight a fire we've got 18 inches to get a
fireman through.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, it is row housing, go to Whales.
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, I have to vote against a 9 inch setback, I'm sorry.
You set the precedent and you've got to give it to the guy on the other side,
I can't vote.for that.
Mr. Whipple: I just want to bring to the Commission's attention that the
lot size is 37 by 55 which is approximately 2,000 square feet.
Mr. Plummer: Hey, Whipple, I would deviate from 9 down to 7 or down to 5 but
9 inches, I'm sorry.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll.
107
The preceding motion to grant variance failed to pass by the following
vote- AYES: Mr. Carollo and Mr. Perez. NOES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Dawkins
and Mayor Ferre.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Dawkins: Sometimes you have to be humane and sometimes you have to be
inhumane and I too share the same thoughts of when the big time people come
in, they get the variances, but 9 inches is really unacceptable so I vote no.
29. GRANT 1 YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE: 1399 S. W. 1ST AVENUE.
Mr. Plummer: Is the applicant here?
Mr. Tom Gillie: My name is Tom Gillie, I have offices at 137 Aragon Avenue,
I am representing the applicant.
Mr. Plummer: Are you an attorney, sir?
Mr. Gillie: No, I am an architect.
Mr. Plummer: You cannot represent the applicant.
Mr. Gillie: I have an affadavit on file.
■ Mr. Plummer: You have the power of attorney?
Mr. Gillie: Yes, it is on file.....
Mr. Plummer: Why have you not done anything within the past 6 months, sir?
Mr. Gillie: Candidly because of the economic situation and because we ran
into a problem with the structural design which came in over budget and we're
designing back down again.
= Mayor Ferre: Will you get going in the next six months if we give you this
extension?
Mr. Gillie: It is my understanding from my client.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1074
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE AS
LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XI-2, SECTIONS 3(2) (a)
(c), 3(2) (b) (c) & 6(1), TO PERMIT A ONE-STORY ADDITION TO
THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING ON LOTS 11, 12, 13 AND 14; BLOCK
95S; MIAMI (8-41), BEING 1399 SOUTHWEST 1ST AVENUE, AS PER
PLANS ON FILE, WITH 19.84' PROPOSED EAST SIDE YARD (30.6'
REQUIRED), 20.17' PROPOSED REAR YARD (30.6' REQUIRED), AND
29.5% PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE (23% ALLOWED); ZONED R-CB
(RESIDENTIAL OFFICE).
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
108 DEC 15 1981
30. ACCEPT PLAT: PAWLEY DEVELOPMENT CORP. PLAT.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1075
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED PAWLEY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION PLAT, A RE -SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI;
AND'ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHOR-
IZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID
PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
31. DISCUSSION ITEMS: WATSON ISLAND, F.E.C. PROPERTY, NOGUCHI,
MUSEUM, R.F.P. FOR MIA4ARINA, ETC.
Mayor Ferre: We have on the agenda Watson Island, and we have the question
of discussion and I asked Ernie to stay for a moment, we're obviously not
going to be able to talk about it too long today but I think, Mr. Manager, I
think in the January meeting you have to set up, and I really would like to
have half of the morning or half of the afternoon, preferably the morning,
where we talk about the F.E.C. property, I have a request here from Martin
Fine and from Dan Paul, that the Downtown Action Committee requests that the
matter of the F.E.C. land acquisition litigation be placed on the January
agenda, we need to talk about the museum, Mr. Manager, of the Maritime Museum,
we need to talk about the R.F.P. around Miamarina, we need to talk about the
Noguchi plans and he is going to be here, as I understand, January llth and
we need to talk also about the Watson Island step. Now, it seems to me that
you've got to prepare yourself now for an R.F.P. process and I would hope
that you would get all your legals worked out as to what we need to do and
unless I hear otherwise from this Commission, you proceed.
Mr. Gary: You want me to proceed?
Mayor Ferre: On the R.F.P. process to be discussed January llth.
