HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-79-0470RFC/bbb
7/27/79
1979,
RESOLUTION NO.
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.PORTION OF 39, BLOCK B, FLAGLER
(5-54) BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A
39-STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL PARKING.
STRUCTURE WITH 254 DWELLING UNITS WITH THE.FOLLOWING
DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING R-5A ZONING DISTRICT: FOR
•
THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE : A). SIDE YARD.- 64 & 781
PROVIDED (178.02REQUIRED) 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' & 511 PROVIDED `(89' REQUIRED) !B).
REAR YARD ,-.50'PROVIDED .(88'S REQUIRED) C) HEIGHT -
21.03' PROVIDED (12' 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)
79-470
the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of May
, following an advertised hearing, adopted
No.:-ZB 109-79 by a 7 to 0 vote recommending approval of'a
Area Development. (PAD) as hereinafter set forth; an
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that the application
meets
WHEREAS,
Item 'No.
Resolution
Planned.
all of the standards _ TADS set forth in the . Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that the applicant has
followed all of the procedures and submitted all of the 'documents
necessary in accordance with the Comprehensi a Zo i r e;
"DOCU iVi�iV
and' `.
WHEREAS`,
the City, Commission finds
ITEM WWU.
that the PAD' meets all'
f the standards for a Conditional Use as outlined i
ARTICLE XXXII
of the City Comprehensive. Zoning'brdinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems advisable in the
interest of the, general welfare of the City of Miami and its
irhabitants;to grant the petition for the application of a Planne
Area Development (PAD);
best
cm( COMMISSIONj
MEETING OF
79-4'?
OUJTION
MARKS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Section 1. The petition for.aPlanned Area Development: (PAD)
on Lots5 through 11 and portion of'Lots "4.and -1
Highl,eyman Sub (3-38), and Lots:'40, 41 and portion
Flagler (5-54)
apartment
eing 1541 Brickell Avenue, consist
structure and 2-level parking structure
units, with the
districts:
following deviations
Gifford and.
of 39, Block. B,
ing' 39-story
with 254 dwelling
of' a
from the existing R-5A
for the principal structures
provided (17802'
F.A.R. 2.35 provided
c)
)
side yard
6
zoning
78'
yard required)
permitted plus .15 bonus) for the
accessory` parking structure: a) side yard --20' &51, provided (89'
b) rear yard - 50' provided (88' required) c) height
required)
21.03.'
(28.24%
Article
required:) b) rear
(2.2.
50' provided (90'
provided (12' permitted) d) lot coverage - 44.46% provided'
permitted) as per plans on file, as per Ordinance No. 6871,
XXI-I, zoned R-5A (nigh density multiple), be "and the same
is hereby granted
.7 .
PASSED;" AND ADOPTED this. day
nunc pro tunc June 26, 1979.
ATT
RALP G. ONGIE, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:;
ROB E RT' 'F F.
ASSISTANT
CLARK
CITY ATTORNEY
ED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS
GEO4.E:F KNOX
;`JR., C TY ATTORNEY
July
/s./ :-MAURICE.: A. FERRE
1979,
MAURICE, ,AFERRE
M A Y O-R
w
N
•
1
79m 470 "
•
GMM:S/4
6/11/79
Item
79-470
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A PETITION FOR A PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENT (PAD),ON LOTS 5 THROUGH 11 AND PORTION,
Or LOTS 4 AND 13, GIFFORD AND HIGHLEYMAN SUB (3-38),
AND LOTS 40, 41 AND PORTION OF 39, BLOCK B, FLAGLER
(5-54) BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF
A 39-STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL
PARKING STRUCTURE WITH 254 DWELLING UNITS, WITH
THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING R-5A
ZONING DISTRICT: FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: A)
SIDE YARD - 64' & 78' PROVIDED (178.02' REQUIRED)
/B) REAR YARD 22.5' PROVIDED (90' REQUIRED) C)
F.A.R. 2.35 PROVIDED (2.2 PERMITTED PLUS .15 B" US)
FOR THE ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE: A) SI' YpARD- -
20' & 51' PROVIDED (89' REFIRED) B) '
22'ROVIDED (88' REQUIRED) HEIGHT 2 .03' ''; D
(12I PERMITTED) D) LOT COVE -44. •% ROVID D 2 .24%
PERMITTED) AS PER PLANS ON FIL, AS ER gRDINANCE '.
6871, ARTICLE XXI-I, ZONED R-5A ' D `SITY MULT ' i E)
■
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, t is me= ing y , 1979,
No. 1, following an advertised he in , dopted
tion No. ZB
109-79 by a 7 to 0 vote recommending a •• ov of a Plan d Area De e
opment (PAD) as hereinafter set fo th; an
WHEREAS, The City Commission f nds that the plication mee all
of the, standards for PADS set fpr i .the Compreh nsive Zoning dinance;
1
and
WHEREAS, the City Comm
all of
the procedures _ a
accordance with the.
WHEREAS, the City
standards for a Con
Comprehensive
WHEREAS,
of the genera
the petitiop/
on Or
.
ion finds that the"a'•lica
s bmi ted all `f the
hen•ive Zoning 1
omm'ssion finds
ina
Use as
e; and
th Cit Commission
f
welf•re of the Ci.4
r, he applicati
..
llowed
currents ne e sa in
r nan e, and
at the PAD eet all of the
d in AR CLE II of the;City
.
ms it advisab e n"the bestinteres
s inhabitants to
of a Plannerea Development (PAD);
of Miami a
grant
NOW, THER OR , BE IT .OLVED BY THE MMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI;FLORI
Section 1.
The petition for a Planned Area Development (PAD)
on Lots 5through ll and portion of Lots 4 and 13, Gifford,and;Highleyman
Sub (3-38), and'Lots.40, 41 and portion of 39,,Block B, Flagler (5-54'
being 1541 Brickell Avenue, consisting Of El 39-story apartments ucture
and.2-level parking •structure with 254 dwelling units, with a following
deviations from the existing •R-5A zoning'districts:'for t e principal
side yard"- 64' & 78" provided(178-.02' equired) b)
structure: a
-
rear yard - 22.5' provided (90' required) c) F.A. 2.35 provided
(2.2 permitted plus bonus),
for_ the accessory parking structure a),
side yard - 20' & 51' provided (89'. required) rear yard - 22', provided,
(88' required) c) height - 2103' provided ( 2' permitted), d) lot coverage -
44.46. provided (28.24% permitted) as. per .lans On -file, as per Ordinance,
No. 6871, Article XXI-I, zoned R-5A (hi: density multiple), be and the
same is hereby granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
1979.
ATTEST:
L'
,,411111
CIT, CLERK
RALPH'G. ONGIE
PREPARED AND APPROVED'-B
G. MIRIAM`MAER
ASSISTANT CITY ATT
APPROVED AS TO F
GEORGE F.
CITY ATTO
•
i'i
s
RNEY
RM AND CORRECTNESS:
/1111
X, JR.
ay o
MAURICE A. FERRE
MAYOR
JUNE
P79-4
RFC/bhb
7/27/79
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 PORTION OF 39 , BLOCK B, FLAGLER
(5-54) BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A
39-STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL PARKING
STRUCTURE WITH 254 DWELLING UNITS, WITH THE FOLLOWING
DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING R-5A ZONING DISTRICT: FOR
THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: A) SIDE YARD - 64 ' & 78'
PROVIDED (178.021 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 ' 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-SA (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE)
WHEREAS, ' lid Zoning Board, at its meeting of May 21,
the Mia
Item No. ,
w 1. n g anadvertisedecommen d i n hearing, o ar pt approval
r; 0 vaan adopted d 00 Pfi ti eac da plannedtResolution
1979,ZB 109-79 by l af°711t°0 0 vote r
Area Developmen 0) as hereinafter . set . n
WHEREAS, tth(PeAcity Commission finds that the aPPcompre .
City Commission finds that the applicant has
:followedZoning
all lia Ordinance;El°R1 ofthe
AotSf hf et thehse taanP ndr do ao re dd su r fores and PADSc so mu setbpmr ie ht forthteen ds i va el in
nz °ofn theithe
Ordinance; d°cuhineennstlsv e
necessary in accordance with the
and
WHEREAS, the City Corrtmission finds that the PAD meets all
of the standardS for a onditional. Use as outlined in ARTICLE XXXII
of the City Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission c3eents it advisablein the best
interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and
inhabitants to grant the petition for the application of a Planned
Area Development (PAD), Id
1.
IP
CITY COMMISSION •
EETING OF
"',I.:4, I;;)
''' -' '7 9 - 4 7 0
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The 'petition for a Planned Area Developtnent (PAD)
on Lots 5 through 11 and portion of Lots 4 arid 13 , Gifford and
Highleyman Sub (3-38) , and Lots 40, 41 and portion of 39, Block B,
Flagler (5-54) being 1541 Brickell Avenue, consisting of a 39-story
apartment structure and, 2-level parking•structure with, 25.4 dwelling
units, with the following deviations from the existing :-5Azosni7n8:
districts: for theprincipalstructure: a) side yard 64 , )
provided (178. 02 ' required) b) rear yard.provided (90 ' required
c) F A. R. 2.35 provided (2. 2 permitted plus5.15 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 ' 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 rflultip3.e) , be and the same
is hereby granted.
Ju
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27 day of lY , 1979,
nuns pro tunc JA.iile 26 , 1979.
AT -.
ezq
RALP1d G. ONGIE, CITY C RK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
ROBERT F. CLARK
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
GEO
ED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
E F. KNOX
TY ATTORNEY
MAURICE A FERRE
MAYOR
-2-
• 79-470°
a
Con
th
UIRED) B)
HEIGHT
-44
AS
NUS);
ARD
YARD -
.03' PROVIDED
ROVIDED (28.24%
RDINANCE NO.
SITY MULTIPLE)
ing of May 21, 1979,
dopted Resolution No. ZB
of a Planned Area Devel-
nds ' .
that the are.,-,liCat3.onn!eetp a14.-‘, i.,
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance;
, . ‘
. , .
. , .
finds that the applicant has ..followed,.. ,. .
ted all of the documents necessary in
ive Zoning Ordinance; and
ssion finds that' the PAD meets all of the
Use as outlined in ARTICLE XXXII of the City
;and
Cit Commission deems it advisable in the best interest
welf re of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant
he application of a Planned Area Development (PAD);
ORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RESOLUTION NO.
