Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1980-05-07 MinutesCITY OF. MIAMI Kw�q• \\`111111 III COMMISSION U E� OF MEETING HELD ON May 7• 1990 (PLANNING 6 ZONING) PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G.. ONGIE CITY CLERK f irmoc CINtISSIQJ OF 'WEUSIDA INANC': I MAY 7, 1980 $ � (PI.A!vN1Nl; t. I.�)f.ING) so�IA. �^C PAGE NO. 1 CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY ORD. 9197 1-2 296 N.'J. 20TH STREET FROM C-4 TO R-4 2 REDESIGNATE S.W. 1ST STREET BETWEEN S.W. 24TH AND R-80-31'. 2-3 25TH AVENUES AS SOUTHWEST FIRST STREET /STINGTOWN BOULEVARD;ETC. 3 APPLICATION BY DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: VACATE/ R-80-332 3-4 CLOSURE PORTION OF N.W. 8TH AVENUE AT N.W. 19TH STREET (TENTATIVE PLAT 1069-"FIRST ADDITION WEST DUNBAR SCHOOL SITE") 4 DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERA'?'iu:v OF APPLICATION BY MIGUEL DEFERRAL 4-7 A. CARBONELL FOR VACATION/CLOSURE OF S.W. 3RD STREET FAST OF S.W. 50TH AVENUE (TENTATIVE PLAT 1067-"NATALIA") 5 APPLICATION BY DADE COUNTY HUD: VACATION/CLOSURE OF R-80-333 7-8 RIGGS STREET SOUTH OF SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF PERCIVAL GARDENS ETC, (TENTATIVE PLAT 1052-"PERCIVAL GARDENS FIRST ADDITION") 6 (a) APPLICATION BY SOUTHEAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY R-80-334 9-51 FOR MODIFICATION OF SECTION 3(4) (b) OF CHARTER R-80-335 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF PAD AT 1643 BRICKELL AVENUE (LA SANTA MARIA) (b) APPLICATION BY SOUTHEAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY FOR PAD AT 1643 BRICKELL AVENUE ("LA SANTA MARIA") 7 BRIEF DISCUSSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHANGING OF DISCUSSION 51 COMMISSION MEETING DATES (PLANNING AND ZONING) ist MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 7th day of May, 1980, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 3:25 P.M., by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor Armando Lacasa Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ALSO PRESENT WERE: Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager R. L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager Assistant City Attorney Terry Percy Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk 1. CHANGE ZONING, CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXI"V=LY 296 N.W. 20 TH STREET FROM C-4 TO R-4 i Mayor Ferre: We're now into the regular agenda. All right, item number one. Ordinance second reading, Planning Department application, change of zoning. Previously moved by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Gibson. Do you want to move it again, Carollo, or not? Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I don't have it before me, I'm getting it from my office now. Ordinance number one, yes, sir, I will move that again. Father Gibson: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, its been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Call the roll, please. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANCING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 1 AND 4; HOME, SUB (B-124) BEING APPROXIMATELY 296 NOR7HWEST 20th STREET, FROM C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) DISTRICT, 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 �1 (CONTINUED ON NEXT BkGE) MAY 71980 r r 0 Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of 18 March, 1980, it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Non:: SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9097 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. 2. REDESIGNATE S.W. 1ST STREET BE'_1gEE1I S.W. 24711 AND 2 5T11 AVENUES AS SOUTHWEST FIRST STREET/STINGTOWN BOULEVARD; ETC. �i Mayor Ferre: Take up item two. Father Gibson: Move it. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Gibson, seconded by Carollo. Further discussion? Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. Neither one of them are graduates of that university. Father Gibson: I want to take the pressure off. Mr. Plummer: Did you graduate from Miami High? Mr. Carollo: I strongly reject that comment. I certainly did graduate from Miami High. Mayor Ferre: All right. Is there further discussion? Call the roll The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 80-331 A RESOLUTION] RECOMMENDING THAT THE NAME OF SOUTHWEST FIRST STREET, BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 24th AND 25TH AVENUES BE REDESIGNATED AS SOUTHWEST FIRST STREET/STINGTOWN BOULEVARD; DIRECTING APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN CITY MAPS, RECORDS, AND STREET SIGNS; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO INFORM THE POSTMASTER, DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION, SIGNS AND MARKERS DIVISION, COUNTY CLERK, BOARD OF DADE COUNTY COMMISSION,FRS, AND MIAMI DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS TO CHANGE THEIR RECORDS (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). ist (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) MAY ? 1980 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution Was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Armando Lacasa Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None 3. APPLICATION BY DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: VACATF/CLOSUP.E POrTION OF N.I7. 6TH AT" NUE AT N.W. 19TIl STREET (TENTATIVE PLAT 1069-"FIRST ADDITION WES_: DUi1B,-,R SCHOOL SITE") Mayor Ferre: Take up item number three. Father Gibson: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Gibson. Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Second... Mr. Plummer: Under discussion. Mayor Ferre: Under discussion. Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Where's the people from the School Board? For the record, your name and position with the School Baord. Ms. Carol Clark: My name is Carol Clark, Specialist, School Site Planning. Mr. Plummer: Father Gibson makes a statement that I like. I have nothing to guide my way in the future like the light of the past. Edison High School, do you remember that? Ms. Clark: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: What assurances does this Commission —that we're not going to get into that situation again? Ms. Clark: Well, this is vastly different. I don't know whether you've had an opportunity to look at the plat or not, but at Edison we were closing an active street, an avenue that ran from 60th Street to 62nd. In this case, we're closing a little stub end of a street that never went anyplace. It was built to provide access onto this site when this was an elementary school site. It is fifty foot in width and about...! don't have it in front of me, ninety feet in depth and it doesn't serve any other properties so there could really be no objection to it. That was the prime problem at Edison. Father Gibson: You have a differnt kind of situation here. Mr. Plummer: Just want it on the record, Father. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll on item three. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 80-332 A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USE OF THAT PORTION OF NORTHWEST 8TH AVENUE LYING BETWEEN THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION O' THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTHWEST 19TH STREET AND THE. INTERSECTION OF NORTHWEST 8TH AVENUE WITH THY" SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF "TRACT A", WEST DUNBAR SCHOOL SITE (75-87); IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE PLAT NO. 1069 - "FIRST ADDITION OT WEST DUNBAR SCHOOL SITE" (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 J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vi '.iayor Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None 4. DEFE R.'lAL OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BY MIGUEL A. CFRBONELL FOR VACATION/CLOSUn.E OF S.W. 3RD STRF.FT !;AST OF S.IJ. 507I AVENUE (TENTATIVE PLAT 1067-"NATALIA") Mayor Ferre: Take up item number four. Father Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I couldn't understand, please explain. I'm not opposed to it, please explain what they are asking us do on that. I just could not... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Mayor Ferre: Yes, item four. Father Gibson: I couldn't really understand that. Mayor Ferre: There's a little street section here, see? Father Gibson: I went to look for it but I ... it appeard to me that it went into a piece of property or something. Mayor Ferre: Will the administration explain this? Item four, sir. Mr. George Campbell: This little piece of land is a piece of right-of-way that was on the plat many years ago. Apparently, at one time, the street was planned to go through. And when the other plat was put on record here, Pinehurst, there was no street dedicated through there. And of course, ti,at's all built up, there are all houses in there. Now the little stub that you see in yellow there has never been paved, its never been open. The sidewalk out there actually goes across the front of the street... ist v MAY 71980 t r Father Gibson: That's correct. That's why I couldn't detect it. I have no problem I just wanted to... Mayor Ferre: Well ,let me ask you just a philosophical question. According to the law, when there is a right-of-way that's vacated, the property owners on either side end up owning that property. Does the City get anything out of it? Mr. Plummer: Compensation. Mr. Camp`-:�11: Only in the manner of sub -division improvements, if there are any to go in there. Mayor Ferre: So in other words, in effect what we're doing is we're giving to the land owner on both sides an extra lot. Rev. Gibson: That's right. Mr. Plummer: How big is this piece of property? Mr. Campbell: It's fifty feet wide, that is North and South it is fifty feet and about seventy-five or eighty feet deep. It's a very small... those lots in there are si:.-standard sized to begin with. Mr. Plummer: but you're talking about four thousand square feet. Mr. Cambpell: Roughly, and that's divided... Mr. Plummer: What you're also talking about is a mini -park. Mr. Plummer: Is divided on either side of the centerline to the property owners. Mr. Plummer: NO, no, no. Whose asking that this thing be closed? Mr. Campbell: The property owners, sir. Mayor Ferre: On both sides. Mr. Plummer: Well, the property owners are going to get roughly a lot twenty-five by eighty. Mr. Campbell: Approximately. Mr. Plummer: And what are they offering to the City in like compensation? Well, I mean they're gaining... Mr. Campbell: Nothing. No, they're gaining but there is nothing that comes to the City in compensation. Mr. Plummer: They are gaining two thousand square feet, and two thousand square feet has got to be worth something. Mr. Grassi.e: The only benefit to the City, Commissioner is that the property is not now or, the tax rolls and under this circumstance it would go on the tax roll,. Mr. Plummer: Big deal. Mayor Ferre: Well I think the theory... Mr. Grassie: That's why I told you it was the only benefit coming to the City. Mayor Ferre: Yeah, but let's talk about the theory of this. The theory of this is that that land was probably given to the City as a right-of-way, I don't know, and therefore, if the City doesn't do what it said it was going to do when it took the property, � 119p,Y 7 1980 C Mayor Ferre (continued): and I guess at no expense, the idea is that if the City doesn't do that, then it justly belongs to the people who owned it before. Mr. Carollo: Well, what I see is that the size of that land in today's real estate market would be worth approximately thirty thousand dollars. Now, unless the people that own the property now were the original owners that gave their right-of-way to the City back whenever, I would have a bitter taste left to give that land to these owners in exchange for nothing. The City should ha,e something in return. Mr. Camptw11: Well may I say, that as it stands, if that were a lot, it would 1 an unbuildable lot, if it were being created as a lot today. Mr. Plummer: We understand that. Mr. Campbell: And that there is no new lot being created by this. It is merely reverting to the owners. As I remember, on the original plat there is the usual reversionary clause to the heirs and assigns which would in this case be the abutting property owners. Father Gibson: Let me ask this. Lets asi�um�, I want to agree with you, not assume, I do. But it is also true that when you give them that much land that their propert;, is that much more valuable. Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir. Father Gibson: And so you're saying to me, that —are they the original owners? Mr. Campbell: No, sir. Not to my knowledge. Mayor Ferre: The property rights go on property, it has nothing to do as to who owns the property. Father Gibson: Yeah, but Mr. Mayor, they gave it, they dedicated that land for a purpose. Mayor Ferre: The property owner of the property on either side dedicated it for a purpose. Whether or not that property owner has died, and sold, or sold it ten times over, the right really goes with the property and not with the owner. Father Gibson: All right, I'm going to agree with you. The only thing I'm saying is, it's worth more because we're giving it back. Mayor Ferre: No question about it, that's why I brought up the question. Father Gibson: And I want to agree with you, what are you going to do for us? We're doing all this for you, you know, it's like a man said once about... told a guy, said, all that thou has done for you, what are you going to do for me? Mr. Plummer: 1. the applicant here. ? Mr. Carollo: Wc, may quote the famous words of our president, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Mr. Plummer: Is Mr. Carbonell here? I move this item be deferred and f the applicant be. present. 1 Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion for deferral, for the expressed reason... %L . Plummer: I think it should be mile known to the applicant, to both sides, of the discussion of this Commission today so he can come here prepared to answer when at the next meeting. �6 1st MAY ? 1980 v Mr. Perez: Commissioner, they were notified that this item... Mayor Ferre: All right, there's a motion for deferral. Just for the record, so that we understand, and this is a matter that's a matter of law and of legal philosophy that qoc: 1,ack as far as the Roman Fmpire, you know? And that is, the question (,•f 1,rOp._rty and of rights and how these ... in the past, we have vacated m:tny, many pieces of property that have been of great benefit to I-)(- , in Coconut Grove and otherwise, and we have not charged anything for it. The theory always being that we took the Iand from the property owner, and when we give it back to them, we give ;t like we took it, for nothing. Now, the theory beinq that if somebody guilds something on there then the tax rolls are increased. Now, that's a very, very old premise, I think in the law of real estate in the hr._ted States. Now I'm not saying that it shouldn't be changed. But I am saying that if we are going to start changing it, and I was the guy that brought this up, but, you know, i think we have to be very deliberate in thinking this through because this is as old as the private enterprise system. Father Gibson: Mr. Mayor, you've convinced me. I just hope I can convince the Commission on other things based on rule and practice, okay? I want to tell everybody I'm for it. Okay? Mayor Ferre: Well, the item is deferred at this point. Would you call the roll on the deferral. ThEREUPON THE FOREGOING MOTION TO DEFER AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 to the next Commission meeting was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, and seconded by Commissioner Carollo, and was passed and adopted by unanimous vote. Following Roll Call: Father Gibson: I wonder if I could see that street. While I came up in the Grove for years, I found myself at a loss on 8th Street and yet I remember the name of the street. 5. APPLICATION BY DADE COUNTY HUD: V?1CATION/CLOSURE OF HIGGS STPX ET SOUT'i OF SOUTH RIGIIT OF WAY OF PrnCIVAL AVENUE , FTC. (TENTATIVE PLAT 1052-"PI.RCIV,NL GARDENS FIRST P_DDITIO11") Mayor Ferre: We're on item five. Well, is the applicant present? Father Gibson: It's HUD. Mr. Plummer: It's HUD. The same rules don't apply Mayor Ferre: I see. So in other words, the same rules that apply for the private guy, it doesn't apply to HUD. Mr. Plummer: That's right because it's our tax payers' money. Father Gibson: That's right and it's the public int erest. Mayor Ferre: All right, Father Gibson moves, who seconds it? Father Gibson: You taught me that much Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Okay, is there a second? Mr. Lacasa; Second. 7 MAY 71980 ist Mayor Ferret Second. Further discussion? Call the roll on item five. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 80-333 A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USE OF HIGGS STREET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PERCIVAL AVENUE FOR A DISTANCE OF +144.200, TN CONJUNCTION WITH A TENTATIVE PLAT N0.1052 - P::"RCIVAL GAP -DENS LST ADD." (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the resolution Was' passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice -Mayor Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commi.;:,.ioner Joe Carollo Coutnissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NONS: None 6(a) APPLICATIOR: PY So, rlii-:A; "r ISODIFICATION OF Si:CTI1:,:. 3 (,) C0i1STKUCT10iN OF PAD A'i 1643 ( t.e+ 5A1N'iA MARIA) 6(b) APPLICATION BY SOUTY,EAST BATIK ANI) 11'1;;I1ST C'O",I AT[ y FOR PAD AT 1643 BRICKELL AVENUE ('ALA MANTA IIARIA") Mayor Ferre: All right, on item six, I turn the gavel over to the Vice -Mayor, and let the record reflect, as it did previously, that since my wife is the owner of the subject property, I will recuse myself from the deliberations and will ha.,e no...and have no participation in this whole process. Do you want to take a five minute break? Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that. AT THIS POINT THE CITY COMMISSION TOOK A BRIEF i RECESS AND RECONVENED WITH THI,' FO LLOraIr1G "+" C+BFRS FOUND TO BE ASSENT: ABSENT: "layor Maurice A. Ferre Mr. Lacasa: In the zoning agenda, application I,y Southeast Bank Trust Corporation for a modification of the requirements in sections so and so, of the City of Miami Charter, Chapter .... Mr. Perez Lugones, I have here a memorandum verifyin,;-urtain questions that were raised in the previous meeting on this issue, concerning notices to the citizens and in the paper. Are you satisfied that this is properly before us this afternoon. Mr. Perez: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I have discussed those items with the City Attorney, and also with the City Clerk, and this item is properly before you today. Mr. Lacasa: Thank you, sir. Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Jose Alvarez: Yes, sir, our office is satisfied that this item is legally and properly before you. Mr. Lacasa: Thank you very much. Therefore, I am going to proceed with the hearing. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, let me, if I may, because one of the reasons for the deferrment was to ask of the Chief Zoning Inspector that certain questions be answered, and very conspicuous, I do not see the Chief Zoning Inspector... Mr. Lacasa: She's here, J. L. Mr. Plummer: She is here? Mr. Lacasa: Yes, she is. Mr. Plummer: Oh, okay fine. Mr. Lacasa: And we have a memorandum here, I don't know if you have it, that's been ser,t to us by Miss Butler concerning the questions that were raised in that previous meeting. So later in the meeting, we'll hear from her on this. Okay, now Mr. Whipple. Mr. Carollo: Excuse :pie, Vice -Mayor.... in said memorandum that ... the one r that I have, date,i May 7th. Mr. Lacasa: May ?th, 1960, is a memorandum from Salman, Director of Building and Zoning... Mr. Carollo: That's the one that I have. Thank you. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Whipple. ist r% MAY 71980 Mr. Richard Whipple: Vice -Mayor, members of the Commission, Richard Whipple, Chief of Current. Planning, in the Planning Department. I did go over our recommendation with you at the last meeting, but just briefly to refresh your memory, there are two items before you; Darts "A" and "B". Part "A" has to do with the rechiircmunts of the Charter amendment having to do with waterfront pr.opert.ies. The -.,plicants are seeking to set aside part of that requirement in order tc, lreserve the existing mansion on the sit-,, which they feel has significant character and architectural value. Because the house, mansion is at the extreme Northerly property line, it is not possible for them to provide that twenty-five percent viev corridor unless the mansion is torn down. Father Gibs:�n: I didn't hear that last word. Mr. Whipple: Unless the mansion is torn down. Father Gibson: The twenty-five percent what? Mr. Whipple: Twenty-five percent of the average width of the lot is the Charter requirement. In other words, an area equivalent to twenty-five percent of the width which is four hundr-d rect would require side yards of at least one hundred feet on, nn` .,ach side, but total and, I believe their position is s:,mewhere, or rather than twenty-five percent they are providing s ".tn percent. but they could actually provide twenty-eighti>e _nl if the mansion was torn down. Mr. Carollo: In other words, Mr. Whipple, the actual width of the project is supposed to approximately ninety-three percent. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir:, with the house remaining. That's correct. Mr. Plummer: Well wait a minute, let me ask this, Dick. When did this come abou-? With all of the minutes that I have read, talked about the mansion being there, I see nothing in the minutes of the mansion being torn down. Mr. Whipple: No, my comment was that if the view corridor were torn down, would be met, the requirements would be met if the mansion were torn down. That's why they are requesting this; Commission that they not comply in the stricter sense with the view corridor so that they can preserve the mansion. Let me point it out over here, if I may. This is the Brickell Avenue branch, at this point. The outer limits of the parking structure is approximately twenty-two feet in from the South- easterly property line. The apartment structure on the other side is approximately one hundred feet, plus or minus. I don't have an exact dimension on that. This is the mansion; area which sits beyond the parking structure. This being the main tower. So my point was that their request i; to maintain the mansion in this location rather than to tear it down ,3n.? provide the total view corridor along those two sides. In other wc.rrl:-;, they have to l:rovide one hundred feet pursuant to the Charter amenclne:-.' . recoim-n)end approval of that request. We believe, we agree wit1-I thi, api:l_cants that there is merit to saving that structure and we also must a.'rri.t that with the preservation, of trees that is being committed b; tht., appiic,int, that in essence, there will not be a lower view corei,?cr thr:,unh tie property because of the foliage and the landscaping, an,d there is a tower, so of course, it's very slim in comparison to thr, liv�iz.le widtl: of the to*. We feel the upper view corridor leas muri are'. trn refore, we have no problem with that particular arrangement. The ;eu.»nl re(luest is for Planned Area Development approval on the above site• a few hundred and thirteen units, and we likewise have r r�u ides JJ)jA-oval of that devel('pment, including the deviations with r rcgatd to tho side set backs and the lot coverage. The setback requirem(nt, as you note, the building is triangular, the set- back requirement :;-)u.d be approximately two hundred and seven feet on each side. The, si;i.'i we say tie -point of the triangular portion is about one hundred and sixt.f feet from the sideline, the back part of the triangle, or tine wi.lest fart ,s apl roximat-', c.,,u hundred and thirty. We believe that because+ of tfn,_ slimness of the tower and the fact that it is not a, shall we sai vertical building running down the side lot line, that the deviation on the side yard is not of great impact upon the 10 ist MAY ? 