Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2001-11-15 Minutes• 0 Chairman Teele: Are there any other deferrals or requests for withdrawals? Commissioner Gort: I request for Item 6 and 7. Chairman Teele: Item 6 and 7. Item 6. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Item 6 and 7 are the Miami -Dade Community College land use and zoning change. They're companion items. They were -- this is second reading. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez and Winton. Mr. Attorney, would you read it into the record? Mr. Clerk. 191 November 15, 2001 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2511 AND 2543 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET AND 501 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of October 25, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12157 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 192 November 15, 2001 • Chairman Teele: Number 7. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Gort: Second. • Chairman Teele: By Commissioner Gort. Would you read it into the record? Is there anyone here that wants to be heard on this item? Mr. Clerk, call the roll. 193 November 15, 2001 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE NO. 34 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2511 AND 2543 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET AND 501 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A"; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of October 25, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12158 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Gilberto Pastoriza: Thank you. Chairman Teele: PZ -1. Mr, Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, can I just thank Mr. Gort for his tenure here. I have enjoyed very much coming before you, sir. Good luck to you. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you. 194 November 15, 2001 Chairman Teele: PZ -1. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -1 is a Major Use Special Permit for the Beacon at Brickell Village Project, which is located at 30 Southeast 8th Street and 830 Southeast 1St Avenue. This is a primarily residential project, 260 residential units, with accessory recreational spaces and 5,745 square feet of ground floor retail space, with 364 parking spaces. This project is located on 8th Street and Brickell Plaza in the downtown area. It's got good access to the People Mover/Metro Rail system. It is a good urban infill residential project. The Department is recommending approval, with conditions. There is one condition I need to modify on the record regarding the Urban Development Review Board. There were some comments raised by the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) regarding the massing of the parking structure under the building. The Department is recommending that, pursuant to these comments, that the applicant continue to work with the Planning and Zoning Department to address those issues and come back for Planning Director approval of the final solution in response to the UDRB comments. So, condition 12, with the development order, I would amend. Chairman Teele: Are there any persons here in opposition to this? Are there any persons here in opposition? Commissioner Winton. Ma'am, would you like to state your name for the record? Adrienne Pardo: Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Commissioner Winton: Move staff's recommendation. Commissioner Sanchez: Second, with conditions. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded with the conditions. Is there objection? All those in favor, signify by the sign of "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those opposed? 195 November 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1232 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE BEACON AT BRICKELL VILLAGE PROJECT, A PHASED PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 30 SOUTHEAST 8TH STREET AND 830 SOUTEAST 1sT AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF A RESIDENTIAL TOWER WITH NOT MORE THAN 260 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE, 5,745 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL USES AND 364 PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Teele: Adrian, wonderful presentation. Commissioner Gort: Great presentation, Adrian. That was good. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Wonderful presentation. Ms. Pardo: Thank you. I spent a lot of time on that. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you've earned your money today. Chairman Teele; Stayed up all night getting ready. 196 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Item Number 2. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning): Item Number 2 is the Park Place at Brickell Project. If you may recall, this actually was approved by the City Commission under a concept plan for no more than 840 residential units for the Park Place Project. What's before you tonight is actually a substantial modification to that major use, which was a condition of this Commission, so they could go back and re -design it, and work out the issues with a park that they were proffering on the corner of the property, and re -design it. The project that's before you tonight is 773 residential units, so it's less than what was originally proposed, with accessory recreational uses, 36,540 square feet of retail and other non-residential space, and 1400 parking spaces. The Department is recommending approval with conditions of this project. The conditions are the standard conditions in a major use special permit. And also, because this is a phased project, we would ask that they give us an interim plan for the land that's going to occupy Phase II, in the event that Phase II doesn't happen. Our understanding is that Phase II is the Brickell Avenue frontage, and we want to make sure that what ends up there, if something were to happen to Phase 11, is something that is attractive, an urban plaza or park for Brickell Avenue. Other than that, we recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Teele: Are there any persons here in opposition to this project? Are there any persons here in opposition to this project? (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Commissioner Teele: Say again? Unidentified Speaker: We want to be heard. Commissioner Teele: Why don't you just come on down. Ma'am, would you just state your name for the record. And you'll be given sufficient time to address all of their concerns. Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at Greenberg, Traurig, 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the property owner, Park Place, LLC. Dr. Robert McCabe: I'm Bob McCabe, 1601 South Miami Avenue, And I wanted to comment - Commissioner Teele: Dr. McCabe, I thought you were here on the digital library. I was staying for -- 197 November 15, 2001 • 0 Dr. McCabe: I was dying to get up. They wouldn't let me. I wanted to comment that this is a particularly sensitive area. You're at what used to be the boundary of the City of Miami. It was called Broadway, and ought to be called Broadway again. And it's a transition to single-family and to the park. This developer put a tremendous amount of time into working with us. I think in that process, the project got enormously better, and that we really appreciate the significant effort. Lots of meetings. And we want to express that appreciation. I'm particularly interested in his interest in doing a circle at that location, which I think would be terrific. So I wanted to say that. And before I sit down, I have to say to Willy Gort, this Commission is operating well, and has been for a couple of years. You made a difference here, and you're going to be missed. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Tecle: And Dr. McCabe, we appreciate your remarks. And just so that the public knows, Dr. McCabe served as President of Miami -Dade for many, many years, and distinguished citizen. Colin Veater: Good afternoon. Colin Veater, 41 Southwest 18th Terrace. I'm here as President of the South Miami Avenue Homeowners Association. And Bob is one of our directors, as well. We have been working with the developer and the attorney since September of 2000, and our initial opposition to the structure as such was really the impacts, the negative impacts on the quality of life of our neighborhood, residential neighborhood and historic avenue. Specifically, they were density, parking, traffic and the architectural integration to the urban and residential area. We've worked through most of 2001 together, to the County and to the City, trying to get mitigants to these impacts. And although we wish always to get further down the road, we very much appreciate the efforts that have been made by Alan and Adrienne to work out what we hope is obviously a much better project that we can integrate. And part of this whole process, which I appreciate their assistance has been the fact that this area has been planned or zoned in such a way that had some impacts to residential neighborhoods like our own. And we want to appreciate his integration of this project into that phase from urban to residential. But I'd like to bring up the point that we are very supportive, and ask all the Commissioners to support. And I want to thank Commissioner Gort for his revival of the Brickell Village plan last year, and of all the Commission to fund that plan. And I want to ask the support of the Commission to the charette that just took place, which will facilitate further projects and make them much more sensitive to the periphery of Brickell Village. And that's important to us, because a lot of effort and time has been spent by neighbors and by the developer in integrating the project, which maybe these urban designs that are coming mostly from the Planning Department for the future may facilitate the integration. That said, we're obviously in support of the project and want to thank Alan and Adrienne again. Our lawyer has stepped out, but he's asked me to make a statement regarding our support. We support the application and request your approval, but would like to preserve our rights to appeal in the event that the applicant does not comply with its obligation under the settlement. The basis of our appeal would be the inconsistency with the City Comprehensive Plan, and the adverse impacts which staff is required to address under 1305. So once again, I appreciate it, Alan. Thank you. 198 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much for your comments. Commissioner Winton: Have we heard staff's recommendation yet? Commissioner Teele: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. I've given the recommendation. Commissioner Tecle: She's given the recommendation. Ms. Slazyk: With regards to 1305, we have reviewed, pursuant to all of the criteria in 1305, and have found that the project complies with the criteria. Commissioner Winton: And I would also like to say -- And I move this, move that we accept staff's recommendation with the conditions. