2004-25651 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25651
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA APPROVING A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE
PARCELS KNOWN AS THE ALASKA PARCEL,
GOODMAN TERRACE, THE HINSON PARCEL, BLOCKS
51 AND 52 AND BLOCK 1; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, East Coastline Development, Ltd. ("East Coastline"), West Side Partners,
Ltd. ("West Side"), among others, have initiated litigation against the City of Miami Beach (the
"City") and the Department of Community Affairs, in various actions respectively claiming
damages and rights under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act, other civil
rights violations and other relief in Circuit Court Case No. 98-13274 CA 01(30), and United
States District Court Case No. 01-4921-CIV-Moreno, and Florida Division of Administrative
Hearings Case No. 02-3283GM; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission have heretofore approved a Settlement
Agreement, in concept, by and between the City and East Coastline, West Side, and related
parties, with respect to the above litigation, pursuant to Resolution No.2004-25509, adopted on
February 25,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission approved a formal Settlement Agreement
to like effect, pursuant to Resolution No. 2004-25650 , adopted on July 28, 2004 ,
2004; and
WHEREAS, Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, for
consideration of a Concept Plan for the properties known as the Alaska Parcel, the Goodman
Terrace and Hinson Parcels, Blocks 51 and 52 and Block 1 (the "Affected Properties"), attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Concept Plan") to be considered by the Mayor and City Commission,
and approved pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Concept Plan has undergone citizen review and numerous public
meetings and workshops through an ad hoc committee of concerned citizens and has also been
reviewed by the City staff, the Planning Board and the Design Review Board, all of whom have
recommended approval thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
That the City Commission hereby approves the Concept Plan, in substantially the form
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Concept Plan shall be used as a guide in implementing the
Settlement Agreement, except that all design approvals shall be in conformity with the Concept
Plan on the Affected Properties. Implementation of the development shown on the Concept Plan
r
shall be pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. In the event of any conflict between
the Concept Plan and the Land Development Regulations of the City, the provisions of the Land
Development Regulations shall govern. This Resoluti shall become effective immediately
upon adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 28thday of Ju y
ATTEST:
~ S'M~R
CITY CLERK (\
APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
7-~~()~
Y A TORNEY DAT
~
--
T;\AGENDA \2004\JuI2804\RegularlPortofino Concept plan adoption reso.DOC
o
Iii"
::l
~
00
Cl
I~
-0
s:u
::::l-
::J
CD
~
en
~
<:::l
~ ~
I f
i'll1 IIIII
....
Agenda Item
Date
R7A
7-2g-0 l(
;;;:)>
<ii' OJ
3m
-'x
OJp,
<D _
'"
"CD
::T_
o 0
:TIo
'x
m
(J1
~
P,
:J
a.
(J1
f\)
o
o
[')
o
::l
[')
CD
Iii"
::l
S\IO
~~0
~IO'?
t:
-I
i
~
!
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
~,
:i
.
.
L.._.--......~--._..-: .t
'"
8
'"
:I;
'U
o
~
m
"
:0
<:
m
8
~
f
~
<-
'i
8
'i
<:.:>
Cl
(flQ
0-;
c-<
Ie -;0
I"T\
"U~
0-
-)>
z~
-;-
m{D
1000.0. "Um
)>)> S::)>
:n(") <ii' OJ
I ~ ~ i I ~ ~ AI 2, m
OJA
!B PJ
~ ~ II ",--
:::r)>
-c -,,-0
i ! i ~o
., to
CD
" CD
J I concept plan 1:30'
1'1' 11111 0
o
Iii"
::l
~
:::;
lJ)
,
10010.
i ~ i I ; I
I i
-c
=,
J J
i,in IIIII
3N\::!O 3J..N\Od HJ..(lOS
y.-..u.II~
-- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - --
-
o
(")
~
Z
C
:II
<:
m
1
---~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I ------
I -------
I ---
I
I
I
I
I
r---------
I
I
1
I
I
I
-~"',iN:-----
-~m,.iN:---
~
~
(J1
lJ)
_____:::,a'E~T,.1JN[
Ii
Ii
QI
.....
15t TREET
~(D
",-
2, g
OJA
~-L
:::r
;n
i
ti)
""",1",",,,".,.:111
r. I-;-
I ~ .~
. 7- I
I .