1980 6 Z Mr. Whipple (continued): abutting properties. So we have recommended that also. The points of lot coverage have to do with the necessary height of the parking garage having to put all ... they are proposing to put all vehicles, except for a small number, in the parking garage and the floor area ratio which they are proprsing is less than two point zero, which meets the zoning requirements. Therefore, in all counts the Planning Department has recommended approval of the project. Mr. Plummer: What does the Code call for at the present? What is the maximum FAR? Mr. Whipple: The FAR in the R-5A zoning district is two point zero with the possibility of a two point tow, with larger unit sizes, without a Planned Area )evelopment request or... Mr. Lacasa: That also applies to the PAD's? Mr. Whipple: Well, the PAD is an overlay and has flexibility that can go beyond and has been recommended in the past, to go beyond that two point two. Previous to this time, the highest flog area ratio that had been recommended by this Commission was a two point four based upon a developable land area, not including any water', and that was a project that is just, I believe, North of this project.. Mr. Lacasa: But actually. �nis is a PAD? Mr. Whipple. This is a PAD. They meet the floor area ratio provisions, however, they need a PAD for the deviations with regard to, such as lot coverage and, that's it. Those two. Mr. Plummer : But you're saying a precedent to this advocation was a two point four approved by this Commission. Mr. Whipple: Two point four based upon the developable land area. It did not include any underwater or water surface area included in the computation. Mr. Plummer: And that this application is what? Two point, what now? Mr. Whipple: Including the water surface, the revised calculations is a one point nine two. If they do not include the underwater, the floor area ratio would be at two point eight six eight. In other words, if you want to compare a number with the two point four, then we should be talking about the number of two point eight six eight. Mr. Plummer: Is your recommendation based only on that incorporation of the determination by the Charter or would you recommend this without that recommendation? Father Gibson: I didn't get that, Plummer. Mr. Plummer: In other words, Mr. Whipple and I know what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this, Father, if that was not to be considered, the water, would you recommend this building still? Now you've said that it is a good project and you aprrove it. The water is not buildable space, Dick, I don't mean to put ,ou... you're not the head of that department. If you want to answer it, fine, of lets put the head of that department on the stand. Mr. Lacasa: Are we still talking about the question of the submerged land, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: Indirectly we're speaking of the submerged land. What I'm asking them is if that land was not taken into the configuration, saying in such glowing terms what a beautiful project this is, would they still recommend it? ist 11 MAY 7 1980 or Mr. Whipple: Let me answer that in part, and then when Mr. Reid gets back he'll answer the other part. We agreed with the Urban Development Review Board, we're about ready to agree with the Urban Development Review Board as far as their recommendation of the two point six fice, based upon the computation without water. Now, two point six five was less than what was being requested of the applicant. I believe, I forget what the exact (inaudible)up around two point nine five request, originally, and the Review Board is recommending two six five, and we were about prepared to go along with it at that point in time. Mr. Plummer: Now answer my question. Mr. Whipple: I'll let Mr. Reid answer that question. He should be here shortly. He 6tepped out to grab a sandwich. Mr. Lacasa: Okay, in the meantime, concerning also this question that was raised also in the hearing that was deferred, we have here a memorandum dated May 7th, 1980,subject,use of submerged land as lot area. This memorandum is from the Chief Zoning Inspector, Miss Butler. Miss Butler, would you please come to the mike? Ms. Janet Waldman: Mr. Vice -Mayor, may I request that... Mr. Lacasa: Janet, you are out of order at this particular time. You are out of order. Ms. Waldman: I'm just requesting a copy of the memo so I may have an opportunity to view it as she speaks. Mr. Lacasa: Of course. Aurelio could you provide Ms. Waldman with a copy of the memorandum? Miss Butler, I would like for you to address tow issues in this memorandum, because basically, there were two issues raised in the previous meeting. One, the question of the interpretation of the submerged land being used as far as computing the floor area ratio. The second one, is the question of, that was raised here by some of the opponents, of whether or not this particular situation creates precedent in the City of Miami. 12 MAY 71980 Mr. Whipple: Let me answer that in part, and then when Mr. Reid gets back he'll answer the other part. We agreed with the Urban Development Review Board, we're about ready to agree with the Urban Development Review Board as far as their recommendation of the two point six fice, based upon the computation without water. Now, two point six five was less than what was being requested of the applicant. I believe, I forget what the exact (inaudible)up around two point nine five request, originally, and the Review Board is recommending two six five, and we were about prepared to go along with it at that point in time. Mr. Plummer: Now answer my question. Mr. Whipple: I'll let Mr. Reid answer that question. He should be here shortly. He 6tepped out to grab a sandwich. Mr. Lacasa: Okay, in the meantime, concerning also this question that was raised also in the hearing that was deferred, we have here a memorandum dated May 7th, 1980,subject,use of submerged land as lot area. This memorandum is from the Chief Zoning Inspector, Miss Butler. Miss Butler, would you please come to the mike? Ms. Janet Waldman: Mr. Vice -Mayor, may I request that... Mr. Lacasa: Janet, you are out of order at this particular time. You are out of order. Ms. Waldman: I'm just requesting a copy of the memo so I may have an opportunity to view it as she speaks. Mr. Lacasa: Of course. Aurelio could you provide Ms. Waldman with a copy of the memorandum? Miss Butler, I would like for you to address tow issues in this memorandum, because basically, there were two issues raised in the previous meeting. One, the question of the interpretation of the submerged land being used as far as computing the floor area ratio. The second one, is the question of, that was raised here by some of the opponents, of whether or not this particular situation creates precedent in the City of Miami. 12 MAY 71980 C. t Ms. Butler: Do you want me to reiterate... Mr. Lacasa: I would like for you to address the two issues which are being addressed in this memorandum, so for the record and for the public, I want you to address those two issues. First, as tar as the interpretation is concerned, what is your interpretation as Chief Zoning Inspector for the City of Miami; and secondly, whether or not it does create a precedent. Ms. Butler: The ordinance says, the word land shall include water surface and land under water. The word shall is mandatory. Mandatory means that we are required to allow water surface and land under water to be included in land area. Does that answer that question? Mr. Lacasa: Thank you. That was the question... that is the answer as far as that is concerned. The second... Ms. Butler: As you can see by the memo, we've listed four other waterfront properties which have used water or submerged land area, and they are Palm Bay Club, Sunset Villas, Palm Bay Towers, and Viscaya North used a small portion of submerged land, not very much but a small portion. And other projects which were reviewed but have never been built, do you want me to go into that or is that enough? Mr. Lacasa: No need for that. Basically, the question that was raised is whether or not this creates a precedent and you're anwering in the negative, and you are submitting for examples, four developments that were based on this same interpretation. Thank you very much, Ms. Butler. Does any member of the Commission have any question for Ms. Butler? Mr. Carollo: Well, I don't know if Ms. Butler could answer this, or maybe she could or Mr. Whipple or someone else here, but I'm just curious, what is the interpretation that some of our other government bodies, for instance,Dade County, has to submerged lands? Can someone answer, yourself, or Mr. Whipple or someone else here? Ms. Butler: I beg your pardon? You want to know what Dade County zoning... Mr. Carollo: The Jefinition that some of the other government bodies have, such as Dade County has. If it's available now. Mr. Whipple, would you know by any chance or does she have it there? Ms. Butler: Dade County's zoning ordinance says the word land shall mean and refer to earth, water, and air above, below or on the surface. That's the definition from the Dade County zoning ordinance. Mr. Carollo: It's for submerged land. Ms. Butler: Well it says land. The word land shall mean and refer to earth, water, and air above, below or on the surface. That's all it says. Mr. Carollo: Thank you. 13 ist 7 ��8� Mr. Lacasa: Thank you, Laura. Now, for the record, we have here a memorandum dated April 7, 1980, from Mr. George Knox, City Attorney, also concerning the interpretation of the question of the submerged land. In the last paragraph, summarizing, it says, this office could find no legal basis for ignoring the clear lanclr_uage of the ordinance, and is therefore, bound to corj:-lii,ie dbs nt any legislative amendment to the ordinance, that long time standing interpretation to include submerged land as land area is the only one that can be supported by the present language of the ordinance. Is that correct, Mr. Knox? Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. Mr. Lacasi.: ^hank you very much. Mr. Traurig, I will ask first how many persons ._om the public are here on the proponents side. Would you please indicate? You are for the developers? Thank you very much. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask this question. Just for the record, and it always comes up, of all of those people that just stood up, how many of you live in the City of Miami? Excuse me? (INAUDIBLE COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE) Mr. Plummer: It's immaterial. Probably none of them at the present time. All rig:-,t, well it's a fair r_.,­,tion because we asked. How many of you live within three hun-lr,_u and severity -five feet of the property? Okay. Mr. Lacasa: Janet, I hate to do this... Mr. Plummer: You'll have your time, Janet. Mr. Lacasa: But I want to keep things very orderly, and I am going to recognize everybody who wants to speak, but in due time. Okay. How many persons are here present on tine opponents side? Thank you very much. Now, Mr. Traurig, would you please go ahead. Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Thank you. Mr. Vice-�?ayor, members of the Commission, for the record, my name is Robert 11. Traurig. I'm an attorney at 1401 Brickell hvc�nr.ue, and T r(:present the applicant Santa Maria Development Group, whose principals include olynnpian York, one of the largest and most prestigious developers in N�,rth America who are very exciting. sensitive urhan developers. And there are other people within that. development group, one of wh(�r, is pr(-sent, Mr. Sheldon Rosen who is also one of the architects fr)r this project. Before I proceed, I would like, Mr. Vice -Mayor, we have a ruling from the Chair as to w;iFether or not the record includes those memoranda from the City Attorney's Office and from the Buil(di::g an,i Zoning Department. I think it's very important that the recOrcl be complete, and if they haven't been officially made a part of the record, we would like to submit to you that they ought to be, and we ask that you incorporate them in the record. Mr. Lacasa: Defir.otly so and I believe that they are properly incorporatc_d in the record, Mr. Traurig. Mr. Trauriy: Al.-O, so that we don't have to introduce exhibits independently of each. other, I'd like to introduce in bulk all of the exhibits that we utilize or make reference to, including the model, and including all of the aerial photographs and other exhibits that we' 11 be d(_�mon:,t ra: my to you. Mr . Laca:-a ; (.rant,.,d . Mr. Traurig: T1, irri, you. 1'.s you know from the preface given to you by staff, this is a prcjact which is within the R-5A zone on Brickell Avenue. It is actually four hu7,lred feet on Brickell Avenue extending to Biscayne Bay. It_'s ow.ied by two separate owners at the present time, Southeast Bank and Trust Company as trustee, owns two hundred feet, and Mercedes M. Ferre owns two huuulred feet. The street address of the project as shown in your zoning fact sheet is 1G43 Brickell Avenue. A- 14 1 St MAY 71980 4 Mr. Traurig (continued) Generally, this shows in yellow the building which is proposed to be built on the four hundred feet on Brickell Avenue, and it's surrounded by other similar highrise construction, starting from 15th Road and going Southward, which includes Vizcaya North, which will include the proposed Villa Reqina which includes the palace, which includes the development immediately t.o the North of this which Mr. Manrique recently had approved. To thf� South of uur 1:�roperty is the CTA Tower and Brickell Place. I say that to you, Just by way of general identification and orientation. Wt'11 talk about the sF;ecific neighbors of the property in just a few minutes. As indicated to you by Mr. Whip,,lc, and by your zoning facts', ­et, we have requested basically two things. one is a modification, of the requirements of the recent Charter change which imposed u.-)n zy front proj)4-rty the requirement that they be setback a certain num.[,,;r of feet, and that they have a certain ;percentage of their lot in a view corridor. Actually, it's Section III, (4), (b) of the Charter. And what we are asking you t,) vary at this hearing, is that provision which requires a twenty-five percent view corridor. And we are asking you to approve a seven percent view corridor and I'd like to explain that to you. In addition, we're asking you to a_,provc. a PAD with two lr.undred and thirteen units. As was indicati.0 Lu you by Mr. Whipple when he described the project, the v.`o., corridor problem exists only because of a desire on th_ part c,f the applicant to retain what we consider to be an historic mansion which isl-resently located on the property, and it is building which you see on the model. The model, as you face it, you're looking from the bay Westward, and therefore, this is on the ,,,Drth side of the property. If this building were a little bit lower, it wouldn't impact the view. But in view of the two story height of the building, it does. Let me show you by this graphic what we're talking about. You see here our site plan, and in orange, you see the existing gatehouses and you see the existing mansion. It's our proposal that we retain this and I'll discuss it in just a minute. If we do retain it, our view corridor would be substantially impacted because this strip would no longer be avai.laLle as part of our view corridor and therefore, we ask you to give us the opportunity to retain it. Among the reasons is the exceptional ambiance of this home as well as the historic character. And I would like to pass to you, starting with Mr. Carollo, and let him pass to his left some photographs which show you the general character of that home as it is today, including the gates and including the exterior patios, etc. That home was built in the early 1920's. It has an historic character because it's reminiscent of that era of large mansions that existed on the bay East of Brickell Avenue. This community has over the past several years, become aware of the need to retain those buildings of exceptional historical significance, as well as other buildings reminiscent of the era. We're proud that the City of Coral Gables retained the Biltmore. You were delighted that you could take action here a couple of weeks ago, to move the Butler Building and retain the historic character of the Butler Building. And there are many efforts being made by historical societies, and others, to preserve historic mo,iument-s and historic structures. We urge that you consider that this building has a unique style, and detail, and workmanship, which is exceptional from an architectural standpoint, and which gives us a sense of continuity t-o our past. And that is the key, that's one of the specific reasons why we think that this building ought to be preserved. The character of Brickell Avenue has changed. All of the other buildings that had been of historical character are being destroyed. This is an opportunity that this orimission has to encourage the preservation of historic buildings. in addition, it can't be ignored that the present owners of this property have made significant contributions to the City of Miami in a v:+r ­ty of different ways, and I don't. think that it is important to talk ah->>>t that. But the fact that the present residents have made such a contribution will be important to future generations, because as this home is viewed by future generations, and it can be pointed out that it was once the residence of a leader of the City of Miami, it will have great si�,nificance. If this Commission in its judgment feels that that Charter amendment is so sacrosanct that there ought not be any variance granted, it would not affect the development of this property, except that it would remove from the property that building and it would, of course, open up some additional green area. But in your consideration Of this, I think it's very important for you to reflect upon the language which you inserted in the Charter amendment to give you the opportunity to ist 15 WN 7 10,80 Mr. Traurig (continued): use your discretion because the specific language says that it can be varied under certain circumstances, and they include whether there is covered parking up to the flood plane level, and we've created covered parking. It also Nays, or comparable benefits which promote a better urban enviornment arid public aciv„ntac:uL;, or which preserve natural fc,.itures. The natural fc: ,tux, s + t,at are being preserved are very substantial. land:;capinq, and we'll discuss that- in a little while, and the public benefit from having this historic huilciinq is something for your consideration. We'd like you to consider an(,ther thing. Although, in condomini''m prc)�ect:s of thi:: tvpe, and this will be a condominium project, security is one of tht., most i.mporta:,t cori5idc:ratic,ns by those who seek to }guy units. We are pr(_r,arc:d, and we wc)uld a_.k you if you approve tip, ndi tional use for the PAD, to to permit the Historic ,,ciut_y ur other (luallfiC-(i 4�dll,:At.iunal to use this property aIld visit this prol),.rty tnreC t iGi, c a I ;ve hours per day, for whal"ovc•r si.gnificar,t corrtmurnity ,icl ivi tv ti;ey would like to conduct within, that historic building. And that will assure that future generations have the opportunity to go cul would be a private complex, in order to conduct public affairs. A:!ci wr, think that +_ --at is a gesture whi_(-h adds great weight to your , �t_: whether or not a variance in that Chartf�r ch-_,nge ouyl,t tc, 1 r::ted. As indicated to you by staff, this has been recom _r,ded tc� V,_,,I fc�r your approval by the urban Development Review Bra* by the Planning; D(,.)artment, unanimously by your Zoning; Board. And ,as been nr)tt-d that. if the building weren't there, we wouldn't h-ive a problem, we'd have a twcnt,`-eigYlt percent view corridor -,ether than a seve;� percent, which is impacted only by the existence of this structure. Thc: second issue: to be: considered by you is whether or not you should grant a PAD f-,,,r this property. I think it's important to note that the conditional. use fc)r PAD has been granted on almost. this entire strip of R-5A roperty. Thertz� are certain qualifications. You have to be three acres, you have to have certain unique features, etc. And in the preamble to the PAD Clydinance it says that the objective is to develol, on a unlfled base`: tt l)rtil, )tE' ecuL,oirical and efficient land use and improve level of am!;n1t1ES, al,prc!l-rlatc Arid harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, and a better urban enviornment, and that in view of the sub�trintial public: advant:Iges of planned area develolment, it's the intent of that section of the or3inance to promote and enc:ouragc it. Arid in the cor,siderationl of a FAD among the criteria to be used by you should be the location arid the nature of the PAD, and we've pointed out to you that it's in a location where other PAD's have been granted by this Commission with respect to intend functions and the pattern of development t,xistir.g or proposed in the general plan, etc. So we submit to vou, that it's appropri(lte in your consideration to grant a conditional use for a PAD on this property. Before proceeding with the discussion of the architecture, I would like, to tell you that I've been privi'_cd3,_d to work with a great term of i)rofessionals in connection with this proJe:t. They're here today. ,.tr. John Fullerton, Mr. Julio Diaz, Mr. Sht'ld.). Rosen as the architects, and other members of their staffs, the larnls,al;ci architectural frim of O'Leary, Schafer and Cosio. Mr. Cosio aril others are here today representing, them. Mr. David Plummer wh ha_ &_)ne our traffic consultation, and we think that in general, the team t.,at has beer, put. together to study design, to make recommendat ic-)r,s i r: amoj,; the ri-,st outstanding w'.,o have ever worked on projects wi thil. tl, 1, ui 1)an area. When we reque:.t a PAD, the criteria for approval charig#,. We no longer ask you for variances, we ask you for deviations, and we don't have to show hardship. And you have granted those deviation!; t!,,o•I(;i,-.)ut this L-r+tire Brickell Avenue corridor. We need the R-5A criteria wlth;)ut any deviations as to use, and I know that my goon f r i-Ild M: will .i i scusz; with you whether or not sailing on Hi:;c ,wnt: L'av 1 u: t iucc.i,:.istent with residential uses, we meet the criteri:) ,s tc area, ar; to li,l,ight, and thf_re is no Height limitation, and W(..', .lk about ;,eight in just a minute. This is a thirty-ei!jht story hurldinq. We meet the FAIR criteria utilizing the definitions anci the -:)t:�rl,rctati(ins that have h!,er, given to you by staff. And it's appropriate: t -) do that. Acid we'll talk about FAR, although I categorized it at the Board hearing as a non -issue because FAR is not the issue. We're not a.,king you to give us an FAR deviation or bonus. We meet the criteria as to lot coverage. There will only be twelve percent lot coverage on this entire site if the garage weren't ist 16 MAY 7 NO t i Mr. Traurig (continued): counted, and the garage wouldn't be counted in FAR, I mean in lot coverage if it were just three i`eet shorter than it is. The only reason that it's the additional three feet is because of the flood plane and the fact that in order to develop and not have flooding, we had to go up an extra few feet. We r,c•f­ the cr.itera as to useable open space and we meet the criteria and far c:xc r d the criteria as to front yard set backs and rear },arras r,.f•t hack;, inc:ludiny the fifty feet that is mandated in the Charter amen;dment. We nnl;• ask that you grant deviation as to side yards. And lets explore this. In the R-5A district, the side yard requirements ar,- fifteen percent of the width of the let, plus one feet for every two feet of height above twenty-five feet. And thc,refore, the reel issue is hcw many feet of side yard set back do we 'lave to have because of he-ight bo�cause nur height is a little bit more th , is normal in the City of Mi•rmi, brit not. morc, on an overall qualitativ, l:,asif; t}i,gn what you now find ir, the trrl,ar. core. So height is the det<<•,inir,g criteria on set backs, and the giestion is, is the thirty-eight stories a reasoncgblc height? We w,,r.t through many, many design exercises. The original decif ion wars to qo with two similar towers, each about. half the hr2ic:ht of this, anti it. was determined that by utilizinj that techni;,ue, wry would hc inu,actinq the ,­,sub:,ta:itial vegatatior, ur: t_t;is, property. And wi,at. i:i i•,• ,. .o�au" ul hammock, and a bvautjfull; larrisc-cgped parcel, would h;3. _c i,r- Stripped of very, very valuable veoatation. And sr t nc-ref.or,-, * nu tic•veloper made the decision not to ,,.ave the two ,rate bui.ldll-igs but to combine the two towers into one. Pn~ ',,:c achieved more open, sauce, and a preservation of the landsca,in-;, and gains in propc)rtion and in simplicity, and in form, and it creut�d a less favorable econ-mic picture because thosecf you wh are familiar with development know t�,at the cost per square foot as you go up, goes up. Furthermore, the carrying cost when you have one building rather than two buildir;,s is sub:;tantially greater because when you have two buildings you build the first tower, you sell it out, then you build the second tower. You don't build the entire building at one time and have to carry tihe .ir:terr:.