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 PORTION OF 39, BLOCK B, FLAGLER
(5-54) BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF
A 39-STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL
PARKING STRUCTURE WITH 254 DWELLING UNITS, WITH
THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING R-5A
ZONING DISTRICT: FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: A)
SIDE YARD - 6 PROVIDED (178.02' REQUIRED)
. B) REAR YA 22.5 PROVIDED (90' REQUIRED) C)
F.A.R. D (2.2 PERMITTED PLUS .15 B'
HE ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE: A) SI
0' & 51' PROVIDED (89' RE
PROVIDED (88' REQUIRED)
PERMITTED) D) LOT COVE
IITTED) AS PER PLANS ON FIL
6871, ARTICLE XXI-I,ZONED R-5A
79-470
77"
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board,
em No. 1,-.follOWing an advertised he
109-79.by:.•4 -•.0•'-:VOte.'..-reCoMinending a
opment (PAD) as hereinafter set fo th; an0
WHEREAS, The City Commission f
of the standards for PADS set f
and
WHEREAS, the City Comm
all of the procedures a
accordance with the
WHEREAS, the City
standards for
Comprehensive
WHEREAS,
of the" genera
the petitio for
NOW, THER
MIAMI, FLORI
7 9 - 4 7 0
79-470
RESOLUTION NO.
A:RESOLUTION GRANTING A PETITION
THROUGHR A 11 PLANNED
D PERT REA
DEVELOPMENT (PAD),ON LOTS N
OF LOTS 4 AND 13, GIFFORD AND HIGHLEYMAN SUBF(3_8),
AND LOTS 40, 41 AND PORTION OF 39, BLOCK B, 3
ER
(5-54) BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF
A 39-STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL
PARKING STRUCTURE WITH 254 DWELLING UNITS, WITH
THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING R-5A
ZONING DISTRICT: FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: A)
SIDE YARD - 6 ' •:' PROVIDED (178.02' REQUIRED)
. B) REAR YA: " PROVIDED (90' REQUIRED) C)
F.A.R. . D (2.2 PERMITTED PLUS .15 B'�O
�S);
HE ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE: A) SI'"YAARDRD -
0' & 51' PROVIDED (89' REQUIRED) B) •
PROVIDED (88' REQUIRED) HEIGHT 2 .03' PROVIDED
PERMITTED) D) LOT COVE -44. .% 'ROVIDED (28.24%
1ITTED) AS PER PLANS ON FIL. AS ER `SRDYNA CE NO.
6871, ARTICLE XXI-I,ZONED R-5A
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board,
em No. 1, following an advertised he
109-79 by a 7
t
0 vote.. recommending a
opment (PAD)_, as hereinafter set fokth;
WHEREAS, The. City Commission f nd
n1
of the standards for
and
WHEREAS,
PADS set f
the City Comm
all of the procedures a
accordance with
WHEREAS,
standards for
Comprehensive
WHEREAS,
of the genera
the pe titio
NOW, THER
MIAMI, FLORI
t
.
i� s me. ing of May 21, :1979,
dopted Resolution No. ZB
ov of a Planned Area Deve1-:
and'
s that the application meets all
the Comprehensive 'Zoning Ordinance;
ion finds that the applicant has followed
bmi ted all of: the. documents necessary in
h the hen ive Zoning Ordinance; and
the City omm ssion finds that the PAD meets
all of the.
a Con o .� Use as outlined in ARTICLE XXXII of the City
on Or in` e; and
th Cit Commission deems it advisable in the best interest;
welf.re of the City of. Miamiand its inhabitants to grant
for he applicatioa`of a.Planned Area Development (PAD);
ORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF.THE CITY OF
`79_470
Section 1. The petition for a. Planned Area•Development• (PAD)
on Lots 5through 11 and portion of Lots 4 and'13, Gifford and Hi"ghleyman-
. " Flagler (5-5
Sub (3-38), and Lots 40, 41 and
portion of 39
Block B
being 1541 Brickell Avenue, consisting of a 39-storyapartment s
and 2-level parking structure with 254 dwelling units, with e following
deviations from the existing R-5A zoning districts: for principal
ucture
1
structure: a) side yard - 64';:&" 78'. provided ,(178.0 equired) b)
-22.5' provided (90' required) c) F.A.: 2.35 provided
ermitted plus.15 bonus); for the accessorY parking structure:a
rear yard
(2.2 p
side yard - 20'" &
51provided (89' required)
provided
(88' required)_ c) height 21.03'
44.46% provided (28.24% permitted) as
rear yard - 22' provided
2' permitted) d) lot. coverage. -.
per .lans on file, as per Ordinance
No. 6871, Article XXI-I, zoned R-5A (hi
same is hereby granted
PASSED AND ADOPTED this..
1979.
ATTEST:
411111111r
CI CLERK
RALPH G. ONGIE
PREPARED AND APPROVED B
�,L2164,1
G. MIRIAM MAER
ASSISTANT CITY ATT RNEY
APPROVED AS TO
GEORGE F.
CITY ATTO
4',
RM AND CORRECTNESS:
X, JR..
density multiple),: be and the
day. of JUNE.
MAURICE A. =FE
M A Y .0 R
P79`47O
July 27, 1979 Special Meeti
Last Half of Tape 1
Mayor Ferre: Father, may I address this issue to`you?
Father
Mayor Ferre: These people came to the City 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 Hrs. 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's not 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. "Gihscn 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
tho:uugii-dare was Brickell Avenue. The straight line would give that
dr�ien�ic� rs 200 feet,, since they had one side yard as 51 feet setback,
obviot-i hat 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
is the morning, whatever it was, voted for putting this item on the
September 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 passing, 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.
Mr. Lacasa: I second that motion.
Mr. Plummer: Motion made and duly seconded. Mrs. Gordon.
hold..
'JUL 2 7 1979
Mrs. 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 Terre: Yes, !ly 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. Mrc. Gordon was a strong proponet of, and a
supporter of the PAD approach to design. We have placed on a very
prestigious blard...I don't know, Glen, are you still a member of that?
We have here, Mr. Glen Bluff, former President of the South Florida Chapter
of the AIA, is 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,tbe Porr d, and by the PAD planning process. Then, we turn around
and 4a that it is not the best project that could go on that piece
of;pr.;pirt.•. And, it seems to me, that that is inconsistent with the
basic t€. •tr and premise of the PAD process. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,
1 th.nk 60aL this is ..
I�Ir..Lacasa:.Mr.;Traurig, I' :have aEquestion. Would these proposed changes
that you are applying for,. now,. would insure.che,development of the project
to -the sstisfeotioh,of the developer?
Traurig" The answer is yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon, Mrs. Gordon asked to be recognized.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm taking exception to the Mayor's expertise, duly
developed on planning and zoning. I think he's wrong 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 I never was for this
project, remember that.
'sir. 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:
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)
°JUL271914
Father Gibson:...And then, it the midst of it, we want to demand
a 50 foot setback. I said then, and I'm going to say now, this Commission
cannot afford to rum this City by...
what is that term you always use?...
by crises. Isn't that the term used?
Mr. Plummer:That's it.
just want to make sure I'm using the right term.
That,1 Gibson: I.hI oppose now... that we should have made a study.
WThat, I opposed then, pp
of should have decidfnout
pieces
�,e
ahow
affected. How many piecesoflandcould meet sucha requirement
many pieces of land could meet a 30 foot requirement. What I'mo trying
to tell you sir, is you don't need, in my book, because you, y p
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
o see it
denying us the privilege of seeing the baby. We aren't 8 iag ever get yout
tanyway because most of us arrive in our cars, and if oyou to tot ouren.
eyes off the wheel, you going straight and it aint going
Mr. Plummer: Speak for yourself.
Father Gibson: You know,
that this whole community,
this whole community is topsy-turvy, emotionally
ere ed. We are talking,
about the economy of people., We are at the pally wh toe andalwere....
eee?
were on the...what is that' market up there where you ere. go
Mrs. Gordon: Stock market? Wall Street?
Mr. Plummer: The money market.
Father Gibson: Yea, up
on Wall Street. You know, most people up there
have to look at us and say we are a bunch uof fools.
know, ll.hYes,a wgo ge
toproject,
here and
is, n goes to them andknows and all those things. They say, o.k.
ithereis, there it is and youu comes up and...
we'll lend you. And,' then all of a sudden, some guy
one man, decides that we ought to setback 50 feet from the water,
and all of those things.
enough sense... madder
and,than
incidentallys Imorning.
because I think I havemove
ost people that have been born and lived
eq
here, 4n yearsthrs agcoo uYouyaren'tthan mgoing to get rid of me man, I'm going to
here, 64 ag
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 tthat
hat
business...but we are not doing that anymore, you would have doing
anumore, you would have been fair to this business community.II don'tave want
anybody to do it to me and I promise to you that as long
I'tn not going to do it to anybody else.
So, sir you and I are not at odds, O.K. I want everybody to know.
▪ Traurig: No, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion. Would you repeat the motion,' please.
Nr Ongie: The motion ,is as presented on this date, 7-27-79.
Mayor Ferre: Approve it.
. Plummer:,Wuldn'ta better terminology
be "be approved, as revised?"
Mr. Ongie: Yes, sir, I will have to,.when I write a note, identify it.
Mr. Plummer:` All right. No further djSCUSSiOfl? Call the roll.
JUL 27f979
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
H1GHLEYMAN 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 APARTMENT 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 and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk).
Upon being seconded by Couirnissioner Lacese, the resolution
was pa€,0 and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 21aVcr Maurice A. Ferre
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
*Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. PlumJr.mer,
NOES: **Commissioner Rose Gordon
ABSENT: None
COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE
*Father Gibson: I'm going to vote yes, only because I don't want to
deny this man. This man came here in good
To change the rule in the middle of the stream, to me, is unfair.
**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 concept 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.
•
'JUL 2 7 1970
Mayor Ferre: All right. At this time, just for the purposes of gettingrevious...previous experience . .
the discussion going again, based on the p ass the
o`f•the 'case,that we just heard, I would like to, Mr. Plummer, p
gavel to you...