. - !
:...;. .
I - .
:r
~-
o
o
[')
o
::l
[')
CD
-
rn
CD
n.
ci"
::l
rn
111111 ! mlllll!
rn
CD
g.
o
::l
02
~
:::;
~
rn
CD
n.
o'
::l
q
~ Ittt!,
110010.
i ~ i I ; I
i1 I i
J I
i'~' IIIII
~
....
~
"l
~
....
~
~
S::{D
~: g
OJA
<D ~
'"
"
i' ,:-1 ;
I : : !
. -
. .
ti) -
o
o
-c
.,
J I
[')
0
::l
[')
CD
<;:
Iii"
::l
III 5
::l ~
Cl. w
rn
CD
n.
15' r
::l <;:
N
en 0
0 5
~ 0
C
-I .!!::
:r: <;:
0 !!::
"U m
0
z II
-I 0
m m
0
II
<
m j~
en
)1 -I
II
~ IIII I I I I I m
m
'J'J~ J J J J J -I
111
~
....
~
~
10010.
illlll
I I
i'~n IIII
ALTON
ROAD
~
w
\/vAS,.."rv
G-,..orv
c::::
A VE:A.
. vUE:
S::{D
--- - f(J iii. 5"
2.0
~ sr : I [ ~
~ II . . I ;n
e .:
':"'---..
o
<
o
[')
o
::l
[')
CD
Iii"
::l
III
::l
Cl.
rn
CD
n.
15'
::l
-c
.,
J J
~
w
~
110010.
~ Iii ~ ~
i ! ~ I I
! i
"
i'~' IIII1
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
I
I
I
I
-------_i
r I
~ I
<;:
N
.
r
o
~
~
r
<;:
~
5
~
N
r
<;:
~
5
~
~
r
o
~
~
r
<;:
w
<;:
~
~
~
5
~
~
!~
I <;:
I w I
I I
~---------------_i
I I
I ~ I
I N I
~-----2~~~------~
I I
I I I
I I
r--~ I
I I
I I
: ~~ :
I c< I
: ~~ :
: !~ :
I ~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(") I
o I
s::: I
s::: ~I
9] ~I
(") ~ I
m r
(")~
o
C
:II
-;
l~
I~
I
r-----p~~~E-----~
I I
I ~ I
I ~ I
L_____ I
I ----------_i
I ~ I
I N I
i
e
~
i ;
~ :II
~ m
!!l
{D
0"
o
A
S::01
Pi. f}'
2, r
OJO
~ en
"'.j>.
:::r,
-,,~
~~
"rill"',
o
-~ .
~I_l_\..-J --d'~2.J".J .J. .-l J. -L ~ =i
L--
I 000' r - -
rRf""r ciF/
I lAY I
I Ew /
CJ.J to/
Izz~l
- w !S'~I-
1"i8 i-;lI..\ooc
4ll'iW" (f)';"~
.00' <( 3/ \ I(P'.' '. ...
"""'0.- <( ~
2lVAY PER
,~:.~" S (OT 'I LOT 5 \ LOT
/- _1- ~
~ HAR~,E.\
~~.,~.,
~~OT 5
s~ // "-
:- 'DO"DO~ ~~SION //
YPfR 1CHr0F
PAct 21Iao.R.B, 12~1I
(
r--I/
lj / /
jg?< /
IN / /
~1 / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /0
II
I
I
I
L--r
\
\
\
SOUTH
POINTE
DRIVE
BISCAVNE AVENUE
(PLAT BOOK 6 PAGE 77)
_ ~87~7:!- _
--
---
POINT OF
COMMENCEMENT
NORTHEAST CORNER
OF BLOCK 8 r 8' 7"W
41.08'
\
\-
\
\ _L
\
\
\
\
_1-
<:::::N01nH UNE OF
BlOCK I
lID
[b
~BOOK 6 ~71 ~
LOT ~
rffi3 -
~=-=
---
---
~---
L- " T
_L
-'-SOUTtlUNE(lf"
BLOCXI
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF
PARCEL II OF FORTIN LEAVY
SKIL.ES DRAWING '2001-06\-1 \
POINT OF1~
19.~",;>;>" BEGINNING ~~
'- "'<1., 10'.?!}" \~r:;
"'<6'6' ,0;>. Ii
.3$'
~
~
tS>o
7)...