•st cost for the entire length of the sell out. But it was benefic-ial to the aml>i.ance of this property to have the one tower with this height. .And because we have four hundred feet of width, we start with a certain side yard requirement, and because we have gone to the thirty-eight stories, we riow nf,ed two hundred and seven feet of side yard. And as was stated to you by Mr. Whipple, depending o:i how you look at it, we Lave a minimum set back of one hundred and thirty feet which is more than our neighbors have, we have a maximum set back or one hundred and ninety one feet and we have a median setback of one hundred and sixty feet, set back from our neighbors property. And our next door neighbors are not here to oppose this, in fact, they have told us privately that they support it. So we urge that you approve what we call a siting adjustment, and what you're staff calls a siti:ia idjustnent, and that's consistent witl-. the entire course of conduct by phis Commission in approving PAD's and side yard setbacks on this Pri Ali Avenue corridor. Could we have built something different? Not ever the two tower proposal, but a different type of a proposal similar to the traditional Brickell Avenue proposal which is a rectangular building tnat run- perpendicular to the shore line? Of course we could have but we would ,,ave sacrificed this kind of an ambiance. And would like now to call, f-,r -iuct a moment, Mr. Sheldon Rosen to discuss with you those arc''ti.'rctural exercises and those treatments which he thinks are so un-1 uc as c:-, justify your approval of this PAD. I'd like to call Mr. Sheldon Rosen. Mr. Sheldon Rosen: I'd like to refer back, if I could, to the site plan for just a moment. Mr. Plummer: For the record, your name and mailing address. Mr. Rosen: My name is Sheldon D. Rosen, architect, 33 Hazelton Avenue, Toronto, Canada. I can also be reached at 2780 Douglas Road in the City of Miami. It'_. i teresting to note the form that most of the buildings on Brickell Avenue have taken. They being, basically rectangular buildings. And I am now pointi.,g to six buildings which surround our property, both to the Nort!i and to the South. The central concept of going to a building which is approaching a round form was to occupy as little 17 ist MAY ? 1980 r Mr. Rosen (continued): of the land area as we possibly could, while at the same time maximizing the view potential from the building out to the water, and at the same time, minimizing the view impact from Brickell Avenue looking either to the Soull,,ast or to the Northwest. We feel that, now coming ov(,r to the moiler l , w,. f(­21 that the shape of the building itself is relatively unique in th( t"i.ird area, and I would like to point out to you some of tiie reasons wiry this particular shape evolved. You've he-ard that we have changed from two buildings of a similar sh,1pe to c)ne t,ui l d:i ncl of. a �,imi lar shale, so I won't go through that .lain. But let me ;u_;t point out that this building is extremely real OiiSive in its architectural form to th(_ conditions of wind, weather rain, and hurrican- forces which exist. on the sea side of Florida. t a wall kr,c^+vi, fact that. a tri,ingular form i�. inherently a stable form that is why you z,ee many Fuch things as drilling platforms aiid r�tlier forms (if pyramids and things which have taken this particular shale. IT, ar,,ily;.irig the structure of tliis 1,aiticul.ar building, it wa!; found that it is approaching the; cfficie.nuy c,f a circle in terms of win'? ani therefore, it is an inh-reltly stable kind of a st.ru-.ture which we nc,w are of t1,c., belief we'll t c -11-,1e Lo be founded on a raft_ f(,ui,dCit ion ,tS tk: a id l l nl i i,. And that effect of that- i s t1iat it ir; heIr,ful t c., th. .v is i;:; of other buildings so that tiic,rc is a high line•lihood -c there 1)eing little if any, Piling rre, ulred. Other ings, we 11(�ticcc: go to exLenslve lengths with ni l incl and vo" ' that takr-s month:, to do and it is a nuiscance vale( t.o -i neighborhood. The c,ther aspect of this building which I thin}. lr;terest.ing is that, in fact, the view corridor, and I'd like to approach that for a moment, I bc-iievc it to a factual state that ones perception of this particular fnur hui;dred feet of frontage as now seen from Brickeil Avenue, will res,ain exactly the same after this building is constructed, as it is ieforu. The entire width of the sitt_- currently has a stone wall of +lout ,ix or seven feet in height running in front of it. Tharp i.,;, in fact, no view corridor on this ,ite at. present. ^i,e only rt lrc zI, that wall at the moment, 1E th«= maid drive whirl, le -:,(Is Ul, to t ne A; ,:.; 1 V], and that stays intact. So that. in fact, althougi, it seem:; rattler ai, ,)utra_jeous statement, there is no visual impact from directly in I i,);it (.)f the site. The beautiful tree structure that you see at the m :n nt, w111 remain exactly as it is today. That brings the question ­f what ha;a,ens from the water side? From the water side there is a very remarkable geographically intereting feature, which is a little bluff, very much like Sliver Bluff further along Buyshore Drive, which as became a designated historical area. There is no intent on our behalf to ct,ange in any way, except for cleaning it up in terms of the dirt that accumulated there over the years, there is no intenton our behalf to change onee stone or one rock on that bluff. That bluff rises to almost thirt,en feet in height from the water, ;Anrl it is a site specific condition. It dissipates to the North and to tr,f- South. All of theother projects have built out and filled in to th!. ulkhead line so that has disappeared over a period of time. This is in -ffect, another historic feature of the site which we are going to r r7e. So then it gets (lows+ to the fact as to whether the buildi.rn; in i-self has architectural merit and I'd feel a little uncomfortable alx),.t waxincl pr,etic about on that, but I would like to say that we are uxtim,,ly iroud u= the job that. John Fulleton's Office and our office has icr,,.: in pi.l?iiig this project together. And we truly view that it will alt,oi+g;t. the finest buildings that this community will see, if it is a: lc wad to go forward by this Commission. And we certainly hope that we wi.1 receive your consent. If there any questions that anybody has of an ar:nitectual nature, I would attempt to answer them for you? Mr. Lacasa: Thank you v--ry much, sir. Mr. Traurig: As I indicated to you before, we have one hundred and thirty feet minimum yard set hick. We Lan submit this to you for your consideration an another time. I would also like a little bit later, to call on the architects to di::cuss with you '_:ie absolutely magnificent job of landscaping which they have done. tlowcvcr, because I responded to Mr. Plummer that we'd take forty-five winutes, I'm going to try to move this more quickly. is MAY 71980 6 Mr. Plummer: Please, Plummer was not trying to put you under a time frame. I have no problem with you doing forty-five or under, I was merely asking to try and determine when we might leave here this evening, so don't think you're under a time frame from P1r. Plummer. Mr. Traurig: Okay. In that case, I'd like very1)riefly before I proceed, to call on two other people. One, Mr. Casio to discuss with you very briefly the supplementation of the landscaping that presently exists on the site, and also to call Mr. Plummer to talk with you about whether or n-)t there will be any adverse traffic impact from the development of this property. Father Gibson' Is that his brother? Mr. Traurig: No, this is a different Mr. Plummer who spells his name differently as well. I'm glad you asked that question. I think the record ought to be clear. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Plummer and I have gone through that dialogue before, as I recall. Mr. Mike Cosio My name is Mike Cosio and my address is 7221 S.W. 63rd Court. And one of the main problems of the side was a magnificent specimen of trees that w- .rai,'Led to preserve, which they worked around, and as you can cee in the plan, and here in the model, they went to a lot of trouble in ]tesigning their parking structure to preserve those trees. Of the four hundred existing trees on the side, we are ... there will be three hundred and sixty-eight trees remaining on the side. The only trees that are going to be removed are undesireable trees like Florida Holly, Malalucca's and things like that that are recommended to remove anyway. Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, sir. How many trees will be taken out all together? Mr. Cosio: Remove fifty-seven. Mr. Carollo: There will be three hundred and sixty-eight left? Mr. Cosio Three sixty-eight. Mr. Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Cosio: The top of the parking strucutre instead of, like in many other cases, being treated with just small planters and a little tree, has been heavily landscaped. So we are adding. We are not only keeping the main bulk of the existing vegation, we are adding to it. We are making a park so the buildings adjacent to this building will be looking at a beautiful. 1,�ndscaped area. It's a repetition again but we considered a lot the view corridor and we are not disturbing at all the only existing view that exists right now from Brickell Avenue. We are adding a little more to enhance the planting at the entrance but keeping all the existing trees, and of course, the mansion if we are allowed. Mr. Traurig: Than;: you, I'd like to call on David Plummer now to just give you very bri,°ly the conclusions reached as a result of an extensive study of the traffic conditions. Mr. David Plummer: T}:ank you. My name is David Plummer. My address is 2355 Salzedo, Coral Gables, and I do spell my name the same way as the Commissioner, with two "m"s. Father Gibson: You'9 better be careful. (LAUGHTER) Mr. David Plummer: We're not related. Mr. Traurig: the only misrepresentation that I've made. Mr. David Plummer: We did conduct an extensive analysis of the impact of 19 ist V ,Y ? t98) Mr. David Plummer (continued): this project on Brickell Avenue. We included in our analysis all of the rest proposed developments on Brickell, including Brickell Place, Tiffany's, the Imperial, Villa Regina, the Palace, and Viscaya North. But rather tlian give you a lot of talk about G-oversees and levels of service, 1'd just like to read into the record the .last paragraph of a letter sent on ,;,y Tni, to Mr. Jim Reid by David Reinhart from the Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Traffic and Transportation. From ourindependf:nt. analysis of the proposed cevelopment, we arrived at conclusior:s similar to those contained in the subj, c t report. Thc, traffic (yc i,erated by the propsed La Santa Maria project and other active developments along Brickell Avenue nearby, can be a:•snr, ed without significantly affecting the level of service on Brickell . enue,. 'Thank you. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Plummer, and Mr. Casio and Mr. Rosen will be available for your questions if you have any, later in the presentation. So we would say to you that because of the outstanding amhiance and because of the exceptional site design and archit�_ctural treatment and e.ensi.tivity to the enviornment, and the preservation of the historic ,ucture, we believe that you ought to support, the rcr(_-::rrs,, :irl=,t ii o_` the t.rban Development Review Board, and the Pltnni_q 1,; .: runt, and the Zoning Board and declare this to be a FP[) thr:).rciii a conditional use. And as a result of that, that you nt. those sit.inq adjustments. We do believe that it's important tc reward architectural exce'llence. Now, when we began two weeks ago, I gave to you copies of two deeds from the trustees r.)£ the Internal Improvement Fund, which showed proof of ownership of the submerged land. I have copies of those deeds for the record, and I will give them to the Clerk, and those are the deeds that have been recorded under Clerk's file number 63R-167565, and 167566 and those are the deeds to tracts of submerged lands lying Southeasterly of lots forty- seven, forty eight, forty-nine, and fifty, in Brickell subdivision. Now the issue will come up, and it has alread as a matter of fact, as a result of a question asked by Mr. Plummer as to what would the result have been if we didn't own the bay bottom. Why did we go to the Urban Development Review Board? The truth of the matter is that, do own the bay bottom and it was unnecessary to seek the FAR bonus but at the time that we did, there was a disagreement between the Planning Dt—partment and the Zoning Department as to interpretation. And our feeling was that since there was a lack of unanimity as to the proper interpretation, until the issue became fully resolved, that it wis better to submit it and have them consider it. And that was a matter of exped.ic.r,cy. And when the Urban Development Review Board did consider it, it made a recommendation and a very strong recommendation for approval but said that it should be at two six five, and the didn't even give any credit, at that time, for the bay Lottom. And they said two six five. Sc, we submit to you that the Urban Development Review Board recommendation was two point six five, but th'It was before the decision on the submerged land, and they hadn't addressed that major issue about the applicability of the submerged land, and obviously it is a proper interpretation. And we not only don't ask for bonsuses but w. ar.._• wall below the two point zero. Now some of our neighbors have i.n(i sated their lack of satisfaction with that decision, and I would like to r-d)rrit to you for the record that Mr. Rober Korner came to me, unsol-ited arid said, can I help you at the hearing before the City Co=ission to shed light on the interpretation as to the interpretation of th(_ submerged land issue. And he couldn't make it here today but sent me an affidavit, which I'd like to introduce into the record, signed by hi -in under oath, and it say's, from Robert D. Korner. I was the Cheif 'ht,c:iny Inspector with the City of Miami until my resignation from that. postior; i,l 196(,. During that time, it was my responsibility to interprc�t tlu. City of Miami Zoning Code. The City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 6871 w.A:, Fussed arid adopted on June 2, 1961. The City of Miami Zoning Code- was interpreted and applied uniformly throughout the City of Miami to permit the use_, of under water land to be included in cumputation for lot :,rea, and therefore, in computations for floor area ration and lot and density. The definitions contained in the Miami Zoning Code require that the word land shall include water surfaces and land under water. The interpretation permitted the under ist 04 MAY 7 1980 94 Mr. Traurig (continued): water area of lots to be included in Miami River sites, Little River sites, and Biscayne Bay sites. The Musa Isle site located about N.W. 25th Avenue and the Miami River permitted the area out to the bulkhead line to be iricludcl .in the computations for a proposed apacL-nlent complex. The same intr.rl.r_,'..,tio�n was used in the construction of lii scayne 21. And tl:at ar uci wa+-, l at er filled. The building located at N.L. 39th Street anci Biscayne hay is constructed using bay bottom l)rol>t rty fui lot: area said bay hot -tom later having been filled. In no instances do I recall, anytime, when water surface inside a lot line was not included in lot area computat:inns. And it's signed Robert D. Yorner,under oath, May 2, 1980, It is true that some properties on Brickc'l venue didn't seek to count the -,Ubmerged land. And I show you here an ..-ial phogograph of our neighbors to the South. My good friend Ms. Wairlman, lives here in Brickell Place. They didn't. have to count the submerged land. If you look at this aerial photograph, they filled it all, and they built four hiohrise builciings, not only on the upland but on the submerged land that was filled. They are now saying to us that number one, we shouldn't fill, or that's a State law, and number two, we shouldn't even count it. And if you'll 1 at Vizcaya North and you look at CTA Towers, UTD Towers, ar,'. a io:)k at the Brickell Place area, and you see that we are Ln tnis small alcove shore ward of their extreme east line, you must reach the conclusion that it would be grossly inequitalhlt. if not illegal not. to give us credit for the area that we own. Arid when the Uri:,an Devc-1cpmunt Review Board recommend two -.ir.t six five, they didn't even consider that because it wasn't an issue at that time, and it isn't an i.,:�sue now because the interpretation, correctly so, is that we have the right to utilzie our area to the bulkhead line. And then the question is what is the bulkhead line? It has been suggested to you by others that the bulkhead line ought not be the determining factor, that you ought to apply our one characteristic to our water area not the R-5A because the shore line ought to be the bulkhead line, because some case said that it should be the shore line. And 1'd 'il-k to call on Mr. Clifford H. Schulman, one of my partners, to address ,,ou on that issue and the legal issue of where is the bulkhead line. Mr. Clifford Schulman: Mr. vice -Mayor, members of the Commission, just for your background because I haven't had the opportunity to appear before you before, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Cliff Schulman, I practice with Mr. Traurig at 1401 Brickell Avenue. Just so you know a little bit of my background, and I think it is important that you do know a little bit of my background. I was an assistant county attorney for Metropolitan Dade County for six years before I went into private practica. Specifically specalizing in enviornmental law. I've lectured at the University of Miami Law School, university of Florida Law School, FIL1, Dade County Junior College, just about every university in the State on this issue. Reverend Gibson may even look at me a bit familiar because i believe I was also council to the Housing and Urban Development Poard for Dade County, at a time when Reverend Gibson was the head of that particial,r agency. It's good to see you again, sir. But I have an extensive background in the area of, if anyone can have a background, bulkhead lines a,id what they mean, and what they don't mean. And I think some :r the confusion that's resulted in the discussions that have been taking place at previous meetings is resulting from a fundamental misunderstanding of w',iat bulkhead lines are, were, and are supposed to do. Lets be very clear about one thing in this project, there is no dredging and filling being pianned or sought as part of the PAD before you today. That is critical that you understand that particular concept because a bulkhead line by dc_finitie)n, is a lint- where you cannot fill in front of without a permit. That is not an issue before you today. This PAD has no dredging and no fil'ir,g. Now your code, as was read to you by your Chief Building Officer, says hvisically, land includes submerged land. Now you don't have to be a i:iwyer to realize that that's pretty clear. And let me give you one fundamental legal precept that we follow. When something is clear and unambiguous, then it means what it says. Its been said in Latin, its been said in English, but a :-:,damental precept is ycu don't go behind language which is clear on its face. Now if you don't think that a statement that land includes land is clear, then you have to go a little ist 21 MAY 71980 R 1 Mr. Schulman (continued): bit further. Bit I think really, that's kind of clear. It's one of the clearest portions of any code I've ever seen. But what happened is, over the years the State berame very concerned with people dredging and filling in areas like tlii!�, without p(,rmit, because they claimed th,it they awned it and tlll.y h, 1 a!, i:1lit:!rent. right to fill it. So the State s,iid, in 1975, were goinc; to 1--vf- , h; hulkhoad line, that line in fr,,nt of wl,icl; �10u can't fill with,)nt 1 , ­rmit, we're going to move it back to the mvan high water line. AiiI w'f,if raid this do to the City Code? It did dbsolutely nothinq 1�ecausc ;�u'r. ,ity Cr:de said that the line you are to be by, the 1,ulk1i a:i i ine of Dade. County, is t'le official line, that appars .in this; do-lime•nt., the Comprehensive Zoning Atlar of the City of Miami. That. is the line whi-h your code said is th, hulklit�ad line fc�r tlle_ pure sc:; of deciding how hiq a lot is, not for t irpo:-_;os ()f diedginrl and fill inq, for the purposes of your zoninq code. And if you will look in this document, you will find that the bulkhead 1 in,! which we own -art to, is : lu.)wn in yo,.rr /.nning atlas and no change has taken place by any action of the State, or any other governmental agency to change that line. So basically, the pi-oblem that we're coming down to is that the, State has a 1 ine that they ernfc,rce arid say you cannot get any permits, you cannot dredge and fill without a pertsit be.