Mr. Plummer: You're going to come back on January llth and discuss with us
what you are going to be tracking. You're not going to be issuing the R.F.P.
on the llth.
Mayor Ferre: You can't issue the R.F.P. until the Commission approves it.
I hope that you do all of the legal work, leg work, drawing work, paper
work, people work and all the other work so that when you come here this
Commission can come to a conclusion after you make a full fledged presen-
tation. we need to move along one way or the other. I mean if it is the
will of the majority that that's the end of it then that's the end of it.
nrr. , ,
Mr. Gary: Do you want half a morning? Half a day? i--�
109
Mayor Ferre: I think -you're going to have to make that judgement, Mr.
Manager. When you're talking about the F.E.C. Railroad property, that
alone is going to take an hour. When you're talking about Watson Island
you know Mrs. Shubin is going to bring 50 people down here. That alone
is going to take a half an hour and Ernie Fannatt.o himself takes, you know,
I only give him 3 minutes but he takes 15.
Mr. Plummer: Nol
INAUDIBLE COMMENT FROM AUDIENCE
Mayor Ferre: No, I said that Noguchi will be here on the llth.
Mr. Carollo: Wait a minute. Mr. Mayor, do you mean that we are going to
reschedule our meeting date just for Noguchi?
Mayor Ferre: No, I said Noguchi is coming here and it has nothing to do
with the City.of Miami Commission on the llth and we have a meeting on the
14th. And what I'm saying is, with your concurrence, I'm instructing the
City Manager to come prepared to talk about all these things.
Mr. Carollo: On the 14th?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carollo: Okay.
Mayor Ferre: Watson Island, Noguchi, the theme park, the museum, the Miamarina
R.F.P. and get the DDA here, we want everybody here at one place, one time and
let us talk about what we're going to do with Miami bay side because it is
time for us to approach the whole downtown bay side as it were what it is and
that's one unit. We're not talking about separate pieces of property, it is
one piece of property.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you have been handed a resolution, I'm willing to
offer it if the rest of you concur, a resolution authorizing the payment of
the law firm of Floyd Pearson, Stewart....
Mayor Ferre: No, sir. That's exactly why we need to revisit that whole issue.
Mr. Carollo: Floyd Pearson, do you mean Frates?
Mayor Ferre: That's right.
Mr. Carollo: No, we already paid out $300,000, now we're talking about another
$250,000 and who knows how much more.
Mayor Ferre: That's right and that's why we're not going to pay anything
until we have a full-fledged discussion here. This has gone on long enough.
Mr. Carollo: Yes, milked this cow pretty long.
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, I only brought that up because it comes with the
recommendation of the City Attorney's Office.
Mayor Ferre: It doesn't have my recommendation.
Mr. Carollo: Good for George.
110 DEC ; 5 iSCI
i*N
A
32. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO RESEARCH FEES PRESENTLY BEING CHARGED
FOR PERSONS WISHING TO APPEAL ACTIONS OF THE ZONING BOARD.
Mr. Plummer: May I ask that the City Attorney come back to me in writing,
and I think maybe if I'm correct, and I remember correctly, it is going to
have us a lot of time in the future. Mr. City Attorney, Mr. Percy, this is
not related to a given subject and I'll take 2 seconds. It is my recollec-
tion of the Charter that anything that is brought before us on appeal is
only to be heard by this Commission anything new, it is not to completely
re -hash what was at the lower board but that of any new matter which would
relate to the 'subject. I ask you to look into that, sir, because I recall
that being a part of, that we would not have to listen to the same entire
presentation as made at the lower board, we could read the minutes -when
they're available - and we could, in fact, listen to just the new matters
or discovery in the subject. I ask you to look into that and report back
to me.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Mayor, excuse me....
33. APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO UNDERTAXE
NEGOTIATIONS WITH MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT
WHICH IS FAIR, COMPETITIVE, ETC.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, at this point in time if we can, I'd like to bring up
an item that we discussed last time around and I think we have had some clari-
fication of it, and that, Howard, was the request that you made to withdraw
from the last Commission agenda the recommendation from the Audit Committee
what firm the City should hire. I think we had a misunderstanding in the (1)
firm that was recommended, Cooper and Samson Jacomino and I think now
that that has been cleared up that we see that there indeed is representation
from all three ethnic groups in our community. I would be willing to make a
motion to approve negotiations between this firm and our administration.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I'm satisfied that there is tri-ethnic representation on
this and we have a motion now, is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: I'll second it for discussion.
Mayor Ferre: All right, now under discussion, does anybody want to say any-
thing else on this?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes. I have reviewed it also but I am not at all well, totally
pleased. I see where you do have a minority with 15%. To me, and this is
my personal opinion only, that is not a fair representation and anybody else
who comes before this board with 15% minority whether it be oriental, black,
I don't care what it is, I will not vote and call that fair minority repres-
entation. I will vote yes.
Mayor Ferre: I have another problem with it and that is that I want to make
sure, Mr. Manager, I want you to understand what I'm going to say because it
is very complicated and I don't mean to offend Mr.Sanson and his group, but
you know that our audited statements are very important for our bonding.
Mr. Gary: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You also know that when you put Coopers Lybrand or Arthur Anderson
or one of the top eight you've got no problems in New York. Now when you put
Sanson Jacomino, when you get to New York they say Sanson who? and they are
going to say who are they. And then when you say, well, they got 42.5%, the
bond counsel is going to say, does that mean that they are responsible for
42.5% liability? And you say that's right and that may create a little prob-
lem. So I want you to answer that not today, but you come back after you
negotiate, whether not Coopers & Lybrand is willing to take up a little bit
more of the liability question, maybe they'll guarantee 75% of it even though
i11 DEC i 15 1981
they're only getting 42.5% of the fee, I'd like to know, I'm very concerned
about what Mr. Kuhn told me that, in effect, it works out fine because his
partner, he's got two CPA's, he and his partner, and that she is going to
be compensated at a higher rate because she is a managing partner and that
balances out to 15%. I need to know that, I want Mr. Kuhn to hire more
black accountants, he doesn't seem to have enough. He said, well, once he
gets this maybe he'll be able to hire four more. Well, I want to know that
he is going to hire four more because I don't want to be paying for higher
rates for a managing partner when we can get black accountants that need to
come up the ladder and need to be part and parcel of this whole process. In
other words, with all due respects to Mr. Kuhn, I'm sure he is a nice man
and is a professional and doing fairly well, but we need to think about
spreading the pie a little bit here. I'm just trying to point out the is-
sues. Now, the last thing that I want to say, Mr. Manager, is this document
came into my posession which is dated October 30th and it is the proposal to
provide auditing services. I have not had the opportunity to read it be-
cause I just got it in the last day or two. I think this Commission deserves
to have this document and I'm frankly surprised that it wasn't submitted to
this Commission. Are you going to answer that, Mr. Eades? Why didn't the
Commission, you're asking us to make one of the most important decisions and
you are not providing the full information.
Mr. Gary: Well, let me just respond firstly, is that we had an audit com-
mittee who ......
Mayor Ferre: The Audit Committee, does not, I do not abrogate, I do not
abdicate my vote. My vote is my vote and the Audit Committee does not have
my vote, I represent me, they don't represent me.
Mr. Gary: We'll get you copies.
Mayor Ferre: I've got a copy, you get copies to the rest of the Commission.
And I would recommend that when you ask this Commission to make important
votes like this that you give the full documentation so that they can make
an intelligent decision because the Mel Reese days are over or they should
have been over for a long time, you know this keeping people half way in the
dark about things, that's gone, those days are gone and I would hope that
we are fully informed.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, excuse me. Mr. Carollo, weren't you on that
Committee?
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Mayor, fellow colleagues on the Commission,
_ I was the Commission's appointee on that committee. There are five people
on that committee, I'm the Commission's representative, Jack Eads is the
administration's representative and there were three people appointed by
us and let me say this, the Mayor is absolutely right, I apologize that you
all were not given copies of that. Well, I feel bad, Mr. Mayor, because I
was the Commission's representative there. I was under the impression that
you were given a copy of that.