1-~
'"
'"
reo
~
7)...
S70"37'54"E
C 68,98' S73"34'24"E
V'1' 22,37'
"0
v~1y
,()O''v
~~
.....
"'I;
Q
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 100
I I
eoo
I
( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 100 ft,
Drawn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad, No. 031069 FORTIN, LEA VY, SKILES, Scale 1"=100'
Ref. Dwg. INC.
2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER; 00003653 Dwg, No, 1004-096
180 Northeast 168th. Street / North Miami Beach, Florida, 33162
Plotted: 7/22/04 1 ;52p Phone: 305-653-4493/ Fax 305-651-7152 / Email fls@flssurvey,com Sheet 2 of 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A Parcel of land located in Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows;
Commence at the Northeast corner of lot 3, Block 8, South Beach Park as recorded in Plat Book
6 at Page 77 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida; Thence S87'38'57"W for 41.08
feet to a point on the Westerly line of a 100.00 foot right of way per Official Book 12566 page
2910 for Washington Avenue; Thence S 10'47'36" W along said 100.00 foot right of way and it's
Southwesterly extension for 239,73 feet to the Point of Beginning of the hereinafter described
parcel of land, being a non-tangent point on a circular curve concaved to the Northeast and
whose radius point bears N 11'02'53"W; thence Westerly and Northwesterly along a 214.07 foot
radius curve leading to the right through a centrol angle of 77'10'29" for an arc distance of
288,35 feet; Thence S 57'41'41" W along the Northwesterly line of Parcel II os shown on Fortin,
leovy, Skiles, Inc. survey drawing number 20010-061-1 for 189.45 feet more or less to the Mean
High Water line of the Easterly shoreline of Biscoyne Boy; The following seven (7) courses being
along said mean high water line; (1) Thence S 32'13'24" E along said Mean High Water line for
243,21 feet; (2) Thence S 23'55'08" E for 11.22 feet; (3) Thence S 53'27'28" E for 29.16 feet;
(4) Thence S 61'48'23" E for 28.25 feet; (5) Thence S 67'31'58" E for 79,70 feet; (6) Thence
S 70'37'54" E for 68,98 feet; (7) Thence S 73'34'24" E for 22,37 feet to a point on the
southerly projection of said 100.00 foot right of way; Thence N 10'45'27" E along said southerly
projection for 289.27 feet to the Point of Beginning.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
- This site lies in Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
- Bearings hereon are referred to an assumed value of S 87'38'57" W for the south right-of-way
line of South Pointe Drive,
- lands shown hereon were not abstracted for easements and/ar rights-of-way of
records.
- Area per description contains 87,960 square feet, or 2.019 acres more or less,
- This is not a "Boundary Survey" but only 0 graphic depiction of the description
shown hereon.
- Dimensions shown hereon are bosed on Fortin, leavy, Skiles, sketch #2001-061-1.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this "Sketch of Description" was made under my responsible chorge
on July 21, 2004, and meets the Minimum Technical Standords as set forth by the
Florida Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers in Chapter 61 G 17 -6, Florida
Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 472.027, Florida Statutes.
-Not valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper"
FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, INC., LB3653
By;
Daniel C, Fortin, For The Firm
Surveyor and Mapper, lS2853
State of Florida.
Drawn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad. No, 031069 FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, Scale as shown
Ref Dwg, INC.