�r1 a certain line. The fit.' of Miami, 3 said we are going to utilize a different line to large a lot is for purposes of lot cov<ragC­, floor ..roe, rat set back, and thelike. We would sul.,mit their- nothin<l wrr.na with this interpretation. In fact, the Supreme Ccurr' - . inne,E,ota iidn't Dave as easy a job as you did because they ,' a situation befor., tha,m where ti man had forty-five acres of prci,r_y, unfortunately, forty-one acresz of it was submerged. Needless to say, it. was E:n uncomfortable situation for the property owner since the State Statute indicated that he would n(•,t t)(- entitled to a road to get to a public right of way he had five acres of land. And unfortunat::ly, 'in,,c,sota did not define what the w_)rd land meant. The Supreme Court. r,f MinnesDta with language, that tl-lt-y didn't have the advantage of that clear language in your rode, basically held that a man who owns forty-five, acres of submerged .la:,�i cualifie_• under their statute. The trial judge, field that the word lan:: in the M;iniresota statutes include sum" rg-­d land, and this seems to us, a very correct, reasonable int<_rpretatiun .,f our statute. And that was in the case of Slaton Gun Club vs. Town of Shedek, in Murray County, in Minnesota in 1970. You've got a much simplicr job because your code is drafts•3 b-tte.r. Your code indicates very clearly, what is land, it does include the_ ul)merged land, arid the State Statutes, which may have been brought to your attention, or may be brought to your attention only tell us what we already know, that we shouldn't dredele and fill beyond the mean high water line without a permit. Arid we agree. We will not be drecging and filling beyond any line without a permit. I hope that clarifies some of the questions in your mind. If you've got any more about it, I'll be around for the rest of the day. Thank you. Mr. I.acasa: Ti:ank you. Mr. Traurig: To wrap this up, I'd like to just give you a few other facts to consider. It is true that we are thirty-eight. stories. I'd like to to know that tht_ Palace has forty-one stories. I'd like you to know that we're asking for the side yard deviation. Our neighbors, UTD, has fifty- nine point five fc t-, we at our minimum point are one hundred and thirty. The Manrique prulo!-ty has eighty feet ,the Tiffany property has seventy-six to eighty feat, th,_ Palace, in come places, has a low as thirty feet. Other places, fifty-one, ,_ixty-four, seventy-eight, and our minimum is one hundred and thirty feet. So when you consider whether or not we have an adquate amr)unt of sid�yard, the: answer must be, you know, from the standpoint of cr):i:.1 e„c•y .ind fairne: ycs we do. We ask you to uphold the recorwit :,datiu,i:. you've already re<•eived. Ti,e t'rban Development Review Board says it w.li. It tf11: you all of the Denfits from approving this application, t'.le out:;Landing landscaping, the outstanding design, the saving of the truo-, the ser.=ci.tivity. We thin}: that they considered this in very great detail and in the best .interest of the City of Miami. We urge that you uphold I—' At _ rn;_•:idation, -fanning Department recommendation, the Zoning Board recommendation that you approve this. Thank you. .y. ist Mr. Lacasa: Thank you. Now for the opponents. Mr. Traurig: Excuse me. There may be some people that came here to attend the hearing who are neighbors who might want to speak. If they do, I would say to them, I don't think that the hour is propetitious for additonal speaches. But, if you'd like to speak, I don't want to preclude it. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Let me just put on the record, that I'm supposed to leave at six, so speak as long as you want. Father Gibso;i: Let me put on the record, I have a church service at seven. Mrs. Wilma Co.,, Mr. Vice -Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Wilma Cook. I'm here to represent the ,,lami Board of Realtors today. The Miami Board of Realtors is 1390 N.W. 7th Street. We have approximately three thousand members. It has been said that we came here today on a personal matter. I want to make sure that all of you are aware that that is the farthest thing from the truth. I am a memi,er of the ::oard of Directors, and I'm the Secretary at the Miami Beard -ji %e:.ltors. I'm chairman of the Planning and Zoning Committee. .- i)urpose of the Planning and Zoning Committee of the 'Miami of Fealtors is to monitor what goes on in bade County, and furticularly on a controversial project. We do not make frivolous rN- .-r.iendations nor do we make frivolous oppositions to projects around Dade County. I believe you could probably count on one h, .' the times that the %Iiami board of Realtors have come before this board to oppose any developers project. Before I start, I'm limited as to what I can say because I am representing so many people, and I want to, if I may, pass out this paper to you. The Miami Board of Realtors wants to go on record in opposition to the above, to the Santa Maria project, the permit application for 1643 Brickell Avenue, Miami Florida. The decision to oppose the project was by unanimous vote at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors, on April the 23rd, 1980. We are not addressing the issues of set backs, we're not even addressing the issue of the corridor, the view corridor, although we lauded this Commission when they added that to the zoning code. We object to the use and the inclusion of submerged land as part of the site in calculating the floor area ratio of this development. We object to the inclusion of the submerged land on any area bordering on the ocean, the rivers, or the bay. We relieve that that should not happen, it would add to congestion. Mr. Traurig said that his neighbors quietly supported him in this application. That was part of our concern, that the developments that are already on the shores of Biscayne Bay can come in and now ask for additions to their projects based upon using the sumberged land, they could very well ask for hundreds of units to be added to their development. In our opinion, you would be setting a l:iecedent by permitting the inclusion of submerged land in this application. What is to prevent the developer from coming before you at some future date, and lets say he has one acre of land, and he has two acres of submerged land? It is entirely possible. I'm a realtor, I know that there are many of the property owners along the shores of Biscayne Bay where the land was bought from the State many, many years ago. And if we're doing to include the submerged land, and the same thing with the Miami River, Little River, as he so clearly pointed out to you, we are going to have congution that would be unreal. Mr. Traurig made reference to Mr. Korner, I be?i.eve he said the year was 1966, as you go from one end of the City of Miami, as a matter of fact, from one end of Dade County to the other, I tl.ir:k you can see the results of some of that zoning. You can see the result_. of some of those building permits, counting the submerged land. I cnon't know where the rest of you drive, I live in the North end of Dade County. c•:;ienever I leave herd today, it will take me from forty-five: minutes to an hour to get to the forth, not even the North end, to get to 1C)0th Street in Dade County. We have congestion everyplace. We have poor pl,:nning, we have railroad tracks that backup traffic, that's all a rtsul`_ of t'.,e 1966 zoning and the 1966 permits. I think that the approvaL of the Santa Maria project would set a precedent that you do not want to <ct. I mean. you started out with a ar)od ordinance, you started out with view corridors, we commend you for that. With this project, we respectfully ask that you deny this application with predjudice. Thank you very much. '43 MAY 7 1980 Mr. Lacasa: Thank you very much, Mrs. Cook. Ms. Janet Waldman: For the record, my name is Janet Waldman. I live at 1901 Brickell Avenue, although Mr. Trauri.g, I had nothing to do with building it, I do live there. I am the President of a group called save Brickell Avenue, Inc, which represents well over one hundred property owners. When I say property owners, I'm sp,aking about parcels of land. There might be over two hundred individual persons whom I represent. First of: all, i would like to thank Wilma Cook for attending on 1,2half of three thousand mt,mhers of the Minmi Board of Realtors. I w,,uld like to point out. wh;3t. I'm sure is ot,vious to each and everyone .,f the Corrunissioners, that thr: t iami L;c,aYd of Realtors and all it:, m, hers have a pecuniary irsterest- in seeing as many individual parcels as po:-;ible, individual units as pc,ssible, in that they make their money fr_m selling and reselling these. It's (iuite something for people to come here and say to you, don't build so many units when their livlihood is at stake. I'd also like to point out, since three of you were engaged in other conversation at the time '•trs. Cc)ok make this particular point, I'd like to rei.teriate this point that she made, and that is that th,- Miami Board of Realtors, and it':; in t1,e: ;.ett,'r, that inclusion of subme,rcred land might lead to the lLity of people who have already develohc3 their pror_zty, cc�r^ir;y Lr: and asking for increased development. I just eml'lasize that to you since three of the four of you were otherwise ;7.:.d at the time that was ment.i.oned. At this time, at the b,_g'rininq of my presentation, I would like to reiterate my or. -ctions to the meeting and this hoarinq on the basis of notice. I will merely repe,it, for the record, that c,ll the objections that I previously made, I still make. I have not seen the memorandum that was evidently submitted to you all, so I cannot respond to it, however, I reserve those same objections that I made last time and at the Zoning Board. And I further want to point out to each and everyone of you that there was no publication in any newspaper in Dade County, or to my knowledge, anywhere else, rec-,ardinq the hearing here today. And there was no publication regarding the hearing from which this item was deferred un the 24th of April. And I would like to submit into the record, I believe it's fourteen pages of copies of items pertinent to the question of notice and also, since Mr. Plummer raised the question of articles in the newspapers, I would submit copies of those articles to the Clerk. Thank you. The next thing I would like to deal with is the question of submerged land and its inclusion. And you heard a lot of different people speak to you on this issue and it's a very, very serious question, and one that is not anywhere near as clear-cut as the previous speakers would have had you believe. First of all, we do not dispute that the ordinance says quite clearly, land shall include water surface and land under water. Those are its words. We are riot looking to discuss the inclusion as submerged land as land. It is not at all applicable whether, as Laura F;utler said, submerged land is included in land area. The question is wr:,ther it is to be included in lot area. That is quite a distinction. Them is no definition of lot area and nothing is dependent... there is r,o definition of land area and nothing is dependent upon land area in this ordinance. However, almost all the calculations for floor area ratio, lot coverage, etc., are dependent on the definition of a lot. Arad ti:e definition of a lot reads, "a parcel of land considered as a unit occupied yr to ne occupied by a main building, or group of main guildings and txr-essory buildings, or by a principal use and uses as accessory thereto, t-)gether with such yards open spaces, lot width and lot area as are required by this ordinance. This definition doesn't just say its all thf! la-1 that the applicant owns because if it did, we wouldn't be here t., riisput.c that. This definition of lot., which is the pertinent definition, says a parcel of land considered as a unit, and then it olives you the qualifications of what can be considered as part of a lot. And that says it has to be occupied by a main building or an accessory building or a main use, or an accessory use. The parcel of land, which is the submerged land in 11�is par:ticul,ar case, is not to be occupied by any building or any use. It is furthermore, riot a yard or open space as defined by the ordinance. They ordinance, in its definition sectic.-.:., defines usable open space, and it's a long definition that I won't burden you with, but I will read a portion of it, "Which is open and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky, except for roof overhands net in excess of three feet." Now the applicant is not asking that you include the water, 24 i.st Ms. Waldman (continued): the applicant has made no pretense to owning the water. The water is called water column and is a separate entity from the submerged land. Upon the submerged land, there sits this body of water, this water column, which is owned essentially, by the Federal government. By virtue of the fact that. t}1e water column sits on top of the submerged land, it is clearly tint open and. -;obstructed. The definition, likewise, in the definition section for ,ard says also open and unobstructed from the ground to thu sky. Of course, the same thing would apply there. Then we have one other section which we must look to see what qualifies to be a yard, and I refer you to Article IV, Section 40, 7ubsection (2), entitled landscaping, which says all yard areas, including required useable open space, required or provided, shall be landscdpui , and/or treated as set forth herein. The term yard area, and this is 9portant gentlemen, used herein shall include all lot area that is not built upon. And it: says shall. Laura Butler stood up here and said to you shall is mandatory, and she's right. Yard area shall include all lot area that is not built upon or used for off-street parking, driveways, recreation and other permitted necessary uses. And then it goes on to require that trees, shrubbery, ground cover and such be maintained or inserted on that yard area. We have no r-)posal to meet that requirement. The submerged land does no-, fall into any category which is included in the definition of lot. An-' i-)y the definitions in the ordinance by which you all arc mound, you may not include in lot, therefore in lot area, any sui,:ue.ged land. Further, I'd like to state that there's a legal pri-. 1pal, and I will address for a moment, a brief moment, that my friend Cliff Schulman, and I say my friend because we go back to elt:.ientary school together, it is true that when language is plain and clear that you don't have to look beyond it. But is the language here plain and clear? I think that it's plain and clear for the interpretation that I'm proposing to you, but if there is any question as to that interpretation, and I can make this with a straight face, Father Gibson, then there must be a question as to whether this is plain and clear. There have been varying interpretations, apparently, although I am not convinced of it, about this ordinance and about the inclusion of submerged land. I have a memorandum for you that was sent out by the Planning and Zoning Department, sent by Jim Reid on January 30th, 1980, in which they state, Mr. Reid states that their department doesn't think it should be included. There is dissention on this point, and there is a question of interpretation, at the very least. When there is a question of interpretation, legal principals then require that you look to judicial rules of construction. One of the rules of construction is that if an interpretation leads to an absurd or a ridiculous result, then that interpretation is not a valid one. I suggest to you that inclusion of submerged land not only in the extreme cases, but in some ways, in this very case leads to an absurd and ridiculous result. I'll talk to you first about the one that is true in this case, and that is the rear yard set back. Your rear lot line, if you include the submerged land is set out to the distance of the end of the ownership into the water. In this case, it's some two hundred and eight feet into the water. According to the requirement of the code for the rear yard set back, the building must only be set back one hundred fourteen point seven five feet from that rear yard line. So it is entirely possible, with the interpretation of inclusion of submerged land that your building could be built, a.5sent other restrictions, of course but merely the interpretation of ti,�_ ordinance, your building could be built into the water some ninety some odd feet. We know that this is contrary to the intent of the ordinance which is perhaps the primary rule of interpretation of an ordinance, as determined by the courts of this country, individual states, and Federal courts, both. An obvious problem in following this interpretation. T}-.•!re is another problem, and I'm glad that Mr. Schulman mentioned the Minnesota case because that shows you the possibility of one of the other absurd and ridiculous results. It is possible to have a parcel of land where the ratio is forty-one submerged to four upland. That was cited by the applicant himself. If you were to include, if you were to calculate a parcel like that including the submerged land, you would end up with an enormous building with an unlimited height, as - we have in this R-5A zone, on a very small piece of buildable, developable useable land. It leads to an absurd and ridiculous result, therefore, this interpretation is one that cannot be upheld. There is a third and less s. ist #25 MAY 7 1980 Ms. Waldman (continued): pressing argument regarding the inclusion of land, and that is your definition land says, shall include water surface and land under water. If the Building Department were to follow this strict interpretation that it's claiming to, it would have to include; once, t1w water surface, and the �,,:,:and time, the submerged land. They are not making any pretense of cic,inq that so I won't carry that argument further but merely wanted to have it in the record. For the reasons that it does not fall wit}lin the definition of lot, and cannot be part of the lot area, for the rc,as.nn that an interpretation such as the Building Department is atter11pt14n9 to make, this is an interpretation that you all cannot and should not follow. The next point, and it goes t-, usahleas well as just cgeneral inclusion, is and Mr. Traurig remembers i,v r ati.ng this from the Zoning Board hc.•,iring, that the Biscayne Bay, aLl. of Biscayne Hay in the case, of Viami Beach Jockey Club versus Durn, and I'll give you the cite on that, it's 83-Federal 2nd 715, the Federal courts held that Biscayne Bay, all of it is navigable waters and its use is to be put to navigation. That's not to say that you can't, for recreational purposes sail your boat in Discayne Hay, but the main use for the bay is defined by the courts as navigation. As you car. tell, I've done a little bit of work and I think I have too man, pal.c-rF for this small podium here. I'd like to, at this point, as, ::r. Traurig a question. If he'd be so kind as to respond, I w�_uld c;re.�t?y appreciate it. And that is, Mr. Traurig, since 1963, when the then owners of the upland purchased the submerged land, since t}�at '_ime have they sold any of this submerged land? Mr. Lacasa: Janet, you address the question to the Chair, and then we'll clear afterwards with Mr. Traurig, but please, because we are not going to have a debate going back and forth here. Ms. Waldman: All right. Well I j•st ls• nted to get that information since I haven't been able to get it otherwise. It is my understanding however, that there has not been any :_ale of any of that submerged land. And it was very interesting to me when Mr. Traurig said to you that the deed to this property was for the submerged land outside of lots forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine and fifty because he left out that the person he represents, or the coporation he represents also obtained in the same deed title to lot forty-six which .is not in front of any of the lots that it owns, the upland lots that it owns but is in front of the next door neighbor. And I point out to you that by following the interpretation of the Building Department, as they are proposing this interpretation should be followed, that there is nothing to preclude the applicant from asking to include the submerged land in front of lot forty-six as well in this application. And I suggest to you that the reason why that was not done was a tactical and strategic one. That they knew that they were already asking for more than they could possibly be entitled to, and to ask for the inclusion of the submerged land next door, in front of the lots next door, would really show how unreasonable the request of incliioion of the submerged land is. However, when you look at the deed that they have submitted in evidence you will see that that is so. At this time, I would like to defer to two other speakers, Marilyn Reed and NanL-v Brown who can decide amongst themselves how they... in what order thev will address you and then I will come back and discuss with you the issue ._f the PAD and anything else they may have left out. Thank you. Ms. Nancy Brown: Nancy Brown, 9220 S.W. 166th Street. Completely unprepared for this hearing. We sat for four or five hours at the last one and have just come from another State hearing. There was a point that had occurred to me, which I will not be able to speak to very eloquently, but it has to do with your own rules, regulations and what have you. And the conflic. that I noticed was a group of letters here which said, from your owre ordinance, that the word land shall include water surface and land undo::. water. All riqht? So far so good. But I noticed in another letter that was attached, it says very clearly, and this is e:o Mr. Frederick Blitstei:, from a name I cannot read, Salman, I believe. Mr. Salman indicates that the decision, which is not important to your case, does not revise our general policy of requiring that submerged land be filled to be used. So this tells me that even though your ordinance 26 ist MAY 71980 Ms. Brown (continued): speaks of land including water surface and land under water that the intent is that that be filled. Now, we go back to State law passed in 1974, the Biscayne Aquatic Preserve Act, and we realize that Miami maybe a little bit -low in catching up with State law. One of them is a 74 act and one is a 75 act that brings the bulkhead line which is two, three, four hundred feet Offc,1inre, according to your maps, but which in fact, was removed by State law track in 1975 to the line of mean high water along the shore. So we have two State laws, one that r,,moves the 'Dulkhead line to the line of mean high water, and another that says thou shalt not fill the bay except under some very extreme con."itions neither of which have been even addressed or alluded to by this applicant. Put even though your code is outdated, does not comply with Stat 1 A and insists that an aridicant do something that he cannot do under Star, law, I believe that the applicants in this case have deliberately :misconstrued the intent of that language. Because when they say that land is to be...is to include water, and land under the water, that we then go to this 1979 decision that is our policy, that submerged land be filled to be used. And I would submit to you that to just take a little pike off and say we can count as much submerged land as we want, that is a falacy because your own departments idea is only land that shall be filled, notwithstanding State law that says it shall not. So I think you all have to consider whether the law, as you ha%,,� it, is being misconstrued to perhaps give you the impression that all submerged .land can be counted for purposes of building when i,. tact, it cannot except that it is filled, and it is not allowed to be filled. Thank you. Ms. Waldman: Before Ms. Brown leaves, I'd like her to state which organization she represents and the number of members, please. Ms. Brown: I represent Tropical Audobon Society of Miami with thirty-five hundred members presently. We have spoken to this issue on previous occassions. Ms. Marilyn Reed: My name is, for the record, Marilyn Reed. I am a resident and tax payer of the City of Miami, and also the Dade County chairman for Friends of the Everglades, which represents twenty-one hundred members. I will not repeat what Mrs. Brown has said. This is part of my position also. This has been a standing policy to require that lands in this bay be filled. It is a fault in your zoning code, which I brought out recently before the Commission, and at that time, Mayor Ferre instructed your Planning Department to bring your zoning codes up to date because you are in deed in conflict with State and Federal law. The only comments I have to make to this project is number one, it is not water dependent. I find it very difficult to include water in FAR when the project itself is not water dependent regardless of your zoning code which is outdated. Water use differs from land use completely. This is, the submerged land out there is not developable land, therefore, it cannot be used under State and Federal law. I find it difficult, again, to apply your coda to a land use that is not developable and included in uplands which is developable. I think we've got a dichotomy and a problem here, and a de,p, deep flaw. I would urge you to vote against this project. Tharil,. you. Ms. Waldman: Tc) _cm up my statements regarding the inclusion of submerged land, I neglected to mention that throughout the ordinance, it is clear from the usage that the only place where land is used to mean submerged land as well, is in that one definition. There are a number of other places throughout the ordinance where it does talk about submerged land. But in each and every one of those cases, it specifically mentions land, including submer(j.