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.
ion
Mayor.Ferre:...and makestandlcorrectedmotion,
on that, R-79e564,tthat7we•
79-558...no let...let meh on page
`strike the remaining part of the paragraph. The last paragraph
3. And, paragraph 3 is underlined starting after the word thereon
oin on
the third line. So, that it will read as follows. Nothing ng herein
e a Miami -University
1 to the/ City
contained shall in any manner affect or apply of Miami James L. Knight International Center and Hotel fincluding
acigiay,
all improvements thereon." And, strike the rest of that p
I so move.
Mr. Plummer Motion made, i ads is there a second? Is there a second?
Is there a se
Mayor Ferre
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs.
Mr. Plummer: No Rose. Excuse me. The.power of the chair. of the gae
went' to ny head. If no one else will second the motion, ;I will, Okay?
M,vor Fare. That rDana you've got to pass the gavel to Father Gibson.
Mr. Plummer: Now, that means>I've got to give the gavelto"Rose.`
:ond? Motion dies for the lack of a second.
Is there anything else to come up before this,Commission.
Back up.
same paragraph...
Wait a minute. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor.
Gordon: Yes, there is Mr. Mayor. In regards to the
Mayor Ferre: To Rose.
Mr .`Plummer: Here you go, Rose.
Mrs. Gordon: Just let me get my papers in the right sequence and I have
the motion now, is to strike
some questions to ask. First of all, the
Center and Hotel
everything after the James L. Knightal ter Hotel
facility, including all improvements thereon whico,. the striking
that you're recommending is everything after that, i. that are
are
giving no conditions or any, any consideration for projects are causing
on the drawing board, ready for a permit. In fact, y
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
Mr. Plummer:, Oh,;is this going to bea long day.
Mayor Ferre: Enjoy it whjle you can.
Mrs. Gordon: Wow, circumstance works' beautifully.
See, I'm a lady.
Oh boy,
is this great!
Mayor Ferre: Will the Chair recognize me?
Mrs. Gordon: I recognize you. I said I'm a lady.
Mayor Ferre: This Charter Amendment Number 2, as it's presently
states that there is a very clear, definite
constituted, specifically developer can
definitive, and purposefull way in which any reasonable devewlope would
either comply with or give comparable benefits se of this amendment is
promote a better urban enviroment. The pure
It won't be...It won't be for long.
'11.recognize your`
1
441. 2 7 %II
not the whim of one man, or-one.newsPaPor, or one editor, because
that one editor, that one man, .certainlY he ;doesn't .speak I don't
think, for -J. L. Plummer, , who just seconded 'the motion.
Mr. Plummer: No, J. L. will speak when you're finished.
Mayor Ferre: ...andcertainly 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,nright 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, ormeomparablebenefits 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 Hollow and those
5 attorneys. Those attorneYs recognized the implication and the
reality of the wording. Mr. Dan 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
recogni.,ad 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
Tape #12 - 7/27/79
I
Mayor Terre: and I have no problems along with the Miami Herald of
recognizing that Mrs Goraon.served a great purpose to the welfare of this
community by being the midwifeof this project. I have no problems with that.
have no objection to your being midhusband. So...
Mrs. Gordon: I don
Mayor Ferre: Fine. And there...
Mrs. Gordon: I want to ask you, if you are finished...
Mayor Ferre: Would you let me finish?
Mrs. Gordon: I'm asking you if you are finished.
Mayor Ferre: No, if you will let me finish I will conclude as quickly as
can.
appreciate it if you will contain your remarks
toyour ownpersonand your own p
Mrs. Gordon: Yes and I. would osition and let me speak my position for
, , '
myself. I'm perfectly capable of doing that, Mr. Ferre.
Mayor Ferre: Trierefore, I don't think thatatherehas
any to beof anyskindood f as
panic. I do not think that this will inanyway e
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 that
community does not want another concrete wall like Collins Avenue.Now,
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
w?-ere not c'r, an one not see the bay or the water from tletrroad,
ktooneat canwenot
see it unleoF on:, goes up a hundred feet. And therefore,
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
1 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 tobe e hurt
tage sytcack omplying e with
something as simple as a fifty foot setback or a p r
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
n swayed bwechavee tseencs or scare threats that do not in with theiiemmsley Project stand up thesecold
scrutiny.
analysis as •-
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. Salmar► is here or not, Building Department. Mr. Grassie, I need to know
and I think a lot of people here would want to know, how long does it take to
process a set of plans for a bighrise building through the department?
Mr. Grassie: Simply for a permit, Commissioner?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Grassie: No longer than about ten days.
Mrs. Gordon: For
be done on it?
all of the necessary ins
Mr. Grassie: * simple permit
application ten days to two weeks.
JUL 2 7 1979
1
Mrs. Gordon: For a highrise building?
Mr. Grassier For a highrise building.
s Gordon: Ok. Now, the question is whetheru r not Wagtson Islanthat
Mr tis
his, Mr. Ferre, a y.
going to:beaffected by
question?
asking me a question?
Mrs. Gordon; Yes.
Mayor Ferrol
Watson Island is not in any way excepted as you can clearly see.
The'sense of this motion specifically
Knightsays
lnternationalthat there sCenter.only one
exception
and that exception is the Jame
Mrs. Gordon..;-Ok, thank y
ou, for answering the question. When this passes,`'
if it passes on September the 18th, when is it effective?
Mayor Ferrer Innediately.
Ok.. H.many projects arecurrently at the stage
Mrs. Gordon::_ Im�ediately? �- Mt. owFosmoen?.Or Mr. Whipple?:
of obtaining `a b Gilding permit,
Mr, Wht1e At ; he presen'.time wehaveheBricell Bi-scayne wich you
't '.- '
just upon,we haveForte laza non permit, wehaveCln
;
Island comininonaermitg
Gordon: Wait a g
minute,. o slowly because I t t
wano be-ableto mark down
Mrs
ha.inning again :
with°theone wee just passed and then
what you are saying ,. � _. _ _
W iat?
Whi 1e: torte P1aza,.i believe, has.been permitted so that (NOT USING
TEEMICROF. O1HO:iE) Now, I m:not sure they have, but I believe they have.
TE
Forte:Plaza c.n'1:he Bey q' SOutheaSt,l2th Street and South Bayshore Drive._,
?ors. Gordon: 12th Street. and Bayshore. You say they either have just obtained
it or are `about- to obtain it?
Mr.
Whipple:
Mrs Gordon:
Mr.
es, Ma'am.::
'Arid if this passes today what happens to them?
would hive to defer
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) recoil rsuant
by the Urban Development Review Board, passed by the Zoning Board.
to that they either have obtained or will have probably obtained building
permits.
Mrs. Gordon: No, that didn't come before us though.
Mr. Whipple: No, Ma'am.
to the legal 'department on that 'a]
Mrs. Gordon: Why is it that the previous one came before
„•:e .is a :FAD andis not coming before us? Why?
did.. not say it was the planned area development.
Mr. ;Whipple:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr Whipple:
Mrs. 'Gordon: Ok, I understand. That was the incentive zoning
motivator of putting into place back in 1972, I believe it was,
in what 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
What did you say?
I say it was a RCD, zoning district.
FAD and that
(NOT USING THE MICROPHONE)
that I was the
which resulted
in Miami,
telling you know
the amenities
1
JUL 2 7 1979
A
044,
understand
Claughton.
Ok, and how many units are affected on that?
phase I believe there is approximately four
On this first
of this community as well as the waterfront. And like I saidpour Mayor, I
am very happy he is converted now, but has never had an interest at all in
the preservation of anything.
I thought you were going to speak for yourself and not for me.
Mayor Ferret
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?
Mt. Whipple: The next I have on my list here is .Claughton Island. Their'
Flat has basically been approved. They are ready to (NOT USING THE MICROPHONE).
The permit to the best of my knowledge has not been issued, but couldbe issued
within the permitting process time..
Mrs. Gordon: You mean within ten days? What do you mean the;` permitting
Process time?'
Mt. Whipple: It will beinI would say within two weeks from what I
(NOT USING THE MICROPHONE).
Mrs. Gordon: You are talking about what project? Claughton Island?
MrWhipple:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Whipple:
hundred.
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: (NOT USING THE MICROPHONE. THEREFORE STATEMENTS ARE' INAUDIBLE).
Mrs. Gordon: And that one of course, would be subject to a variance if this
passes,' is that correct?
Mr. Whipple: (NOT USING THE MICROPHONE. THEREFORE STATEMENT IS INAUDIBLE).
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
't
the essence of this amendment that you wish to place on the ballot ithout 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 you have something that reallywoud have some ave todayteeth
recent .
Otherwise, what you are doing is strictly a political
dates where you have called all these very special emergency meetings.yoIn
new
fact Mr. Mayor, sometimes I think you are so desperate
oto ohpu luicitn an rsaqnew
found interest on our waterfront lands, I expect e
at one 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: (NOT USING THE MICROPHONE. THEREFORE STATEMENT IS INAUDIBLE).
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, those are the ones that are currently in the mill,
but only of those you saidpthere were only two who are ready for permitting.
e
Is that correct? And that was the Claughton Island and the FortePlaza.lazamake.
others you did not know what the status of permitting is. Now, e
JUL 2 7 197%
Mr. Whipple:
Mrs. ,Gordon:
Mr. Whipple:
Mrs,, Gordon:
stage, right?
Mx. Whipple:
(NOT USING MICROPHONE.
Which one was that Whipple?
(NOT USING MICROPHONE,
THEREFORE STATEMENT IS INAUDIBLE).
The last one was whichone?
THEREFORE STATEMENT IS INAUDIBLE).
ut`none Lof those are in the total completed working, drawing
(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 '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.
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
so I'm not able to make the motion. It's a recommendation. Go ahead
Mayor 'Terre: i don't have any problem with your first one Rose, because in
effect,-thsc'4 factually so anyway. There is no way under retroactivity.
That's what T : eep saying, there is no use crying wolf because there is no
waif. 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 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
JUL a 7 1979
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 Houseland
let the majority of this Commissioners 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 and therefore,
I really as the maker of this motion cannot accept that second amendment.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor?
Mrs. Gordon: Go ahead Father. Thank you. Yes, speak.