Mayor Ferre: That's not your fault, that's not your responsibility.
Mr. Dawkins: If he's our representative it is his fault.
Mayor Ferre: No, sir, it is the administration's fault. The administration
has the responsibility of keeping this Commission informed as to what the
documentation was. He was, the way we structured this, a representative,
that doesn't mean that he is to give us all of the things....
Mr. Carollo: Miller, if you want to give me a raise, my friend, then I will
be responsible. In the meantime....
Mr. Dawkins: If you are the member here and you are our representa- a-
tive then you are as much as responsible as anyone else for not giving us
this....
Mr. Carollo: Well, sir, let me tell you something: (1) I am your representa-
tive in a committee of 5 to act there but I am not a representative to be an
errand boy for anyone that's making about $150,000 with a staff of 20 or 30
people that are making anywhere from 20 to $50,000.
Mr. Dawkins: Then you should not have taken the assignment, you should have
refused.
Mr. Carollo: Well, t would just hope that when we assign you to other com-
mittees that you could do an equally better job than that.
Mr. Dawkins: I hope so too.
Mayor Ferre: Well, be that as it may, I think the point is still never the
less, Mr. Manager, that you're asking you, the Manager, are asking this Com-
mission to make a decision and it must be based on the providing of essent-
ial information for us to make an intelligent decision.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I'll get that information to you.
Mr. Plummer: I think that we all agree on.
Mayor Ferre: Now, the last thing I want to tell you about this whole process
.... The last thing I want to say about Coopers Lybrand is, in this whole
audit process,' I want you to bring this up for a discussion in January be-
cause it is my opinion that the external auditors of the City of Miami must
report to the City of Miami Commission through an Audit Board. I know that
that is contrary to, I know that, for example, Joe Grassie was against that
but the fact is that I think in modern corporate practice, as you know, the
auditors of the corporation from Knight Ridder on to any other corporation
report to the Board of Directors and not to the President becuase the Presi-
dent who has control of the accounting function has an inherent conflict in
the outside auditors report to an outside board. And I would like to dis-
cuss that openly and we would like to come to a conclusion on that. And
we also need, at that very same time, when you put that on the calendar for
discussion, we need to review the Peat Marwick management letter that the
Commission received recently. And that is going to be a two or three hour
discussion.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1076
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AUDIT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE NEGOT-
IATIONS WITH THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TO ARRIVE AT A CONTRACT
WHICH IS FAIR, COMPETITIVE AND REASONABLE AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT TO THE CITY
COMMISSION FOR RATIFICATION AND APPROVAL.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
113 DEC 15 1981
34. ACCEPT RIGHT OF WAY DEED OF DEDICATION -
A. L. KNOWLTON.
Mayor Ferre: Is this a non -controversial item?
Mr. Plummer: You were the biggest objector to this, you and Vince Grimm.
All this does is give the right-of-way to the City?
Mr. Gary: Yes.
Mr. Michael Anderson: Yes, that's all it does.
Mr. Gary: Yes, for the record, all it gives is the right-of-way.
Mr. Plummer: Fine, no problem.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1077
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DEED OF DEDICATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
PURPOSES OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE WEST 10' OF
THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 11, IN BLOCK 83, NORTH, CITY OF MIAMI,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, MADE BY A. L. KNOWLTON, RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK B AT PAGE 41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
o Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
114
DEC 15 1981
35. DIRECT CITY CLERK TO READVERTISE ALL VACANCIES ON THE ZONING
BOARD AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, we need appointments to the Zoning Board so that we can
have a quorum so that we can take official action.
Mayor Ferre: How many vacancies do we have?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: At the present time, we have two terms which expire at the
end of this month and two vacancies that we will be filling in January.