>d land. By virtue of the fact that it says that so many places in the ordinance, it could be reasonably construed that where it doles not say including submerged land, that it does not include submerged land. The final thing that I will address is the memo which I...from Laura Butler, dated May 7, which I only had the opportunity to see t and I did not even get the opportunity to see the entire thing since I was only given four pages of it and I understand that it's a very thick document. Because I had only received it, I cannot respond to you on all of the properties that she's claiming had included submerged land. However, I n MAY 710 e e Ms. Waldman (continued): did take the time and trouble to review the two that were previously mentioned by Ms. Butler., one is Tiffany's which is listed as number three on her document in the second group of projects. That was a proposal that was being discussed, bandered around between the various dep:Irt-meats. It never came: to f.ulti<:n. The applicant withdrew those l:,lans, and the department w<rs n, ver going to include the submerged land in ttlat case, hut: merely when they were planning- to build a deck over the I;ubmerged land, they were t.ai}.ir,q .3i.cut. counting in that decking as part: of the lot area. However, that. concept was rejected. Secondly, I'd like to point out to you that on Firatr's Cove there is a situation th,r* was not properly relresunted to you. First I will submit to Mr. Plurtaiw, r and ask that he paFs it along ending with the Clerk so that it may be included in the record, the zoning map. And I will point out to you that t',c, -:luded area in this map is an indentation into the land that was up f, . al,l;liration twice, as a matter of fact. Once in 1974 for a PAD and onc,_• in 1975 because the 74 PAD had expired. Now that little inlet, I'll explain to you what happened there. It is, to the best knowledge of the people I've talked to in the City, that was originally land, that was nr;c originally river. It was dred(Jt2d out and opened up as part of a fAci1ity that N.errill Stevens pert the-ic iii ordf•r to 1,ave boats come in fr)r repair and orhor kinds of woi_y. So wt.;.. talking there about land that. was originally upland and was nuv, i, t,. L.yin with, submerged land. Second, I will submit to you a _ i:c,tcur;a, h o: th:It particular area, two photographs as a matter of fa-1 , which wure taken from the records on the Pirate's Cove, so ycr,i I see the size of that, tht, magnitude of that in an aphl iccit i(�ri i SC,ITle SQVen or eil.?ht acres in total Size. Further, I'll point exit. yr)u that at the tire that that was approved, filling was permits. cl and it was, I betievr, ui:clear as to wlretller or not the applicant was goinq to fill. The dt,part.ment's was that they did not want to encourage them to fill it aril so they decided to let them calculate it in. It came before the Planning ar.,x 7,n;iin; Board, and before the City Commissir-)n and was approved without any discussion as to the issue of submerged land. And I can only assume from that that it was not an issue that wdS )r that, 4 c L, l,'.Uwl l;c_ ] .: i l'•us ,t!i, and therefore, it may have, in fact, merely slipped i)y t.l,crn "11.'J all lnt(:ntlonal act of the Commission in approving that. And la ct a:; a fair as Pirate's Cove goes, I will point out to you tilat ti,at was stain, never constructed, so that was never built and had no effect on the act,ial impact on the City because there was never any result of that aliplication. Next, I will address some, of the other misrepresentations that. Mr. Traurig made to you, than the one lie admitted and I will start with the height of the building. Mx. Traurig repeatedly stated to you that it is t;iirty-eight stories high. First of all, height is not determined in our zoning by number of stories, it is determined by number of feet. But if you will turn, and this is a marked up copy, but if you will turn in your pa.kage to the figures presented by the applicant himself, to the second page, you will see under a fl„, r area ratio, that it talks at,,iut two has#-•ment levels, one lobby level., and then thirty-seven floors an:1 than a solarium floor. We're not talking about thirty-eight floors, gentlemen, we are talking about forty-one floors, !),it we're not talking about forty-one floors that consist of the ceiling hei<,i.t of eight feet, we're talking about forty-one floors with the ceiling height of nine feet and a slab between each one of ... not the usual four iriche,, but six inches. And T'm not saying that that's bad as far c trucl'on goy: I think it's probably very desireable to have the six inc', sl°ib but wil_it we are talking about when we talk about height., is r,:3t thirty-eight stories, forty-one tall stories that comes to a total of. ,u',1r hundred and four feet. Mr. Traurig in the beginning of his pres(when he was showing you the sketch or the drawing that was the and the surrounding l,roperties, beside the fact that a number o. tho._ . bui.r:ings that are riot correctly placed on that as far as how close t;l. •y <itc- to the water and such, he said, and he pointed out, and I watched him point out, 7,roperty we,'ro talking about extends to bi. •ay;Ie• Bay. i- never cnce prAnted to the land. This wasn't a thing on his hart, merely 11 S11hL'011%'1(111S act and a subconsc.iel,:e statement dolt the made showirig that in his heart, and in his mind, he really knows that the submerged I-ind should not be included. He also stat.cl to you, that they don't have to show hardship because they are not asking foi a variance, and that's true. They don't have to show hardship and why did they come in for a Planned Area Development t ti8 MAY 71990 dk Ms. Waldman (continued): when the whole application would have to be considered instead of just the one, what he would like to have you believe, minor issue of side yard set back, when he could have come in and just talked to you about that one issue and not. have to make this whole presentation. The reason is because they have n<, nardiAiip. They have four hundred foot width, they have a rectan1-111ar shape, there is no Unusual shape, there is no problem, with the size of this lot, there is nothing to make any special requirements for this, for variance, and that's why they didn't (.:ome in for a vari.rnce hecausf ttlev know they couldn't have gotten one. Now, Dot. Trauriq alre-) said to you that hf__'�, not asking for a deviation _n floor area ratio and if yo•,r follow everything that he has said, that :,.aybe true, But I would like trdisf.re s, with you the issue, perhaps H';;.c Mr. Schulman was hrought in, an-i that is the issue of whether the .;ubmerge-d land is R-1 or R-5A•. And I will pass to you and ask that it be placed into the official record, a certified cop•,+ of page thirty-seven, which is the appropriate p aqe- of the Zoning Code and Atlas, and I will submit for you to look at, 5o that you can look in pairs, another copy that's not certified that should not be submitted into the record, of that Ioninq Code. New if you'll just take that zoning map p.,ge, if you will Just take a br:i eat look at- t _ , , nu' 11 see that the differ:ntiat.ions between the various � u, stricts are delineated by a thick line. And if yc)u will t,l_ow that line along the shore of Bis�_ayr,e Bay, you will find treat where this applicants property is that thick line goes u- _ ::y the shore line and doers not run across where that. dotted ] is, that they would like to have you believe is the bulkhead line. The thick line delineates where R-SA ends and where Biscayne Bay begins and Biscayne Bay, I submit. to you gentlemen, is to be zoned R-1. Arid in support of that I cite the Zoninq Ordinance, Article III, Section 4, Subsection (1), which reads, "All land situated in Biscayne Fray outside of the officially established bulkhead line consisting of =,ubmerged land, partly submerged land", and here I'm pointing to a section where it specifies when they talk about it, "and existing or future spoil i_land are 1«•reby zoned R-1, unless otherwise designate,' on the Inning District Mal:." Gentlemen, there's no designation that any ,Portion of that bay is anything other than R-1. And by virtue of this section of the Code, it must be zoned R-1. Now the applicant would have you believe that they fall under the second sentence of subsection 1 which says all land situated Biscayne Bay, inside of the officially established harbor line, consisting of submerged land and so forth, are hereby determined to be zoned to the most highly restrictive distract classification contiguous to said land." Well, even if for the sake of argument, we do not discuss the bulkhead line as being the equivalent of the shore line, but if we say well for argument, lets leave the bulkhead line out there where it used to be before 1975, the determination of that portion of the bay between the shore litre and the old bulkhead line is to be determined by the most highly restrictive classification contiguous to it, since the portion of the bay outside of that old line is zoned R-1 quite clearly. And it is contiguous to that portion which the applicant is claiming is sanr�ergedland which he would like you to believe is... includes sub.nererl and which the definition, in fact, states clearly includes subr,f:tgec, land. The most highly restrictive classification is R-1. So no r^:,tt:er where you place the bulkhead line, gentlemen, the submerged land is not zoned P-5A. It can only be zoned R-1. There is no interpreta-:ior. r)r cn,estiotr about that. As a result, since the submerged land portion of t'-iis application is R-1, the application itself and all the notices invovl.-a are defective, and seriously so. And so also, are the calculations which de`ermine the floor area ratio, and possibly other calculations. My personal belief, is that the only calculation that is affectf-d is tl�e flog area ratio. Now R-1 does not have its own floor area ratio If we look to the least restrictive zone that does have a floor areA ratio. you will find that it is R-3. The floor area ratio maxima: t.h,itt is permitted in R-3 is point six. That is zero point six. The 1 rr,l,oi tions of this site that are being proposed, are thirty-three point percent submerged land, sixty-six point eight percent developable c�r t,uildahle land. And if you take a proportionate share of the floor area ratios, *he appropriate floor area ratio for this site, if you should decide to include the submerged land, would be one point six six eight. Therefore, since the applicant is claiming even ist 409 MAY 7 tsop Of or Ms. Waldman (continued): including the submergedland, that he has a floor area ratio of one point nine -two, I submit to you that they are, in fact, required to request an approval for deviation from the maximum floor area ratio, which should be calculated at a maximum of one point six, to round it off, one point six seven, and they are asking for one point nine -two including the sumbered land, and two point nine something not counting the .4ubmerged land. The applic,int also, Mr. Traurig also stated to you that they're not, that they are i rovid�:;q ex.-:c.,ssive, or they far exceed the front and rear yard require-ments. Well I have some more figures for you, based on t:he newest figures cf the applicant. I'll pass these out and then I'll ad(3ress them. They don't far exceed either Cie front or the rear yard. The front yarn: requires one hundred and s;­,reriteen feet. They are providing one, hundre:.,d and thirty-four feet. The a. yard requires one hundred foto.teen sc-vt�nty-five. They are providing, ::y their own figure, from the shore lil0e one hundred and twenty feet. we're not talking about any great excess of yard in the front or the rear. As far as the side yards go, aril at this point, I'm still merely addressing the misstatements that were made to you by the proponents and the. applicant. Mr. Trauriy persists in saying that the side yard is determined by fifteen percent of the width of the lot plus one foot for each two feet in building height. That's nc-t For the first twenty-five feet of huil iirig height, yuu r,e-d :,ids yard of eighteen feet and one foot for eery to,c, feet ovc,: that. It has nothing to do with the percentage width of the lut.. where he stated to you that there was an increased cost f,.: La.1ding one tower as opposed to two towers, I suggest t.c you that there may, in fact, be an increased cost, but there is (­p:aliy an increase in profit when he sells because condominium developers generally charge higher prices as each floor goes up. So this cost maybe an initial layout but is not necessarily a loss to the developer. He will certainly reap great profit from this otherwise he wouldn't be here today. The next misstatement that !•ir... or misrepresentation that Mr. Traurig made to you was regarding the support of the UDRB. However, I will address that at the end of my presentation. He also made a statement that they have the right to utilize the area to the bulkhead line. I will a little later, disc,.rss with you the supremacy of the State law regarding the bulkhead line for whatever purpose. And I will finally correct the misstatement where Mr. Traurig said that the Palace at one Feint has a thirty foot side yard. They do not from their main structure have only a thirty foot side yard, at any point. I believe the absolute minimum, and that is due to their very irregularly shaped lot, with sixty-four feet. And further, I'd like to point out to you that when he compares the size of the side yard set backs with the other buildings, that is not in number of feet. A fair comparison, since the number of feet of side yard set back is dependent upon building height, and there is no other building that is proposed, or approved or constructed that comes anywhere near the height of this b+,iilding. I'd like to show you gentlemen a sketch that I have done on graph paper that shows the comparison of the heights of all the buildings on Brickell Avenue. Now I have gone t-;:rough plans and various recorded documents in order to obtain these figures, and I show you by scale and by number of feet of height of each building. And you can see the comparison. And I will point out to you a few things, first of all, on the individual homes and on the three story apjirtment buildings. I had to take a guesstimate as to the height. 1 also had to take a guesstimate as to Brickell Townhouse, and I pl..-ed a question mark over each of those buildings so that there would be no question that those are not accurate figures. However, the rest of tt.e figure:- and the rest of the proportions are accurate. Further, nn the second from the left building which is Villa Regina, I have iri,iicated in dotted lines the proposal that has not come before you or the Zoning Board yet, so that you can have a picture of what the �ronosal is if that should be approved. And I don't know whether it will or won't. At this point, I would like to address the issue of whether this particular property as applied for is suitable for a Planned Area hevolopmerit. I don't believe as applied, as the application stands that it is. r don't dispute at all, the fact that there are other planned area developments in the neighborhood, nor do I dic�r:--.- that should the applicant change r4s application to include only the upland portion that would in fact be suitable. However, the language of the code itself as to Planned Area Development precludes the inclusion ist 30 MAY 71980 4, it Ms. Waldman (continued); of submerged land in a Planned Area Development. This gentlemen, is separate from the issue of whether it should be included in lot area. I suggest to you, that I will show you that it just shouldn't be included in Planned Area Devel,,I)m—rit at all. First of all, looking to the Section I of the Planned Area t •;ve]vr,;ncnt Ordinance, it does say that they are trying to have aippr,:.ia iate arrd harmonious development, flexibility in the arrangement of structures, u2rn ;,lace, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation pattern. But it doesn't talk about flexibility and variety in the nature of the PAD's. Th,2re is no FF,:- on Pricked Avenue that ',as included suleierq ;d land. And I ft,ryc t to mont ion before, so I'll mentLon it now, that in my discussions wi-h the various City officials, ;-ioluaing Mr. Whipple, who has ewer; with, t.l,i: City f,>r t:wenty-one years, aril m-, George Acton who was the hev:d of tht. Planning Department, was with the Planr,inq D;l,artment for 7 L lit2ve it's over ten years, both of them ;•tare,] to me that iievr r in t1,t:i.r recollection had submerged land that wa< n>t filled, bet-n ir;rluLled ir: lct area. They all, they both said to tm:r that be:•ause the (_Iuvt:rr;nit,r,t , the Federal government and the State geverrim.Jir t had l;reviously I. Y:;u _ted p, pie to fill that that had never coIric' up ASS r3 Ar;J tc) of their rC J 11C'i.t1Vi, there 1, 5 nr'ver th11, 1.-rmi t t_C'd � n v,_ i-, Cl,alincr with preced( nt. 'c,:und of. all, I would 11K(� t:, -,;tto you, the applicability of my mezitiuning to vot th,it t',,. —rbmtri,ed land should be con,�idered L-1, tl9it, it is :'or)Pi r;-1, an;] iha' '; iI; Se�t.inr• IIT, Subsection (1), where it rermits PI'l— - r,r.ea Developments over a com,),ined area of several zuniru3 ,;i sr r _ , s. but it states t.l;at you have to calculate what would be r, ; _<,.: ,1 dei t_ndent upon the various zones. You have to make it out proportional. And now we cone to the very interestin7 part, I hope you'll find it interesting as well, and that is l,ag, two of the Planned Area Development, Standards for PAD. Jr-, reaching re-ommendations and decision:; on the granting of a Conditior;al. 1,15�e PhD, the following standards shall be used. And that makes it mandatory. 1�;oing down to 1 (c), which 1S it _a'yf-, "tint Site SiiAl be suitable for development in the many.-r as approved undei the •outh r=lurida Puilding Code, and the: apljli,-albi State, -'ounty, ar;ul C].t}' laAs." We have a question. What i�- .,uit.iblc for development? What portion of this site is suitable for development? I suggest to you tt;;at only the upland and not the submerged lane: is suitable for d«r✓elohmf. r:t.. I further suggest to you that if you find that the s-,bmerg,_d 1 and is r�)t fliitabie for development, it cannot be included in a PAD. how in trying to find what suitable fcz develc>pmunt moans, I looked through the Zoninq Ordinance and didn't find it. I looked through thf.> City Cc,cle and I found something that I'll discuss with you in a little bit. I looked through the County Ordinance and I couldn't find anything abr,ut. However, I did find in State laws a definition for cevelopment. New I'll reft:r you first to Florida Statute 163.3164, Subsection (4) , whic:l, say- Development. And this by the w-:, ., is the section of tht, Florida Statutes which authorizes muri;,ipalities to erigage in zoning and planning activities. This is ttierei :r_, controlling on us as far as what it says in the State law, since this i from where we derive our power to be here today. And development :ays, fur definition it has, "developinerit has the meaning given .it in Statute 30.04, Florida Statutes. " Well I went to 380 and that's undvz "Lard ar.d Water Mangemerit", and it way very interesting to me, and it means the carrying out of any building or mining -)perati r;, )r '.he riakirr,; of any material change in the use or appearance an- s-..tructur,:, or lard in the dividing of land into three or more parcels:.` wc,li they're riot dividing it into parcels but we are not concerned <ib::_t that. But they are also not carrying out any building or rninii,�i c;-rar.icn on the- submerged land. They couldn't do it by virtue of tl.