Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2004-02-26 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com IF Ali Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:00 AM PLANNING & ZONING (Verbatim Minutes) City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Arthur E. Teele, Jr., Chairman Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Angel Gonzalez, Commissioner District One Johnny L. Winton, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Joe Arriola, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Page 4 MV - MAYORAL VETOES Page 5 CA - CONSENT AGENDA Pages 6-19 M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS Pages 20-34 D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS Pages 34-35 D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS Pages 35-43 PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS Pages 44-65 EM - EMERGENCY ORDINANCES Pages 66-68 SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES Pages 68-75 FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES Pages 75-77 RE - RESOLUTIONS Pages 77-84 BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES Page 85 DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS Pages 86-93 EXECUTIVE SESSIONS Pages 94-96 PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS NON AGENDA ITEMS PART B Pages 97-311 Pages 312-334 City ofAliami Page 2 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Regalado and Chairman Teele Absent: Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Winton and Vice Chairman Sanchez On the 26th day of February, 2004, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 9:17 a.m. by Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr., recessed at 11:29 a.m., reconvened at 2:57 p.m. and adjourned at 1:52 a.m. on February 27, 2004. ALSO PRESENT: Joe Arriola, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PR.1 04-00177 CEREMONIAL ITEM Name of Honoree Presenter Protocol Item City of Miami's 2004 Mayor Diaz Certificates presented Black History Month Honorees Ginette Eugene Mayor Diaz & Chairman Teele Salute presented Gina Eugene Mayor Diaz & Chairman Teele Salute presented Vice Chair Sanchez Small Business Opportunity Plaques presented & Commissioner Regalado Center with Local Merchants by SBOC Jose Alvarez Commissioner Gonzalez Certificate of Appreciation (Commissioner Regalado) presented Bianka Cruz Commissioner Gonzalez Certificate of Appreciation (Commissioner Regalado) presented 04-00177-cover page.pdf 04-00177-protocol program.pdf Roll Ca11: Present: Commissioner Winton, Vice Chairman Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Chairman Teele Absent: Commissioner Gonzalez Chairman Teele: Welcome to City Hall. As in our tradition, we normally dispense with some protocol items before we get down to the business. We want to welcome all of you to City Hall. This is Black History Month, and I am very pleased that the Mayor and the Mayor's staff have taken the lead in presenting a series of citations, and so without further ado, let me turn this over to the Mayor. (Presentations Made) Chairman Teele: All right. The order of the day has been printed, and Chair notes that Commissioner Gonzalez will be with us in the afternoon session. It should be noted that we do have an executive session that has been set for 2:45, and it's further noted that we're attempting to leave here by 7 p.m. this evening. We have one Commissioner who has to leave not later than 7:30 or 7:45, so let's govern our remarks and comments accordingly for the rest of the day. City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 MAYORAL VETOES Chairman Teele: All right. Pursuant -- we will begin the formal portion of the City Commission meeting, pursuant to Section 4(g)5 of the Charter. The Mayor has exercised zero vetoes, is that correct, Madam Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): That is correct, sir. No vetoes. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 CONSENT AGENDA CA.1 04-00090 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 03-343, ADOPTED APRIL 10, 2003, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF PAPER FOR VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS ON AN AS -NEEDED CONTRACT BASIS; CHANGING THE VENDOR NAMES FROM UNISOURCE WORLDWIDE AND XPEDX, TO "VARIOUS VENDORS," AND TO ADD THE LANGUAGE "OR REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS." 04-00090-cover memo.pdf 04-00090-previous legislation.pdf 04-00090-contract award sheet.pdf 04-00090-amendment to Miami -Dade contract.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0090 CA.2 04-00091 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, SYSTEM INTEGRATION SERVICES, COMPUTER PROGRAMMING SERVICES, SYSTEMS ANALYSIS SERVICES, DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, AND OTHER TECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES, FROM VARIOUS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANT SERVICES VENDORS AS LISTED ON THE VENDOR LIST, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ("ITD"), AWARDED UNDER VARIOUS STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACTS, ON AN AS -NEEDED CONTRACT BASIS, SUBJECT TO ANY EXTENSIONS, RENEWALS, AND REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AT AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $900,000, ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ITD STRATEGIC FUNDS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ("CIP") ACCOUNTS, OR THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (FY 2003-2004), AND FROM THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, CIP ACCOUNTS, OR ITD STRATEGIC FUNDS AS MAY BE ADJUSTED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS/CIP ORDINANCES OR AS OTHERWISE ADJUSTED AS PERMITTED BY LAW. 04-00091-cover memo.pdf 04-00091-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00091-award under state of florida.pdf 04-00091-exhibit- consulting services.pdf City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0091 CA.3 04-00093 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, ACCEPTING THE BID OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.,TO PROVIDE CONVERSION SERVICES/DOCUMENT SCANNING CITYWIDE, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING, ON AN AS -NEEDED CONTRACT BASIS, FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR ONE ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. 04-00093-cover memo.pdf 04-00093-background information.pdf 04-00093-award recommendation form.pdf 04-00093-award sheet.pdf 04-00093-tabulation sheet.pdf 04-00093-bid security list.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0092 CA.4 04-00094 RESOLUTION Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Attorney DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY BETTY SIMPSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MORENA SIMPSON, DECEASED, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $90,000 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND SERVANTS, IN THE CASE OF BETTY SIMPSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MORENA SIMPSON, DECEASED V. CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 96-5717 CA (21), UPON EXECUTING A GENERAL RELEASE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS PRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE SELF INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, INDEX CODE NO. 515001.624401.6.651. 04-00094-cover memo.pdf DEFERRED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to DEFER consideration of CA.4 to the City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 11, 2004. CA.5 04-00095 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING THE REQUEST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ("COUNTY") TO USE THE MIAMI MARINE STADIUM PARKING LOT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3601 RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY PARKING FOR THE NASDAQ 100 OPEN TENNIS TOURNAMENT ("EVENT"), FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 24, 2004 THROUGH APRIL 4, 2004, AT CRANDON PARK ON KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE COUNTY, PROVIDED THAT: (1) THE COUNTY PREPARE THE SITE AND CLEAN THE PARKING LOT AND ADJACENT CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") OWNED LAND DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EVENT AND (2) THE CITY MAY CONTINUE TO USE THE STABLES AT TROPICAL PARK THROUGH APRIL 30, 2005. 04-00095-cover memo.pdf 04-00095- in -kind services by mdc .pdf 04-00095- letter from mdc.pdf 04-00095-exhibit 1- letter to county manager. pdf 04-00095-exhibit 2- maps.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0093 CA.6 04-00100 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE BID OF WILLIAMS PAVING COMPANY, INC., FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT, B-4654," IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,194,491.50; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ("CIP") NO. 313855 ENTITLED "OCTOBER 2000 FLOOD RECOVERY" IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,194,491.50, FOR CONTRACT COSTS, PLUS $58,890 FOR ESTIMATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), FOR TOTAL PROJECT COSTS, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,253,381.50, AS SET FORTH ON THE FORMAL BID DOCUMENT AND THE PROJECT FACT SHEET, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PROJECT. City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 04-00100-cover memo.pdf 04-00100-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00100-exhibit 1-formal bid.pdf 04-00100-exhibit 2-project fact sheet.pdf 04-00100-exhibit 3-project locations.pdf 04-00100-exhibit 4-contract.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0094 CA.7 04-00111 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") NO. 03-04-004, THAT THE TOP -RANKED FIRM TO PROVIDE GROUP HEALTH BENEFITS FOR PART-TIME/TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT, IS STAR HRG; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $150,000, FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR THREE ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS FOR THE FIRST YEAR FROM NON -DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT CODE NO. 921002.510, WITH SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATION AND RENEWAL YEARS SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. 04-00111-cover memo.pdf 04-00111-memo from Evaluation Committee.pdf 04-00111-Budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00111-evaluation of RFP.pdf 04-00111-exhibit 1-service agreement.pdf 04-00111-exhibit 2-scope of services.pdf 04-00111-exhibit 3-compensation.pdf 04-00111-exhibit 4-application.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0095 CA.8 04-00045 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Police ACQUISITION OF NINE (9) 2004 FORD EXPLORER SPORT UTILITY City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 VEHICLES, WITH EXTENDED WARRANTY, FROM MIKE DAVIDSON FORD, UNDER EXISTING FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION BID NO. 03-11-0825, EFFECTIVE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, SUBJECT TO ANY EXTENSIONS OR REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $177,642, ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT VII, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 142023.290539.6.840. 04-00045-cover memo.pdf 04-00045-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00045-email.pdf 04-00045-bid award announcement 1.pdf 04-00045-web pages.pdf 04-00045-bid award announcement 2.pdf 04-00045-award under florida sheriffs assoc.pdf 04-0045-submission-fact sheet.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez CA.9 04-00118 Department of Conferences, Conventions and Public Facilities R-04-0096 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000, FOR THE AMERICAN CHORAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, INC., A NON-PROFIT ENTITY, FOR THE NATIONAL CONVENTION TO BE HELD IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, IN MARCH, 2007; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 OPERATING BUDGET, SUBJECT TO THE ORGANIZERS COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE. 04-00118-cover memo.pdf 04-00118 - memo - 2.pdf Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele CA.10 04-00122 R-04-0119 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING A CAP ON THE USER FEE OF $5,000 AND A MAXIMUM OF 1,500 COMPLEMENTARY TICKETS FOR THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC. FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A SOCCER MATCH AT THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM ON MARCH 13, 2004, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 HAITI ("EVENT"); CONDITIONING SAID AUTHORIZATION UPON THE ORGANIZERS: (1) OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED BY LAW; (2) PAYING FOR ALL NECESSARY COSTS OF CITY SERVICES AND APPLICABLE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID EVENT; (3) OBTAINING INSURANCE TO PROTECT THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE; AND (4) COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A USE AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM. 04-00122- cover memo.pdf 04-00122- exhibit- use agreement.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0097 CA.11 04-00123 RESOLUTION City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE FEE -SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY THROUGH NEGOTIATED CONVEYANCE OR CONDEMNATION SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CULTURAL COMPONENT OF THE LITTLE HAITI PARK PROJECT; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO USE ALL RESOURCES AVAILABLE INCLUDING THE RETENTION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, EXPERT WITNESSES AND CONSULTANTS; FURTHER TO TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS THAT ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PREPARE FOR THE ACQUISITION REAL PROPERTY CONDEMNATION. 04-00123-cover memo.pdf WITHDRAWN A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to WITHDRAW item CA.11. CA.12 04-00124 RESOLUTION City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF THE FEE -SIMPLE INTEREST IN PARCELS 67, 75, 76, AND 77 THROUGH NEGOTIATED CONVEYANCE OR CONDEMNATION SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CULTURAL COMPONENT OF THE LITTLE HAITI PARK PROJECT; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO USE ALL RESOURCES AVAILABLE INCLUDING THE RETENTION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, EXPERT WITNESSES AND CONSULTANTS; FURTHER TO TAKE ANY ACTIONS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE SAID PARCELS THROUGH CONDEMNATION. 04-00124-cover memo.pdf 04-00124-exh ibit. pdf City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 WITHDRAWN A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to WITHDRAW item CA.12. CA.13 04-00133 RESOLUTION Planning & Zoning A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH -- City Commission ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE THAT THE FIRMS MOST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF AN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ON THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 02-03-245, IN RANK ORDER, ARE: (1) THE CORRADINO GROUP AND (2) KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC., SECOND -RANKED FIRM, SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS FAIL WITH THE TOP -RANKED FIRM, UNTIL A CONTRACT IS SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED; AT AN ESTIMATED TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $150,000, FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150,000, FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. 850101.6.270, AND IF NECESSARY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000, FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. 341330. 04-00133-cover memo.pdf 04-00133-memo from Evaluation Committee .pdf 04-00133-PZ budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00133-Mgr budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00133-evaluation for RFP.pdf 04-00133-pro. service agreement.pdf 04-00133-scope of services.pdf 04-00133-rate schedules.pdf 04-00133-estimated project hours.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0098 CA.14 04-00127 RESOLUTION City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE LAW OFFICES OF OSCAR E. MARRERO FOR REPRESENTATION OF FORMER POLICE DECTECTIVES JAMES E. BOONE AND BRUCE CHARLES ROBERSON IN THE CASE OF JERRY FRANK TOWNSEND VS. CITY OF MIAMI, ETC., ET AL. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 FLORIDA, CASE NO. 03-21072-CIV-JORDAN, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000, PLUS COSTS AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 515001.624401.6.661 FOR SAID SERVICES. 04-00127-cover memo.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0099 Adopted the Consent Agenda Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, including all the preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez CA.15 04-00178 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES FROM URS CORPORATION, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING, TO BE USED CITYWIDE ON AN AS -NEEDED CONTRACT BASIS, UTILIZING EXISTING CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CONTRACT PROCURED PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 111-99/00, EFFECTIVE UNTIL MAY 26, 2006, SUBJECT TO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OR REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. 341330. City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 04-00178-cover memo.pdf 04-00178-memo from Law.pdf 04-00178-letter from URS.pdf 04-00178-agreement.pdf 04-00178-agreement.pdf 04-00178-program elements.pdf 04-00178-scope of services.pdf 04-00178-key on -site staff.pdf 04-00178-optional services.pdf 04-00178-staffing plan.pdf 04-00178-staff rate ranges.pdf 04-00178-reimbursable expenses.pdf 04-00178-list of sub-consultants.pdf 04-00178-non discrimination requirements.pdf 04-00178-provisions of airport projects.pdf 04-00178-certificate of insurance.pdf 04-00178-amendment to agreement.pdf 04-00178-program elements 2.pdf 04-00178-scope of services 2.pdf 04-00178-key on -site staff 2.pdf 04-00178-optional services 2.pdf 04-00178-staffing plan 2.pdf 04-00178-staff rate ranges 2.pdf 04-00178-reimbursable expenses 2.pdf 04-00178-list of sub -consultants 2.pdf 04-00178-certificate of insurance 2.pdf 04-00178-notice to proceed.pdf 04-00178-invoices. pdf 04-00178.pdf 04-00178 - revised memos.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0120 [CA.15 had been tabled earlier by a motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and unanimously passed, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent.] Chairman Teele: Motions to defer or withdraw items. Mr. Attorney. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Item CA.4 on the consent agenda, I'd like to request that that be deferred to the next meeting, March llth. Chairman Teele: Without objection, go ahead. Any others? Mr. Vilarello: At the appropriate time, I would like to defer the executive sessions, both of them, for your attention -- Chairman Teele: They can only be deferred at 2: 45. Mr. Vilarello: And the Manager has -- CA.15 to be withdrawn from the consent agenda and be considered later in the day. City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: What about CA.11 and 12? It was my understanding the Manager was going to do something on those? Commissioner Winton: Well, we have a document that says that. Chairman Teele: Huh? Commissioner Winton: I mean, I have something handed out by the Clerk that says withdraw CA Number 12. Chairman Teele: No. That's my document. Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. Mr. Vilarello: The Manager's requesting the withdrawal of item CA.11 and 12. Chairman Teele: No, no. That's yours. Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. Chairman Teele: The Chair. All right. So those are -- motion to withdraw CA.11 and 12. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: And 4. Mr. Vilarello: Defer Item 4. Chairman Teele: All right. Motion on 11 and 12. It's moved and second. Objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Motion to defer Item CA.4 to the next meeting -- Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: -- and CA.15 to later on today. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Moved on CA.4 and CA.15. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All right. Now, on the consent agenda, do we have any other withdrawals from the consent agenda? City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: I move the remainder of the consent agenda. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Regalado: I have a question. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Discussion on the consent agenda. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: CA.9 is twenty-five thousand dollars from the Special Events account for the National Convention -- the National Convention to be held in Miami March 2007. Is that -- Chairman Teele: Who on the staff is handling this? Commissioner Winton: Here we go. Christina Abrams: Christina Abrams, Director of Public Facilities. Commissioner, can you repeat your question, please? Commissioner Winton: She didn't hear your question. Chairman Teele: Ms. Abrams, are you responsible for -- Commissioner Regalado: I don't have a question. My question -- actually, it's a comment. This is for 2007? Ms. Abrams: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: This is coming from the Special Events funding? Ms. Abrams: Correct. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Our Budget Director says that he recommends it comes from the funding allocated to the Downtown Hotel Task Force to bid on conventions for downtown. Commissioner Regalado: And this was decided by the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) ? Ms. Abrams: No. What it is, is that the -- Commissioner Winton: This is the first I've -- I heard about this yesterday. Chairman Teele: First of all, it's inappropriately advertised. It says from the Special Events account. Commissioner Regalado: That's what -- got me confused. Chairman Teele: That's what the notice says. Commissioner Winton: It does say that. Commissioner Regalado: So, there is a fund. Ms. Abrams: A request to speak? City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Why don't we -- Commissioner Winton: Why don't -- Ms. Abrams: IfI could speak? Chairman Teele: -- defer this? Ms. Abrams: Thank you. The downtown hotels have been working with the Greater Miami Conventions and Visitors Bureau to bid on the American Choral Directors Association Convention in 2007. This is a huge convention with 10,000 delegates. Most of the hotels will be in downtown Miami. This is the kind of business that we've been going after for the past year. Right now we're competing with Boston and Philadelphia. The sooner we bid -- we submit our commitment, the sooner that we have a chance of being considered. If we delay this, we delay the possibility of getting this convention -- Chairman Teele: Why don't we -- Ms. Abrams: -- and typically, in this business, you bid four, five, 10 years out. Chairman Teele: Ms. Abrams? Ms. Abrams: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Why don't we defer this until later on today, get a nice memo prepared, please, and let's just say where the money is coming from and what year it's going to come from. I mean, are we making a -- Ms. Abrams: Sure. Chairman Teele: -- commitment to lay out money out of this budget year? Ms. Abrams: We're making a commitment today to lay out the money in 2007. Chairman Teele: OK, so the answer to my question is what? What was my question? Ms. Abrams: Your question? Commissioner Winton: When do you lay the money out? Chairman Teele: My question was, are we making a commitment to lay out money out of this budget year? Ms. Abrams: No. Chairman Teele: OK. Commissioner Winton: 2007. Ms. Abrams: It's a two-part. To answer you, it's a two-part. Yes, we're making the commitment today. Chairman Teele: We're making a commitment. Ms. Abrams: Correct. The money -- City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: But to lay out money this year? Ms. Abrams: No, it's in 2007. Chairman Teele: And it's not coming from Special Events. When it does comes, it should not impact the Special Events account. Commissioner Regalado: That's my question. Chairman Teele: And that's the whole point that we're dealing with, so why don't we get the resolution properly written -- Ms. Abrams: Fine. Chairman Teele: -- and it's going to go through unanimously. Ms. Abrams: We'll have it for you after lunch. