Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1979-07-27 MinutesibITY OF MIAMI MB SPECIAL COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON July 27 , 1979 PRE PARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G.. ONGIE CITY CLERK 'ism 'amp( CITY INEU ISTPAERAFORIDA ITEM W. (SPECIAL) SUBJECT JULY 27,1980 ORDINANCE OB HEESOLUTION PAGE NO. 1 • RECONSIDERATION OF P.A.D. APPLICATIONLOCATED 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE (AMENDED RESOLUTION, USING NUMBER OF ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FROM JUNE 26, 1979) DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED WATERFRONT AMENDMENT REGULATION SETBACK AND BUILDING PLACEMENT R-79-470 DISCUSSION 1-10 11-27 MINUTES: OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE 'CITY COMMISSION OFMIAMI, FLORIDA.' * * * * * * * * * * On the 27th day of July, 1979, the City Commission of Miami, Florida,' met at its regular meeting place in said City in Special Session. to consider business of public import. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 P.M. by Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. with the following members of the Commission present: ALSO PRESENT: *Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Armando Lacasa **Mayor Maurice A. Ferre **Note: Mayor Ferre Entered. Meeting at 1:02 P.M. ,'*Mrs. Gordon Entered Meeting At 1:09 P.M: Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager R. L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager George F. Knox, City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Reverend Theodore R. Gibson, who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1. RECONSIDERATION OF P.A.D. APPLICATIOI] LOCATED 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE Mr. Plummer: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. In a special call of the Mayor for a meeting today, by Charter it is specified for a reason. It is the understanding that 2 matters will be discussed today in the special call. The first one relating to the project at 15th Road and the bay. And the second is further refinement of the 2 amendments propused for the referendum. Mr. Traurig, you are on item number 1. If you would like to come forward. Let me give you just a short bit of history. You're project, as I recall, by a 3-2 vote was passed by this Commission on the 26th of June, if I remember correctly. At the last Commission meeting the Mayor asked for reconsideration. That reconsideration was for the possibility of him, reversing his vote, showing op the negative, rather than on the affirmative side of the talley. It is my understanding, from the Mayor, that that will be discussed at this meeting and any further action. I would hope the Mayor and Mrs. Gordon...the Mayor is now 01 ist JUL 27, 1979 -111111111111110* present and that Mrs. Gordon would likewise come forward and we could proceed. I would assume...Mr. Mayor, do you want to deal with the 15th Road project first? Or the other 1 first? Mayor Ferre: I think the appropriate thing to do...did we pray and pledge to the flag? Father Gibson: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, I think the important thing, Mr. Traurig, yours will come up next. Oh, I'm sorry, you represent Helmsley don't you? O.k. We're going to take up the Helmsley project first. And lets see if we can...is Mrs. Gordon in the building? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, may I address this Commission? Mayor Ferre:. Mr. Plummer: properly? I'll recognize you, Bob. Is.. could I ask that somebody set that clock Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fosmoen, or Vince, would 1 of you go see if Rose is available now? Well, lets...lets...lets get going. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a special City of Miami Commission meeting. The purpose why I have called this meeting is because subsequent to the meeting earlier this week, where I reversed my previous vote on the Helmsley project on Brickell Avenue, the Helmsley people and their architects called me. And I asked them, they asked to talk to me. sat down with them and with the drawings... Mrs. Gordon: Did you pray for es Father? Father Gibson: Yes, I did. Mayor.Ferre• Good afternoon, Rose. Hope you're feeling better. Mrs. Gordon: Hello, everybody., Much better. Vitamin C is marvelous. Mayor Ferre: Good. So after...after the preliminary conversation, I explained to them that the...my reversal on my vote was based on the fact that I thought that in good faith, the 50 foot setback and the see through provision is a very important matter and that to be consistent with what we were going to be voting on, that we had to if there was a way of working that out.. Now we spent, I would say about an hour, the day before yesterday. And about an hour in the. morning yesterday and then we met again in the afternoon. And during those 3 meetings, they were able to come back with what I think is a solution. And in a way that will comply with the 50 foot setback and the 25% see through. Now, that may or maynot be the only thing that we're going to be talking about today. It seems to me, however, and I want to say this at the outset, that if Harry Helmsely, who is by far the largest developer that we have in all America, and who is Mr. Developer in this country, can take such a complicated project, as complex and as varied, and as far down the road as this project was, and find solutions to it, certainly the other developers in this community and others who are dealing with the same problem,- can do the same. And with that as an introduction, I recognize you, counsellor. ist 02 1 ist Mr. Robert Traurig: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For the record my name is Robert H. Traurig. I'm an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue and I represent Mr. Helmsley, and Brickell Biscayne Corporation which is the owner of the property which is the subject of this dicussion. The Mayor has correctly stated the facts which ought to be made known relating to the period subsequent to your hearing on Tuesday of this week. The architects for this project have now done some revised site planning. We would like to submit it to you for your consideration as an amendment and a modification to the site plan which had been previously approved by you on June 26th. So that you again, can orient yourselves, I'd like to show you some aerial photographs of the property. As you will recall, this is a parcel that wraps around St. Jude's Church and is the property immediately south of that building that you see that protrudes into the bay. We recognize the spirit and intent of the actions of this Commission in submitting to the public the question of the 50 foot setbacks, etc. And in line with that, we have a site plan which is not colored, it's in black and white. And I would just show it to you from this distance but will submit it to you for further,. more specific review at your table in just a minute. What we propose to you, in keeping with the spirit and intent of that proposed new Charter amendment, is that we set all of our structures back 50 feet from the bay. We recognize the motivation of this Commission in trying to make a better community by having bayfront setbacks. And the affect of this is to comply fully with Section 3, 4, (b)1 of the new proposed Charter amendment by which we would stagger the townhouses 50 feet from the center line of those townhouses to the seawall. And by shortening the stepped building so that it is 50 feet also. We think we comply also with the 75 requirement. One of the problems that results from our new architectural scheme is that in order to accomplish what I have just indicated, that is settingback 50 feet from the bay, we have to reduce the size or our parking structure. If you recall, we had a 2 story, 21 foot parking structure in which all of our vehicles were being parked. So we had no at grade parking. In order to setback from the bay, we now will have 40 parking spaces dislocated. There are 2 alternatives. One is, that we would relocate those parking spaces on the site. And we have shown exactly where we can do it. And it would not be an intrusion into the neighborhood or would not impinge upon our neighbors. 0r, and this is preferable, and we urge your consideration to this. Since we believe we don't need those parking spaces, we would like to keep that area in greenery and reserve it as a land bank by which we could alternately provide for the parking if it were necessary. That way, we increase the percentage of open space and the percentage of open landscaping, which we thine- adds to the aesthetics of this project. We would call to your attention, just for your consideration also, that when you took action on Tuesday, I think you were under the impression that no permit of any kind had been issued by the City. I don't think that you had been made aware of the fact that a foundation permit had been issued. And a suhstantial amount of money expended in reliance upon that foundation permit and the other good faith actions of this Commission. So we ask you to reconsider your motion to reconsider, and simultaneously to permit us to modify our plan to provide for this 50 foot setback with this relocated parking. I'd like to submit this to your table. I wish I had a number of copies. Mayor Ferre: Counsellor, you said the 50 foot setback 'in addition:to': complying with the 25% see through, which I think you previously stated that you also did with this... Mr. Traurig: We have done a detailed analysis of the 25% see through. We have reviewed that with representatives of your Planning Department. We have a detailed mathmatical breakdown of setback, square footages, etc. We would ask you to verify with the Planning Department, and 03 specifically with Mr. Whipple, as to whether or not the plan that is at your table, complys with that 75%/25% ratio. We think that it does. And I- would urge that you ask Mr. Whipple before you vote. Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you while he's looking at it 1 other question. With regards to the 40 parking spaces that would be surface parking in the future, if needed, is...you still would be within the minimum parking.... Mr.'Traurig: We believe, and let me ask Mr. Romney, whether or not this is accurate. We believe that we can comply with the minimum parking requirements without the utilization of the ad -grade parking spaces. I'm not positive of that. Let me ask Mr. Romeny. Mayor Ferre: 0n the record, your name and address, Mr. Romney. Mr. Herman Romney: My name is Herman Romney, I'm the architect for the project. And my office address is at 1934 Ponce DeLeon in Coral Gables. 0n the matter of the number of parking spaces. In the brief time that we have had to examine them, the project, and to work towards resolving it for compliance, we are under the impression that we may need to relocate as much as 40 parking spaces. We have, therefore, asked that we...that the proposed land bank alternative be accepted since, at this point, absolute verification of that is something that requires a little more time. Mr. Traurig: Question, Herman. Are those 40 parking spaces need for the required number of parking spaces? Mayor Ferre: See, you told me Mr. Romeny that you were way over the minimum parking space requirement but that you wanted to add these parking spaces anyway because it was a matter...since this was a luxury project, you wanted to have the availability, even though you only had 253 apartments, you wanted to have over 450 parking spaces. Those were your words to me. Am I correct? Mr. Romney: That's...that's right. Mayor Ferre: So therefore, you said that if you lost 40 of those 450 you were still within the law that requires parking spaces. Now what you're asking, as I understand it, is that if we approve this, we also permit you the possibility, should you desire or need, to add 40 additional parking spaces as shown in that drawing. Is that correct?' Mr. Romney: Due to the fact ascertain at this point... Mayor Ferre: I>understand. It might be 30. It might, be 25. It. might be none. It might be 40. that the precise number is difficult Mr. RomnPv: Correct. 