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 doegone if I understand how we are eoine 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 on 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 foreworn is to be forearmed. These people have not been foreworn. 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...
Mr. 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
Hoard 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 mine 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 makes1I 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_aao or el$e. 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
JUL 2 7 1979
they are now reasonable,which 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 ordinancesone 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. Rollo, "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 project now
is before this Commission or will be,and 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_gave
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 alwayslyou 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 phystcally,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
mile 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 agolbegging 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 Mars
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 get into personalities Father
knows that it was Rose, you know.
Mrs. Gordon: That was a transfer of development rights though, that was a different
situation.
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 hook. My mother is in the hospital right now and let me
tell you what that doctor said, my mother has extended beyond limits which sue was
Never 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 nevet 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: Father Gibson has a question.'
Rev. Gibson:` ...'Pluimner, because this is your field. The businessman always
feels and rightly so...'(INAUDIBLE). What'happensif you,°Lacasa, Ferre and
Rose are not here?
Mr. Plummer: You will make Salman-like decisions, Father.
Rc•:. Gibson: The point t make is... I want the public to hear what I'm saying.
The point'I make is we,who are here now,are willing to pledge a certain direction
in which we are going to follow. The people who may succeed you may not
be of that same line. What happens to the businessman who has invested all
that he had or a good proportion of what he had in the event a majority of us
presently serving do not return?
Mr. Plununer: Father, it was asked of me... you know, I listened very well
the other days to one man who spoke here and I gain... he really went up in my
e-titivation ald that was Marshall Harris. You know, I want to tell you that, that
mar. sai:Ocion'' elieve that we don't have faith in our children? Now, Father
let re'•uur. 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
samestanding in the court though. Isn't that right Counsel? For whom we pay
big salary, isn't that right George?
Mr. Knox: What was your question, sir?
Rev. Gibson: Oh, well, I will state it again. You say it,so then I could
raise a questiontPlummer.
Mr. Plummer: My remark was thatif four new Commissioners were elected in
November and they -did: not likethe 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 able to stop the projects.
Rev. Gibson: My question is would we or would those people have the same
standing in court? The answer is "no".
Mir. 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 Hollo'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 him 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
-JUL 27!,11 ,
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 wevoted
draft. ti►1I was toldthe rebsolutely notyandday and I asked ithenthere.
were any changes from the original
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 thatlyou know, that you were an after thought
to
into this thing, that you came about at a very late moment in time and t, you Watepr
that)you were not included, Mr. Rollo,eesaidnit right•on the
have been honest in your approach, you said and you
public record, you are going to be granting variances. r' vor Ferre, are you
going to be granting variances without any reservations r. to those that have.
been approved projects?
Mayor Terre: 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. 3:.;thinkyou have served well until the last few months.
In
every single waterfront issue that requires leasing or development including
Watson...
Mrs. Gordon: you answer the question I asked you?
Why don
Mar or Ferre: ! nave "the floor Mrs....
Mrs. Gordon:
variances?
Mayor Ferre
Mrs. Gordo:
Suea ti^n.
The answer was a simple "one.
asked youuwill.you vote for
the
Mrs. Gordon, I don want want to debate you at ,this. time.
s call you out of order -Mr: Mayor, you ire not speaking ;to the
ayc.r Ferre.., t .,in not 'o t of. order.
the floor away r.rom me: arbitrarily.
I have the floor and, you., cannot take
Mrs. Gordon: But you are still out of order.
from me....
Oh -yes,, you will take
Mayor 'Ferre:: I have never done that in six years.
Mr;. Gorden; Oh,yes,:sir,you have very frequently.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, you know that, that's another
Mrs. Gordon: Stay on the subject of the question.
Mayor Ferre: Would you let me finish my statement
cut you off, from. speaking and saying what you want.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, you have Mr. Mayor, and there are witnesses to that fact,
many a time.
taway'
one of your
exaggerations.
In six years I have never
Mayor`. Ferre: You are wrong Mrs. Gordon and you know it.
finish my statement?
Mrs. Gordon: Not if you are going off the subject of the. question. If you
-
doing off on a tangent then you can speak later, but not now.
would youlet me finish the statement that I
"3: or Ferre: Mrs.
staYted?
Gordon
Mrs. Gordon: If it not on the subject...
Mayor Ferre: I
n the
last', six years you have voted for
Mrs. Gordon: You are out of
Would you let.me
every-' waterfront -
order, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, you are out;o
Mayor Ferre: You have voted eight times.
lease.
order.
JUL 2 j i979
Mrs. Gordon: I tell you, you are out of order.
Mayor Ferre: In Watson Island you voted eight times...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, you are out of order.
finish?
Mayor Ferre:..,Wi11 you let me
Mrs. Gordon: No, I will not, you are out'of order,. you did not answer the
question which irdicates...
Mayor Ferre: 'iou did not let me answer it...
Mrs. Gordon: ..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.
Well, if you'll just answer the question, I will appreciate
a dictator, you cannot tell me to answer
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor Ferre: MrF.:Gordon, you are not
a question "yes" •or< "no'...
I'tr holding the Chair right now.
Mrs. Gordon:
�u have .to give me a reasonable opportunity to answer in a
Mayor Ferre: .••y� just not done.
reasonable way, you can't cut me off like that, that's
Mrs. Gordon: Then stick to the issue but don't go deviating around in a number
of other: things because you are going to get off into a tangent, as usual.
M',.•nor Ferrel During this time that you
have
teat ncontinually
vote
ed for these
you have set -a pattern, it is unfortunate
Mrs. Gordon:
you will not
Mr..Mayor, you are out of order and ;I will
,answer the iucstion, will ;you answer...?
not, have you
leases,
proceed because
bul�or Ferre: unreasonable...
Mrs. Gordon: Will you answer whether or nothyou
uwowwill vote
to for the variances
that Mr. Plummer so honestly admitted t
Mayor Ferre: ...I intend in the past and in tommission and aboutfuture to be theprojects
le about
the laws that come before the City of Miami C
:hat come before us. It is my opinion that we cannot be unreasonable to the
point where we absoluteri hitymselthe alwayslhave welfare
voteand
on allprogress
issues beforecom-
munity. I reserve the right, ust like you
this Commission as I see them. Now, I have voted in the past,j
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, it tells me that
tthis
voters
ofwaterfrontthe
amendment Miami becauseabsolutely
will havevalue
absolutelyino qualmspassed
at all about
of in Cityh
varying the setbacks or anything else relating to the issues that are contained
herein.
that you
Mayor Ferre: Those are your words, Mrs. Gordon, and that is the eway
tthed member
Now, I am a duly
wish, for political reasons, to interpret it. and my own
ofo this dmmidonon and I roustovinterpretright
orto putowords inthinking
mouth as you always
voting and I don't need y
try to do, especially near election time.
Mrs. Gordon: Does anyone hurl wisho to speak, ay, will thers. Clerkcpleaseamakera listoof r•
Chapman, Mr. Gould, Mr. Tra g+ come forward in an orderly
those fashion? rsDosyouowantt�toospeak firstspeak to , aGrace?
t they may
Mrs. Grace Rockafellar, President of the N.E. Improvement Association, and the
N.E. Taxpayers' Association, speaking as a private citizen, addressed the Commission.
Ju's 2 71974
. o
i
July 27, 1979 Meeting
Tape 03
TIMIXIMINgwwwwwwwwwwire
C
TAPE BEGINS WITH THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS' PORTION OF THE ITEM, MRS. GRACE
ROCKAFELLAR SPEAKING.
Mrs. Grace Rockefeller 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 rhanman, 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 Corn-issi.:n "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
ii 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 Claugnton
Island, we could well stop the "momentum" that we have, because developers
will find inflation will have increased their costs drdmatically. 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, and inquired as to what would
happen if Plaza Venetia could not go on as it had been approved many years ago.
Mr. Rollo 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-
JUL n 7 1M
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 18th, 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 t1:e 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.
JUL ? 7 197q
Cainey took care of that for all of us.
-11111111.10,-,
Mrs. Gordon Well, we sure hope that neverhappens. 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 willing to give the benefit of thedoubt 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 accepted 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. Gordon: O.k. Thank you for the clarification.
Mrs. Matthews: And, may I add one thing?
Mrs. Gordon: Sure.
Mrs. Matthews: I had my daughter down here with me early Monday evening.
We couldn't stay 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.
Mr. Plummer: there's no law against it, ma'am.
Mrs. Matthews: You're sitting in back of the sign. I thought Commissioner;
Mrs. Gordon: It 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 man 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? .If...Anyone else.? If not`, I think we're ready
for the question.
Mayor
Ferre: I call the question, Madame Chairman.
Mrs. Gordon: The motion...would you repeat the motion that you have,
Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Ongie: 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...
Mrs. Gordon: .No, it's not necessary. That is not necessary.
Mr. Ongie: O.k. It will just be as I stated then. Everything would be:
stricken after"James L. Knight Conference/Convention Center."
Mayor
Call the queston.
JUL I 7 1979
Mrs. Gordon: Call the roll.
THEREUPON THE FOREGOING MOTION was introduced by Mayor Ferre.
and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and defeated by the following 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 'colleage to the right, of the
statement made in an editorial...in a newspaper this morning, that reminded
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
Her.mslcy's I,1-3iect come before us - that this is not an onerous, unreasonable
and undcab.:e thing. It is appropriate, it is proper, it is reasonable,
we are not 5y doing this, scaring anybody out of anything. And, I don't think,
that this c.iii 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, I will not do it. I believe in having people
trust me.
Then I was going through the process of 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
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
JUL 2 71979
was sayingand I was trying to do what I thought.
I would hope that only I would
I hope the members of the Commission today demonstrate to the world,
because they are looking at us, that they can come to Miami, trust us the
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 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 ommunity 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 sp 3k. I think in the past they have spoken well. They
have been able 1) pick through bond issues, as you will recall, and pass
some things and .leny others. And, I don't have any fear, that the people
this cor.,;.uni.ty 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
zetroactiv_ effects of the nature we have been discussing here today,
and even if it were passed with the flexibility given to this City
Cm4fssion, I 'eel that this City Commission would be more than reasonable
in considering every individual case. And, I don't have any doubts,
consequent'y, +;tat t1r=, '.; id on -going projects that we have now, would
A appro"ec, aowever, as I said before, to me it is a question of the
cr.edibillty 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,
,'r, the"fu.ure, take concerning the possibility of investment in projects
:if this nature in the City of Miami. I believe that it could affect
potentialinvestors 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
.iune 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.
h:ve 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
an serving the economic and investment needs of this community and I
fu?ly 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 Mayor has 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
1
JUL ?7 7979
a
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. This meeting;
is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
There ,being no further businessto.,come before the City Commission
on motion duly.made.and seconded, the:"meeting was adjourned at 3:40'P.M.