Mayor Ferre: All right, I would recommend since this is a heavy issue, that
you readvertise, open it up all over again for everybody to be able to re -
qualify and put it on the January agenda.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Mayor, we don't have time to readvertise and have it
on the January agenda. We can continue this if you wish. I had a situation
last night......
Mr. Carollo: Why don't you have enough time, Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Because it has to be done one month in advance according
to City Code.
Mr. Carollo: It has to be done 30 days before it is taken up?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Right. Now, last night the Zoning Board didn't have a
quorum, we had to cancel the meeting, we already had a backlog because of
that, the next meeting is on January 4th, if we don't have a quorum on
January 4th we will have a repetition of the same.
Mr. Plummer: When you say that you don't have a quorum, is that because
some members were absent?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: One member was absent, it was a key member in this case.
Mr. Carollo: Today is the 15th, 30 days before the next meeting, the next
meeting is January 14th, so if you were to advertise for tomorrow would that
give us 30 days exactly or not or will be one day short?
Mr. Plummer: You can't get an ad in that quick.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: That is done by the City Clerk, I doubt if the City Clerk
will be able to get an ad tomorrow in the paper.
Mr. Carollo: The bottom line is I think we had agreed that we were going to
have one Regular Commission Meeting and then one was going to be a Zoning Meet-
ing and it was my understanding that the 14th would be the Regular Meeting
and then the 28th would be the Zoning Meeting.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Appointments are normally taken at the Regular Meeting
Mayor Ferre: Well, what is it doing on this agenda?
Mr. Gary: This is a regular agenda.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: This was supposed to be on the loth agenda but it was not,
I cannot answer to that one.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Perez-Lugones, let's see if I can cut through
this. How many vacancies specifically do we have that need filling in the
Zoning Board?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Two at this point, the expiring terms....
Mayor Ferre: Who were they?
115 DEC 15 1981
Mr. Percy: Willie Gort and Steve Corner.
Mayor Ferre: Willie Gort, well, I think what we ought to do, Willie Gort
would like to be reappointed, wouldn't he?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: So I think we ought to reappoint the guy, he certainly de-
serves to be reappointed.
Mr. Plummer: But when is his term up? It's not up until the end of Jan-
uary, right?
Mr. Percy: The end of this month.
Mayor Ferre: Well, why don't you make, unless somebody has an objection....
Mr. Plummer: Well, he's my appointee, I'll offer the name of Willie Gort
for reappointment.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, I second it.
Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion on the reappointment of Willie
Gort to the Zoning Board? Call the roll.
NOTE: At this point the City Commission voted to reappoint Willie Gort,
however, later in this same item that action was rescinded.
Mayor Ferre: Now, that leaves us with one vacancy.
Mr. Plummer: Corner, as I recall, expressed desire not to be reappointed.
Mr. Carollo: That's my appointment. Will that give us a quorum now? Well,
what I'm saying, with Mr. Gort, that would give us a quorum, correct?
(INAUDIBLE RESPONSE) That is correct, now how many people do we have now
with Mr. Gort? Five people, so that would give us a quorum to proceed with
the meeting. Correct?
Mr. Dawkins: If all five show up.
Mr. Carollo: If Mr. Freixas would show up instead of calling in sick like
he has been doing lately I think you would get a quorum.
Mayor Ferre: I understand he is about to resign, somebody told me that he
was going to resign.
Mr. Carollo: Out of all the times that he has called in sick or hasn't
shown up it's a wonder he hasn't been thrown out. I mean we have certain
guidelines.
Mr. Perez: Who appointed Mr. Gort?
Mr. Plummer: I did. My two appointments there are Mr. Gort and Ms. Basilla.
UNINTELLIGIBLE CONVERSATION - NOT USING MICROPHONES.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, it 7 O'Clock at night, we've got to go to Bayfront
Park, my motion is that we would take up the other appointments at the 28th
and that ads will be put in the paper again opening it all up so that anybody
else could apply and then we take it up on the 28th.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Clerk, have you got that? We're going to readvertise.
Mr. Dawkins: Can I get a clarification here though? I see there where Mr.