2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER; 00003653 Dwg, No, 1004-096
Plotted: 7/22/04 1 ;S2p 180 Northeast 168th. Street I North Miami Beach, Flori~a. 33162
Phone: 305-653-4493 / Fax 305-651-7152 / Email fls@flssurvey,com Sheet 1 of 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A Parcel of land lacated in Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade County, Florida, and being more particulorly described os follows:
Commence at the Northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 8, South Beach Park as recorded in Plot Book
6 at Page 77 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida; Thence S87"38'57"W for 41.08
feet tei a point on the Westerly line of 0 100.00 foot right of way per Official Book 12566 page
2910 for Washington Avenue said point being the Point of Beginning of the hereinofter described
parcel of land; Thence S 10'47'36" W along soid 100.00 foot right of way and it's Southwesterly
extension for 239.73 feet being a non-tongent point on a circular curve con caved to the Northeast
and whose radius point bears N11'02'53"W; thence Westerly and Northwesterly along 0 214.07 foot
radius curve leading to the right through a central angle of 77" 1 0'29" for on arc distance of
288,35 feet to a non-tangent point on a circular curve concoved to the Northeast and whose
radius point beors N62'37'08"E; thence Northwesterly along 0 104.49 foot rodius curve leading to
the right through 0 central angle of 11'54'26" for on arc distance of 21.72 feet to a point on the
South line of said Lot 3; Thence S 87"37'54" W along the south line of said Lot 3 for 165.46 feet;
Thence N 32'13'24" W for 92,00 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; Thence N
87'37'54" E along said North line for 150.00 feet; Thence N 02'01 '11" W along the Southerly
extension of the Easterly right of way line of Jefferson Avenue os shown on the plot of "OCEAN
BEACH ADDITION No.3" Plat Book 2 Page 82 of said public records, for 132,00 feet to 0 point on
the South right of way line of South Pointe Drive; Thence N 87'38'57" E along said right of way
for 384.43 feet to a point on the Northerly extension of said Westerly line of 100.00 foot right of
way; Thence S 10'47'36" W along said Westerly line for 135.43 feet to the Point of Beginning.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
- This site lies in Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade County, Florido,
- Bearings hereon are referred to an assumed value of S 87'38'57" W for the south right-of-way
line of South Pointe Drive.
- Lands shown hereon were not abstracted for easements and/or rights-of-way of
records.
- Area per description contains 117,932 square feet, or 2.707 acres mare or less,
- This is not a "Boundary Survey" but only a graphic depiction of the description
shown hereon,
- Dimensions shown herean are based on Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, sketch #2001-061-1.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this "Sketch of Description" was made under my responsible chorge
on July 21, 2004, and meets the Minimum Technical Standards as set forth by the
F1arida Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers in Chapter 61 G 17 -6, Florida
Administrotive Code, pursuont ta Section 472.027, Florida Statutes,
"Not valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida Licensed Surveyor and Mapper"
FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, INC" LB3653
By:
Ooniel C, Fortin, For The Firm
Surveyor and Mapper, LS2853
Stote of Florida.
Drawn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad, No. 031069 FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, Scale as shown
INC.
Ref. Dwg, 2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No, 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER; 00003653 Dwg. No, 1004-095
180 Northeast 168th. Street / North Miami Beach~ Florida. 33162
Plotted: 7/22/04 1 ;52p Phone; 305-653-4493/ Fax 305-651-7152 / Email fls@flssurvey,com Sheet 1 of 2
, .
1-1
I_I ~ -d,~,.J".-1--L -L J.. -L ~ =f
~ailRtdlir';"'1r - -
;: ~!t; I Z"'"
co _ tJNr,;
r: ~~802 0
6gl~~~~CEMENT ff Elf:;! I- UJ I
NORTHEAST CORNER I z0zJ ~:I
OF BLOCK 8 87'38' 7"W ~~
41.08' 1- UJ $if- -
_---- ~~ I IBllI.loc
- - ;;: POINT ~BEGIN~I~ ==------ ..::' (j) ~ ~~I \ r'" 6. P"
[b ~~ &~n :3 L O.ls"tR s( lOT 5 lOT
LOT 12e6ti LOT6 \
A=11'54'~6" L ~ I \
R=104.49 LOT
L=2J.E' - --......-;;;;;;;...~ f- I J..
~ BLOCKS - -
\ N6203TOB"E HARLEY
(HAUIAL) ~_ ~..,.
1Bl~'6~"
~T~OT 5 \
'-
I I
II
(
I ,--II
I Ii I I
I!I~~ I
I $!: I
I ,~I' I I
~~ I
~I I
I I I
I I I
I I 10
- --L-J I'
I
I
I
L-
SOUTH
POINTE
DRIVE
BISCAYNE AVENUE
(PLAT BOOK 6 PAGE 77)
SB73B'S7"W
, 384.43'
N87038'57"E
SOUTHERLY EXTENSION
OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT
or WAY LINE OF'
JEmRSON AVENUE
z
o
~I\)
'" 0
1\)0
o ~
o ~
- 0
:E
N87'37'54"E
150.00' =~ i1NE Of" [ID
S87'37'54"W
165.46'
\
\_-
\
\
\
\ /'
\' /'
\ /'
\ /'
\
\
\
\
\
.........