JUL 2 71979 •
(Tapes 3/4 of 6-26-79)
11. GRANT APPLICATION FOR PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) -
39 STORY APARTMENT STRUCTURE -254 DWELLING UNITS- 2 LEVEL
PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, we are on Item #7.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Alright, sure, sure, ok. The lady says that she doesn't have
an objection, but a concern. Since she has to leave right now and she has.
got an emergency, would you mind Counselor if she makes her statement first?
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Ms. Waldman: Thank you, very much Mr. Mayor. My name is Janet Waldman, I
am the President of Save Brickell Avenue Inc. which is a non-profit corporation
representing approximately a hundred property owners in the vicinity of this
property. I live at 1901 Brickell Avenue. We do not object to this development,
it's a very lovely and we think, a very well -planned development. However, we
do have one concern which has been previously expressed to Mr. Traurig and I
would like to place it into the record at this time for the consideration of
the Commission. This project is planning to have two hundred fifty-four
residential units and it is planned to have only one method of ingress and
egress consisting of one lane going in and one lane coming out. The Department
of Traffic and Transportation in their April 13th report stated that they believe
this will cause one thousand five hundred fifty vehicles trips per day with
as many as a hundred forty occurring during the peak hour. They have made some
recommendations regarding moving median strip opening. Our concern is
one of unreasonable traffic'for, not for Brickell Avenue so much, but just
for that one entrance lane and one exit lane especially considering that there
will be a security gate there that will cause a lot of the traffic to stop
many times. We are also extremely concerned about the possibility of any
emergency vehicle having to get in or out of there when there is a stoppage
there. We ask only that the road going in and out be widened to make it accessible
to one car perhaps that would be there and an emergency vehicle and certainly
that any planned landscaping be moved to allow for that with a second possibility
which I have been told is...
Mayor Ferre: Counselor are you listening to this?
. Mr. Traurig: Yes, I am.
Mayor Ferre: Because that's a very positive
ought to take time and listen to.
Ms. Waldman: With a second request, if it's at all possible, for another
entrance on 15th Road, but we I think would be satisfied with widening this
one street. Thank you, very much.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, just to make sure that we
statement. What you are saying is that you don't have
you do have a concern with ingress and egress.
Ms. Waldman: Correct.
Mayor Ferre: And you are recommending that the entrance be widen so that
there is one additional lane?
Ms. Waldman: Correct. Well, one additional lane hopefully in each direction.
As it stands now there is only one lane open in and one lane open out and we
don't feel that's sufficient for two hundred fifty-four units with over fifteen
hundred trips a day...
Mayor Ferre: Into the project.
gl
And I appreciate your consideration.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor and Mrs. Gordon, gentlemen, my name is Robert H.
Traurig and I'm an Attorney at Law, 1401 Brickell Avenue. I'm prepared to
make a complete presentation; as a result of the hour thoght, and in view of the
fact that Ms. Waldman indicates that the Save Brickell Avenue
group
has
no
objection except these, I wonder if anyone else has any objectionsor
should just address this one issue because we do have a recommendation of
approval by the Urban, Development Review Board, by the planning Department,
by the Zoning Board.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, let me say that I would like to hear your presentation.
Mr. Traurig: Good.
Mr. Plummer: Rose,
Mayor Ferre:
r. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
approved toni
what Ism talk
I.know
Listen J. L. :when ;you, go, out; to
ght you better know what You are
ing about. So therefore,....
to
shoot you.
'm going
She has got that right, she has
she has gotthat right.
Plummer: Ok, Rose
I: have read i
got that right.
talk to peopleabout what You
talking about, I want to know
Mrs. Gordon: Alright.
Mr. Plummer: The point is I was only going to ask, is it possible...as I
understand it, it was this young lady and Mr. Jaffer are the only ones that
who want to make a comment. Is that correct? Is there anyone else who wants
to speak against this proposal? I would just hope that Mr. Jaffer could make
his comments and in your presentation, Mr. Traurig, address both of them rather
than to have Mr. Jaffer after you, you come back and rebut and just make it
even longer. Is that possible Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, let's go.
Mr. Traurig: I'm pleased to do that.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead Bob.
Mr. Plummer: I think it would shorten everybody's problem.
Mr. Traurig: Well, I had understood Mr. Plummer to say let Mr. Jaffer
speak and then, for me . to`speak?
r. Plummer: He obviously has
Mayor Ferre: It doesn't make
Mr. Plummer: Alright.
objections, let him_ makehis objections..
any difference...,
Mrs. Gordon: J. L. you are not ruling... oh, gee wiz, let's just' hear what
the; application is all about. I want to be ableto talk about it.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead, Bob, and make your presentation.
Mr. Traurig: The subject property is the property generally described as the
property that wraps around the Saint Jude Church property is property
which has frontage on both 15th Road and on Brickell Avenue.
Inlororder
er as to
an
achieve the most logical siting arrangement, the applicant
eobjective to move the building as far away from Brickell Avenue as he could
and therefore he has set the building back approximately three hundred.thirty
feet from Brickell Avenue so that the entire area from Brickell Avenue to
eastward of where the church property is located is less in landscaping and
driveway and there is no structure there. We therefore sited the building
gl
in the RU-5A Zone seeking a PAD which permits...
Mrs. Gordon: What's that, Bob? No, no that. What's that?
Mr. Traurig: (Not using the microphone) Ok, this is another structure.,
This is tied in with this other structure. It's main structure and
this is a lower structure in a step arrangement. The reason for that is
to achieve a better relationship to adjoining properties. Let me show
you what could have been achieved under the present Ordinance. This being
Brickell Avenue we could have built a building that would have absolutely
blocked the view of the public
Mayor Ferre: Not anymore
Mr. Traurig: (Not using the. microphone) Rather than that, we developed
a plan which as a result of height created a great amount of open space
and we had to separate them on our northerly boundary so that people who are
within the properties across the street on the north side of 15th Road and
as well as the people in the Vizcaya North"would not have their view of the
bay because these tenants in the property of Costa Bella when looking south-
ward would have been affected by the height of another structure that would
have been built... that could have been built on that property. Now, that's
basically the design exercise. We wanted to avoid an imposition upon our
neighbors, we wanted to save all the trees on the Brickell Avenue side, we will
not be removing those trees. We wanted to create open space and we wanted
it to setback from Brickell Avenue.
Mrs. Gordon:
ow much: does it setback from: the water side?
Mr.Traurig: Now, from the water side technically you will notice that the
setback is:only '22-1/2 feet, but it's 22-1/2 feet... Mrs. Gordon, let me say
to you...
Mrs. Gordon: Just looking at Mr. Lacasa because he moveda motion tonight
you know, to put something down.
Mr. Traurig: Ok. But it's 22-1/2 feet only for one unit and then as we step
back it gets deeper and deeper and deeper.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you are not going to be able to do that,I don't think
with what's passed ..tonight.
Mr. Traurig: ,Well, if we...
Mrs. Gordon: Well, it's just a motion that passed tonight.
Mr. Traurig: If we receive the blessing of this Commission I can tell you
that we are prepared to file for a building permit almost immediately. The
working drawings have proceeded to that extent. I would like you to know
that the developer of this property is a very experienced developer, has sent a
major team to Miami to work on this project. He is Harry Helmsley who
among other projects owns the Parklane Hotel New York, is building the Palace
in New York, has owned the Empire State Building in New York and is no
stranger to development problems in cities all the United States.
Mrs. Gordon: Pardon me Bob, but may be your architect or you can tell me
what is the width of the property of the development, the building across it's',
North, South...
Mr. Traurig: Ok, I would like to introduce to you Mr. Hervin Romney from
Architect Tonica who is the principal architect on this project.
Mr. Romney: My name is Mervin • Romney; I'm an architect. My address is 1934
Ponce de Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables and I'm the architect for this project.
Your question was the width of the building?.
Mrs. Gordon: The question is what percentage of the lot does the building
occupy? Now, I'm talking about it's width, the north -south dimension..
gl
Mayor Ferre: Well look, let's make it very simple: What is the width of the
land across going from east to west along Lots 41, 40, 39 and the little piece
of 11? 375 feet, now what is the width of the building?
Mr. Romney: The width of the building, I would like to preface the answer
with the following note. You can see the unusual and irregular shape of the
site, the width of the building or of the various components that make up the
total project are geared to serve different functions and are adjusted to the
variousirregularities of the site. This building itself, the tall building
is 243 feet from here to here. This....
Mayor
Ferre: 240 out of 375.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay.
Mr. Romney: Actually, may I. say this: This building sits in the projected
area that reaches 15th Road and is, therefore, on a much wider part of:the
site and it has, therefore, responded to site, characteristics....
Mrs. Gordon: In other wordsof the 375 the building is 240 leaving a differ-
ence there of 135 feet.
Mr. Traurig: (INAUDIBLE, AWAY FROM MICROPHONE)"...75%
s_Gordon:
Mr. Traurig:
Mr. Plummer:
and did their
Mayor Ferre:
the water.
It is less?
Yes.
Rose, they've done their hoinework. They read
homework.
yesterday's paper
The only place you get in trouble with is in your 20 foot from
INAUDIBLE COMMENTS
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, it's 20 feet from the water but just for the first
level, only at one point and perhaps Mr. Romney can explain his design tech-
nique with regard to the water's edge.
Mr. Romney: The building that is in close proximity to the water is so only
at this location which is narrower if I may show you a site plan, this being
Brickell and this being the water it is only at this point that we come close.
Elsewhere because of the natural configuration of the shoreline the space
increases to several times that distance.
Rev. Gibson: Go right on, we're listening. Go ahead.
Mr. Romney: As to the previous question, I want to say that the tall build-
ing sits in the projection all the way to 15th Road where the width is far
greater than the 375 that we were talking about.