Plummer says that two appointees are his..... Now Mr. Mayor, let me ask my
question. I see where Mr. Plummer says two appointments there are his. I
heard that one appointment belonged to Mr. Carollo. I was told when I came
on this board that one appointment was Father Gibson's and now we are now
going by that rule, where did it change and why?
Mr. Carollo: Well, I'll tell you the first time that rule was broken, Miller.
The first time that rule was broken was when I ...... Very good.
MaN,or Ferre: You want to hear it from me, is that your question? Well, in
�g6 ���r
the first place there never really has been any fixed rule and there is
nothing that says that you have an appointment or I have an appointment.
As a matter of fact, I did not appoint Mr. Freixas. I did not appoint Mr.
Jacinto Alfonso, I did not appoint Gloria Basilla or Willie Gort or Steve
Corner. The only person that I asked to be appointed was Alicia Barro and
I'm the Mayor. So out of the 7 people there is one that I have had any-
thing to do with appointing. Now let me finish.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, but my question to you still is, Mr. Mayor, is there
an unwritten rule that people have appointments or not?
Mayor Ferre: Let me finish. What Carollo is saying is that if there was
such a rule which is not a written rule, it was violated with him and it
was. In other words it was the will of the majority of this Commission at
that time that the person that Carollo wanted to appoint was not acceptable.
Now, that eventually was worked out and with patience and due diligence on
his part he got Mr. Alfonso on the board. He also got Mr. Garcia on the
board. Now, there is no written rule, or unwritten rule that Plummer has
two appointments and the rest of us have one or I have two and Plummer has
two and the rest of you have one. There is no written rule of that sort.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me add one thing. Mr. Dawkins, let me add just to
that. There has never been, to my knowledge, any single vote that has put
anybody on those boards. I offered originally the name of Gloria Basila
but it was the consensus of the Commission.
Mayor Ferre: We've always done it that way.
Mr. Plummer: Willie Gort, I don't think anybody up here has any problem with
Willie Gort. I happened to have offered his name.
Mr. Dawkins: Okay, the only thing I have, the only problem I have with that
is why they don't go ahead and offer the names for the rest of them, that's
my problem.
Mr. Plummer: Well, two of them....
Mayor Ferre: There are only two vacancies, and isn't there an alternate?
Mr. Carollo: Don't get over -excited, Mr. Perez.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: No, I'm not getting over -excited, Mr. Carollo. There was
a resignation after the election, that was Wellington Rolle and the Commis-
sion chose not to appoint the alternate which we have been carrying over since
some time in last year, July maybe.....
Mr. Dawkins: And the courtesy was extended to Father Gibson to appoint Mr.
Wellington Rolle so as the appointment, and this is my own opinion, I don't
care whether it is right, wrong or indifferent. It should have been my
courtesy to appoint someone to fill the slot for Mr. Wellington Rolle but
now it is changed so I have no problem with that.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Commissioner, let me explain but it isn't quite that way.
Mr. Carollo: You're making a good point, Miller, but I think when we should
take it up, you know, be at the next meeting, let's take it up then.
Mayor Ferre:. I think we also have to revert back on Willie Gort because Willie
Gort did not get his name in on time. So we'll have to make that appointment
next time around.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I don't think anyone here has a problem with Mr. Gort,
if they do then I'm to be surprised. Mr. Mayor, are you aware of the letter
of why the application was in late?
Mayor Ferre: No.
Mr. Plummer: Okay. It is very clear, Mr. Gort was attending a City function
in relating to a Planning and Zoning Seminar is the reason for his late appli-
cation.
Mr. Carollo: His application was late, we'll look at it. I don't want any-
body coming up here challenging us later on and creating all kinds of prob-
lems, I have no problem with Willie Gort, I mean I voted for him but if there
117
GcC
is a technical problem like that I think we had just better hold on before
we reappoint Willie Gort because someone is going to come up here and we're
going to get all kinds of problems. And if we have to hold off one Zoning
Board Meeting just one more time I don't think that is going to be a matter
of life or death.
