Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1998-11-17 Minuteswe did it so, here, take your darn message. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Showing known. Unanimous. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gort, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 98-1149 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE INTENT OF RESOLUTION NO. 98- 1084, WHICH ACCEPTED THE COCONUT GROVE PLANNING STUDY, ATTACHED THERETO AS "EXHIBIT A", SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AS A GUIDING TOOL FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF THE COCONUT GROVE AREA AS DEFINED IN THE STUDY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you very much. Now, PZ-1. PZ-1. Ms. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): This is the official vacation closure of a public rightof--way for the Performing Arts Center. Vice Chairman Plummer: I move to defer. Ms. Adrienne Pardo: Can I address? Vice Chairman Plummer: No. I've made a motion to defer. Commissioner Teele: What's the item. Commissioner Sanchez: What's the item? Vice Chairman Plummer: PZ-1. I thought I had indicated this matter was not to come back before this Commission. Commissioner Teele: I second the motion. Isn't this the... Vice Chairman Plummer: This is for the Performing Arts in Dade County. Commissioner Teele: I second the motion. 158 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. All in favor of the motion, say'aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO.98-1150 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM PZ-1 (PROPOSED VACATION AND CLOSURE OF PORTION OF N.E. 13 TERRACE BETWEEN BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE) FOR 90 DAYS, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SHOWS ITS SPIRIT OF COOPERATION TO APPROVE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. (COMMENTS MADE AFTER ROLL CALL:) Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Mr. -- madam? Commissioner Teele: Next item. Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): What was the motion, Commissioner? Defer to a date certain or what? Vice Chairman Plummer: A date certain is -- as a matter of fact, when Dade County is in the spirit of cooperation to approve Park West/Overtown and that item of the interlocal agreement, which is right in contiguous to this same issue, that we will be, in fact, back to talk to them. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair, this is the second time she comes here. Vice Chairman Plummer: We can't get them to move. Now, you want to let Dade County... Commissioner Teele: Yeah. They need to go lobby the County to go ahead and move the redevelopment. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's right. That's right. Thank you. PZ,2. Ms. Adrienne Pardo: Can we have a date certain? Vice Chairman Plummer: The date certain will be some time in'99. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, could I suggest you do it for maybe 90 days and then... Vice Chairman Plummer: Do it for 90 days, OK. 159 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Teele: Ninety days Vice Chairman Plummer: You know, the minute that Dade County realize that the spirit of cooperation is a two-way street and they come and give the interlocal agreement the OK between Park West and Overtown in Dade County, I'm going to tell you something, we're going to be just as-- spirit of cooperation. PZ-2. Ms. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): PZ,2 is a Major Use Special Permit for One Miami Center Project. Vice Chairman Plummer: What does this do? Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): What this Major Use Special Permit is going to do is approve a development program for the One Miami mixed use project. This program specifically-- it does not have specific plans for each of the parcels; however, conceptual plans were submitted. The most important thing to note about this Major Use Special Permit is that there is a condition within it that they cannot build any of their phases without coming back to this Commission for individual approval. One of the reasons that the development program is being sought now is because of our downtown DRI (Development of Regional Impact). As some of you may know -- I know Commissioner Gort, in particular knows -- that our downtown DRI is due to expire in approximately one year. We're working now with the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) to begin the studies for Increment II of our downtown DRI. This is the tool that makes development in our downtown area much more attractive than a lot of other parts of Florida. We're in the process of doing that. This development program will approve for the four blocks that are in the maps in your package, 1.2 million square feet of office; three hundred hotel rooms; fifteen hundred residential units, four hundred thousand square feet of retail, and seven thousand parking spaces. It will also include accessory uses, which incorporates a convention facility of about a hundred thousand square feet. It was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and the department is recommending approval with the conditions in your package. Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Plummer: Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Has this been approved by the DDA? Ms. Slazyk: The Downtown Development Authority does not have an approval right over this but I believe that it's supported by the executive director. I don't know if it's gone to their board. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, hold on. Commissioner Teele: You all recommend it? Vice Chairman Plummer: Ms. Dougherty has to justify her fee. And the City Attorney has advised me that all people, all of you here today that have any intentions of testifying in a case before us here today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. If you're not sworn in, you will not be able to testify, and especially the lawyers. Mr. City Attorney, English and Spanish, please. Swear them in. 160 November 17, 1998 Mr. Maxwell: The City Clerk will swear them in. [AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUESTED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.] Vice Chairman Plummer: In Spanish? So be it. Ms. Dougherty, you wish to make a comment? Ms. Lucia Dougherty: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Plummer: You're foolish but go ahead. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Who's making the motion, Mr. Sanchez? Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner. Vice Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry? Mr. Maxwell: There may be someone who wants to speak in opposition. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Is there someone here that wish to speak for or against? Sandy? Mr. Santiago Echemendia: We're here against. We have some issues to... Vice Chairman Plummer: This microphone. I'm sorry. I didn't think there was anyone here in opposition. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one question of the staff. Vice Chairman Plummer: You surely can. Commissioner Teele: Does this include the area around the arena? Vice Chairman Plummer: No, no, this is... Ms. Slazyk: No, it does not. This is... Vice Chairman Plummer: This is way down. This is... Commissioner Teele: This is the Dupont Plaza? Vice Chairman Plummer: This is Dupont Plaza, yes. It's the big parking lot. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. It's the three vacant blocks that are around the First Union Tower and the remainder of the blocks where the Intercontinental Hotel is. Vice Chairman Plummer: This is the old Whitmore. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. Does this include the ramp from 1-95? Ms. Slazyk: The ramp isn't... Commissioner Teele: It doesn't wrap around to the Intercontinental-- I mean, to the Hyatt? Vice Chairman Plummer: Runs right through the middle of it. You come right off... Commissioner Teele: It does not? 161 November 17, 1998 Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. It's the private property on which the ramp enters, yes. Commissioner Teele: I understand. Ms. Slazyk: But the ramp on public right -of --way. This is an application for those blocks. It's private property and they did include -- I want to also state for the record -- you know, the requirements of the Major Use Special Permit, which include the traffic study and the economic component were all done on the development program, even though they don't know which components are going to go on which blocks yet. That's where... Vice Chairman Plummer: Each one has to come back here. Ms. Slazyk: Each one has to come back. They can't put one brick in the ground without coming back here. Vice Chairman Plummer: This is only for the master plan. All right. Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Miss Dougherty, you'll now have to make a brief presentation because we have opposition. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. As she stated, this is simply a master plan. We have to come back to you when we have architecturals; it has to go through the Urban Development Review Board; the PAB (Planning Advisory Board); the City Commission. We have the following consultants with us here today. Cooper Roberts and Partners -- Cooper Robertson and Partners, who is a New York architectural and planning firm. Alex Cooper is with us here today. He's the head of Urban Design at Columbia University. David Plummer and Associates, our traffic engineers, are with us Vice Chairman Plummer: No relative. Ms. Dougherty: Sharpton and Brunson, who is the Economic Impact Analysis, and Hilario Candela and Larry Klein from Spillis and Candela and Eric Croday from HOK Studios, which is the architect also for the project. This project would have a one billion dollar ($1,000,000,000) economic impact in the City of Miami and seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000) per year in ad -valorem taxes in favor of the City of Miami. One of the issues that's going to be raised by my opposition is, that they have a concern that by vesting of these development credits, there would not be the same kind of review that would be allowed at the lower courts and I'm here to stipulate to you today that whatever review that the Planning Advisory Board has today or the City Commission has today, or the Urban Development Review Board has today, they have the same rights for review in the future. We are not depending on these development credits for any kind of leeway in terms of that review. The second issue is that Mr. Echemendia has asked that they have a right in our Major Use Special Permit, as a condition, to have us cooperate with them in coming up with a compatible solution for our future projects. This is something that is not acceptable to our client. We have agreed and will stipulate on the record that -- and I would recommend that we stipulate on the record -- that any person filing an application for an amendment to the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), will have to meet with the owners of the property located at 200 Biscayne Boulevard regarding their concerns for pedestrians of vehicular access, view corridors, loading docks, service systems and similar uses prior to filing any such application. That is something that we would do routinely as a good neighbor, anyway, and we would so stipulate on the record. With that, I would like to make sure that all of the record that we proposed in the Planning Advisory Board be incorporated in the record today. Vice Chairman Plummer: So ordered. Sandy. For the record, your name and mailing address. Mr. Santiago Echemendia: Santiago Echemendia. I'm with the law firm of Tew, Cardenas, Revak, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard. Vice Chairman Plummer: Pull the microphone over so the recording is.... Mr. Echemendia: I am here with Tim Pronco, who's the director of marketing for SRI, Miami Venture LP, 162 November 17, 1998 which is the owner of the First Union building. We're not opposed to the project. We think it's going to be a good project for the City of Miami. Our concern is that there are some procedural deficiencies. One of the requirements that you have in your Code is that there be a concept plan and that concept plan -- the Code actually provides, Section 1702 of your Code, it provides "all of the following shall be required before the application for a Major Use Special Permit shall be considered to be filed for processing" Seventeen -- a little further down it discusses the concept plans-- this is one of the requirements: "The following topics or item shall be required in the concept plan as they may be related to the proposed development" "The concept plan shall demonstrate functional internal relationships within the area to be encompassed and, in particular, the relationships of the concept plan to the surrounding existing and proposed uses, activities, systems and facilities (transportation, recreation, view corridors, pedestrian systems, service systems, and similar uses)." What you have in front of you is very different from most of the Major Use Special Permit applications. In fact, all of them, with one exception, they all have concept plans so that the adjoining property owner -- so, as part of this review, the adjoining property owners and large scale development review and yourselves could see the interrelationship between the proposed development and the surrounding properties. In this instance there is no concept plan. Let me show you -- and I'd like to incorporate, by reference, the Major Use Special Permit Applications in Brickell on the River, the Millennium, Albenese, MultimPlan and Brickell Invest. This is the Major Use Special Permit Application on Brickell on the River. This is the section on the concept plan. The entire Major Use Special Permit, as was testified by your principal planner last week, is not the concept plan. The concept plan is a particular portion of the Major Use Special Permit and in that section you typically see something like this. It shows you the elevations. What you have in this instance is basically a land use plan. There is no proposed development. What these folks are, with all due respect to them, I understand what they're doing. They're attempting to get an allocation of credits without having a concept plan. The concern that we have about this, first, it's procedurally deficient but the concern that we have relative to it coming back in the future is, though your staff will argue that the way this has been framed is that, it will come back as a substantial modification and you will have the same review powers, and Lucia will stipulate that you have the same review that's provided under the Code, though that stipulation doesn't really do much for anybody because its not as part of a covenant. It's not -- that the — by virtue of the allocation of credits, that there will indeed be a vesting of the credits. They will have the right to build the 1.2 million of retail and office and so on and so forth. We don't know. Your City Attorney doesn't know, your principal planner, Lucia doesn't know and I don't know what the affect of that vesting of the allocation will mean. It could mean that, if they get denied by this Commission when they come back on the substantial modifications, that they raise an issue of being -- of the Commission being equitably estopped to deny them because they are vested for all of those development rights. The fact is, we don't know the answer to that question. The applicant can't tell you the answer and we can't tell you the answer. That's why we are concerned. What we were proposing, because we're not here and you may, a lot has been made of the economic report and how much they're going to be paying, but our client paid this City today, in ad -valorem taxes, five point four million dollars ($5,400,000). Vice Chairman Plummer: So? Mr. Echemendia: They are the largest building in the State of Florida and one of the nicest looking buildings in this city. So, I think its important for this Commission to not only look forward to the development that may take place but preserving the existing developments in how they may be adversely impacted. We tried to derive some language with the applicant earlier today. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. Teele? Commissioner Teele: You are the Miami Center, is that correct? Mr. Echemendia: No, I represent the.... Vice Chairman Plummer: First union. Mr. Echemendia: The owner of the First Union building. Vice Chairman Plummer: Is that the oldCentrust? Mr. Echemendia: No, that is the old Southeast building. 163 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Wasn't that building just recently sold? Mr. Echemendia: My understanding is that, yes, two years ago. Vice Chairman Plummer: For two hundred and eight million dollars ($208,000,000). And you paid how much taxes? Mr. Echemendia: Five point four million in ad -valorem taxes. Vice Chairman Plummer: Go ahead. Because I think you just struck a gold mine for the City. Go ahead, proceed. It's thirty-two thousand per million, right, at 208? All right, go ahead. Please proceed. Mr. Echemendia: So, we think... Commissioner Teele: My math doesn't go that high. My math doesn't go that high. Mr. Echemendia: What we tried to do is... Vice Chairman Plummer: Watch it. Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner Plummer is, we try to derive some language because, again, we're not here to oppose the application. The problem is that, unlike otherMSU, Major Use Special Permit Applications, this doesn't have a concept plan. We don't know what it's going to look like. We don't know the effect of the allocation. I've handed out some language that we proposed to the applicant, be incorporated as a condition to the Major Use Special Permit. The applicant's attorney came back with a proposal that they agreed, not as a condition, but that she would stipulate on the record to agree to meet with us prior to filing each and every phase of the proposed development. That, with all due respect, doesn't really do much for us. We would implore you to incorporate, as a condition in this application, the language that you have in front of you; otherwise, we will hopefully, maybe within the next 30 days, which is the time that we have the right to appeal whatever it is that you do here today, in the event that you approve this application, we will be able to come up with some sort of private agreement with the developer. Otherwise, we would have no choice but to challenge the approval based on what we believe is a procedural deficiency. There is no concept plan. Your ordinance doesn't provide for there not being a concept plan. It is pretty clear that there isn't one. Construing this as bringing it back on a substantial modification, we'll address the issues. It's not contemplated for in your ordinance and that, therefore, renders the application procedurally deficient. We think it's in everybody's best interest to include some language that they would agree to cooperate with us because, quite frankly, we don't know what this is going to look like. Vice Chairman Plummer: You're being repetitious. Mr. Echemendia: We don't know what the effect of the vesting is. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Mr. Echemendia: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: You're only a million dollars ($1,000,000) off. If you'll send us a check for the other million. It's six point four, based on the hundred percent assessment. You so note? Ms. Bianchino: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Miss Dougherty? Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner, to the extent that there is additional testimony elicited, I'd like to have the right to cross-examine. I'm sure your City Attorney will agree. Vice Chairman Plummer: There is no cross-examination in front of our board, sir. Mr. Echemendia: This is quasi judicial proceedings... 164 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: You can make anything a part of the record that you wish. Mr. Echemendia: Joel. Mr. Maxwell: They are entitled to cross-examination, as a quasi judicial... Vice Chairman Plummer: Through the chair. Mr. Echemendia: It's a quasi judicial. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Miss Dougherty? Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, if you wish to see the concept plan, Alex Cooper is here to present that plan to you. We are asking for... Vice Chairman Plummer: Since it is a bone of contention, put it forth. Ms. Dougherty: Because this is a vested rights -- because we are asking for vested rights for the development credits -- the reason for this is so that we don't have to go through a formal DRI, which takes 18 months and a million and a half dollars ($1,500,000) to go through that process. That's the reason for this application, and my client is doing exactly that in Blue Lake right now. So, the reason that the City of Miami has this downtown DRI is so to expedite development in downtown, to assist your developers, and that's exactly what you're doing. Vice Chairman Plummer: Pull up the conceptual plan. Ms. Dougherty: We are not having vested rights. Excuse me? We don't have vested rights for the -- I just want to say one thing. We have vested rights to the development credits but not for the architecture and that's something we're going to have to bring back to you, and you have all the same review that you have now in the future. Alex Cooper, if you'd like to present your concept plan, please. Vice Chairman Plummer: Let me ask a question while Alice-- Alice Cooper? Ms. Dougherty: Alex. Vice Chairman Plummer: Oh. Dena, you know, we've heard on this parcel of property for years and years and years. It's like 27th Avenue tomorrow, next year. How long had the approval, which we are giving today, which could disallow some other people having the credits-- because you get to the limit -- how long of this approval that we do today is the maximum, before they must either pull permits, put a shovel in the ground? Can we limit the time... Ms. Slazyk: It's two years, is what the Code gives them and, then, they would have to come and get a time extension and at the time of a time extension, we could ask for updated studies. We could, you know... Vice Chairman Plummer: Can we make it for less than two years? Ms. Bianchino: Yes, we could. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. All right. Ms. Dougherty: In this kind of a project, I don't know that you'll want to do that. For this large a project, I don't know that you want to make it for less than two years. May I put one thing on the record, Mr. Chairman? Since we did file the application, my client has actually purchased the property and I'd like to put the new ownership disclosure on the record. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. The conceptual plan by A. Cooper. Mr. Alexander Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I do get a lot of mileage out of Alice 165 November 17, 1998 Cooper. Vice Chairman Plummer: You will be allowed to speak, sir, when you tell us your name and your mailing address. Mr. Cooper: My name is Alexander Cooper, a partner at Cooper/Robertson, architects in New York City. And with me is my associate, Randall Morton. We're going to present a series of boards to you and we'll try do it mercifully, quickly. The first series of boards have to do with our perception of this site. It is one of the most visible sites in the city, the four blocks right where the Miami River and the bay come together. We'll run through some very quick perceptions of that because we have an attitude about the public nature of what is going to emerge here and we'll, then, follow very quickly, block by block, of what the intentions are. Go ahead, Randy. Mr. Randall Morton: Commissioners. OK, thanks. Vice Chairman Plummer: Your name and mailing address for the record. Mr. Morton: My name is Randall Morton. I work with the firm of Cooper/Robertson, at 311 West 43rd Street, New York. Vice Chairman Plummer: My condolences. Mr. Morton: All right. It's not such a bad place. We need help with the Giants though. Vice Chairman Plummer: We'll send you a snow shovel. Mr. Morton: All right. Now, my boss told me I have to go through these fast, so I'm going to go through these pretty fast. I'm not going to try and lose you. But, when we came to town and we were asked to look at these four blocks, the one characteristic that you have noticed is that it's a group of sites. It's not an individual site. And, unlike a lot of other must applications, it's an individual building and those projects normally are more concerned with what goes on within their property lines. This project, we're going to examine more of the public benefits that go on and the real reason that you would plan a group of sites together is because the public benefits much more. So, I'm going to run you through quickly a list of those public elements that we considered and how we put uses on this site, and the very first thing is where, within the context of the City we're located. Were actually at a point in the City where the river meets the bay. It's probably the most unique position in the City. Commissioner Gort: It's the mouth of the river. Mr. Morton: It's the mouth of the river, exactly. We spent a lot of time studying what goes on in the water. There are a lot of boating activities; the intercoastal waterway goes through; the Miami River is an active, unique working place; Biscayne Boulevard is a true waterfront street; the cruise ships come in and they turn around in the turning basin, which is pretty spectacular site and it's all unique to Miami. We also studied Brickell Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, the two key streets that are the signature addresses of the City, and what's unique about this is that they both arrive here and they come together at the same point. So, these four blocks, planned together as one unit, can take care of how these two streets come together, which we all know now... Vice Chairman Plummer: Hold it, hold it. The question that I wish you would address is the exit off of 395. Because it empties right into your property. Mr. Morton: The exit off of 395 comes right into the property, right down the middle. Vice Chairman Plummer: And how do you anticipate that will help, hinder or affect your program? Mr. Morton: Well, a piece of our program -- Mr. Cooper will tell you about it -- a piece of our program is office buildings and retail. One of the best things you can have, if you have an if office, is visibility, and the best thing you can have is access so that people can arrive at a commercial site and park right away. 166 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir, you're talking about an additional seven thousand cars. Mr. Morton: Talking about seven thousand cars. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's minimum, OK? Tell me how you are going to accommodate, with streets today that you can't move on because of grid lock, that you're going to accommodate another seven thousand cars. Mr. Alexander Cooper: Commissioner, we have a very extensive traffic study that was done for this density and these uses, but exactly by street, the number of cars added to the system, it's quite an extensive part of the application. And David Plummer is here, if you'd like him to answer that question particularly. Vice Chairman Plummer: As soon as Mr. Morton is finished, I'll ask David to come forward. Commissioner Regalado: If I may just make a comment? Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: There was a study that was published yesterday and it showed that Los Angeles, Washington, DC, San Diego and, then, Miami are the most affected/infected cities because of traffic and grid lock. And, you know, it's nothing we can do about it. It's just that we don't have the infrastructure, nor Los Angeles and, you know, I don't -- to judge such a project of this magnitude, of looking at the whole picture of the situation, it's ... I think, it's unfair. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado, if I had not been exposed to the project proposal by the Goldman brothers, who owned the property of the Dupont Plaza, I might concur with you, but they had a plan that they came forward with, that was a plan that would alleviate the problem of access, ingress, and egress into that particular area. And I'm telling you that that plan would work. It was a plan for the traffic. It just had all kinds of -- I would suggest that the Planning Department pull those plans out. I went with BobTraurig for a day to Toronto and we went all extensively through those plans, and I want to tell you that what I saw would work, as far as the traffic plan was concerned. So, proceed, sir. Because I want to tell you something, to me, one of the most crucial things that you're going to have to address is the automobile. I am extremely concerned just on the other side of the river, which is in my district, we have sky scrapers of seven hundred, nine hundred, thirty-two hundred units and I am telling you, from the Miami River to 15th Road, as I see it today, the traffic is going to be horrendous. That is right across the river from you. Now, all of those people that are in that area, from the river to 15th Road, most likely are going to work in Downtown Miami. And all you're talking about is, most likely, another minimum of fifteen thousand cars a day, plus your seven thousand cars a day. We are reaching a point of absolute grid lock. Commissioner Gort: J.L., yeah. This is where the downtown people mover comes in. Every time I go to -- every time I want to go to downtown, I use the downtown people mover all the time. A lot of the people in the offices use that. Vice Chairman Plummer: Willie, that's you. Unfortunately, there's not enough Willies down there. OK. Go ahead, sir. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mr. Morton: No, sir. Couldn't agree with you more, though. What we are looking at, Mr. Plummer, the traffic engineer, the other Mr. Plummer, will talk to you about the quantitative stuff. Vice Chairman Plummer: And he's not related. Mr. Morton: We know that. But qualitative look... Vice Chairman Plummer: I wish he was. Mr. Morton: The qualitative look says that Brickell and Biscayne couldn't be more different. Brickell is really a business address and a residential address, and Biscayne is a key civic street. There are a lot of public pieces on there. So, let's assume we can work out the traffic problems and let's hope that we can do that. We will still have streets of two very different, very important, characters coming together here. So, if 167 November 17, 1998 we can get past the traffic issue, we still have two great streets to deal with. In fact, one of them, Biscayne Boulevard, can end at the river and provide a river front address and, in order to make that happen, you need to control both sides of the street. Now, the beauty of having a group of sites is that we can, in fact, plan ahead for that. If we only had one site, we wouldn't really be able to end the street effectively at the river. So, for the first time, Miami's best street can meet the river front if these four blocks are taken into group consideration. Another piece of public infrastructure that's in place is the Riverwalk. If you all know, the Riverwalk, it pretty much starts at Bayside and wraps behind the Intercontinental and stops. Then, when it gets to the Dupont Plaza, it can continue. And then, behind the Hyatt and Convention Center, continues on. That gap, that break, is about the same dimension as the sites that we're talking about. If you consider all four of these sites together, that Riverwalk can be connected up as part of the marketing strategy of this project, as part of the public infrastructure of this project, and you can complete that if you look at all the blocks at once. So, we could consider completing that inboard, using Biscayne Boulevard Way as a completion of the Riverwalk System so that our sites can benefit from being part of the Riverwalk. We can have more of a river front address. Of course, if you're on the water, you always want to have boats around and there are some boats here but there aren't enough boats, and we're already under investigating bringing as many boats here as possible, and a place where boat owners and non boat owners alike can utilize the waterfront. We've done a lot of study of existing pedestrian circulation and where the pedestrians and you can't ignore Flagler Street when you talk about pedestrians, which is really Miami's real, true piece of urbanism. So, it's important to us that our plan connects to Flagler Street and the retail that's there and our site that we've labeled "D" is an obvious choice because it's close, it's connected to Flagler by two streets. It's a logical retail condition. There is the courtyard at the First Union building, which is within the property lines, not without the property lines but it's an important public place that we would like to relate to, as well as all of the lobbies of the Intercontinental Hotel and Bayfront Park. So, there's a good north/south movement that we think all of our projects can take advantage of. We also took into consideration the people moving in public transportation. There have been a number of proposals by the County for an additional people mover station between our site "C" and "D," which we would encourage and, in fact, plan for in the layout of those buildings, as well as site "B." That would give us not only the people mover on Biscayne Boulevard but a second people mover system, making these help increase ridership and be part of the public domain and public transportation system. We also took a look at night life because part of our program is residential and it's true that you can actually get a 24 hour, at least a more livable neighborhood, if you have some residential. That circle that's on this drawing is about the size of downtown. You can see there, all these little black marks I've drawn are where night life exists today. There is none here. So, this would, there is none. Commissioner Sanchez: There's none? Mr. Morton: There is none. Commissioner Sanchez: Unless you cross the river to Brickell. Mr. Morton: It's across the river to Brickell or maybe a little bit ofBayside if you'd consider that. But another aspect about night is that that's when Miami looks its most beautiful. It is one America's prettiest cities at night, except for New York. And we think that our four blocks will certainly add to the beauty and character. And we're well aware of the role that this site would play on the sky line as well. It's true that the public realm is lacking and we are surrounded by good neighbors. The First Union building is maybe one of Miami's most handsome buildings and it's a Class A office building. But one of the lessons there is that, even though you have good buildings on one block, it has little effect over the public realm but if four blocks can be done at once, you can have a greater public benefit, which is really the aim of the kind of work we're doing here. So, in a quick summary, if we put it all together, what we learned about our sites is that on the west end, it's much different than on the east end. On the west end you have visibility from the highway ramps coming in and visibility from Brickell Avenue and you have people mover station there. On the east end you have waterfrontage and you have boats and you have the civic ending of a key street, all of which tells us that this is more of a residential end of the project and more of a commercial end of the project with retail leaning towards Flagler. So, even though in the end the planning is very simple, we tried to take in a lot of public pieces to put it together. Thanks. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Plummer, come talk to me. Commissioner Sanchez: I want to commend you on that presentation. Very good presentation. Very well 168 November 17, 1998 presented. Mr. Echemendia: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Just leave it up. Mr. Plummer needs it. Mr. Cooper: Just a couple more flips before David answers the traffic questions in particular. These are documents that you have in your packet. It goes site by site, showing the density, the number of rooms, size of buildings, and the square footage on each site. And this first page that's in your packet summarizes all of the uses and all of the parking. And, by the way, just as a general matter, the amount of square footage that you can put on these sites downtown really is unlimited in your CBD zoning. Parking, whoever, their maximums are stated. Maximums permitted. At seven thousand, we are about 10 percent less than what zoning calls for at this point. This will show what is simply permitted on each site. I'm going to run through that very quickly. Site "A" is the one immediately on the water, directly behind the Intercontinental faces on to Biscayne. What you'll see is that almost each block is a mixed use block. The intention is not to simply put one building on each block but to have a mixture of uses on each block in a much more vital way. So, that on the Site "A," we have a three hundred room hotel and that is behind the six hundred room hotel of the Intercontinental. There is room for a three hundred unit condominium as well. We're planning for about a hundred thousand feet of conference space, which, in fact, could be used in conjunction with the hotel. And there is room for a 75,000 foot specialty retail right on Biscayne as it comes and meets the water. The next site to the west, Site "B," on the west side of Biscayne and the one immediately south of the First Union Tower on 3rd Street, is a site that the owners are envisioning as a residential site and with many ideas of bringing residential living back to downtown. A very powerful idea. We are showing up to 1200 units of residential on here. It is not possible to speculate right now whether that is two towers or three. That is a staging question and a marketing and absorption question, so it's very hard to give the kind of explicit answer to the question being asked by the neighbors. Show us the size of your building and what it looks like. It is far too premature to do that but it would be either two or three buildings, strictly residential on Site "B." Site "C," directly north of the Dupont Plaza, we are showing an office building of some seven hundred thousand feet there, with retail space around all of the streets, and we've allowed for the kind of walk-in retail space that we think can be extended from Flagler toward the water, with parking in the middle of the block. And on Site "D," immediately to the north, we're showing here the possibility of a couple of uses. We are showing an office building of some five hundred thousand feet but we're also allowing for the possibility here of an entertainment and retail center. And these two, we think, can live together, with the retail center on the lower portion of the block and the residential tower above. And that is right at the entrance, Commissioner, of 95, and we recognize the very powerful, visual possibilities coming in from 95 from that direction, between these two sites. So, that when you see the whole pattern together, you can see that the uses are quite mixed. This is not simply an office parking of downtown. It's a place of retail uses, of hotels, of residences, of offices. It's, in fact, a very powerful microcosm of an entire city and we think those are the kinds of uses on these streets that are absolutely essential. And, by the way, we think the density is right and a little congestion really helps. So, that's basically the attitude. David. Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Plummer, I just have a quick question. Vice Chairman Plummer: He has ... excuse me. Mr. A. Cooper, there's a quick question. Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Cooper, how are you? There's a provision in the Code regarding Major Use Special Permits concept plans that is part of their, the Commission's review process. It says, "in addition, such material shall demonstrate any relationships to any special permits, variances or special exceptions from this zoning ordinance or other special exceptions from the City regulations that are required in order to construct a development for which the Major Use Special Permit is requested." You mentioned something about a potential parking variance. Mr. Cooper: I didn't mention the parking variance. Excuse me? Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. With the plans that you have now, that is, these land use maps, do you know if the eventual development will require any variances, special exceptions? Mr. Cooper: No. I said, quite explicitly, that the amount of parking that we are requesting through this permit is below the maximums that zoning allows. 169 November 17, 1998 Mr. Echemendia: No. In the.... Mr. Cooper: No variances have even been contemplated on that. Mr. Echemendia: I guess my question is, do you know, based on the concept plan that you have now, whether you will need any variances, special exceptions, etcetera, as may be required, depending on what the proposed development is going to look like? Mr. Cooper: Based on the concept plan, as it stands today, we anticipate no variances. Mr. Echemendia: You anticipate but you don't know what the answer will be because you don't have a development plan with you. Mr. Cooper: But, you know what, I can't tell you what the market's going to be in three years. Vice Chairman Plummer: How many years? Mr. Cooper: You're asking questions... pick two years. Pick a number. None of us are...it's one of the complications of doing master plans and doing groups of buildings. You know, and point of fact, nobody can tell you inch by inch what this will be. But we're very clear on what the uses will be, the densities will be. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Cooper, the answer is to the question is no. Mr. Echemendia: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's all we need. We don't need an editorial. Mr. Plummer. Mr. David Plummer: Oh, boy. There is an exhibit of the street systems surrounding this site. Let me, please, get on the other side of the podium. For the record, my name is David Plummer, RL-U-M-M-E-R, a traffic consultant for the Miami One. Vice Chairman Plummer: And, unfortunately, have an office in Coral Gables and nothing in the City of Miami. Mr. Plummer: That's correct. Pardon? Mr. Plummer: I sure would, and we may. If I could look this just to orient you, is the same downtown area Mr. Cooper talked, the block numbers A, B, C and D. I think you're all familiar with that. Second Avenue, being one-way, running along our west side. Biscayne Boulevard beginning and going north. Biscayne Boulevard Way ... it took me a long time to figure out what that street name was. That's the one that runs in front of the Dupont. And let me say this, that at the, at this level, Alex Cooper and the team have set the land uses that we're going to put on this site. My series of studies begin now. With this approval, we have to develop what we call a concept plan for traffic, and maybe there's a better word, will set the geometric for the improvements for a build -out condition before they come in and apply for a single block permit, so that you will be receiving back. And the reason that it's important that we balance it with a plan is that we have to be very sensitive about the needs for First Union's access; the needs for the Dupont Hotel's access. And one of the things we're going to try to do is make this street system more pedestrian friendly and all of those things require, not only our needs, but the needs for the rest of the City of Miami and downtown. And, as was mentioned before, we're also working now to see if we can't get a people mover station that would be adjacent to one of our towers and all of those will come together in the buildout traffic study.. Vice Chairman Plummer: We offered that at one time and it was denied by the applicant at the time. Mr. Plummer: This applicant? Vice Chairman Plummer: Not this applicant, no. He's a new boy on the block. 170 November 17, 1998 Mr. Plummer: We are enthused about it and I think, J.L., you know, from our years down here, what had been a negative for a lot of property owners about transfer stations close to the site and that's the reason this alignment is pushed into public right-of-way, is now become very positive. Vice Chairman Plummer: David, my problem is simple. You know, it doesn't take a traffic designer. It takes somebody behind the wheel of a car, at eight o'clock in the morning, trying to get off of that expressway. Mr. Plummer: That's correct. Vice Chairman Plummer: Now, with the count that is presently there today, and I don't know whether it's 10 cars or ten thousand, we're talking about an additional seven thousand from this project alone. We're talking, I don't know, seven, ten thousand from the Brickell area. Now, you know, every street, I'm sure, has a capacity and my concern is, that I'm being told by the Planning Department, if you go to the maximum of what you're planning right now, you've got to come up with eighty-eight hundred and fifty-eight parking spaces. You know, and all I'm saying to you is, when can you reach a point that you can't move? We're darn near grid lock now. Now, I'm concerned about adding, and you're very much aware, more than anybody than me, that you'd go to the north and start south. You're talking about the Performing Arts. You're talking about the new arena. You're talking aboutBayside. You're talking about the park. All of that traffic coming down. Where is -- where are we going to be able to move? And that's my concern. I got to tell you. Mr. Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, that's why in downtown you have the people mover and the Metr&Rail and it would be good for it. I mean, that's the biggest white elephant we have. Vice Chairman Plummer: Joe. Commissioner Sanchez: People -- they're being forced to use it. Vice Chairman Plummer: If people used it, I would say great. You know, let me just very quickly and, then, I'll move. Commissioner Gort: J.L., let me ask a question. Vice Chairman Plummer: Sure, go ahead. Commissioner Gort: What do we do then? We don't do any-- we don't build anymore... Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Plummer: But I'm just saying that there's plans that have got to be made. There's people going to have to give property up so that we can widen these roads. There's going to have to be give and take. Because let me tell you something. I don't know what this guy paid for these four blocks but the one thing he doesn't need is to have grid lock, where he can't get people into them. You know, Willie, what I want to tell you, you know, we built a one billion dollar ($1,000,000,000) rapid transit in this community. One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000). It was designed to carry eight hundred and sixty thousand people a day. The biggest day they ever had was Grand Prix for sixty-eight thousand people, OK. Now, the County screwed up entirely because the feeder bus system was supposed to be the answer and they lost out because they didn't have the money. You go to these parking lots, they're empty. People aren't riding rapid transit, so much so that now the County's putting in that darn cockamamie bus system lane that goes to Homestead, everybody is getting killed on. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but why aren't they using it? Vice Chairman Plummer: No, it's not a laughing matter. I'm sorry. But it's true. I mean, you know, you can talk about the people mover; you can talk about rapid transit, but if people don't use it, and they're not, we're in serious trouble. Mr. Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: J.L., I think you're right but, at the same time, you know, that's what New York 171 November 17, 1998 has. I mean... Vice Chairman Plummer: I don't want New York. Commissioner Regalado: You can't move and drive in New York and, yet, it's the best and the biggest and the most important city in the world. And we want to be like that, we have to just take what we need to be a great city. I think, however, that, with imagination, you can help some of these problems. They are talking about, you know, boats and boardwalks and sea and water and I think that it's getting to the point where to get to the commercial area of your project and maybe to other areas of downtown, you can use ferries. You can use boats that people would park or tourists park in Watson Island or other parts of the City and ferry people in. I would tell you that a lot of people would like to use that just because of the fun and the fact that they can get out and to their houses without the grid lock of downtown. Whether we approve or not that project, grid lock is going to continue and increase in Downtown Miami because that's the way it is. In Miami, in Los Angeles, a person spends about sixty-two hours a year on grid lock, according to this study that was done. So, I'm sure that you're familiar with this study. Mr. Plummer: It was in the paper. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, let me tell you, you might like it and you might want it but I don't. Commissioner Regalado: Well, you know, we can't say, you know, we have to figure out a way to solve the traffic problem in order to approve that. There's no way. There's no way because roads are not built as they should when they were built. So, I would think that, I would hope that you people will start thinking about different ways to -- there will be, I'm sure, people that would like to come in helicopters. I mean, executives, heliport in the top of the place. That's New York. And that's the way a big city has to think. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: J.L., there's an old saying that says, "Sometimes you've got to crack open a few eggs to make an omelet." Vice Chairman Plummer: You don't want me to touch that statement. Commissioner Sanchez: But let me tell you something. Vice Chairman Plummer: In Spanish or in English. Commissioner Sanchez: This is probably one of the best projects that have come to downtown development in a long time and if we look at it -- you know, we constantly have people complaining, all the taxes are too high, the taxes are too high, but they don't want to develop. They don't want changes. This is-- how much money is this going to bring into the City? I guarantee you, it's going to bring a lot of recurring revenue to this City. Traffic, that's just a minor thing there. I mean, when I go downtown, I go to the arena and stuff, I take the people mover because traffic is bad. Vice Chairman Plummer: Find out how much the impact fees are going to be also. Commissioner Sanchez: J.L., that's what democracy is all about. It's beautiful. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Listen, David, Let's try to wrap this thing up because, you know, you're not here today with an application, OK, and I understand that. Mr. Plummer: That's correct. Vice Chairman Plummer: And, look, I want that project to be downtown but I want it to be where everybody is free and wants to welcome it. All I'm saying to you is, God, you've got to address the problem of cars. There's absolutely -- you can't deny it. It's got to be. Now, I want to tell you and I want to be honest with you real quick like, up front, you better be pulling permits before the two years are up because I'm not going to be looking toward extensions. 172 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Sanchez: What is it that they need here, today? Because I'm willing to make a motion and call the question. Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir, your motion is always in order. What do you wish? Mr. Maxwell: The opposition may have a couple of questions. They do have a right... Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, you know, we're at -- Commissioner Sanchez: Let's go because we're not going to spend all day on this. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: We have a presentation; we have opposite view, and we have rebuttal. Now, I'm not going to let this thing go on all day. Mr. Maxwell: No. What happened, in this particular instance was... Mr. Echemendia: J.L., I just have two questions for the.... Vice Chairman Plummer: Ask your two questions, be brief, and your answers are brief. Mr. Maxwell: It happened because the presenters bifurcated theirs. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, OK, they bifurcated. That's their right. Next time I'm going to set a time limit, which I didn't want to do. Mr. Echemendia: J.L., one thing I would just ask Lourdes to, Lourdes Slazyk, who's your principal planner, if that's her correct title, to clarify the issue of the two years because we weren't quite sure whether they have two years... Vice Chairman Plummer: Lourdes, answer the question. Mr. Echemendia: Each time they come back on the substantial modification, does that mean two years after that and two years ... what exactly... ? Vice Chairman Plummer: Lourdes, answer the question. Ms. Slazyk: The answer there would depend on their request. They have a right, in two years, to ask for an extension of time... Vice Chairman Plummer: two years from when? Ms. Slazyk: On the entire thing. It's two years from today, that they have a right to ask for an extension of time. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Ms. Slazyk: They could ask for.... Vice Chairman Plummer: The second question. Ms. Slazyk: ... continuous extensions for each of the four phases. Vice Chairman Plummer: The second question. Mr. Echemendia: The second question is the Major Use Special Permit Concept Plan language in Brickell 173 November 17, 1998 on the River, which we incorporated into the record, states that "maps submitted indicate that land uses of the property and the project's function, building elevations, sections and perspectives showing the proposed materials, vertical profile and height and orientation to streets are included in the drawings submitted with this application." My question to Miss Slazyk would be, is any of that material included as part of this application and having reviewed a litany of Major Use Applications for the City of Miami, is this the normal procedure or is this, my understanding is, this is one of two cases, in maybe two hundred cases, where this has been the procedure? Could you... Vice Chairman Plummer: Lourdes, answer the question. Mr. Echemendia: Two prong question. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Yes, this is, there has been a precedent to this before and Brickell Square was the precedent and no, this application did not have elevations but they were not required. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Any further questions? Any further discussion by the Commission? Mr. Echemendia: One last question, J.L. Commissioner Sanchez: I made a motion. Vice Chairman Plummer: You said two. Mr. Echemendia: One was just elaborating on your issue and, then, there was the two prong, just one last issue. Vice Chairman Plummer: Go on, get it out. Mr. Echemendia: It's important for the record, J.L. Vice Chairman Plummer: Get it out. Mr. Echemendia: Substantial change in the Code is defined as any other change which, in the evaluation of the zoning administrator, has not been part of the prior application, has not been reviewed and evaluated by staff and has a serious effect on the project proposed by the application. To the extent that you have framed this as every phase having to come back as a substantial modification, is it your opinion that these future applications will have a serious affect on a proposed application? Is that why ?... Vice Chairman Plummer: Lourdes, answer the question. Ms. Slazyk: No. I have said... Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Is there any further discussion by the City Commission? Mr. Sanchez, you have a motion. Commissioner Sanchez: I made the motion to move it. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Mr. Regalado. Anyone else wishing to discuss the issue? Commissioner Gort: What I'd like to ask... Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort. Commissioner Gort: What I would like to ask of the applicant is to continue to work with the Downtown Development Authority and their personnel. Mr. Prunka is one of the board members. He's very active with 174 November 17, 1998 0 it. And I think he's your next door neighbor. I think you should be able to work with him and sit down with him and be able to work out some of the worries that they have. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: And give him a free office. Ms. Dougherty: That's fully our intent. Thank you very much. Commissioner Gort: No, he doesn't need a free office. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. This is a... Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele. Commissioner Teele: Let me just, I followed this overly, long drawn out process by the... Vice Chairman Plummer: I'm trying to cut it down. Commissioner Teele: Does the motion include any of the language that the opponent was seeking? As I understand it, it does. Lucia ... it doesn't? Vice Chairman Plummer: No. My understanding, it does not. Ms. Dougherty: This is what I have committed to do... Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me? Ms. Dougherty: Sorry. Commissioner Teele: But I would like to hear just a little bit from Lucia. Is there any middle ground... Vice Chairman Plummer: Ms. Dougherty. Commissioner Teele: ... at all? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, indeed. Here's what I committed to do. I will stipulate on the record today that, prior to filing any amendment for a Major Use Special Permit Application, we will meet with the owners of the property. We're guarding their concerns for the pedestrian and vehicular access view corridors, loading docks, service systems, and other uses prior to filing that application. Mr. Echemendia: If that were a condition, Mr. Teele, we would, at least, be a lot closer as a stipulation that isn't... Commissioner Teele: Counsel, you know the rules of the Bar. Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. I apologize. Commissioner Teele: Don't you accept her word as a lawyer and as a member? She's a very distinguished person. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, you're a lawyer. You know why they bury lawyers 12 feet instead of six? Because deep down they're really good people. Commissioner Teele: I think what she's offering is in good faith and I think you're a winner here today. Vice Chairman Plummer: I think were all a winner, including the City. Call the roll. 175 November 17, 1998 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 98-1151 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE ONE MIAMI PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT THE PROPERTIES GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SOUTHEAST 2nd AVENUE ON THE WEST, BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WAY AND THE MIAMI RIVER ON THE SOUTH, BISCAYNE BAY ON THE EAST AND SOUTHEAST 2ND AND 3RD STREETS ON THE NORTH, MIAMI, FLORIDA; TO BE COMPRISED OF A PHASED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTING OF 300 HOTEL ROOMS, 1500 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 1,200,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND 7000 PARKING SPACES WITH ACCESSORY AMENITY SPACES AND RECREATIONAL USES; 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 Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. A. Cooper, would you take Mr. Sanchez back to New York with you because he seems to like it very, very, very much. The Commissioner of the month. All right. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Cooper, just look at the difference in generations. Vice Chairman Plummer: Yeah, right. Bet your bippy. All right Item Number 3. Get ready to make your presentation to the City Administration. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning Department): PZ-3 is a... Vice Chairman Plummer: Wait a minute. What I'm looking at, with the exception of Item 4, Items 10 through 19 are all City Planning Department. If I start to run short on time, we're leaving here at nine o'clock. So, if you want any of those that you feel that they are absolutely vital, you better start getting your priority list because we're walking out at nine. Item Number 3, 3463-3571 Main Highway. Mr. -- Lucia, again. OK. Let me ask, is there opposition? All right, fine. So, now the Planning Department will put on their presentation first. 176 November 17, 1998 Ms. Slazyk: I'll be very quick. The Planning Department is... Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: ...recommending approval with conditions, as specified in your package. This is a Major Use Special Permit for a planned unit development. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. For the record and television, would you've specify what those conditions are? I hope they're brief. Ms. Slazyk: They're fairly brief. The first ones are the standard conditions on every Major Use Special Permit; that they give us the temporary parking construction plan, sidewalk and swale area improvements; they allow archeological monitoring on the property, and there's some zoning conditions regarding minimum width of driveways and clear passage for vehicles. The department also includes a landscape plan and a mitigation plan that they must have in place prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. This is specifically important for this property because there is a hammock preservation and restoration area within the project. And the last one is something... Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. A. Cooper and company, if you have a private meeting-- Mr. Longuiera, Major, I know it's not within your purview as a major to tell these people to be quiet but we have no other officer of the law here. Mr. Sharlon, would you close the door, please? That will help us. Thank you. Proceed, Lourdes. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Finally, as in response to a concern from the Urban Development Review Board, that the waterfront units were not -- the final designs were not prepared because they're going to be selling them to individuals who may want some customization of those units. The department is going to require that they get review and approval of those waterfront units prior to the issuance of those building permits. Otherwise, it was recommended for approval by Planning Advisory Board and the Planning Department recommends the same. Vice Chairman Plummer: Let me ask a question. Was there a traffic study done? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, it was. Vice Chairman Plummer: And that'll be part of their presentation? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: Because let me tell you, Main Highway is no better than the other one I just talked about. We're meeting, by the way, for my colleague's information, in November or the first part of December, Commissioner Morales, myself, and the State Senator, in reference to the traffic. Absolute horrendous problem that exist on Main Highway, especially when the two schools are emptying out at the same time. There has got to be something done. It cannot continue because it is getting absolutely dangerous. Miss Dougherty. Ms. Slazyk: One more thing. Vice Chairman Plummer: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: There are two scrivener's errors in the draft legislation. I've already given them to the Law Department. I'm going to give to the Clerk to make sure they're corrected. It's just -- the name of the developer doesn't have limited and there was a date that was incorrect here. I'll give those to the Clerk as well. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Ms. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon. 177 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Five minutes? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Again, for the record, Lucia Dougherty, 1221 Brickell Avenue. Here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant, which, in this case, is Albanese-Popkin Development Company. Ed Popkin, Leonard Albanese, and Wen Hood are with us this afternoon. This is a luxury estate home development, which is located between Barnacle and Peacock Park in the Grove. Albenese-Popkin is known for such development, particularly in Palm Beach County. Most notably as the housing development in the Boca Raton Resort and Club, for which they have received numerous awards for their historic sensitivity. I'm sure you're aware of the history of this site. Fourteen years ago the current owners asked for a commercial development of the site. The City Commission denied that commercial development. And, for 14 years, there has been litigation involving this site. This application is, in a sense, saying, uncle, we give up. You're correct. We are -- we have given up all those issues. We want to develop under the current zoning, which is single family. We are not developing, however, to the maximum zoning which is permitted. There are 56 units which are permitted. We're developing 41. There are no required variances for this project. It preserves and enhances the Hammock area and, in fact, this application has been amended twice to make the Hammock area even bigger, including one time taking the tennis courts out and taking two units away. We had initially two more units and we've reduced it down to 41. There are four times greater setbacks than are required next to Peacock Park and also the Barnacle. There's only five feet setback requirements and we're providing 20. The setback meets and exceeds that which is required on the water. The guard house is 130 feet from Main Highway. The first residential unit is 400 feet from Main Highway. Main Highway, for all intents and purposes, is going to continue to look like an estate home. We've tried to work very diligently with our neighbors. We've met with civic organizations, including St. Steven's, which I know the father is here and he can speak and I think he's supportive of the project. The Barnacle, the Coconut Grove Civic Club, which we have an agreement with. The Coconut Grove/Chamber of Commerce, which has supported the project and has submitted a resolution for your record. The Greater Miami/Chamber of Commerce has also resolved in our favor and this is part of your record. The Beacon Council likewise. We have met with and have an agreement with the Abitare Homeowners Association. Tucker Gibbs will address what the issues are from his standpoint and why the covenant, which preserves not only the Hammocks, but also the current zoning. Regardless of whether or not this project is developed, you are assured of the current zoning and the preservation of the Hammock. A couple of questions had been raised by some of our neighbors about the size of the Hammock that we have preserved, and one of the issues -- the City has stated, after they have reviewed our biological studies from Mark Mc Mahon and our landscape architecture, Grant Thombrough, their plans, and they have determined, unequivocally, that we have preserved the most amount of Hammock that is reasonable under this development. We have letters from William Stern of the South Florida of Florida, professor of botany, who was formerly the Chairman of the botany department of the Smithsonian Institute, saying that this is the... Commissioner Teele: What department? Ms. Dougherty: The University of Florida, Department of Botany. And he was formally the head -- the Chairman of the department of Botany for the Smithsonian Institute. We also have on file-- and I'm going to give you copies -- of a couple of letters. One was from Dade County, which says overall, "the site appears to be a very low biological value." In addition to that, they say, "however, the exact size of the Hammock and the precise location of the Hammock cannot be determined by any studies that they have done." So, the issue of whether or not the Hammock is one point five acres or three acres cannot be determined by anything that Dade County has done because they simply haven't done the studies but we have. And the best evidence of this record is our studies, which have determined and looked at every single solitary tree in this Hammock. My clients believe that this plan is generous, in terms of the preservation of the Hammock, and is not viable to remove any further units or any other amenities for this project. We also have a letter from Rice Stallings, who is a planner with Wallace, Roberts & Todd, and he is also here to address any issues you may have from a planning standpoint, and I'm going to put this letter in the record as well. With that, I would like-- excuse me -- Wen Hood to present the project to you. Vice Chairman Plummer: You're about out of time. Ms. Dougherty: Because this may be appealed, we're going to have to ask you to give us a little bit more leeway, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wenford Hood: I'm Wenford Hood, 1005 Northwest 5th Street, Boca Raton, Florida. General partner 178 November 17, 1998 with Cloisters on the Bay. We'd like to briefly describe our project to you, and Ed Popkin, general partner, will lead off, if you don't mind. Mr. Edward Popkin: Thank you very much. As Lucia has told you, we've been actively involved in the resident... Vice Chairman Plummer: Your name and mailing address, please. Mr. Popkin: My name is Edward Popkin. My address is 2499 Glades Road, Boca Raton, Florida. I'm a general partner with Albanese-Popkin Development Group, as well as the Cloisters on the Bay, Ltd. As Lucia indicated to you, our companies have extensive background in developing single family homes in residential neighborhoods, such as this. We've constructed over 500 homes in Palm Beach County over the past number of years. We feel very comfortable on this venue. We're extremely pleased to be in the Grove and looking at the property and we look forward to a successful development there. As Lucia indicated, we're not asking for any variances. Our community is solely residential. We're within all single family height limitations. Our density is 20 percent than that-- 20 percent less than that allowed by Code. This property is properly zoned for 56 units. We initially started with 44 units and have brought it down to 41 units. One of the important things I'd like to discuss with you is, some of the contact we've had in the community and the responses that we've had. We spent an enormous amount of time in Coconut Grove and in Miami. We've met with the Civic Club. We've met with the Barnacle. We've met with St. Stevens. We've met with our neighbors at Abitare. We've met with the Streets of Mayfair. We've met with Commodore Plaza. We've had an overwhelming positive response in every particular meeting that we've had. We feel that we've listened very carefully to the concerns of the neighborhood, the concerns of the people in the community. We've tried very hard to be receptive to those concerns. We feel that the design plan we have incorporates all of the concerns raised by the neighbors and, again, I would emphasize to you that we've had an overwhelming, positive support and we've been very sensitive to those issues raised by the community. In addition, we've undergone a major economic study, which was done by Maurice, Brown and Arches, and that's part of your — part of the record. And if you'll note from that, from the new income in the community, the creation of new jobs, project -based construction, salary, wages, increased tax revenues, the estimate that they've arrived at is that the construction period impact of the City of Miami will be approximately thirty-six million five hundred thousand dollars ($36,500,000), with an annual ongoing impact of five million five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000). Vice Chairman Plummer: Would you agree to a first source hiring? Mr. Popkin: Excuse me? Vice Chairman Plummer: Would you agree to a first source hiring? Mr. Popkin: Yes, we would. Vice Chairman Plummer: Part of the record. Next item. Mr. Popkin: Yeah. Thank you very much. I'd like to introduce you to Wen Hood, who'll just give you a brief description of the property and what our plans are. Thank you. Mr. Wenford Hood: Briefly. As we became introduced to the property, the first thing that we became aware of was the sensitivity of the Barnacle state park, the historic park to our south. There was a sensitivity on the part of so many folks in the community that, as we've done at so many of our other projects, we spent a significant amount of time talking with the folks at the Barnacle about being good neighbors. We planned together a number of items that I think are important for the project and we'd like to make you briefly aware of. We've discussed jointly designing areas of the wall and fence, where the properties meet, and we're looking at the probability of part stucco and part iron so that it fits historically with the Barnacle in the way they would like to see the property. We've obviously committed to maintaining the Hammock. We are planning and agreed to provide additional trees for screening at the front areas of the property, so that we can continue the native field of the Hammock along Main Highway at our property and at theirs. We will have a homeowner's association, which documents will provide for perpetual maintenance of all these improvements. Another part of our good neighborhood commitment is that we've agreed to provide a selection of trees that we will plant on the Barnacle property, at their request and discretion and locations 179 November 17, 1998 that will be compatible with the historical nature of the Barnacle. We're going to propose to Florida Power & Light and to Bell South that we underground our utilities across our site, and where they would enter the Barnacle, we've had discussions with the Barnacle and we will agree to facilitate then the addition of utilities to the Barnacle site that will be protected underground and not susceptible to wind damage and so on, as some of the utilities are now that are tacked to the fence that is there. We're going to, and we've agreed to do with the Barnacle, provide a fence security during construction. We will control construction noise on Saturday, particularly, when there are a lot of events that the Barnacle has for school children and others. And, in general, cooperate with weekly communication and discussion throughout the construction process so that we accommodate each other's needs. Vice Chairman Plummer: If this matter is approved here today, how long would it be before you pull a permit to start? Mr. Hood: We would hope to have the first permit within 60 to 90 days. Vice Chairman Plummer: So, if you were to be here approved today, we put six month mandate of a building permit, you would have no problem? Mr. Hood: We will do everything in our power to do it. As a matter of fact, we've... Vice Chairman Plummer: You didn't hear what I said. I said, a six month mandate to pull a permit, you would have no problem with that? You said in 90 days. Mr. Popkin: We don't have control over what the City with or will not do. We've already submitted our -- we've submitted plans for preliminary review so that we can be ready to file for a permit as soon as the City with allow us to do so. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Mr. Popkin: We'll go forward with... Vice Chairman Plummer: We'll get down to thenitty gritty on that, if its to be approved. Proceed. Mr. Hood: One last point, if I may, on Barnacle historical site. We've understood-- we've had a number of discussions with Barnacle Society. We understand that they would like to have the existing medal pavilion thatched so that it would be more in keeping with historical nature of the site. We would like - we will plan to meet with them in support that movement and that activity. Going briefly through the rest of the presentation. Construction will be under the supervision Leonard Albanese, who's our general partner. We do that in-house so that we control the quality. Jan Jones International is our artistic coordinator. Kaye Communications is our marketing and community relations people. I'd like to just go briefly through a series of slides, if you will, that are compatible with the boards and the pictures that you see here, that will show generally the classical metatry (phonetic) in architecture that we have in the project. It will show the native theme of the landscaping that we're proposing and will continue. Will show how we're proposing to enhance the Hammock area at the front of the property and, generally, give you a look at a amenities and the residences that we're proposing. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right, sir. Thank you. Mr. Hood: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Does that wrap up, Lucia, for you? Ms. Dougherty: We'd like our landscape architect to talk about the preservation of the Hammock. And, if you want to hear about the traffic, we have a traffic consultant here. It's up to you. Vice Chairman Plummer: You want to listen to it or not? Commissioner Sanchez: No. 180 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: All right, we don't. We'll now hear from the objectors. Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Commissioner, before you... Vice Chairman Plummer: You will have time for rebuttal. Ms. Dougherty: Very good. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Maxwell. Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Quick comment for the record. One of the items that was passed out to you by the applicant was a letter from DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management), Emily Young. I would advise the Commission that they need to be careful in evaluating this particular document because some mention is made in it to the subject site as being a possible acquisition site. That's a very dangerous legal situation, as you know, and I would advise you all to totally disregard this particular document, except for the technical information that it may have it in, and give no consideration to the fact that any mention it makes of acquisition. Also, there may be other individuals that may mention the fact that this subject site may be acquired by someone else. I would also advise you to that too, should be totally disregarded as irrelevant and your decision should be based solely on the criteria for the... Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Who wants to speak on the opposition? All right, I see two people. I see more people. All right, I'm going to limit you to two minutes each. I'm going to ask you not to be repetitious, if you can. Starting off with your name and mailing address. You're first. Ms. Juanita Greene: My name is Juanita Greene. I'm Vice President of Friends of the Everglades. My address is 700 Biltmore Way, Coral Gables, Florida. Vice Chairman Plummer: Shame on you. Ms. Greene: Yeah. I'm here as a ghost from the past to remind you all that about oh, 15, 16-- 19 years ago the City of Miami relinquished a huge chunk of Bayfront Park for commercial purposes and, at the time, it was generally believed -- it was generally believed that, in return for losing part of Bayfront Park, we would gain some more waterfront in Coconut Grove. There are stories that substantiate that. I have some in my hands. Some of... Vice Chairman Plummer: You're referring to Bayside? Ms. Greene: Yes, that's right. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. I was trying to figure out what you were referring to. Ms. Greene: Oh, I'm sorry. I should have said Bayside. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Ms. Greene: But, anyway... Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, could the Clerk... Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele. Commissioner Teele: ...make copies of those? I'd like to review them and make them a part of the record. Return them to the lady before she... Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Clerk, if you would, get the documents when she's finished and make copies for the Commission. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioners. 181 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell: If I may, just to again reiterate what I said a moment ago. I believe what this particular speaker is addressing is the very issue that I would suggest to you should not be a part of these proceedings. She's -- I don't want to go into it because I don't want to put information on the record too, Commissioner, but I don't believe that those documents should be included in these proceedings, Commissioner, and I would so advise you. Commissioner Teele: Well, have you reviewed the documents? Mr. Maxwell: I know what those documents are. I have not reviewed that but if they're -- if she's talking about... Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Well, wait. Whoa, whoa. Time out. Commissioner Teele: You're going to offer an opinion... Vice Chairman Plummer: You review the documents and if you have no problem with the documents, then you give them to us. If you have a problem, then you don't give them to us. Commissioner Teele: Opine on something you haven't read? Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Greene, I'm sorry that we --somewhere along the line you're going to not be interrupted. Ms. Greene: It's all right. I just wanted to say that -- there's been a lot unfairness on all sides about this piece of property and, technically, I don't know why the plans that were laid way back then were not pursued. But there was a general understanding among the public, in that they were going to get something in return for giving up something, and it looks like maybe that's not going to happen. But it would be very nice -- it would be such a refreshing thing if the lungs of Coconut Grove were expanded. Coconut Grove is jammed in, not only by traffic, but many other ways and we could sure use some more publicly owned waterfront in Coconut Grove. Thank you, gentlemen. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker at this microphone. Commissioner Teele: Can we get an opinion from the attorney? Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, we haven't got the documents yet. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, I have them here. All those I reviewed so far, I think should be rejected. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Yes, ma'am. Your name and mailing address, please. Ms. Nancy Masterson: Nancy Masterson, 6425 Southwest 52nd Street, Miami. Dade County resident for 21 years. Member of the City of Miami Committee on Beautification and president of Trees for Dade and a certified arborist. I work for American Forrest and we help cities to determine what the valve of their urban trees and their urban vegetation is. And like — you're looking at who gains and who loses with the decisions that you make here today. So, when you look at what you gain by passing this -- well, the owner gains, the developer gains, but perhaps, if he sold it to a public entity, he would still gain. Who gains is the fort}one millionaire families, who get to use that fenced -in private Hammock. And what you gain is more traffic on Main Highway and you gain more run-off into Biscayne Bay because -- and, you see, by putting forty-one homes, plus the swimming pool, plus the club house, plus the guard gate, plus the four -lane road that goes into it, plus parking and the driveways, what you gain is, oh, maybe 85 percent in pervious surfaces, where, right now, you have green space. So, you get all that run-off from cars into it. What you lose, you lose the opportunity to restore that natural area forever. You've restored Simpson Park, that was overrun by exotics, so all this talk about how it's degraded is -- we know that it can be restored. We didn't plow down the pine trees after Hurricane Andrew because the pinelands are still intact. It's a plant community. You're losing canopy. You're losing air quality. You're losing storm water cleansing. And I think you're losing the trust of some of the citizens that thought that, in 1985, that by developing Bayside, you would make this public 182 November 17, 1998 property, and you might be losing respect of future generations because you'll be paving the last piece of waterfront paradise in the City of Miami. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Masterson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Theodora Long: My name is Theodora Long. I'm president of the Grove Park Homeowners Association. And back in 1984, I came before you when this issue came up and the developers had a different plan. They wanted to put a Coco Walk type facility at this property, and my children were in school at St. Stevens, and a group of us came before you, along with Majorie Stoneman Douglas. And, as I recall -- and I haven't gone through all my closets to find the resolution -- but there is a resolution that you, the Commission -- and I know Mayor Carollo was on the Commission then and you, Mr. Plummer, on the Commission then. And it's a resolution number 84-1448, and that's where the City of Miami approved for the state to buy this property and turn it into public land, and that was an approved resolution. And, in all my years of coming and going, I have not seen that there has been an amendment to this resolution. And tonight you're going to make a resolution to either go with this facility, so I'd like to ask what happened to Resolution 1448 from 1984? Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, I was here but the old hard disk ain't what it used to be. Ms. Long: Well, as a citizen... Vice Chairman Plummer: What the hell are you laughing about? You've got the same problem. At least I've got hair. Ms. Long: I mean, it's time that the time citizens have made the City accountable. If you promised to make this park land for us and we haven't heard from you since 1984, we still think that you're going to promise it as park land. Vice Chairman Plummer: Ma'am, I can't answer your question. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele. Commissioner Teele: I don't think you should have to. I think the staff should -- does the staff have an institutional recollection or history of this? Mr. Maxwell: Not by number. Vice Chairman Plummer: They weren't here in'84. Commissioner Teele: Well, but, J.L., I mean, this is not a light matter. I mean, has anybody... Ms. Long: Well, what I want to bring... Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. Has anybody gone to the Clerk? I'll ask the Clerk, could you all see if we can find resolution 84-... Ms. Long: One four four eight. Commissioner Teele: ...1448? Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Yes, its on micro film. Ifs'84. We-- our micro film is currently broken, our machine. 183 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Teele: Our machine is broken? Mr. Foeman: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: It was broke by the developers. go ahead, ma'am. Finish up, please. Ms. Long: Well, let me just fmish up. That, until you go back in your records and see what you did promise in 1884, I'd like for you to this... Commissioner Teele: Eighteen eight} -four? Ms. Long: And you... Commissioner Teele: Nineteen eight -four. Ms. Long: Nineteen eighty-four, right. Vice Chairman Plummer: Yes, I was here in 1884. Commissioner Teele: I could assure you, I wasn't here. Ms. Long: Because, again, when the Commission makes a promise, I know from my homeowner's group, you know, and we come back, why do we always have to come back and fight for what we -- what you've already promised us? It should be something that, you know, once you said it's a deal, it's a deal. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Ms. Long: So, that's what I wanted to bring to your attention. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. The gentleman. Mr. Jonathan Ullman: Thank you. Hi. My name is Jonathan Ullman and I'm the National Sierra Club representative for South Florida. Now... Vice Chairman Plummer: Do you have a mailing address, sir? Mr. Ullman: Yes, 2937 Southwest 27th Avenue in Coconut Grove. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Ullman: My -- I'm representing an organization which is the largest grassroots conservation organization in the country. We have a half a million members. And when I bring people into Miami, the first thing they say is, you have such a beautiful bay front. Where are the public parks? I mean, the parks with grass, not the other parks. And I say to them, well, you know, we did have a lot of public land here for parks but it's gone. That over there, that's the arena, where the public park land is. That over there, that is Bayside, where the public park is supposed to be. They say, well, you know, don't you have any kind of mitigation program? And I said, yes, we did have a mitigation program. That was in 1985 for theBayside, the Rouse Company project. And that money was supposed to be used for the purchase of Bayfront park. Well, this is the last piece ofbayfront available for a park and I feel like the people of the City of Miami are like the Indians. We gave up our land and we got beads in exchange. Except, all we're getting in the City of Miami is false promises. Show me the park land. When are we going to get the mitigation parks? Vice Chairman Plummer: All right, sir. Thank you. Mr. Ullman: I'm sorry. It's 15 years later. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ullman: I'd like to submit this for the record. 184 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Please -- well, she'll give it to the Clerk. Sir? Mr. Michael Ray: Hello. Vice Chairman Plummer: Proceed. Mr. Ray: My name is Michael Ray, 124 South Miami Avenue. I'm the president elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Local Chapter, and I've been a member of the Friends of the Everglades since it was founded. Vice Chairman Plummer: Couldn't imagine immigration on waterfront property. Mr. Ray: Some lawyers like the trees too. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right, go ahead. Mr. Ray: I grew up in and around the Grove. I went to St. Hughs. I was an altar boy there. This land, it's gray and I'm sure it's completely legal and it's a wonderful project, if you can afford a million dollar ($1,000,000) house and up but what about the public? This is a jewel. This is one of the few pieces of open land left that should be preserved for the future for the public. I would ask this body to, at least, defer and look into having this land acquired by the state or the county or someone else because once this is developed, it's gone forever from the public. And can you imagine the benefit of making this park land for the future, so when the people come to the Grove, they have open space that they could all enjoy? Everyone in the City of Miami and not just the people who are able to live in the 41 units. As Commissioner Plummer said, we have, quote, streets you can't move on because of gridlock. Well, if you're all familiar with Main Highway and the way it is now, it's just going to get a lot worse. I'm sure that the project complies with history and presidents of other architecture and all of this but, you know, what about the history of preserving open land for the public's use and enjoyment? Most people would be able to benefit if that were done -- if that were the goal. You all are trustees and guardians for that kind of an ideal for the public thd you represent. To whatever extent you can, do that and acquire this land to preserve and protect for the public. You would be most benefiting your community and best suiting your service as public officers. And I urge you to do that, without allowing this to be developed and setting a precedent and increasing the value, where, if the City does acquire it, they're going to have the pay a lot more money. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The next speaker. Mr. Greg Bush: My name is Greg Bush. I'm director of the Institute for Public History at the University of Miami and I'm a vice president of the Urban Environment League. Vice Chairman Plummer: And a mailing address of? Mr. Bush: I'm sorry? Vice Chairman Plummer: A mailing address of? Mr. Bush: History Department, University of Miami. Will that work? Vice Chairman Plummer: Sure. Mr. Bush: OK. I would think so. I'm here to ask you to defer and to put further consideration into this matter at a future date. The history of this place underscores to me that the proposed development is grossly inappropriate. What you have here in this piece of property, from what I understand, is originally the land of Edmond Beasley in the 19th Century. What that means is that this land was, arguably, the first homestead in all of South Florida. That's significant. That means that this is one of the oldest pieces of property and, as far as I'm concerned, it means that it deserves to be preserved in its natural state. It doesn't need to have a house, like the Barnacle, to be preserved. So, I would urge you to follow the dictates that you, yourselves, as Commissioners, in the earlier stage, had designed to keep this as public land, to make it into public land, instead of reverting to a place for a few millionaires. I think it's grossly inappropriate to go through with this 185 November 17, 1998 development. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Donna Sweeny: My name is Donna Sweeny. I live at 2000 South Bayshore Drive. I'm on the executive committee of the Coconut Grove Chambers of Commerce. We have met with these developers and, in fact, several of the people on our committee said that they had never seen any developers anywhere bend over backwards in such an effort to please a lot of diverse groups. We passed a resolution, unanimously, supporting this project after studying it for quite some time, so we think it's a real benefit to our community and it certainly is of obviously great economic benefit, particularly to the Commodore Plaza area. So, we're very much in favor of the project. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Gary Held: My name is Gary Held. I reside at 9226 Southwest 26th Avenue. I would like to offer myself up as your institutional memory for tonight. I served, for the last 10 years, as part of the legal team that defended the City in the litigation on this property. I would like to suggest to you that those of who are not familiar with the property, that you take your counsel's advice and not consider acquisition or preservation, which would involve denial of the project, because that is inappropriate under Florida Law and that is part of what was part of the litigation over the last 10 years. Properly before your consideration is whether sufficient amounts of the Hammock have been preserved and I previously, at this recent time, represented an adjoining landowner, who will come before you and say that more of the Hammock should be preserved, and I believe that that is probably the case. However, the project should be decided by you on the merits and not on the potential for preservation of the land itself. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Manuel Alonso-Poch: Manuel Alonso-Poch, 3520 Rockerman Road, Coconut Grove, Florida. I am here to support the project as a resident of Coconut Grove and a merchant of Commodore Plaza. I don't know if you are familiar with what the history of this property has been over the past few years. Mostly, we have experienced a constant traffic from homeless individuals that actually reside somewhere within the property. It creates a negative environment, not only for the surrounding residents, but also for the surrounding merchants in -- specially in Commodore Plaza, and I would urge you to support the project. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Next. Mr. Oliver Bernstein: My name is Oliver Bernstein. I reside at 3608 Royal Palm Avenue, City of Miami. Esteemed Commissioners, I'm a senior at Ransom Everglades School, just down the street, and a lifetime resident of Coconut Grove. I'm here this evening to express my extreme opposition to the proposed construction of 41 luxury townhouses on the last six point three acres of undeveloped bayfront land in Coconut Grove. I've been here since I got out of school today and I speak on behalf of my peers, who could not be here this evening. In my short life, I've seen the Grove mushroom from a small artsy community to a bustling commercial conglomerate. There are certain aspects of Coconut Grove, however, that my friends and I enjoy. I'm not talking about the theaters, restaurants or shops. I'm talking about the public spaces, like Kennedy Park and Peacock Park. If you want to develop the six point three acres in question at all, it should become one of these public places. That way thousands of families can enjoy Miami's natural beauty, not just 41 select upper class ones. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. There's one more speaker. No, there's not one more speaker. All right. Now, you know, we're going to come down to an Amen here, so I'm going to start limiting to one minute because I didn't think there was this many speakers and were starting to get repetitious. So, say what you have to say, don't be repetitious, and let's proceed. Ms. Blanca Mesa: Thank you. My name is Blanca Mesa and I reside at 544 Fernwood Road, Key Biscayne, Florida. I'm here because I'm concerned about a number of things. The principal being that, not enough consideration has been paid to this property and the development proposal. It's gotten here on a fast track. It has not been properly reviewed and I would ask that you defer, even the fact that it just recently went before the Planning Advisory Board last Thursday, just a few days ago. The 30-day requirement 186 November 17, 1998 usually before it gets to the Commission, has been waived by request through the developers. Any property in the City of Miami, this is probably the most significant and most historically environmental and culturally significant. Ifs too important a property. It means too much to this community's history to just casually approve any development project. And I do have, for the record, something I don't think that the attorney will object to, which is merely the history of the Barnacle state historic site. I would like each of you to have a copy. I don't think it's fair that if someone here wants information on what happened in '85, that they should be denied the documents. But, basically, my argument-- I don't want to repeat. I went through the City file and it's replete with waivers, exemptions, and not adequate review. In fact, the most important thing was that this was never reviewed by the Historic and Environment Preservation Board. Instead, it went to the Urban Design Review board, but they had lots of problems with this development. Lots of questions and considerations. They were looking at the ecological value of that hammock. They were looking at the placements of the building, the massive buildings that will be overlooking the Barnacle. Clearly or most important, we must respect this history that we have here. And, for that reason, I'm asking you to reconsider, to allow this to go back to the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board). They never decided. They never approved this. It hasn't been adequately studied. Their exemptions include the fact that this has never been reviewed by the water charter, which would have imposed restrictions with a view of this massive project. Vice Chairman Plummer: You have 10 seconds to wrap up. Ms. Mesa: For the shoreline review. So, I think it's important that we do that. And I just want to respond to something that Lucia had said earlier, which is the Hammock itself. DERM has looked at this. And the reason this property has been determined to be of critical value, both by the State and the County, is because of its relationship to the bay; because of its location between two public parks. We could have a continuous swath of park land in between -- you know, in the heart of the Grove. And because -- in fact, 75 percent of this property has a contiguous tree canopy. There's a high concentration of mature and specimen pioneer trees or oak trees or gumbo limbo trees. These are native hammock trees. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Ms. Mesa: So, there is a value to this and it is quite much more expansive than what the developers plan. I think you really need to reconsider. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Your name and mailing address, please. Ms. Erika King: Good evening. My name is Erika King, I live at 3121 Commodore Plaza. I have been involved with this property for... Commissioner Teele: Excuse me just one minute, ma'am. Please. Ms. King: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: This speaker just said that this didn't go before what committee? Ms. Mesa: The Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. It was elected to go to the Urban Design and Review Board, who had a lot of problems with this development. They never approved it. They never said that it was OK. Commissioner Teele: Who never? Ms. Mesa: The UDRB. Commissioner Teele: But did it go before the Historic Board? Ms. Mesa: No, sir, it did not. And they're the people who are really looking at the ecological value of the 187 November 17, 1998 property. Commissioner Teele: And instead of going to the historic board, it went to the what board? Ms. Mesa: The Urban Design Review Board, as an alternative. But they never reviewed it. They said, we want this to come back so we can look at it again. We have a lot of problems with it. Instead... Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. Ms. Mesa: Sure. Commissioner Teele: Is that a correct statement, Madam Manager? Ms. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): I'd like Lourdes Slazyk to respond to... Ms. Slazyk: What the City code says is that... Commissioner Teele: No, no, no, no. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Answer the question, yes or no. Ms. Slazyk The UDRB was acting as the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) board. The Code says that, when a project has to go before both boards, that the UDRB is considered sufficient. The UDRB is comprised of architects and landscape architects that are fully qualified. Vice Chairman Plummer: Lourdes, answer the question. Ms. Slazyk: It did not go to the HEP board. Vice Chairman Plummer: Is she right or is she wrong? Ms. Slazyk: She's right that it didn't go to the HEP board but it wasn't required to. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK, thank you. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Teele: But did the Board say they wanted more time to review it? Ms. Slazyk: The Board had four months to act on this. They required... Commissioner Teele: Look, look, please, could you answer my question? Did the Board Ms. Slazyk: The Board wanted it to come back. Commissioner Teele: The Board did want it to come back? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Erika. No, no. Erika King, please. Ms. Dougherty: That is absolutely -- sorry. Ms. Erika King: My name is Erika King. I live at 3121, Commodore Plaza. I've been involved with this project, in support of development, for the last 15 years. These people who want the public park here have had 15 years to do -- to come forward and they haven't done it. We need positive, beneficial development in our neighborhood of the Grove. We have plenty of parks. We all know that derelicts and drug users are inhabiting our parks. We're tired of it. What we need is positive growth. Commodore Plaza has suffered because of the developments on the other side of town, and we love this architectural plan that these developers have studied very hard and worked with the community to bring to us. I urge you to see the merits of this project and bring us this positive development. Thank you. 188 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. I, once again, want to warn all of you. We're getting very repetitious. You have something new to add, please do it or I'm going to start cutting down to one minute presentations. Barbara Lange, you're next. Ms. Barbara Lange: Barbara Lange, 3495 Main Highway. I'd like to add that the Urban Development Board -- the last thing they said before they lost the quorum was, they all had a problem with the tennis court. Now, I'm here because I believe that the comp. plan, the preservation ordinance, the environmental preservation ordinance, tends to preserve and protect environmental areas, trees. And the standards of preservation trees and wet -- and natural Hammock simply are not met with this site plan. Destruction for a tennis court is just not -- it should be avoided, under the environmental protection ordinance. I handed out my -- I hired a scientist to look at the property because I believed that there was more hardwood Hammock there than the developer and the owner had at -- that had said there was. Now, you have his report. He's a respected scientist. George Dowripple. The reports, I handed it out in front of you. And there's another question here, and I'm going to make this short. This is R 1 zoning with an SD-18 overlay and that means that you get ten thousand square foot lots with one house on it. Now, with the size of this lot-- with the size of this property, there should be 27 single family homes on it, and my belief is that thePUD (planned unit development) ordinance should follow this and cluster 27 units, town houses, not the 41 that they have. The question is, what are you using, R 1? They're using R-1 but there's an SD-18 overlay that says that you can only have 27 units on this property and that's it. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker. Name, mailing address. Ms. Sallye Jude: Sallye Jude, 200 Edgewater Drive, Coral Gables, Florida. If any of you've had an opportunity to see today's paper, there is a fairly good review of this property. I was at the Coral committee meeting and escorted Mr. Sharlon there to say that he was a willing seller to the state of Florida and to the City of Miami. The interest in this property is a long standing one and an overwhelming support for its preservation for park, and I must tell you that the Barnacle Society never went to its membership to ask their opinions. So, a lot of these figures that you're being given are just frosting on a cake. They're not reality. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. The next speaker. Ms. Neil Kolner: My name is Neil Kolner. I practice law at 124 South Miami Avenue, Miami. Vice Chairman Plummer: Are you here pro bono or representing yourself? Mr. Kolner: I'm on behalf of myself. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Then, we don't get your six hundred dollars ($600). Mr. Kolner: In any event, the -- I have a question for the City Attorney. If it's true what was said earlier, that the City Commission passed an ordinance in 1984, 84-1448, even though they can't find it because the micro film machine is broken, if the Commission did, in fact, pass the ordinance, would it be appropriate for the City to do -- to approve this plan if the City has already gone on record saying they would purchase the property? Mr. Maxwell: Well, I don't know what that -- I think that's a resolution, not an ordinance, and I don't know what it says, so I really can't comment on it, whether or not it's appropriate for Commission to consider it or not. Mr. Kolner: Well, I would suggest that the City should not approve this project because I believe, what the other speakers have said, the City made a deal with the public that they would buy the land and they would turn it into a park. Mr. Maxwell: To the extent that you are implying that the resolution in question dealt with that.... Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. You're both are being repetitious. Now, let's move on. If you have something new to offer, we'd like to hear it. Mr. Kolner: I just wanted to state my opinion, that I think the City Commission should not approve this. 189 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: That's it for your... Mr. Kolner: This approval -- this package. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Kolner: Thank you, sir. Ms. Terena Coulliette: Terena Coulliette at 3485 Main Highway, park manager of the Barnacle State Historic site, and I've spoken with people in Tallahassee and my bosses, as such, and basically said that want me to come forward and put on record the state is still interested, desires, is willing and able to buy the property if they could just get permission to appraise it with a state appraiser. Other than that, I want to say, I want to thank everyone who's interested, all the environmental groups, community Barnacle site, everyone for supporting the Barnacle and our intention of preserving and protecting this very special unique part of Coconut Grove. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele. Commissioner Teele: Just one minute. Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir, come back. Commissioner Teele: Take 15 seconds and tell us why this is so important in the State Historic Site. Mr. Kolner: Well... Commissioner Teele: Why should my son come see it? I mean, what's... Mr. Kolner: It's a step back in time. We live in a fast paced world full of change, and sometimes we lose touch with what it's like to live back in the old days when we didn't have air conditioning and VCRs and TV entertainment, when family values were at the highest, when people did things together on the porch of their house. When you worked from basically to day break to sunset, and the quality of life and peace and quiet and serenity. In this City, in this times, we need reminders that there was another time, another way, and the Barnacle is that moment in time. You walk through our gates. You step back in time and you discover there was a better time or at least a different time. And we want to make sure that the children of today and tomorrow don't forget that. (Applause). Vice Chairman Plummer: This is not the amateur hour. Thank you, sir. Frank. Mr. Frank Balzebre: Frank Balzebre, 3925 Park Drive, President of the Civic Club. We've been negotiating with this Cloisters on the Bay Project since May. We actually started at my house and been continuing ever since. Was only this morning that we signed an agreement. And I'd like to read that very quickly into the record, Vice Chair Plummer. Pursuant to the declaration entered into on December... Mr. Maxwell: It's not relevant, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Plummer: The City Attorney has ruled it's not relevant, sir. You can submit it for the record. Mr. Balzebre: It's a letter of support, actually. Vice Chairman Plummer: Can he read it? Mr. Balzebre: Letter of support. 190 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: It's not relevant but can he read it? Mr. Maxwell: As a letter of support, yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's fine. Proceed, Frank. Mr. Balzebre: Thank you. "Pursuant to the declaration entered into today, November 17, 1998, between Howard R. Scharlin and Albanese Popkins Development Group, Inc., and Coconut Grove Civic Club, Inc., and the Abitare Condominium Association, the Coconut Grove Civic Club hereby states its support for the Mayor Use Special Permit scheduled today for the hearing of the Miami City Commission, for the property located at 3463, 3571 Main Highway, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in that declaration." Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: That has -- I would assume that is between the two of them. It has nothing to do with the City and... Mr. Balzebre: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: And that is something aside from anything that takes place here today. Mr. Maxwell: And that's why I initially said irrelevant. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Just-- I'm trying to make the record clear. Tucker. Mr. Tucker Gibbs: Good evening. My name is Tucker Gibbs. My offices are 2665 South Bay Shore Drive, and I represent the Coconut Grove Civic Club. And without being redundant, I wanted to bring up some issues and remind the Commission of the Civic Club's position. The Civic Club was, I hate to say, present at the creation of all of this back in 1985, which this proposal -- original proposal for this site, which was the subject of a lot of litigation, was presented. And our position in the Coconut Grove Civic Club has not changed since that proposal was made. We want to make sure that that property is developed as it has-- as it is and has been zoned, which is single family zoning. The other issue that has remained constant with the Coconut Grove Civic Club is the Hammock. It has been our desire, from day one, that this hammock be preserved. The key issue of us is the future use of the property and the future uses impact on the surrounding properties. Maintaining the single family form of zoning on that property is critical to the preservation of the historic character of the Barnacle. It guarantees that its not going to be encroached upon as a high-rise would do, as a commercial development would do. Having that I, 1 zoning guaranteed under a covenant would do that. Maintaining the Hammock area is equally important in preserving that aspect of the area's history and that's really important because the definition of a hammock is at the crux of this issue. I think, if you talk to the people here, most would have supported this project if there a three acre hammock. The fact is, there used to be a three acre hammock on that site. It used to be a much bigger hammock. That hammock is dying. If you go on that site today, you will see -- yes, you will see a great deal of green. How much of that green is hammock? How much of that is the remnants of the original hammock? Not much. A lot of it is fruit tree and invasive species and anybody-- any good botanist will tell you that. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Tucker, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Why is that? Why is the hammocks dying? Mr. Gibbs: To be blunt with you. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Gibbs: The hammock is dying because the current owners of the property, who have owned it for the past 15 years, have done absolutely nothing to maintain that hammock. And that's really important to understand. Because with the new developers coming in under this MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), they have presented a preservation plan for the hammock, and they're moving trees, they're moving native trees and other parts of that property into that hammock to preserve it. They are guaranteeing to the community - in a private covenant -- but they are guaranteeing to the Coconut Grove Civic Club the Abitare Homeowner's Association, they are guaranteeing to us that this is going to remain a native hardwood hammock if this MUSP is approved. If this MUSP isn't approved, it's going to be maintained in its natural 191 November 17, 1998 state. Our concern is, if this MUSP is not approved, that this hammock will die. It will die from neglect and the concern then is, whoever the owner is, can come in and say, hey, I want to put Downtown Coconut Grove in here. I want to put Cocowalk in here. And I don't think that's in the best interest of this community, and the Commission didn't think it was in the best interest of this community over 10 years ago, when they refused to rezone it for that purpose. So... Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Gibbs: ... in conclusion, because of the guarantee that the Civic Club and Abitare have received from the owner in the form of a restrictive covenant running with the land, we urge you to support the MUSP. I also would like to read a letter into the record from the president ofAbitare. It's very short. Vice Chairman Plummer: Just surrender it. Mr. Gibbs: I'll surrender it. But include it in the record. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair? Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: I am one that does not -- don't want to lose the natural hardwood Hammock in our area. I'm very proud of the Simpson's Park and also the Alice Wainwright Park, but our City is basically rebuilding itself on plans of recovery, and we have to basically turn to some means of recurring revenues. and the only way that this City can come up with the recurring revenues is, basically, we have to build up because we can't build out anymore. But I am so glad that I -- that through the negotiations, I see that an area has been preserved and restored and it will be maintained, where a lot of these native trees will continue to grow and that will be a spot that I do believe that it will never be rezoned. So, you know, through the long process, something has been saved but, then, you know, the City, basically, needs development to get out of the jam we're in and it's a tough situation. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Your name and mailing address, please. Mr. Charles Alden: My name is Charles Alden, 7905 Southwest 162 Street, Miami. I've been a resident of Dade County and have appeared before this Commission on several occasions over the last 20 years. I have a Bachelor's of Science in Forestry. I'm a member o the American Institute of Certified Planners; a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects; I sit on the Board of Directors of the Local Chapter of the American Planning Association, the Urban Environment League, and the Florida Native Plants Society. I attended last week's Planning Advisory Board meeting and was rather startled to hear one of the board members say that she was unable to distinguish between a healthy tropical hardwood hammock and a degraded tropical hardwood hammock. She then proceeded to vote in support of this proposal. I think that's a bit like being unable to distinguish between a Florida Cracker House and a crack house, and I think it displays a rather appalling level of-- absence of information, if you will. Vice Chairman Plummer: Are you finished, sir? Mr. Alden: No, I'm not finished. Vice Chairman Plummer: Almost? Mr. Alden: I will be shortly. I spoke with one of the members of the planning-- the development team last week after the meeting and learned that it is the intent of the development team to use native plant species around the hammock area, within the hammock, to restore that one acre hammock. But, as it was said, it does not matter what kind of plans we use around the buildings. That is to say, the intent, apparently, is to use tropical exotic, non-native plant species in that close proximity to the hammock. I think that's a rather appalling situation. We could have, if this project is approved, a residential project in the midst of the 192 November 17, 1998 hammock. As it is, we're going to have a few remnant trees in one location and we're going to have another ordinary development that could occur anywhere in Kendall or North Miami. I have in my hand a copy of the environmental preservation ordinance of the City of Miami, Section I' L36, governing development activity. It says, that "the following standards shall be employed." And it goes on to say, that "the project shall provide visual screening by using landscaping materials, which are compatible with a landscaping characteristics surrounding." I would suggest, therefor, they should, in fact, be native plant species that this project is to be developed and not... Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Alden: And not exotic ornamentals. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair, I just have one question. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Would the developers object to using native plants for the surrounding-- the ones that will be removed, would they oppose decorating the outside of the development? Vice Chairman Plummer: Ask them during the time of rebuttal, please. Mr. Alden: And, if I may, I'd like to finish my comments by calling your attention to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, all of which pertain to the same subject. I've been asked by the officers of the Urban Environment League to announce tonight that the Urban Environmental League of Greater Miami reserves the right to legally appeal a ruling that might be made tonight to approve this project. Vice Chairman Plummer: You always have that right, sir. Mr. Alden: So, the Urban Environment League is on record tonight as reserving that right. Vice Chairman Plummer: You always have that right, sir. Mr. Alden: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The last speaker. Mr. Michael Uribe: My name is Mike Uribe. I'm against the development of this park, for this development project. My mailing address is PO Box 111351, Miami, Florida 33111. I'm the founder Sly Gate Campaign Against Stallone Gate. As you know, we've been dealing with a lot of issues regarding the restriction of public access to that certain area, and I have dedicated my efforts to make sure that those public access rights are, in some way, preserved. We've been dealing with a lot of problems with respect to a lot public access issues here, especially with parks, and to have this one more piece of public property turned into a public... Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, sir. That is not public property. It is private property. Mr. Uribe: OK. Thank you. Anyway, so I will be against that. And I think we should look towards the principles on what public property and park property has been used for in the past so that we can... Vice Chairman Plummer: Let's get the record clear. This one's going to court. Mr. Uribe: So that we can preserve the public's access to these open areas. Any type of an attempt to seek to preserve and to maintain the trees at a certain numerical level, would be just a numbers game. We basically have been yielding. The Commission has yielded to a lot of special interest groups seeking to curb parks, in general, and public property in general, towards the interest of elite, special interest groups. I now plead to everyone out here, who's against this project... 193 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir, speak to the Commission. Mr. Uribe: OK. Everyone out here, who is against this project, OK, to grab hold of your resources and fight this because you can't look towards Commission to listen and understand what you're fighting for. You've got to use your own external mechanisms, like the opposition is doing, OK. They've resorted to the laws. They're putting pressure on the Commission to do this. Now, I — we -- you have to unite and group together and move forward with this. Just appealing it and preparing and speaking before this Commission is not enough. I seek you to work with your resources and move forward with this and not just end your efforts here. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Under legal advice, I would like to put on the record that I had a conversation with Tucker Gibbs and, basically, what I asked was, what was his opinion on the matter. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, could you please just indicate for the record what information you might have gleaned from that conversation? Vice Chairman Plummer: Basically, I asked him what was his view of the project, which he stated that he supported. Mr. Maxwell: Was there any information imparted during that conversation that was not a part of these proceedings? Did you hear anything new? Commissioner Sanchez: No, nothing new. Mr. Maxwell: Everything that... Commissioner Sanchez: Everything has been discussed. Mr. Maxwell: And your decision today would be based solely on the record as presented? Commissioner Sanchez: Absolutely. I've taken everyone's opinion and I'm ready to vote. Mr. Maxwell: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Tucker, don't ever call me. Commissioner Sanchez: Don't ever call me again. Vice Chairman Plummer: Lucia. Sir? Mr. Edwin Moure: Commissioners, Edwin Moure with the Biscayne Bay Foundation, 2964 Aviation Avenue.. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Without question, you are the last speaker, sir. Mr. Moure: Yes, sir. 2964 Aviation Avenue, in the City of Miami. You know, a few weeks ago, there were a series of television shows, Greatest Magic Secrets Revealed. And, basically, what was at the root of all of it was when magicians do tricks, they create diversions, and this evening, there's a very fine diversion been created here by Albanese/Popkins. What I'd like you to do is consider that this is about a different game and that you are the pawns in the game. The owners of this property have been in a year -long negotiation with the state of Florida and Dade County to sell this property. Dade County and the state of Florida have offered to pay fifty to a hundred thousand dollars to have appraisers go to the property and appraise the value. The property owners have blocked that appraisal from being done. Why? The answer is, because they wanted to come here and take one last shot at getting increased density in their development, so that when the appraisal was done, the appraisal would come in millions higher than it is, forcing the state of Florida and Dade County to pay a higher price for the piece of property. Do not be diverted. 194 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir, we cannot take that into consideration by virtue of the City Attorney's ruling Mr. Moure: I understand. Vice Chairman Plummer: This is a private piece of property. What the private interest wishes to do with this their property, they can or cannot, but it is not a matter of subject this evening in this application. Mr. Moure: Commissioner... Vice Chairman Plummer: Did I say that right, sir? Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: Good. I'm going to get a legal fee. Mr. Moure: Given the propensity of the owners of the property to sue at a drop of a hat, I understand that, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir, anybody in this town with sevent},two dollars ($72) can file a lawsuit. Thank you. Miss Dougherty, can you wrap up in less than five minutes? Less than three? Mr. Dougherty: Yes, sir. I just want to clarify for the record. The UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) had six hearings in this matter that I had to go to, three of which we had full presentations. The last one we lost a quorum. The other three didn't have a quorum that showed up at first. We were there since last May. We revised the plan two times during these three hearings that we had, and my recollection is, they were going to approve this thing subject to conditions, but they lost the quorum before they did. The law in the City of Miami is, if you don't have a decision within 60 days, it's automatically approved. We didn't take advantage of that law for 120 days. We were pending since last May, so I don't think that this was anything that was rushed through in that process. I'd like Grant Thombrough to come forward and talk about the preservation of those trees. Mr. Grant Thombrough: I'm Grant Thornbrough. I'm the landscape architect for the project. Vice Chairman Plummer: Do you have a mailing address, sir? Mr. Thombrough: I do. It's 132 North Slinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. Vice Chairman Plummer: I welcome you to come back to Miami and live in a good place. Commissioner Teele: You're the -- which architect? Mr. Thombrough: I'm the landscape architect and environmental consultant. Vice Chairman Plummer: We've got one of each. Mr. Thombrough: The site is 6.3. I just want to give you a few pertinent facts. I know we don't want to go through too much information tonight. The site is 6.3 acres. We have spent over 500 hours on this site, and analyzing the tree surveys, the soil information, and analyzing the understore. We've a biologists -- two biologists on this site. There is approximately a .9 acre hammock on site. We are saving the entire hammock. There are 639 trees on this site. Two hundred and sixty-four of which are noxious invasive trees. Seventy-two are landscape species, which were planted on the site. There are only 303 native trees existing on this site. We are saving 281 of these trees on site. In my way of thinking, we were more than maintaining the environmental quality of this site, but we're improving the environmental quality of this site by removing all the noxious species and going into a management program which will raintroduce the species which are missing from the hammock and going into perpetual maintenance of this hammock. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? 195 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele. Commissioner Teele: I think Commissioner Sanchez offered to ask a question, if you're the landscape architect. I think his question was whether or not you all would agree to only use native species and not use any exotics and that in your beautification and landscaping program. Mr. Thornbrough: We are intending to... Commissioner Teele: You may want to talk to MissDougherty or the client or somebody before you... Mr. Thornbrough: We're intending to -- for all the canopy trees on the site, we're using all native species. We're not using all native species for some of the plantings in and around the-- what you call patio areas of the homes, but we are using all native species in the hammock areas and in the streetscape and the entryway and in the -- but we are not completely using native in some of the planting. Commissioner Teele: Give me an example of a nonnative planting or tree that you would be using. Mr. Thornbrough: A non-native tree would be the... Commissioner Teele: That you would be using on this project. Mr. Thornbrough: Say a Yellow Tabebuia tree. Vice Chairman Plummer: A yellow what? Mr. Thornbrough: Yellow Tabebuia tree. Commissioner Teele: You mean there's nothing native that grew here from the beginning that's equivalent to a Yellow Tabebuia tree. Mr. Thornbrough: Not that I'm aware of, no. Vice Chairman Plummer: I'm a native species myself but... Mr. Thornbrough: Sixty-seven... Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Thornbrough: Sixty-seven percent of the plants are non native on the site. Vice Chairman Plummer: Sixt}Fseven are non native? Commissioner Teele: Currently. Vice Chairman Plummer: Oh, currently. And what will they be after the project is finished? Commissioner Teele: What percent? Commissioner Sanchez: What percentage will be native? Ms. Slazyk: After the... Vice Chairman Plummer: After it's completed. Mr. Thornbrough: We would -- I think a hundred percent is unreal. Ninety percent. Vice Chairman Plummer: Will be native? 196 November 17, 1998 Mr. Thornbrough: Sure. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: I'm holding you up to that. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Sir, you've had your time. Mr. Alden: As a matter of -- point of fact, if I may? Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir, you have had your time. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner... Vice Chairman Plummer: Now, I gave... Commissioner Teele: But, Commissioner, I would really like ... he's a very distinguished gentleman. Could we just... Vice Chairman Plummer: I understand, but we've got to bring this thing to a close. Commissioner Teele: OK, just 30 seconds. Mr. Alden: Point of information, if I may. As I mentioned at the Planning Advisory Board meeting, there are lots of plants that we all perceive to be native because we commonly see them in the course of our day but they, in fact, are exotic, non native plant species, so I'd like to make that keen distinction. And, if we have a commitment from the development organization to use 90 percent, I think was the number, of truly native and indigenous plants, I think that's a wonderful move. Vice Chairman Plummer: They can very easily be held to that, sir. OK. Mr. Alden: And I'm not referring only to the trees but also to the ground covers and things of that sort. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Plummer: Ms. Dougherty, you have 34 seconds. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, again, I really think, this thing could wind up in a court. I think it's important to give her sufficient latitude to make her best case. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, if you won't scream at me at 9:00, sir... Commissioner Teele: No, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: ... I'll honor what you request. Commissioner Teele: No, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: Ms. Dougherty. Ms. Dougherty: Just to wrap up, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board. This is a private piece of property. We're developing in accordance with the current zoning laws. The City of Miami has always told us that don't try to get commercial zoning developed in accordance with the single family residential zoning, which is precisely what we're doing. We're not asking for any variances. The State, the City, anybody who wanted to acquire this property, including all of our great neighbors, could have done so in the last 14 years and nobody has done it. So, at this point, we are not trying to use subterfuge to try to get a higher price. These clients have a contract to buy it. My clients had a contract to purchase this property and they want to develop in accordance with the current zoning laws. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. Lourdes, you have further discussion? 197 November 17, 1998 Ms. Slazyk: Yes. I need to make one major clarification for the record. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Ms. Slazyk: It was said by one of the opponents that this piece of property, because of the SD-18 in overlay, only allowed 27 units... Vice Chairman Plummer: I heard that. Ms. Slazyk: That is incorrect. The SD-18 overlay limits the subdivision of a property. The number of units per acre lot on a piece of property is governed by the comp plan. The SD-18 overlay specifically says that the uses are those permitted per R 1 and R-1 permits this planned unit development with up to nine units per acre, so they're well under the density for this property. I also have Sarah Eaton here, who is the historic preservation officer for the City. And even though the Urban Development Review Board did not act, they failed to act constituting an approval. They were told that by City Attorney present at the time that their failure would deem a recommendation of approval, but the recommendation and the criteria that Sarah used for the recommendation of approval on this project was the criteria that was put in the ordinance in the City code and the zoning ordinance for Chapter 17 for environmental preservation. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: I just want to add one thing. The 27 units of-- If you did subdivide this property, the 27 units would also be in the hammock. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Members of the Commission, for discussion. Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to call the question. Commissioner Regalado: I will call the question. Vice Chairman Plummer: What is the question? I didn't hear a motion. Commissioner Regalado: A motion... Commissioner Sanchez: The motion is to move. Commissioner Regalado: A motion to approve... Commissioner Teele: It's your district. Vice Chairman Plummer: If it's my district and you want a motion, I'll be glad to make you one but you're not going to be happy with it. Commissioner Sanchez: Make it. Vice Chairman Plummer: My motion is that the board... Mr. Maxwell: Did you pass the gavel, sir? Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me? Mr. Maxwell: Did you pass the gavel? Vice Chairman Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry. I pass the gavel. Here, you got it? Thank you. My motion is that the board that was denied the right to give a full review should have the opportunity to do such. This has been a project that's been ongoing for 15 years. I don't think another month or two months will make a difference. I think this thing is like my colleague Commissioner Teele says, it's probably either way, going to wind up in court and I don't want to be accused of not completely, as the court says, all of your 198 November 17, 1998 administrative procedures. I think it should take, how long, at the most to go before that board to be back here before this City Commission? Ms. Slazyk: The thing is, there's no guarantee they're going to act but we can put it on the next agenda and it can be back here... Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, if they can't act, then let's get rid of them. Ms. Slazyk: January... Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Commissioner Regalado: J.L., the problem is, they don't have a quorum.. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right, all right. Excuse me. I'm trying to make a motion, all right? Ms. Slazyk: There were quorum problems as well but... Commissioner Regalado: They don't have a quorum. That's why they can't meet. Ms. Slazyk: We could put them on for the next meeting here in January. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Then I'm saying to you that, by the January issue, all right, if it is not back here by then, at least I have tried to exhaust my administrative ability to do such. It is not going to make any major change in what is being proffered. I think there are things here today that have been discussed that have merit and I think that to go back before that Board does not, in any way, indicate what my vote would be or not going to be. But I don't want to be accused, nor I think any member of this Commission, to be accused of not doing everything according to the book. Commissioner Teele: I second... Vice Chairman Plummer: And, as far as I'm concerned, my motion is to send it back to the Urban Design Review Board, who must respond to this Commission within a maximum of 60 days. That will be my motion. I don't know that anybody else like it. Commissioner Teele: I second the motion. Vice Chairman Plummer: There's a motion. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the City Attorney, City Manager review the resolutions that have been alluded to, with cooperation of the Clerk, and to file with us an appropriate memorandum as the City Attorney and the Management deem appropriate, regarding any commitments that we may have made. And I would have asked for a deferral because I really do think — and I know that those who know my vote at the -- on the Lipton Tennis Court know that I've always said one thing, that government should keep its word. And we made commitments as a Commission in 1984. We stand in the shoes of those commitments. I don't know what they were. Vice Chairman Plummer: Neither do I. Commissioner Teele: But I would like to know what we're being accused of committing to because, I think, if we made a commitment, we should live up to the commitment. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Any further discussion by any... Mr. Maxwell: Commissioners? Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. I... Commissioner Teele: I would also like to know from of mover, Ms. Dougherty, if this is something that 199 November 17, 1998 doesn't do violence? I mean, you know, deathly violence Vice Chairman Plummer: You're talking about the time frame? Commissioner Teele: The time frame. Vice Chairman Plummer: I don't have the gavel. Mr. Gort's got the gavel. No, don't give it to Trooper Joe. Commissioner Gort: He's got it. Commissioner Sanchez: You're out of order, J.L. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: While she's talking, could I please advise the Commission of something, Commissioner? I think... Commissioner Gort: The think we have a lot of new Commissioners in here and I think this has got a lot of history. You want to put us up-to-date on something? Mr. Maxwell: Well, no. The problem is that, as the motion stands right now, the motion is to refer this back to the UDRB. And, as Ms. Dougherty pointed out to you, our Code specifically provides for the UDRB to act within a specified period of time. It did not do so. In my opinion, it lost jurisdiction. Now, to send this item back and not act on it at this time or continue it for other reasons, places us in a precarious legal situation. It, in fact, opens the door to the very type legal challenges in the future that Commissioner Teele was speaking about on another subject. Vice Chairman Plummer: May I speak on the subject? Mr. Maxwell: Certainly. Vice Chairman Plummer: Under today's conditions, we have new information that was not available at the time that it went before that Board before, predicated on new information as a reason of my motion to make it available today. Commissioner Teele: And I think... Commissioner Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: ...that this governmental body and any appellate body has the inherent authority to remand something back, even -- because the remand constitutes a new jurisdiction based upon the way the court systems rule now. This is a quasi judicial proceeding and while I have no objections, nor do I quarrel with what the City Attorney is saying, we do have the -- we are sitting as a quasi judicial body and, in that regard, I think it would be very helpful if the City Attorney would send out a copy of the -- what's that decision? Mr. Maxwell: Milton Jennings versus Metropolitan Dade County. Commissioner Teele: The Jennings. Because while the Jennings does not apply directly or a judge has not ruled it, I think we should be governed accordingly to Jennings here, and I want you to know that several people approached me on it, including one of the opponents that I said I'm not going to hear any discussion on this matter except in this room, so... Mr. Maxwell: Commissioners, we have prepared a memorandum, our office, that is, and you shall be receiving it very shortly on this. Commissioner Teele: OfJen -- 200 November 17, 1998 Mr. Maxwell: That's correct. Commissioner Teele: Jennings does not directly apply to the City. Mr. Maxwell: Oh, yes, it does. The thing is, as you know, there was... Commissioner Teele: No court has ruled that it applies? Mr. Maxwell: Well, Jennings applies to quasi judicial proceedings in general, and zoning is a quasi judicial proceeding. So, Jennings applies. We had -- the legislature acted a year ago and made adjustments in it, so we've been acting pursuant to those adjustments. And we have also waited to see what the electorate would do with Amendment 10, which you know -- as you're aware, was denied. So, as a consequence of that, we have a memorandum prepared for the Commission to bring them up-to-date on Jennings as we see it today in this application to the City Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair? Commissioner Gort: Yes, sir. Go head. Commissioner Sanchez: This has been going on for 15 years. Why is it that every time that something big or controversial comes in front of the board, we drag it on and on. I mean, just about every-- I've been here six months and every -- most 80 percent of the big things that come in front of the Commission, we drag it on and on. Fifteen years. I think this is the closest that ever gotten to a mutual agreement, where they've been able to lobby to save a piece of land, where the developers have basically come out and there is almost a mutual agreement, and we're just going to pass it on again and again and again and again and again. What do we -- I mean, we're sitting here -- we're going to -- the Manager or whoever owns that land has the right to sell it to anybody he wants. If the parks want it, let them offer the money that he wants. You know, we're just ... forget it. It's frustrating. It's-- sometimes it's very frustrating. Commissioner Gort: OK, sir. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Vice Chairman Plummer: Call the question. Commissioner Gort: Any further discussion? Commissioner Teele: Call the question. Ms. Dougherty: Wait a minute. Commissioner Teele ask me a question, is it going to be doing violence to us? And the answer is, yes. Commissioner Teele: Deathly violence. Ms. Dougherty: We have lender commit -- we have lender commitments. We have closing commitments. We have almost our billing -- we've done almost all the architectural to get the building permits in place. The answer is yes, this is a real problem to us. Commissioner Gort: OK, thank you. Ms. Dougherty: And here's the other question. There is a UDRB hearing tomorrow. You can remand it back to tomorrow's hearing and be back here on the December 8th agenda, if you would, please. Mr. Maxwell: We could not make notice. Ms. Dougherty: You don't need notice. If they remand it to the UDRB, you don't need notice Mr. Maxwell: I don't necessarily agree with you on that, Miss Dougherty. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, excuse me. I am not trying to be horribly, putting in the way of stumbling 201 November 17, 1998 blocks. If we can have that hearing before the Urban Design Review Board, then so be it, and bring it back on the eighth. I said before and I'm going to say again, it was my intent to make sure that we have exhausted our administrative procedures in all facets. I'm saying, if it is humanly possible, to bring it back on December the 8th, that it be so, OK. Commissioner Teele: Including in the motion a request of the UDB, or whoever they are, to have a special meeting on this project, if possible. Vice Chairman Plummer: Absolutely, absolutely. Commissioner Teele: I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Commissioner Gort: OK. Let's call the roll. {THEREUPON, THE HEREINABOVE MOTION, DULY MOVED BY VICE CHAIRMAN PLUMMER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TEELE, TO REFER ITEM PZ-3 TO THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FAILED AS FOLLOWS:} AYES: VICE CHAIRMAN J.L. PLUMMER, JR. COMMISSIONER ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR. NAYS: COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO COMMISSIONER JOE SANCHEZ COMMISSIONER WIFREDO GORT ABSENT: NONE. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Plummer: Now, you might want to try to get a positive motion. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, if you don't have any motion on the floor right now. Vice Chairman Plummer: There's no motion on the floor. Is there a motion by anyone? Is there a motion by... Commissioner Teele: I move that the item be deferred. Vice Chairman Plummer: The item is... Commissioner Teele: Wait, wait, wait. If there's another motion, I won't make that motion. Commissioner Sanchez: There is another motion. Commissioner Teele: OK. Vice Chairman Plummer: There is another motion? Commissioner Sanchez: No. Vice Chairman Plummer: There is no other motion. Motion by Commissioner Teele the matter be deferred. To a time certain? Commissioner Regalado: Deferred until when? They go tomorrow? 202 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: I'm asking, is it a time certain, Mr. Teele? Commissioner Teele: Look, if there are three votes that don't want to study this matter and allow the process -- and I'm taking note of the fact that the City Attorney has ruled that the fact that theUDB did not review it is viewed conclusively as an approval of the UDB. I take note of that. Mr. Maxwell: Well... Chairman Plummer: You know, all... Commissioner Teele: But I'm simply saying, if the three of you don't want theUDB to review -- approve it, then you have an obligation to make the reversed motion. I'm not going to make the reversed motion. Vice Chairman Plummer: You know, let me tell you what you're really doing, in my opinion. This is the quickest way to bring this to a conclusion. If you don't have the URDB make this hearing, you're going to be tied up in court for so darn long, you're not going to know what hit you. Now, I'm just saying, that's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. There is a motion on the floor by Commissioner Teele to defer. Commissioner Teele: I'm going to withdraw the notion and see if one of the three Commissioners who voted no wants to make another motion. Chairman Plummer:. All right. Other than that... Commissioner Regalado: Got a question for the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: If I make a motion, I would say that they should come tomorrow before the Board. And you said -- excuse me. You said that they need to advertise this. Well, it seems to me that I've talked to the Chairman of the RDB and his complaint has been that he never gets a quorum. He's really -- he's always here but he never gets a quorum. Vice Chairman Plummer: And there was a provision for that. Commissioner Regalado: And we don't know if they're going to have a quorum maybe tomorrow but maybe, in December, some of them are on vacation so, this will drag on and on and on. so, my question is... Vice Chairman Plummer: No, sir, it won't. My motion said that it had to be within 60 days, be concluded by then. Commissioner Gort: I tell you what, I have a motion. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Gort. Commissioner Gort: Look, this has been, like they're saying, about 15 years now. For the first time I think I've seen the Civic -- Coconut Grove Civic Association come in agreement and work with those people. I move for approval. Vice Chairman Plummer: There's a motion. (Applause). Please. There is a motion to approve. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Plummer: There is a second. Commissioner Teele: On discussion. Vice Chairman Plummer: Under discussion. Mr. Teele. 203 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, there appear to be three people who want this and... Chairman Plummer: "C'est la vie." Commissioner Teele: And I respect their views. But let me just say this. If this has gone on for 15 years, I'm not sure what three months — I'm not sure why we — if I wanted to do it -- if I wanted what the maker of the motion wants, I'd want to do it right because, otherwise, this thing could very well be in litigation for the next year. And what you are doing now, as I think -- you know, and Miss Dougherty is a lawyer, so I'm not going to -- but I really don't like to see the Commission in the position of short circuiting a full review, and I think there are some very important issues that have been raised. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Commissioner Teele: However, I want to say this on the record. I don't think that we should be rushing to develop every piece of undeveloped land, and I think we have an obligation. I am not going to be supporting any more development on the water's edge because I have seen from aerial photographs a line, a line just as if God -- just as if an invisible force drew it, right around where the Black Point Marina is, down there where the Burger King plant is, based upon development right on the river, right on Biscayne Bay. There is a line. And what bothers me about this project, if I were to be voting in the affirmative, is that I would certainly want to take out the tennis court and anything that could-- I would want clear buffers as it relates to the drainage into the Biscayne Bay because that's what's killing the bay. I mean, you would be amazed at the fact that there are just no fish in the Biscayne Bay, in the southern part of Dade County. There's a line from that point all the way up north. There's just no fish. And the fish are being killed by the runoff from human beings, and that's why -- it's not that -- I think this is a -- I really would like to talk to the interior guy because I really like some of that stuff there. Like -- you know, where they could -- where I could buy some of that stuff. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Commissioner, we'll accept... Commissioner Teele: It's a quality product. There's no question this is a quality product. But I think somebody, like that Board, or somebody needs to try to protect the record and protect the future, and I don't think that's been done. I do not think that the public interest has been protected by a failure for the URDB to review this and to have some serious technical input in conditions, et cetera. This is coming to us. It's being approved now, essentially, with no conditions, based upon the motion, and I think that's a serious flaw. I put my views on the record and you all can do what you want to do. And I support the vote of the majority of this Commission. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. I think we're missing the boat completely. I really do, OK. I hope, Mr. City Attorney, you'll prepare for me your legal standpoint that there's going to be lawsuits, you know there's going to be lawsuits and, you know, another 15 years, make or break, doesn't make any difference. We had the opportunity here tonight to get a commitment of 90 percent native trees. Just that alone. That's not part of the motion. There's none of the commitments that have been made that are incorporated in the motion. Commissioner Gort: I'll incorporate in the motion all of the commitments that have been made. Ninety percent... Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, you know... Commissioner Gort: Wait a minute. Well, let's finish with the motion. I mean, we're going to be here discussing all night long. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Hey, look... Commissioner Gort: You want 90 percent of native land-- of native trees. You want... Ms. Dougherty: I will commit there will be no runoff into Biscayne Bay whatsoever. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. 204 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Gort: What else, Commissioner Teele? You requested that the -- removal of the tennis court? Commissioner Teele: I'm not -- I don't feel competent to make that as a recommendation but I think somebody ought to look at that tissue. Vice Chairman Plummer: What are you going to do about maintaining the mangrove-- the Hammock? There's... Ms. Dougherty: We agreed to -- there is a... Vice Chairman Plummer: ...no provisions being made for that protection. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. The City's conditions include that they have to comply with... Commissioner Gort: Why don't you read all those condition there. Ms. Slazyk: OK. The City's conditions include that they have to comply with the landscape plan on file with us, which is the preservation and restoration of the hammock area. Vice Chairman Plummer: To what extent? It was three acres. It's now 1.9. Is it to return it to three acres? Ms. Slazyk: No. It is the plan.... Vice Chairman Plummer: To me, when you restore something, you restore it to its original. Ms. Dougherty: It was never three acres. Not even DERM ever said it was three acres. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. I heard from the City there's three acres. It's not? OK. Ms. Dougherty: No. Ms. Sarah Eaton (Preservation Officer): The City has never said it was three acres. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. How much was it? Ms. Eaton: We never measured the amount. Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer for the City. Commissioner Gort: Look, J.L., this is your district. I'll take my motion out. forget it. (Applause). Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. We now have no motion on the floor. My motion, I will still reiterate my motion to take it to the full administrative procedures and to be back here-- I'll make a concession. Let me tell you just for the record. I like the project. Commissioner Teele: I love it. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. I think it's a good project. I think it has merit, but I think you're making a mistake by not going through your administrative procedures. And if we can't be back here, I'll concede to the meeting in December, OK. Commissioner Gort: December the 8th. Vice Chairman Plummer: The December 8th meeting, but it must be with the opportunity of that Board to, in fact, have a meeting and restore back to this Board, OK. Ms. Dougherty: Please refer it to tomorrows meeting. You can refer this and remand it to tomorrow's meeting. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. My motion is simple, that it go before the Historic Design Review 205 November 17, 1998 Board. If humanly possible... Mr. Maxwell: No, no. I thought it was the Urban Development Review Board. Vice Chairman Plummer: Urban-- I'm sorry, Urban Design. Mr. Maxwell: Urban Development Review Board. Chairman Plummer: You've got me stuttering. Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. All I'm saying is, do it before the Board. Get it done. Get it back here before this and that's my motion. Commissioner Gort: You have some reappointment that was made today to that Board, so you should have some people - enough people to have a quorum. Ms. Slazyk: We'll do a special meeting. We'll advertise it. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's fine. This is an important project for this community, OK. It's very important. And like it was said before, I can't remember when Tucker Gibbs came here and made a positive -- something positive. OK. I mean, Tucker's just not that kind of — doing what he normally does. All right. My motion is simple, that it go before the Board, comes back here by the eighth of December, if humanly possible. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: But no longer than our meeting in January. And I would hope and I would demand of you to call that meeting. That's my motion, which is the same motion I made before. Commissioner Teele: Second. And if it's possible, it will go before the -- if the City Attorney deems it appropriate, it will go before the UDC tomorrow or the U.... Vice Chairman Plummer: That's fine. Commissioner Teele: If you deem it appropriate. Commissioner Gort: Call the question. Unidentified Speaker: How are we going to find out tomorrow? Vice Chairman Plummer: Just be here. Commissioner Gort Call the question. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, I could tell you that, my opinion would be that it would not be appropriate for tomorrow. (Applause). Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, then, next week. Commissioner Sanchez: Once again, this Commission cannot make a decision. Commissioner Teele: Call the question. Ms. Slazyk: We're going to pick a date tomorrow morning and we're going to advertise immediately, and at tomorrow's board, we will tell the members when to come for this. Vice Chairman Plummer: And put it on Cable 9. OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Once again, this Commission can't make a decision. Commissioner Gort: Call the question. 206 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Teele: Call the question. Vice Chairman Plummer: This Commissioner can make a decision and rather than doing what is-- may be expedient, aside from doing what's right, I feel I'm doing what's right. I vote yes. Commissioner Gort: Just keep it from going to court, yes. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO.98-1152 A MOTION TO REFER AGENDA ITEM PZ-3 (PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE CLOISTERS ON THE BAY PROJECT AT 3463-3571 MAIN HIGHWAY) TO THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (UDRB); FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING THIS ISSUE BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE UDRB, FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AT THE COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1998, IF POSSIBLE, OR BY NO LATER THAN THE JANUARY 1999 COMMISSION MEETING. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Item 4 is up. (Applause). Please, please. Thank you. An amendment to the master plan of increment I Development Order, Downtown Miami Development of Regional Impact. City of Miami. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): We recommend approval. This is to amend the DRI (Development Regional Impact). Vice Chairman Plummer: Who moves Item 4? Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Vice Chairman Plummer: Moved by Regalado. Seconded by Teele. All in favor-- please exit quietly. All in favor of Item 4? The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Plummer: Any opposition? Show it passed. 207 November 17, 1998 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 98-1153 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ("DRI") MASTER AND INCREMENT I DEVELOPMENT ORDERS (RESOLUTION NOS. 87-1148 AND 87-1149, ADOPTED DECEMBER 10, 1987, AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 91-698, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 26, 1991, RESOLUTION NOS. 94-849 AND 94-850, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 17, 1994, RESOLUTION NO. 98-219, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 24, 1998, AND RESOLUTION NO. 98-787, ADOPTED JULY 21, 1998), FOR THE AREA OF THE CITY OF MIAMI UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", BY AMENDING THE MASTER AND INCREMENT I DEVELOPMENT ORDERS BY DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS IN THE OFFICE CATEGORY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER; FINDING THAT THIS CHANGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 380, FLORIDA STATUTES (1997); FINDING THAT THIS CHANGE IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989- 2000; INSTRUCTING TRANSMITTAL OF COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; 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 Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Plummer: Item 5. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): This is a special exception. We recommend approval with conditions. It was recommended the same by the Zoning Board. Commissioner Regalado: It's in my district. I'll move it. Vice Chairman Plummer: So be it. It's moved by Regalado. Seconded by Teele. Is there anyone wishing to speak against Item 5? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 208 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show unanimous ballot. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 98-1154 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD THEREBY GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT A HEALTH CLINIC IN THE R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3095 WEST FLAGLER STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, GRANTED PER PLANS ON FILE WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THE PROPOSED FACILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO OUTPATIENTS ONLY WITH NO OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED; 2) A COMPLETE NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN, WITH SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING IRRIGATION AND ILLUMINATION, SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DIVISION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS; AND 3) PLANS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACADES, SIGNS SPECIFICATIONS AND PAINT COLOR SAMPLES SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DIVISION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Plummer: Item 6. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): PZ-6 and 7 are companion zoning and land use items. The Department recommends approval. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort, this is your district. Commissioner Gort: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort? Commissioner Gort: Yes. 209 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: And how do you wish to handle this item? Commissioner Gort: I beg your pardon? Vice Chairman Plummer: Do you wish to move it? Commissioner Gort: I move for approval, yes.. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Plummer: Moved for approval. Seconded by Sanchez. The Department have any -- Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): One comment. Under Recommendations on your agenda sheet, it shows that the PAB (Planning and Advisory Board) voted for denial based on a vote of three to two. That should show a vote of approval. Vote of three to two. Ms. Slazyk: It was a motion to approve. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's fine. All right. Anyone wishing to speak on Item 6? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." Oh, I'm sorry. It's an ordinance. Read the ordinance. Vice Chairman Plummer: Call the roll. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1612 NORTHWEST 30TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM DUPLEX 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. was introduced by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed in first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 210 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort, it's in your district, Item Number 7. Commissioner Gort: Move it again. Vice Chairman Plummer: Moved for approval. Seconded by Sanchez. Is there anyone wishing to speak to Item 7, for or against? Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. Anyone wishing to speak for or against Item 7? Let the record reflect no one came forward. Call the roll. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PAGE NO. 26 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1612 NORTHWEST 30TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed in first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Vice Chairman Plummer: Item 8,41 Tamiami Canal Road. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, that's District 4. Vice Chairman Plummer: Is that yours, Mr. Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: Do you wish to discuss it or do you wish to make a motion? Commissioner Regalado: I wish to -- for the administration to tell me what basically... Vice Chairman Plummer: Lourdes. 211 November 17, 1998 Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): We're recommending approval. The piece of property, as you can see, it's Tamiami Canal Road but it basically fronts a mayor arterial and we believe that this is an appropriate change of zoning. Commissioner Regalado: Has there been any complaints from neighbors, Lourdes? Ms. Slazyk: No, not that I know of. The Planning Advisory Board felt that there was an intrusion into the residential area. They voted denial but the Zoning Board voted for approval. Vice Chairman Plummer: I'm showing both of them voted for approval. Mr. Rafael Rodriguez: Rafael Rodriguez, Coral Way... Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): No, the PAB's (Planning Advisory Boards) vote on this one was a denial because of the title. Chairman Plummer: Oh. Commissioner Regalado: You wish to... Mr. Rafael Rodriguez: To answer that, Commissioner Regalado's question. Rafael Rodriguez, Coral Way NET, Alfonso Callava the NET administrator for the area. He -- I checked with him and there was no complaints regarding the change of zoning on this item. Commissioner Regalado: You wish to... Mr. Adolfo Rodriguez: Well, I just wanted to say, there's only one property left with the zoning, single family. Commissioner Regalado: Then I'll move to approve. Mr. Adolfo Rodriguez: Fifty-six letters from all the neighbors approving it. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Sir, who you are and your address? Mr. Rodriguez: Adolfo Rodriguez Roig, 41 Tamiami Canal Road. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK, sir. You're the applicant? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Mr. Rodriguez Yes. Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez: I got fifty-six letters from all the neighbors, including next door. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move to approve. Vice Chairman Plummer: Motion by the... Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Plummer: ...district Commissioner to move the approval. By Sanchez, second. It is an ordinance. read the ordinance. Call the roll. 212 November 17, 1998 An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 41 TAMIAMI CANAL ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM SINGLE FAMILY 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. was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed in first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Vice Chairman Plummer: Item 9 is a companion. Mr. Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Yes, move it. Vice Chairman Plummer: Moved for approval. Seconded by Mr. Sanchez. It is also an ordinance. Read the ordinance. Call the roll. Mr. Gort. Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you, Commissioners. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE, AMENDING PAGE NO. 29 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 41 TAMIAMI CANAL ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 213 November 17, 1998 was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed in first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort. Ms. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): We would like to request that PZ10 and 11 be continued until January, please. Commissioner Gort: OK. Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): What date in January? Commissioner Gort: Do you need a motion? Ms. Bianchino: The second meeting in January. Commissioner Sanchez: Move. Commissioner Gort: We need a motion to continue. Commissioner Regalado: Move PZ-12. Commissioner Gort Moved and second. Mr. Maxwell: Holdup one second. You must act on that request for continuance, on 10 and 11. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, I moved. Commissioner Gort: OK, it's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second, second. Commissioner Gort: Any discussion? Being none, all in favor, state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 214 November 17, 1998 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO.98-1155 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEMS PZ-10 (PROPOSED SECOND READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORD. 10544, THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY AT 1975 N.W. 12 AVENUE FROM MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PZ- I I (PROPOSED SECOND READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING ORD. I1000, AT 1975 N.W. 12 AVENUE (PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SITE) FROM G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL) TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 26, 1999. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Regalado: OK, on PZ-12, it's in District 4, and I've seen the property. Here, I think that this is the reason. I just want to make that comment. This is the reason that I went and lobby for the Charter amendment in the past selection. Do you think that we're going to get three bids on this property? If we don't, should we call a special election to sell this tiny property? Ms. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): It would certainly be up to the bidders to decide if they want to... Commissioner Regalado: I know, I know. What I'm saying is that, see, this is not a part-- because never been a part and this is a piece of land that is stuck in the middle of two buildings, so that's the reason that I thought that it was a good thing, the Charter amendment. But, anyway, I'll move P7,12. Commissioner Gort: Moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Gort: OK. Yes, sir. Mr. Jesus Campo: Can we define PZ-12? Commissioner Teele: Your name. Mr. Campo: My name is Jesus Campo. I'm with AK Media. The address is 5800 Northwest 77th Court, and I just want to make sure I'm listening to the right thing here. Are we talking about an ordinance amending page number 23 of the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami, Florida, by changing the zoning classification from PR Parks and Recreation and GI, Government Institutional, to G2 liberal commercial? 215 November 17, 1998 Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): No, that's another item. Mr. Campo: I apologize. Commissioner Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state by saying "aye." Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): It's an ordinance. Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): You have to read the ordinance, Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: An ordinance. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, it's an ordinance. Mr. Foeman: It's an ordinance. He has to read... Commissioner Gort: Read it. Call the roll. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1960 AND 2000 SOUTHWEST 24TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM RECREATION 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 introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed in first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Unanimous. Item 13. Commissioner Regalado: Move P2r 13. I move it. It's the same. Commissioner Gort: It's a move. Is there a second? Is there a second? Commissioner Teele: Yes. 216 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Gort: Second. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor -- well, is this an ordinance or a resolution? Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Yes, it's an ordinance. Commissioner Gort: Read the ordinance. Call the roll. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PAGE NO. 43 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM PR PARKS AND RECREATION TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1960 AND 2000 SOUTHWEST 24TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Teele, and was passed in first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Commissioner Gort: PZ-14. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): Fourteen an 15, were asking to be continued to January 26th, due to the Planning Advisory Board failing to act on it. They asked for a continuance to explore historic preservation, that the property be designated and until they act, it's not properly before you. Commissioner Gort: Is there a motion for a continuance? Commissioner Sanchez: Motion. Commissioner Gort: It's a move. Is there a second? Commissioner Teele: Second. Commissioner Gort: OK. All in favor, state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 217 November 17, 1998 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO.98-1156 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEMS PZ-14 (PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORD. 10544, THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY CHANGING DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 1401 AND 1441 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE FROM RECREATION AND MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PZ-15 (PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING ORD. 11000 BY CHANGING DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 1401 AND 1441 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE FROM PR PARKS AND RECREATION AND G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL) TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 26, 1999. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Gort: Sixteen. PZ-16, second reading. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): PZ-16 was the item that you all had acted on in September and, then, reconsidered in October and now it's back for you today as a reconsideration. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Gort: OK. Before there's a motion, is anyone in the public to speak in favor or against this? Have you all been sworn in? Mr. Tony O'Donnell: Yes, sir, I have. Earlier. Commissioner Gort: OK. Mr. O'Donnell: For the record, Tony O'Donnell, with law offices at 1200 Brickell Avenue. I'm here tonight representing neighbors of the Coconut Grove Playhouse that appeared several months ago before the Planning Advisory Board to oppose this effort to bring commercial parking from the adjoining SD2 district of Coconut Grove onto the Coconut Grove Playhouse site. They are David Sweatland, who's property owner in the residential community of Camp Biscayne, across the street from the site. BarbaraLange, who 218 November 17, 1998 is a resident of the Arbitary Development, also across Main Highway from the site. At the time we were before the Planning Advisory Board, Esther Armbrister was also my client. She has, unfortunately, passed away and -- but she was representing the historic residential neighborhood along Charles Avenue, opposing this ordinance. The Planning Advisory Board, as your package shows, voted unanimously against this proposal and they did it for several reasons. I think the main reason is, they felt that no one had studied what the impact of the proposal was going to be on traffic, on parking, on increased commercialization of the Grove. But there were a number of legal issues I raised at that time and I would like to incorporate the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman, incorporate the record of the Planning Advisory Board and all of the exhibits. Vice Chairman Plummer: It is a matter of the record. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you very much. And now -- help me move along here a little. We believe that the proposed ordinance is really to extend SD-2, which is commercial parking, into what it was established years ago as a transition government institution area. That is, a transition between the commercial part of the Grove and the residential part of the Grove surrounding this site. We also believe that it should be opposed because it's a first step in an overall plan, and we have in the record before the Planning Advisory Board that this particular ordinance was part of an overall plan to commercialize that site and to change the zoning on that site, and they pulled it out. And it's a first step in privatizing what is really public land. This is publicly owned property and it should not be privatized in this way. Vice Chairman Plummer: Tony, let me stop you for a minute. Mr. O'Donnell: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: Are we talking about the parking lot of the Playhouse? Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. O'Donnell: Yes. The parking lot of the Playhouse. But what we're talk... Vice Chairman Plummer: Which is presently owned by the State of Florida. Mr. O'Donnell: Yes. What we're talking about though, Mr. Plummer, it sounds like -- what we're talking about is taking the requirements of parking that are imposed upon the SD-2 areas of Coconut Grove and allowing those requirements to be met by utilization of parking on the Playhouse site. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well -- but there's a recommendation of the Committee that we formed, that I thought was an excellent recommendation, and I'm -- does anybody have a copy of that recommendation? Because I think it answers the problems that -- you know, of congestion and everything else. Can you read that in -- would you allow them to read that into the record, please? Mr. O'Donnell: Sure. Vice Chairman Plummer: The Committee, which this City Commission asked to look into the matter. Mr. Clark Turner: Clark Turner, Department of Planning. The Ad Hoc Committee on the Coconut Grove park in question recommended that the proposed modification be adopted but to become effective, only when a parking garage is built on that site. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, that wasn't all that they recommended, as I was told. Further, they stated that the monies to be paid into the fund would continue until such time as the parking structure was built. Mr. Turner: That's correct. That would be... Vice Chairman Plummer: But you didn't say that. Mr. Turner: That would be an automatic consequence of this... 219 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: In other words, if they took 30 parking spaces in the Playhouse, they would still have to pay so much a month, until such time that the parking structure was built and it would be going into the fund, which is really to build the parking structure. Mr. Turner: Yes, exactly. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. So, let's understand. Mr. O'Donnell: That's certainly an improvement over what was originally proposed. Let me make a couple more points here so you understand the other issues. Vice Chairman Plummer: Sure. Mr. O'Donnell: If you were put SD-2 parking on the Playhouse site, you would -- it would be illegal to do so. The SD -- Playhouse site right now is a non -conforming use. It has 175 parking spaces and it requires, under your Code, a minimum of 240. And I just litigated parking with the City and I'm correct on this. They -- so, if you were to put parking on there, without fully meeting the requirements of the Playhouse, both the auditorium and everything else, and then, in addition to that, having enough for other parking in the City, you would -- it would not be a lawful thing to do. It would be expanding a non -conforming use, which, under Chapter 11 of your Code, is illegal. So, that's what I — the other point I wanted to make, that it isn't as easy as everyone seems to think, that simply because there's a parking lot there. But the other reason the Planning Advisory Board questioned this is that without a traffic study, how do we know-- why would we want to add 500 cars coming off of Main Highway, which cannot be expanded, which is already congested, that area? Why would we want to do that at this particular location without, at least, examining whether the traffic impact, was properly assessed and properly mitigated? There has been no study of that. So, we believe that the ordinance should not be adopted until the garage is built, until you have something to do that we all know exactly what we're going to do. And the garage is not going to be built until there's proper assessment of what's going to go on that site. To have an ordinance, a legislative ordinance, which is changing the zoning ordinance of the City, conditioned upon all sorts of things out there in the future, is not the rational way to go. The issue that the Committee or-- the issue that they addressed, I think, was a lot better. At least, they addressed a couple of the issues by saying that that would happen. But my position is that -- and our position is, is that -- this is an inappropriate place to put commercial parking and to focus commercial parking in the Grove, and that this area should be left as a primarily transitional area, in which the uses are not there all day and all night, on the weekend, but they are compatible with residential. Because even if you put offices there, which are allowed under the comp plan, this will be contrary to your comp plan. Offices will be there during the day when people are not at home. They won't be there on the weekend when people are at home. They won't be there all night drinking and yelling and screaming when people are at home. This is an important transitional area in and of itself. It's recognized as such in the comp plan and to send commercial parking into that particular lot is a bad precedent and is a defacto (phonetic) rezoning and illegal. Vice Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: Adrienne, do you wish to make a comment? He used five minutes. You have the same. Ms. Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of 3121 Commodore Corporation. We're requesting that you approve this resolution on second reading. It's already been approved on first reading. Your Planning staff is recommending approval of this item. And there are a lot of misconceptions. Mr. O'Donnell said the problem with this is that you haven't had a traffic study performed and you don't know whether parking should be on that site. I'll put into the record, again, and I put it in the last time, the Coconut Grove Planning Study. The Coconut Grove Planning Study, that has this traffic study that was prepared by Carr Smith Associates, specifically, says that the Coconut Grove Playhouse is a perfect site to have parking in Coconut Grove. It outlines that. I'm going to put that page into the record, like we've done before. And just as a reminder, this, again, was on your agenda tonight as PZ-20, which you approved tonight, and within it, it provides that you should have parking on the Coconut Grove Playhouse site. It recommends that. I'd also like to say for the record that 220 November 17, 1998 there are a lot of misconceptions about this particular ordinance. Number one, this ordinance, all it will allow is that for businesses that are located within the SD-2 District, to be able to satisfy their parking requirements by leasing spaces from the Coconut Grove Playhouse site. Now, the monies -- what's very important -- and I'd like Mr. Gonzalez to confirm it for the record -- is that currently DOSP (Department of Off-street Parking) has a lease on that property. It's a long term lease. I have a copy with me. Goes to the year 2036. They have the right to lease spaces. If they lease the spaces, the money goes to the Department of Off -Street Parking. It's not — because the motion that the Committee — Commissioner Plummer, that you referenced, the Committee said, "we don't want you to allow this ordinance to go into effect until the time a parking garage might be built by the City and, therefore, the monies would go to the City, the Department of Off -Street Parking. But that can happen today. If the Department of Off -Street Parking chooses to lease spaces, that they are allowed to do and it's not illegal for them to do, then the monies would go to the Department of Off -Street Parking, into their general fund. So, the monies are still going to the City of Miami. What's also important to know is that this is a copy of the City Zoning Atlas from 1990. You can see within it that the Coconut Grove Playhouse site used to be located within the SB2 District, so properties that were located in here could use -- satisfy this property for parking purposes. That's what my client and many of the people along Commodore are seeking to do. A lot of those businesses are dying. A lot of those individuals were here earlier. Unfortunately, they left because of the late hour. And we're requesting that you allow them to be able to satisfy their parking. commodore Plaza really needs this provision to pass. The planning staff is recommending approval. They're bringing it back before you because, back in 1990, when it was Mahi, it was — my understanding that it was inadvertently taken out and, therefore, )ou couldn't allow for the satisfy the parking requirement. Commissioner Sanchez: I have a question. This would allow business to satisfy their parking requirements? Ms. Pardo: Yes, it would Commissioner Sanchez: If they park in that area? And in 1992 that was SD-2, the area? Ms. Pardo: Yes, it was. In 1990, actually, it was amended, I believe, in 1992, but prior to that, any business within the -- actually, I think it was within six hundred feet at the time. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, it was six hundred feet. Ms. Pardo: Within six hundred feet, which the... Ms. Slazyk: And they could only use twenty-five percent of it off site. Ms. Pardo: Off site. And I just want to point out one other thing. This is the City's Zoning map. You have this area all the way over here, which is SD-2. Any of these businesses could satisfy their parking... Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Ms. Pardo: ...by leasing spaces in the SD-2, even though it's far away. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Thank you. You don't need rebuttal. You're not an applicant. It's a City application. I'm going to move that the recommendation... Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): May I... Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: It is quasi judicial. I would suggest that you do allow him to respond quickly. Vice Chairman Plummer: You know, you just prolong this meeting all day long. I want a new... Mr. Maxwell: I'm trying to protect you, Commissioner. Mr. O'Donnell: Mr. Chairman, just one second. First of all... 221 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: One second. Mr. O'Donnell: Yes. The whole point is... Vice Chairman Plummer: December 2nd. Mr. O'Donnell: The reason this has changed from SD to to GI -- and the comp plan has it for government purposes and institutional purposes -- is that it was because it was in favor of protecting the neighborhoods at the time. It was a commitment of the City at the time and what they were getting it approved for, number one. Number two, this has never been allowed to satisfy all the parking needs of the adjoining SB2, 25 percent. Number 3, by allowing this, you are actually allowing people in the SB2 not to provide parking. Thereby, allowing them to develop even more within their area because they don't have to use any of that property for parking, so... Vice Chairman Plummer: That's an awful long second. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. My feelings are very simple. My feelings are that there's two types of monies that are to be paid here. One, for the space of the Off -Street Parking Authority. The second one, and most importantly, is the money that they have to pay under the scenario to start the parking garage. And, as far as I'm concerned, I think the Committee, which we asked to serve as an Ad Hoc Committee, did a good job and I like their recommendation. We allow them to lease the parking spaces, not to exceed 30, as I recall. Was it 30 or 40? Ms. Pardo: No, I don't think there's a -- Vice Chairman Plummer: There was no number. Ms. Pardo: There was no limit. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. That they lease out the property and that they must pay for the parking trust fund, until such time as, in fact, the parking structure is finished and operating. Is that-- am I pretty much on what the Ad Hoc Committee suggested? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, that's correct. And there's two ways to do it. One is to either withdraw this and wait until that the time is right to do this. I need to just go back just a little bit. The Planning Department proposed this ordinance as a tool for the future, because the Coconut Grove Planning Study called for parking in this location. I also, for the record, need to clarify that the GI zoning district allows commercial parking. This is not introducing a new use onto this property that could not be built there today. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Formulate my motion. You know what I'm trying to accomplish? Ms. Pardo: Yeah, I know. I don't know -- can we do -- and this is a question for the Law Department. Can they do an ordinance now that's effective some date in the future, when a garage is in place or is it... Vice Chairman Plummer: Sure. Why not? Mr. Maxwell: Sure you can make certain... Ms. Pardo: Is it wiser to withdraw this... Mr. Maxwell: ... provisions effective. Vice Chairman Plummer: Sure. Ms. Pardo: A provision for an effective date at such time? Vice Chairman Plummer: That's it. That's my motion. 222 November 17, 1998 Ms. Barbara Lange: Can I say something? Vice Chairman Plummer: My motion is that we allow it to happen; that, by virtue of the fact that they -- whatever they pay the Off -Street Authority is one fee. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Plummer: And that the second fee has to be the actual contribution as required to the Parking Trust Fund as related, until such time as the parking structure is, in fact. OK. There is a second to the motion. Call the roll. Mr. Sanchez. [COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL:] Commissioner Teele: Did Ms. Lange get to speak? Ms. Lange: I didn't get to speak. Vice Chairman Plummer: You don't need to speak. Ms. Lange: I do need to speak. Vice Chairman Plummer: Teele, don't do that to me. Ms. Lange: Thank you, Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Plummer: It's too late. Ms. Lange: It's not too late. It's still 8:30. Commissioner Teele: Just 10 seconds. Ms. Lange: I'm going to be 10 seconds. Vice Chairman Plummer: Are you kidding me? She couldn't even spell her name out in 10 seconds. Ms. Lange: J.L., I can... Vice Chairman Plummer: Thirty seconds, Barbara. Ms. Lange: Thirty seconds. Here's something -- I think -- if I had my glasses on, this is -- is this your good idea, the main highway traffic meeting? Vice Chairman Plummer: I wish it was but it was Mr. Morales' idea, and I join with him. Ms. Lange: Well, you know, this is just going to put more traffic on Main Highway. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's not true. We are not creating anymore spaces. They are utilizing what is presently there. I would not vote to increase the amount of parking. Ms. Lange: Then I... Vice Chairman Plummer: You've had your 30 seconds. Ms. Lange: No, I need 30 more seconds because I want to understand this. Vice Chairman Plummer: See what you did? OK. Commissioner Teele: She's used her time up. 223 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: We're in the middle of a roll call. Ms. Lange: Just 30 more seconds. Are we adding spaces -- are you allowing people in the SD-2 District to buy spaces in the Coconut Grove Playhouse? Vice Chairman Plummer: No. Ms. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): Not until the garage is built. Vice Chairman Plummer: Continue the roll call. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO.98-1157 A MOTION TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE SD-2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ACCESS PROPERTY FOR PARKING TRUST PURPOSES, PROVIDED THEY PAY THE OFF-STREET PARKING AUTHORITY ITS USUAL FEE AND ALSO PAY A SECOND FEE WHICH IS TO BE THE ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION, AS REQUIRED, TO THE PARKING TRUST FUND; HOWEVER, THESE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT BE OPERATIVE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE HAS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, please, I -- on the effective date, because we have to draft this ordinance to incorporate what you want. When is the... Vice Chairman Plummer: I asked you to formulate a motion for me. Mr. Maxwell: No, no, you asked staff to formulate the motion, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Plummer: I asked... Mr. Maxwell: When is the effective date? Vice Chairman Plummer: The effective date would be 30 days from today. Mr. Maxwell: No, no, no, no. There was some discussion about the effective date of the parking provisions, I believe. Ms. Slazyk: My understanding is that today, nobody can use this for — to meet off site parking requirements in SD-2 but some day, when a garage is there, surplus spaces only can be leased to SD-2 businesses to meet their requirements. 