Mayor Ferre: Would you put that drawing down there so we can keep on seeing
the perspective drawing? Is that a parking garage structure that is a square
structure where the pool is?
Mr. Romney::
Mrs.
Gordon:
Romney:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Romney:
Yes.
Where is the parking? Show me' the parking.
The parking is not visible, it is covered.
o, the parking;I would iinagine is under that pool.
It is under that platform where the pool sits.
Mayor Ferre: So this unquestionably violates both of
Mrs. Gordon:
o, it doesn't:
those things.
Mayor Ferre: I'll 'show :it.to you very simply. Well, pass it up here and
I'll show it to you from here. No, the one on the bottom, please.
1
ER
1
•
Mr. Traurig:
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Now, the point simply is that the ordinance, I mean
the thing that's going to be voted upon which was passed tonight, Mrs. Gordon,
would you look over here just for a second? The parking garage goes from here,
here, here to here. Is that correct?
Mr. Romney: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: That is considered structure.
one flooror one hundred floors.
Mr. Traurig: It's structure if it is<higher than 12 feet, if it is only 12
feet it wouldn't be considered a structure for lot coverage purposes but we.
The site plan?
did go to 21 feet.
Mayor Ferre: But you s
is a lot more complicated..
it's not more than 12 feet
like that?
see,
Rose, this is why this thing that we just passed
... Did you hear what he just said? He said if
it isn't a structure technically. Now how do you
Rev. Gibson: And let me say, I want. to remind my fellow Commissioners when
we were arguing yesterday and again today I pointed out to you that we had a
board - the board, and you were going to let this Waterfront Board do its
thing and then you want to pass a motion that no permit will be issued. Do
you remember that?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Rev. Gibson: All right, and I said to you you ought to have the integrity
to keep your word. I hope, I hold them to it. Now let me explain. I'm not
opposed to the building, you know what I mean? I'm worried about them saying
50 feet and what is going to happen is a lot of you people who got that land
right across that waterfront are going to be hooked and, therefore, I believe
that more consideration and more study needs to be given. I'm not so sure
coming 20 feet isn't a good thing but that isn't what they said here yester-
day and today. I just want to say that for your benefit.
Mr. Plummer: Well let me tell you one better than that that doesn't apply to
this one. Somebody better give some serious thought to Claughton island..
Rev. Gibson:
__.ordinance to Claughton island
I'm glad you came, you helped to substantiate my position.
Mr. Traurig: There is another consideration, this is not the principle struc-
ture, this is an accessory structure.
Mayor Ferre: Father,..I hate to tell you this and I don't want to deviate from
your presentation but let me tell you, do you know what they're talking about?
Traurig: I understand what they're talking about.
Mayor Ferre: You see, what has been put on the ballot for November says that
you cannot set back, you have to set back at least 50 feet from the bulkhead
line or the seawall whichever is greater except where the depth of the lot is
less than 150 feet, that doesn't apply to you. The City after a public hear-
ing may grant an exception to this setback requirement if the landowner or
the City dedicates a permanent public right of way which you're not doing.
Mr. Traurig: But we're dedicating the 70 feet which will be the Brickell
Avenue access road.
Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about what this says.
Mr. Traurig: I had the opportunity to read this a few minutes ago.
Mayor Ferre: Then the other aspect of it is whichthane of
atground level obstrus
the public view of Biscayne Bay by occupying
front-
age which this does because it says, it talks about construction, see. It
e is a
cture and the
says strostuthe whole length ofthewidth sofufact
that property.
almSo what in effect
goes aLn
rt
I guess I'm saying is that this plan, I'm not passing judgement on its archi-
tectural qualities, it's basically in -violation of what we're intending to
require for every property in the City of Miami on the water.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to call your attention to your plat. The
bulkhead line is the bulkhead line which is at the easterly end of Mr. Howard's
property and extends in a north -south axis. So we are set substantially more than
50 feet back from the bulkhead line..
Mayor Ferre: Okay, you're all set on that
Mrs. Gordon: Say that again
Mr. Traurig: Because we own the bay bottom between the actual shoreline and
the bulkhead line, since your language says bulkhead line we are set back
more than 50 feet from the bulkhead line.
Rev. Gibson: Let me make this observation, sir, and please don't misinter-
pret this because I'm on your side but it doesn't sound that way. They did
not say bulkhead line, they said from the water. That's an altogether dif-
ferent thing and I think that before the City does what it has advocated the
City ought to talk with men like you all who have land and who are experts
in this business. I say that again.
Mr. Traurig: The petition that was handed to me does, and maybe it has been
changed, but this says, "...which is not set back at least 50 feet from the
bulkhead line or seawall, whichever is greater."
Mayor Ferre: You're Okay on that one.
Mr. Joel Jaffer: I was informed tonight that in 1975 the
abandoned....
Mayor Ferre: Wait a moment, we're not running this meeting this way so you
can sit down and I'll recognize you when it comes time. He's got the floor.
You don't want to be rude do you? I didn't think so.
Mr. Traurig: Well, obviously the reason for the parking structure is to avoid
that kind of parking lot image which major apartment complexes so often have
by having parking at grade throughout the entire lot. By just raising this
from 12 to 21 feet - the 12 feet would not have been included even as struc-
ture for lot coverage computation - we were able to get all of our vehicles
within this area. In addition, we were able to landscape the roof of the park-
ing structure so that from Mr. Morley's property on the south and Mr. Howard's
property on the north they look down on a landscaped area rather than the
typical parking garage that you so often see such as our neighbor to the north
has. Our neighbor to the north has this structure with cars on the top and
we've got landscaping on the top. We don't think that we violate the spirit
or the intent of the new proposed ordinance that you're going to submit to
referendum and we think that based upon the very detailed study by the Urban
Development Review Board and by your department and as a result of the unan-
imous decision of your Zoning Board that this ought to receive your favorable
consideration. I will make a complete presentation but I want to abbreviate
it because I know what your time constraints are.
Rev. Gibson: I like what you did in that....
Mr. Traurig: Stepping down?
Rev. Gibson: Yes. And it is very visible when you take that building, when
you take that picture. Yes, that's really when you see how innovative this
other is because that's just one mass business and will cut off the air and
cut off the view of the other people.
Mr. Traurig: We think that the architects have done an outstanding design.
And you know that these are not variances, those are deviations as provided
for in the PAD.
Mrs. Gordon: Are you planning to fill out to the bulkhead line?
Mr. Traurig: No, we do not intend, let me say we do not intend to fill to
the bulkhead line, we haven't included the area that we own to the bulkhead
line for our area computations in figuring FAR, we have not included the 70
feet that we're dedicating to the City up at the Brickell Avenue side as part
of our area computations and we have this number of square feet with the FAR
rt
of 2.35 without counting either the 70 feet or that water area. And the result
of what we've done is that there are no cars visible, we've got all that usable
open space on top of the garage, it has life, it has vitality, it is a far bet-
ter plan from the standpoint of green, we have set back from Brickell Avenue
and I can't see unless you feel, Mrs. Gordon, that there is some violation of
something that hasn't yet been passed....
Mrs. Gordon: No, you can't say something that isn't passed, it's a law that
has to come before the public But you know what I am saying, if I seem
somewhat concerned, is because the Commission tonight took a position that is
an approval of a procedure which you happen to be the first thing to come be-
fore us that is you know........ in conformance with the intent.
Mr. Traurig: But let's look at the alternatives.
Mr. Lacasa: Excuse me, but I brought this question for reconsideration tonight
and I have no problems whatsoever with this particular situation at this point
because what we are proposing is submitting to the consideration of the people
in November a change. This hasn't changed now so now we have a set of stand-
ards today, we rule here tonight by the set of standards that we have tonight.
Mrs. Gordon: I've got about 20 years of experience in zoning so I'm - and
Lacasa, I'm not trying to be facetious but the red on the map, is that....
Mr. Traurig: That's Mr.
Mrs. Gordon: And he's in objection to your application?
Mr. Traurig: They filed an objection, I wasn't present at the Zoning Board
hearing, it was my understanding that they had a question about whether or not.
people within the garage could look down on their property and the misread the
plans. Those were merely ventillation openings and the absence of any of the
people from Mr. Hollo's office tonight I think indicates that they have recon-
sidered their position. I don't know that to be true, I called Mr. Hollo to-
day, as of the time I left my office he hadn't returned my call.
Mrs. Gordon: Is the other outlined in red also objectors?
Mr.Traurig: The other is the Costa Bella Subdivision which is a condominium,,,
I don't know who within that area has an objection or the basis for it.
Mr. Davis: That's a condominium, Mrs. Gordon, and nine people sent in their
objections, to the matter from the condominium.
Mr. Plummer: Well didn't the young lady that appeared here say she was.repres-
enting them?
Mr. Davis: Not that one, she's
Place.
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr.:Davis: N
Avenue.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Jaffer:
representing
1901 Brickell which is Brickell
oh, I'm sorry.
Brickell Place? They're not within the 300;foot......
o, but she was aware and she keeps aware of the problems on Brickell
All right, proceed, Mr. Traurig.
. Mayor and members of the Commission, first of all....
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, you're not Mr. Traurig are you? Are you finished?
Mr. Traurig: I can go on for half an hour but I would just as soon wait and
let my good friend speak and then I'll rebut and that will be it.
Mayor. Ferre: All right, Mr. Jaffer, why don't you tell us your name for the
record and give us your objection.
Mr. J. Jaffer: Joel Jaffer, 3268 Mary Street. First of all, Mr. Mayor, I'd
like to welcome you back tonight, your absence was felt last night somewhat.