'-
'-
...........
...........
,/-
/' ,"'''''!'.....,
-1.." \-~ rjJ"
/' ","'''..'''''--",,,
f(,C:>'\ i'Oc;"s.-
/' ,~<'"&,..,,,,
/' ~o~~~"'.
ij' .,~\,~
/'.~
)
~
I.SIO
"1J...
1.-~
PARCEL II
OF FORTIN LEAVY SKILES
DRAWING #2001-061-1
~
"1J...
L_-
oS'o
0"
'-t"
0,,,,
"f>"
"I"'....
g
GRAPHIC SCALE
GO~
12f:Ttv.
'll412I'v7-
007-
so
I
100
I
200
I
( IN FEET )
t loch = 100 tt,
Drawn By JJB r SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad, No. 031069 FORTIN, LEA VY, SKILES, Scale 1 "=100'
Ref. Dwg, INC.
2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job, No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER: 00003653 Dwg, No, 1004-095
180 Northeast 168th. Street / North Miami Beach, Florida. 33162
Plotted: 7/22/04 1 ;52p Phone: 305-653-4493 / Fax 305-651-7152 / Email fls@flssurvey,com Sheet 2 of 2
/
~J u.L~ )-~J 7-C-O~
1v1l'L. ~i~5
t7A
!L.7F
. ,"
REMARKS AND COMMENTS BY MICKY BISS f2: c; 8
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION IL S- F
AND THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (l.5' G
JULY 28, 2004 12-.~ 1) J.
'e._~E Ii.l
My name is Micky Biss. Individually, and through my corporate entity, USA Express, Inc., I
own property in the City of Miami Beach located at 120, 126 and 130 Ocean Drive and my
corporate entity and I are affected parties to this evening's proceedings. I understand that
for certain aspects of these proceedings you are sitting as the Miami Beach Redevelopment
Agency and therefore, where applicable, my remarks are being made to both this agency, as
well as to the City Commission.
I have not been before you for many years. I come here tonight because what is before you
now is one of the most important matters the Miami Beach Commission has ever dealt with.
The plaintiffs and applicants intend this to be the culmination or final act of a development
plan which has been carefully orchestrated and choreographed for over twelve years.
When Thomas Kramer first came to our fine City and started buying up properties some
twelve years ago, I was one of the largest land owners in the area known as South Point -
the area in Miami Beach south of Fifth Street. I became acquainted with Mr. Kramer, we broke
bread together and we shared ideas and visions for a new South Beach and, more
particularly, the redevelopment of South Point. As many of you may recall, one of his earliest
plans was to turn South Point into a beautiful low-rise community with hills and valleys and
green space; resembling as he then said, the Italian City of Portofino - hence the name of
his entity which is now before you.
The City leaders seemed intrigued. They even participated in Portofino's June 1993 charette
at which time architects and planners from around the globe gathered in Joe's for several
days to exchange ideas and concepts for this Redevelopment Area of Miami Beach.
Unfortunately, soon after, all those beautiful and seductive ideas were no longer being
discussed. Instead, in 1994 we got Portofino Towers and a lot of lawsuits filed against our
fine City by some of the very best attorneys in Florida. One of the most interesting
maneuvers was that Portofino bought, from an out-of-state entity, a judgment which this
entity had against the City of Miami Beach and then Portofino threatened the City with this
judgment and really tried to stick it to us.
About that time, a young man, an attorney in town with a lot of intelligence and charisma and
most importantly, a lot of principles, woke up the citizens of this City through the grassroots
organization he spearheaded known as Save Miami Beach. We all know the rest of the David
and Goliath story of how this small organization with a few dollars defeated Portofino's two
Page 2
million dollar campaign and how this charter amendment was ultimately passed by the
citizens of this City to protect our waterfront property. The little bit of undeveloped
waterfront property we still had was now going to be saved forever from developers doing
the very type of thing Portofino wanted to do in 1997. Later, the charter was further
amended to also protect our non-waterfront inland property.