'You' re: right. Mayor. Ferre: L understand. Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, if I may. I don't believe that's ,quite accurate. ` They need; the total` number o£ spaces according to the. ordinance. The -number...` o_ Mayor Ferre: That's...that was why 1 asked the. question, Mr. Fosmoen. Now perhaps you can answer it since you say it's not accurate. Mr. Fosmoen: What he's-saying...what I hear him saying;is based on' their experience they don't needthat many spaces... Mayor Ferre: No, sir..., Mr. Fosmoen: Unfortunately, our ordinance requires that many spaces. ist 04 JUL 27, 1979 11084. Mayor Ferre:That...the question specifically is haw many spaces'; does -:this projdct require? Mr Whipple:; Mayor Ferre: Mr. WhiPPle: According to have 438 spaces. They have''over 450 spaces, Mr..:-Fostnoen. So-...` Well, our information also shows they have Mayor Ferre: So, in is also inaccurate. 438. other words the statement that you just made.' And that is that we don't need all 450, we need Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, I think the point that we are trying to make is that if there be any deviation from the required amount of parking spaces, we do not believe this item has been properly advertised and would have to be sent back. However, if they provide. the required amount of parking configuration i.e. on site other than the parking garage this Commission could proceed as they are proceeding today. Mayor Ferrer. Do you follow that? Mr. Whipple: In other words, this becomes "a technical and perhaps legal question. All we're saying is ,there was no waiver of required parking when this petitionoriginally came before you. And if you want to do this today, I might suggest that it may not be a legal procedure to do that. Mayor Ferre: So, you have to make it legal. What you'd have to do do it, this way and then later on, if you can prove that it,'s 438 or whatever the number is, you could come back, and I would imaging, petition to lower by the amount, up to the legal point. Is that correct? Mr. Whipple: Yes, that would be a variance procedure., Mayor Ferre: O.k. Is that acceptable to you? Because that Only ;,Way :.we. could. legally hear this at this point • Traurig: Yes, it is. Yesit is. s the. Mayor Ferre: Now... Mr .Whipple: To answer your other question, Mr. Mayor, with regard to'the .75% provision, you, understand,based upon the wording,:as'it is today, and based upon the. calculations that we have reviewed.. by the applicant, we are,of-the "opinion. that .they ,would-.need-a_75y'_ provision on the provised Charter amendment. Mayor Ferre: O.k. Thank you"very.much.' I think with those 2 considerations, which were the.. was theonly..reason why' brought. this back for reconsideration, I ,am now ;prepared to' vote;"in favor --,of this . amended plan that.. has been. presented. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Whipple are ,there any,. exceptions to the zoning at all, still retained in that application? Mr. Whipple:. Yes, ma'am. The original adjustments and deviations that set forthin the original petition,.I assume,; are maintained in tact... Gordon: What :were they? Mr.` Whipple: Except for the provision and the meeting of the 75%... 6, the 50 foot waterfront yard JUL 27, 1979 ist Mrs. Gordon: I...I asked you a question which I did not receive an, answer: What are the remaining variances that are still contained in that application?' Mr. Whipple: Resolution 79-470 indicates the following. A resolution granting a petition for a planned area of development on 5 through 11 so on and so forth...consisting of a 39 story apartment and 2 double parking structures (STATEMENT MADE FROM A NON -RECORDING MICROPHONE. SCANTY TRANSCRIPTION PICKED UP FROM THE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM) Mrs. Gordon: Is that still...is that deviation still there? Mr. Whipple: As far as I know, yes, ma'am. (REST OF COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mrs. Gordon: O.k. That a side...I know but I had a negative vote on right from the start. I didn't change or reverse my position. I need to know now whether the deviations are significant to me...significant enough to me to still retain my negative vote. That's why I want you to tell me what the deviations are. Nr. Whipple: May I try to rephrase it slightly. You would like t know if, with the changes they made today... Mrs. Gordon: The remaining deviations. Mr. Whipple:O.k. The would have all the others except that, rear yard of 22 feet provided 88 required they w uld now, provide 50 feet 88 required. That is the only change that would• occur from the Commissions previous approval, to the best of my knowledge. Mrs. Gordon: In other ready to vote. Father Gibson: Isn't rather than a part? words... in" the would like a copy of;;that ,before'I' it true that you were considering the total Mr. Whipple: Sorry Commissioner, I don't Father Gibson: Weren't you considering a`"total'`rather than a part? Mr. Whipple: Well Commissioner, what the Commission is doing with respect to the Charter amendment in this project, this project is approved, shall we say because it meets the Charter requirements. It meets all the other requirements that were approved. And the Department, and Urban Development Review Board, and thc Zoning Board• previously recommended this application. Father Gibson: No, I'm not talking about... Mayor Ferre: Father let me...let me explain. Father Gibson: No, no, let me explain. Did we...we approved this based on what we were told, these are the particular' provisions. All rigrt? You added and subtracted. In my book, I have to have it all or not... Mr. Whipple: IrL our opinion, (COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Father Gibson: All or none. Put it all in there and I want to consider it as a whole package or not. Mrs. Gordon: You reduce `it to writing and give me the approved... that were approved and the eliminations that have-beeneliminated today, and then I'11 be ready to take an action. JUL -27,'1979 ist yor' Ferre: ' 'rather may I 'address this issue Mayor.Ferre:'.These people came to theCity of Miami and went through the PAD';process. They went up before an architectural board and a board that reviewed this whole thing, and they, in effect. as is permitted under that process negotiated certain things that they gave and got. Then it was approved and finalized,and they went up before, as I recall, the Zoning Board, with the approval of the Planning Department, of the Board, and then, finally the Zoning Board, and when they came before us, the vote, as I recall, went 3-2. and you and Mrs. Gordon voting against it. Now, as I recall, your words at that time was, that you thought it was unfair to pass an amendment to be placed on the Charter, and then not within an hour apply...and not apply it to these same people. Now, the reason I took a different... Mr. Plummer: No, that'snot quite...I don't think the two of us have to speak for Father, but I recall Father's words, it was because an ordinance was also passed. Rev. Gibson: Right Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected. I'm glad you interrupted me to correct it, J. L. Now, based on that,statement...now, I' disagreed because, technically, this project complied with the ordinance as it was drafted at that time. And the reason is that is said, "A 50 foot setback from the seawall or the bulkhead line, whichever is greater. The greater was the bulkhead line. It, therefore, complied. And secondly, with regards to the see through provision, it said"25% of the waterfront as determined by the major thorough -fare in a straight line:' The major thorough -fare was Brickell Avenue. The straight line would give that dimension as 200 feet, since they had one side yard as 51 feet setback, obviously, that was more than 50 feet required by the wording, and there- fore, they complied and so I voted for it. Now, the day before yesterday, or 3 days ago, when the City Commission at 1:30 in the morning, or 2 o'clock in the morning, whatever it was, voted for putting this item on the Septemher'18th ballot, with a reworded on...as it was reworded at the following Zoning meeting,which was the next day, at the end of that zoning meeting, as I'm entitled to, under the Charter, I therefore, reversed my vote by calling it up for reconsideration. And, that's why this matter is before us. Now, the reason why I didn't wait, until` as we stated then, August the 28th, is because these people, in good faith, within 2 days, took the problems that they had in accordance to what we are passir.g, hopefully, on September 18th, and immediately amended their building so that they are in compliance. That is the only reason that I voted for reconsideration. And, since I was the one who voted for reconsideration, I therefore, pass the gavel over to Commissioner Plummer and, therefore, vote that this matter be approved, as presented... Mrs. Gordon: I have questions... mayor Ferre: ...if .you will let me finish,.; as presented before us today, with the amendments made to the, project as submitted. Plummer,I so;', move. Mrs. Gordon: I have questions. Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, hold Mr. _ Lacasa: second that motion. Mr. Plummer: Motion made and 'duly seconded. Mrs. Gordon. 0'7 'JUL271979 :Meg. .Gordon: I'd like to call attention to the fact this project is still a great deal out of balance to what the zoning requirements are, and I call your attention, at least to the fact that the 50 foot that's being offered is still 40 foot less than what the zoning requires • for this classification. 90 foot is the required. The number of variances that are included in this under the terminology of a PAD are not consistent, in my opinion, with the use of a PAD because it is, in effect, truly, just variances and nothing else. There is only one area here where the PAD includes a bonus, and that is a very minor part of it for the accessory parking sturcture. I find nothing so dramatically great about this application today that requires an approval. I voted against it before, and I will maintain that this project is not the best project that could be placed on this property. Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Mayor Ferre: Yes, My difference with that is, that it is not up to the City of Miami Commission to unduly exert its policing power in a confiscatory way. Mrs. Gordon was a strong proponet of, and a supporter of the PAD approach to design. We have placed on a very prestigious board...I don't know, Glen, are you still a member of that? We have here, Mr. Glen Buff, former President of the South Florida Chapter of the AIA, in conjunction with other distinguished architects, who reviewed, and engineers, and landscape architects, and planners, who have carefully reviewed this process. And, it is...it is as Father Gibson continually says, and with good justification, if we place boards, and we give them the responsiblity of doing these things...and we went through the whole PAD process, and we have people like Glen Bluff and other who are part of that process , and it goes to the Zoning Board and gets approved by them. And it comes to us approved as a PAD, by the Department, by the Board, and by the PAD planning process. Then, we turn around and we say that it is not the best project that could go on that piece of property. And, it seems to me, that that is inconsistent with the basic tenure and premise of the PAD process. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think that this is... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Lacasa. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Traurig. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Lacasa to be recognized. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Traurig, I have a question. Would these proposed changes that you are, applying for now, would insure the development of the. project' to the satisfaction of the developer? Traurig; The answer is yes, 'Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon, Mrs. Gordon' Mrs. Gordon: I'm taking exception to the Mayor's expertise,., duly-; developed on planning and zoning. I think he'swrong` in ' a number of the statments he's made but I don't wish to be argumentive I'll take my position, he can take his. Father Gibson: I want everybody to understand that project, remember that. Mr. Traurig: I do, sir. You complimented the project and you voted against it, notwithstanding, your concern..your consideration of the equities and: the aesthetics of the project. never was this Father Gibson: I was opposed to the fact that we were demanding a (FATHER GIBSON MADE STATEMENT OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. STATEMENT DID NOT GET RECORDED) °JUL 2 7 1970 Father Gibson:...And then, a 50 foot setback. I said cannot afford to rum this by crises. Isn't that the Mr: Plummer: That's it. it the midst of it, we want to then, and I'm going to say now, City by...what is that term you term used? demand this Commission always use?... Father Gibson: I just want to make sure I'm using the right term. That, I opposed then, I oppose now... that we should have made a study. We should have decided...found out how many pieces of the land were affected. How many pieces of land could meet such a requirement, how many pieces of land could meet a 30 foot requirement. What I'm trying to tell you sir, is you don't need, in my book, because you, you presented in good faith. You asked in good faith the Commission of this City to permit you to develop the project. We said yes. All of a sudden, one man in the community, one man in the community, decides that you are denying us the privilege of seeing the baby. We aren't going to see it anyway because most of us arrive in our cars, and if you ever get your eyes off the wheel, you going straight and it aint going to be to heaven. Mr. Plummer: Speak for yourself. Father Gibson: You know, it just angers me that this whole community, whole community is topsy-turvy, emotionally involved. We are talking about the economy of people. We are at the point where.. Rose and`I were.... were on the... what is that market up there where you go to borrow money? Mrs. Gordon: Stock market? Wall Street? Mr. Plummer: The money market. Father Gibson: Yea, up on Wall Street. You know, most people upthere have 'to look at us and say we are a bunch of fools. Yes, we go to them, and a man goes to them and says, you know, I have a good project, here it is, there it is and you know and all those things. They say, o.k. we'll lend you. And, then all of a sudden, some guy comes up and... one man, decides that we ought to setback 50 feet from the water, and all of those things. It made me madder than hell this morning. because I think I have enough sense... and, incidentally, I have enough equity in this community than most people that have been born and lived here, 64 years ago. You aren't going to get rid of me man, I'm going to be here. I just wish that you know where I stand. I believe that if we had gone and have a cut-off day of proceedings.. for plans and all that business...but we are not doing that anymore, you would have doing that anymore, you would have been fair to this business community. I don't want anybody to do it to me and I promise to you that as long as I have my sound mind. I'm not going to do it to anybody else. So, sir, you and I are not at odds, O.K. I want everybody to know. Mr. Traurig: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: -Any, further discussion. Would you repeat Nr, Ongie: The motion is as presented on this date, 7-27-79 Mayor Ferre: ' Approve it`• Mr. Plummer: Wuldn't Mr.Ongie: Yes, sir, a":better terminology will have to,.when be '!be ;'approved, as revised?' I write note; identify,it. Mr. Plummer: All right. No further discussions Call the roll.; the motion, please JUL 2 7 1979 The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-470 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A PETITION FOR A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ON LOTS 5 THROUGH 11 AND PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND 13, GIFFORD AND HIGHLEYMAN SUB (3-38), AND LOTS 40, 41, AND 41 AND PORTION OF 39,.BLOCK B, FLAGLER (5-54) BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A 39-STORY APARTMEt'T STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE WITH 254 DWELLING UNITS, WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING R-5A ZONING DISTRICT: FOR THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE: A) SIDE YARD - 64' & 78' PROVIDED (178.02' REQUIRED) B) REAR YARD 50' PROVIDED (90' REQUIRED) C) F.A.R. 2.35 PROVIDED (2.2 PERMITTED PLUS .15 BONUS): FOR THE ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE: A) SIDE YARD - 20' & 51' PROVIDED (89' REQUIRED) B) REAR YARD - 50' PROVIDED (88' REQUIRED) C) HEIGHT - 21.03 PROVIDED (12 FEET PERMITTED) D) LOT COVERAGE - 44.46% PROVIDED (28.24% PERMITTED) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, AS PER ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXI-I, ZONED R-5A (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE) (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here file in the Office of the City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the passed and adopted by the following vote: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Commissioner Armando Lacasa *Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. ABSENT: None COMMENTS ON THE **Commissioner Rose Gordon ABOVE: *Father Gibson: I'm'going to vote yes, only because:I don' deny this man. This man came here in good faith, To change the rule in the middle of the stream, to me, is **Mrs. Gordon:As previously stated, I vote no. Mayor Ferre: Before we drop this subject, counsellor, to you and your clients, my apologies for the inconvenience of losing four days. And. I hope that the swiftness and the thoroughness with which you move, would set a very good example and tenure for other projects who...to show that this is not such an onerous, awful, doomsday situation, and-. that the compliance is not something that is unbearable. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, on behalf of my client, he thanks this Commission. We support the .:oncept of the 50 foot setback. We are happy to have been able to comply. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Traurig, for the record, so I don't have to force another vote, will you stipulate for the record, that this four -day` delay that in no way you will hold this City liable. Mr. Traurig: We so stipulate. We won't even file a suit. Mayor Ferre: All right. At this time, just for the purpose of getting the discussion going again, based on the previous...previous experience „,of the case that we just heard, I would like to...Mr. Plummer, pass the gavel to you... 10 'JUL 2 7 1979 2. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED '?ATERFRONT AMENDMENT REGULATION SETBACK AND BUILDING PLACEMENT Mr. Plummer: I'll tell you that gavel has travelled more in the last two weeks. Would you give a gavel too, and then don't have to throw it back.? One of these times he's going to do it intentionally, and hit me in the head. Mayor Ferre:...and make the following motion, that in Resolution 70-... 79-558...no let...let me stand corrected on that, R-79-564, that we strike the remaining part of the paragraph. The last paragraph on page 3. And, paragraph 3 is underlined starting after the word thereon on the third line. So, that it will read as follows. "Nothing herein contained shall in any manner affect or apply to the City of Miami -University of Miami James L. Knight International Center and Hotel facility, including all improvements thereon." And, strike the rest of that paragraph. I so move. Mr. Plummer: Motion made, is there a second? Is there a second?_ Is there a second? Motion dies for the lack. of a second. s there anything else to come up before this Commission. . Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Back.up.:. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, there is Mr. Mayor. In regards to the same paragraph... Mr. Plummer: No Rose. Excuse me. The power of the chair, of the gavel, went to my head. If no one else will second the motion, I will, okay? Mayor Ferre: That means you've got to pass the gavel to Father Gibson. Mr. Plummer: Now, that means I've got to give Mayor Ferre: To Rose. Mr. Plummer: Here Mrs. Gordon: Just let me get my papers in the right sequence and I have some questions to ask. First of all, the motion now, is to strike everything after the James L. Knight International Center and Hotel facility, including all improvements thereon O.k. So, the striking that you're recommending is everything after that, which...which are giving no conditions or any, any consideration for projects that are on the drawing board, ready for a permit. In fact, you are causing a moratorium to be placed upon those properties. Is that correct? Mayor Ferre: No, that is not correct. And, if you'll. recognize me, I'll tell you why. Mrs. Gordon: Oh boy, is this great!. . Plummer: Oh, is this going to be a long day. Mayor Ferre: Enjoy i while you can. It won't be...It won't be for. long. Mrs. Gordon: Wow, circumstance See, I'm a lady. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: works beautifully. I'-11recognize:you. Will the Chair recognize me? recognize you said I'm a lady. Mayor Ferre: This Charter Amendment Number. 2, as it's presently constituted,specifically states that there is a very clear, definite definitive, and purposefull way in which any reasonable developer can either comply with or give comparable benefits to the City which would promote a better urban enviroment. The purpose of this amendment is 11 Jot. 27 WO not the whim of one man, or one newspaper, or one editor, because that one editor, that one man certainly he doesn't speak, I don't think, for. J. L. Plumter, Who just seconded the motion. Mr.:Plummer: No, J. L. will speak when you're finished. • Mayor Ferret ...andpertainly doesn't speak for me and hasn't spoken on many occasions.. I think that there is justice in what has been proposed. I think, what has been proposed is reasonable. I think what is being proposed has merit. I don't think it is onerous. I don't think it is a doomsday. I don't think it will stop the development of downtown , just like it didn't stop the development of Harry Hammsley's project. And, I want to read into the record, again. Because the wording is so important." The above setback and side yard requirements may be modified by the City Commission,"right here, after design and site plan review, and public hearing, only if it is determined that the modifications requested provide public benefits, such as direct public access, public walkways, plaza dedications, covered parking up to the flood plane level, or .aaamparablebenefits which promote a better urban environment, and public advantages, or which preserve natural features." The English language could not be clearer. This wording has been discussed with attorney Robert Traurig, who's here present today. Marty Fine, attorney Aronovitz, Alfred Aronovitz attorney Murray Dubbin; Attorney Block. I have talked to the 5 attorneys and