( :,ature ,f it, and by virtu,_ of the other laws that restrict it. ""ha* kes it not suitable for development. If it's not suitable f-r sic ✓t ]t_im nt., it can't ba, included in i.i application for PAD. Statute 3 iU. 14 oes r_,n iriubsuction. (2) , to give you some examples Of what activitit: s•l:all i)e taken for the purposes of this chapter to involve (levelc,pmvnt a: dt,f fined In this section. In this Chapter and Section the definitic have: Meier, inc:crporated into the enabling legi's'.ati,.:, fcr br,dy- Arr,l it says, a reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material change in the external appearance of a structure on land, a change in the intensity of use of the land, and I'm paraphrasing in order to try to make this as short as possible, alteration of a shore or bank of the seacoast, river, stream, lake, pond or canal, including any coastal construction as defined in the section it refers to. At that fist 11 MAY 719g0 Ms. Waldman (continued): point, I found it very interesting the statement that Mr. Rosen made to you, that they have no intent to change one stone, or one rock on that bluff, which is the shoreline. They have no intent to ma'r,e any change to it. They're having no development on it because ... ori it, or on the submerged lanA because they can't. That makes it not dev-,lnpable land. They talk alcsa, as examples of development, as commencement of drilling, demolition of a structuro, clr,aring of land, and filling of land. I'm sorry, yes, fillinc; of land, which we know that this submerged land is not suitat-le for by virtue of the laws of the State cf T" Drida and th(� redcral I won't burden you with the examples o, what is not develclant_,nt, but 1 (10 refer you to this State definiti n which by sr-cific in ti;is particular I'AD ordinance wt_ wt referred to. I will a:so point out that this particular piece of proper; is an enviornmental preserve, and as part of an enviornmental I.: ese rve, I think .i t fair to l oo}•. to tht-, City of Miami Code for definitions under that section. And it :_.ay:;, buildable area, the portion of the site within the recuired yard area on which a structure or improvement may be erected. Well, we've already talked about the fact that. the ssi,m,-rged land is not yard area, we know very well that the structure for ot?,c,r improvements may not he erected on thr, ^erged land, it is therefure, not a buildable area. By .'ir lit. of the fact that it's not a buildable area, I suc1ot_ ,t to yc,u .' 's not a developable area. Further, that chapter which is Chahtur 64-1, of the City of Miami Code defines development act :.'y, and that is defined as the carrying out of any buildi.ntl ol•iation or making any material. change in the use or appearance :,f any structure, or land use character. There is going to be no development activity as defined in the City Code on the submerged land. They are not proposing to make any material change, or even any change in the use or appearance of that submerged land. The submerged land is not developable land and cannot be included in the PAD. Mr. Lacasa: Janet, you have been speaking now for forty-five minutes. How much longer do you feel that you need? Ms. Waldman: Okay. Probably ten minutes at the most. Mr. Lacasa: 1 will appreciate it if you limit that to ten minutes because then we will have rebutal and there are two members of the Commission that have indicated previous commitments. Ms. Waldman: All right. Then I will skip some of the more boring things and try to keep to the most interesting. As far as further reference in the City Code, I will just make reference to Section 27 which deals with land fills, generally, and suggests that a building... that it states in there; that a building permit cannot be obtained for land on which it would be required that they fill in order to construct. They cannot fill on that submerged, 'r rn sorry, they cannot get a building permit to include that submerged laud without making the necessary applications for fill. Their building permit,. because they want to include it in the lot area, would requirf, the inclusion of that submerged land. And that is against the law under Section 27 of the City of Miami Code. Further, under Section 2f of the City of Miami Code which deals with waterfront improvements, excuLo me, that also deals with land fills and waterfront improvements, and i believe there are similar provisions in there. I'll just place that nambtr into the record. I believe I've shown you that according to the definitions set out in the ordinance, in the Code, and in the State, by which u: are bound, that the submerged land should not be included in thu Pl:,nned Area Development application. Now I will go to disuussiny tliost, firj.ires that I showed you in the beginning when I was talking about the yards. These figures are calculated based on non -inclusion of the ub!nerged land, because that's my position and the position of my group, Save Erickell Avenue, Inc., that it should not be included. And I w.11 only point out to you the important parts that is, I believe, that the u e is being violated and that they are not proposing any use that is w riin R-5A zoning for the area of the clibmerged land. The floor area ratio is outrageous. It would come to, by using correct computations, two point nine four and as has been stated to you by the Planning Department, Mr. Whipple, the maximum that has try*2 MAY 71QR I A A Ms. Waldman (continued): ever been approved in this area is a two point four zero, and there is only one project that goes that high. Further, there is a problem with the lot coverage in that by proper calculation of the lot coverage, as I described in the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, which I hope you've had a chance to read the minutes of, there should only bf, ptrmitted twenty-six poir:t two nine five percent lot coverage, and? th(-';' arc' asking for forty -sir point six. It's a tremendous amount of additional lot coverage. F•,rither, there is a restriction on how much lot cc , ,raqe a parking ac(,,essory struc•t"lre .-an have. It talks about tw,rlty percent when you d )n't. i:;clude the a ,cessory buildings, and there i:, some question as to how that should be int rl,reted, but the maximum int, rpret:at.ion of that would permit twenty-r,ir1,_ thousand five hunc,rec' �ixt.y-six s,niare feet of parki.nq strucut.:re. They are proposing fifty-eight thousand and eighty-one :square feet. That's some twenty-eight and one half thousand feet more. Almost double what they would be p�,rm.itted. And I will. discuss the aide ,'7ard setbacks it, conjunction with my discu_sion and explanation in regarcis to the sketch that I have as to the compariti^e buildin(, heights in the area. I'd like to read into the record, so that there's no question, th( hE_1'?^,t5 f the, %ot all, so::,e of thr� r:urrounding huii3ings. f3ri. k 21 �l.i . ar,d let me explain to you this little diagram too. The m.i:nbers �,n t'1=_: b:.>ttom of the line are the lot num?)ers. I've accounted for all the lots from lot 39 to to 77 along Brickell Avenue, ;i1i'h with the exception of the lots that are in a different su!­'_,ision because they go along the side streets, are all the lntr; f,-or:tinq on Brickell Avenue. Brickell Place, for instance. th._y are ... they have heights of two hundred and ten feet, two hundred thirty-six feet, one hundred sixty-six feet, and two hundred and nine feet. Brickell Bay Club, has a height of two hundred and one half feet. The Imperial, as proposed, not yet constructed, has a height of two hundred and fifty-seven feet. The highest building other than this, is the Palace, and that has as the height for its main portion of its tall(,st building, you'll recall there was like a "T" shaped building, and the other building was much lower, it was a step building, but the tallest portion was three hundred and thirty-six feet. Then they had one protion where, of the roof area where there was a three story pe:;thouse. That small portion of the roof area went up to three hundred and seventy-two feet. But the main portion of the building will be three hundred and thirty-six feet. Now this applicant has asked for a height of four hundred and four feet. Four hundred and four feet requires side yard setbacks of two hundred seven and one half feet on each side of the building. You'll recall, the applicant stated to you a number of times, and it's true apparently from the surveys, that the lot width is four hundred feet. That means that if there weren't even a building there but you had to provide the side yard setbacks that are required of two hundred and seven and one half feet, they would not have enough lot width to m::,ke the required side yard setbacks. We are talking about a proposal foi a building that is grossly too tall for the lot on which they are proposirq it. Please remember, gentlemen, that we are not talking about a disadvantaged piece of property that has any misshape or any particular problem on it which requires that they be granted any variance. I know we're not here for variance. Now on this sketch, I have indicated a nu,,.taer of things. Starting from the pink line, which is the lower l in,_-, ari,? I would appreciate it if you'd all look at this so that i*_ maker. me s-7se to you. There's a pink line that says two hundred forty-nine feet next to it. That's very significant, because the two hundred forty-nir.- feet is -,.;hat would be permitted to be built with a one hundred and '-hirty yard setback. Now it's true that there is no absolute height. rerluirt,;i,e-it in this district, but there are other restrictions that do pl-,y a part in height. And if we don't pay attention to there, we're r()t n<r to be 1T1,1ttir.9 t}-,c ir,tt.,nt of the ordinance at all. Su if t,ler(' %- re tc have the maximurr, height permitted by the side yards they ar(, 1,1 -)vi(iinq, thoy would have to cut their building off way down there it two hun(lred and forty-nine feet. The pink line on your page. Now, -i- w,, were to ignore side yards and go strictly to floor area ratio, (:e w("uld find the next line, the black line, would be the maximum that : rm'..tT_ud _:,at would be a two point two zero floor area ratio. That would be the most they could build. However, the blue line above it does indicate what they would be permitted if they were permitted the maximum that has ever been permitted on this street, v 71°8to ist 33 Ms. Waldman (continued): and that is a two point four zero floor area ratio. We suggest that even at a two point four zero floor area ratio, they would have a building taller than the main roof of any other building planned or built on this street, and that should very well be sufficient for them since its been sufficient for (_vary other developer along the way. Now the UDRP, and I'll ad(1reF.,; tl�oir recommendation in a moment, the UI7RB has reconunended only that they he pfr mi tted a two point six five floor area ratio, and that's represented on the diagram by the orange Line-. I suggest to �iou that this drawing gives you a good perspective of just. what is proposed and where the various cutoffs could be made to br.i.,, this application in l.iruo wit.lh the surrounding neighborhoods. Now, in order to 1)ring it into a two point six five, compliance with the UDRB rec•omr, ­ ,datior;, they would have to remove only four floors. It would bring _i,e .sight down to thr.r•c> huzir9rc,d and sixty-six feet and the side yard re�juir-.,ments would hc- one hundred ci,jhty-eight_ and one half feet per side of the building. To bring it down to a t.wo point four zero, which is the maximum anybody else, has had, would require removal of seven floors of this building. That would bring the building down to a height of three hundred thirty-seven and on half feet which would make it stall taller than the i,,.ain roof structure of even the Palace. AT;-? ;t woulc require side yard s.,tt,acks of one hur;dred and and t,liu quarter feet on each side. Ancl they are only providing o , _ '.;undred thirty at the minimum. But even if you look at th,2 average fide yarn of one hundred and sixty, there would still. bc, - iuiring more side yard than they are providing. And I'll grans, you that minor deviations have been permitted on other applicatior_-� in the past, it would not be unreasonable to grant a minor deviatio,i on side yard. When they're asking for seventy-seven and one half feet per side yard, we feel that that is quite a lot. I won't burden you with bringing it down to two point two zero because nobody has asked to bring it down that far. But I do point out to you that there are reasons, very important reasons for including the side yard setback reduircment based on height, and that to ignore that and not stand by it would be eliminating the intent of the ordiance. And as a closing, I will point out to you that the UDPB based its formal approval on a granting of the two point six five based upon the net developable site area. And I'm reading it, for total floor area of four hundred thirty-four thousand eight hundred eighty-six square feet, and not as proposed by the developer. And I make this distinction to you because in front of the Planning and 'Zoning Board one of the speakers came up here and said, under oath, that the UDRB had recommended it as its been proposed. That is an out and out misrepresentation, The UDRB .... and we have it in writing, signed by the Chairman, has not recommended approval of it as proposed but merely two point six five. And I will point out to you that the Planning Department approval, although officially Mr. Whipple has stated to you that he did not know what the Planning Department would do if they didn't include the submerged land, officially the Planning Department has recommended approval in accord with the plans on file, and in accord with the conditions recommended by the Urban DeveloLment Review Board. According to the official recommendation by the Planning Department and the UDRB, therefore, the recommenda}ions are t,L:t for as proposed but for a reduced floor area ratio bringing it dow-i to two point six five. And you can see the effect that it would have on your sketch here. I promise that I will end with this statement... Mr. Lacasa: Janet, yc;u have been now for a full hour on this. Ms. Waldman: That's what I predicted to Mr. Plummer. And I suggest to you that although the applicant is standing here telling you that he's not asking for deviation in flooi area ratio, and thats debatable, by virtue of the fact thot the applicant has presented for you a Planned Area Developmc,nt. api, cation, he is not asking you merely to approve the side yard setha-k c: 1,f, would like to have you believe. Because if he were doing that, ho'd be in here for a variance. He's asking you to give approval to the %,'pole thing. And because he's come in here and asked for approval for th w1wle thing, you have the right, for whatever your reasons which you to explain, t, ..,;y we're not going to approve the building as it stands. We're only going to approve the building if you cut off four floors, or seven floors, which is what to MAY 71990 Ms. Waldman (continued): my organization would like to see you do. And because of the fact they are under, in their calculations, floor area ratio, you are not obliged to permit that much floor area ratio. My organization, and I individually, seriously request that you either disapprove this application or approve it: with the restriction of removing seven floors and bringing it down to a floor area ratio of two point four zero. And I thank you for your kind patience. Mr. Lacasa: Thank you, Janet. Now on rebuttal. It is six fifteen now and we: '-ave two Commissioners that have indicated the fact that they had previot•_; commitments and they have to go so... Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, Mr. Vice -Chairman, let me be with the majority one time. 4,:+ have three now. Mr. Lacasa: You also have to go. So please, I will request from both parties, that you limit your rebuttal to no more than ten minutes each so we can enter into discussion afterwards, and come to a conclusion here. Mr. Traurig: I'll try to keep mine to three minutes, Mr. Vice -Mayor. I'd like to acknowledge that Ms. Waldman was rignr_. We have a four hundred and four foot height on our b,.i?_-ling. I mentioned thirty-eight stories. Lets talk about the fou+- and four feet. It doesn't make any difference. There is no height limitation but I acknowledge it. I'd also like ru .cknowlecige that I did say that our property goes from Biscayne hay to Brickell Avenue and really, it goes to our bulkhead line. Why a PAD? She asked a question. We asked for a PAD because historically, on Brickell Avenue in the R-5A district, the way to get approval of plans of this type was through the PAD which permitted greater flexibility. It was not that there was any ulterior motive to obtain benefits that others could not obtain. She made a big issue of the water. Should we have the benefit of the water and we can't use the water? The water is a passive nature feature not unlike a forrest,or a grove,or a lake, or a hammock, or a moutain, or a slew. It's a feature of our property. We own it, we're riot going to be making active use of it but it is a passive feature, which according to the interpretation of your City Attorney, and your City Building Department, is ii,c.ludable for purposes of FAR computations and lot coverage, etc. That wasn't our interpretation, it was yours. Not only would it be legal to approve it, but not to approve it would he grossly inequitable. You've seen the aerial photograph which indicates that others have not only taken credit for the water from the standpoint of area, but they filled it in. We're not going to change the shoreline, we're not goinq to do any sculpturing work, we're not going to do any additional improvement within the area of the submerged land, but we are legally entitled to include it. She raised one other question which I think worthy of comment. She raised the question of whether or not, under the standards for PAD's, the definition that the site shall be suitable for development in the manner as approved in the South Florida Building Cede, would preclude our project being considered a PAD. The site coin be developed. It doesn't say every square foot. And if we had one of those sle•r,'s, or hammocks, or groves, or mountains, or lakes, we wouldn't be dc✓eloc.ing that ?portion of our property. What we're saying is that cur site c4 be developed. A portion of our site won't be developed. We thi..k that consistent with the recommendations of all of those who have recommendeu in this matter, that you should approve this application, you should approve :he conditional use for PAD, and the side yard deviations as site adjustments, a:,.i you should approve, as indicated earlier, the variance from the Charter chan-e that would permit the retention of the historic: mansion. We irge such approval. Ms. Waldman: Very 1oief rebuttal. First of all, I neglected to state for the record, the st_tut,,:� that moved the bulkhead line back and that's Florida Statute 253.1.?1. Second of all, I point out that Mr. Traurig knows very well that s.:b..r;iged land is not like a forrest. The nature of it is totally different. Marilyn Reed testified to that-: you all from your common sense, and I point out for the record, that I'm concerned that Mr. Plummer and Mr. Carollo are not here, I hope they can hear me on vrj MAY 7 1980 Ms. Waldman (continued): the speakers elsewhere, that water, from your common sense, you know that it is of a different nature and it is unlike a forest. Second of all, Mr. Traurig just now, represented to you, he said, we own the water. They've never intended tc own the water, they don't own the water. Their title is to the submerged land, not to the water. Submerged land is not even accessible to the people, it is not developable, it is not useable. And second of all, as far as sayiny that only a portion of the site: will not be developed is erroneous thinking because if that were the way people thought:, then we could include an awful lot in a site. A:-i as evidence of the fact thatt the submerged land can easily be sep-irated out, I will pr-)int out to you that the owner of this property owne.' the upland portion long before 1963 when he acquired the submerged iand It's deeded separately, it has a separate nature, it's easily delinea .d and there is no reason why inclusion of the upland should require inclusion of the submerged land just because the same person happens to own it. It's easily distinguished out and ought to be. It is not a suitable portion of the Planned Area Development. Mr. Traurig: tir. Vice-Mrayor, two other things. I think you're entitled to an explanation of that lot 46. That lot 46 was includ(u i.n the ... that is submerged land contiguous to lot 46, lot 46 wav :.ne lot owned by Mariana Ferre Coe, and she became the owner of the submerged land contiguous to that as a result of the subsequent conveyence after the original conveyence by the tr-,stees. And I would urge you to ask whether or not this water area is included as part of the R-5A area. Ask your City Attorney, ask your City Building official because it's very clear .in the definition. The important thing is the harbor line and the harbor,offi.cially established line is on your plats and it includes the area that we are talking about. Thank. you. Mr. Plummer: Repeat that last statement, on lot 46. Mr. Traurig: Okay. Janet continues to talk to you ... on page thirteen where it says Section 4, Water Areas... Mr. Plummer: Put the lots back up there, if you would, please. All right, now, 46. Mr. Traurig: 46 would be the lot immediately to the North of our property. We don't own the submerged land and we're not claiming we do. Mr. Plummer: It is not under the same ownership. Okay. Mr. Traurig: She says we could take credit for it, and we're going to come back in and we're going to get credit for it. The truth of the matter is we don't own it, it was conveyed after the initial conveyance by the State to the Santa Carlotta Corporation, to the owner of the upland on lot 46. And we don't own it and we didn't take credit for it. Ms. Waldman: That's why I asked the question before I made the statement, but I wasn't permitted the answer until now. As far as the officially established bulkhead tine, which I don't think makes any difference in the discussion... Mr. Traurig: The harbor line, harbor line. Ms. Waldman: The harbor line has been interpreted as being the same. Furthermore, there is no explanation on the map itself which indicates what that dotted line is. It would be equally unreasonable to assume that it's a harbor line as it would be to assume... Mr. Traurig: Janet, that's why I asked that the City officials answer the question. Thank, you. Ms. Waldman: Okay. Anti I'll point out two other things under Section 27-22 of the City of Miami Code, the defi:ition of bulkhead line is ar. official line established by a governmental agency along or near the shore for the purposes of controlling the waterfront alignment of structures ist 6 MAY ? 191000 A Ms. Waldman (continued): and the governmental agency which has made the official bulkhead line is the Florida Legislature under. the Statute which I enumerated to you before, which reads, all bulkhead lines heretofore established, all bulkhead lines, pursuant to a former statute are hereby established at the line of the mean high water or ordinary high water line. Mr. Traurig: That's for the purpose of dredging and filling, period. Ms. Waldman: It doesn't say that. It most certainly does not say that. Mr. Lacasa: Okay. Thank you. The public part of this hearing is now closed to the public. Now for discussion on the Commission. What is the will of t'-,is Commission? Father Gibson: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I want to make two references. Especially because Mc. Waldman referred to me as one of the persons with whom she talked. ?grid I ... whatever I tell you in private, I'll tell you in public. You'll find that to be true. You may go to the mike. I said to Ms. Waldman that I had some real problem with the word land. I read what the definition was, she did, and I said, well land to me mt_ans sand. we're together on that. I want to make sure we sa­ t:,at in h.:blic. We are agreed, land it land. And vary intone::tinily e:iough, somebody here referred, I think one f your men, referred to th.