It is ironic that today the gentleman who spearheaded this charter amendment movement is
our mayor, the honorable David Dermer and it is a travesty that a few months ago in
anticipation of pulling off the Settlement Agreement that is before you tonight, the City
modified the language of the very charter amendments which were to supposed to protect
the City and its citizens from Portofino. Supposedly, these modifications now exempt
Portofino, along with their related companies and entities from the original charter
amendments and thereby from the will of the citizens of this City. This sounds like something
that Chavez would attempt to pull off in Venezuela. Since it seems that he controls the
Supreme Court of Venezuela, he would probably be successful. Fortunately, here in Miami
Beach, USA, this will not fly. In addition to the manipulative intent of the modifications, I
believe that the language on its face does not allow for the actions that you are considering
tonight to be exempt from the charter amendments. Some of the terms of the proposed
Settlement Agreement must go to the voters of this City for approval by the electorate before
you can act.
I have already spent much of the time allotted to me tonight in an attempt to put the twelve
years preceding this Settlement Agreement into perspective and try to have you see that this
Settlement Agreement being quickly approved tonight, along with all of the land use changes
and other actions the City will be compelled to take and approve does not pass the
"reasonable doubt" test - reasonable doubt as to whether all this is in the best interest of
the City and reasonable doubt as to whether, in view of the multiple charter amendments
which should prohibit the commission from these types of actions, all this should really be
approved by you at this late hour on a Wednesday night in the middle of the summer just
before you adjourn for summer recess. Think about it. What do you have to lose by allowing
the citizens to vote on this decision? Even if you do not agree with me that the recent charter
amendments do not exempt what is being contemplated here tonight from the requirements
of the charter, what do you have to lose to err on the side of caution and put this to a public
vote? I urge you to give the voters enough credit to be able to figure out what is really best
for the City. As Mr. Dermer and his Save Miami Beach organization learned in 1997, the
voters were smart enough to figure it out and knew the right thing to do. Give them credit
now, seven years later, for being able to figure it out and do the right thing again.
Page 3
I want to believe that you will heed this advise and not rush to judgment tonight and bind the
City to an agreement regarding our precious waterfront and other land that we will all have to
live with in perpetuity and those that come after us will also all have to live with.
But, just in case my urgings fall on deaf ears tonight, I need, as quickly as possible, in the
time still allotted to me to make some other mentions to, as we say, preselVe the record. In
addition to that which I have already stated, much of the process before you tonight is
flawed and I or in violation of: the City Charter, the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the
City, State Statutes, State Regulations and even restrictions imposed on you by the Federal
Government.
This evening's proceedings have been, I believe intentionally, a very rushed process. The
Public Hearings were set for tonight by this commission well after the City staff had already
sent out notices of these Public Hearings anticipating that you would rubber stamp what
others had already decided to do.
Regarding these Public Hearings, I want to raise my formal objections to merging or
otherwise consolidating any of the Public Hearings noticed and scheduled for this evening.
Each of these hearings should be held separately. While I recognize that there may be some
related issues, each of these matters are affected by different law, regulations or charter
provisions. There should not be a merger of evidence. I believe you must hold separate and
distinct hearings. Within one day of the time these Public Hearings were set, on July 7th, I
made numerous Public Records Requests to be able to see certain relevant public records
and files in connection with all of the extremely involved and complicated matters that are
before you tonight. It seems my request came as a surprise to City staff. While the process
under City and State law provides for all of what I asked for to be readily available, it was not.
To this date, I still have not received a substantial part of the relevant public records I
requested; even though I have considerably modified my request so as to not burden the
City. The delays in my receiving the requested public documents and the constant last-
minute modifications to the documents has contributed to my difficulty in trying to analyze
the nature and effect of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the related approvals
and ordinances before you this evening, and interpret and analyze the ordinances, the
actions of the Planning Board and how all of this affects my property. Only yesterday
afternoon was I finally able to receive a copy of the deed the city received from the Federal
Government for the coveted piece of property known as the Federal Triangle and only
yesterday was I able to confirm what I suspected, There are covenants and restrictions in that
deed given to the City by the Federal Government, which specifically prohibit the actions that
Page 4
you are contemplating to take tonight. Clearly, the deed from the Federal Government does
not allow this property to be a pawn in the settlement of a lawsuit, nor does it allow for any
of it to be part of a commercial undertaking or enterprise.