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Teele: Moved and seconded. Commissioner Winton, Commissioner Winton: I would also like to say that I think that there may be -- this may be an historic moment, because what happened here is that not only was the developer responsive to the concerns of the neighbors, but the developer was also responsive to the concerns of our Planning Department in terms of how this project looks aesthetically, how it interacts with the street. There was just a tremendous amount of appropriate interaction between the developer, the community and staff, And that's exactly the kind of thing that you need, and that's exactly the reason why this whole presentation on the part of the developer is going to take 10 minutes instead of 10 hours. So I appreciate the hard work that you all put into this immensely. So thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: If I may. When -- you know, it gets harder and harder to develop in the City of Miami. And when you have individuals such as Dr. McCabe get up here and commend the developer, who has a Citywide reputation of being a scholar and a gentleman, a true professional at this, it shows something. You know, through communication, and working together, and sitting down and coming to agreements, this City could move forward. So Mr. Ojeda, I commend you for the reputation you have out there, and I commend you for your professionalism, and also your staff. Thank you. Commissioner Teele: Further comments? This may be a good time, madam attorney, for you to formally introduce the client, since it appears there won't be any eggs or tomatoes being thrown. 199 November 15, 2001 Ms. Pardo: I would like to introduce my client, Mr. Alan Ojeda. He's done an incredible job. And we appreciate working with staff at the City, as well as both the Roads Association and the South Miami Homeowners Association. I mean, it really was a project that we all have spent a lot of time on working with, you know, the past year and a half, two years, and I think it really came together nicely. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Ojeda, welcome. Alan Ojeda: Thank you very much. Alan Ojeda, 848 Brickell Avenue. Thank you very much. Yes, I've tried to be all of us on the same page. I tried to imagine this project 20 years from now, and all of us look backwards and say we are still proud of it, we did a good job. So with that envisioned, is what I think all of this dialogue go, everything. Hopefully, we'll -- in 20 years from now, all of us will look backwards, and all of us will be able to say we made it right. Commissioner Sanchez: I see it's taken an effect on you. I see more gray hairs. Mr. Ojeda: Well, yeah, that's true. Commissioner Teele: Congratulations to the entire team. Mr. Ojeda: Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Teele: All those in favor of the motion to approve with the staff conditions, say f{aye " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Teele: Those opposed have the same right. Congratulations, sir. Ms. Pardo: Thank you. 200 November 15, 2001 • 7_j The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1233 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MODIFICATION TO THE MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PARK PLACE AT BRICKELL PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1432, 1438, 1440, 1450 AND 1460 BRICKELL AVENUE, 1435, 1443, 1451-1453-1455, 1465,1475-1477 AND 1485 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, AND 1 SOUTHEAST 15TH ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 16, 2000, PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 00-1036, TO MODIFY SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER BY DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOWING A NEW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF 773 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WITH ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL USES, 36,554 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AND A TOTAL OF 1,400 PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L, Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None 201 November 15, 2001 Chairman Teele: Item Number -- Commissioner Gort: Three. Chairman Teele: -- 3. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Item Number 3 is also a Major Use Special Permit, but this one is only for three single-family homes for the Royal Bay Estates Project. It is at 1641 South Bayshore Drive and 1630 Micanopy. The reason this is before you as a Major Use Special Permit is because it's coming in as a Planned Unit Development. This -- the property is big enough to be able to plat into three separate lots so they could do their three houses, but the PUD (Planned Use Development) gives them a little more flexibility in not having to actually adhere to the lot lines and the set backs. What that does, actually, is give more property to the houses fronting Micanopy, and actually ends up with a better project for the developer. The Department is recommending approval, again, with the same conditions in all the Major Use Special Permits. There is an additional condition, since this did go to the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. It is also an EPD. There were several conditions related to the landscaping: that the applicant replace the row of Royal Palms along South Bayshore Drive with a more informal design; that the applicant ensure that the proposed shade trees do not completely block the view of the house from South Bayshore Drive, and, lastly, the Board felt that tree number 21, as specified on the survey for the plans, not be relocated in order to move a swimming pool away from the north property line. This is not a request that was made by the applicant, so much as, I believe there were some neighbors that wanted a pool to be located further away. And the Board felt strongly that the tree should remain and the pool should stay as the applicant proposed. Other than that, we recommend approval. Chairman Tecle: Are there persons here in opposition to this item? Are there any persons here in opposition to this item? All right. (COMMENTS OFF THE RECORD) Commissioner Sanchez. No, we don't. Chairman Teele: All right. Why don't you give us your name -- Madam Attorney, why don't you give us your name and address for the record, and then you'll be given sufficient time to summarize any of their concerns. Is that fair? Adrienne Pardo: Absolutely. Chairman Teele: OK. 202 November 15, 2001 Ms. Pardo: My name is Adrienne Pardo with law offices at Greenberg Traurig, 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of World Bay Group, LLC (Limited. Liability Company). And with me today is one of the principals, Mr. Robert Thorne, as well as the architect, Hector Valverde, and the landscape architect, Elizabeth Newland with Bermello & Ajamil. Chairman Teele: All right. The applicant will be given sufficient time to summarize all of the comments that are made by yourself and others. Tucker Gibbs: And I'm not in opposition to this project; however, I -- Chairman Teele: Just your name and address for the record, and go right ahead. Mr. Gibbs: Sure. My name is Tucker Gibbs. I represent the (INAUDIBLE) Manors Homeowners Association. I'm not speaking necessarily in opposition, but I want to put some items on the record to explain our position and our support of this project. Over a year ago, these five people came and spoke to the Coconut Grove Village Council about placing a Planned Unit Development, a PUD, within an R-1 district, with an SD -3 overlay. And what that is -- actually, it's a single-family district, which has an overlay district that talks about preserving natural features and the duality of life in that particular neighborhood. That property and that zoning allows three units for that particular piece of property. Well, a PUD allows up to nine units an acre, and PUDs are allowed in residential districts. And what people do when they want to place a PUD in a residential district, it basically increases the density without having to replat, and that's a concern to this neighborhood. It's not only a concern to this neighborhood, but Dr. McKay will tell you it's a concern in his neighborhood, and I think about four other neighborhoods that he's just talked to recently within the City of Miami. And for that reason, my clients fought the concept of a PUD here. However, we did enter -- we did come to a compromise where we agreed that if they built only three units, which is what is allowed under the zoning, we would not oppose, and we would support their project. And, therefore, we do support the project. However, we also met with Ana Gelabert and the Planning Department regarding an ordinance within the City of Miami to prohibit Planned Unit Developments in R-1 neighborhoods, because, as I said before, those developments unfairly increase the density in R-1 neighborhoods beyond that which is what is allowed under the Zoning Code. And for that reason, we're supporting it, with the understanding that the City of Miami is going to be presenting at the Planning Board meeting in January, I think, an ordinance to prohibit PUDs in R-1. And I just wanted Ana Gelabert, who's the Planning Director, to confirm that on the record so we know that we can expect it to happen then, if I could. Ana Gelabert (Director, Planning & Zoning): Ana Gelabert, Planning and Zoning. We will be coming to the Planning Advisory Board with an ordinance on the PUD in January. That's what we're expecting. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. 203 November 15, 2001 Ms. Gelabert: And we have met with both Dr. McKay and Mr. Gibbs on the matter, and there's some issues that we just need to resolve. But we will be back on PAB (Planning Advisory Board) for the PUD, and the City Commission in February. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Maxwell; Just for the record, I just want to point out, though, the decision that you make today will be totally independent of anything that may come before you in the future. Commissioner Sanchez: Point well understood. Mr. Maxwell: Just for the record. Mr. Gibbs. And I -- and we understand that, as well. Our issue was -- and the issue that I think people are going to speak about, who are in opposition, is the precedent that this particular project, being the first PUD in the neighborhood, will mean to the neighborhood. And I want to make it clear -- and I think Adrienne will make it clear, too -- that this PUD is being limited to what is allowed under the Zoning Code, three units, as opposed to the nine units under the PUD. And, therefore, it's our feeling that this is not a precedent for someone to put a nine -unit -an -acre PUD in, because of the restrictions that the developer has allowed himself to put on that property. Mr. Maxwell: OK. But you do understand that there's no quid pro quo? Mr. Gibbs: Absolutely. That anybody can apply for anything. But we want you all to understand, the only reason why this particular association is in support of this application is because it's limited to the exact zoning, which is three units in this area, as opposed to the nine that might be permitted. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, with conditions. Chairman Teele: All right. We're going to hear from these three fine people. Anthony Pippo: My name is Anthony Pippo. I live at 1639 Micanopy Avenue, directly across the street from the particular property. I'm past chairman of the (INAUDIBLE) Manors Neighborhood Association. I'm presently secretary and still on the board of the (INAUDIBLE) Manors Neighborhood Association. I'm not happy with this PUD. I'm not completely against it, because Mr. Gibbs has convinced us that this is the way to go. What I'm talking about is the provision letter that's going to go along with this, that there will be only three houses built on the property, two of them facing Micanopy, more conductive to the neighborhood area, probably -- and no walls. If they abide by the particular provision, then I guess we can live with this. What concerns me is that we're going to agree to a PUD at this time. There are two or three other 204 November 15, 2001 pieces of property in my neighborhood on Micanopy that, I believe, will become PVDs after this is approved. What guarantee or what consideration are you going to have that this will be the only PUD in our neighborhood of single family houses, a beautiful neighborhood at the time, Mr. Winton? Chairman Toole: That you're going -- we guarantee we got it. You're going to come back and not let us -- Mr. Pippo: I believe I'll be back. Chairman Toole: -- and remind us -- Mr. Pippo: And this went on for almost 14, 15 months, and I think I'll be back very shortly after this, that they'll be more PUDs in our particular single family neighborhood. Chairman Toole: All right. Well, certainly, the one that we're looking at now is this one. And you've agreed that they've made enough accommodations, and they're not exceeding the number of units. Mr. Pippo: Absolutely. Chairman Toole: So you can go along with this one? Mr. Pippo: Yes. Chairman Toole: And we'll wait until the next one, and then we'll give you more time than you need. Mr. Pippo: That's about it. No guarantee, except be back in here. OK. But why don't they guarantee that they have a provision letter that's going along with this particular PUD of three houses, et cetera, et cetera, if they've agreed to -- Chairman Toole: Is there a covenant? Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. That's what he's -- (INAUDIBLE) settlement. Chairman Toole: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Gibbs: They can't consider that, but they have it in writing and signed, so -- Mr. Maxwell: No bearing on your deliberations here, sir, I don't believe. Ms. Pardo: Our application here is only three houses. Ms. Slazyk: The Commission's guarantee is that these are approved per plans on file, which have only three, so -- 205 November 15, 2001 Chairman Teele: All right. Yes, ma'am. Carmen Casal: My name is Carmen Casal. I live at 1632 Micanopy Avenue. I've lived there for 40 years. And I do not agree with the PUD proposal, but have come to accept it as of now. But I just want the reassurance that I'm not going to be here in 14 months, in two years fighting the same thing. There are many homes that are up for sale and people can get to go there. And I need to sale three or four homes at the same time, and then you would have the possibility of adding another PUD to the neighborhood, and I am completely against it. Thank you. Commissioner Gort: By the way, I do have to listen to her. Her husband delivered all four of my girls, so -- Commissioner Sanchez: Her husband what? Commissioner Gort: He delivered four of my girls. Bruce Reep: My name is Bruce Reep, 3530 -- Commissioner Gort: So we've got to make sure she's pleased. Mr. Reep: -- 3530 East Fairview Street. I've been back -- this is not the first time I've been before you regarding PVDs in this neighborhood. We had one on Fairview not that long ago. That is not the issue before you. But one of the nicest arguments that Commissioner Winton gave was that it did not ht the character of the neighborhood. The problem with the PUDs is that you're opening Pandora's box. Your own City Attorney just said that you cannot do a quid pro quo on (INAUDIBLE). My problem is, how will you, as Commissioners, face the numerous units of land that are for sale along Bayshore Drive, which is our historical Bal Harbor's mansion row of the beautiful homes between Bay Heights and 22"d Avenue, and even farther down. How will you all address those developers and tell them "no" legally, on the legal terms, when you've told this PUD "yes?" So, Mr. Winton's argument -- you've told "yes" to this PUD, my -- our problem is that it's a PUD. If you had platted and asked for a replat for three homes, I wouldn't have a problem. But on a legal basis, until the anti -PUD ordinance is passed -- that's only a big "if." It may not get passed -- what can you Commissioners do -- and I don't think you can -- to say to the next guy, it was fair for him, why not to this guy? So -- Commissioner Winton: We don't have to -- we can say -- can't we say "no" to -- Mr, Maxwell: Absolutely, Commissioner Winton: I mean, there's no -- Mr. Maxwell: That's the -- the whole purpose of the public hearing is that you evaluate each application -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. That's what I thought. 206 November 15, 2001 Mr. Maxwell: -- on its own merit. Commissioner Sanchez: On its own merit. Commissioner Winton: So, then I could tell you, Bruce. I'll answer your question. I'm not going to -- you know, I've said it before. I'm not going to support PUDs going up and down Bayshore Drive. I mean, it's a bunch of baloney. Mr. Reep: OK. Commissioner Winton; In fact, the real fact of the matter is, the bigger problem that we have facing us in Coconut Grove doesn't have anything to do with the PUDs. It has to do with breaking up these lots and putting two homes on individual single-family home lots that are already small, and that's a huge challenge we have coming down the road that's going to -- that has potential to make this pale in comparison. Mr. Reep: OK. Well, you can understand our concerns, why we're against them. We're -- you know, we understand that we are getting the three houses, but -- Commissioner Winton: I got your message. You don't need to -- you know, we're -- Mr. Reep: Yeah. (INAUDIBLE) -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Reep; -- instead of putting a PUD in our neighborhood. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Reep: Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Adrian, you have -- Madam Attorney, you have time to put in -- I don't think we heard -- Commissioner Winton: I think we're going to -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: I think that's the only opposition there is and -- Commissioner Sanchez: And it's not opposition. 207 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: -- I'm going to move -- and it really isn't opposition. I'm going to move approval of staff recommendation with all the conditions. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Let me -- Ms. Pardo: Can I just add -- Chairman Teele: -- let me do this, though. Ms. Pardo: Can I just add one thing to the record? Chairman Teele: Hold on. Hold on. Let me do this. Before we take that motion, .we need to give counsel sufficient time to put enough information in the record -- Commissioner Winton: Got it. Chairman Teele: -- based upon what everybody has said -- Ms. Pardo: Thank you. Chairman Teele: -- to rebut. Ms. Pardo: Yes. OK. I would just like to state, with regards to the comments made, the subject property before you is an acre of land, and. I need to clarify that. Pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, one acre of land is allowed to have nine units per acre. But that would mean you'd have to replat it, provided that you could meet the other zoning qualifications, meaning you have to have a certain lot width for those lots, and a certain square footage, et cetera. You could have nine units per acre, and that's pursuant to the R-1 zoning designation. That's why we were able to come in with a Planned Unit Development. We were not asking for nine units originally. When we first filed the application, I believe that it was six units, and we have been working with the neighborhood, the Natoma Group, and the next door neighbors, the (INAUDIBLE) for a very long time, and everybody's been working very hard together, as well as my clients, who have a contract to purchase the subject property. So, as well, the PVDs have been in existence in the City's zoning ordinance for -- I know one that was granted back in 1992, so it may -- obviously, it was even some time before then. This is not setting any additional precedent that wasn't always there. In order to file for a PUD, you have to have a minimum of 50,000 square feet, which is a lot of land. So it's not like any piece of property can come in and request a PUD. And I understand that there is an ordinance in the future that may even, you know, do away with them totally, but each application is reviewed on its own merit. In this particular case, we could have asked for nine units per acre. With regards to replatting it, had we just started a year and a half ago and said, "You know what? We're just going to replat. By right, we are allowed to have three houses." And I think that was the entire issue with the neighbors, that they only wanted to see three houses. If we had replatted it, we'd be entitled, by right, three houses, no public hearings. But we were so far into the process on this particular application that we wanted 208 November 15, 2001 to proceed with the PUD, and there were other benefits that it was just -- it made a lot more sense than spending an additional year going back and replatting this particular property. So, I just wanted this Commission to understand that, you know, if we had replatted it, by right, we would be entitled to three houses. I think you could see it's going to be a lovely development. You only have one home that will be facing Bayshore Drive. The existing drive that is there today will be the drive for this house. There is an existing bluff that will not be touched at all. It will be totally preserved, and we spent a lot of time on that. And then there will be two homes in the rear faced on Micanopy, and each of those homes will both have their own driveways, and they're single-family homes, like every other home along Micanopy. And for all intents and purposes, they have the same square footage and lot size and house size, et cetera, as all the other homes on Micanopy. Chairman Teele: All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Winton. We have a second by Commissioner Sanchez. Is there any need to further discuss this item? Ms. Pardo: Just to input one letter into the record. Chairman Teele: I really want to commend the three citizens that came forward. I appreciate the manner in which you made your comments. All those in favor of the motion say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those opposed have the same right. The item is unanimously adopted. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1234 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES S, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE ROYAL BAY ESTATES PROJECT, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1641 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND 1640 MICANOPY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF THREE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 209 November 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Ms. Pardo: Thank you very much. 210 November 15, 2001 • • :OFFICIAL VAG TO1 �QSLL EY L;�,"WB SAYE BQIJLEV AiDC�IJ�'OO�NAAveH N REE'fi Antl s BIS Mara ezrl, .contract I'Shaser Commissioner Gort: PZ -4. Chairman Teele: PZ -4. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move that item, if Johnny is not here. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Is there objection? All those in -- is that an ordinance or a resolution? Commissioner Regalado: It's a resolution. Chairman Teele: All those in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those opposed have the same right. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1235 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING THE PORTION OF AN ALLEY PARALLEL AND BETWEEN BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND NORTHEAST 2" COURT, 200 LINEAR FEET SOUTH OF NORTHEAST 24TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A." 213 November 15, 2001 11 0 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton 214 November 15, 2001 • Chairman Teele: Excuse me. PZ -5. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -5 is an appeal of a variance that was denied by the Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Department is also recommending denial. Since this is an appeal, I don't know if you want to hear from the appellant first. Chairman Teele: All right. All right. Just hold on until you get a mic, sir. 215 November 15, 2001 • Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. • Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. I had stepped out. I had my kids call me, so I had to step out for a moment. We just did PZ -4? Chairman Teele: PZ -4 was the item done. Yes, sir, It was approved. Did you want to be heard on that one? Commissioner Winton: Yes, I do. Chairman Teele: All right. Motion to reconsider by Commissioner Gort -- Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chairman Teele: -- and seconded -- Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: -- by Commissioner Winton. Is there objection? All those in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those who oppose have the same right. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gort, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1236 A MOTION TO RECONSIDER VOTE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEM PZ -4 (PROPOSED OFFICIAL VACATION AND CLOSURE OF ALLEY PARALLEL AND BETWEEN BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND N.E. 2ND COURT). 216 November 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Teele: OK. PZ -4 is back before us. Commissioner Winton: OK. The issue here is this: Now, I don't know what the project is and I don't know what the project's going to be. But if we're going to close an alley, that gives us one opportunity and one opportunity only to -- we have great leverage when government is taking that kind of step. It is great leverage in terms of what we think we want or what may be appropriate or inappropriate for the site. You can't do the same thing to that site if you don't close the alley. So the developer could do whatever they want with the alley in place, but they can do something very different if we close the alley. So what I want to make sure of here is that, from our standpoint, we've taken the appropriate steps we need to take to protect what we're trying to -- or to better support our position in terms of, in the future, having that site developed in the manner that we think is appropriate for that particular location. You understand what I'm saying? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. Yes, I do. In this particular case, the alley closure that they're seeking -- the project that they want to put on there happens to require special exception. And we have been meeting with them and the project has been redesigned substantially. But the special exception became the tool we used rather than an alley closure. But, yes, I understand what you're saying. Commissioner Winton: Well, isn't this going to be a self-service storage facility? Ms. Slazyk: It was a mini -storage, but what we -- what -- through meeting with the developer, we requested they put ground floor retail in, that it not look like a mini -storage, they have windows up above. And through the special exception and the design review process of the special exception, they have modified the plans so that we now have retail on the ground floor. But it, you know -- but, yeah, the special exception became the tool because that's where we reviewed the adverse impacts of a proposed project. Commissioner Winton: And is self-service -- Ms. Slazyk: No. There's no project before you now. What's before you now is an alley closure. 217 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton; Well, that's part of my point here. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Winton, I mean -- you know, you jump to this spot here and we've lost whatever leverage we want, at some point, down the road. And, you know, could you build a self-service storage facility on -- and put it on Biscayne -- this fronts on Biscayne Boulevard, right? Ms. Slazyk: This fronts on the Boulevard. Commissioner Winton: So, if we didn't close the alley, could you build a self-service storage facility there? Ms. Slazyk: The zoning allows it. Without the alley closure, it would not have the same footprint. It wouldn't have the same configuration that the final project is going to have. But it just so happens that in order to do a mini -storage facility, you need a special exception. So, through the special exception process and the design review process, we have been meeting with the applicant to get a better building, being that it does front on Biscayne Boulevard and we wanted retail on the ground floor. Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): As pointed out by staff, the use -- the specific use of the property will come back to you under request for a special exception in this particular case, Ms. Slazyk? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. This is coming through -- Mr. Maxwell: That -- Ms. Slazyk: It also is an SD -20, so there's a Class H. Mr. Maxwell: All right. Ms. Slazyk: So, we have design review rights at a minimum. Mr. Maxwell: All right. That would be the time to address the issues of the self -storage facility or any other use they want to (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Winton: Then why wouldn't we take this issue up at that point in time? Mr. Maxwell: Well, they could have included that at the same time, but you still would have considered it separately. See, street closure is one thing, and then the permit that they would need is, yet, something else. Chairman Teele: Yeah, but I think Commissioner Winton -- 218 November 15, 2001 Mr. Maxwell: Like there are different criteria -- Chairman Teele: I think Commissioner Winton is correct. These things will be considered separately, but they should come up at the same time. Ms. Slazyk: Right. A special exception, though, wouldn't come before this Commission unless it were appealed. And they have the right to file for the alley closure separately, because that does have to come to the Commission. And that was the option they chose, because there's no guarantee that the special exception will be before you. It all depends if somebody appeals it. Chairman Teele: You know, I just -- I have to say this in support of what Commissioner Winton has said. This City, for so long, has let property owners and people that are competently represented come by and do all sorts of things that are really not in the public's best interest or where we're trying -- and that's not to say that this is not in the public's best interest. But we have no idea what is going to happen. And I think, you know, we don't have to grant an alley closure, do we? Is that something that we are -- Mr. Attorney, is that something we are obliged to do? Mr. Maxwell: Close a street? Chairman Teele: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: No, not unless you find it's in the best interest of the City. Chairman Teele: Well -- Mr. Maxwell: You have to make that finding. Chairman Teele: And that's the point where I think we just sort of stopped. We're not -- you know, there's got to be a little bit more to it here than the way this is being presented. Why should we do it? Commissioner Winton: I think that the Attorney would like to say something. I'd like to hear what she has to say. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Yes, absolutely. I would be happy to do a presentation and talk about -- and speak to the project that my client is proposing to build there, if there is no objection from the City Attorney. Clearly, as the staff told you, the use is permitted in this district. It is permitted on Biscayne Boulevard, subject to a special exception. The special exception is to the appropriate process by which that design is looked at. But I do agree, it would not be coming in front of you. It is only required to go to the Zoning Board. Commissioner Winton: Can you show me where the alleyway is on that site? Ms. Garcia-Toldedo: Absolutely. 