Mayor Ferre: Well, what is the will of the Commission on that?
Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. City Attorney, can that create a problem for us?
Mr. Percy: Yes, sir, it could. If any of the other applicants who timely
filed could challenge it unless this Commission wiaved that time require-
ment for Mr. Gort, if you deem that the reason he wasn't able to file on
time was an appropriate one.
Mayor Ferre: I want to remind you that we've been through this conversation
before with Jack Alfonso and I think we've got to be consistent and I think
you've got to pull that and I think you've got to come back and open this
whole thing up for reapplication, let Gort apply properly and let him be ap-
pointed at the next Commission Meeting.
Mr. Carollo: Yes, I'm sure he's not going to have any problem at all in
getting five more votes to reappoint him but the problem is that there is
a technicality with him.
Mr. Plummer: And I'm sure, Mr. Carollo, you're correct. I don't know of
any negative vote for Mr. Gort. Then the question has to be as expressed by
Mr. Perez in the beginning, he has now left technically without a board as
was the meeting of this week. He had no quorum and definitely next month he
is going to be two more members short, there is no way he could get a quorum.
Mr. Carollo: I think all he has to do is reschedule that meeting then until
after we appoint the new members to the board and reappoint the old members.
Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that as long as it is understood.
Mayor Ferre: Let's let the record reflect that and we stand with that.
Now, we also have the Planning Advisory Board and I think what we ought to
do is the same thing we did with Willie.
Mr. Carollo: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: No, but these people got their letters in on time, didn't
they?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about Jose Luis Correa who is here and Lorenzo
Luaces.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Everybody for the Planning Advisory Board got the letter
on time.
Mayor Ferre: I mean since they are sitting members of the Planning Advisory
Board whose names are up.... Do you want to hold off on those?
Mr. Carollo: I would prefer, Mr. Mayor, to hold off on everything. I mean
I don't know if Mr. Miller Dawkins or Demetrio Perez know these people and
then we're going to be here another half an hour, we've got a meeting to go
to, we're late. You know, it isn't going to matter if we wait to do it
all together.
Mayor Ferre: Very good. Mr. City Clerk, you are instructed to advertise
and to open up the whole thing, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Carollo: That's correct.
Mr. Percy: Mr. Mayor, I want to make sure, was a vote taken on Mr. Gort's
appointment, or what is the status of that?
Mayor Ferre: It was taken.
Mr. Percy: Has that been rescinded?
Mayon Ferre: No.
118 DEC 15 1981
IN" /1-1*1
Mr. Carollo: I make a motion to rescind that vote.
Thereupon, the City Commission on motion of Commissioner Carollo,
seconded by Commissioner Plummer, rescinded the previous motion by a
unanimous vote of the City Commission.
36. DISCUSSION OF HISPANIC WORLDS FAIR.
Mayor Ferre: 'Now, tell us about the Hispanic World's Fair and what it is you
want from this Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Question, has this been before the Festival Committee?
Mr. Nathan --Klein: I don't believe so, I just want to present....
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you tell us your name and address and what you're
here for.
Mr. Nathan Klein: My name is Nathan Klein and I represent the Hispanic
Worlds' Fair. Our office is located at the Coral Way Executive Center at
2050 Coral Way in Miami. I don't want to take up too much of your time so
I would just like to present you with a brief outline of what the show is
about. Let me first say that this is not a new show, it originated three
years ago in New York and has been an extremely successful annual event at
the New York Coliseum. The Hispanic Worlds' Fair is an indoor consumer
and trade show geared to market and expose products and services to the
Hispanic Community.
Mayor Ferre: You're losing everybody so there is no use of my letting you
keep on reading, you're reading a statement, you can put your statement into
the record but let me put it to you this way. Okay? We've got a Festivals
Committee, you ought to go before the Festivals Committee but let me warn
you about a couple of things. In the first place, we're not about to give
you any money for you to go to Miami Beach and put on a show on Miami Beach.