You know it seems that the only guide for development in this town at the pres-
ent time is how many hours in a day Mr. Traurig has to work on various projects
and it seems we need some other guide to development here and it seems to me
that 15th Road was a good boundary for this high-rise development. You
haven't even gotten all of Brickell yet, why do you have to bother across
the boundary which was part of some Master Plan in Coconut Grove I under-
stand and why can't you at least stay on the other, you know let us apply it
on the other side of 15th Road first? And another thing that amazes me the
people in Mr. Traurig's profession at any rate, they're in the business of
saying no, they say no to me that I can't appear in court because I don't
wear a coat or some other equally absurd reasons yet they don't understand
the language that there can't be anything within 50 feet of the water and he
says, "Well, it's only on this one point and it's only 20..." You know, all
this garbage and in terms of the - I want to clarify the point about the bulk-
head line. First of all, it has come to my attention that in 1975 the State
of Florida by statute eliminated the Harbor Line and furthermore, the ordin-
ance says the bulkhead line or the shoreline whichever is greater. Now you
take a point on the land, say it is 20 feet from the shoreline and it's 35
feet from the bulkhead line, it's obvious that 35 feet is greater so you have
to count it from the shoreline. Anyway, my committee and I, of course, are
objecting to all highrises in the City of Miami and especially on this side
of 15th Road which was decided after a great amount of discussion to be some
boundary for the development of this site. Also, I was at the hearing where
there the objectors, there were also the objectors on the other side of 15th
Road not in the highrises that objected to the blocking of the view. Also,
the business about the parking lot, I said it last night and I'll say it
again, there's no way that even a landscaped parking lot can compare with
looking out your window and seeing a hammock of trees or one house in a nice
lot. One more thing, I want to talk about the PAD and the zoning variances.
You know this business about the irregularities in the building being a re-
quirement for zoning variances, in the 1940's a man by the name of Floyd I
think brought suit against the City of Miami because he didn't like a gas
station on Biscayne Boulevard and the owners of that gas station said that
because of the overhang over the pumps that they were, and thus the abnormal-
ness of that building that they were entitled to a zoning variance and the
court struck down that reasoning. The court said that that item in the zon-
ing ordinance only applies to buildings that are presently there, that already
have an abnormalcy in their buildings that would entitle them to a variance.
It doesn't apply to buildings that haven't been built yet. So there are no
grounds to grant this PAD, there are no natural boundaries, etc. and there
is no reason to grant this.'
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I think before I wrap up that it would probably please
this Commission if it could hear from our nearest neighbor, those people who
have the most concern over what happens on their boundary and that would be
the leadership of St. Jude's Church and I know that Monsignor Haddad is present,
I know that Dr. Zada is here, I know that Richard Bassil is here and others
and perhaps a spokesperson or maybe more would like to tell you what their
reaction to this project is.
Mayor Ferre: Father.
Mr. Plummer: If they be brief.
Mr. Thomas John Zada : Mk. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Thomas John Zada.
I am Chairman of the Parrish Council of St. Jude's Catholic Church, the most
immediate neighbor on the north and west of this property and we are in favor
of this project.
Mr. Traurig: By way of summary, sir, we could have placed this structure 30
feet from the control booth, that is we are set back with our control booth
for traffic from Brickell Avenue because of the 70 foot right-of-way that we
are going to dedicate and we could have set back 30 feet from there. Instead,
in order to create that 330 of landscaped area between Brickell and this prin-
ciple structure we have set back 330 feet. We think that what we have accom-
plished is an outstanding piece of landscaping and an outstanding siting of
the building. It has been recommended to you by everyone who has reviewed
it on behalf of the City and we urge that you support your staff and approve
this PAD in the R-5A zone.
Mayor Ferre: All right, what is the will of this Commission?
Mrs. Gordon: I want to ask some questions of the Planning Department. You
know the applications that we received lately which are called PAD's, I'm not
so sure I understand how you compute these things because they seem to be
more of variances than part of a bonus system for a PAD. Would you explain
your procedure?
Mr. Richard Whipple: Commissioner Gordon and members of the Commission, there
is a complete article set forth delineating the procedures and processes, limi-
tations and guidelines for granting of a Planned Area Development, specifically
Article XXI-1 which is approximately 8 or 9 pages long. It has an intent, the
intent being to allow flexibility in order to promote better design, better
use of land or efficient use of land and provide a better project not only
perhaps for the developer but in particular for the City. And part of the
reason in addition to the written word that designs are submitted for review
for consideration of this shall we say excellence or better use of land and
what the routine regulations would permit, these designs are judged by a pro-
fessional board which this Commission appoints made up of 3 professional archi-
tects and three professional landscape architects and again, this is a require-
ment set forth in the regulations by which to offer their suggestions if any
to better the development that is being submitted and also to further the in-
tent of the PAD regulations. Within the scope of the regulations there are
specific provisions as to what may or may not be done and for instance, read-
ing in one of the sections indicates that the City Commission may upon submis-
sion by applicants, recommendation by the Zoning Board and the Urban Develop-
ment Review Board determine that certain rigid requirements that are normally
associated with consistent zoning may be not set aside but may be adjusted in
order to provide better and more efficient use of land and better development
for the applicant and for the City. This is a very lengthy article, the rea-
son that the petition is specifically written with the detail it is is so that
this is not a variance as such but a statement of fact as to what the develop-
ment is going to be in terms of setbacks, lot coverage or those things that
may have been adjusted or been considered as part of a better design by the
bodies that I previously mentioned. There is additional flexibility but basic-
ally the intent of the Planned Area Development is to encompass the underlying
zoning district but allow design flexibility for better development.
Mrs. Gordon: It appears that you and/or whoever feel that there are no limit-
ations whatsoever. Now I don't know what design characteristics you place so
much weight on that give you such tremendous deviations from the allowed.
Mr. Traurig: Mrs. Gordon, can I say that what was achieved here as a result
of this is that the usable open space is 86% of the site. We are required to
have 50,400 square feet of usable open space, we've got 192,184 feet without
including the driveways and.the terraces and the roofs. So what we have been
able to achieve by this siting change is the creation of this open space and
additional landscaping.
Mrs. Gordon: But the lot coverage is more than what the normal
Mr. Traurig: The lot coverage for the principle
with 12.1% being allowed.,
structure is 12.1%, is 9.9%
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, what about the ground coverage, the lot coverage on the
ground? According to the information supplied by the department, I didn't
make this up, the permitted is 28.24% and the lot coverage provided is 44.46.
I find so many, every one of these are above and beyond the required....
Mr. Whipple:
things?
ommissioner
Mrs. Gordon: Sure.
Mr. Whipple: The coverage that is permitted for parking under the existing
R-5A zoning district without getting into what the requirements are specifi-
cally was quite restricted. If I may suggest to you that meeting those re-
quirements in this project would have forced the green space which you see
between the structure and Brickell and the recreational areas between the
structure and 15th Road and the green area between the structure and the bay
to primarily be used for surface parking, in other words car parking out on
the lot. Now what is the alternatives if you will, to covering 100% of the
lot so to speak or 90% say of the usable open space required with off-
street parking and asphalt when, in fact, a better design might be to put
cars within a structure and allowing a little more accessory parking struc-
ture coverage than what the existing regulations allow. And that is devia-
tion in the coverage. It does relate to the accessory parking structure if
you'll read the provisions in the petition.
Gordon, may,I use that last an an example of several
Mrs. Gordon: I read that, Okay.
rt
Mr. Whipple: So that is one of the purviews and considerations in this type
of review process for better design. We feel that the open space is much
more valuable than surface parking.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay. Now on the rear yard setback, required 90 feet, provided
22.5, explain that one.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Traurig I believe touched on that with respect to the par-
ticular shape of the building and I stepped out of the room, I do not know
whether he covered the point that they are leaving the water area unfilled,
not that they could fill it but they would be entitled to apply and the bulk-
head line is perhaps some 150 to 250 feet beyond the property line. As this
setback, for instance, Plaza Venetia which if you'll notice is to the north
did fill out the bulkhead, the applicants are not doing so and in not doing
so are actually in essence providing a greater waterfront setback - I'm sorry,
Vizcaya North, I apologize - are actually, therefore, providing a greater
setback from the bulkhead line than is Vizcaya North.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Whipple, is the 90 feet that you write here then a 90 foot
requirement from the bulkhead line or from the lot line? And I'm asking him.:
Mr. Whipple: It would be the lot line.
Mrs. Gordon: The lot line, 90 feet from the lot line, not the bulkhead line.
Okay, you've answered it.
Mr. Whipple: If the applicants were to own the bay bottom land then the bulk-
head line would be considered the lot line, Ido not know whether they do or
they do not.
f they filled then the lot line would be the bulkhead line.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but it's not filled so we're. talking now about a different
situation.
Mayor Ferre:
Mayor Ferre: Do you own the bottom?
Mr. Traurig:
Yes.
Mr. Whipple: Again, this isan evaluation factor in determining" whether it
is a proper design and whether it has any impactor affect upon abuttingprop-
erties or is actually better than what perhaps would be gotten otherwise.
Mrs. Gordon: Side yard required 178.02, provided 64 and 78 - quite a devia-
tion. The same reason?
Mr. Whipple:
Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Gordon: What is the reason?
Mr. Whipple: The orientation of the building, if you want to take the souther-
ly setback, you'll notice that a small width of the building because of the
orientation and the angle of the building impacts the abutting property. If
they were to, for instance run the building parallel to the southerly lot line
the whole length of 324 feet or whatever it was so that it did block light and
air or something of that nature we would have a concern with the setback but
because of the orientation and the angle of the building in relation to the
abutting property line the Urban Development Review Board and the department
did not feel that that was detrimental to the abutting property or to the
proposed development.
Mrs. Gordon: A11 right, I've asked all the questions I'm going to ask.
Mayor Ferre: Further questions?
Ms. Marilyn, Reed: Bob, I need you to answer some questions on this.
interested in your project 'until 'I....
Mrs. Gordon:` state your name for the, record.
I wasn't
Mrs. Marilyn Reed: I'm sorry, Marilyn Reed, 3183 MacDonald Street, Coconut
Grove. You're planning on developing the yellow area as marked on the wall,'
correct?
Mr. Traurig:
Mrs. Reed:.
All right,
Mr. Traurig:;
Mrs. Reed:
wall is the
Mr. Whipple
Mrs. Reed: Okay, now you're going to have underground parking?
Only the yellow area, yes.
is it already seawalled or is it a natural shoreline?
is already seawalled.
It has a seawall. And Dick just said if the lot line and the sea-
same, did I understand him correctly?
That is correct, thatis why I....
Mr. Traurig: Yes
Mrs.. Reed:
Mr. Traurig:How far will
ma'am.
How far back is that going to come back from the seawall?
it begin?',:
Mrs'. Reed: Yes, setback from the seawall, the underground
me a rough guesstimate.