219 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: Well -- no. I'd like to see it -- just kind of show me -- you know, put it back up there and just kind of -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: (INAUDIBLE) Commissioner Winton; No wonder I can't see it on there. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner, this is the survey of the property north to the to�. This is Biscayne Boulevard. The alley that we're talking about is an alley that runs from 24` Street on the north, south to another cast to west alley in the center of this city block. The alley -- first of all, the alley only exists in paper. It is not an improved alley. It does not exist there. There are structures across that space. Commissioner Winton; Could I interrupt you for a second? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Sure. Commissioner Winton. Because it's the point that I'm.making. Here's where the alleyway is. It's in the middle of the site. You cannot build this project the way they're about it, unless we vacate this alley. So the issue here, in my mind, is whether or not, from a public policy standpoint, we really want that kind of development on that site on Biscayne Boulevard. And while they may be able to still do the same kind of development because Zoning allows it, it may not fit. And so, you have to go to another use. And so that's the whole point I'm driving at here. And what we're doing, from a public policy standpoint, is just simply saying, "Well, that's OK. You know, it's zoned and let's go ahead and do it." And I'm saying, let's not jump so quickly, from a public policy -- and I don't -- you know, I'm not trying to pick on these folks, at all. But from a public policy standpoint, we need to answer the question: Is this what we want and is this what we want Biscayne Boulevard to look like? And I'm not sure it is what we want Biscayne Boulevard to look like, at all. And so, we ought to work to take every step we can to get what we want there, particularly when we have leverage, and the leverage is closing the alley. Chairman Teele: But Commissioner, may I just inquire about this, before the Attorney? I hear exactly what you're saying, but I'm not prepared to say that a use that otherwise is permissible is something we want to block. Because, see, that's what gets us into the "a man's house is his castle" kind of thing. I mean, if the use was a permitted use -- I mean, how do we get the -- it seems to me like what you're really wrestling for are design standards, which, under the procedure, we don't get unless there's an appeal. Is that -- Mr. Attorney, is that sort of the box we're in? Mr. Maxwell: Generally speaking, special exceptions only come to you on appeal. There are exceptions. I don't think this would be one of them, so it would have to be appealed to come to you. Chairman Teele: Could they voluntarily bring it? 220 November 15, 2001 Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. I don't think -- because you wouldn't have jurisdiction at that point. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: May I make a suggestion here? This has to come -- the plat portion of this has to come to you again. Today is just the street closure. The street closure is good for three years or you have to come with a final plat within those three years. Actually, we should be back here with a final plat for you within the next two to three months. In that time, the special exception will be heard by the Zoning Board. The design reviews will be, you know, completed by your staff. We certainly can show you, at that time, the project that has been approved by the Zoning Board in a special exception, and you still have the option that if you approve the street closure today but do not approve the final plat, then, in three years, your closure of the street reverts itself or voids itself. Commissioner Winton: What rights would we have not to approve the plat, though? I mean, I've never been here -- Ms. Slazyk: I think, once it meets all the technical requirements, it's more difficult. Mr. Maxwell; I'm sorry. At one point, plat approvals were considered ministerial in nature, meaning you had very little say-so once all the technical requirements were met. The courts have somewhat moved away from that now because they've found that plat approvals, among other things, are also quasi-judicial in nature. That means that you have to also find, as with this one, that it's in the public's best interest there, and that you would have to have a record if you decided to turn it down. There would have to be a significant, a substantial record to support that action. If I may also move a little further on that, Commissioners. I'm a little concerned about the record that's being built now on this particular item, and some of the statements that have been made and the nexus that's been drawn with this street closure application and speculative development that may come before you at some point in the future. It's not definite. I would suggest to you that if you -- you should consider this on its own merits, or the item can -- I don't know how long we're talking about. The item could be continued and it could be brought up at some point in the future together. But you should consider this based on the criteria for street closures and not some development that may come. Because you -- one of the comments that was made was that, you know, this is the best time we have for leverage on things like that. Those kind of comments can be troublesome. So I would suggest that -- as you look at the first page of the resolution, it talks about findings of the Public Works and the Plat and Street Committee and so forth. And it also says, "The Plat and Street Committee has reviewed this, subject to the plat, and determined that all technical requirements have been met and vacation of subject right-of-way would benefit the general public." The City Commission also finds it's in the best interest (INAUDIBLE) -- Commissioner Winton: Well, that's OK. I'll (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Maxwell: It says that, but you -- it's not just boiler plate. It's something that has been -- you could find that it doesn't, but you would have to have a record to support that. 221 November 15, 2001 Ms. Slazyk: Right. Instead of relating it to the use, you have to look at what the street or alley closure would do to the configuration of land. It would, you know, amass a bigger piece of land, bigger footprints, you know, other reasons why. Commissioner Winton; Well -- Ms. Garcia-Toldedo: If I may, Commissioners? Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner, I also would like to say that we did meet with the concerned citizens of Edgewater and they're in support of this project. I should also tell you that we have submitted, as part of the application, and I believe at the Zoning Board, a petition of property owners in the area who also support this. And right now, we have -- the properties that would be demolished in order to accommodate the future development of the site have very lengthy history of Code enforcement violations and police problems. And, in fact, I think it was at the Zoning Board level, the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Administrator and a couple of the inspectors came in support of this project. Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Winton, you know, the Attorney is telling us something and maybe we need to heed it. Isn't there -- let me just ask a question. Let's look away from this one. Can we revisit instructions to Public Works, outside of a specific application or outside of the zoning -- this board process, in the context of a Commission meeting on a different criteria to bring street closure -- alley and street closure? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: I think we may have impregnated this record enough that I want to support this. And what I'd like to do is let this one be used as a training, and then let's set up for the next agenda, Commission agenda, a discussion on alleyway closings and a policy discussion on that. That may be the best way to handle it, Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: The point that -- I agree with that. The point about the number of properties that are going to be torn down here, has there been any review by our -- Commissioner Sanchez: Historic Preservation? Commissioner Winton; Yeah, right. Ms. Slazyk: Any of the properties -- Sarah Eaton happens to be here. I'll let her answer. Commissioner Sanchez. Historic Preservation, Commissioner Winton: Right. Thank you. 222 November 15, 2001 Sarah Eaton: Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer. Yes. As a matter of fact, the buildings on this site were evaluated as part of the Wynwood Tower Project, which involved federal funds, and required an analysis of buildings that may be listed and/or eligible for the National Register. Three very significant buildings are located on that property. Two apartment buildings facing Biscayne Boulevard and one very significant bungalow facing the street immediately west. I forget which avenue it is. And those buildings and the entire neighborhood have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register, ChairmanTeele: I just think -- Commissioner Winton: Let me ask this question a little -- and I understand the point that our City Attorney has made. What's the next step we have? There is not going to be necessarily any other review that this Commission has of anything tied to this site; is that correct? Is that what was said? Ms. Slazyk: The final plat would come. Commissioner Winton: The final plat, but us having any -- you know, anything that we can do about that is probably slim to none. Mr. Maxwell: They're coming to develop the site. It depends on what the development request is. Commissioner Winton: Can we -- I would like to -- frankly, I would like to defer this because I haven't seen the site. I don't know the apartments, nor the bungalow back there. And I would like to see what's on that site before we make a decision here, because -- well, I would like to see those properties before we make a decision. Chairman Teele: Commissioner, I'm going to tell you something. With these quasi judicial forums you're sitting in, it's sort of like a judge saying, "I want to go back and look at the evidence and then I'll come back out." We've gotten too far on this one, and what we need to do is give some clear instructions on the things that you're talking about to the Public Works Department, that they will have to include in their applications for closure and all of those kind of things, historical. But for us to say -- or for you to say on the record, you want to see it and -- Commissioner Winton: And we're not allowed to do that? Mr. Maxwell: Well, site visits are