another attorney that I don't remember who represents one of the people that are involved. I have talked to Ted Gould, as late as this morning. I have talked to Mr. Charlie Cheezam, I have talked to Ted Hollo and those 5 attorneys. Those attorneys recognized the implication and the reality of the wording. Mr. 1)an Paul, the originator, along with Mrs. Gordon, of this idea, and who promoted this for several weeks - one of them, and the other one is still promoting it-, very specifically recognized that what he was trying to do could not be chiseled in stone. It could not. There is no way that we could have passed what Dan Paul, and Mrs. Gordon in a letter...in a memorandum to the Manager, with an attached letter from Dan Paul, dated in early June, could have been acceptable, in my opinion, to this Commission because there would have been no way to deal with reality. This is a responsible way to do what the Miami Herald Editorial Department, what Dan Paul, and what at one time Mrs. Gordon wanted to do. I plead with Mrs. Gordon that she recognize the reality of that, that we not get involved in politics in this process, and that she vote with the motion because it speaks in a responsible way to her original intention. JUL 2 7 1979 Mayor Ferre: and I have no problems along with the Miami Herald of recognizing that Mrs. Gordon served a great purpose to the welfare .of this community by being the midwife of this project. I have no problems with that. Mrs. Gordon: 1 don't have no objection to your being midhusband. S Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: can. Fine. And there... want to ask you, if you are finished.. Would you let me finish? I'm asking you if you are finished. No, if you will let me finish I will conclude as'quickly as Mrs. Gordon: Yes and,I would appreciate it if you will contain your remarks to your own person and your own position and let me speak my position for myself. I'm perfectly capable of doing that, Mr. Ferre. Mayor Ferre: Therefore, I don't think that there has to be any kind of a panic. I do not think that this will in anyway doom any of these projects just like it didn't doom the Hemmsley project. However, these people, these developers, these property owners have got to face the reality that this community does not want another concrete wall like Collins Avenue. Now, that may be fine for the 1940s and the 1950s, but I want to see the first Miamian who enjoys driving down Collins Avenue knowing that he or she is one hundred yards away from the sea shore and not able to see the sea for two consecutive miles. We already have projects that have begun on the bay side and that have been completed that may be a hundred or five hundred or six hundred feet wide. where not only can one not see the bay or the water from the road, one cannot see it unless one goes up a hundred feet. And therefore, I think that we have to put something in that would state the philosophy of this Commission in our constitution. There are those who say that this should be done through the zoning process by the Commission. The little waterfront that we have left and there are not more than twenty or thirty pieces of developable properties that we have left, are a unique heritage to this community. And I think it is not an onerous thing to put upon property owners, of which by the way, I happen to be one that have developable property on the waterfront. And I don't think that it is in any way an imposition, that I am not in any way going to be penalized, that I am in no way going to be hurt by complying with something as simple as a fifty foot setback or a percentage setback if the property depth is less than two hundred feet and with a see —through provision which can be reasonably lived with and I think that we should not let ourselves be swayed by scare tactics or scare threats that do not in these cold analysis as we have seen with theaemmsley Project stand up under scrutiny. Thank you, Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: You are very welcome. Question. First of all a question that I need to ask of the department. How long would it take... I don't know if Mr. Salmon is here or not, Building Department. Mr. Grassie, I need to kngq and I think a lot of people here would want to know, how long does it take to process a set of plansfor a highrise building through the department? Mr. Grassie: Mrs. Simply for Gordon: Yes. a permit, Commissioner? Mr. Grassie: No longer than about ten days. Mrs. Gordon: For be done on it? M . Grassie: all of the neessary inspections and everything that have A simple permit -application ten days, o two weeks. 13 JUL 2 7 197a Mrs. Gordon: For a highrise building? Mr. Grassie: For a.highrise building. Mrs. Gordon: Ok. Now, the question is whether or not Watson Island is going to be affected by this, Mr. Ferre, are you willing to answer that question? Mayor Ferre:- Are youaskingme a question? Mrs. Gordon; Yes. Mayor Ferre: Watson Island is not in any way excepted as you can clearly see. The sense of this motion specifically says that there is only one exception and that exception is the James L. Knight International Center. Mrs. Gordon: Ok, thank you, for answering the question. When this passes, if it passes on September the 18th, when is it effective? Mayor Ferre: Immediately. Mrs. Gordon: of obtaining Immediately? Ok. How many projects are currently at the stage a building permit, Mr. Fosmoen? Or Mr. Whipple? Mr. Whipple: At the present time we have the Brickell Biscayne which1 you just acted upon, we have Forte Plaza in on a permit, we have Claughton island coming in on a permit. • Mrs. Gordon: Wait a minute, go slowly because I want to be able to mark down what you are saying. Beginning again with the one we just passed and then what? Mr. Whipple: Forte Plaza, I believe, has been permitted so that (NOT USING THE MICROPHONE). Now, I'm not sure they have, but I believe they have. Forte Plaza on the Bay of Southeast 12th Street and South Bayshore Drive. Mrs. Gordon: 12th Street and Bayshore. You say they either have just obtained it or are about to obtain it? Mrs. Gordon: And if this passes today what happens to them? Mr. Whipple: I would have to defer to the legal department on that also Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Knox? (BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Whipple: In addition to holding a permit, they have also been approved through the proper channels as a RCD (NOT USING THE MICROPHONE) recommended by the Urban Development Review Board, passed by the Zoning Board. Pursuant to that they either have obtained or will have probably obtain building permits. Mrs. Gordon: No, that didn't come before us though. Mr. Whipple: No, Ma'am. lyirs. Gordon: Why is it that the previous one came before us for a PAD and that one is a PAD and is not coming before us? Why? Mr. Whipple: No, I did not say it was the planned area development Mrs. Gordon: What did you say? Mr. Whipple: I say it was a RCD, zoning district. (NOT USING THE MICROPHONE) Mrs. Gordon: Ok, I understand. That was the incentive zoning motivator of putting into place back in 1972, I believe it was 1109hat is now a beautiful, probably the most beautiful street Brickell Avenue. I take great pride,ladies and gentlemans, in that I was the person deeply interested in the preservatiOn of that I was the , which resulted in Miami, telling you know the amenities 14 JUL 2 7 1979 of this community as well as the waterfront. And like I said,our Mayor am very happy he is converted now* but has never had an interest at all in the preservation of anything. Mayor Ferre: I thought you were going to speak for yourself and not for me. Mrs. Gordon: I am but, you did a nice speech on me. I only gave you a little tiny one. Okay, what's the next project Mr. Whipple? Mr. Whipple: The next I have on my list here is Claughton Island. Their Plat has basically been approved. They are ready to pull the permit on the first structure on the island. The permit to the best of my knowledge has not been issued but could be issued within the permitting process time. Mrs. Gordon: You mean within ten days? What do you mean the permitting; process time? Mr. Whipple: It will be in I would say within two from the owner/developers of the property. Mr weeks from what I Gordon: You are talking about what project? Claughton Island? Mr. Whipple: Claughton Island.: s. Gordon: Ok, and how many units are affected on Mr Mr. Whipple: On this first phase I.believe hundred. understand that? there is approximately four Mrs. Gordon: You are saying that four hundred units then are... would have to be redesigned. Is that correct? Would it need a redesign? Is it within the fifty feet? It's not within the fifty feet? What is it? Mr. Whipple: We have not reviewed it from,, that standpoint. units originally approved by this commission. Mrs. Gordon: And that one of course, would be is that correct? Mr. Whipple: It may be, Mrs._Gordon: Ok. I want'the Mayor to heed my words because the Mayor has to recognize,; you know, you can't pass something on the pretense of being concerned about preservation of the,' open space and still permit variance to be obtained by only a majority of three Commissioners. If in fact you wish to retain the essence of this'amendment that you wish to place on the ballot without any exceptions, then ',you should be willing to pass an ordinance which says that a zoning variance on any waterfront land must take a total five votes of this Commission, then yo'i have something that really would have some teeth in it. Otherwise, what you are doing is strictly a political move today and recent dates where you have called all these very special emergency meetings. In fact.Mr. Mayor, sometimes I think you are so desperate to publicize your new found interest on our waterfront lands, I expect you to show up in an aqualung atone of these so-called emergency meetings you keep calling. Mr. Plummer: Can I be recognized? Mrs. Gordon: One more minute J. L., I haven't gotten all the projects that I need to have in order to do a total analysis in my mind of where we are,, where we are going and how many people and how many projects are going to be in jeopardy and... you know, this is a very serious thing we are doing and I am very concerned about the preservation of the waterfront and everyone here knows that. But I'm also interested in not upsetting the economy of this community.' And I have to weigh the two in a reasonable manner so that when we come up with the final answer we are not going to do something we will be sorry for. Go ahead Mr. Whipple, I need some more information. Mr. Whipple:There are some people here to speak on Claughton Island and some who will want to respond to the Ball Point development. I do not have answers as to timetables nor possible impact...there is one at 801 Venetian Way. I do not know if they are under construction at this time. That was previously processed by the Zoning Board and the City Commission, there is also the "Light Key Trait" at 30th and Biscayne Bay, and the last one_is-one dept.