Mr. Klein: All right, that I included in here. We do plan to change the....
Mayor Ferre: It has to be in Miami. Okay?
Mr. Klein: Yes, we have that, we understand that.
Mayor Ferre: (2) You've got to get some community based organizations to
support you. Okay? Now, there are plenty of them in this community but
we're not going to bring - with all due respects - we're not going to bring
in people from New York to come here and put on a Hispanic Worlds' Fair
or whatever it is without having community based support. Now, if you go
out and drum up some support from the Kiwanis Club and the Cuban Salesmen
and the Latin Chamber and the other Chamber or whatever....
Mr. Klein: Okay, we have started that, we are planning to do it and we are
also looking for suggestions to a new convention center in the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: Well, the new convention center is a conference center that
doesn't have any exhibition hall so we can't put you up there, we can put
you up here and we can maybe give you some space there, you're going to look
into it, talk to our Convention Bureau and take it from there. You know, I
think that this Commission will certainly have a friendly ear and we will
listen and try to be - I was there personally, I happened to be in New York
and I was invited by Thomas Garcia Fusted when he was my friend, he was my
friend in those days, to visit the Worlds' ......
Mr. Carollo: I'm glad we have that in the record now - "In those days".
Mayor Ferre: .... to visit the fair, it was a spontaneous thing, I walked
in, I'm glad you put my picture in your brochure and Tito Fuentes is a nice
fellow and a great musician and that is super. Now, in the meantime.....
Mr. Carollo: How many of these were made out with the Mayor's picture, I'd
like to ask? Five or six?
119 0EC •15 ;9o81
AMk
Mr. Klein: Okay, we are planning to do exactly what you said, and we do
want to base this event in the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: Very good.
Ms. Janet Cooper: Mr. Mayor, may I reiterate I'm opposed to spending tax
money for private profit making enterprise.
Mr. Carollo: Very good, Janet.
37. APPOINT ONELIO CEJAS TO CITY OF MIAMI FESTIVAL ADVISORY
.BOARD.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, on (9), Mr. Mendez insists that we make his appointment
today. I nominate Onelio Cejas for the Festival Advisory Board.
Mayor Ferre: Who, Paul Cejas?
Mr. Carollo: No, Onelio Cejas, no relation to Paul Cejas.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, you got me shook for a moment. Okay.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-1078
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ONELIO CEJAS TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI FESTIVAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A ONE YEAR
TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 14, 1982.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
Mr. Carollo: Can Mr. Mendez be so informed?
There being no further business to come before the City Commission,
the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 O'Clock P.M.
Maurice A. Ferre
M A Y O R
ATTEST:
Ralph G. Ongie
City Clerk
MattyG
Hirai Assistant
tic
City Clerk �
. was
�'f ISO cam ORATE �
Vr QF "b.AtbGt
ITEM NOJ DOCt1MmT tnvvTrcrf%&-vfnu
1 TWENTY FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO BE IMPOSED IN MXD COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
2 AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT S.E. BANKING CORPORATION AND
GERALD D. HINES IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
OF CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
FOR DUPONT PLAZA
3 OUTDOOR RESTAURANTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA
4 APPROVE WYNWOOD COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN.
5 GRANT ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE: 1399 S.W.
FIRST AVENUE.
6 ACCEPT PLAT: PAI%rLEY DEVELOPMENT CORP-PLAT
7 APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO UNDERTAKE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MOST QUALIFIED
FIRMS TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WHICH IS FAIR, COMPETITIVE,
ETC.
8 ACCEPT RIGHT OF WAY DEED OF DEDICATION/A.L.KNOWLTON.
9 APPOINT ONELIO CEJAS TO CITY OF MIAMI
FESTIVAL ADVISORY BOARD.
MEETING DAB
DECEMBER 15, 1981
COMMISSION
___ACTION
R-81-1070
R-81-1071
R-81-1072
R-81-1073
R-81-1074
R-81-1075
R-81-1076
R-81-1077
R-81-1078