- Minr;esota decision. And 1 said to you than, if }o -.::'t like the definition of land, what you ought to do is to s­_ to it that we change it so that we would not include sun -merge d land. Didn't I say that in 1:r.ivate? Okay, I said it in public. .)kay, that's all I wanted to hear.. Wait, wait. I don't want to take up all the time because I have to go run a church. And then the other thing 1 said to you was "shall", and I told you that I majored in history but minored in Enqlish, and that "shall" meant you don't have a choice. It means mandate. That you do it. And I said that if you didn't like that mandating, the thing I.wanted you to do was to insist that we change our definition and make it explicitly clear. Or go down in the bottom of the definition and refer and say, for instance, submerged land may or may not or shall not be. Take it out. Isn't that what I said to you? Ms. Waldman: Yes. Father Gibson: I just want to make sure everybody knows. What I said in private, I'll say in public because I have problems with the two things. Number one, "shall", is not like may. I don't have a choice if it says shall, whether I want to do it or not it says do it. And the other thing is, land said the definition was, submerged as well as, and I said, unless you can clear that up with me, Theodore Gibson has some real problems. Because I said to you also privately, as an aside, a law that work., for you will work against you. Didn't I say that? Ms. Waldman: t 1, l ieve you did. Father Gibson: Oh yes. And listen, I haven't said it only there, I say it up here all the time. A law that works for you will work against you. And what 1 wan` to make sure that everybody understands, that I'm consistent. Okay? Ms. Waldman: Yes. In answer to your question, I'd like to respond that I hope that ever,bociv hare, and especially Father Gibson, understands that I; number one, never disagreed that the definition of land includes submerged land. fir),:ever., I pointed out, and I thought I did it clearly, maybe I didn't, w,,F7 that we are not concerned here with land area, we are cr ncerried w;, th lot area. And although submerged land is included in land area, it is nc,t included in lot area. And that is the pertinent difference between what I think you understood because you're being bombarded by the Buildinq Department and the applicant. And by the way, I will point out that Mr. Trauriq admitted to me that the Building Department made this decision based upon his, or other representitives of his client requests that the Building Department make this change. However, that's immaterial. qM ist of MAY 7 1980 Mr. Traurig: Wrong. Ms. Waldman: You made that representation to me, Mr. Traurig. However, the pertinent part is not land area. There is no such thing as land area, the pertinent part is lot area. And in looking at the definition of lot, it's very clear that submerged land cannot be included because it doesn't meet the definition of being the building site, or yards, or useable open spaces. Father Gibson: All right. Let me make sure you also witness this in the public because I told you this. I told you that I found it impossible to understand land over against lot. And I told you that one of the ?axons I wanted you to explain to me is that I have a piece, I happen to be the inheritor of some land out of this country that I hope I could sell in the same darn thing that land and lots are different. Do you remember that? Ms. Waldman: Okay, let me answer that... Father Gibson: Wait a minute, do you remember that? Ms. Waldman: I do. Father Gibson: Okay. That's what I said, wasn't it? Ms. Waldman: It was. Father Gibson: Okay, I just want to make sure we're getting the record straight. Ms. Waldman: To answer that, the distinction between land and lot. Land is the physical being. Land was here long before the City of Miami, before the City of Miami zoning ordinance. Lot is a legal imposition on land that draws boundary lines. And the definition of land has nothing to do with the definition of lot. Land is a natural, physical, tangible, thing you can go out and touch whereas, a lot is not so defined. It's merely a line, it's merely created by lines in the minds of surveyors and planners. Father Gibson: One further, because, you know, I remember she referred to me. I also said to you that the only way you get a lot is that you have to have the land. Isn't that true? Ms. Waldman: It's true but... Father Gibson: Right, right, right, right. Ms. Waldman: But Father, you can have land that is not included in a lot. That is the case in unincorporated and unplatted property. It happens all over. It's possible to have land that is not a lot. Mr. Lacasa: Okay, what is the will of this Commission? Mr. Plummer:, Mote information. You know, what's the old story? If you can't with intelligence, dazzle them with other stuff. Mr. City Attorney, I'm ass,iming, since I read the minutes that a lot of this same material was brought up at the lower board hearing, directly, indirectly. And I'm asouming that you have had time in the manner that I would hope to address, and I'm not going to read to each point that Ms. Waldman made. What I am going to ask you is, is there anything that you have found thAt she brought out, that you find any problem with, or this Commission should find problem with. You start quoting Federal Statutes and the ?3w„ I've never even been to Minnesota so I really don't know. But I assuine that you have had the opportunity, and did, for the record, look into these matters that were brought forward, and I just for the record, ask you are there any areas that were brought forth in which you have some concern? Mr. Percy: No, sir. ist 38 MAY 719s0 Mr. Percy: We spoke with Ms. Waldman was advanced before the Zoning Board, before this Commission prior to the deferment. I've had private consultations with Ms. Waldman as late as today, and nothing that has been presented in terms of her arttument before this Commission, and in our private consultations that woulrt cause our office to change its position form the opinion as issued on April 7th. There are no problems, there are no legal prohibitions as to the propriety of this application, and it is properly before you this evening. Mr. Plumr.ifr: Mr. Reid, now that you've had the opportunity to fill your waistline and return, I asked a question in your absence. And basically, the question was, if in fact, the submerged land was not in contention would you .,el that the Department would recommend this project as suitable fur this area, or not? Mr. Jim Reid: Three comments, Mr. Plummer in answer to your question. In answer to your question, three comments. Number one, we are supporting this application. Number two, in terms of the definition of the ordinance, as we understand it, the interpretat_:. of the Building Department is right; and number three, th,4 law was different, then of course, we would have to support a re�,r,miendation of two point six five. Mr. Carollc: Mr. Reid. z(:use me. Can you come back here. In other words, ther. ruur memorandum of January the 30th, 1980, stating that we do i_)L- think such an interpretation responds to the intent of the zoning ordinance was really incorrect on that date. The additional information that you have now has made you have a change of mind. Mr. Reid: The Planning Department makes mistakes. And I'll be glad to go on the record in terms of this particular memo. It was my understanding when I wrote this memo, that the policy was vague, or that the issue was vague in terms of the language of the law. And that a policy was made to interpret that issue and whenever you change policy, in my judgment, you either do two things. You either come to this City Commission and ask for an interpretation of policy to seek guidance, or you change the law to clarify the policy. Upon reading Mr. Salman's memo of February 5th, it seemed to me that the definition of land was clear in its face. Land, according to the definition our code includes submerged land. So that our department, in effect, assumed the same interpretation as the Building Department because that's what the statute says it is. Father Gibson: I need to add this. I told Ms. Waldman that I would be among the first to want to change the definition because, again, I told her in private, a law that works for you will work against you. And that if this law as written is vague, ambigious, I do not wish to penalize anybody who is before us, but that I would be among the first to ask the Commission to 6erve notice, as I did on that fifty foot setback business, that every person who is similarly affected is put on guard that we will not be perinitted. But until such time that takes place, that I find myself unuquivocably opposed to penalizing people because 1 Know that if I were in ;our shoes, or anybody else's shoes, I would be mad as all get out. If },)u bring me up here after I had already done what you said by law and that's the way I make my decisions up here, and I live with them. Mr. Lacasa: Okay. I'm ready For a motion. Father Gibson: Mr, vice -Mayor, I move that we sustain the board. In the light that I told Ms. Waldman what I did about the defintion of land, and also in the light of the law saying shall. I don't have a choice. If you remove the wort: shall and put may, then I'll be with you. When you say shall, I have to go with you. Okay? Mr. Perez: Mr. Vice -Mayor, we have two resolutions involved with this item. ist '9 AWAY ? waww%ft Mr. Lacasa: Yes, we ... so actually, what you want to do is to make it in two different motions, right? Mr. Perez: That is correct. Mr. Lacasa: Father so, then I take it that what you are doing is moving item number six, first item (a). Father Gibson: Yes, sir. Mr. Lacasa: Okay. There is a motion to uphold the Zoning Board recommendation for approval of the application on item six (a). Do we have a second? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I know I'm out of order but I guess a point of personal privilege I might second the motion but I've got, I'm sorry that I had to go to the phone, but because I stayed here after six, I still have to make a living and because of that, I have more questions which I want to ask. Until my questions are answered, I'm not about to second a motion. Father Gibson: Do you want me to withdraw... Mr. Lacasa: Do you want to second the motion for the purposes of discussion? Mr. Plummer: No, I'm not going to do that. Father Gibson: Do you want me to withdraw the motion. Mr. Plummer: Well Father, as a matter of courtesy, my questions have got to be answered before I second a motion. Father Gibson: A1.1 right, sure. I will withdraw the motion. I didn't know you had a question. Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry that I had to go to the phone and I apologize. But when I stay beyond the time stipulated, I still have to make a living. I don't know really which item I'm talking to, (a) or (b). I would like, I guess from the Department, I'm still hung up on the existing structure and there's been really no questions asked on the existing structure and I want to ask them and get them on the record. First of all, as I understand it, it's really a matter of this Commission saying, yes we want the structure to stay and give a waiver as to the setbacks, or no, and they tear it down. I assume that's the difference of the two. Is that basically where we're at, Mr. Whipple? Mr. Whipple: Basically true, unless there is another alternative. Mr. Plummer: All right now. Lets assume, just for the purposes of discussion that we say the building stays. This Commission in the past has done an awful lot of things to keep historical sites in this community. What be the use for this in the future? Of what value, beside historic will it be? Will it be a residence? I want to know and I think I'm untitled and if in fact, what is built in that this situation, is there a covenant given to guarantee whatever has been said? I think this Commission has that right to know. I've heard nothing addressed to that problem. I guess really, Mr. Traurig, you would be the once to answer that. Mr. Traurig: I thi;jk you can always condition a resolution to grant a variance, and therefore, you could impose conditions upon the granting of the variance on the Charter amendment. What I said in my main remarks to y-,u is, that although we think that there is sufficient justification, to grant the variance of the view corridor Charter amendment because of the things I enumerated, that nevertheless, we would look favorably on your imposing a condition which would permit the Historical Society and other organized educational groups to utilize the building for community purposes three times a year, 4.0 NMY 7 f98A A Mr. Traurig (continued): for five or six hours during the day so that it would be serving the public. Our intention with regard to this structure is to utilize it as a recreation area for the residents of the condominium complex, not to utilize it as a home for any family. Mr. Plummer: Then, for the record, it would further indicate that it in no way will it be a residence. Is that correct? Mr. Traurig: That's correct. It will not be a residence. It will be a public .`acility, common element of the condominium, as it were. And we would permit the utilization of it during those specified periods to enhanc, its public character. But it would be a common element of the condominil+,, and not a residence. Mr. Plummer: And as such, would be a maintenance responsibility of the common tenants? Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: To maintain it in its persent condition. Mr. Traurig: It's a matter of definition of present condition. The present occupants of the 1—me have certain rights to remove things from the home. But 1--'re going to maintain the structure and we're going to maintain the basic character of the structure. Mr. Plummer: And for the record, I asked of the department if this was eliminated, or if it remained, what would be the difference in the density or the FAR. And I am told that this building at the present time is included in the FAR. So that I just want on the record. Mr. Whipple: We might want to clear the record to the point, Mr. Traurig, that there is a removal of a portion of the existing mansion. A new portion, not part of the original structure, is contemplated with... Mr. Traurig: I think I've got to make that clear. There is a dormitory wing attached to the main strucutre which will be removed. It is not part of the historic structure. The historic structure would remain but that dormitory wing which is used by the ... has been used by the children of the occupants of the home would be removed. Mr. Carollo: J. L., while you're looking for that... Mr. Plummer: If you have a question go ahead. I've got others that I have underlined here... Mr. Carollo: if I could get Mr. Reid back to the mike. I still don't understand and I really don't know if you gave an answer for is if this business of submerged land was not present, would you or would you not approve the project? Mr. Reid: I have to qualify my answer, Commissioner Carollo because the question is in a sense, difficult to answer because it poses a situation that is not legal under our statute. And we are supporting the application, we do feel the land... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Reid, I really don't understand the explanation you're giving me, in your words. All that I really want to know is yes, or no. Mr. Reid: If the Commission changed the statute, in the definition land so that it was ... differed from its present form then the most that we could reommend would be two point six five. Mr. Carollo: So in other words, if the Commission would change its statute, then you would. Okay, .hen my other question, it's the last one that I think I'll have, is from the time that you sent this memo dated January 30th to the time that you received the Zoning Department's opinion, when did you actually have a change of mind on this? ist 41 MAY 71980 Mr. Reid: I had a change of mind when I read their opinion and... Mr. Carollo: That was what date again, sir? Mr. Reid: That was probably shortly after the 5th of February. Mr. Carollo: Let me see if I can understand this now. In actuality then, doesn't this set a precedent to some extent. I mean, before you read this memo of February the 5th, you stance was against. submerged land, so after the 5th it when you changed your mind, you stance was i for it. Mr. Reid- wrote a memo on ;January 30th, on the assumption that the language waf -ague and that an exist.inq policy was being changed. A policy that larified vague language. 'okay? And 1 feel that those kind of policy changes should either come to this Commission or should result in l>gislative changes that clarify the vagueness. When I received the actual basis from ,dr. Salman, on which he made his decision, the language was not vague, the language was --lear. And on the basis of clear language, I reversed the position of my department - Mr. Carollo: What I'm trying to get at, l,ri.,r that decision of your department, your department was against submerged land. Mr. Reid: Prior to th:.u, the interpretation of both the Building Department and the Planning Department was not to count these lands. That interpretation was not found to be valid upon an examination of the ordinance. Mr. Carollo: Thank you, sir. Mr. Plummer:. Somewhere in this mass and tonnage of material, Mr. Whipple, I find wording that states, subject to approval including the terminology of the... Mr. Whipple: Conditions set forth by the Urban Development Board? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Would you stipulate those provisions. Mr. Whipple: I believe the applicant can relate those ... the stipulations were a dedication of a seventy foot service road, providing a covenant that the lands underwater will not be filled, any future marina development will require approval of the Urban Development Review Board as modified PAD, the garages and right of way be maintained until right of way improvements have started, and further files on file, including landscape plans datcr3 February 14th, 1980, sheets one through seven. Mr. Plummer: So seventy feet in the front is a condition? Mr. Whipple: Yes. That's sort of a reassurance of the provision of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Tianrig, T believe, for the record, and I know what your answer would he, but I just really feel to make it clear, there was an inference :Wade io direction given by you to a certain department. And for the record, a :simple yes or no answer as to whether or not you made this reference, or you made this in conversation. Mr. Traurig: No. If you would like further explanation, I'd be happy to give it to you. Mr. Plummer: No, ,-ir. I, you know, I always have a feeling that we deal with honorable people until proven otherwise. In ... my final comment is, Ms. Waldman, to you. You did an outstanding job. There are points, I'm sure that will bo decided long after we leave here. But I think you brought some interesting points to the Commission. All I've got to ^:; is, thank God there isn't a Ms. WaIrlman on every zoning case we have because if it is, this would then become a full time job rather than a part-time job. ist 4.2 MAY 7 1980 0h; ^' Mr. Lacasa: What part-time job, what part-time job are you talking about? Ms. Waldman: I'm glad that most applicants don't ask for more than they are entitled to, and then I wouldn't have to speak and oppose. Its been my Tprivilege on a number of occassions to come in and speak in favor, and in those instances, I haven't taken more than just a couple of minutes. It's only in the unusual circumstance, such as this, where we do have to speak against and then we feel it's our civic duty, not only to the members of our organization but to all the citizens of the City. Mr. Plummy r: Thank you. Mr. Lacasa: I have a question, Mr. Traurig. What is the depth of the lot from Brickell back to the bay? How many feet? Mr. Plummer: Lot line? Mr. Lacasa: The depth from Brickell to the water. Mr. Plummer: To the edge of the water. Mr. Lacasa: To the e:ye. Mr. Traurig: From Brickell to the bay, the depth is six hundred eighty-three point seventy-eight feet on the South side, and seven ten point ninety-eight on the North side. Mr. Plummer: Miss Butler, how many other parcels exist in Brickell Avenue that are not, excuse me, how many parcels exist on Brickell Avenue that paralell this situation in which the upland owners own in fact, the submerged land. To you knowledge, of course. Miss Butler: To my knowledge, Villa Regina owns a portion of the submerged ]and. Tiffany does not. I don't know of any others. (BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD.) Okay, the Imperial, that's another Brickell property. Ms. Waldman: Mr. Plummer, may I answer a question? Mr. Plummer: Please feel free. Ms. Waldman: Thank you. I just wanted to point out that it's not only Brickell Avenue that this policy would affect. It's all of the shoreline of the City of Miami, not only along all of Biscayne Bay from the Southern most tip, including Coconut Grove all the way up past 79th Street and so forth, wherever the City limit is, but also all along the river, and that precedent should be kept in mind. And it's also not the properties only that are presently undeveloped. Properties where existing structures may be removed, torn down and additional structures built. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, Mr. Vice -Mayor. Mr. Lacasa: Okay, do I hear a motion now? Father Gibson: I move. Mr. Lacasa: Its been moved by Commissioner Gibson. Do I hear a second? Mr. Plummer: That's on 6(a)? Mr. Lacasa: 6(a). Mr. Plummer: second the motion. 43 ist MAY 71980 Mr. Lacasas There is a motion and a second on item 6 (a). Mr. Plummer: Under discussion. Mr. Lacasa: Under discussion Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I think it was unfortunate that some of the people who are here talking were not here earlier in the day and had the opportunity that we had to here Dr. Bartley, who is considered probably one of the foremost zoning specialist in Florida, maybe the United Stat,s, who spoke to the fact that the City of Miami, for all practical purposes, is developed. We have very, very little land left to develop. Who also spoke to the fact that if we are going to shape the dest;_ly f what we want this City to be, it will in fact, be parcels of lroperty that will be torn down or reds-veloped. I think that this particular structure will be an asset to this community. I think that this kind of structure gives us something different than the sterotype that we look at along_ the shoreline. I think nothing can be worse than the classification of a concrete wall that exists on Miami Beach. There are many aspects that we can go into. A-,- I'm sure each individual Commissioner would have their rea );ii for or against maybe this kind of a structure, or that kind o` a structure, but I personally feel that this is something that will be an asset to this community, and as such, is t' ieason for my seconding the motion. Mr. Lacasa: Thank you, Mr. Plummer. Further discussion? Mr. Percy: Mr. Vice -Mayor, the motion, I assume contained the conditions and stipulations of the Urban Development Review Board? Whether or not the suggestion by the applicant that the Historical Society would have access to the development... Mr. Plummer: I made it part of the record. I made it a part of the record. Father Gibson: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Very definately. Father Gibson: And under discussion, Brother Plummer, I wish you'd also told the public that Dr.Bartley also advised us that we are going to have the responsibility of rebuilding. That is there won't be the position of building anew, having new land, that we may just as well make up our minds as of right now, that we're going to have to take and rebuild it in order to get what we need to accomodate the public. And I just want the public to understand, that having been told that b.y an educator, and a man that we have trusted all this time, and paid him to tell us, that in my voting in the future, what he has said to me and w}-.at he has offered as educational advise, good, paid for, high cost paid for too, that I will not let it go unnoticed and unheeded. Mr. Plummcl-: I have nne other point that I don't want to dwell on, but the point I wan,. -o make is a point that I have stood by for the many years I've been )n this Commission. I didn't hear anywhere in the testimony, but 1 can only assume that this land was purchased, this submerged land, or wa.; it a part of the original tract? Mr. Traurig, can you answer that? Mr. Traurig: The answer was it was purchased from the State of Florida. Mr. Plummer: It was purchased. Mr. Traurig: Yes. Mr. Plummer: And when was it purchased, to you knowledge. Mr. Traurig: The deeds were dated in 197O... excuse me, 1963, October 11, 1963 is one of the deeds. They are both dated October 11. 