Mr. Whipple: Roughly 25 feet, that is the closest point.
Romney: 20 feet and as far as 80 feet.
arking, just give
Mr. Traurig:. Between 20 and 80 feet, 20 feet on the south end and 80 feet on
the north end.
Mrs. Reed: Well, I'm interested primarily on the bay side more than anything
else in this case. So you're saying 25 feet back from the seawall?
Mr`. Romney: 20 feet at this end, 80 feet at this end.
Mrs. Reed: All right. Have you done any studies with your staff people as
to how this underground parking is going to affect the. Biscayne Acquifer
which lies very shallow in there, under the ground level it is very close.
Up, at Omni it is according to the Dade County 208 Program only about 20 to 25
feet down so when you start with underground parking you may puncture our only
sole source of drinking water.
Traurig: I don't know the answer to that.
Mrs. Reed: I don't know if this is a problem, I'm not saying it is, I'm ask
ing you if you've done any studies to see if you're going to'have a problem
there.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Romney would like to answer.
Mr. Romney: If I may answer that question, the existing grade at that point
where we come close to the seawall is approximately plus 4, four feet above
to waterline, the acquifer being underground. We are keeping the level of
the parking structure at that point and this is a working combination with
the natural slope and contours of the site. We are keeping it at slightly
over that level. We are not, therefore, burying the building where it would
come into and intrude upon the acquifer at that point.
Mrs. Reed: Well, at that point in your studies you still haven't answered my
question. Have you determined how far down the acquifer is from ground level?
Mr. Romney: We have studied it, we know that we do not intrude upon it, I'm
sorry I' cannot give you a figure at this moment, I apologize.
Mrs. Reed: I would like to know that because I do worry about our water sup-
ply and puncturing the ground water, as you know. One thing, let me caution
you and it's happened in the Grove consistently, when you have underground
parking this close to the bay you're going to have a problem of water getting
in your parking garage. It happens at the Coconut Grove Hotel all the time
and it comes up over here at Yacht Harbor, it has to do with the tide and it
does come in and they do have to use pumps.
Mayor Ferre: Bob, how many levels of parking are there?
Mr. Traurig: Two.
Mayor Ferre: So that parking structure starts at minus 4 feetto rise from
the ground level to the height of how much?
Mr. Traurig: Twnenty-one feet.
Mayor Ferre: So thenit is considered a structure.
Mr. Traurig: Yes.
Mrs. Reed:
Okay, thank you very much
Mayor Ferre Well, what is the will of this Commission?
Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, I believe that what we have here is a very well planned
project approved by the department, approved by the Zoning Board and as far as
the question that we propose to put on the ballot in November that is not in
effect now, we don't even know if it is going to be approved and if it were,
what we have is a situation where this project happens to comply with the set-
backs that are being proposed, such an ordinance, therefore, I move that this
be approved as presented.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa 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 PORTION OF 39, BLOCK B, FLAGLER (5-54)
BEING 1541 BRICKELL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A 39-STORY
APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND A 2-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE WITH
254 DWELLING UNITS, WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM
THE EXISTING R-5A ZONING DISTRICT: FOR THE PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE: A) SIDE YARD - 64' & 78' PROVIDED (178.02'
REQUIRED) B) REAR YARD 22.5' 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 - 22' PROVIDED
(88' REQUIRED) C) HEIGHT - 21.03' PROVIDED (12' 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 and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer,
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Lacasa and Mayor Ferre.
' NOES: Rev.- Gibson and Mrs. Gordon.
ON ROLL CALL:
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I'm not opposed to the
project, I'm for it but we agreed yesterday and we agreed today that we were
not going to, at least my understanding was that we were not going to accept
or move on on any project that will affect that waterfront business until such
time as we dealt with this business. I just, please understand I'm not opposed
to the project, I think it is a darned good one, I like it but I want to keep
that, I warned them for us not to do it but they went on anyway and I'm going
to vote no only because, and I want to make sure everybody understands that.
I think that the Commission, I suggested to them that they not pass, make that
policy but you made it anyway.
Mayor Ferre: What we did was put it on the ballot for November the 6th.
Rev. Gibson: Well, I understand.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, what I was just checking with the department on, as
you know, I voted against the ordinance. It's questionable whether or not
the proposed ordinance, Rose.
Mrs. Gordon: The one we voted to put on the ballot?
rt
Mr. Plummer: Yes. It's at best questionable as to the bulkhead line, it is my
understanding and the way I feel that if that ordinance was in effect this would
not violate it. I think it is a beautiful proposal, I think we all should re-
call the days when not this Commission but a previous Commission because I
didn't sit on there at that time, Rose and I were on the Zoning Board, that we
felt quite proud of developing Brickell Avenue in a nice beautiful plan and we
said at the time that we were going to change the entire area to something that
we could all be proud of. 0f course, Mr. Ferre at that time was not the honor-
able Mayor that he is today and he said you know do it this way and so they
listened to him. Do you remember that? Do you remember when they were going
to change the whole area to R-5A and you appeared here and said please don't.
do it, and rightfully so? I think it is a beautiful project, I think a lot of
imagination has gone into it, I compliement the architect and it's something
that I think in the future that I can turn back on and say that I'm proud of
and I vote yes.
Mayor Ferre: My vote really has to depend on whether or not this project goes
against the amendment to the Charter that we voted to put on the ballot on
November 6th. I have no doubt that on Item #1, Mr. Traurig, that there is no
problem because this is 50 feet from the bulkhead line so there I don't have
a problem. Now in the second portion of it is where I have to really ask for
some help from Whipple; it says, "...which at ground level obstructs the pub-
lic's view of Biscayne Bay by occupying more than 75% of the water frontage
of each lot or tract on which the structure is to be built." Then it defines:
"The frontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation measured from
the major public right-of-way. The City in it's zoning code may grant..."
well, that's not applicable. Now, my question to you, Whipple, is you under-
stand that, does this structure cover more than 75% or doesn't it?
Mr. Whipple: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'll be honest with you I'm not sure that I can
answer that correctly. We have not had a chance to thoroughly analyze this pro-
vision. I would think that on the computations you went through earlier based
upon the 375 feet being along the bay front and the fact that the building was
200 and some odd feet a quick calculation would show that the building length
did not cover more than 75% of that 350. I would think that would make it.
Mayor Ferre: The building length is not the problem, it's the parking struc-
ture that's the problem.
Mr. Whipple: The parking structure is the same length of just slightly over
I;believe, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: No, I don't think so, I think you're wrong. See, and that's
where the question is. As I sense it here you've got 51 feet and 20 feet which
is 71 feet out of a total on a straight line basis of 375. One quarter of 375
is what? It's 90 some odd feet. Am I wrong? 94 feet, this is 71 feet. In
order to comply it would have to be 94 feet wide of see through rather than
what it is now which is 71 feet. That's exactly what the intention of this
ting is meant to do is to prevent somebody from completely oblitering the view
' of the bay from the road, that's precisely the purpose. And if that's the case,
Bob, I've got to tell you that I cannot violate on a matter something which I
have voted to put on the ballot and which I'm for.
Mr. Traurig: But can we review the realism of this.
Mayor Ferre:
Realism of what?
Mr: Traurig:If you're talking about somebody standing on the public right -of-
way which is Brickell Avenue and seeing the bay, there is no way to see the
bay today with no structure there because of the distance, because of the line
of site.
Mayor Ferre: Bob, that's not being discussed now. That's something that you
can vote against if you want on November 6th but the point simply is that what
we're trying to avoid is another, and with all due respects, is another repeti-
tion of what happened on Miami Beach which is a solid concrete wall from which
you cannot see the ocean at any point. I think the intention of it is very
valid and you know I really. would be remiss in my duty if I were to vote for
something on a petition that would violate what we just voted to put on the
ballot. I'm waiting for the staff to give me an answer and I've got to base
my position on the staff.
4 1 •
Mr. Traurig:. I would ask, you know, for some definitions. When it says,
"...which at ground level obstructs the public's view", from what point?
From what point? From the only point at which the public has the right to
view the property which is the public right of way in the front.
Mr. Lacasa: I think the spirit of this is the highrise but not at that par-
ticular level where it doesn't violate the....
Mayor Ferre: No, I'm sorry. See, the frontage shall be computed by a
straight line calculation measured from the major, public right-of-way - the
frontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation - oh, I` see, wait a
moment. All right. Yes, we do comply with it. No?
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, if you want to follow our quick look at it,
the major street, of course, is Brickell Avenue. The frontage on Brickell
Avenue is 200 feet. Now if you run, and 75% of 200 feet is 150 feet. So if
you run down to where you hit the building that building on the southerly side
is set back 51 feet. Now that is a way to look at it and perhaps that's the
intent of the regulation. So on that way it would meet it.
Mayor Ferre: Do you see how full of holes thiswhole thing is? This really
has to be rethought. In other words what you're telling me is that from your
calculations this complies, is that correct? Well, just say it into the rec-
ord, please, one way or the other.
Mr. Whipple:,
Mayor
On the method that -I just cited to you it complies,. sir.
Ferre: Does that mean yes?
Mr. Whipple: It meanson that one analysis, if that is the intent and provision
it would comply, yes, sir.
Mayor
Ferre: In your interpretation this does, comply, is that correct?
Mr. Reid: Mr. Mayor, you're asking for an answer he can't possibly give be
causewe haven't thought through the different methods of applying this ordin-
ance.In terms of.....
Mayor Ferre: We're going to be in court before too long to try to defend this.
so you'd better get your stories straight on this.
Mr. Reid: That's why I didn't want him to be put on the record as....
Mayor Ferre: The frontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation
measured from the major public right of way. The major public right-of-way
is Brickell Avenue. This thing is 200 feet on Brickell Avenue, is that cor-
rect?
Mr. Reid: If it is so -interpreted.
Mayor Ferre: 75% of that is 51 feet, and that complies.
Mr. Reid: If it is so interpreted in the administration of this ordinance
that,. the method of coxnputation is the length from the major avenue then yes,
this project would comply. If you measured the length from the major avenue
of the total bay frontage itwouldnot, so....
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Reid:.
On that basis I've got no problem voting for this,I vote yes.
just want to make clear that we
s ti
1
1
•