permitted, but they would have to be totally noticed and so forth and part of the -- Chairman Teele: The record. Mr. Maxwell: -- record process. Commissioner Winton: But how would 1 know that until I see it -- until this comes before me at the agenda? I mean, it isn't as though I -- 223 November 15, 2001 u Ms. Slazyk: Could we bring photographs or put them in the package? Commissioner Winton: Huh? Ms. Slazyk: Could we bring photographs? Commissioner Winton: Well -- but that's not the point. This is a technical question here. I have no way of knowing anything about this until they deliver the book. And if I don't read the book until the night before, I don't know anything about it, so I can't go see the site ahead of time. I could only go see the site once this thing comes before us. Chairman Teele: That's one of the real constraints of a Jennings decision. But we sit here, not as Commissioners in zoning, we sit here as quasi judicial officials, not as legislators. And it's just like a judge or a jury: If anybody goes -- it's got to be based, as this Iawyer -- as our Attorney keeps saying -- based upon the record before. It can't be based on a conversation that someone has in our office or a site visit that we do and all those kinds of things, Commissioner Winton: Well, if that's the rule, then I can't support this. So I would be moving a motion to deny staff's recommendation for approval of the alley closure. Chairman Teele: You don't want to do that. This record -- Johnny, you don't -- Commissioner Winton: I mean -- what's the -- Mr. Maxwell: A motion would be considered by the City Commission. The question is not whether the City Commission can vote "yes" or "no." The question is whether or not, once you vote "yes" or "no," it could be defended. And right now, I believe I heard staff say that they were in favor. They were recommending approval. I haven't heard -- there's no competent evidence on the record, I must say, right now that would support the Commission's action for denial at this -- did she -- did you say that you -- right now, I didn't hear anything on the record that would support that. So, yes, the Commission -- to answer your question, the Commission can vote "yes" or "no" on anything. The question is whether or not it's defensible. Chairman Teele: Is there another motion? Commissioner Winton: Well, that one died from lack of a second. Chairman TeeIe: That one died for a lack of a second. Is there a motion? Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if I may, if I may. And we've got to clarify this, being that we are quasi-judicial here. We have to go based on the facts that are presented to us here. And I understand that -- Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. One thing -- if I may, Commissioner? 224 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: Sure. Go ahead. Mr, Maxwell: The question was just asked about (INAUDIBLE). I didn't say that Commissioners cannot -- under the Jennings Rule, site visits are permissible. The thing is, the record has to be abundantly clear that you did that. And you have to put it on the record that you did go out to the site, if you went out to the site. It should be noticed if you -- more than one Commissioner is going. If this -- I think you originally said, "This Commission go out to the site." OK. If you go out -- if you happen to go out to a site, certainly, you couldn't talk to anybody out there if you were out there. Commissioner Winton: I know that. Mr. Maxwell: Because that's ex parte communication. And you would have to put it on the record, at the time of the public hearing, that you did go out to that site, that you viewed it and you -- Commissioner Winton: We're not talking about "did." I can't "did" because did's past. I could only do it in the future. Mr. Maxwell: Well -- Commissioner Winton: I can't do it until I get the damn book. Mr. Maxwell: Well, if the item was -- Commissioner Winton: And so I can't do it before we come to a Commission meeting. I could only do it once we get here and say, "I want to go do that." Mr. Maxwell: Well, then you would have to continue the item in order to do that. Commissioner Sanchez: No, Commissioner Winton: Well, all right. Here's another motion. I move to continue the item to -- continue it to a date specific, right? Ms. Slazyk: I think this is -- Commissioner Winton: So whenever the next P&Z (Planning and Zoning) deal is? Ms. Slazyk: December 11t1i is the next P&Z. Commissioner Regalado: December I Vh or the 13'1i9 We have two meetings. Commissioner Sanchez: We have two, Chairman Teele: The 11'1' 225 November 15, 2001 Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): Eleventh. We're going to try to do the P&Z items on the 11 `h. Mr. Maxwell: Well, I think you specifically -- you continued this. You establish that date you -- you should have said what date was the P&Z agenda. So, is it the I Ith or 13th9 Commissioner Winton: (INAUDIBLE) you know, continue to whatever the next P&Z agenda date is. I don't know what the date is. Mr. Maxwell: The 11 th Ms. Slazyk: December 11th Mr. Maxwell: OK. Commissioner Winton: A bunch of big champions here in my district, by the way. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, Mr. Chairman, just once again, analyzing the facts that are presented in front of us, it is permissible use. It is recommended by the City staff. I'm looking at the records here. Zoning Board recommended approval to the City Commission vote six to three. Based on the facts and the statements made here by the City Attorney, I am prepared to move this for approval. Chairman Teele: Motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: But these things have a way of coming back around. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Johnny, go ahead. Move for -- Chairman Teele: Well, why don't we move -- why don't we do this? Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, no. Move to -- Commissioner Gort: Second, Johnny. Chairman Teele: Move to defer the item -- Commissioner Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE) the item -- Commissioner Gort: Continue. Chairman Teele: -- to the 11th of December. But, Commissioners, I think we need to make sure that we get a copy of this record, because I'm going to be hard pressed, based upon the record that helped create, which is not a good record, to vote other than to support the staff recommendation in this case. But I will say right here, right now, we need to give staff a lot 226 November 15, 2001 0 more information about any more alley closures and street closures. And we need to straighten it up, I think, and we need to do that perspectively, not -- Commissioner Regalado: And, you know -- Commissioner Sanchez: Come on. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Maybe I have a suggestion. Commissioner Regalado: Johnny, I -- Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion to defer and there's a second. Call the question. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Maybe I have -- Chairman Teele: Is a deferral OK with you all? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I have a little bit of a problem with the deferral. But maybe what we can do, voluntarily, is that we will tie our site plan to the final plat, so that when we come back to you with the final plat, we will have an approved project and we will voluntarily proffer to build the specific project on the site. Chairman Teele: Commissioner -- Commissioner Winton: OK. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. He was -- Chairman Teele: She's proffering, in lieu of the deferral, that they will proffer here and now to put the site plan with the plat, so that the plat will come with the site plan and, therefore, we can act on the site plan as well as the plat, which is a brilliant way, I think. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: And that will give you -- the reason -- Commissioner Winton: Right. I'm liking that. Commissioner Regalado: The reason I'm for the deferral and the reason that I support this, Johnny, is because I think that you, as any other of us, should be afforded the possibility of going there and seeing because this is your district. I mean -- and, you know, the people -- you are accountable to that people and -- but the way she's doing it, if you're OK -- Commissioner Winton: I'm OK with that. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Teele: OK. So there would be no -- motion to defer is withdrawn. 227 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: Right. Chairman Teele: And there's a motion to approve with the requirement that the plat -- Commissioner Gort: With the volunteer -- Chairman Teele: To accept the proffer -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo; Voluntary proffer. Chairman Teele: To accept the voluntary proffer that the plat, when it's filed, will include a site plan. Commissioner Gort: Second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Winton: First. Chairman Teele: OK. Is that acceptable to everyone? Thank you again. All those in favor say «aye r9 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1237 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING THE PORTION OF AN ALLEY PARALLEL AND BETWEEN BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND NORTHEAST 2ND COURT, 200 LINEAR FEET SOUTH OF NORTHEAST 24TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A." 228 November 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gort, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Teele: And Mr. -- Madam Manager, can we put on the agenda for the 11" a discussion on street closures and alley closures? Commissioner Sanchez: Absolutely. Chairman Teele: And have the attorneys to work with us to try to develop a little bit better kind of background and criteria and staff instructions before you even come to us with that. Ms. Bianchino: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: Mr, Chairman. Chairman Tecle: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I didn't want to bring it up during this hearing because what you stated before, but my understanding is -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- we could pass this closing of the alley today and they could come back and do whatever they want later on. Ms. Slazyk: Well, they still need a final plat. They could do anything allowed in C-1 -- Commissioner Gort: I understand. They could do the plat, but it's not -- it doesn't have to go with any particular project. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Gort: And this is what I think the Commissioner's worried about. If we do that and it's because we're doing it because of a commitment to certain projects, somehow it should be tied up. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Teele: Because you could flip it or dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. 229 November 15, 2001 0 • Ms. Slazyk: The other safeguard, though, for this particular property is that there is an SD -20 designation on it. So at a minimum, even if it wasn't a mini storage or anything that needs a special exception, they would need a Class 11, so the design review will happen anyway. Chairman Teele: All right. Ms. Slazyk: No matter what. Chairman Teele: All right. Next item. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Congratulations. You were well -represented today. 230 November 15, 2001 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -5 is an appeal to a variance that was denied -- it's an after -the -fact variance, by the way -- that was denied by the Zoning Board for a single-family residence for setbacks. It requires 20 in the rear and they're only providing seven, and it requires five on the side yard and they have 4.3 feet. Chairman Teele: What's the staff recommendation? Ms. Slazyk: Staff recommendation is for denial of the variance; therefore, denial of the appeal. Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Regalado: That's in District 4. Chairman Teele: Sir, give your name and address for the record. Martin Beguiristain: Martin Beguiristain, 13368 Southwest 128th Street, Miami, Florida. I represent Mrs. Del Calvo in this matter. Commissioner Regalado: Are there any neighbors -- because I did event to see that property. It's on the record. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): I'm glad I said what I said earlier. Commissioner Regalado: Although, I don't know that family. I just saw -- I don't know whoever it is, but I just saw the property. Now -- Mr. Maxwell: Now, you've said you've gone out there, so you need to say what you observed. Place it on the record and give them the opportunity to respond. Commissioner Regalado: What I observed is -- I didn't go into the house. I didn't into the backyard. I just stood on the sidewalk and saw the property. What I saw is not illegal units, but just part of a house. I don't know what they have in the back, but it's not your regular illegal units where you have people living that are not from your family. And it seems to me that there is no overflow of cars and other inconvenience to the neighborhood. So I don't know what are the reason -- I don't -- gentlemen, what it's going to do, but I will move to accept the appeal of the -- Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no. 231 November 15, 2001 Chairman Teele: Hold it. You can't do that until the public has had a chance -- Commissioner Regalado: Right. But I'm just saying what I'm going to do. It's not -- Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Regalado: I'm saying this on the record because what I saw, Chairman Teele: But -- Commissioner Regalado: The public -- we need to hear from the public and the staff. Mr, Maxwell; Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: And the person representing the public. Chairman Teele: All right. Are there persons here on this item? Are there any persons here on this item? All right. Commissioner Regalado: Was these people noticed, the residents? Ms. Slazyk; Yes, notice was sent. Chairman Teele: All right. Sir, you want to give us your name and information -- you gave us your name. You want to make your case in about three minutes, two minutes. Mr. Beguiristain: I'll make it in about two minutes. Basically, it is a building. There is an extension on the house, which is a room that family members do live in, have lived in. There has been four generations of Del Calvos that have lived in this house at one time. The lot is irregular, which is one of the standard requirements to get a variance. If you notice, the front of the lot is 50 feet. The back of the lot is 49 feet. That causes the slight setback problem on the left side of the lot. The back of the lot has a seven foot four inch setback. We do have a letter from the owner of the property behind this house, which is the only person that would affect -- this setback variance would affect. He has no objection to it. Chairman Teele: Is that in the record? Mr. Berguiristain: It's on the letter, that I handed out today, which should be in the record. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr, Berguiristain: I imagine that's what that means. One -- couple of other things. The building footprint is 36.83 percent. The maximum allowed is 40 percent. It's well within on the building footprint. The green space on the property: Minimum requirement is 15 percent. It has 22.69 percent, I believe it is. And I'm talking rather quickly to try to get this in. Basically, the City of Miami's main interest on green space, parking in the front, appearance, there is no problem with 232 November 15, 2001 that with the City of Miami. Building footprint there is not a problem. The only person that possibly could be affected by this variance would be the person that owns the property behind the house. That person has no objection to it and, therefore, it should be granted. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Attorney, what is the standard? Mr. Maxwell: (INAUDIBLE) variance. I'll let staff give the standards -- criteria. Ms. Slazyk: The standards for a variance are that they have to prove hardship, but there is something specific to this property that is not typical to other properties with the same zoning classification. And that this is the minimum variance that gives them a reasonable use of their property. That's why the Department recommended denial. Commissioner Gort: Denial. Ms. Slazyk: This is not the minimum variance to give reasonable use of the property. They are - - were obtaining reasonable use of the property without the addition. And the difference in the width of the property of one foot going down the length of the property is not sufficient to justify the amount of variance that they were requesting. That's why we recommended denial. Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Regalado for a motion. Commissioner Regalado: My motion will be to accept the appeal of this item. Chairman Teele: All right. Is there a second? Commissioner Gort: Second. Chairman Teele: All those in favor say "aye." All those opposed say "no." Commissioner Sanchez: No. Commissioner Winton: No. Chairman Teele: You're a lucky man. You win three to two. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner. Chairman Teele: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: Division, please. Can you have a roll call vote on it? Chairman Tecle: Roll call. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Roll call vote. Commissioner Regalado. 233 November 15, 2001 • Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Mr, Foeman: Commissioner Teele? Chairman Teele: Yes. Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: No, sir. Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Gort? Commissioner Gort: Yes. Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: No, C7 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO, 01-1238 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, GRANTING THE APPEAL, AND REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, TO ALLOW A SIDE AND REAR YARD SET BACK OF 4.3'0" (5'0" REQUIRED SIDE YARD) AND 7' 0" (20'0" REQUIRED REAR YARD) FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 131 FLAGAMI BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, CONDITIONED UPON A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. 234 November 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gort, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado NAYS: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton ABSENT: None. Chairman Teele: I told you, you're a lucky man. Mr. Beguiristain: Thank you very much, Commissioners. 235 November 15, 2001 • Chairman Teele: PZ -8. • Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -8 is a second reading amendment to the Comp Plan for land use from general commercial to single-family residential. This is one of the City of Miami's applications for clean up. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Moved -- is there a second? Commissioner Gort: Second reading. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Mr. Attorney, would you read the item into the record? Clerk, would you call the roll? 244 November 15, 2001 • An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4100 N.W. 9TH STREET, AND 800, 810, 820 AND 830 NW 41sT AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" TO "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of October 25, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Winton, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12159 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 245 November 15, 2001 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -9 is a zoning change. It's also one of our clean up items. This is a second reading. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there a discussion? Is there objection from the public? Moved and second. Mr. Attorney, would you read the item into the record? Mr. Clerk. 246 November 15, 2001 0 An Ordinance Entitled -- • AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FLORIDA BY AMENDING PAGE NO. 27 OF THE ZONING ATLAS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM C-2 "LIBERAL COMMERCIAL" TO C-1 "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4041 NORTHWEST 71H STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of October 25, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12160 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 247 November 15, 2001 i.IR T� C?RiNE a�E l 544 I Y' A IVIPR>;IENHB Q0?�N, E CH NN _ iSIGIO FaR.�PER'I�IES �Q`CA'FD .: 341`C 2 SET _ SROM "NIGH ENSVT� 6 A� �T (:QN--for- OR EICI�T. �P1oat( Wad`s for _ Chairman Teele: Next item. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -12 and 13 are companion land use and zoning change. This is first reading for the properties at 341 Northeast 20`3i Terrace and 340 Northeast 21" Street. This property is surround -- it's got commercial designation and SD -6 across the street. It is part of a complex in which there are residential and non-residential uses. They want to change this particular piece of property in order to provide much needed parking for the complex. Most of the buildings were built without parking. We recommend approval. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ (Planning & Zoning) what? Ms. Slazyk: Twelve and 13. Commissioner Sanchez: Twelve, OK, Chairman Tecle. All right. Sir, you want to be heard on this item? Walter Fisher: I'm Walter Fisher, 363 Northeast 20th Terrace, representing Flex Enterprises. Commissioner Sanchez: Good to have you here, sir. So moved. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Unidentified Speaker: Second. Commissioner Winton: Second. What -- I'm still not sure I understand. Let me get -- Ms. Slazyk: This is across the street from the Finger project that's coming -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. Ms. Slazyk: --up there. Commissioner Winton: I couldn't figure that -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: OK. 248 November 15, 2001 Ms. Slazyk: And what it is, is most of the properties -- most of -- these are all under the same ownership, most of the block. And most of it was built without parking. What they want to do is do a parking area here that would actually take the cars off the street and provide -- Commissioner Winton: Great. Ms. Slazyk: -- the parking they need for the complex. Commissioner Winton: Good. And I guess one of the other things I want to say is that -- and I think you and I have had this discussion before -- but some way or another, with all the technology we've got, you know, when you look at these and when we're making these decisions, what the surrounding uses are is very important information. I can't figure out anything from this copy of this aerial. In fact, most of them look like this. So, we really need to do something so that when I'm looking at this stuff, I can look at these surrounding uses, understand what's really going on, then I can get my own visual picture of what I think the impact of whatever this change is going to be and make better decisions. Ms. SIazyk: Yeah. I know that when we scan them the original is pretty good, but I think that's a second generation. That's the problem. We'll try to figure out a way to get a better resolution Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: -- to start with, maybe. Commissioner Winton: So, I second the motion. Chairman Teele: All right, Mr. Clerk. An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 341 NE 20TH TERRACE AND 340 NE 21sT STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 249 November 15, 2001 Was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 250 November 15, 2001 • Chairman Teele: Next one. C Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -13 is the companion zoning change. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): "An ordinance of the Miami City Commission, with attachments" -- Commissioner Sanchez: We need a motion and a second. Do you move it? Commissioner Gort: I moved it. Commissioner Sanchez: Second, Chairman Teele: Moved and second. Mr. Maxwell: I'm sorry. Commissioner Sanchez: it's OK. Chairman Teele: Mr. Clerk. 251 November 15, 2001 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 21 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 "MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" WITH SD -20 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO C-1 "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" WITH SD -20 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 341 NORTHEAST 20TH TERRACE AND 340 NORTHEAST 21sT STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A"; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 252 November 15, 2001 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -14 is a second reading text amendment in order to provide the definition for a media tower. It was approved by the Commission on first reading -- Commissioner Gork: Move it. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Clerk. 253 November 15, 2001 9 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 25, SECTION 2502, SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION, INTENT STATEMENT AND CRITERIA FOR "MEDIA TOWER"; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of October 25, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Tecle, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None, SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12161 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 254 November 15, 2001 • • Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -15 is a second reading item amending SD -2 regarding the Coconut Grove Parking Trust Fund. Was recommend for approval Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and second. Read the item. All right. Mr. Clerk. 255 November 15, 2001 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 602; ENTITLED "COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT", BY AMENDING, REPEALING OR ADDING LANGUAGE TO SECTIONS 602.10.1, 602.10.3 AND 602.10.4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO: (1) CLARIFY THE PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS TO THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, (2) CLARIFY THE PROVISIONS OF SHARED PARKING FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of October 25, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12162 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 256 November 15, 2001 • Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -16 is the amendment to the -- Chapter 35 of the Code, also for the Coconut Grove Parking Trust Fund. This is second reading. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Discussion. Mr. Clerk. Commissioner Gort: It's an ordinance. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): It's an ordinance. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Clerk. 257 November 15, 2001 • An Ordinance Entitled -- • AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING CHAPTER 35, ARTICLE V, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "COCONUT GROVE PARKING IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND", BY AMENDING, REPEALING OR ADDING LANGUAGE TO SECTIONS 35-221, 35-222 AND 35-224 OF THE CODE TO: (1) CLARIFY AND PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND (2) MODIFY THE PAYMENT PROVISIONS BY REDUCING THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT AMOUNT AND PROVIDE FOR INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of October 25, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Winton, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12163 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 258 November 15, 2001 • • , JT -N 'TY0 STI AG 'Ube 5 CT ,( ppilcat t(s)U ily �'1V�iam } Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -17 is second reading ordinance amending Section 613 to allow flower carts as a conditional use in SD -13. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chairman Teele: Where are we? Mr. Attorney. Commissioner Gort: Read it. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): This is 17. Chairman Teele: All right. 259 November 15, 2001 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 613; SD -13 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE GATEWAY DISTRICT, TO ALLOW FLOWER CART VENDING IN DESIGNATED OPEN AREAS SUBJECT TO ISSUANCE OF A CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of May 24, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gort, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr, Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12164 The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney, 260 November 15, 2001 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -18 is a first reading ordinance amending SD -17 regarding parking. I need to make one -- two quick corrections in the record. These were corrected at the PAB (Planning Advisory Board). It's a clarification and it needs to be in this draft, as well. Paragraph "B" on page three of the ordinance and paragraph `B" on page four, the last sentence needs to say that "provided, however, the property owner shall make the necessary arrangements acceptable to the City, to ensure that all public facilities located within 375 feet of the property shall be afforded an hourly rate not greater than the public metered rate, which is provided by Code for DOSP (Department of Off -Street Parking) for the hours from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m." What this is doing is, it's changing the parking rates for parking structures that get FAR (Floor Area Ratio) bonuses by providing public parking in the Grove. And what it's doing is saying from the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., all public facilities within 375 feet of the garage will be afforded a lower rate. Therefore, this is -- Mutiny is the only one we have right now. So, anyone going to the library or to the Women's Club or any other public facilities in the area will get a cheaper rate at this garage than that which is afforded to the general public. This has been to the Coconut Grove Parking Advisory Committee. They recommended approval and so did the PAB. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chairman Teele: All right. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Ms. Slazyk, that change is on three and -- Ms. Slazyk: Page three -- Mr. Maxwell: Three and five. Ms. Slazyk: -- and page four. Mr. Maxwell: I'm sorry. Three and four. Ms. Slazyk: Four, paragraph `B." Right, Mr. Maxwell: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: I'll give these to (INAUDIBLE). 261 November 15, 2001 Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: As amended. Chairman Teele: Mr. Cleric. An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 617 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "SD -17 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT," BY AMENDING SECTION 617.2 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING METERED PARKING RATE REQUIREMENT WITH THE PREVAILING DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING GARAGE RATES. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN 375 FEET SHALL BE GIVEN AN HOURLY RATE NOT GREATER THAN THE PUBLIC METERED RATE AS CHARGED BY DOSP FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M.; FURTHER CLARIFYING THAT ANY FLOOR AREA INCREASES FOR SUCH PARKING SHALL BE PURSUANT TO A CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMIT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gort, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney, Chairman Teele: Is that -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's it. Commissioner Gort: That's it. Chairman TeeIe: -- pretty much it? 262 November 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: That's pretty much it. Chairman Teele: Are there any other matters, Madam Manager -- Commissioner Gort: I have a pocket item Chairman Teele: -- to come before -- on the Zoning Board? Ms. Slazyk: No, sir. Chairman Teele: All right. Could we return to the agenda? Note for the Record: At this point, the City Commission closes consideration of items from the Planning and Zoning portion of the agenda to consider items from the regular portion of the agenda, 263 November 15, 2001