1963. ist 614 MAY 71980 /%l A Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Mr. Lacasa: Any more questions? Father Gibson: Can we assume that the fact that it was purchased and they gave you a deed, that the intent was that it was to be used? Mr. Plummer: Why else would they purchase it? That was the reason I asked tle question. Father Gil -son: The reason I'm going to rasie that question because when Ms. w,ldman came to me I also raised it in private. And I said to her, if .L had put up my money to buy that land and then you tell me I couldn't use it, I want the public to forgive me and excuse me, I said I would be mad as hell. Didn't I say that Ms. Waldman? Ms. Waldman, didn't I say that to you? Ms. Waldman: Yes, you did. And I can't find it in my !,-;umentation now, however, the State in deciding to sell the land, and perhaps Marilyn Reed can address this issue, it specifically States in the statutes, and I will supplement the record after the meeting, the statutes specifically say that by virt,ie of the fact they are selling this land does not indicate tha* Lney give any rights to any particular use and so that assumption that you make is incorrect. Father Gibson: No, no, no. If I buy, now you know, are you a law student? Ms. Waldman: I am a law student. Father Gibson: Just remember, I went to law school for one day. If you buy and you have rights, you have inherent rights. Now you know, what I do with it later on maybe if and maybe perhaps, but I have certain inherent rights having bought. Now you know, I learned that the very, the first month or so you go to law school they tell you that. Ms. Waldman: Yes, sir but there are certain things that you do buy as is, and with restrictions. That's what deed restrictions are. And the convenants that run, I don't know whether they are in the form of deed restrictions, but they certainly are in the form of statutes that say that there is no particular use to which this land can be put. And when the applicant purchased it it knew that. It knew that at the time when fill was being permitted that it would still have to go through the fill permit process. Now that is no longer permitted and it's quite clear the State did not grant any particular use for that land other than mere ownership and that's why they paid such a very small amount of money for this land. If you will look at the deeds, you'll see that something, just a small over twelve thousand dollars was paid for two and one half acres of the land. This is prime land that we're talking about. The upland portion of the land is less than three and one half acres and I believe the purchase price for this was close to four, or five, or six million dollars somewhere in that range. And so a purchase price for the submerged j.::nd of twelve thousand and change would indicate the knowledge on both `he buyer and the seller, being the State, that this land was of significar.tly diminished value. And I suggest that the diminished value is due to the fact that it can't be used for anything. Mr. Plummer: Just for the record, I don't agree with that. When a man puts out twelve grand, he doesn't put it out just because he likes to shell out twelve grand, nor does the fact, will I assume that the man not only shelled out the twelve grand, but has paid additional taxes by virtue of ownerf;Hip, to just say that out there belongs to me when it can't be sold to ai,vone Plse. Now... Ms. Waldman: Lo,iw,issiu►;er Plummer, to answer that... Mr. Plummer: May I finish? It's just to be assumed, by me, and maybe we have different assumptions, and that's what makes ballgames... 45 MAY ? 1980 ist Mr. Carollo: Mr. Traurig... Mr. Plummer: Can I finish? Mr. Carollo: I'm sorry. Mr. Plummer: That there was a reason that that land was purchased. If not, you know, why the hell buy it? That's the reason I'm trying to assume. That a man bought it, paid for it, and he's paid taxes on it as an addition to his valuable piece of real estate. I am also of the understanding, that nobody else pan buy it. So, that's my point. Ms. Waldman: All right. To answer the question, at the time that the purchase was made, as I stated, there was a possibility of a permit to fill being granted. And as a matter or fact, I understand that there was, for at least this body, in the past, an application for a permit to fill. And I believe that it could be reasonably interpreted that reasonable ground for purchasing two and one half ar•r, at the low, low price of twelve thousand and change that -as on the chance that they might get a permit to fill and then to uti'.::e it as upland. However, the low price indicates the extremcly high cost of filling and the value of the land as it 1-isted in its sumberged state. And the fact that the applicsr+ and the previous owners did not take advantage of that durin,: t',(- time that it was availaLle to them, should be of no concert. t:.) the City. The City shouldn't take any great pity on it. I'll also point out, I haven't checked the tax rolls but I'm sure that the amount of taxes that are paid are more nominal than anything else because of the low value of submerged land that cannot be filled or otherwise utilized. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Traurig... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me Joe, just let me finish on this. You know, the point I'm making is that I'm not assuming that there was a low value put on the property because it could not be used. I have to assume to the contrary, that it was purchased for a reason, and that reason was to make it the contiguous portion to the upland. And that's you know, we can assume all night long the intentions of hell are paved with good intentions. Mr. Carollo: Approximately how much land is included in this submerged land that was bought from the State for twelve thousand dollars? Mr. Traurig: One of the deeds was for four point seven acres, the other deed was for one point nine six acres. So it's two point four three acres. Mr. Carollo: It's two point four three acres? Mr. Traurig: Yes. Mr. Carollo: I �,ure wish I could find that two point four three acres of land in Dade county fur twelve thousand dollars. Mr. Traurig: Well when Peter Stuyvessant bought that land opposite Jersey City, you know he didn't know that Park Avenue would be worth a lot of money either. Mr. Carollo: But it's been a long time since we sold Manhattan for twenty-four dollar; in beads. Mr. Lacasa: Okay, !re there any more questions? Please call the roll. 46 ist MAY 71980 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, Who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 80-334 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A MODIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3(4) (b) OF j THE CITY OF MIAMI CHARTER, CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL POTS, LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1925, AS AMENDED, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) PESIDENTIAL PROJECT (LA SANTA MARIA) ON LOTS 47, 4,, 49, & 50, BLOCK B: MARY AND WILLIAM BRICKELL (B-96) AND SUBMERGED LAND LYING SE'LY OF LOTS 47, 48, 49, & 50, BLOCK B, MARY AND WILLI:AM BRICKELL (8-96), BEING 1643 BRICKELL AVENUE, AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A PROPOSED 7% AVERAGE SIDE YARDS BASED ON AVERAGE LOT WIDTH (251, RF.QUIRFD); ZONED R-5A (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING), SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) DEDICATION OF THE 70' RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE ROAD; 2) FIL1.4', OF A COVENANT THAT THE LANDS U0,DERWATER WILL NOT BE FILLED; 3) ANY FUTI'F:C MARINA DEVELOPMENT WILL REQUIRE APPRON77.:, 01' THE URBAN DEVELOPMU NT REVIEW BOARD AS A MODIFIED P.A.D.; 4) THE GARACES IN THE RI.311T-OF-WAY TO BE MAINTAINED UNTIL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE STARTED; 5) PER PLANS ON FILE INCLUDING LANDSCAPE PLANS, DATED F'EBRUARY 14TH, 1980, SHEETS 1-7; 6) PRESERVATION OF TIME EXISTING MANSION; AND 7) PRESERVATION OF THE SHORE LINE IN ITS NATURAL STATE (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 (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Armando Lacasa NOES: *Commissioner Joe Carollo ABSTAINING: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ON THE ROLL CALL: *Mr. Carollo: We've been discussing this for approximately three and one half hours or longer. I'm not going to over extend myself. I'll ,be brief. I feel that Clint Eastwood said it best in the movie Magnum Force, a man has got to know his limitations. I vote no. Mr. Plummer: Weii there's no question how I'm voting. I seconded the motion. I'm trying to resemble Clint Eastwood know his limitations. I vote yes. Mr. Lacasa: My vote is yes and I am going to explain a couple of things. First, we have two questions here. The question of the submerged land, a lot has been debated about the submerged land, and we have gone into this exercise and I feel that this has been very healthy. Undoubtedly, Ms. Waldman, you have contributed a lot. You contributed, at least to me, when we met in my office and discussed this issue for two hours, and today also you have contributed. The fact remains though, that the City of Miami ordinance as interpreted by our Law Department states very clearly, that the lard cold be inz:l,.dL:d in computing, or shall be included in computing the FAR. Furthermore, the question that was raised before that there was, that this could create a precedent doesn't hold any water. We have been provided with 47 ist MAY 71980 Mr. Lacasa (continued): examples of previous develpments that have... where the submerged land has been included in the computations. As far as the general philosophy, that I as a member of this Commission have, it has been stated over, and over again by me that I believe that the City of Miami is being developed into what r.,ild be one of the major cities in the Southeast of the United States. The question of development is a highly controversial one. Especially when residential neighborhoods are affected. That is why we have ordinances, that is why we have these public heaiings, and that. is why in votin(7 the Zoning Board and the City Commission takes a lot of care in determining the quality of the developmen: being proposed. I for one, believe that a development, such as the )ne that: is being presented to us today, is one that adds to the pre1.ige of this City. It is one that will increase the revenues of the City of Miami by expanding its tax base. It's one that will bring quality people to live in this particular area, and therefore, will be extremely congenial to the nature of the Brickell area. Therefore, I have absolutely no problems in voting yes and I do welcome this project, and projects such as this that will enhance our City and-ontrib,.,te to the general welfare of what we believe. And I repeat this, it is going to be one of the major cities in the Soutr,:ast of the United States. VOTING ON ITEM 6(b) Mr. Lacasa: On item 6(b), do we have a motion? Mr. Plummer: On item ... may we discuss it? Mr. Lacasa: Sure. Mr. Plummer: For the record, I've asked of the department, and I just want it clarified on the record, well maybe, it would be easier if you would just make a short statement as to what this (b) portion accomplishes. Mr. Whipple: The major issue of the (b) portion is, as approving a Planned Area Development, you are also approving the deviations and the side set back requirements and the coverage requirements for the project, and you are attaching the plans as submitted and on file. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I thought (a) covered the side set back provision? It sure says it in my 6 (a). Mr. Whipple: No, sir. Well, that's for the Charter amendment, (a) was for the Charter amendment, twenty-five percent view corridor. (b) has to do with the actual set backs of the structure and the lot coverage of the structures. Mr. Plummer: All right. So that there will be no misunderstanding, did the Urban Develc;ment Review Board speak to the mansion in one of its conditions? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, they did. Specifically. Mr. Plummer: In its conditions? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Okay, I just want to make sure that's included. I know that the seventy feet was included. Okay. Mr. Whipple: Let ine stand corrected. They perhaps didn't put it in as one of the stipulations but one of the... Mr. Plummer: Ah! Mr. Whipple: One of the basis for the recommendation stated preservation of the existing mansion. Now what I read you before was simply the additional conditions. 48 MAY 7 tseo ist Mr. Plummer: Let me look at it, all right? Ms. Waldman: While you're looking, I request, Mr. Vice -Mayor, that when you address item 6 (b), that it be made clear whether the Commission is dealing with the application as proposed, or with the limitation of two point six five FAR ratio as recommended3 by the i1DRB. And I just ask that the Department make whatever its recommendation is, or whatever the motion is, I just ask that it be made unequi.vocably clear for the record, for appellate purposes. Mr. Lacasa: It is very clear that we are dealing here with the application as approved by the Zoning Board and the application as made. Mr. Plummer: And subject to the memo of March 26, 1980, from Glen Bluff, Chairman to Aurelio Perez the Director, reference 1643 Brickell Avenue, La Santa Maria, Planned Area Development. Ms. Waldman: Mr. Plummer, the reason I ask is because in that recommendation it talks about a maximum of two point six five. So what I'm asking is for the Commission when it deals with 6 (b), to make clear whether it is in accord or in discord with that floor ,icea ratio limitation recommended by the UDRB. Do you see what I'm saying? Mr. Traurig: If I may have the opportunity after this to address you, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Lacasa: As we are considering the application as filed by the applicant, and as discussed and approved by the Zoning Board, and as referred to us for confirmation, that's what we are doing here. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I don't see, based upon the previous action and the action incorporated in this (b) portion, as to the point two point six five being of contention. Mr. Lacasa: Of course not. Mr. Plummer: It is not, in my estimation, nor am I voting on it as a contention. My contention is based upon the one point nine two. Now that is what I am voting on because, in my estimation, it has been made very, very clear, by those people who we choose to advise us, that we are, in fact, considering a one point nine two FAR. So I want that clear, of what I, as one Commissioner, am voting upon. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Vice -Mayor, in view of the fact that Ms. Waldman has indicated to you that she will probably be litigating some issues here, and in view of the fact that there may have been inadvertantly a vote on the (a) portion which could be confused, as to whether or not the Commissioners intended to vote on the (b) rather than the (a) at that moment, I would urge you before you terminate on this matter, to reconfirm your vote on both (a) and (b) so that there will be no question that you intended to vote as you did on (a). Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Traurig, I have no objection. The problem is that this is a substantial item. It is an issue that deserved the attention of this community, and what the Commission has been doing in voting is stating its general philosophy and reasoning its vote. It is very difficult, when you are stating the reasons why you vote, not to overlap two different situations. Because actually, the item, six is divided in two sub -divisions, (a) and (b). But in order not to be repetitious, what I believe that the Commission has done is state its philosophy that is comprehensive about the two sub -divisions of the item. But we are very well aware of what we are voting on 6(a), and what we will be voting on 6(b). Nothwithstanding that comment, I have no objection to reconfirm both votes. Mr. Traurig: Thank you. Mr. Lacasa: Do we have a motion on 6(b)? ist 1.9 MAY 71980 Father Gibson: Move it Mr. Lacasa: Moved by Father Gibson. Mr. Plummer: With the comments I made, so understood, I of course, second 6 (b) . Mr. Lacasa: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 80-335 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A PETITION FOR A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ON LOTS 47, 48, 49, AND 50, BLOCK B, MARY AND WILLIAM BRICKELL (B-96) AND SUBMERGED LAND LYING SE'LY OF LOTS 47, 48, 49 AND 50, BLOCK B; MARY & WILLIAM BRICKELL (B-96), OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 6871, AND PLANS ON FILE, SAIL PAD TO CONSIST OF TWO HU14DRED THIRTEEN (21J) RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A PROPOSED TOWEZ STRUC7JP_L AND AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE USrD FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, AND SUBJECT TO OF MODIFICATION OF THE REQUIRE- MENTS IN SECTION 3(4) (b) OF THE CITY OF MIAMI CHL;-<TER CHAPTER 10847; ZONED R-5A (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING); SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) DEDICATION OF THE 70' RIGHT-OF-WAY ROAD; 2) FILING OF A COVENANT THAT THE LANDS UNDERWATER. WILL NOT BE FILLED; 3) ANY FUTURE MARINA DEVELOPMENT WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD AS A MODIFIED P.A.D.; 4) THE GARAGES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE MAINTAINED UNTIL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE STARTED; 5) PER PLANS ON FILE INCLUDING LANDSCAPL PLANS, DATED FEBRUARY 14TH, 1980, SHEETS 1-7; 6) PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING MANSION; AND 7) PRESERVATION OF THE SHORE LINE IN ITS NATURAL STATE (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 J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor Armando Lacasa NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo ABSTAINING: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ON THE ROLL CALL: Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Traurig, do you want a reconfirmation of this vote? Mr. Traurig: I'm very satisfied with (b). I'm only concerned with (a) because Mr. Plummer. at some point. indicated that he thou¢ht that the vote related to thn side yard set backs in (b) rather than the, at least that was my interpretation, rather than the see through view corridor issue. And if you could merely reconfirm that each party who voted on (a) reconfirms his vote as yea or nea, I think that that would clear it up. Hr. Lacasa: I'd like to hear your opinion on this, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Percy: The motions are, as I understand them, Mr. Vice -Mayor, encompass tJ'V ist MAY 71980 Mr. Percy (continued): the application on file and what the applicant is requesting. So to the extent that the Urban Review Board stipulations and conditions are inconsistent with those, then the application would govern, would supersede: Mr. Plummer: Let me help you out, okay? Since it was J. L. who obviously was confused, or not confused, but for clarification, I was only under 4 the point of confusion as it related to 1 (a). I did not take into z, consideration that it was a Charter change, or excuse me, let me use the proper... Mr. Percy: (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plumr,—r: Charter modification. I think that will clarify the record, or it should. Mr. Lacasa: This is what I am going to do if the members of the Commission will bear with me for a moment. I would like to repeat the vote on item 6(a). Father, would you like to... RECONFIRMATION OF VOTE ON PORTION F(a), ABOVE) AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Armando Lacasa i NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo ABSTAINING: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ON THE ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: What are we doing? Mr. Lacasa: Reconfirming the vote on item 6(a). Mr. Plummer: Reconfirming the vote? Mr. Lacasa: Yes, sir. *Mr. Plummer: And I vote yes. K., 7. BRIEF DISCUSSION IN CONNECTION WITH TEE CHANGING OF COMMISSION MEETING DATES (PLANNING AND ZONING) Mr. Perez: Mr. Vice -Mayor, before you adjourn the meeting, let me bring up a point regarding the agenda of May 22nd. the Regular Commission meeting will begin at 1:00 P.M. and I have a Planning and Zoning agenda scheduled for 7:00 P.M. It is a heavy agenda, we have several controversial items on that agenda, there is certain possibilities that the 1:00 P.M. will run into the evening and therefore, it is my recommendation that this Commission consider splitting the 22nd agenda of Planning and Zoning so there will be time to take at least some of the items. Mr. Lacasa: I certainly welcome your suggestion, because otherwise, we'll be here until three o'clock in the morning. Mr. Carollo: There is no problem with me. Mr. Fosmoen: What he's saying is that on the 22nd, we have ... you're ist U MAY 7 ir7W Mr. Fosmoen (continued): starting at one o'clock. That's regular City Commission. We have an extremely heavy Zoning agenda which starts at seven o'clock. He's recommending that we split those, that you establish a second day for hearing the remainder of —carrying over some of those items. Or, at least recognize that in all liklihood you'll be here until two o'clock in the morning, and you may want to think about reconvening the next day. Mr. Lacasa: Okay. I have no objections. The question will be then to find a day that will be acceptable to the members of the Commission so we could meet, for what could be a two or three hour meeting, I hope. Mr. Plummer" Well, why don't we think about it tonight and think about it tonight, _end act on it tomorrow? Mr. Fosmeon: Okay. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Commission, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 7:21 P.M. ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE City Clerk MATTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk 1AURICE A. FERRE Mayor �2 MAY 7198Q