224 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Of course. Because let's remember where the parking structure is going. You know, the people in the Taurus restaurant are saying, you know, that site down there is not going to be of any value to us because it's over north of the Coco Walk. Commissioner Teele: Is the effective date in the motion? Vice Chairman Plummer: The effective date would... Mr. Maxwell: In the ordinance it has -- it's ordinarily effective 30 days hence, but I thought I heard discussion about when you want certain provisions to go into effect at some time in the future, as opposed to then. Ms. Bianchino: Right. The ordinance... Vice Chairman Plummer: Yeah, the provisions in the future are when the parking structure is built and operating. Ms. Slazyk: Has a Certificate of Occupancy. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's fine. That's fine. Commissioner Teele: Was that in the motion? Commissioner Sanchez: Was that in the motion? Vice Chairman Plummer: That's my motion. We were on a roll call. Continue the roll call. Commissioner Teele: You better be glad I clarified your motion. Vice Chairman Plummer: Oh, yeah, I was tickled pink that you asked Barbara to speak. Commissioner Gort: Maria's waiting. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner, I am going to vote yes because the parking garage does not create more traffic. Vice Chairman Plummer: Not at all. Not a single space. Ms. Bianchino: It just satisfies-- that's right.. Commissioner Teele: It solves more traffic. Vice Chairman Plummer: Not a single space. Continue, sir. Thank you. Item.... Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. What is the meaning of what we did in terms of... Vice Chairman Plummer: They can lease the spaces to private... Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. No, no. But... Ms. Pardo: (Inaudible) they can. Commissioner Regalado: I know what we did but, in practical. Vice Chairman Plummer: The practical is that the Off -Street Parking Authority can lease as many spaces to supply for the SD-2... Ms. Slazyk: Coconut Grove Business District. 225 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: That, if, in fact, it is to use that for the purposes of parking to comply, they must pay the forty dollars ($40) per space to the trust fund. Ms. Pardo: It doesn't do that, though, because that's what we were asking, is that you just approve the ordinance as it's presented. If you did that, then the monies would go to the Department of Off Street Parking. Chairman Plummer: No, no, no, no. There are two different... Ms. Pardo: If it shows -- but with this amendment... Vice Chairman Plummer: ...parking fees. One goes to the Off -Street Parking for the actual parking. The second fee goes to the trust fund to create the parking structure. Ms. Pardo: But, then, you're asking these individuals, who can barely survive on Commodore Avenue, to pay twice. They're not going to it. Vice Chairman Plummer: Oh, that's absolutely what we're trying to do. Ms. Pardo: They're not going to... Vice Chairman Plummer: That's absolutely. Don't be mistaken about it. Ms. Pardo: Well, it's extortion. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but... Ms. Pardo: And you're not going to... Commissioner Teele: That's strong language. Ms. Pardo: They're not going to do it, then, and... Commissioner Sanchez: Wait. J.L., J.L., wait. Ms. Pardo: Then, those businesses are going to die. Vice Chairman Plummer: Absolutely. Commissioner Teele: That's strong language. Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, wait. Commissioner Teele: That's strong language. Vice Chairman Plummer: Hey, that is exactly what we're trying to do. It was understood, when we passed this ordinance creating the parking structure trust fund, that the people... Commissioner Sanchez: J.L., that's not right. Vice Chairman Plummer: ... who were not in compliance... Commissioner Sanchez: That's not right. Vice Chairman Plummer: ... would have to. Ms. Pardo: No, there are... Commissioner Teele: Mr.-- hold on one minute. Mr. Chairman? 226 November 17, 1998 Ms. Pardo: If I could just respond. Commissioner Sanchez: That's not right. That's not right. No, no. Commissioner Teele: I would move to reconsider. We need to get a clean motion, know what we're doing. But I do think counsel should offer some clarification. Vice Chairman Plummer: Move to reconsider by Teele. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Teele: Hold on, J.L. I think counsel needs to offer some clarification on that use of the word extortion because that's unfair. Vice Chairman Plummer: Who said extortion? Ms. Pardo: I did. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, I hope you can back it up. I mean... Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. Commissioner Sanchez: No. Commissioner Teele: I think it was a moment of excitement and I just think it... Ms. Pardo: Moment of passion. Ms. Slazyk: Could I ask, Mr. Attorney, to clarify this? Chairman Plummer: I'm going to ask the City Attorney, as I asked before, to make a motion trying to accomplish... Commissioner Teele: Can we carry the motion to reconsider, please? Vice Chairman Plummer: Sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Plummer: Motion to reconsider by Teele. Seconded by... Commissioner Sanchez: Sanchez. Vice Chairman Plummer: ...Sanchez. All in favor, say "aye." The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO.98-1158 A MOTION TO RECONSIDER PRIOR VOTE TAKEN ON MOTION 98-1157. Note for the Record: Item PZ-16 was immediately thereafter passed and adopted as Ordinance 11731. 227 November 17, 1998 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Now, the floor is open for... Commissioner Teele: I would like for the attorney to make a motion that carries out the intent of what Commissioner Plummer said. Vice Chairman Plummer: And the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: This is a motion to approve and to incorporate the recommendations of the Coconut Grove Parking Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. It, specifically, provides that the provisions as to when the parking would be allowed would take effect at such time as the parking garage is -- the application for the parking garage is approved. Vice Chairman Plummer: No, not the application, the completion. Mr. Maxwell: Oh, is made. The Certificate of Occupancy for the garage is approved. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Is the motion understood?? Ms. Pardo: And, further, that the funds... Vice Chairman Plummer: Forty dollars ($40) into the fund has to be paid, correct? Ms. Pardo: No, don't address the funds? Mr. Turner: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Plummer: Yes. Mr. Turner: As a point of clarification. Vice Chairman Plummer: Please. Mr. Turner: The effect of adopting the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation would be to adopt the ordinance as presented to you in the past. Vice Chairman Plummer: Right. Mr. Turner: But to make it effective upon issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for a parking garage on that site. You would achieve the same effect... Vice Chairman Plummer: No, you're not allowing him to... Mr. Turner: That will, automatically, cause the Off -Street Parking fund to be paid the appropriate amounts, as it would be in the absence of this entirely. So, it achieves it automatically. It doesn't need to be restated. 228 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: That's fine. That does it. That's fine. Mr. Turner: You would also achieve -- I should mention, that you would achieve the same end by simply not acting on this ordinance at all and, at some future date, when the parking garage has been constructed there, you could go ahead and extend the permissions then. You could do it either way, pass it now with an effective date later or pass it later. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, I would accept either one as my motion, OK. Doing nothing, which I don't like to do, I'd rather spell it out, and I would accept the motion -- the wording put forth by the Department. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: You don't want to move it as it? Vice Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry? Commissioner Sanchez: You don't want to move it as it? Vice Chairman Plummer: I'm moving it as per the wording by the Department. Commissioner Sanchez: Which is on this... Mr. Turner: Yes. It's this ordinance... Ms. Pardo: No. Commissioner Sanchez: This ordinance. You're going to move it? Mr. Turner: But you're moving to adopt this ordinance and to have it become effective at such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a parking garage on that site. Ms. Pardo: There are no plans for a Certificate of Occupancy. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's correct. Mr. Maxwell: Well, that's different. There's no reference at all, then, to the Ad Hoc Committee, you're saying? Mr. Turner: To the what now? Mr. Maxwell: There's no reference to the Ad Hoc Committee? Ms. Bianchino: No, not necessarily. Vice Chairman Plummer: It's not necessary. Mr. Turner: Yes, it is the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. Vice Chairman Plummer: They still have to pay both. They still have to pay both, if this ordinance is adopted. Mr. Turner: But it's the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation, that's correct. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Is that fair, that they have to pay both? 229 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. Ms. Pardo: Could 1 respond? Could I just add one thing? Vice Chairman Plummer: I am not going... Ms. Pardo: Please. Vice Chairman Plummer: ...to allow any further discussion, other than Mr. Teele, who asked for clarification. Mr. Teele, are you satisfied? Call the roll. Commissioner Gort: I have question. Wait a minute. Mr. Maxwell: It's an ordinance. It's an ordinance. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort, I'm sorry. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, what you were saying -- what I thought you were saying is, this individual has to pay certain fee? Vice Chairman Plummer: That's correct. Mr. Turner: That's correct. Commissioner Gort: Which that fee goes to a garage. Mr. Turner: It goes into the Parking Trust Fund. Commissioner Gort: To build a future garage. If we don't do anything, these people continue to do that... Mr. Turner: Exactly. Commissioner Gort: And they would not be able to use the parking facility. Mr. Turner: The effect of adopting... Vice Chairman Plummer: No, they could use it. Mr. Turner: ...this ordinance in accordance with the Ad Hoc committee's recommendation would be to not change the present situation but to put a future time, at which the permissions would be extended. Commissioner Gort: But, then, this individual will have to pay the fee, plus an additional fee? Vice Chairman Plummer: Exactly. Mr. Turner: No. They pay the same fee that they would have been paying if this ordinance never were in place. Ms. Pardo: No, you don't. Because if you don't pass the ordinance... Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Whoa, whoa. Commissioner Gort Excuse me, excuse me. Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort. Commissioner Gort: I'm getting a little confused in here. Commissioner Sanchez: I am confused. 230 November 17, 1998 Commissioner Gort: He's saying — my understand is, he's telling us that by passing this ordinance, you only pay one fee. Vice Chairman Plummer: No. Ms. Pardo: No, he's not... Commissioner Gort: That's what he said. Vice Chairman Plummer: No. Look, it's very simple. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. This individual presently is required to pay, is it forty dollars ($40) a month? Mr. Turner: Fifty. Vice Chairman Plummer: Fifty dollars ($50) a month, per parking space, to meet the requirements that he has to meet. Commissioner Gort: Right. Vice Chairman Plummer: What he is trying to do is to allow him to use the off Street Parking in the Playhouse to circumvent the fifty dollars ($50) a month, per car, and he doesn't have to pay into the trust fund. Ms. Pardo: Let me respond, please. Ms. Slazyk: That's right. Commissioner Sanchez: Wait, hold on, hold on Vice Chairman Plummer: It's just that simple. Ms. Slazyk: That's it. Commissioner Sanchez: Hold on. Can she respond? Go ahead, Miss... Ms. Pardo: Please. I would like -- just like to say the SD-2 District allows anybody who wants to lease spaces from somebody who has excess spaces to satisfy their parking requirements. It allows anybody to do that. Ms. Slazyk: That's correct. Vice Chairman Plummer: Then what's your problem? Ms. Pardo: That's exactly what we are asking for, is to be able to do the same thing on the Coconut Grove Playhouse site, which used to be within the SD-2 District and, therefore, used to be within 600 feet of Commodore. So, you can have a property owner who has a business located right here, they could lease excess parking spaces all the way over here and satisfy their zoning requirement. Ms. Slazyk: No, no. The area, it's east of Margaret. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Ms. Pardo: OK, then -- OK, then, I will correct myself and say they could have a business right here and lease parking all the way down here from another -- and they don't have to pay twice into the parking fund, and that's all we're asking. We're asking to be able to do the same thing. And Juan can confirm that. Vice Chairman Plummer: You could do that. Ms. Slazyk: The only reason... 231 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Let me ask -- Wait a minute. Whoa, whoa. Let me ask a question. If we deny him the right to park in the Playhouse parking, what does he do? Ms. Pardo: If you deny him the right to park there to satisfy his parking... Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Answer my question. Ms. Pardo: Well, I just wanted to get the whole question. Vice Chairman Plummer: If we deny him the right to use the Playhouse parking... Ms. Pardo: Right. Vice Chairman Plummer: ... does he still have pay the fifty dollars ($50) a month per space? Ms. Pardo: He could. Chairman Plummer: Absolutely. Ms. Pardo: No, he could lease spaces... Vice Chairman Plummer: Absolutely. Ms. Pardo: Wait, wait, wait. He could lease spaces from somebody else within the SD-2 District. Vice Chairman Plummer: But he still has to pay the fifty dollars ($50) a month. Ms. Pardo: No, he doesn't. He could lease spaces from somebody else. Ms. Slazyk: No. If he could find... Vice Chairman Plummer: Oh, if he could find spaces... Ms. Slazyk: If he could find them... Chairman Plummer: ... absolutely. Ms. Slazyk: ... then he doesn't have to lease them. Vice Chairman Plummer: That's absolutely. Ms. Pardo: And there are other businesses that do do that within the SD-2 District. It allow you to do that. Vice Chairman Plummer: Look, the man is a part of that community. Parking is a problem. He should be very tickled pink to pay into that parking trust fund. Ms. Pardo: No, but he also -- if I could just add in. He got.... Commissioner Teele: You know what, Commissioner Plummer? Ms. Pardo: ...a building permit 12 years ago, which is... Commissioner Teele: I really don't like the way this is... Commissioner Sanchez: No. Commissioner Teele: I really don't think counsel -- I mean, I really think that we ought to -- you just talked about how the Code Enforcement -- you know, I don't think you should -- I don't think we should allow 232 November 17, 1998 counsel to get back and forth in an argument with you. Vice Chairman Plummer: I agree with that. But everybody's... Commissioner Teele: You're the Chairman, you know, and the counsel should be, I think, a lot more respectful of you in the role that you play in keeping order. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. The motion on the floor has been couched by the Department. 1 think the motion is... Commissioner Teele: But you know what I want to state understand, J.L., why is it O'Donnell's representing -- the Playhouse doesn't want it. Vice Chairman Plummer: He's not representing the Playhouse? Commissioner Teele: Well, who's he representing? Ms. Pardo: He doesn't represent the Playhouse. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The neighbors. Vice Chairman Plummer: Neighbors. Commissioner Teele: The neighbors. He doesn't want it. They don't want it. Ms. Pardo: No, we do want the ordinance, as it's written. Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, counselor. Ms. Pardo: Sorry. I apologize. Vice Chairman Plummer: I respect the fact that you're expecting and I'm not going to make you nervous, all right. He is representing the neighbors in and around. Where I have a disagreement with Tony, my dear friend, is that we're not creating another single parking space. There's 175 spaces there, I heard, today. Tomorrow, regardless of what happens, there's going to be 175 spaces. I would think differently if we were increasing the number. We're not. What we're saying is, is that these people who want to utilize the Coconut Grove Playhouse parking lot, they pay whatever the normal fee is to the Off -Street Parking, but they also be required to pay into the trust fund to establish a new parking structure. That's all I'm saying. And that's my motion. Commissioner Sanchez: J.L., that's... Ms. Pardo: He's right. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Commissioner Regalado: And why do we do that? I mean, why do we... Vice Chairman Plummer: You second my motion and we vote it. That's how you do it. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. But why? I mean, why do we make people... Vice Chairman Plummer: Because you'll never get the money to build the structure. Because if he's allowed to circumvent paying that amount, others are going to circumvent it. You're going to have applications in here and the parking structure, which we promised the people of Coconut Grove, is never going to happen... Commissioner Teele: You know, I'm going to... 233 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: And it's not going to die because of my vote. Commissioner Regalado: So, what happen if the state decided to settle with the Off Street Parking? Vice Chairman Plummer: Then, he's out looking for more space. Commissioner Teele: You know what, J.L., I think this is a very helpful argument because you know what this shows, that here again, we, as a Commission, we worry about everybody's problems but our own. We're worried about getting the trust fund money, OK, to build more parking and, yet, we have not gone forward and asked the legislature for the authority to put a forty dollar ($40) per year or forty dollar ($40) per month surcharge on all this parking so that we can get the budget off the taxes of the citizens. Vice Chairman Plummer: No, no, we have done it, sir. Commissioner Teele: Well, the only thing I'm saying is that, I think, when we start talking about this, let's just frame this issue right now and let's bring it back when we talk about the legislation because we're looking out for everybody but ourselves. Vice Chairman Plummer: If we allow this to happen, which is being requested of us this evening, can I offer an opinion? And I'm not lawyer. I'm saying that the bonds that are going to be floating by the Off Street Parking Authority to build that structure is going to die because part of the revenue guaranteed to produce those bonds... Commissioner Teele: Or the agreement. Vice Chairman Plummer: Absolutely. Commissioner Teele: The agreements. Vice Chairman Plummer: Absolutely. My motion is on the floor, whether it gets a second or not. Commissioner Teele: It has a second. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Mr. Gort, you're the presiding officer. Commissioner Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Being none, call the question. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Read the ordinance. Mr. Maxwell: This is an ordinance. Commissioner Gort: Call the roll. Vice Chairman Plummer: It passes three to two. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 602.10.4, TO MODIFY OFF -SITE PARKING REGULATIONS FOR THE SD-2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO INCLUDE THAT PORTION OF THE ADJACENT G/I DISTRICT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE COCONUT GROVE PLAYHOUSE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 234 November 17, 1998 Passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of October 13, 1998, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Vice Chairman Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Teele, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: Commissioner Wifredo Gort. Commissioner Joe Sanchez ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11731. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Vice Chairman Plummer: Item 18. I'm sorry, 16 or 18? Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): Seventeen. Vice Chairman Plummer: Seventeen. Ms. Slazyk: Seventeen. This is a second reading. It is to allow office uses in existing office structures within SD-4. It's been recommended approval by the Department, by the Planning Advisory Board and there's... Vice Chairman Plummer: Moved by Regalado. Seconded by Sanchez. Read the ordinance. Commissioner Sanchez: I didn't move anything or second anything. Vice Chairman Plummer: You didn't second anything. Commissioner Gort: I'll second it. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Well, we'll just take a recess for 30 minutes and come back. Item 17. Commissioner Gort: Second. Vice Chairman Plummer: Motion is moved by Regalado. Seconded... Commissioner Regalado: Which one? Vice Chairman Plummer: Guys, Ma'am, Mrs. Jude, I'm trying to bring a meeting to a conclusion. Item 17. Does the Commission wish to take action or not? Commissioner Gort: I moved it. Vice Chairman Plummer: Is there a motion? Commissioner Gort: I moved it. Second reading. Vice Chairman Plummer: There's a motion by Commissioner Gort. Is there a second to the matter? For the 235 November 17, 1998 second time, is there a second? For the third... Commissioner Teele: Second. Vice Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Commissioner Teele. Is there a discussion on Item 17? Hearing no discussion, read the ordinance. Motion understood. Nobody wishes to speak on the issue. Call the roll. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 604, SD-4 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, TO PERMIT GENERAL OFFICE USE IN EXISTING OFFICE STRUCTURES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of October 27, 1998, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Teele, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11732. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Vice Chairman Plummer: Item 18, Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning): It's first reading. Amendment to SDI, to modify the setback provisions. We had a request very recently for a variance for a new Walgreen's in Model City. That's what this is for. And we found out that, the way this ordinance was written about 15 years ago, the setbacks didn't make any sense. They didn't allow the parking in front of the structure, on the street side, and for security purposes, they needed it. There are several other projects that are talking to us in this area and this would allow development to proceed there. Vice Chairman Plummer: Is there anyone wishing to discuss Item 18? Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Vice Chairman Plummer: Moved by Regalado. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. 236 November 17, 1998 Vice Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Sanchez. Any further discussion? Read the ordinance. Lourdes. Ms. Slazyk: OK, One more guys. PZ-19. Vice Chairman Plummer: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa. I thought you had a comment on 18. Ms. Slazyk: No. Vice Chairman Plummer: Then, call the roll on 18. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Vice Chairman Plummer: Hello. Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Regalado, roll call. Commissioner Teele: On 18? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Vice Chairman Plummer: Eighteen. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 601, SD-1 MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO INCREASE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed in first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Vice Chairman Plummer: Item 19. I'm totally opposed to but go ahead. Anybody wish to discuss it? Commissioner Teele: Move to defer. Vice Chairman Plummer: Move to defer. I second the motion. Any further discussion? Commissioner Regalado: No. 237 November 17, 1998 Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Is this the 8th of December? Vice Chairman Plummer: What? Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Is that a continuance? Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, is it... Vice Chairman Plummer: It's moved to January what? Commissioner Teele: Second meeting in January. Ms. Slazyk: Twenty-sixth. Vice Chairman Plummer: Second meeting in January. A date certain. OK. I think we're pretty much finished with the agenda. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele. Commissioner Teele: I'd like to ask the Planning Department, when will we have the methodology and the study of the Third Avenue Business Corridor? Ms. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): Commissioner, if I could partially respond to that. We have put the survey together. I think that we need to have a discussion with CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) staff in terms of how you want this to move forward and who you want to undertake it. Commissioner Teele: I thought the Planning Department was voted on by the Commission to do it. Ms. Bianchino: If that's your wishes, I can come back to you at the next... Commissioner Teele: That's what we voted to do. Ms. Bianchino: We will prepare a response to your request in writing next week, by the end of this week. Commissioner Teele: Please. Thank you. Vice Chairman Plummer: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Before... Chairman Plummer: Wait a minute. Excuse me. Continue the roll call on 19, that you say we didn't finish. Unidentified Speaker: (Inaudible). Vice Chairman Plummer: What? Unidentified Speaker: You didn't finish it. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, finish it. 238 November 17, 1998 Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): OK. You want to do a roll call? Vice Chairman Plummer: She said we started but we didn't finish. Mr. Foeman: Yeah, we didn't actually finish. Vice Chairman Plummer: Well, do a roll call. Do what we've got to do. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO.98-1159 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM PZ-19 (PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING ORD. 11000 TO ALLOW SALES OF FRESH FLOWERS FROM MOBILE VENDING CARTS WITHIN DESIGNATED OPEN AREAS BY CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT) TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FRO JANUARY 26, 1999. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Before -- J.L.? Vice Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Before we go, there's something that we should discuss. I don't know, in the form of a motion or the direction to the administration. WillieChirino had been talking to the administration. Chirino is a very popular singer... Vice Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. If that is not a zoning item, I must adjourn this meeting... Commissioner Regalado: You must. Vice Chairman Plummer: OK. Is there any other matter to come before the zoning portion of this hearing? Commissioner Sanchez: No, sir. Vice Chairman Plummer: Then, I now show, at 8:50 p.m. the adjournment of the Planning and Zoning meeting and, for the purposes of discussion only, Mr. Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: OK. As we all know, there had been a tragedy in Central America, so Willy 239 November 17, 1998