As for the delays in receiving the final documents, even the actual Settlement Agreement
which is the primary document before you and which drives everything else here tonight, was
not ready for public viewing after notices of these hearings went out and after you set the
Public Hearings. The best the City was able to provide me with days after my Public Records
Request was a document entitled "Draft - 6/28/04 - Settlement Agreement." It was not until
just a few days ago that I was able to finally get a copy of the Settlement Agreement which
no longer said draft and which was now dated July 21st 2004. But even this document does
not contain all of the various exhibits referenced in the agreement.
Even the actual ordinances before you tonight were not in final form well after notice of
these hearings was sent to the affected property owners and you scheduled these Public
Hearings. As late as Monday July 19th, I personally was in the Planning Office and received
directly from the Planning Director copies of the ordinances which he claimed were the final
versions of the five ordinances, But, it seems they were not - or at least nobody really knew
what the final versions were. A couple of days later I received different versions of the
ordinances from the City Attorney's Office and at that point realized that the notices that
went out did not conform to the so-called final ordinances which the Planning Director gave
me on July 19th and which I believe may be before you tonight - but, I really don't know
because just like the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office, I am at this point
totally confused as to which version of these ordinances are before you tonight.
A few days ago I received a notice postmarked July 19th for yet another Public Hearing this
evening regarding the conveyance of two parcels of City owned land and the vacation of a
street - the alleyway between Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive -indicating that you're
considering tonight, among other things, giving a public street away and closing off access
to the rest of the public. Certainly, it seems to me that the notice is deficient and I believe
incorrectly identifies the Department of Community Affairs as a party to the Settlement
Agreement, which is inconsistent with other notices and with the identified parties to the
Settlement Agreement. Here too, I do not believe that all of the regulations have been
followed correctly.
Then, we have the 1992 Shapiro Ordinance regarding giving away City owned land. You
might recall that I was quite involved regarding the Shapiro Ordinance in 1994. I believe you
Page 5
have also not fulfilled the requirements of this ordinance regarding the actions you are
contemplating this evening.
I also have questions and concerns as to whether or not the prerequisites for your
contemplating any of the ordinances and other matters you are considering this evening
have been properly done and accomplished. If the Planning Director himself was not certain
which proposed ordinance was final as recently as last Monday, I question what the Planning
Board reviewed and voted on and whether there were deficiencies regarding those
proceedings. And, of course, the Design Review Board was supposed to opine on some of
this, but I question whether those requirements could have been properly fulfilled in view of
all the uncertainties and changes that have been taking place up to, it seems, the very last
moment.
I also have additional questions and concerns. Why was the public not clearly notified that
the Settlement Agreement involved Bert J. Harris claims and thereby allowing the affected
property owners to receive legal advice regarding their rights in this matter?
Can the proposed ordinances and Settlement Agreement really be changed or modified after
the 30-day notice to the affected property owners?
Can the City really have Contract Zoning? I think what is being proposed here this evening
constitutes Contract Zoning.
Is it legal and proper to provide for conditional revocation of the zoning, land use and other
ordinances if future other approvals are not granted?
I also have concerns and questions regarding the consistency of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan changes with the remaining sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
And, I still have many other questions and concerns for which I have not been able to receive
legal counsel on due to the abundance of what is before you and the public this evening, the
shortness of time the City has given me to examine the public records and the unavailability
of some of the records to date.
Are all of the procedures required by State Statute such as, without limitation, 166.041;
Chapter 163 and the City Charter and City Code, for example, without limitation, Section 118
- 164 being correctly followed and complied with in connection with the proceedings before
you this evening? And, did the content of the Notices published and mailed comply with all
Page 6
the requirements? For example, I see no reference to the intended compliance agreement
procedure being sought for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment.
I thank you very much for allowing me the time to speak before you this evening and present
my reasons why you should not this evening rush to approve the Settlement Agreement, as
well as all the other ordinances and resolutions, being asked for by the plaintiffs and
applicants. If there is an opportunity for settlement of disputes which have gone on for over
a decade, I urge you to do it carefully, in compliance with all City, State and Federal
regulations and with the public's best interest being of utmost importance.