—previously mentioned; that being the Port of Miami which because ofTits configuration and loading probiems with respect to passengers and freight terminals could be impacted by this ordinance. Thats all I could think of at this time. J U L 2 7 1979 Mrs. Gordon: Alright, those are the one that are currently in the mill, but only, of those you said, there were only two who are ready for permitting. Is that correct? And that was the Claughton Island and the Forte Plaza. The others you did not know what the status of permitting is. Now, I would make Mrs. Gordon: Which one was that Whipple? The Mr. Whipple: (NOT USING MICROPHONE, THEREFORE STATEMENT IS INAUDIBLE).; Mrs. Gordon: But none of those are in the total completed working, drawing stage, right? Mr. Whipple (NOT USING MICROPHONE, THEREFORE STATEMENT IS INAUDIBLE). Mrs. Gordon: Ok. Well, there are a number of projects which we don't know the time element on them, but we certainly know that there are two whose permitting is almost imminent and that would be the Forte Plaza and Claughton development. I would suggest if this Commission were to be so inclined the majority were to be inclined to p.o with this recommendation, that it be inserted in here that projects that the City has issued a building permit prior to September the 18th, possible effective date, at least,that would give some time for the obtaining of a permit of those project which have gone through all the expensive development schemes that have had to take place. That is a recommendation and the second recommendation would be where the variance factor is included in this amendment. That it be amended, that it require five affirmative votes to grant an amendment... to grant the variance. last one was which one? Mayor Ferre: As the maker of the motion, may I reply? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, I'm offering it as a suggestion. I am holding the gavel,; so I'm not able to make the motion. It's a recommendation. Go ahead.. Mayor Ferre: May I discuss... Mrs. Gordon: Go ahead. Mayor Ferre: I don't have any problem with your first one Rose, because in effect, that's factually so anyway. There is no way under retroactivity. That's what I keep saying, there is no use crying wolf because there is no wolf. On September 18th if this becomes law, it becomes law. Now, up until September 18th this Government, this Legislative body and no court in the land can force anybody to comply with something that simply doesn't exist in the law until September 18th. There is no provisions for retroactivity. So I've.; got no problems with that, because that under the law,and Mr. Knox, please correct me because I'm not a lawyer and you are}and you are our City Attorney. As I understand it that's the facto in this provision anyway. So I have got no problems in spelling it out if you think that makes the people feel a little bit smoother on that. Mrs. Gordon: But that goes together with the variance factor which is to. require that on waterfront amendments or variances, that a full Commission approval must be obtained. Otherwise,... Mayor Ferre: And now let me speak to that. Now, to your second point. I read an article yesterday or the day before yesterday and I forget whether it was in the local paper or where, but it was in regards to that cue box in--- somewhere in Ohio. I think it's Columbus, Ohio where they put in nine thousand little machines on your television set and as you watch television a question is asked and you respond immediately, ok. And it referred to the reaction on the President's speech. And the questions that that article raised were these. What would have happened if the people of the United States were asked to respond to our involvement in the Vietnamese War in the beginning of the second to the third year? What would the majority opinion had been? In favor of the war, I assume. What would the majority of the people I asked.. and I see Mr. T. Willard Fair here.. what would the majority of the people have voted if they had been asked on a little box watching the President speak in 1963 and 1964 and 1965, whether or not they would have voted for the civil rights legislation that was passed by the Congress of this Country? And the reason is because we live, thank God in a Republican form of Government. This is a Republic. This is not a straight democratcy. Our Democratic form of Government is a Republican structure. There are a lot of things that are absolutely necessarily done under the process that we have. It's the best form of Government known to man. If you set up an administrative body or legislative body that requires unanimity in Congress, in the Legislature of the State of Florida, then what in effect you are doing is giving veto power -to the whims of one person and that is simply unacceptable in a Republican form 16 JUI.27197 of Government. That is not our form. That is not the way this system works and therefore based on that Mrs. Gordon, I would just say to you Ma'am and to those who are doubters, that you have got to have a little bit more faith in the form of Government that your country has, that it does work. Sometimes not well and sometimes people are impatient. But the way you solve those problems is not by an edict and not by veto power and where you get the dictatorship of one person, but rather through an electoral process. There is nothing wrong with politics. The political process functions in the long run. If you have faith in the will of the people, if you have faith in their judgment, then you let the people select who is going to make these decisions, whether it be at Congress or in State Government or in the local House and let the majority of this Comnissionlas the majority of the Metro Commission. or the majority of the House of Representatives in Tallahassee,or the majority of Congress,make these decisions. That's our form of Government andltherefore, I really as the maker of this motion cannot accept that second amendment. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor? Mrs. Gordon: Go ahead Father. Rev. Gibson: (COMMENT INAUDIBLE)... and played the game by the rule. What really, really bothers me, hurts my very soul is that we are not willing, we are not willing to let these people continue and pursue what they have started (INAUDIBLE). I think that for us to do what is being advocated here... I shall; always remember Elizabeth Virrick. For us to do what is being advocated here I'll be doggone if I understand how we are goine to be able to sleep tonight under the blanket or under the sheet or anything else. We said to the people "these are the rules'. The people have come in and said "ok, these are the rules, we'are going to keep them". Are they entitled to ((INAUDIBLE). Again, I said that if you do not like what you now have, you should have notified the public. You would have said to the public "as of October 1 or September 1 if you don't have you Project completed, you can forget it. We are going to take other measures or we are going to change the rule of the game." To be forewarned is to be forearmed.' These people have not been forworr. What really bothers me further is several of the people, were here on Tuesday who left here thinking that this is what we were going,to live with. Those people have not been notified and I'm not going to let you say to me what my assistant said to me. She said "well, there is a (INAUDIBLE)". I said "I don't give a happy hoot". Some people don't read the paper. Martin Luther King said... in his time he said "if you want to hide (INAUDIBLE)". Now, I think that if you had said to each person who is developing a project, this is what we are going to talk about today, this will be the final word (INAUDIBLE). And I shouldn't be here pleading the cause of development, because if that newspaper article, is right, I'm not in the ball game and I have nothing to gain. But I have a sense of fair play, I have a sense of fair, play. And before we vote by having all the Commissioners giving their position...;` you see that man over there? Sir, what's your name? You were here the other night pleading with us, telling us what the Chamber and the people in the community had said... Chapman: 'Mr. Chapman. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Chapman. Before we even dare vote, I hope we will give that man an opportunity. Again, I happen to be one of the people up here who believes if you don't need a Board get rid of it. If you aren't going to pay that Board no mind don't appoint it. Now, you may not want to do what they tell you to do, but you darn sure ought to listen to them, because if you don't listen to them then you (INAUDIBLE). Now, I have voiced nine and I want to tell you, I'm among others who up here oppose' the change, I believe that the Godlike thing to do is to make it possible for those who have invested and went under the assumption and the law, that they ought to be protected. I think that's the only fair, right and Godlike thing to do. Otherwise, I tell you,gentlemen, you really worry me. I won't be able to sleep. Gentlemen and ladies, there is the midwife as they say. Mr., Plummer: If I can be recognized. My good friend Father Gibson, this is what makes,I.guess, this a pretty good Commission. We have a diversity of opinion. From the word "go" at the time that we were hurriedly forced into today is the vote and I think that's now about a month_ago_or else. it was. my opinion at that time and still remains at this time and thank God that there has been a little reasoning put into the thinking behind these ordinances or these proposed Charter Amendments of giving flexibility. And I think that flexibility today exists in these Charter Amendments which did not in the original proposal. Some people will accuse that they have been watered down, some will accuse they have been compromised, but I would like to believe that 17 JUL 2 7 1979 they are now reasonabl4twhich we can live with. Using any one project as an example and I will use Tibor, he is here and he is very outspoken and would refute anything I had to say anyhow if he thought it was wrong. I don't know how anybody in their reasonable mind would think that J. L. Plummer would change his vote as it relates to Plaza Venetia. If you will look at these ordinances one of the things is giving up an amenity in which then the flexibility comes into play. I think it was one member other than myself on this Commission who said to Mr. Hollo, "you are not going to get that project unless you give up a walkway in the front so the people can enjoy the water." And Mr. Hollo in his wisdom did such, wisdom was he wasn't going to win otherwise. And I want to put it on the record right here and now, I am in favor of this amendment, it has the flexibility. I voted for Mr. Hollo's .project before and if it is not altered with exactly the same, I'm going to vote for it again, because that flexibility is there and will be exercised. That applies to Mr. Gould whose project I voted for before, who's nroiect now is before this Commission or will beland he has offered up the walkway. I am going to vote for that one again, I don't want anybody to have any misunderstanding. I voted for Claughton Island and Claughton Island gave up a number of things, not just the walkway all the way around the island, he gave up the space for a park, he gave up space for a fire station, he gave up a number of things that he did not have in his original proposal. And if that project comes back before us, if this thing passes on the 18th, I'm going to vote for that project again. Mrs. Gordon: You mean variances, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: Variances, yes, Rose. I want it understood, you know. that I was in favor of those projects before, I think each and.every one of them_eave up something for the betterment of this community and unless those projects change radically, I'm going to vote for them again, so I don't want no mis- understanding, if and when this Charter change passes and these matters come back before this Commission. I don't want any misunderstanding. Of course, as always you reserve the right if they make changes that you have the same opportunity to make changes. I want to put on the record that I really have no problem if it were to include no exemptions at all. No exemptions at all, I could live with that because the same flexibility is there on the James L. Knight Center as they do on the others and I guess really what I'm saying is that there are going to be those fingers who are going to be pointed. That you only exempted them because the Miami Herald is involved and I don't think that's true. I think that that thing is etched in concrete not literally, but physically the concrete is down. I don't know of any time when you would put forth Charter referendum changes that it is not going to affect somebody some way. It's got to affect some people, someway. If you want to use Claughton Island for the example. I remember with pride when I could talk to Ed Claughton,some three years ago begging him to please dedicate the ground breaking of that property on the first day of January 1976, as symbolic of part of the Bicentennial ground breaking that this City was designated as one of the four in the United States. What I'm really saying is we operate on variances in this City and sometimes people take the word "variances" as a dirty word and I guess in some cases there have been abuses. But I think variances are the very thing that allow the flexibility where when Allan Morris came before this Commission and he asked for a variance to go a little bit higher, one member of this Commission said "ok, you want to go a little bit higher and you want a variance, what are you going to give us?" (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer:' Well, I don't want to knows that it was Rose, you know. Mrs. Gordon: situation. get into personalities Father, everybody, That was a transfer of development rights though, that was a different Mr. Plummer: Rose, it was a flexibility of not abiding by the book, whether you call it a variance, call it what you want. It was allowing this Commission that flexibility to say "ok, you give up something and we will give up a little something." You see, if we didn't have that vehicle, if we didn't have that procedure we would never have any zoning hearings. We would never have any hearings before this Commission. Here is the book you abide by it or don't forget. I don't believe in that. I believe in the five people who are elected, whether it's myself in this present Commission or some other Commission, that they have got to have a certain flexibility and reasonableness for orderly development, not by a book. My mother is in the hospital right now and let me tell you what that doctor said, my mother has extended beyond limits which she was 18 JUt 2 7 f979 )ever supposed to do. And he said you know, my mother threw the book out five years ago because it doesn't apply and when you try to apply the book, it don't work. And really the same thing here, the book don't work. We have got a book. We change that book once a year and we make changes. Look what we did in the radical, radical changes that we made in the Coconut Grove rezoning that never existed before and we gave and indefinitely said "here is incentives, we want you to make a good project and if you will do such, we will show a little flexibility." All I'm really saying is number one, there is no moratorium with this proposal. There is no moratorium either the 18th it becomes law or it doesn't and anything that is filed prior to that date it's in the books. If it should pass and those projects don't wish or cannot comply and they come back before this Commission and those projects that we previously passed without any great exceptions, I want you to know that I was in favor of them then and I am in favor of them now. So I just wanted to put that into the record so nobody misunderstands me. Rev. Gibson: Let me ask a question.... Mrs. Gordon: Rev. Gibson: ..."Plummer, because this is your field. The businessman feels and rightly so.. (INAUDIBLE). What happens if you, Lacasa, Ferre Rose are not here? Mr. Plummer: You will make Solomon -like decisions, Father. Rev. Gibson: The point I make is.. The point I make is wewho are here in which we are going to follow.: be of ' that same line. What happens that he had or a good proportion of presently serving do not return? always and I want the public tohear"what"I'msaying. nowware willing to pledge "a certain direction The `people who may succeed ;you may, no to the businessman who'h"as invested all what he had in the event' a"majority of us Mr. Plummer: Father, it was asked of me... you know, I listened very well the other day to one man who spoke here and I gain... he really went up in my estimation and that was Marshall Harris. You know, I want to tell you that, that man said"don't believe that we don't, have faith in our children', Now, Father let me put it in another way. Father, what happens if another Commission came before in... you know, November you get four new members and that four decided they didn't like what was going on in November 7th. Father there is nothing to preclude them from stopping and having the same ball park. Rev. Gibson: I will tell you this, I'm not a lawyer, but they would have the same standing in the court;:. though. Isn't that.right Counsel? For whom we pay big salary, isn't that right George? Rev. Gibson: Oh, "well, .I raise a question,Plutmner. Mr. Plummer: My remark was that if four new Commissioners were elected in November and they didnot like the laws that were presently on the books, that they could in fact change the rules and stop all of these projects anyhow. Mr.`Knox:" Well, .they may not be stop the projects. Rev. Gibson: My question is would we or would those people have the same standingin court? The answer is "no". Mr. Plummer: Well, Father, you know, look at it right now. These people, ok, there is not a question in my mind that-- using Ted Hollo for the example -- if Ted Bollo's,project is put into jeopardy where he has expended money on the good faith of this Commission and on the 18th he is no longer able to do that project, I think he would have every right in the world to go to court and sue this Commission and recover any damages that he might have incurred because he traveled on the good faith of this Commission. Rev. Gibson: Beautiful, then I say,why make hips go to court and spend the money You could,ease his mind by making him a part of the law which excludes him and then he does not have the fear or trepidation to deal with it, that's the point I make . I'm glad you said that. Mrs. Gordon: I have a question. J. L., you have been very honest in your 19 -JUL 27117; approach to how you intend to handle the situation even though you wish to exclude all the exceptions that have been placed in here and I would like everybody to know that when we voted on this the other day and I asked if there were any changes from the original draft. I was told absolutely not and then after I voted and was ready to leave, I was told oh, yes, and there was another one included called "including Plaza Venetia Phase II resolution so and so and so, but that's simply to say that'you know, that you were an after thought into this thing, that you came about at a very late moment in time and that prior to thatsyou were not included, Mr. Rollo, into the exceptions. J. L., you were... have been honest in your approach, you said and you said it right on the public record, you are going to be granting variances. Mayor Ferre, are you going to be granting variances without any reservations as to those that have been approved projects? Mayor Ferre: I'm glad you gave me the floor and the opportunity to speak. Mrs. Gordon: But please, not for a half hour. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, you and I have served on this Commission together for six years. I. think you have served well until the last few months. In every single waterfront issue that requires leasing or development including Watson...' Mrs.'. Gordon: Why don't you answer the question I asked you? Mayor Ferre: I have the floor Mrs.... Mrs. Gordon: variances? Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: question. The answer was a simple one. Mrs. Gordon,- I don't want to debate you at this time. I call you out of order,Mr. Mayor, you are not speaking to Mayor Ferre: I am not out of order. the floor away from Me arbitrarily. I asked you,will you vote for' I have the floor, and you Mrs. Gordon: But you are stillout of order. Oh from Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mrs: Gordon: Mayor Ferre: cut you off Mrs: Gordon: many a time. I. -have never done that in=six years. the the cannot take yes, you will take Oh, yes, str,you havevery_frequently. Mrs. Gordon, you know;: that', that's another one o Stay on the subject of the':_ question. Would you let me finish my statement from speaking and saying what you want.: your away exaggerations. n six years I have Yes, you have Mr. Mayor, and there are ;witnesses Mayor Ferre: You are wrong Mrs. Gordon and you know it. finish my statement? never to that fact, Would you let'`=me Mrs. Gordon: Not if you are going off the subject of the question. are going off on a tangent then you can speaklater, but not now. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, wouldyou let me finish started? Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferree. If it's not on the subject.. If- ;you. the statement that . I'°'' n the last six. years. you;: havevoted for every waterfront ou are out of order Mr. Mayor. Mr. 'Mayor, you are out of ou have voted eight times.' lease. order. JUL w 7 1979 Mrs. Gordon: I tell you, you are out of order. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon::` Mr.'Mayor, yuu are out of order. ...Wi11 you let me finish? Mayor Ferre Mrs. Gordon: No,'1 will not, question which indicates"... Mayor Ferre: You did not let me you are out of order, you did not answer..the answer it.. Mrs. ..you did not answer the question you went way; off in a tangent. Mayor Ferre: I will answer it if`you permit me,the;privilege.of,remaining on this microphone to answer your question. Gordon: In Watson Island you voted eight times... Mayor Ferre: ...I intend in the past and in the future to be reasonable about the laws that come before the City of Miami Commission and about the projects that come before us. It is my opinion that we cannot be unreasonable to the point where we absolutely stymie the health, welfare and progress of this com- munity. .I reserve the right, as I always have, to vote on all issues before this Commission as I see them. Now, I have voted in the past,just like you have voted in the past,for different projects in different ways and I reserve that same right for the future. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, the answer is then that this.... Mayor Ferre: I have answered, Mrs. Gordon, and I don't need you to put words in my mouth, my answer speaks for itself. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, if I interpret your answer, waterfront amendment has absolutely no value whether of the City of Miami because you will have absolutely varying the setbacks or anything else relating to the herein. Mayor Ferre: Those are your words, Mrs. Gordon, and wish, for political reasons, to interpret it. Now, I of this Commission and I reserve the right to do my voting and I don't need you to interpret or put words try to do, especially near election time. Mrs. Gordon: Well, if you'll just answer the. question, I will appreciate it. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, you are not adictator, you cannot tell me a question "yes or no ... Mrs. Gordon: I'm'holding the Chair right now. to answer Mayor'Ferre: ..you have to;give me a reasonable opportunity.. to answerin reasonable way, you"can'.t'cut me off like that,:that's just:not"done.. Mrs. Gordon: Then stick to the issue but don't godeviating around in:.a;number of other things because' you are going to get off'into a tangent,'as usual:,..' During this time that you have continually voted for. these. leases, a pattern, it is unfortunate that.blind ambition Mayor Ferre: you have set Mrs. --Gordon: you Will'not Mayor a;. Mr. Mayor, you are out of, order and;I will not have you proceed because answer the question, will you answer...? Mrs. Gordon: Will you answer whether or not you will vote for the variances that 'Mr. Plummer so honestly admitted that he would do? it tells me that this it is passed by the voters no qualms at all about issues that are contained that is the way that you am a duly elected member own thinking and my own in my mouth as you always Mrs. Gordon:' Does anyone here wish -to speak, Mrs. Rockafellar, Mr. Hollo, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Gould, Mr. Traurig, okay, will the Clerk please make a list of those persons who wish to speak to that they may come forward in an orderly fashion? Do you want to speak first, Grace? Mrs. Grace Rockafellar, I am the President of the N.E. Improvement Association. and the N.E. Taxpayers' Association, spealSrlg as a private citizen, addressed the Commission. 4.1. JUL 2 ? 1975 PUBLIC SPEAKERS' PORTION OF THE ITEM Mrs. Grace Rockafellar appeared in front of the City Commission and stated the proposed amendments were not only to affect the Downtown Miami area but also the outlying districts. She firmly stated their position and belief that there should not be a moratorium on those developers who have come so many times in front of the City Commission and have followed every single rule and regulations, and those of all pertinent Boards as well. She stated the amendments were an "abomination" and would cause the instant destruction of the City of Miami Mrs. Rockafellar stated however, that it would be more acceptable if they were to exclude and exempt everybody who has something in the works or will have something in the works prior to the September 18th ballot Mr. Ray Goode, President of the Chamber of Commerce, appeared in front of the City Commission on behalf of the Chamber. Also present were members of the Chamber's New World Action Committee. He stated that it was very important for the City of Miami to create an image and a reputation that the City is in fact open for business so that private capital will come down, be invested and help to enlarge the economic base of the City as well as provide most needed jobs. He also pointed out that most important of all was government's attitude stating it should be one of stability at all times so that investors would not fear. He stated the Chamber was very much opposed to the "Mayor's suggested motion on this day". Further, he stated investors had their basic financing lined up in at least "two super critical project for the future of this com- munity". Financing institutions should perceive Miami's national image as one of "stability", not "instability", that a decision, once made on the part of government, should never be changed in the middle of the game, further stating that we need to be steadfast and inmovable in our decisions, not only for the Downtown Miami but also so that the City would be perceived nationally as a stable ground for investments. Mr. Alvah Chapman, speaking as Chairman of the New World Action Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. He made four points in his speech: 1) that the Mayor had said that if this passes on September 18th, the Commission "may" grant approval those ongoing projects, by the same token though, the Commission "may not" grant approval to those ongoing projects which are the main reason of his presence here today. Point 2), that Mr. Gould was in the process of closing a $112,000,000 construction loan for his project. His (Mr. Gould's) words to Mr. Nestor to be relayed to this Commission is that if the amendment which was proposed is acted upon by the Commission it would prove "devastating" to his ability to close the construction loan for the Ball Point Project, and he was totally opposed to this great act of instability on the part of the Commission. Point 3) that this was an exciting time in the history of our community, a lot of things were happening but that progress was a very "fragile progress" inasmuch as a single referendum issue could "freeze" loans and cause gigantic losses as was the case recently when the county referendum caused them to miss the sale of some $70,000,000 in county bonds for projects which were on the tracks and moving along. He further stated that if the Commission took action that would delay Mr. Gould's project or Claughton Island, we could well stop the "momentum" that we have, because developers will find inflation will have increased their costs dramatically. Finally, point 4) that there is a question of responsibility and stability of govern- ment in this community. He stated the Commission, on two occasions within the last week, had voted 4 to 1 to exempt the ongoing projects and now, they were considering the same change. He urged the Commission "to not tamper with the progress of this community which is so fragile and which we all have worked so hard to generate." "Do not destroy the progress by changing a stable orderly progress and let's continue to exempt the several ongoing projects that have already received your approval," Mr. Tibor Hollo appeared in front of the City Commission and informed the Com- mission that his lender, the second largest mortgage lender in this country and who had already financed Phase I for Plaza Venetia, called a meeting yesterday who had heard of "what was going on" in Miami, acid inquired as to what would happen if Plaza Venetia could not go on as it had been approved many years ago. Mr. Hollo responded that he would then have to redesign it and it could probably take maybe 7, 8, 9 months to do so, at which time he would come back to them again and say "this is what I have now." The lender responded: "I wouldn't bother if I were you," because the current events point to great political instability in the City of Miami. He further stated that he agreed with Mr. Gould in that it would create a "devastating effect." That funding would be terribly difficult and funds is what represents "labor" and represents "em- Jill " 71975 ployment". Mr. Robert H. Traurig appeared on behalf of Claughton Island. Important were, in his opinion, not only "the dynamic growth of the City and the continuity of that growth, and the stimulation of that growth" but also basic fairness and equity and the legal implications of what the Commission proposes to do." Specifically speaking on Claughton Island he pointed out that this project was rather unique and would take many years to finish. He stated that the owners, after first checking with the City -who gave them the "go"- spent $17,000,000 to purchase the Island plus have poured so far close approximately 2 million more into general overhead and architectural, engineering and landplanning fees; that they had merely finished the plans for Phase I of the project. He felt that even if all projects were "grand - fathered in" that had permits issued through September l8th, the Commission would not be granfathering in all of the future projects that will would be built as part of the overall plan which the Commission approved long ago. Therefore, multi -phase projects had to be considered differently, since future phases of this project would have to follow the very complicated process of review on a phase by phase basis by the City's Planning Department. At the end of his lengthy statement he reiterated that institutional lenders would not have faith in City regulations because they would constantly fear they could be changed, therefore projecting instability in the City's govern- ment.. He stated the good faith of the City of Miami was at stake. Mr Traurig told the Commission they had expended millions of dollars in this project, that they knew they had rights under equitable estopple, that they knew they had vested rights, and that if they were ever denied as the result of actions taken by governmental bodies, after having achieved those rights, that they would probably have a very good lawsuit. He stated, however, they didn't want any lawsuit. He urged the Commission not to take precipitous action on a project that had been so thoroughly reviewed, he further urged them to show the good faith which they had shown in the past. Mr. Ron Nestor, Vice President of Holywell Corporation, appeared on behalf of the Ball Point project. He stated that when they first came down to Miami, they examined the laws under which they would have operate and found this to be an exciting, open City, that they were proud of the Ball Point project and they had committed to obtain and had actually gotten financing in the total amount of $112,000,000 approximately. He laboriously enumerated all the procedures they had gone through and the numerous rules and regulations they had complied with and ended by saying that if the proposed change in the wording would pass tonight, the institutional lenders would not lend them the money to commence construction. He pointed out that the credibility of the City government was at stake and appealed to the Commission's sense of fairness and justice and asked that the motion be voted down. Mr. Robert Livingston. Attorney for Holywell Corporation, handed to the City Attorney for distribution to ele City Commission a written statement. Ms. Suzanne Claughton Mathew, owner of the fifty percent interest in Claughton Island, addressed the Commission. She stated that they had followed all the rules and regulations and had been innumerable times in front of the City Com- mission stating they had been asked by the City time after time, to go back to the drawing board. She finally stated that the City should play by the rules. Mrs. Gordon: Mrs. Mathews, question to you. You said you agree with Mr. Plummer. He was speaking for the amendment. Mrs. Mathews: I agreed with his statements. I disagree with his position. I think you all are creating a great deal of red tape for yourselves; too, incidently,because we'll be down here, time after time, after time, again with every. little building that we try to put over there. Mrs. Gordon: You're talking... Mrs. Matthews: And, I feel...you all can tell, I'm shaking, I'm nervous. I'm in illustrous company here with these big corporations and soforth. I consider Ed and myself the neighborhood kids on the block. And, we are hanging on by our coattails, and we are hanging on for dear life. I don't know how much longer our funds can hang in there. We're paying you all whopping taxes, incidently. And, he tells me we've got enough to cover one more year. If we don't get something started this year, you're liable to have our end of the island on the courthouse steps. 23 JUL 7 197 Mrs. Gordon: Well, we sure hope that never happens. What you are saying, is you -don't want'the variance route or any of the special ... Mrs. Matthews: I; certainly don't think it should apply to any, current, project." I'-m,willingto give the benefit of the doubt to the ,people .who come: along behind us, that may have to get a variance. But,'I don't think it's fair that our project or the other people that have spoken here` today should come under that. Mrs. "Gordon: These that are already being excepted in the present amendment that we passed on the 24th, excludes the current projects that have been given approval by the City Commission prior to the election date. You're speaking in favor of that and speaking against removing that portion and going the route of variances later on. Mrs. Matthews: Right. Mrs. Matthews:. Mrs. Gordon: Sure. Mrs. Matthews: I. had my daughter down here with me early Monday evening. We couldn't: stag for the hearing that came later. She's a new voter. She went home;so:.disenchanted with the behavior of some of you members of the Commission; and Maurice, pardon me, Mr. Mayor, I've known him a while. You have to pay attention. You have to get off that phone, you have to 'Pay attention. And, Commissioner Plummer, I'm a smoker too, and if you can smoke in here. I want to smoke in here. Thapk y.ou'`for the clarification. may I:add one thing? Mr. Plummer: There's no Mrs. Matthews: You're sitting in back of°the`sign. I thought Commissioner. Caine; .took care of that= for all of us. Mrs. Gordon:, t says no smoking"on the sign. Mrs. Matthews:But, it makes it very difficult to get your point across and specifically,;there'.was a young black inan trying to speak the other. night on the Liberty City issue. And, I felt so sorry for that kid because' he was°doing a good job, and I don't know how many of you heard a word he said." But,.I. was disappointed -for my daughter. It was her first view of her government in action, so to speak, and she got so mad.. she's "only 19. She. wants;to run for the Commission. Mrs. Gordon: Oh, I` encourage her, tell her I do. Mrs. `Matthews : Thank you. Mrs. Gordon: Anyone else? for the question. Mayor Ferre: I call the question, Madame Chairman. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. clerk. motion....would Mr. `Ongie r The motion would modify Resolution 79-564. It would strike the remainder of paragraph 3 beginning, with the word"thereon"contained herein. It would permit...Mr. Mayor,did you accept the amendment that Mrs.Gordon suggested about the projects that have already been issued...? No, it's not necessary. That is not necessary. Mr.";Ongie: 0.k. It will just be as I stated then. Everything would be stricken after"James L. Knight.Conference/Convention Center." Mayor Ferre: Call the queston. 211 JUL 2 71979 Mrs. Gordon: Call the roll. THEREUPON,THE FOREGOING MOTION was introduced by Mayor Fere and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and defeated by the follotdng vote: AYES:'.' *Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ***Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.` NOES: **Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson **** Commissioner Armando Lacasa ***** Commissioner Rose Gordon ABSENT: None COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE: *Mayor Ferre: In voting, let me remind my colleague to the right, of the statement madein an editorial...in a newspaper this morning, that reminding her that she should keep faith with her own proposal by voting to eliminate the exceptions. I submit to the record, a June 20th memorandum, to Mr. Bob Homan, signed by Rose Gordon, which specifically reads in the title page, "Proposed City of Miami:Charter Amendments", which speaks to the 50 foot setback and 25% see through. In my opinion then, and now, both this and the other amendment proposed, were and are totally irresponsible amendments. However, after one month of work by many, many people, including the original drafter of that language, Mr.' Dan Paul, the matter that is now before us is a reasonable approach to a difficult problem. At any time along the life of Miami Beach, any one of the developers in Miami Beach could have made the very same statements that were made today. The fact is -and that's why it was so important, to me, to have Harry Hemmsley's project come before us - that this is not an onerous, unreasonable and undoable thing. It is appropriate, it is proper, it is reasonable, we are not by doing this, scaring anybody out of anything. And, I don't think, that this will in any way affect the property owners who have millions of dollars invested, and will invest millions of dollars more, in properly developing the waterfront property in private hands. What it will insure, however, is that we avoid the duplication of what's sadly was `a lack of foresight on the part of our counterparts in Miami Beach 20 year ago, when they permitted the construction of projects on waterfront property that completely walled off the ocean from the public. What we are trying to do, is not to take away a right from a property owner, but under the police powers that the Constitution grants us, to give us the type of reasonable restraint that would make for a better community. Reasonable restraint. And, that also includes the ability to weigh, to defer, to change, to alter, to give variances. There is nothing wrong with that process. You cannot eliminate that. There is nothing that is absolutely fixed in stone when you're dealing with pieces of property, all of which are unique, and each different from the other. Government must have that flexibility. I submit to you, that this is a reasonable alternative, and I vote for it. **Father Gibson: I live;by a: very simple philosophy. Mine is not complicated. I believe in doing to others as I would have them to do to me. If I wouldn't want them to do it to me, I wouldn't do it to them. Or, I wouldn't do it because these are my friends. Even if I could get away with it or get by,;1 will not do it. I believe in having people trust me. When I was going through the process ot having the home I now live in built, I called the electrician and I said to him, I want you to wire my house because I don't have time to do it. And, then I said you and`I are friends. I trust you. Make sure they way you wire this house is the way you wire your own and until you are satisfied I won't be satisfied. I believe in honor, I believe in a mans honor and in his integrity. Whoever comes here to me as a member of the public, I represent you as a public official. I believe I have every right and obligation, since I believe you have entrusted me with sacred trust. I have to sleep at night. I walk around in the community and even with all these troubles "I have never been afraid to go around in the community because I think everybody who knew me knew that I believed in what I 25 JUL 2 7 1979 was saying and I was trying to do what I thought. To be right, just and. fair, I would hope that only I would (Inaudible)............,,., I hope the members of the Comnnission today demonstrate to the world, because they are looking at us, that they can come to Miami,, trust us th people in Miami and go home satisfied they have friends. They need not' be afraid or ashamed. Well then, I hope we'll defeat this motion, ashame, and; I" hope my fellow Commissioners will feel the same way, will join me and: not let me down, and not bring any shame or disgrace on this town. So, therefore I vote against the motion. ***Mr. Plummer: My only regret is that the final deadline is August the 3rd and further changes could occur. I` wonder. You know, the final word is not, what we do here today. The final word is going to be the people of this community. I' just wonder if there is maybe some fear the. people of this community might say that they want something different. I have no fear. I say to you, that the people of this community have the right to speak. I think in the past they have spoken well. They have been able to pick through bond issues, as you will recall, and pass some things and deny others. And, I don't have any fear, that the people of this community will speak in an intelligent fashion. They will make ". the right decision for what they want in their community. With that, I vote yes. ****Mr. Lacasa: To me, this is a question of perception. I don't have any doubt that if this amendment would have, in itself certain retroactive effects of the nature we have been discussing here today, and even if it were passed with the flexibility given to this City Commission, -I feel that this City Commission would be more than reasonable in considering every ir.dividual case. And, I don't have any doubts, consequently, that the valid on -going projects that we have now, would be approved. However, as I said before, to me it is a question of the credibility of this governmental body. It's a question that goes even beyond the legal implications. I do feel that there could be a tremendous impact in the attitude that financial institutions would, in the future, take concerning the possibility of investment in projects of this nature in the City of Miami. I believe that it could affect potential investors that might now, be considering coming down here or might consider such in the future. And consequently, in order to preserve that credibility, I vote, no. *****Mrs. Gordon:' O.k. First of all, I need to clear the record. On June the 25th, 1979 under the Committee of the Whole, which is not a period of time where we take action, but we have discussion only, there was an item number D which said...excuse me, number F which said discussion of a Charter Amendment to be proposed. That was all that was on the agenda for the day regarding the discussion of that. Now, I would like to say, that I...Rose Gordon, as you all know, I'm a City of Miami Commissioner, I'm totally embarrassed that the Mayor has called a special meeting without properly notifying the public, again. My original intention was to insure the waterfront. Our most important natural resource. I brought forth a proposal to be properly planned and researched and not to be set up for an immediate special election. It was`never my intention to have this on September the 18th. This was another thing that the Mayor wished to do. I have been a long time resident of Miami. I have been a business woman, a realtor, President of the Miami Board of Realtors currently. For 25 years I have been serving the economic and investment needs of this community and I fully understand what it means to begin a project, to get into the stage of obtaining approval from numerous governmental agencies. To obtain financing and then have the rug pulled out from under. I feel that the Mayorhas once again, misused and abused his power over the people of this City. I do not believe in going through the back door when you cannot get through 'the front door. And, the variance approach, as stated by Mr. Plummer,indicates the back door approach, which the Mayor agrees with. Variance should only be granted when there is a hardship in the size, in the shape, or the location of a piece of property. Variances are not a tool to grant special privileges. By including the projects which 26 JUL ?777979 have been approved by City Commission, the land and the completed projects which are ready for permitting prior to September 18th, by development order, as stated in this ordinance that we passed on the 24th is reasonable. I cannot find any purpose in the Mayor calling this meeting today to once again flip-flop in his position. That could have been taken care of the night before last. We did not have to be back here again. You have other things to do and so do I. And, I would rather be doing other things than spending the past 31 hours here on this subject, once again. And, I have a very sincere feeling that this is not the last that the Mayor is going to let you hear of it. That you'll be back here again before the 3rd. Maybe with the aqualung. I don't know. At any rate, Mr. Clerk, you can record me voting no because I can see it as a subterfuge for granting variances which have no legal standing. Mayor Ferre: My name is Maurice Ferre, and I disagree. Thismeeting- is adjourned. • ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the City Commission, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 P.M. ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE. City Clerk MATTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk 2'7 MAURICE A. FERRE Mayor JUL 2 71979 C "Inf' OF MIAMI DOCUMENT INDE MEETING DATE: July 27, 1979 ITEM NO DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION COMMISSION RETRIEVAL ACTION CODE NO. 1 GRANTING A PETITION FOR A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ON LOTS 5 THROUGH 11 AND PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND 13 GIFFORD AND HIGHLEYMAN SUB. (AMENDED RESOLUTION, USING NUMBER OF ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FROM JUNE26, 1979) R-79-470 79-470