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: But there's a point to this, and that is, we need to think about how we write this stuff so it's clear what they're voting on; otherwise, you get this confusion and confusion can lead to failure, and so -- Ms. Abrams: Understood. Commissioner Winton: -- whoever writes this stuff -- and this could have been written a whole lot better and crystal clear Ms. Abrams: I wrote it, so I'll make sure it gets corrected by the staff. Commissioner Winton: OK. Thank you, but Mr. Budget Director, I would recommend that the resolution be a statement of support for the twenty-five thousand dollars and an instruction to the Manager to prepare the 2007 fiscal budget with this as a special item earmarked in the budget. It should not impact some accounts that are, you know, year to year to year, in my opinion. Joe Arriola (City Manager): Absolutely. Chairman Teele: You and the management do it however you like. Motion to defer CA -- Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: -- 9 to the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Afternoon agenda. Commissioner Winton: Afternoon. Chairman Teele: -- afternoon. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: All opposed? Any other item for discussion? Commissioner Winton: Well, I think we had a motion and a second on accepting the agenda. Chairman Teele: We have a motion and a second, but any other item for discussion under that motion regarding the consent agenda? There being no further discussion, all those in favor, signify -- of the consent agenda, as amended, signify by the sign of "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. And the other item, Commissioner Winton, are you moving that for the Manager, CA -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, we're going to take Item 21 now, right, PZ.21 ? I ask, please, if we could take Item 26 after 21, because 26 is not controversial. Chairman Teele: All right, very quietly. Can we take up CA-9 while the people are coming in? Everyone that's out there on 21, please come in. Madam Manager, did you all want to take this up? You have somebody that's going to move it? Commissioner Winton: What is it? What is CA -- Chairman Teele: Christina, which one was the one we sent back this morning? Alicia Cuervo Schreiber (Chief of Operations): CA.15, a resolution approving the procurement of professional consulting services from U.S. -- Chairman Teele: Is that yours? Christina Abrams (Director, Conferences, Conventions and Public Facilities): No, it's CA-9. Chairman Teele: Hold on. What's yours, Christina? Ms. Abrams: CA-9. Chairman Teele: Motion on CA-9 by Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Regalado: OK, OK, OK Chairman Teele: Discussion on the motion. Commissioner Regalado: On the motion, this twenty-five thousand dollars cannot be taken from any Special Events Fund. Chairman Teele: With the understanding it will not -- it has to come back as a part of the budget process, really, is the way it should be in 2007? Ms. Abrams: What the resolution is, is to direct the City Manager to allocate funds from the 2007 budget and not from Special Event Fund. City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Not from Special Events. Chairman Teele: Motion and a second. Is there objection? Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Ms. Abrams: Thank you very much. Commissioner Winton: CA.15, yeah, so move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Mr. Vilarello: Now, Mr. Chairman, that's a substitute item that's been distributed. Commissioner Winton: We have it. Chairman Teele: This requires a 4/5ths vote? Commissioner Winton: No. Does it? Chairman Teele: It does not? Mr. Vilarello: It does not. Chairman Teele: All those in favor of CA -- Commissioner Winton: 15. Chairman Teele: --15, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? END OF CONSENT AGENDA City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 D3.1 04-00156 District 3- Chair Joe Sanchez (D3.1) 04-00156a MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR MANUEL A. DIAZ DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER ANGEL GONZALEZ DISTRICT 2 COMMISSIONER JOHNNY L. WINTON DISTRICT 3 VICE CHAIRMAN JOE SANCHEZ DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE DE -OBLIGATED CDBG FUNDS BE RE -USED ON A PRIORITY BASIS TO FUND THE ONGOING ACTIVITIES OF THE LITTLE HAVANA HOME OWNERSHIP ADVISORY BOARD. 04-001 56-email.pdf DISCUSSED Direction to the Administration: by Chairman Teele to provide a matrix showing all the funds used for the Model City Homeownership Trust, identifying where funds came from, how much was appropriated, etc. in order to determine what is the right amount of money to start the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board, taking into consideration a strategy to find funds, which includes the de -obligation of CDBG. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, directing the City Attorney to draft a resolution and bring it for Commission consideration at 3 o'clock today, to deobligate CDBG funds to be allocated to the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board. Note: See below for proposed resolution, which was considered and deferred: RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACCELERATED FUNDING STRATEGY FOR THE LITTLE HAVANA HOME OWNERSHIP ADVISORY BOARD TO ADVANCE THE REMAINING $4.5 MILLION OF THE TOTAL $7.5 MILLION ALLOCATED FOR THE BOARD, USING DEOBLIGATED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS AND OTHER FUNDS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 DEFERRED The resolution listed above was considered and DEFERRED to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 11, 2004. Direction to the City Manager: from Vice Chairman Sanchez to identify funding sources available for the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board and report on the need assessment of the empowerment zones in the City ofMiami. Direction to the City Manager: by Chairman Teele to instruct the Executive Director of the Model City Homeownership Trust to prepare a document jointly with the Director of Community Development outlining the funding history of the Model City Homeownership Trust, the commitments that were made, and the time lines of said commitments in terms of the funds and their sources and in terms of the number of units that were committed. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Sanchez, would you like to take up D3.1 and 2? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Thank you so much. It's a discussion concerning a resolution requesting that the de -obligated CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds be reused on a priority basis to fund the ongoing activities of the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board. The Homeownership Advisory Board is moving very quickly to establish homeownership opportunities. In the face of soaring land prices, its members have asked that we look at ways to obtaining money now because the window of opportunity will be slipping away. The current situation is that because all the development -- the current development that's going in the area, properties three to four and five years down the road would just be too expensive for us to be able to subsidize people, and that window of opportunity is approximately two to three years down the road. Today, to subsidize an individual -- Chairman Teele: I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, I'll yield. Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: I apologize, Commissioner Sanchez. You were in the middle of your item. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, as I'm stating, the purpose here of obtaining additional funds that are not being utilized were de -obligated to assist the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board. These are the following reasons: One is that we have a window of the opportunity because of the ongoing development of properties are skyrocketing and we know that two to three years down the road, we will be shortfalling on assisting people to qualify. In other words, we're putting thirty thousand dollars now of subsidies. Four to five years, we're going to be having to put a hundred thousand dollars in subsidies to assist people to become ownership, so we're going to be missing out on that opportunity. All that we're asking for is that, you know, we receive priming of the pumps, similar to the one that Model City received when they were provided funds that are out there unobligated or projected in projects that are going to happen two to three years down the road. Basically, what we want to do is, if we could utilize those funds, and then we could exchange the funds thatl have in the fourth and fifth year, we'll give them right back. I mean, it's just changing -- that way we don't lose that opportunity because the opportunity -- the concern of the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board is that it's going to fail in its accomplishment because of the skyrocketing of the properties. You know, we can't compare Model City to Little Havana Board. It's apples and oranges completely, and we've learned -- you know, we've sat back and we've learned from Model City and what they've done and some of the mistakes they've made, and I know that the next homeownership that comes on board is going to learn from ours, but the bottom line is that, you know, one point five million dollars a year isn't going to get us there, and as a matter offact, within the next couple of months before June, we have already in place 22 families that will be homeownerships in Little Havana that we've been working on. This board has done an City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 extraordinary job, and I commend them for it. They've worked very hard to put this together, but the concern is that, you know, we're being funded to fail as we've said here before in this Commission, when you give someone "X" amount of dollars, not realizing that five years down the line, they're not going to need the money, so what I'm asking is, and the right thing -- and I will, at 3 o'clock, when the CDBG Director comes up, is directing her to work with the legal department to create a resolution that would prioritize de -obligating CDBG funds for reuse by the Little Havana Homeownership Board and we'll have a resolution prepared for the first meeting in March, and we'll put it on the blue items, and once again, I'm not taking any money from anybody. I'm just willing to obtain as much money as I can now to accomplish our mission and get that mission done and then we'll give you what we have projected in maybe the fourth and fifth year. Chairman Teele: May I respond? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: First of all, I think all of the policy statements you made are correct. We don't want to create entities that are set up for limited success, if not absolute failure, and I think underfunding is a very important issue. I think there's three things that would like for you to do or to consider doing. First, I think there needs to be a specific amount of money that is being asked for. Just to say some money is helpful in terms of just lulling everybody to sleep, so nobody says anything, but when you put a number on the table, I think that's where the real discussion starts of what is that funding, and parenthetically, in that regard, I think it's very important, Joe, to know and not -- you know, because one of the biggest problems we have around here right now is the personnel changes, the lack of institutional memory, and people are walking in and they're the smartest people they've ever met, but they don't know what happened a month ago, so let's be very clear about what happened on Model Cities. The largest amount of upfront funding -- and Ms. Gonzalez, you need to correct the record if I'm wrong, please, please. No, please -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Rodriguez. Chairman Teele: Ms. Rodriguez -- did I say Gonzalez? Ms. Rodriguez, the largest single pot of money that started this off came from the de -obligation of Section 8 vouchers. Section 8 buildings, which was -- how much money did we get out of the Section 8 de -obligation and the canceling of those contracts? Ms. Rodriguez: No. The dollars that were -- when we cancelled the Section 8 mod rehab buildings, they were converted into vouchers, so that was not money going to the Model City Homeownership Zone. The big bulk that was given to the Model City Homeownership Zone was when we paid back HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) the four point one million dollars, that money went straight to the Model City Homeownership Zone, besides the one point five times five years, but the Section 8 -- no. Chairman Teele: Then I stand corrected, and that's why I'm asking, you know, that the record be clear. What we need is a matrix of where all of the dollars came from, how much was appropriated, et cetera, in frying to determine what is the right amount of money to start this up with; that is, in terms of -- did we get any congressional appropriations for Model Cities Trust? Ms. Rodriguez: They did get some dollars for the Trust, that don't know that amount of money. It's handled by Marva Wiley. The money that can account for is every single dollar that Community Development, through whatever grant, be it CDBG or HOME (Home Investment Partnership Program), was given to that project. Chairman Teele: So, the important point is we need to get a matrix of all of the dollars that were City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 put in to start it up, OK, and then we need to look at what is needed for the new homeownership zone, and I want to be very supportive of that. I think what we need, though, as opposed to a resolution to de -obligate is a resolution to develop a strategy, including de -obligation because, I mean, it may be that we can do a 108. It may be we can do a whole series of things that makes the money available. The biggest concern that have with dollars, especially with CD (Community Development) dollars is this problem that this City has had for over 20 years, 25 years, and it's an unbelievable problem for the poorest City in the nation, and the biggest problem that we have is the outlay of CD dollars, the expenditure of CD dollars; that is, everybody having a good intent -- and this is a problem with the Model Cities Trust right now. They have not outlaid those dollars fast enough to keep federal HUD off of her back in terms of the expenditure of dollars. Ms. Rodriguez: That's a correct statement. They -- you have a timeliness issue every year. They checked us once a year, which is August 1st, and that's the time that you cannot have, by Congress, more than one point five your entitlement. Chairman Teele: You see, the strategies, as far as I'm concerned, may even be to use a CD float. I mean, there's a whole series of strategies that can be developed, and I think we ought to look at that, and I think we ought to, at 3 o'clock, do a resolution, butl would make the -- I would request, respectfully, that you make the resolution broad enough that it's not just one source of money that is the de -obligation, but it be a strategy including de -obligation and any other mechanisms that could be addressed. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, my concern is that we have funds out there that we are at risk of losing. They are out there. There's approximately -- I mean, I have all the figures of the Model City and what they have obtained. I didn't want to get into that. I didn't want to get into comparing one to the other, butl can tell you this much. My biggest concern is that we have a lot of funds out there that are allocated to specific projects that may or may not get done or it could get done three or four or five years down to road, and we are at risk of losing those funds from the federal government, and once again, I don't think that would be good for a City that's considered the poorest City in the nation to be losing money and the federal government taking that money back. Now, you could correct me on that, Barbara. I know there's funds out there that the federal government every year, if you're over a percentage, they could say, I could take that money back under Congress act, they could take money away. That's my concern. Chairman Teele: That's what just said. We're agreeing. Ms. Rodriguez: That's what Commissioner Teele is saying, basically. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I agree on the issue. My concern is that based on the directive that received from the Homeownership Advisory Board of Little Havana, they have asked that we work with management and we work with the administration to try to obtain -- however it may be. I'm looking at all funds available -- to try to obtain money now because, once again, the key issue here is that window of opportunity. With all the development that's happening now, we're able to work with the developers, because they're being subsidized, I mean, not the developers themselves, but the homeowners are going to get those thirty to forty-five thousand if we tap into some State fund assistance to become ownership. That's not going to be available two to three years down the road because of the current sky prices of these properties, so my goal is to set it up, move as quickly as we can, get as many home ownerships to become homeowners, and then go to the next homeownership that's being created, so Barbara, my recommendation, and what this resolution would be is that you would bring back a resolution at 3 o'clock, basically working with the Legal Department to create a resolution that would prioritize, de -obligate CDBG's funds for reuse by the Little Havana Homeownership Board and then we'll discuss it at 3 o'clock under your CD items, and we'll vote on it. So moved, Mr. Chairman. City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: This morning, on my blue pages, we discussed and directed the Legal Department and Community Development to prepare a resolution accelerating funding for the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board; that the resolution has been prepared, and I would like to introduce it to the Board or the Commission for a vote. I'd like to have the City Attorney read that resolution for the record. The resolution was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved. I have a serious problem with this motion. It has -- first of all, it has a budgetary impact, so it's going to have to go on the regular agenda if it's objected to in that way, but to say that every -- I mean, you know, this is biblical. To say that every zone is going to have to have the same amount of money is really like the most -- it is extremely divisive that a neighborhood has an identical need to the next. I wouldn't care if it's twenty-four million, if that's what it needs, but another community may only need three million. I mean, we're locking ourselves into something that is prehistoric. I mean, you know, not since Solomon said, "I'll divide the baby in half" have policymakers been confronted with such a clear issue, and I just think the intent that we talked about this morning of identifying the dollars and giving it to the staff to identify the necessary dollars, based upon a plan that is needed, but the plan from one organization -- I mean, I wouldn't accept -- the plan from one community, the number of units that we're talking about building, these are things that -- we're locking ourselves into something that is literally going to take us over a cliff. If the -- if Little Havana needs twelve million, if they need fourteen million to start it off based upon what is going on, I will support it, but just to support Little Havana because Little Haiti got and now we've got to give Allapattah, because Little Haiti and Little Havana got, we're going to wind up with a horrible public policy, and it's a policy not based on need. It's a policy just based on numerical balancing or politics, and I would respectfully ask that the maker of the motion consider what the amount is needed. Let the staff work with you. Let's don't try to identify what is needed. Let's identify the fact that we're all saying whatever is needed, but to my knowledge, Model City was talking about building how many units, Barbara? How many units in the initial plan did they talk about when we approved it? Ms. Rodriguez: I can tell you that they had a budget of a hundred million dollars. Commissioner Winton: That's not what he asked you. Ms. Rodriguez: I don't know the amount of units back then, so the budget was much larger at City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 that time, but, Commissioner, can -- Chairman Teele: No, no, no, hold it. See, you know, I asked a simple question. Ms. Rodriguez: I don't know. Commissioner Winton: That's a better answer. Chairman Teele: Well, but it's -- it is really not a better answer, because the fact of the matter is we published the number of units. It's based upon the amount of land that's available. Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Chairman Teele: And just to start throwing out a hundred million, twelve million, six million -- Ms. Rodriguez: But what I was -- Chairman Teele: -- without regard to what the plan is, it really does, I think, this Commission and this City a disservice. Ms. Rodriguez: I don't know. I -- Chairman Teele: Look, we have two more of these things in -- Ms. Rodriguez: No, you have more. Chairman Teele: Look, folks, let's play the numbers game. There's seven that we've approved, right? Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Chairman Teele: How many are in the district that I represent? Ms. Rodriguez: You will be the other -- Chairman Teele: How many of the seven are in the district that I represent? Ms. Rodriguez: Little Haiti is your next one. Chairman Teele: How many of the seven are in the -- Ms. Rodriguez: Two, two and two in Commissioner Gonzalez' district. Chairman Teele: And where are the other -- Ms. Rodriguez: One -- there's two very -- and remember, keep in mind that this is being changed. These districts are being changed, as of October 1st this year, based on the five-year plan, and based on the fact that poverty is no longer where it was in 1999, when we did the last five-year consolidated plan. Chairman Teele: Ms. Rodriguez, we approved -- let's don't shift the issue. We approved seven -- Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: -- zones. Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Chairman Teele: When we approved them, it was my recollection that three of them were in the disfrict that represent, not -- there was one in Overtown, as I recall. Where is the -- who's got the ordinance? Ms. Rodriguez: I don't have the book in front of me, Commissioner, I honestly don't, and I don't want to give you an information that don't have in front of me. Chairman Teele: But the point I'm frying to make -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would like an opportunity to speak, Commissioner Teele, when you're done. Chairman Teele: You have that right now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, sir. I would yield to you. Chairman Teele: The only point that I'm frying -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just want an opportunity to speak when you're done. Chairman Teele: The only point that want to make to the Manager, to Ms. Rodriguez and to my colleagues is this: If we're getting ready to start a process that basically says we're going to put dollars in one community based upon the dollars that went into another community for a project, it means that the projects have to be the same. It means that the number of units that we're building need to be relatively the same, and, folks, it just doesn't work that way. Ms. Rodriguez: No, it doesn't. Chairman Teele: And what it's going to also mean is at least two Commissioners -- one, if not two Commissioners are going to wind up getting zero dollars, OK? I'm going to wind up with more money than anyone -- Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- and that's not the way I want this thing to work out. I want it to work out based upon need, and that's all that I'm going to say in asking, respectfully, the Commissioner who is moving this resolution to consider putting this resolution forward at the next meeting, based upon a plan of need and how much is necessary, as opposed to using throughout the resolution, "Because Model City got this, then this gets this, " which means the next one is going to get that, because we're starting a step -- and I would respectfully request that these references to Model City, with the exception of the factual statement of what was received and where it came from as it relates to CD (Community Development) dollars, that those be deleted, because I think it's inflammatory. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I just have a question. How did Model City come up with the twelve million point nine? Did they have a plan in place that signified that amount of money as to the need? Because we have a need throughout the City, and I know that you're not referring to saying that don't have a housing need in my disfrict, because I don't want to get into that debate with you. I don't think it's going to be -- Commissioner Winton: No, he's not saying that. City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's not going to be to good health to this Commission. I'll tell you what will do. I will defer it right now, and I'll bring it back, and we'll come back with a number based on what the needs are, just for the sake of harmony in this Commission, because I'll tell you this much, although I'm not offended by your statements, I tell you this much: I could assure you that have as much need when it comes to housing in my disfrict as you do, but I'm not going to debate that, because I also understand there are other homeowners trusts, or advisory board, or whatever they may call that are coming on line, and I want them -- in other words, what I'm doing now is this board, the advisory board is basically not following the lead of the Model City, but I'll tell you, we're learning from their mistakes, so whatl want the other one to come along, whoever it may be, I want them to learn from our mistakes, butt will come back and it will be on the Commission agenda, and I'll have Community Development work on identifying exactly the amount of funds, and I don't know how we're going to do that, because I don't think we could do it by next Commission meeting, and the problem here is that am faced with that window of opportunity that if we don't expedite this, we are not going to accomplish our mission, because my homeowners advisory board is completely different than Model City's, apples and oranges -- I didn't want to get into that comparison this morning, but it's completely different. Model City, I don't think they're going to be done in five years. I think they're going to be there much longer than that if it has to go longer, butt guarantee you that ours in Little Havana will not have that window of opportunity for us to accomplish our mission, so I'm prepared to defer it now, because I don't think the debate that we're going to have here is going to be a healthy debate for this Commission. I don't want to get back into the years where we argued back and forth here, but I'll tell you this one thing: Although all disfricts are not equal, and we don't wear the same shoe, there is problems in all our disfricts, and they have to be addressed, and I'm a person who strongly believes in equality, and fairness, so at the next Commission meeting, Mr. -- I'll yield to you. I just want to state this. At the next Commission meeting, we will come with an amount, and I will be prepared to debate that amount as long as it takes, and I will get into a debate with any colleague who wants to have a debate with me on this, but as long as it's a healthy debate, because I don't want to get into the years back when I was here with the times I was embarrassed to be a Commissioner in this City because of things that happened on this Commission, but want to tell you this much: I support other districts, just like I supported the Model City and the resolutions that you put forth allocating funds to them to make their mission accomplished. I'm prepared to do the same for my district, and I would -- and I would ask you to support that. Chairman Teele: And I'll fully support the plans that are presented, but, Joe, just let's don't commingle one thing. We all have five disfricts' needs. We all recognize that, and I certainly think our needs are very much in tandem. In fact, most of the Empowerment Zone comes from your district and my disfrict, based upon a study of Dade, of all of Dade County, of -- the poorest two census tracts in all of Dade County are represented in the district you represent and the districtl represent, as evidenced by the Countywide Empowerment Zone. The only point thatl want to make on this is this: These zones are not the disfrict-wide solution to any of these problems. These are these zones, and these zones have different characteristics, and the only thing that I'm suggesting to you is we need to look at the geographic zone and what can be accomplished in those zones, and how much money it takes for that zone; not how much money it takes to solve the housing problem in Model City or how much it takes to solve the housing problem in Little Havana, but in the development zone that we're creating, and I'll fully support you, and appreciate the manner in which you're making the debate. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman -- Joe, I have a couple of suggestions as it relates to your plan coming back, because I understand the dilemma that you're faced with very, very clearly. I mean, it's very, very real, and so my thoughts are a couple, and one is that you already committed to, and that's to identify what the need is. I would also look at what you think the real timing horizon is, and so that we set that as the outside timetable and figure out how much money we could really put together to fit that three-year horizon, as an example, or whether it's City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 four years or two, and I'm with you. I think by the end of four, there's -- it's where we've missed it. There's -- we're simply not going to be able to afford it anymore. Second part is thatl think that whatever the number is that you come up with in terms of need, Barbara also has to look at what the impact of move -- shifting dollars around to fit that need, which I'm in favor of but we also have to understand what the impact is on any other needs that may be going on district -wide, so that we can make the decision to say I'm deferring and I'm willing to move 100 percent, or 50 percent or whatever it is of the funds that we may need away from District 2, as an example, which doesn't get much anyhow, but to your district to fit this need, and so I hope that she looks at that, also, so we can make that decision. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Here's the thing: I might be able to determine the need in my district and have to come back and ask you for a hundred million dollars, because the need is that much, and the thing is, how do we justify, in preparing a need assessment, to support the amount of money that we're asking? Commissioner Winton: But isn't it district -wide? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Model City didn't have to do that. Commissioner Winton: Is your home ownership thing district -wide or in a zone? Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's a zone. It is a zone. Commissioner Regalado: His district is a zone. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It is a zone, and that's a problem that have. You know, the other problem that said this morning is that a lot of the money that are un-obligated or out there are frozen or not being used. Commissioner Winton: Well, that one's easy, though. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- but, see, how do we determine? Because the whole thing is to get that money -- as I stated, I'm prepared to take the money now, `X" -- you know, fast track my home ownership, and then, you know, with the money that have that don't use in my last years, I'll give it back to another project. I don't want to -- I don't want to knock off that project off the list. Commissioner Winton: Moving those -- at least as far as I'm concerned, moving those dollars is the easy part. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, Barbara, do you have any recommendations how we could come back with a need assessment on how much money? Because I'm sure that no matter what -- Commissioner Winton: In a month. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- assessment would come back, people are still going to question it. Ms. Rodriguez: The way I understood this morning was that you were looking for projects that, number one, we're recommending to give us back money, which we do have those in brick and mortar, that you wanted those dollars, and to look at those projects that were not going to need the money this year, to see if we can fund them next year and use those dollars, so the way I interpreted this morning was that you had a commitment of seven point five, out of which two years have been allocated, so in reality, four point five was the -- what was going to be looking at to see what projects are being de -obligated, because they can't use the money, or projects that basically tell me, look, I'm going to need it next year, so it's not that we're saying we're not going City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 to help you and see how much that money adds up that we can come back to you. At least that's what -- that was my first understanding this morning, and I think that that is something that we can go back and look at all the projects. Commissioner Winton: But what he's looking for beyond that is for you to help him identify whether or not there are other funding sources that may be coming in the next couple years or so that could potentially go to this project. Vice Chairman Sanchez: See, Johnny, I don't think we're focusing on the funding source. What we're focusing on here -- whatl hear from Commissioner Teele is an assessment of need as to -- Commissioner Winton: No -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- as to identify a number -- Commissioner Winton: But it's two things. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and that's very hard to do. Commissioner Winton: Well, I know it is, but if you're going to -- if you don't have a needs assessment, you can't figure out what you're really chasing in terms of dollars, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Look, we're talking about fairness. Ms. Rodriguez: But Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Model City didn't do it. Why should Little Havana have to do it? Commissioner Winton: They did do it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, they didn't. Chairman Teele: Oh, absolutely. Commissioner Winton: Yes, they did. Chairman Teele: Let me tell you something. Commissioner Winton: Ask the City Attorney. Chairman Teele: No, no, no. We'll bring Marva Wiley here and we'll lay all of the records out, because it was -- first of all, it was not done in one motion. It was five or six different motions. This thing is not like it's being presented. There were three or four at least changing around of priorities and projects. The money came from commitments to the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). I remember saying, look, we are basically violating this commitment, and this commitment, but have no objection. You remember, Barbara? Ms. Rodriguez: That's true. Chairman Teele: I said, I have no objection to moving this money over there. That money came after -- it was not like it's being presented, that there was one pot of money put out there. This money was moved in at least three to five different motions. Commissioner Regalado: No, more than that. City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Rodriguez: Oh, much more than that. I have in front of me one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Commissioner Winton: So, Barbara, when can you come back with Joe on kind of a package that we can look at? Is itgoing to take two weeks, or is itgoing to take a month? Ms. Rodriguez: Well, what I can bring back -- as I say, let's focus on the projects that are right now are telling us, I cannot use the money now. Commissioner Winton: Well, you can bring that back in two weeks. Ms. Rodriguez: That's what I'm saying, and then let's see what the advisory board, that are meeting next week -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Rodriguez: Let's sit with them. Let's see what their vision is, because what has happened is that we have thousands of calls -- Commissioner Winton: That's exactly right. Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Winton: And then the two -- then y'all work that out and then you come back to us at a subsequent meeting. Ms. Rodriguez: And then that one can come further down. Commissioner Winton: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I would -- there's a motion and a second. I will withdraw my motion and I will ask the City Manager to make sure that it's on the next agenda meeting -- Ms. Rodriguez: With -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to have you come back with -- Ms. Rodriguez: With the dollars. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- identified funding sources -- Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to be voted in a resolution -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Regalado all had asked to be recognized on this issue, even though it's being withdrawn. You have anything, Commissioner? Commissioner Gonzalez: No. I just wanted to point it out, when you mentioned the Empowerment Zone, you mentioned Commissioner Sanchez' disfrict and your disfrict, and I said, also my district. City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 D3.2 04-00158 District 3- Chair Joe Sanchez Chairman Teele: Yes, also yours. Commissioner Gonzalez: It's part of the Empowerment Trust. Chairman Teele: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: I have a question about public housing, not specifically low-income or affordable housing, public housing. Does -- I mean, it doesn't have to be exact, but public housing building should be built according to census tract figures, right? Or anywhere? Ms. Rodriguez: No. Anywhere. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Because what I heard is that in order to get support for the GO bond issue, the County is going to have a line item in that ordinance of several dozen million dollars for public housing, so if they can build it where they want, they sure will not build it on the City ofMiami, but if we're talking by census tract, then those areas that we're talking about will need to be addressed on that tract, so as a piece of information, there may be some money in the bond issue in terms of public housing money for construction. Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Regalado: And mind you, there's none of what you're talking about in District 4. Chairman Teele: All right. The item -- this particular item has been withdrawn with further instructions from the Commissioner that you would return in the next meeting with certain information, and I'm going to request also that you and Ms. Wiley prepare a joint document -- Ms. Rodriguez: I'm bringing it. Chairman Teele: -- that lays out both the funding history and the commitments that were made, and the time lines that those commitments were made in terms of what the fundings were, and the funding sources in terms of the number of units that were committed. There was a specific number of units that were committed at the beginning. Ms. Wiley, what was that number that was committed from the beginning, which I said was totally unrealistic? Marva Wiley (Acting President/CEO, Model City Trust): I believe the original number was 400 units. Chairman Teele: 400 units of housing. Ms. Wiley: Right. Chairman Teele: Single-family housing. Ms. Wiley: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How many units have been provided so far? Chairman Teele: Zero. All right, thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER OF UP TO $100,000 FOR THE DOMINO PARK EXPANSION (15TH AVENUE PLAZA) PROJECT TO FUND THE DEMOLITION OF A VACANT City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 HOUSE BEHIND THE TOWER THEATER AND THE CREATION OF A LANDSCAPED, DOZEN -SPACE PUBLIC PARKING LOT IN ITS PLACE. 04-001 58-email.pdf DISCUSSED This discussion resulted in resolution listed below: (D3.2) 04-00158a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000, FOR THE DOMINO PARK EXPANSION (15TH AVENUE PLAZA) PROJECT, TO FUND THE DEMOLITION OF A VACANT HOUSE BEHIND THE TOWER THEATER AND THE CREATION OF A LANDSCAPED, DOZEN -SPACE PUBLIC PARKING LOT IN ITS PLACE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM HOMELAND DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND FUND. Motion by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0124 Chairman Teele: You have another item, D1.2. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. That item is discussion concerning a resolution approving a change order of up to one hundred thousand dollars for the Dominos Park Expansion Avenue Plaza Project to fund the demolition of a vacant house behind the Tower Theater, and the creation of a landscaped dozen space parking lot in the space. Basically, as you know, the plaza will start -- it was supposed to start February, but we had to hold it back because of the Film Festival, and it was going to start this month and now we have to hold it back because of the Little Havana Carnival Miami, so I'm hoping there are no more delays, but we've been able to purchase the land behind the Tower Theater with all the redevelopment and we're tearing down - - that used to be a drug haven, we're tearing down the house and creating parking -- a parking lot, which is a necessity -- Commissioner Winton: (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Motion. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Winton: Third. Chairman Teele: Second, third, fourth. Who's going to own -- who owns the land? Vice Chairman Sanchez: City ofMiami. Unidentified Speaker: City ofMiami. City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 D4.1 04-00170 District 4- Commissioner Tomas Regalado Chairman Teele: You need to be real careful, Joe, on the City Charter relating to parking and parking lots. There's some real hidden pitfalls in there. You probably want to get a community -based organization or somebody involved early on. Motion and second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? Vice Chairman Sanchez: And I just want to state, you know, we legislate. The administration is the one that does the due diligence and does all that stuff. We just delegate. Thank you. DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,500, IN SUPPORT OF THE XXV HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO BE HELD AT THE RADISSON MART PLAZA HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER APRIL 14-17, 2004; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM DISTRICT 4 SPECIAL EVENTS NON -DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT CODE NO. 001000.921054.6.289. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0101 Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Regalado to allocate funds not to exceed twenty-five hundred dollars -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: -- from the Special Events account. Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, this Hemispheric Congress of the Latin Chamber of Commerce and Industry will be held here in Miami, and several events will be held throughout the City, so I am allocating twenty-five hundred dollars (sic) from the Special Events fund of District 4 to the Hemispheric Congress of the Latin Chamber of Congress and Industry. That is my motion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: It has a second by Commissioner Winton. Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 DISTRICT 5 CHAIRMAN ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR D5.1 04-00135 DISCUSSION ITEM District 5- Vice DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE ABSENTEEISM OF NEIGHBORHOOD Chair Michelle ENHANCEMENT TEAM (N.E.T.) DIRECTORS AT THE DISTRICT 5 CDBG Spence -Jones PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 24, 2004. 04-001 35-email.pdf DISCUSSED This item was discussed. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I have an item that really missed the printing, and -- Chairman Teele: Then can you put it on for the next printing? Commissioner Regalado: No, sir. Chairman Teele: Would you yield just for a moment? I'm noting the presence of a whole lot of NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) staff NET Directors here, and we -- Commissioner Regalado: We were supposed to -- Chairman Teele: -- have a discussion we should have announced this morning. That item should not take place without Commissioner Gonzalez being present. It's countywide -- it's of citywide significance, and it would be most inappropriate to have that discussion without him being here, especially since he's going to be here today. However, I would like to bring up, if you would allow me to just take up one of the items, and then we'll come back to you, and I'll yield to the Vice Chairman to preside, if you would allow me, Mr. Vice Chair -- Vice Chairman Sanchez. Commissioner Winton: That's you. You're -- Chairman Teele: If you would allow me -- if you would preside and allow me to just take up one of the items. Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, you are recognized. Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, I'm going to direct this to you because I candidly thought that the NET was under Operations and I guess, in the budget and the Charter, the budget we approved, we changed that. I was asleep at the switch on that wiring diagram; is that correct, Mr. Attorney and Mr. Manager? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): NET continues to be under the City Manager. Chairman Teele: And the NET organizational -- I know that the staffing is under the Manager. Is Mr. Cox here? This would be a good time to change all of these rules, if we could get Cox out of the town long enough to change it, because part of the problem is that the NET has a number of exempt people and that's that Charter provision that limits any department to -- what is it, five? Mr. Vilarello: Well, it's not exactly Charter provision, but within the Manager's office, there's and unlimited number of unclassifieds. City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: What is Charter provision that everybody keeps alluding to that creates this hybrid NET situation? Mr. Vilarello: The Charter provision -- I'd like to remind you that we are in litigation. Chairman Teele: Oh, you are town. Mr. Vilarello: But the Charter provision -- Chairman Teele: We're what? Mr. Vilarello: A specific -- we are in litigation on this issue. This Charter provision does have specific names or titles, I should say, that are exempt from the classified service. There was an ordinance passed adopted some years ago through the -- with the approval of the Civil Service Board that provided for five unclassifieds within each department. Much of this has been the subject -- Chairman Teele: That's not contained in the Charter? Mr. Vilarello: That's not contained within the Charter, yes. I'm aware of the issue that you're thinking of Commissioner, but that's one of the issues in the litigation. Chairman Teele: Folklore is always dangerous, and I really would like to clarify. This NET process, when it was set up by the Manager that set it up, set it up under the Manager, I was told by him -- because I wanted to understand what NET was in the City ofMiami. I was over at the County -- it was set up because the Charter of the City prohibited more than five individuals from any department being exempt. That's not correct? Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, that has been the common representation of that issue. It's not contained within the Charter. However, it is the long-standing rule within the City. The issue with regard to the Manager's office is that the unclass -- in the Manager's office, you have an unlimited number of unclassifieds that can serve in the Manager's office. Chairman Teele: Well, how this applies and gets to NET is, whether it's in the Charter or not, the folklore is real in the sense that NET was set up under the Manager -- and with all of the NET staff people working out of the Manager's office, is that correct or not, from a budgetary and an organizational point of view of the budget that we approved? Mr. Vilarello: That was exactly the reason why the NET Offices were set up under the office of the Manager. Chairman Teele: You understand, Johnny, where -- Commissioner Winton: I mean, I understand this part of it. Chairman Teele: And, see, this whole thing is being driven by a rule or a Charter provision -- what are you rolling your eyes at me for? -- that the unions are somehow a part of. The problem that is on the agenda today, Mr. Manager -- and I'm really confused as to how NET is organized, and I know there's a discussion and we'll get into that. I won't get into that -- is this challenge that I'm being dealt with directly, when I've inquired as to why the NET staff did not attend the Community Development meetings, OK, and that's the issue on the agenda. Your staff and your senior staff was at the Community Development meeting that I attended, that I hosted with over 200 citizens. Let's put this on the table. Let's put the skunk on the table right here and right now, because the government should not ask people to go down the hall and go to the right door. City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 If someone comes into a government office, as far as I'm concerned, they've got the right place to be to air their problems. In my opinion, Mr. Manager, NET Offices, especially the office -- the senior NET person should attend all five Community Development meetings because that is the place -- that's the only meeting that we hold -- that each of us hold annually with the public in our districts. We have neighborhood meetings by neighborhood by neighborhood, but we have disfrict wide meetings, I guess, once a year. Some may have it more than once a year, but we're mandated to do that. I cannot understand for the life of me why your office would sanction or condone not just the absence, but the arrogant absence of the NET Administrator in not coming to Community Development meetings. It has never happened in the past. We've had five Managers. They've always ensured that -- you start with NET now. Whether or not the Planning Director comes -- the Planning Director was at the meeting -- or the Public Works -- and that Public Works Director was at the meeting -- or some of the others, I mean, is a debatable issue, but cannot understand -- and then when I asked the question, the response was I didn't come to your meeting and I didn't come to any of the other meetings. Well, you know, I've got to tell you, that is a horrible attitude for somebody to have, not about the meetings, but about the citizens, and 90 percent of the comments that are heard in the Community Development meeting candidly have nothing to do with Community Development, but nobody's ruled out of order when they come up and stand because they're here to petition government, and if NET is going to be mini City Hall, if NET is going to be the local governmental presence in the 13 districts, there has got to be a clear communication and a clear direction from this Commission, not from the Manager, per se, but from the Mayor and the Commission that we not only expect the Community Development Office to work with NET in scheduling these Community Development meetings, but for the actions that the citizens complain about to be taken seriously, and if the citizens are being talked to the way I was attempted to be talked to before I said to the gentleman, look, you are not going to talk to me that way. This meeting is over. That didn't go to any of the NET Office -- I didn't go to any of the Community Development meetings, that's wrong, Mr. Manager. It is one hundred percent wrong. It's the wrong attitude, and if that is the kind of attitude that is getting ready to start being communicated downhill to subordinates, we're getting ready to have a real chain of command problem around here, so I want to put it on the table to my colleagues, as to whether or not you all feel that NET should be at your CD meetings or whether or not it's a non -issue, as far as you're concerned, because as far as I'm concerned, when citizens come in and complain to the City government, they should have a responsive ear and they should not have to go to another meeting or another office or another place, particularly as it relates to NET, and I've said repeatedly, Mr. Manager, my meeting was held on a Saturday. You had at least 15 City staff people there, department heads, assistant managers, totally responsive and the vast majority of the comments didn't even relate to Community Development. They were primarily, I think, related -- Mary, I think you would agree -- they primarily related to Public Works and the community -- what is it -- transportation, the sidewalks, the streets, et cetera, but again, the point is the point, so I really would like to hear from my colleagues as to whether or not, you know, this NET process, as it unfolds, is working in terms of hearing from the citizens in the Community Development meetings. Joe Arriola (City Manager): Commissioner, I would be delighted to give each one of you a copy of all the NET Directors that attended all the different meetings and all the NET people that attended all the different meetings. Every single meeting was attended by at least two representatives of NET, and I'm delighted to give you the list to show you the attendance on that. Chairman Teele: No, no -- the Model Cities NET person -- my disfrict is 60 percent Model Cities to start out -- was not available. I asked that -- in advance, I asked that the NET administration be there to cover those concerns, OK? They were not there. I still believe this, if your Director of Capital Improvement, if your Director of Planning, if your Director of Public Works, and on and on and on can go to these meetings, your Director of NET ought to make that a number one priority and we should schedule these meetings so that the Director of NET, who's got to ultimately act and make certain recommendations on priority should be public -- should be present at each of the five NET meetings, you know. Obviously, we'd love for you to be there, but City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 D5.2 04-00130 District 5- Vice Chair Michelle Spence -Jones that's not the issue. The issue is the staffing, and I think you've been to one or two of the meetings, at least when you were eager on board last year, so -- Commissioner Winton: Could I jump in here real quickly? I think, Mr. Manager, this whole conversation can end in about 10 seconds. I think the only thing Commissioner Teele is saying is that you have great attendance of senior management at these one -a -year required public meetings, and he's simply asking that the NET -- head of NET also be at that meeting, and then I think the discussion's done. Mr. Arriola: OK. Commissioner Winton: And you've got that authority to make that decision. Mr. Arriola: And it will be done. Commissioner Winton: Done. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chair. Chairman Teele: Could I move my other two items? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. No. I was just going to agree. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER, WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENTS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING AND ZONING TO WORK WITH THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY IN CREATING A "PLAZA" OR "PROMENADE" IN HONOR OF CLYDE KILLENS AT THE CORNER ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF 11TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT A REPORT TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN 45 DAYS. Motion by Chairman Teele, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0102 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. D5.2. Chairman Teele: A resolution of the City Commission directing the Manager, with the assistance of all of the departments, to work with Metro -Dade Transit to create a Plaza of Promenade in honor of Clyde Killens. So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there a second? City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone opposing, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously, Madam Clerk. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 D5.3 04-00137 District 5- Vice Chair Michelle Spence -Jones RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING AND ZONING TO INITIATE DISCUSSION AND COST ANALYSIS FOR A TRAFFIC CIRCLE TO HONOR CLYDE KILLENS, ON NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE BETWEEN NORTHWEST 10TH STREET AND NORTHWEST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN 45 DAYS. Motion by Chairman Teele, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0103 Chairman Teele: And a resolution of the City directing Public Works and the Planning Department to design and prepare a cost estimate for a traffic circle to be created in Overtown in honor of Clyde Killens. I would so move. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: For discussion. Madam Public Works Director, ifI may -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. Joe Arriola (City Manager): Just a word. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Item is under discussion. Mr. Arriola: Directing the Transportation and Planning Department, instead of the Public Works and Planning Department. That's just the only one change I want to make. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Does the maker of the motion -- Chairman Teele: Accept it, yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- accept the amendment? Chairman Teele: It's the correct way to express that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: The second, do you accept the amendment? Commissioner Winton: Accept the amendment. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. The amendment has been accepted. Chairman Teele: On the discussion, could we just get a little bit of an update on where we are on traffic circles, and does the traffic circle have to be approved by the County? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, it does. Chairman Teele: Is that one of -- City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: And that was my question, Mr. Chairman. The community, I guess, selected -- the community selected the intersection, but I've seen -- I'm looking at 10th Street and 14th Street, that is the choice of the community, right? Chairman Teele: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Now we have to deal with the County, whether they will approve it or not, and -- Chairman Teele: Well, rather than selecting one intersection, if you give them a range, because there's issues of width and traffic flow and bus turns and all of that, and -- but this is a very obviously complicated process in the City. I -- and I was frying to get some clarification as to why it's become so complicated. I know that my colleague has been laboring now for three years trying to get one done. Is it done yet? Commissioner Regalado: No, it's not done. I just want to understand why -- we had -- I mean, the support of Rebecca Sosa in Flagami. She called the Public Works Director. She called the Assistant County Manager, Arlene (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I think, to her office. I was there, and she requested of the Public Works Director and the Assistant County Manager said, "Yeah, yeah, we're going to do the study, everything." Never happened. It wasn't -- you weren't here. Mary Conway (Director, Transportation): Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: But the problem is that I, particularly I have been promising the people of Flagami and Shenandoah for three or four years, and as a matter of fact, we made a commitment when the bond issue went to the polls that that money will be used -- some of that money will be used for traffic calming devices. Yesterday we have a meeting -- we had a meeting at the Shenandoah Homeowners' Association, Shenandoah Park, and the Public Works Director was there, and the traffic is one of the problems that they raised. I just don't have an answer. I cannot understand what is going on with the study, with the -- if there is a study. The past administration, in writing, said that there was a study being done. I never saw the study, nor I can say it was done, so I don't know what's going on. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Conway: Mary Conway, Transportation Director. This is an issue that was raised at the last Commission meeting also. In the intervening time, we have met with Commissioner Sanchez to review the Roads Traffic Calming Study and that has now been approved by the County. We have a meeting set tomorrow afternoon at 3 o'clock with Miami -Dade County Public Works, traffic engineering folks to talk about the other studies that are in their office for review that we're still awaiting final response on. Commissioner Regalado: Which other studies? Ms. Conway: There's Coral Gate, I believe, as well as Flagami that are -- Commissioner Regalado: As well as what? Ms. Conway: I thought that for the Flagami area, there was also a Traffic Calming Study that was over at the County for review. I'll confirm that and make sure, but there are two others that I believe are in your district that are at the County for review, and I'll be able to report back late tomorrow afternoon, after that meeting, as to the exact status. Beyond that, at the last Commission meeting, there was a request to sit down with each of the Commissioners and their staff to talk about traffic calming issues, in each of the respective districts, and we're in the process of setting up those individual meetings right now. It is -- it has, in the past, been a City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 frustrating process because it's not one that the City controls directly. The County is responsible by Home Rule Charter for all traffic control devices, but we will have the meeting with the County tomorrow and I will be in a better position to answer questions on the studies that are already underway, and then we will be meeting with each one of you in the next week or two to talk about any other concerns, such as the one that's before us on this resolution right now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Conway: And ifI might comment on this particular -- the language of this resolution to design and prepare a cost estimate, I think it might be more appropriate that it be to do the initial discussions and feasibility analysis so that there's not a false impression that there will, in fact, be traffic circles at these locations, because depending on the input from the County, that may or may not be a viable solution. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Does the maker of the motion accept the recommendation? Commissioner Teele, she made a suggestion. Chairman Teele: To meet with each of us? Ms. Conway: And also on this specific resolution, that we not say "design and cost estimate," because these intersection locations may or may not be acceptable and viable. Chairman Teele: I accept that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion and a second. No further discussion. On the question -- all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone voting against, say "nay." Motion passes unanimously. City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING PH.1 04-00096 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 245 NORTHEAST 59TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ("PROPERTY"), AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF LITTLE HAITI PARK, WITH A PURCHASE PRICE OF $100,000, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT ("OPTION AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND THOMAS N. YATES AND KEITH M. YATES ("SELLER") AND TO CONSUMMATE SAID TRANSACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE OPTION AGREEMENT; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $110,420, FROM THE $255 MILLION HOMELAND DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND FOR COSTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SURVEYS, APPRAISALS, ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS, TITLE INSURANCE, AND DEMOLITION. 04-00096-cover memo.pdf 04-00096-public notice memo.pdf 04-00096-public notice .pdf 04-00096-summ. of salient facts. pdf 04-00096-valuation analysis. pdf 04-00096-previous legislation.pdf 04-00096-exhibit 1-option to purchase prop.pdf 04-00096-exhibit 2- power of attorney.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0104 Direction to the City Manager: by Chairman Teele to prepare appropriate commendation to the members of the Homeland Defense/Neighborhood Improvement Projects Bond Oversight Board for their serious and much appreciated work. Chairman Teele: Public Hearing Item Number 1-- PH.1. Mr. Attorney, read the item into the record. It's a resolution. Commissioner Regalado: You need a four fifths. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This requires a four fifths vote. Chairman Teele: All right. All right. Let's temporarily pass it. OK. PH.1. Commissioner Regalado: PH what? City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: 1. Public Hearing 1, the first item we skipped over. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Keith Carswell: Keith Carswell, Director for the Department of Economic Development. I provided each of your offices with a location map of the property under consideration for acquisition. What you have before you comes not only with a recommendation from the administration, but also the Oversight Board that actually makes the recommendation to the Commission, as well. The property in question is appraised at sixty-five thousand dollars. The price that we've negotiated is a hundred thousand for the acquisition. Also, we're seeking an additional ten thousand to deal with some of the closing cost surveys, environmental reports, title insurance, demolition associated with this acquisition. This acquisition is overall in support of the development of the Little Haiti Park project. Chairman Teele: This is a public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. There are no persons coming forward. The public hearing is closed. When did this get approved by the Bond Oversight Committee? Hr. Carswell: This Tuesday. Chairman Teele: Johnny, I want you to know that the Bond Oversight Committee is taking their job very seriously. They are raising some very legitimate questions and in your appointee, the Chairman of the board of the Bond Oversight -- who's the Chairman? Hr. Carswell: Bob Flanders. Commissioner Winton: Bob Flanders. Hr. Carswell: And, actually, there are -- Commissioner, there are two committees. There's a subcommittee, which consist of the chair and several members, and then that recommendation, if we receive it, goes forward to the overall Bond Oversight Board, so there's two looks at this. Chairman Teele: All right. Well, they're doing a very good job and we need to, at the appropriate time, commend them for being very, very detailed. I think they're going to give us a lot of credibility in looking at this. Is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. Item is passed 4 to 0. PH.2 04-00102 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Public Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "JUBILEE," A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN "ATTACHMENT 1," SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8 OF THE CODE OF City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 04-00102-cover memo.pdf 04-00102-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00102-public notice memo.pdf 04-00102-public notice.pdf 04-00102-public notice memo -public works.pdf 04-00102-public notice -public works.pdf 04-00102-exhibit 1-legal description .pdf 04-00102-exhibit 2-report of proposed plat.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0108 Chairman Teele: Item PH.2. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, Items PH.2 and PH3, we'd like to defer till later in the day, so that you can have the plat before you for consideration. Commissioner Winton: Well, that's not great for us because we have a big agenda later in the day already -- Chairman Teele: We're trying to get through -- Commissioner Winton: -- and we're frying to get through things, and so now we're going to move more stuff-- I mean -- Mr. Vilarello: The plats are not before you -- Commissioner Regalado: Can we -- Commissioner Winton: (INAUDIBLE) ready now. Mr. Vilarello: -- and not appropriate for your consideration at this time. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, but -- Chairman Teele: So, PH.3 -- Commissioner Winton: So then -- Chairman Teele: 2, 3 and 4 are not before us? All right. Well, we'll work through all of this. Commissioner Regalado: Can we make appointments to the Community Relations Board? Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, I was corrected. PH.2 is Jubilee -- a Jubilee plat and it is before you. It's Items 3 and 4 that need to be deferred. City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Motion on PH.2. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Item is unanimously adopted. Items 3 and 4 we'll temporarily pass over. OK. Now, the other items that we skipped over while Commissioner Sanchez -- were public hearings set for 3 o'clock. Did we ever get the plat? Are we going to get the plat this morning? Mr. Vilarello: Yes, you should get the plat within a half an hour, yes. Chairman Teele: Well, that will be just enough time for Commissioner Regalado to (INAUDIBLE). PH.3 04-00141 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Public Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "MIDTOWN MIAMI EAST," A REPLAT AND SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN "ATTACHMENT 1," SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A," THE SUBMISSION OF A DEMOLITION BOND, AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 04-00141-cover memo.pdf 04-00141-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00141-public notice memo.pdf 04-00141-public notice .pdf 04-00141-exhibit 1 .pdf 04-00141-exhibit 2.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0109 Chairman Teele: Madam Manager. Unidentified Speaker: Are they for PZ (Planning & Zoning)? Chairman Teele: PZ. Unidentified Speaker: OK. For the -- City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Hold on one second. Commissioner Teele, we had the one plat issue. Chairman Teele: We have two plat issues pending from this morning. If you would like to take them up -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: -- we have lawyers here. Commissioner Winton: At least they were all ready -- Chairman Teele: Are the plats ready, Mr. Attorney? Unidentified Speaker: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Are the plats ready on both of them? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Chairman Teele: All right. Read the first item into the record, Mr. Attorney. RE what? Well, let her do it then, if you don't know. Unidentified Speaker: PH.3 and 4. Chairman Teele: Is it a public hearing? Unidentified Speaker: Yes, sir Chairman Teele: PH.3 and 4 were deferred. This is a public hearing on PH.3. Any persons -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): It's a resolution. Chairman Teele: Any persons desiring to be heard should come forward on PH.3. This is a plat. Mr. Maxwell: It's a plat -- would you like me to read the title into the record? Chairman Teele: Just enough of it so that everybody knows. Mr. Maxwell: Accepting the -- replatting subdivision of the City property described in Attachment 1, subject to provisions, conditions -- Chairman Teele: That's fine. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Any person desiring to come forward should do so. There are no persons coming forward on the plat. Commissioner Winton: I move it. Chairman Teele: It's been -- the public hearing's closed. It's moved by Commissioner Winton. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Commissioner. I just want to make City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 sure we're clear, because earlier this morning we were given substitute resolutions and I want to make sure that we're considering the substitute resolutions. Mr. Maxwell: Substitute resolutions. Chairman Teele: This is a plat. Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Chairman Teele: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Maxwell: And this was Midtown. Commissioner Winton: And -- yes, so I'm moving the substitute resolution. Thank you, ma'am. Alicia Cuervo Schrieber (Chief of Neighborhood Services): I believe it deals with the demolition of some small structures on the property. It's a bond. Commissioner Winton: Great. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: It's moved and second. Is there further discussion? All those -- when was the plat received by the City? Mr. Maxwell: Final plat was received yesterday. Ms. Cuervo Schrieber: Yesterday, Commissioner. Chairman Teele: And it's been approved that quickly? Ms. Cuervo Schrieber: Most of the revisions were done prior to the second submission, and there were some minor details, crossing a "T" and dotting an '7" left. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. PH.4 04-00140 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Public Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "BUENA VISTA WEST," A REPLAT AND SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN "ATTACHMENT 1," SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AS SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, THE SUBMISSION OF A DEMOLITION BOND, AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 04-00140-cover memo.pdf 04-00140-budgetary impact analysis. pdf 04-00140-public notice memo.pdf 04-00140-public notice .pdf 04-00140-exhibit 1 .pdf 04-00140-exhibit 2.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0110 Chairman Teele: The next one. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Buena Vista Plat. Buena Vista West. That's PH.4. Chairman Teele: When was that received by the City? Mr. Maxwell: Yesterday, as well. Alicia Cuervo Schreiber (Chief of Neighborhood Services): Yesterday. Chairman Teele: And this stuff has been reviewed? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: This is a public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. There are no persons coming forward. The public hearing is closed. There is a motion by Commissioner Winton and a second by Commissioner Gonzalez. All those in favor, signify by the sign of "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those opposed have the same right. The item is adopted. Gary Reshefsky: Mr. Chairman, my name is Gary Reshefsky, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I would just like to thank, on behalf of our client, Biscayne Development Partners, your entire City staff the CityAttorney's office, Public Works Department for a really heroic effort working with us to get this process through as quickly as possible, to make this project happen, and we're hopeful to break ground on our first building in May. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Well, maybe we should hire you to help us with some of our City plats getting done. I mean, it's scary to me that when something is approved and done the same day in government -- I mean, I think government should be expeditious, but I tell you, it raises more questions than it answers to me, about the quality of service in this City, but I commend you and I would hope that the comments that Wendy was making about why they're so nervous about doing anything because it takes so long, that the staff will take it to heart. I mean, we need to have one standard of justice, one standard of government, and I think the Gucci's and those that City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 are homeless and with holes in their shoes should have the same standard of government. Thank you very much, and congratulations. 3:00 P.M. PH.5 04-00097 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ADOPTING A PLANNING CALENDAR FOR THE 30TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND OTHER PROGRAMS FUNDED THROUGH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 04-00097-cover memo.pdf 04-00107-public advertisement.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0115 Direction to the City Manager: by Chairman Teele to reserve the June 10, 2004 Commission meeting only for items related to Community Development Block Grant funds; further scheduling the public hearing at 9:30 a.m. Commissioner Regalado further directed the Manager to follow up on the transportation funds for social services program and provide all associated details at the March 11, 2004 Commission meeting. Chairman Teele: PH.8. Barbara Rodriquez (Director, Community Development): P-- if we can take PH.5. That was the first one of Community Development. Chairman Teele: All right. PH.5. Ms. Rodriquez: This one is basically, we need to approve a calendar for the 30 year funding. There is one very important date. Number one, we need to decide when is it going to be the Special City Commission meeting allocating the 30year funds. It must be before July 8th. The due date to submit the action plan to U.S. HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) is August 13th, and we need to have a 30-day period -- comment period before that day. Commissioner Winton: So, what are you recommending? Ms. Rodriguez: Anything before July 8th. Chairman Teele: Give us a recommendation or two from the staff. Ms. Rodriguez: Commissioner, you caught me there. I don't have a calendar. I was looking more -- Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, read off the dates within -- Ms. Rodriguez: Can you help me? Chairman Teele: -- the window that she's said. City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Rodriguez: The week before the July 8th -- since July 4th weekend, so we -- if we can do it before that weekend. Chairman Teele: What's the last meeting in June? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The last week in June -- Chairman Teele: Last meeting in June. Ms. Thompson: The last meeting in June is June 24th. The first meeting in June would be June 10th. Commissioner Winton: Move June 24th. Ms. Rodriguez: You're going to have the same -- usually, what you have done in the past two years is have one meeting that only deals with Community Development. Are you going to have it as part of your normal Commission meeting or you want a special Community Development -- Commissioner Regalado: Special. Chairman Teele: No. Let's do this, let's set it, if you will, for the meeting ofJune 10th, and there will be no other items put on the agenda but that, if that -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, yes, I like that idea. Chairman Teele: If that will get us -- and that way, we've got time on the back end, if we lost something, to catch it up on the June 24th meeting, so we will insert in here, where it says "to be determined" on the resolution -- Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Chairman Teele: -- June 10th, with Community Development hearing items only at that time, so the notice will go out for 9:30 a.m. for the public hearing. Ms. Rodriguez: OK Chairman Teele: Discussion on item -- on the 30-year calendar. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: It's not about the date. I just want to make sure that you continue the follow-up on the transportation money for the Social Services Program. Ms. Rodriguez: That will be discussed on March 11 th, when we come for policy decisions. Commissioner Regalado: OK, but -- so, are we clear? We -- the administration understands that this is a priority in terms of the June meeting. Ms. Rodriguez: Well, in reality, we need that decision on March 11 th because that's going to be part of the RFP (Request for Proposal) process that will be going out March 31 st. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so anybody here that can -- Mr. Manager, just a reminder. We need to have all the details in terms of the transportation money, Larry Springs and all that for the March 11 th. Thank you. Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes, sir. We will have it for you, sir. City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PH.6 04-00098 Department of Community Development Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Do we need to vote? Did we vote? Ms. Rodriguez: No, you haven't. Commissioner Winton: Oh, did we? Oh, sorry. Did make a motion? Chairman Teele: No, no. You agreed on the date. Are we saying now that there will be no more -- between January 13th and January 4th -- February 4th, so that was the public hearings in each of the districts? Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion -- is there a public -- is there any discussion from the public or comment from the public on PH.5, the 30-year -- the 30th year planning calendar? The public hearing is closed. Motion by Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: And the date stated. Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), RESCINDING THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. AND SUBSTITUTING THE NEW CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, TO INCREASE THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT PERIOD FROM TEN (10) DAYS TO FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ("HUD"); ADDING A NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY ("NOFA") AT LEAST SIXTY (60) DAYS BEFORE FUNDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") ARE DUE FOR REVIEW; EXPANDING THE SECTION ON INFORMATION ACCESSIBILITY; ADDING A SECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO INTERESTED RESIDENTS BY THE ADMINISTRATION; AND RE -ORGANIZING THE INFORMATION TO ENHANCE THE USABILITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 04-00098-cover memo.pdf 04-00098-public advertisement.pdf 04-00098-exhibit- citizen participation plan.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 R-04-0114 Chairman Teele: We're going to have to bring up a community development item because it requires a sign interpreter by federal law, and our translator/interpreter is going to leave at 5 o'clock, and so we're going to ask Community Development if you all would just be patient with us and allow us to take up the PZ (Planning and Zoning) items, starting with number -- what is it -- which one is mandated? Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH 6. Chairman Teele: We're going to start with PH 6, Public Hearing Item Number 6, and this is to meet the federal requirements. You don't have to take it down, Mr. O'Donnell. You're in good shape. Just work with us. Yes, ma'am, Madam Director. Ms. Rodriguez: Barbara Rodriguez, Department of Community Development. The item you have in front of you is, basically, we are having some changes to our Citizens Participation Plan. Number one, to increase the notice of public hearing comment period from 10 days to 14, as recommended by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; to add a notice of funding availability at least 60 days before funding proposal submitted in response for the Request for Proposal. Basically, in February 15, 2001, the City Commission approved a revision to our Citizen Participation Plan. However, right now, we are requesting some changes to it. The other change that we do want to do is to expand the section on information accessibility, one of them being file language. We also request interpreters for Spanish and Creole, and that's about it. Commissioner Winton: Are these all newly required mandates from HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) ? Is that what you're telling me? Ms. Rodriguez: What happened is that we are the entitlement City that receive all housing opportunities for people with AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) funding. Commissioner Winton: Oh, HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with AIDS). Ms. Rodriguez: And they have requested that we do bill in into our citizen participation different -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, so moved. Ms. Rodriguez: Correct, correct. Chairman Teele: Now, hold on. Hold on. This is a public hearing. Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Chairman Teele: And we want to hear from anybody on the public on the City's Citizens Participation Plan or the new Citizens Participation Plan as stated by the staff. Are there any persons coming forward? There are no persons coming forward. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Winton is moving the item. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Sanchez. Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PH.7 04-00099 Department of Community Development PH.8 04-00105 Department of Community Development The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those in favor -- opposed have the same right. The item is adopted unanimously, 5/0. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS AND WAIVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, GRANTING THE AWARD OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ("CDBG") PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS CATEGORY, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000, FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE LATIN QUARTER CULTURAL CENTER OF MIAMI, INC. BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1501 SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 04-00099-cover memo.pdf 04-00099- public advertisement.pdf WITHDRAWN This item was WITHDRAWN by the City Attorney on behalf of the City Manager. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, there's one more item on the regular agenda that the Manager would like to withdraw. That's PH.7. Chairman Teele: PH -- Mr. Vilarello: Public hearing 7. Chairman Teele: What time was that advertised for? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Time certain, 3 p.m. Chairman Teele: We will take up the withdrawal of a public hearing item at beginning of the public hearing. All right, duly noted. Further discussion on the agenda? All right. Do we have any citizens' presentations? I didn't note any. PH.7. Barbara Rodriquez (Director, Community Development): That one was pulled. PH.7 was pulled. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF 28TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ("CDBG") PROGRAM CLOSEOUT FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,890, FROM WORD OF LIFE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN DISTRICT 5 DURING THE 28TH PROGRAM YEAR, WHICH BEGAN ON OCTOBER 1, 2002; REALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 OF SAID FUNDS TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., ("HABITAT FOR HUMANITY") FOR HOUSING SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR HOUSES BUILT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IN DISTRICT 5, AND THE AMOUNT OF $88,890, TO THE DISTRICT 5 City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 RESERVE ACCOUNT. 04-00105-cover memo.pdf 04-00105-public advertisement.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele PH.9 04-00106 Department of Community Development R-04-0116 Chairman Teele: PH -- Barbara Rodriquez (Director, Community Development): PH 8. This is basically allocate -- deobligating closing out Word of Life Community Development Corporation funds for a hundred and thirty-eight thousand, eight hundred ninety dollars and reallocating fifty thousand dollars to Habitat for Humanity of Greater Miami to do -- to work on housing in District 5. This was an item that came up at the public hearings in reference to fences around the houses that they're building, and the rest of the dollars, to put it in District 5 reserve account until a project is developed. Chairman Teele: Public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. There are no persons coming forward. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FY'2004-2005 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ("HOME") FUNDS, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,117,000, $1,500,000 TO THE LITTLE HAVANA HOME OWNERSHIP ADVISORY BOARD, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING, $776,325, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF RENTAL HOUSING, $2,328,975 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF HOME OWNERSHIP HOUSING, AND $511,700, FOR ADMINISTRATION; FURTHER ADOPTING THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, RELATED TO THE FUNDING OF RENTAL AND HOME OWNERSHIP HOUSING PROJECTS UNDER THE HOME PROGRAM. 04-00106-cover memo.pdf 04-00106-public advertisement.pdf 04-001 06-exhibit. pdf City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0117 Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH9. This is a basically, number one is HOME (Home Investment Partnership Program) Program, Housing Development Policy. This is -- we received -- we will be receiving October 1st for fiscal year 2004/2005 five million, one hundred and seventeen dollars in HOME funding. That's the one that you used for the brick and mortar component of your housing activities. Our recommendation is that a million five go for the second year for the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board; seven hundred and seventy-six thousand, three twenty-five for rental projects; two million, three twenty-eight, nine seventy-five will be for new construction homeownership projects, and five hundred and eleven thousand, seven hundred is the 10 percent for administration. In the past the policy had been that 25 percent of the funding goes for rental projects, 75 percent goes for homeownership. The reason we're bringing this one up is because right now the State has the application for rental projects. They are in need of the local match. It is recommended that funding for the development of rental housing under HOME Program be limited to projects that need the local match from the City to apply for the housing credit funding from the State of Florida that are -- second condition, they must receive the funding from the Florida Housing in order to access our dollars, so basically, we give them the commitment. If they get the funding, then the contract will get activated; that they meet all requirements, including eligibility requirements of the applicable RFP (Request for Proposal). In the past, for rental projects, they have to have a leverage of five to one. For every dollar, they have to bring five in, and last, they must be approved by the loan - - the Housing and Commercial Loan Committee. We are also requesting that you let the administration charge an application fee of one percent of the total award funds to the for profit developer. The reason for that is that we do the environmental of some of these projects. In ads alone, we do spend a substantial amount of dollars. We spend in -- between five and ten thousand dollars to get them, and once we have them, sometimes they come back and they say, we don't want your dollars, so if we feel that if we do get this application fee, which is currently being charged by the County, and it's being charged by other municipalities, that at least some of the expenses that we're incurring will be paid back. In the event that the for -profit developer does not get the tax credit, the dollars will be refunded. The second thing that we are asking is that construction must begin six months from those that are being awarded the tax credit, and that the project must be completed within 30 months, including lease -sub and that's it. Chairman Teele: It's a public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward on this item. Are there any persons coming forward? Not recognizing any persons, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Winton: Gonzalez. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Question. The monies allocated to rental projects is seven hundred and seventy-six thousand, right? Ms. Rodriquez: Seven hundred and seventy-six thousand, three twenty-five. Twenty-five percent of our award. Commissioner Gonzalez: That's all the money we're going to be awarded to -- Ms. Rodriquez: That's the only -- and it's to help them get tax credit match. Commissioner Gonzalez: Isn't it a fact that this tax credit deal, they don't pay -- do they pay City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 property taxes to the City ofMiami? Ms. Rodriquez: Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez: Or are they tax exempt? Ms. Rodriquez: No. They -- Commissioner Gonzalez: They're not tax exempt? Ms. Rodriquez: No, no. They pay taxes. Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, don't -- you know, don't look so surprised because Santa Clara Project, they didn't even pull permits in the City ofMiami. Ms. Rodriquez: Right, because they were -- Commissioner Gonzalez: From what I understand. Ms. Rodriquez: Right, because they were located in -- the site is owned by the Department of Transportation. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, Metro. Ms. Rodriquez: It's on a Metro Center. Commissioner Gonzalez: So, you know, I want to make sure that, you know, these projects that are being built in the City ofMiami, they pay something to the City ofMiami. Ms. Rodriquez: Right. Commissioner Gonzalez: Just building for building -- OK, and on top of that, we're going to be giving money out to help them build their buildings and make their money. The City should get its share of whatever projects you do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Further discussion on this item? Commissioner Winton: Move it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Is there objection? All those in favor, signify by the sign of "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Another question. Is this administrative -- administration expenses, are these for your department or for the -- Ms. Rodriquez: For Department of Community Development. For my department. Commissioner Gonzalez: For your department. PH.10 04-00107 ORDINANCE Public Hearing City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Department of AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION Community ACCEPTING UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Development URBAN DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS, HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS, AND THE EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IMPLEMENTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00107-cover memo.pdf 04-00107-public advertisement.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED as an emergency measure, waiving the requirement for two separate readings PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele 12491 Direction to the City Manager: by Commissioner Gonzalez to provide an additional 10,000 cards related to public services cuts from the federal government in order that Commissioner Gonzalez may distribute them to collect signatures from members of Christian Churches and to send the cards to the federal senators and representatives. Chairman Teele further requested that no employee of the City whose salary is funded with Community Development funds be involved with the collection of anything related to the federal government program. Chairman Teele: PH.10. Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH.10 is basically accepting the PY (physical year) 2004 entitlement grant from the United States Department of Urban Development. Chairman Teele: Now, this is an ordinance, and I thought this morning we said we could accept grants by resolution. This is an ordinance. Is there -- Ms. Rodriguez: And it's an emergency ordinance so we can start working. Chairman Teele: Is there any person here desiring to be heard on this item, PH.10? Is there any person desiring to be heard on this item? If not, Mr. Attorney, would you read PH.10 into the record as an ordinance. Commissioner Gonzalez: I do have a question. Chairman Teele: Question on PH.10. Commissioner Gonzalez: Are we getting another cut this year in the -- Ms. Rodriguez: Yes, you are. Commissioner Gonzalez: We are getting another cut? City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Rodriguez: Yes, you are. Commissioner Winton: Another what? Ms. Rodriguez: You're getting another cut in Community Development Block Grant. There were 71 new entitlement in the United States and USHUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) budget got cut, so based on both cuts, we're seeing a sixty-six thousand dollar cut in Community Development Block Grant. Commissioner Winton: Sixty-six thousand? Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK Chairman Teele: Was that in the memo anywhere? Ms. Rodriguez: No. However, I am sending to all of you the cuts and what represent -- and especially, some of the Commissioners have expressed the issue of public service, and that is a memo that you will all be receiving tomorrow explaining, you know, the impact that it will have again in public service. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK We're going to go -- we're going to be going through the same crisis that we went through last year, whenever we get a thousand seniors here asking for meals and asking for services, and we won't have the money, and once again, this Commission, the Mayor and the Manager are the ones that are going to be blamed for the fault of the U.S. Government, OK? We talk about collecting signatures -- Ms. Rodriguez: We are. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- from all of the senior citizens in all the different programs. Are we doing that now? Ms. Rodriguez: Yes, we are. We have collected 28,000 signatures. Our aim is that by tomorrow, we should have the 30,000 signatures. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK You collected 28,000 signatures? Ms. Rodriguez: 28,000. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK I need to have a meeting with you tomorrow. I want an additional 10,000 of those cards and I'm going to go to every single Christian church in my congregation and collect signatures. I want to make sure that we send 60,000 signatures of voters to the people in Washington, so they know that next September -- Commissioner Winton: And the White House. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- and next November, they're going to have surprises unless they put their act together, because enough is enough. Commissioner Winton: Here, here. Chairman Teele: All right. Let me say this for the record, Mr. Manager, and Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Attorney. I want to be very clear that this is a public hearing with a federal transcript going forward, and I want to specifically request that no employee of the City that is funded with CD City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 (Community Development) dollars be a part of any collection of anything relating to the federal government program. Anything that we're doing needs to be done without using City employees, particularly City employees paid by these federal funds. Remember the administrative category? Ms. Rodriguez: They're done by the nonprofit groups out in the community. Chairman Teele: This is the kind of thing we need to make sure we keep in a different meeting or different context, because we're building a record on our annual plan right now. This whole record is going to wind up being reviewed by everybody from here to Washington, D.C., and this is not necessarily -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Let me tell you, as far as I'm concerned -- as far as I'm concerned, let them review it, because that's reality, you know? If they want to -- you know, Joe Carollo -- Joe Carollo used to use the thing of "La gatita de Maria Ramos, " throw the rock and hide -- Commissioner Regalado, you remember that. That's what they're doing, OK? They're cutting funding down here. They're submitting these people to the worse of the worst circumstances, and we are being blamed for it, and I -- you know -- and fine -- with me, fine. If they want to reduce all the money, fine, but let the people know that it's not us, it's not the City government, it's not the Commissioners, it's not the Mayor, it's not the Manager. It's their representatives in Washington, so let them bring -- you know, let him answer to them, because whenever we do something in this Commission, we have to answer to the people. They come here, and they sit here, and they look at us, and they scream at us, and we have to answer, so let him answer. Let him answer. I'm glad that this is going to Washington. I'm happy about that. I'm glad. Chairman Teele: Has the ordinance been read into the record? Ms. Rodriguez: No. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is an emergency -- Mr. Gonzalez: I wasn't afraid of Castro and I'm not going to be afraid of Bush. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion to approve? Commissioner Winton: So move. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, call the roll. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Roll calls were taken, the results of which are stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted as an emergency measure, 5/0. Commissioner Winton: Is that it? Ms. Rodriguez: That's it. Commissioner Winton: Then we go back to -- Ms. Rodriguez: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 ORDINANCES - EMERGENCY EM.1 04-00120 ORDINANCE Emergency Ordinance (4/5THS VOTE) AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12451, THE CAPITAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,870,000, CONSISTING OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,200,000 REPROGRAMMED FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 311613, AND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $670,000 FROM UNALLOCATED HOMELAND DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND PROCEEDS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00120-cover memo.pdf 04-00120-budgetary impact analysis.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED as an emergency measure, waiving the requirement for two separate readings PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez 12487 Chairman Teele: So, let's just start with Second Reading Ordinance Number 2, which is the next thing we have on the agenda, and then we'll go back. SR.1. Mr. Attorney, read the item into the record. Commissioner Regalado: I believe that Commissioner Gonzalez wanted that -- Chairman Teele: Oh, that's the one he wanted. Boy, we're all boxed in today. All right. Then let's just go back with emergency E -- Commissioner Regalado: No, we've got FR.1, First Reading. Chairman Teele: All right. Let's just hold on a minute. I'm trying to get through the four items, items with four votes before you -- you get up and leave in a few seconds. All right. Let's just start -- Commissioner Regalado: I've got time. Chairman Teele: -- here with EM 1, Emergency Ordinance Number 1. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Teele: It's a public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. Are there any persons coming forward? The public hearing is closed. Madam Clerk -- is there a motion? City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk. Roll calls were taken, the results of which are stated above. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been adopted as an emergency measure, 4/0. EM.2 04-00136 ORDINANCE Emergency Ordinance (4/5THS VOTE) AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12279, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO INCREASE CERTAIN OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00136-cover memo.pdf 04-00136-spreadsheets Motion by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED as an emergency measure, waiving the requirement for two separate readings PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez 12488 Chairman Teele: The next item is a budget closeout item. It's -- is the Budget Director here? Is this a routine item, closing out the budget or is this buried in it moving a whole bunch of money around? Larry Spring: Larry Spring, Chief of Strategic Planning Budgeting and Performance. Commissioner, that is a routine budget closeout. This is to finalize our year-end transaction in preparing the capital report. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What's the logic behind this? Mr. Spring: The logic behind it is basically, on the -- our Finance Department, in doing our year-end closing entries, is processing this financial transaction. We need to kind of simulate that same transaction on the budget side so when you do a budget to actual comparison, we'll -- the budget will be in line and we will be in compliance with our Financial Integrity Ordinance. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Is there -- motion and a second by Commissioner Regalado. Mr. Attorney, read the item. I'm sorry. We can't have a motion and a second. Read the ordinance first, please. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: This is a public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. There are no persons coming forward. The public hearing is therefore closed. It's a motion by Commissioner Sanchez, a second by -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Regalado: Me, me. Chairman Teele: -- by Commissioner Regalado. Is there further discussion on the item? Madam Clerk. Roll calls were taken, the results of which are stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, 4/0. ORDINANCES - SECOND READING SR.1 04-00057 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE II, SECTION 2-33 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED ADMINISTRATION/MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 2-33, ENTITLED ORDER OF BUSINESS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE, TO REQUIRE THE CONCURRENCE OF FOUR (4) AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FOR APPROVAL OF ANY ITEM PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESCUE MISSION, THE CONTINUATION OF A RESCUE MISSION, OR ACTION RELATING TO A RESCUE MISSION, AS WELL AS ANY VOTE ON A RESCUE MISSION ARISING PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00057-cover memo.pdf 04-00057 - submission - correspondence.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Teele Noes: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez 12498 Chairman Teele: Lourdes, is that it? SR.]. Mr. Attorney, read the ordinance -- the title change. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Just the substitute. Chairman Teele: The substitute. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: Now this is changed from the one that talked about unanimous, right? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: And what purpose are you here, sir? City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Santiago Echemendia: Mr. Chairman, Santiago Echemendia, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, representing Charity Unlimited, Camillus House -- also known as Camillus House. I just got the revised version a few minutes ago, so I haven't had a chance to review it, but could -- I would be remissed ifI didn't preserve the record for my client, so I just need -- I could condense a 10-minute presentation into one minute, if you can afford me that minute. Chairman Teele: Thirty seconds is great. Mr. Echemendia: I've submitted correspondence into the record, which I'd be happy to share with you all. It's basically a legal memoranda regarding the proposed ordinance. The original ordinance, I think it applies to the as revised. It provides that there is no -- there is -- it's not fairly debatable to pass this ordinance. Moreover, we believe that this proceeding is arguably quasi-judicial, insofar as the record below reflected that it was specifically earmarked to the relocation of Camillus House to this facility. Moreover, we would -- we really -- what we would just like to do is not be handicapped even by this softened version of the ordinance. We'd like to have an ability to present the evidence. I'll show you how -- that the conditions that would be included in the proposal would mitigate the impacts -- any potential adverse impacts, how the facility would complement the proposed police academy, how many shelter beds we would have. We would like to do that in the context of a quasi-judicial hearing, with the simple majority requirement, not this additional hurdle reflected by this proposed ordinance. I would also like to quote -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Municipal Corporations wherein he states, "An extraordinary majority vote or a unanimous requirement is nugatory or null and void if it conflicts with the statutory provisions or legislation." In this case, a super majority requirement is in conflict with Section 76103 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and Fair Housing Act. At the very least, it's an amendment that modifies the zoning regulations, vis-a-vis, modifying the voting requirements, which would allow Camillus House the activity requested. I'd like to incorporate for the record the testimony or the discussion that took place during the January 22nd meeting that generated the original draft of the ordinance. We believe that the ordinance deprives us of a fair hearing in the quasi-judicial proceeding that would be forthcoming under our special exception. We believe it's an equal protection violation. There are no super majority requirements in the Zoning Code for any other uses, nor in your procedural rules. I think Alex has done a brilliant job of trying to make the ordinance neutral on its face, but the record below is a bit painful. We're being treated differently from other similar uses, including congregate living facilities, nursing homes. There are no similar requirements for CVRFs, only distance requirements. As I mentioned, we believe it's a violatiom ofRalupa insofar as it's a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, insofar as Camillus House is a 501(c)3 that is for the sole purpose of "to foster religious and charitable activities, including, but not limited to, providing shelter and services especially designed to meet the physical, social and psychological needs of the homeless." We believe that the Commissioners failed to show that there is a compelling governmental interest and that this would be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Essentially, the super majority vote could cause a moratorium. We also believe that it is a violation of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) insofar as it -- that the governmental action would substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion, and we believe that it is a violation of the Fair Housing Act, insofar as it would deprive -- it would result in refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, and practices or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. That is the end of our presentation. I just needed to make that for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Attorney, in light of his comments, are you persuaded that he has raised an issue that is a close call or -- Mr. Vilarello: No, sir. You've adopt -- the ordinance before you establishes a procedural rule, which is fully within your discretion to adopt. City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: So move. Mr. Vilarello: It is neutral on its face and it has nothing to do with any quasi-judicial hearing that was presently before the City Commission, or applications that were before the City Commission. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: So move. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: By Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Discussion. Chairman Teele: Discussion. Commissioner Gonzalez: When I first heard the -- your proposal on the other ordinance, I was kind of shocked and I was kind of surprised. I don't know what the game was. I don't really care what the game was behind it, OK, but I don't want anybody to think that I can be played with or that I can be manipulated, all right. Actually, what we're doing is we're going back to the same thing that we had before, so I don't know what the game was. I don't really care what the game was, butt got to tell you that I -- you know, I'm glad that I never decided to be a lawyer because three hours ago, I heard you here in this same chamber representing another client, talking about your concerns -- or your client's concerns about the glare that one building can produce in another building. I have heard about complaints about the negative impact of the shine of another building in your building. I have heard, in the case of Spring Gardens, concerns about night pollution. Never heard of that in my life. That is a new term. Chairman Teele: Of what pollution? Commissioner Gonzalez: Night pollution. Commissioner Winton: Night pollution. Commissioner Gonzalez: Night pollution. OK. I don't know what that is. I don't know if it's light. I don't know what the hell it is, but night pollution, OK, but there is nobody's concerned about the negative impact of your client in my district. There are people in your district that are really concerned about the impact of his client in your district and they were here at the last Commission meeting protesting the homeless in downtown. I don't care what resolution we have. I'm going to maintain my position. I'm going to defend my district and the people in my disfrict; the residents of my disfrict, the youth of my district, the children of my district, and the citizens of my disfrict. I don't care if we have this resolution, another resolution or if you invent three different resolutions. What I'm really surprised is that now he's claiming that the last resolution was in violation of all of his rights and his client's rights, and you accepted that resolution and you allowed us to vote on that resolution. I mean, Alex, you are our attorney. If a resolution was presented that -- according to him -- it was in violation of his client's civil rights and all of their rights, I don't know how you allow us to vote on that resolution, because the resolution that was presented or introduced by Commissioner Teele, who is also an attorney. I'm not an attorney. City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Let me correct -- let me just state what we insfructed him. We insfructed him to draw up a legal resolution that had unanimous consent -- that's five affirmative votes -- for any homeless facility. Mr. Vilarello: Rescue mission. Chairman Teele: -- a resolution -- or the ordinance. Mr. Vilarello: A rescue mission. Chairman Teele: A rescue mission. Commissioner Gonzalez: A resolution. Chairman Teele: In reviewing the law and in raising all of the issues and in an anticipation, quite frankly, that there would be others, the lawyers have said to me, you are on much safer ground by asking for an exfraordinary majority. Right now, it's three votes. The exfraordinary majority is a four fifths vote, and I think that is much greater protection for where you're frying to go and where I think the majority of the Commission would like to see that Commission districts are respected, and what this simply says is, is that any Commissioner who represents a district, if he objects to it, then everybody else has got to be in agreement with it, and I think that balances both the public right to continue to build these facilities, and the district Commissioner's right. I don't think there's any game here at all from the Attorney's part or from my part -- at least, from my part and the Attorney's part. The problem is, is that virtually anything we do right now, somebody is frying to basically take us to court. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. The ordinance that was passed on first reading -- and it is in your package on -- for second reading -- is a legally sufficient ordinance. Chairman Teele: The unanimous -- Mr. Vilarello: Certainly. It's a procedural ordinance and a procedural requirement, and it's legally sufficient. Would you -- or if -- this ordinance -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But somebody could challenge it as it being unconstitutional. Mr. Vilarello: Someone can challenge any action that you take. The ordinance that was proffered that the City Manager first requested me to draft as a compromise was the one that was proffered this after -- this evening. Commissioner Regalado: Alex, who requested that? Mr. Vilarello: The City Manager asked me to draft an ordinance that did -- which is the one that is presently before you. The motion is currently being considered. Chairman Teele: And the City Manager and the Mayor met with me on Tuesday and persuaded me that they felt that this strongly was in the best interest, and implied that this is pretty much what the public wanted to see, or the elected representatives may want to see, and that we should be very, very careful about potential litigation in this area, and I basically yielded to a recommendation of the Manager, after having conferred with the City Attorney on the matter, but the intent is not to -- is not, at all, to play games, Angel. This takes us further from where we are right now, is what I'm saying. Commissioner Gonzalez: Let me tell you. Just look at the article on the -- of the Miami Herald after we pass the other resolution and read the Miami Herald tomorrow. If that is not a game -- City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Let me tell you. Like I said, I don't care. To be honest with you, I don't care because I'm firm in my positon. I'm going to be firm in my position, either win or lose. I'm going to maintain my position. I'm going to be firm in my position. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that's respectful. We got -- Commissioner Gonzalez: And that's all. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's pretty late. Mr. Chairman, we've got to move on. Commissioner Gonzalez: That's all that counts. Chairman Teele: We respect that. All right. What would you say on this, Commissioner Gonzalez? What would you like to do? Would you like to defer this item, or would you like to vote on the previous item or what? Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't really care. Whatever you say. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Call the question on the ordinance. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, call the roll. This is on first reading? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Second. Mr. Vilarello: No. This is second reading. This is less restrictive than the ordinance that you had before you on second reading. I believe that you can adopt it -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Changes aren't substantial to make it be -- take it back to first reading? OK. Mr. Vilarello: You could approve -- This would be -- the ordinance that was read would be approved on second reading. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, call -- Commissioner Regalado: Who moved it? Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Winton. Seconded by Commissioner Sanchez. Ms. Thompson: Sanchez, right. Commissioner Regalado: I -- Would they accept an amendment? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Amendment to what? Commissioner Regalado: Instead of three, four votes? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right now, it is. Commissioner Gonzalez: Right now (INAUDIBLE) Commissioner Regalado: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It falls on a four fifth vote. City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: No. Chairman Teele: Right now, it says three votes. Commissioner Regalado: No. It's three votes now. They changed it to three votes. From four votes to three votes, so I'm asking four votes. Commissioner Winton: I'll accept it. Mr. Echemendia: No. It says four votes. It's (INAUDIBLE) Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. Mr. Echemendia: Can I just make one comment to the -- Chairman Teele: No. The public hearing portion is closed. Mr. Echemendia: Just in -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. It doesn't say four votes. Mr. Echemendia: It's in response to Commissioner Gonzalez. Chairman Teele: No. Absolutely not. I'm not going to let you do that. Mr. Echemendia: No, no. I was frying to make a favorable comment, not be antagonistic at all. Commissioner Winton: I think that -- Commissioner, you're asking if the maker of the motion will accept a friendly amendment to make it four no matter what. Commissioner Regalado: Instead of three. Chairman Teele: No matter what. Commissioner Winton: And I'm saying, yes, I accept that. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so -- Chairman Teele: Does the seconder accept it? Vice Chairman Sanchez: A four fifth vote? Chairman Teele: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Call the question. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, call the roll. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Gonzalez: No. City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Teele: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Did you vote -- you were the second. You voted "no"? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I voted "no." Commissioner Winton: Oh, yes. I made the motion. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Teele? Chairman Teele: Yes. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is adopted on -- Chairman Teele: You know, you can get into these boxes, you know. I tell you. This is late at night. Did you want to make your helpful comment? Commissioner Winton: No. Mr. Echemendia: He (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Chairman Teele: OK. Commissioner Winton: No. Mr. Echemendia: The only thing that I was going to say to Commissioner -- Chairman Teele: He said no. Commissioner Winton said no, OK? Mr. Echemendia: OK. Never mind. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING FR.1 04-00052 ORDINANCE First Reading City Attorney AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE X, SECTION 2-817 (h)(3)(ii) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION, CODE ENFORCEMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, FINES; LIENS," TO ADD PROVISIONS THAT PERMIT THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE A SUBORDINATE LIEN POSITION ON LOANS FOR THE FINANCE OR REFINANCE OF CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTIES USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS; AND TO DELETE PROVISIONS THAT PERMITTED LIEN(S) RELEASED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS BY THE CITY MANAGER TO BE REINSTATED; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00052-cover memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez Chairman Teele: All right. The plats, we're going to come back to Items 2, 3-- I mean, 3 and 4. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): PH.2 you could consider now, if you wish. Chairman Teele: We've already done PH.2, didn't we? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Teele: We've done PH.2. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, we did (INAUDIBLE) Chairman Teele: The other items are time certain. Commissioner Winton: Time certain. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Time certain, 3 o'clock. Chairman Teele: -- for 3 p.m., and what do we want to do, folks, is we want to take these items up and resolve them so we can get through this -- Commissioner Winton: Can we do FR stuff First Reading? Chairman Teele: FR.1. FR.1. First Reading 1. Commissioner Regalado: FR.1. Chairman Teele: FR.1. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and second. Mr. Attorney, read it into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Teele: This is a public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward and be heard. There are no persons coming forward. The public hearing is closed. We have a motion and a second. Do we have discussion? There being no discussion, Madam Clerk. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. RESOLUTIONS City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 RE.1 04-00101 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S WRITTEN FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, EXECUTING THE WORK ORDER AUTHORIZATION, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR THE ENGAGEMENT OF H.J. ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC., PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, SELECTED FROM THE LIST OF PRE -APPROVED GENERAL ENGINEERING FIRMS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $68,000, FOR ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES INCURRED RELATED TO PERMIT REVIEW FEES AS REQUIRED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECTS ENTITLED "FLAGAMI REPORT-FAIRLAWN STORM SEWERS PROJECT, PHASE II, B-5673-A2," "FLAGAMI REPORT -WEST END STORM SEWER PROJECT, PHASE II, PARTS A AND B, B-5673-B2," AND "FLAGAMI REPORT-FLAGAMI STORM SEWER PROJECT, PHASE II, B-5673-C2" LOCATED IN DISTRICTS 1 AND 4; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $68,000, FOR SERVICES AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 352199 ENTITLED "WEST END STORM SEWERS - PHASE II." 04-00101-cover memo.pdf 04-00101-memo from CIP.pdf 04-00101-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00101-previous legislation.pdf 04-00101-psa.pdf 04-001 01-exhibits.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0105 Chairman Teele: All right. Now, we have a series of items now that require another four fifths vote. Is there any Commissioner who's uncomfortable with any of these items, would we consider -- Commissioner Winton: I'd move RE.1. Chairman Teele: RE. lis moved by Commissioner Winton. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: By Commissioner Sanchez and Regalado. Is there a discussion? Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no." The item is adopted 4 to 0. RE.2 04-00092 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND APPROVING THE EMERGENCY EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT WITH UNISYS CORPORATION ("UNISYS") FOR THE PROVISION OF NETWORK BACKBONE MAINTENANCE SERVICES ON A MONTH -TO -MONTH BASIS FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIX (6) MONTHS OR UNTIL A NEW CONTRACT IS IN PLACE, IN A MONTHLY AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,000, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $156,000, ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNT CODE NO. 001000.460101.6.670, AND FROM THE OPERATING BUDGETS OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS OF THE VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETARY APPROVAL PRIOR TO USING SAID SERVICES. 04-00092-cover memo.pdf 04-00092-memo from ITD.pdf 04-00092-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00092-contract extension letter.pdf 04-00092-emergency extension of contract RFP.pdf 04-00092-exhibit-amendment and extension.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0106 Commissioner Winton: I'll move RE.2 and discussion point one. Chairman Teele: RE.2 is moved by Commissioner Winton for discussion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: It's seconded. Discussion. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: The question I have for the Manager is really why this is a ratification. This is an extension of a contract, so why is it that this couldn't have come before the Commission on a regular agenda item prior to the contract expiring? Chairman Teele: Where's the Chief Procurement Officer and the Chief -- where's our Chief Procurement Officer and our Chief Technology Officer? They've got beautiful offices, great staffing and we can't find them. Vice Chairman Sanchez: They're in the dugout. City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: They're in the dugout. Where's the Chief Communication -- Chief -- what is it, Technology Officer? He's such a breath of fresh air. Commissioner Winton: My question is, I don't understand why this is a ratification of an event after the fact, when it's simply an extension of a confract, and an extension of contract, we know when the confract expires, so why didn't it come to the Commission as a regular Commission agenda item prior to expiration of the contract for us just to approve on a regular basis, as opposed to ratification on an emergency basis? Vice Chairman Sanchez: We don't have a quorum. Chairman Teele: We got a quorum. We can't have a vote. You want to try to answer the question. Glenn Marcos (Director, Purchasing): I'm sorry, Commissioner, can you repeat what the actual situation is? I was out -- I was back in the COW (Committee of the Whole) room -- Commissioner Winton: I just repeated it, though. You were standing in front of me. Mr. Marcos: I'm trying to get what the actual item is. Chairman Teele: You didn't tell him what the item is. So, you're not ready to discuss this item on the agenda? Mr. Marcos: Well, it's -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Marcos: I'm frying to see whether it's a purchasing item. Chairman Teele: Do you have a purchasing item on the agenda today, sir? Mr. Marcos: I had several of them under the consent, yes. Commissioner Winton: This is RE.2. It's a Unisys contract that we're extending on a month -to -month basis for a period not to exceed six months -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You've got to ask the IT (Information Technology) Department. Commissioner Winton: -- or until a new contract is in place. Chairman Teele: I keep asking where is the Chief Technology Officer. Mr. Marcos: That is an Information Technology item, and the actual Chief is the one who's asking for the emergency. Commissioner Winton: And where is the Chief? Mr. Marcos: Now, whatl can tell you, I do know a little bit -- Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Where is he? Mr. Marcos: Commissioner, I do not know. Commissioner Winton: Is the -- Madam Manager -- Madam Manager, hello. City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Alicia Cuervo Schrieber (Chief of Neighborhood Services): He may be up upstairs. Chairman Teele: Have you all discussed the item? Have you and the Chief Technology Officer discussed it? Mr. Marcos: I do know about the actual item and we have discussed it, yes. Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no, no. Have you all discussed this item on the agenda today in the context of what it's on the agenda for? Mr. Marcos: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: He was in the bathroom. You got him out of the bathroom. He's running back here. Mr. Marcos: I just saw him. Chairman Teele: He's probably going to get his coat. Vice Chairman Sanchez: He's going to go get his jacket. Chairman Teele: Have you heard any good jokes lately? Mr. Marcos: Not really, not good at jokes. Chairman Teele: Not any that you want to share? Commissioner Winton: We have another agenda item we can do? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Look, I'm a witness. He walked out of the bathroom. I saw him. Peter Korinis (Chief Information Officer): Excuse me, Commissioner. I was in the men's room. Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: This is RE.2. This is an extension of a Unisys confract. Mr. Korinis: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: We're approving it on an emergency basis, ratifying an action that the Manager's already taken. The question I have is, if we're managing our operation right, why wasn't this on -- there was a confract. Contract expired. We're extending it. Well, that's normal business. I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have -- Chairman Teele: Dr. Claude, don't leave, please. Commissioner Winton: The problem I have is why it's on here as a ratification, meaning the Manager's already executed the agreement, and it's before us on a four fifths vote. If we're managing our system, we know the contract expires, so why wasn't it on the Commission agenda meeting a month ago or two months ago or three months ago or whenever it was so that it become -- so that we take care of it in the regular every day course of business, as opposed to an emergency that's -- that we're dealing with after the fact? That's my question. Mr. Marcos: Commissioner, I can answer that question. I thank you for framing the issue. Whatl can tell you is that the actual -- a couple months ago, we were here in front of you, and City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 we did bring an item, which related to the Bell South Unisys issue, in which the City Manager pulled the actual item because of the fact that he wanted to open up the actual RFP (Request for Proposal) for competitiveness. We felt that the RFP was too resfrictive. The language indicated that it was too restrictive, so we ended up pulling the actual item before you, so now what you do have in front of you is a maintenance agreement that has expired and, therefore, because of the fact that the amount exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars, we had to do it as an emergency. Commissioner Winton: So, you're still working on finding the permanent vendor? Mr. Korinis: Sir, ifI may add. We went out with an RF-- Commissioner Winton: Name and -- name -- Korinis: I'm sorry. Peter Korinis, Chief Information Officer. We went out with an RFP back in the summer. We went through the whole process. We had made a recommendation in it. At the last minute, frankly, we found that we had made the whole requirement set too resfrictive, and by making an adjustment to those requirements, we could save sixty thousand dollars a year over the life -- three hundred thousand dollars over the five-year life of the contract. Commissioner Winton: So this is simply extending -- Korinis: So we came -- yes, sir. So we came back to you and said at the last minute, reject this and you all rejected that, so we could reissue, so we have an RFP in the process being reissued -- Commissioner Winton: Great answer. Mr. Korinis: -- where we have less restrictions and we'll be able to save the money, and this is just an emergency just to get us over a couple of months. Commissioner Winton: That's a great answer. I'm satisfied with that. Mr. Korinis: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: But y'all do me a favor? Could you make sure everybody reads this agenda, knows what's on the agenda, is paying attention to where we are on the agenda process, and is anticipating questions that we might have and is ready to come up here so we don't waste 10 minutes waiting to get -- Korinis: Yes, sir. I -- Commissioner Winton: -- a perfectly good and acceptable answer? Mr. Korinis: I apologize. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Mr. Marcos: I'll make sure that Peter won't be in the bathroom next time, Commissioner. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk -- Madam Attorney -- Madam Manager, would you find the Code Enforcement or the Code -- the Chief Code Officer because we're going to take up something related to that. We may as well start giving notices of what we're going to take up. We have a discussion -- City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Priscilla Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, sir. Would you -- Chairman Teele: -- and a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, call the roll. This requires a four fifths vote. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The resolution has been adopted, 4/0. Chairman Teele: Now, that was RE.2? Ms. Thompson: Correct. RE.3 04-00119 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE BID OF SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. ("SHORELINE"), FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "BICENTENNIAL PARK SHORELINE STABILIZATION PROJECT," B-3293, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,957,195.10; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 331418, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,957,195.10, FOR CONTRACT COSTS, PLUS $251,874.05 FOR ESTIMATED EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,209,069.15, AS SET FORTH IN BID DOCUMENT AND THE PROJECT FACT SHEET, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH SHORELINE, FOR SAID PURPOSE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO EDWARDS & KELCEY, INC., PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 03-256, ADOPTED MARCH 27, 2003, FOR THE DESIGN OF BICENTENNIAL PARK SHORELINE STABILIZATION - PHASE II, PROJECT B-30290 ("PROJECT"), IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $238,101, INCREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $378,407 TO $616,508, FOR ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT; AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 03-256 TO REFLECT SAID INCREASE. 04-00119-cover memo.pdf 04-00119-budgetary impact analysis.pdf 04-00119-exhibit 1-contract.pdf 04-00119-exhibit 2-tabulation sheets.pdf 04-00119-exhibit 3-project fact sheet.pdf 04-00119 - CRA E-mail.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0107 Chairman Teele: Is there a motion on RE.3? City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed, say "no." City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 BOARDS AND COMMITTEES BC.1 04-00084 RESOLUTION Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN Clerk INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE SEOPW AND OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRAs FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. APPOINTEE: NOMINATED BY: Leonard Turkel Commissioner Johnny Winton 04-00084-MEMO-1.doc 04-00084-members-2.doc Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0131 A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Regalado absent, to appoint Leonard Turkel to the Oversight Committee for the SEOPW and OMNI Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs). Commissioner Winton: I have -- anything else? Vice Chairman Sanchez: You have pocket items? Commissioner Winton: No. I've got two appointees. Leonard Turkel to the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Oversight Board. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Excuse me? Commissioner Winton: Leonard Turkel to CRA Oversight Board. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there a zoning -- is there a residency waiver needed on that? Commissioner Winton: Is there? I don't -- not that I know of but what the heck. Chairman Teele: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 DISCUSSION ITEMS DI.1 03-0357 DISCUSSION ITEM City Manager's DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE Office AGENDA. 03-0357- cover page.pdf WITHDRAWN A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to WITHDRAW item DI.1. DI.2 04-00114 DISCUSSION ITEM PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIVE FROM THE CITY COMMISSION ON JANUARY 22, 2004, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT TEAM (NET) WILL BE MAKING A FULL PRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH ITS MISSION INCLUDING PHYSICAL FACILITIES, SCOPE OF SERVICES, THE ROLE, ETC. 04-00114-cover memo.pdf 04-00114-powerpoint presentation.pdf 04-00114-Submitted Untitled.pdf 04-00114-booklet. htm DEFERRED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and passed unanimiously, to DEFER consideration of item DI. 2 to 10 a.m. at the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 11, 2004. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, are we going to do the first reading of the parades ordinance, rescinding the parades ordinance? I think that the City Attorney may have that ready. Five minutes? OK Commissioner Winton: But I'm not in favor of going to that until we get -- you know, we get -- Commissioner Regalado: No, I'm just asking when. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: No. I don't care. I'm going to be here. You, too. Commissioner Winton: I know. Chairman Teele: First, the Chair will entertain a motion to defer, Mr. Manager, the item related to the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office until 10 a.m. at the next meeting, time certain. Commissioner Winton: What item is that? Chairman Teele: That's -- what's the item? DI something. Discussion Item -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Discussion Item 2. City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: -- 2, and it makes no sense to have all these NET Directors in here waiting, and waiting and waiting, and then we're not going to be hearing them till late, so if we could move that item to 10 o'clock at the next meeting time for them, I think that would conserve a lot of man hours. Is that all right with you, Mr. Manager? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Absolutely, sir. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: So move. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: All right. The motion is to defer DI -- Discussion Item Number 2 relating to NET, and NET mission and all of that to the next meeting at 10 a.m. Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. DI.3 04-00125 DISCUSSION ITEM REPORT CONCERNING CODE ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT VIOLATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS USING THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE LITTLE HAITI AREA FOR CAR REPAIRS AND THE LIKE. 04-00125-cover memo.pdf DISCUSSED Direction to the City Manager: by Chairman Teele to develop an educational campaign in the Little Haiti neighborhood in English and Creole to inform residents of the Code regulations pertaining to the repair of automobiles in public right-of-way; further directing the Manager to use maximum care to avoid the perception that the City is using law enforcement or Code enforcement to induce individuals to sell their property to the City. Chairman Teele further directed the City Attorney to draft a resolution to toll enforcement of Code violations on properties that the City is negotiating to acquire. Chairman Teele: The Oversight Board appointments are always in order, can be made -- any board appointment can be made. Before we do anything, Code Enforcement on D1.3, a report concerning Code Enforcement of current violations of individuals using the public right-of-way in the Little Haiti area. Who's handling that, Madam Manager? Who? Would you say on the record who's handling it? Alicia Cuervo Schrieber (Chief of Neighborhood Services): We're looking for Mariano de Molina. He's -- Chairman Teele: Is Keith Carswell also in the room? Unidentified Speaker: Right outside. Chairman Teele: And is the Attorney in the room? We'd like to hear your report, sir. Discussion. Is there anybody from the Police Department here? Commissioner Winton: What are we on? City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: We're on D -- Commissioner Regalado: DI.3. Chairman Teele: DI.3. Commissioner Winton: Oh. Mariano de Mola: Mariano de Mola, Code Enforcement Director. The report is about the Little Haiti -- for the last three months, we establish an office on the northern part of the City, specifically in the Little Haiti. We have about 12 inspectors over there working and operating that area. Also, we are conducting ,on Saturdays, inspections over there in that area, and basically, we have put a lot of emphasis on the mechanical repairs, which is a big problem in that area, and we have found and we have documented about 25 cases of mechanical repairs. I have talked to the Economic Development group. They gave me some ideas in some areas in which they would like some help and we are working on those areas. We also have established a list of prior violators and we (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on a daily basis. Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, there is a very sensitive issue here and there's a very public issue. First, the public issue. A part of the culture of the Haitian community is very mechanical. People are very industrious, they work hard, they save a lot of money. Home Depot does a great business in the -- they're pleasantly surprised how industrious people are. Part of that industry is repairing cars. However, the public right-of-ways in all of Little Haiti have been turned into repair shops. I have been complaining about this for the better part of four years, with very little activity. In fact, I drove through Little Haiti Saturday and all around Northeast 2ndAvenue, in that area, people are doing everything they've been doing. Is the Police Department involved, and I want to know how many cars have been towed and do we have the right to tow cars that are being -- that are violating the public right-of-way? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Well, I can give you a list of what we've towed so far this year. Chairman Teele: Towed? Mr. Arriola: Yes. I mean, that we have -- citywide abandoned cars. You know, there's a -- Commissioner Winton: That's not what he's asking. He's asking, I think, in a very specific zone, so y'all might have to take some time to go seek this answer out. Mr. Arriola: Yes, we might have to. Commissioner Winton: He's talking about a very specific zone where people are doing car repair work in the middle of the public right-of-way, and are we, in fact, towing any of those cars? Chairman Teele: And I'm not -- that's exactly the question, and I'm not concerned about the homeowner who's doing it. They should be ticketed, but businesses that are running businesses in the public right-of-way is a totally different issue, and I don't understand why the Police Department, which oversees towing, is not directly involved with Code Enforcement and with the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office on this thing, and we just keep looking the other way about this, and we've really got to put our foot down, both in terms of communicating through the public and Net 9 and -- I don't know if we're putting anything out in Creole. The Communications Department has been instructed. There's a resolution that's three years old, and another one that's one years old that instructs Communications to put out information in Creole regarding what the rules are in terms of -- I mean, we're not frying to "gotcha." We want people to understand what we're trying to do, but has any of that been done? City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. de Mola: Commissioner, you're perfectly right. There is a lot of activity of mechanical -- illegal mechanical repairs in that area over there, and like I say, basically this is happening on Saturdays, like you says and -- Chairman Teele: My question was, has anything been done in Creole as a community action through the Communications Department or through your department or through any of the departments? Mr. Arriola: I'll have to get that information for you, Commissioner. I can't answer that. Chairman Teele: There are at least two resolutions regarding that, because, again, the idea is not to embarrass people or to ambush people, but to try to get compliance on one hand. On the hand of commercial businesses that are doing car repairs in the right-of-way, is the Police Department working with Code Enforcement -- Mr. de Mola: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- and are we towing cars from those locations where there is work, and have we put out something in English and in Creole and given it to all of these notorious violators that if your car's in the right-of-way and if repairs are being done on them, we're going to tow them? Mr. de Mola: Yes. We are working in conjunction with the police for those cases on the right-of-way. Yes, we are doing that. Chairman Teele: Has anybody been informed in English and in Creole that we are going to tow cars or whatever actions we're going to take? Mr. de Mola: No, sir. Chairman Teele: Well, I think it's very important, very important that we communicate to the community, in English and in Creole, what our intent is. The intent is not to "gotcha." Now, there is a very sensitive issue, Mr. Manager, and Mr. Attorney, that we need to put -- Mr. de Mola: We can work with the -- let me tell you the way the -- are proposed to do this one, is work with the NET Administrator and the NET Offices over there to educate the public in that area, and basically we can do it. We can put that information out in Creole and in English. Mr. Arriola: But the notice of violations that they have received, Commissioner, are in Creole, English and Creole. Mr. de Mola: Right. That's correct. Mr. Arriola: But I understand what you -- you want to do something more educational and we will do that. Chairman Teele: I want to do something much more educational and I want to do much more in terms of enforcement. Mr. Arriola: Yes. Chairman Teele: And just -- and my question still hasn't been answered, and I'll ask it again. Do we, under our ordinances, have the authority to tow cars that are being repaired in the public right-of-way? City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. de Mola: Yes, sir. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): I'll have to look at the issue for you, Commissioner. The notice -- if someone is doing repair work in the right-of-way, it's a zoning violation, and it should be cited as a zoning violation. If there are chemicals being spilled into the right-of-way, that's a DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) issue, and that's a different enforcement mechanism, but the Police Department has been following the appropriate procedure in terms of towing vehicles, stickering them and towing them. Chairman Teele: Counsel, you don't think -- asking rhetorically -- that something that blocks the public right-of-way is not a traffic enforcement issue and strictly is a zoning issue? Rhetorically. Think about it. Mr. Vilarello: I have, Commissioner. The right-of-way is a Swale area, and is not necessarily block -- does not -- a vehicle in that right-of-way does not necessarily block traffic. That would be determined by the Police Department on a case -by -case basis. Chairman Teele: Well, the last time I went through Little Haiti, we have damn little Swale area, so that's -- you're in a different community. It's sidewalk to street. I mean, so, you know, that may be true in Coral Gables or in Brickell and wherever you all live, but in Little Haiti, it's -- there's very little Swale area along these commercial corridors, at all. It's sidewalks -- it's building line, sidewalk and street, and that's pretty much all that's there. Chief is that the way you all have seen it over there in Little Haiti or y'all looking in Coral Gables, too? Frank Fernandez: Good morning, Commissioner. Frank Fernandez, Deputy Chief Miami Police. Commissioner, we do enforcement. You had asked about how we educate the public, and education is the number one component that we always use. We've used it historically. We're using it again now. We do have it in different languages. The NRO's (Neighborhood Resource Officer) do pass out fliers indicating to the citizens of what they can and cannot do. They've also done that for dumping. As you know, illegal dumping is an issue that we have -- one of our top priorities. Chairman Teele: It's a big issue. Chief Fernandez: And the perception of crime is also based on the way people view the community. It's got to look clean. You know, the cars are an issue, as well. The Swale area, if they're repairing a vehicle, we have a couple of options. If the vehicle's obstructing the roadway, then we could tow it based on a traffic obstruction. If the vehicle's abandoned for more than five days, we issue -- put the sticker on there and then we have an option of towing it. Chairman Teele: Third issue. If the vehicle is being repaired in the right-of-way. Chief Fernandez: If the vehicle is being repaired -- Chairman Teele: Not the Swale area, but in the right-of-way, sidewalk or the street. Chief Fernandez: If the vehicle's on the sidewalk -- it's circumstantial -- but if the vehicle's on the sidewalk, we will tow it immediately. Obviously, we're going to give the person a warning. Chairman Teele: That's a totally different answer than the City Attorney gave as it relates to the fact situations in Little Haiti. Chief Fernandez: No. I believe he was referring to the swale area. That means between the sidewalk and the street. City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: The area between the sidewalk and the street is a swale area. Chief Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Teele: But most of the corridors in Little Haiti are sidewalk to street, where you've got -- I can tell you along some of those streets in the Little Haiti Caribbean Marketplace area, sidewalk to street. Chief Fernandez: Commissioner, if the vehicle is on the sidewalk, our officers will go out there, try and make contact to persons, the owner of the vehicle repairing, and tell them, move it off the sidewalk. If they don't move it, we tow it. If it's between the sidewalk and the Swale, then we're going to have to sticker it and we work with Code Enforcement. If it's on the street, it's an immediate tow, as well. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: I have a question for somebody, anybody. What is a repair? Chief Fernandez: A repair would be any type of mechanical repair to a vehicle. I mean, if they're removing an engine, an alternator, a battery -- Commissioner Regalado: IfI have my hood up, would that consider -- be considered a repair? Chief Fernandez: If you have your hood up, it depends on what he's doing inside the hood. Chairman Teele: Tell him -- the answer is no, but it's probable cause that it is. Chief Fernandez: Yeah, we're going to encounter the person, yeah. Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm asking. Suppose that my car overheated and I just lift the hood. Chief Fernandez: We're still going to come up to you and offer you assistance. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: And I really think that the Police Department, Mr. Manager, and especially the NRO and the Code Enforcement and NET really have to sit down and look at this thing together and work something out. Now, there is the other side of this that's very sensitive. Doesn't relate to you, Frank. It relates to Keith Carswell and it relates to Code Enforcement. Mr. Manager, I want to say this on the record. This City cannot conduct itself intentionally or unintentionally in a way that it looks as if we are using law enforcement or code enforcement to induce anyone to sell land to the City ofMiami, no matter how egregious the -- how many code enforcements and nuisances they may have been convicted of it's a thin line between the -- I don't want to say abuse, but giving rise to the perception that the City is abusing policy and I would like for the City Manager and the City Attorney to consider a resolution that indicates that there will be a -- some type of -- what's the proper word, Mr. Attorney, where you hold everything in place -- toll the enforcement on any land that the City's negotiating on or has expressed an interest in because it's a thin line, and I don't want to get on either side of this issue, but you can certainly give rise to the perception that we're muscling people if we're negotiating with them on one hand and the next day two Code Enforcement people and a police officer walk into the building and start citing it. Mr. Vilarello: The reference has been moratorium. I wouldn't recommend that. I would recommend that -- City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: I didn't say moratorium. I said toll. Mr. Vilarello: Toll, but perhaps the best way to do it is to direct the Manager and City Attorney to use maximum discretion in the enforcement of code violations on properties that we are considering for acquisition. Chairman Teele: Well, I would take any written recommendation that you all take, but I don't think that goes far enough because those that are in the system need to be towed until the decision is made whether or not the City's going to acquire it or not, or -- you follow -- Mr. Vilarello: We'll include language to that effect in a resolution. Chairman Teele: And this has come up at least on three occasions. This came up on the large trailer park that we completed the acquisition on, and it's in the air now, and it's being discussed on radio, and it's really, I think, a position we don't want to be in, and I'm not blaming -- I'm certainly not blaming Code Enforcement for doing their job, and I'm not blaming Asset Management for doing their job. I just think we need to get all of the people at the table and we really need to be careful about the kind of image that that could send. Mr. Arriola: You know, it's a very touchy situation. You and I have been dealing with this for about a year. The problem is the abuse, you know, we -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) we won't sell you the property under any condition for any money (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and that -- they feel then that they have a license to violate our Code, so it's -- Now, we also know of one specific case where we had an unfortunate incident, but we have to be very, very careful how we do this, because people will take advantage of it, as you know. Chairman Teele: All right. What else do we have on this agenda that can be taken up this morning? We don't have a quorum at this precise moment. I'm expecting that Commissioner Regalado will come in for another 10 minutes, but what else do we have to take up? Mr. Arriola: Well, if you have three Commissioners, we have RE.3 that we -- oh, it's a four fifths vote. That's not good. Chairman Teele: Did we do -- that was a four fifths, I thought. Mr. Arriola: Yeah, that's not good. I think we're stuck. Chairman Teele: Why don't we agree -- again, I see all these fine NET people here. Why don't we agree that we're going to take up NET this afternoon at 6:30. Mr. Arriola: You want to do that, so they can go back to work and -- Chairman Teele: Yeah, so that they can go back, because trying to bring them in at 2:30 -- I want to get through this zoning agenda today. I want to fry to get everybody in the zoning agenda out of here. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Attorney, as I stated, I must -- I have an engagement that I must leave here, and all that I ask is all my PZ items be the first ones taken up so we could deal with them. Chairman Teele: And that's exactly what I'm saying, and I'm saying we'll take that up, not later - - not sooner than 6:30, OK? We'll take up the NET item not sooner than 6:30, so they don't have to wind up in and out wandering around, whether they're going to be taken up, because we want to get in the zoning agenda, as soon as we come back and fry to resolve that, and we've got a lot City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 of public hearing on the Community Development. Mr. Arriola: OK. That will be fine. Chairman Teele: Be a good day for the NET Director -- the super NET Director to take his NET staff to lunch maybe. That will be a real nice gesture on his part. With that, the meeting stands recessed until 2:45. DI.4 04-00186 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION TO REPORT FUNDING FOR CITY SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE ANNUAL MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. EVENT AND RECOMMENDATION ON ANY ACTIVITIES RELATED TO SAID EVENT. 04-00186-cover memo.pdf WITHDRAWN A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to WITHDRAW item DI.4. City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 EXECUTIVE SESSIONS Present: Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Winton, Vice Chairman Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Chairman Teele 2:45 P.M. ES.1 04-00072 EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER F. S. 286.011(8) [2003], THE PERSON CHAIRING THIS MEETING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMMISSION CONVENES, THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING PENDING LITIGATION: MARK'S CLASSIC CORPORATION, RICHARD AND SUNNY MANAGAN, ET AL. VS. CITY OF MIAMI. THE SESSION, WHICH WILL BE THE FIRST OF TWO CLOSED DOOR ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSIONS SCHEDULED FOR THIS DATE ON VARIOUS CASES, WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 2:45 P.M., AT CITY HALL, IN COMMISSIONER ANGEL GONZALEZ'S CONFERENCE ROOM, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND CONCLUDE AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, ANGEL GONZALEZ, JOE SANCHEZ, TOMAS REGALADO, JOHNNY L. WINTON, AND ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR.; THE CITY MANAGER, JOE ARRIOLA; THE CITY ATTORNEY, ALEJANDRO VILARELLO, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, JOEL E. MAXWELL AND. ATTORNEYS PARKER THOMSON, CAROL LICKO AND LAURIE PIECHURA FROM THE LAW FIRM OF HOGAN AND HARTSON, LLP, COUNSEL FOR THE CITY. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSIONS ARE FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SESSION, THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE SESSION. SAID COMMISSION MEETING WILL CONVENE AT CITY HALL, CITY COMMISSION CHAMBER, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 04-00072-cover page.pdf 04-00072- public notice.pdf A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and passed unanimously, to DEFER consideration of item ES.1 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 11, 2004 at 2:45 p.m. 3:15 P.M. ES.2 04-00071 EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER F. S. 286.011(8) [2003], THE PERSON CHAIRING THIS MEETING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMMISSION CONVENES, THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING PENDING LITIGATION: NATIONAL ADVERTISING CO. VS. CITY OF MIAMI. THE SESSION, WHICH WILL BE THE SECOND OF TWO CLOSED DOOR City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSIONS SCHEDULED FOR THIS DATE ON VARIOUS CASES, WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M., OR AS SOON THEREAFTER, AT CITY HALL, IN COMMISSIONER ANGEL GONZALEZ'S CONFERENCE ROOM, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND CONCLUDE AT APPROXIMATELY 3:30 P.M. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, ANGEL GONZALEZ, JOE SANCHEZ, TOMAS REGALADO, JOHNNY L. WINTON, AND ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR.; THE CITY MANAGER, JOE ARRIOLA; THE CITY ATTORNEY, ALEJANDRO VILARELLO, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, JOEL E. MAXWELL AND ATTORNEYS PARKER THOMSON, CAROL LICKO AND LAURIE PIECHURA FROM THE LAW FIRM OF HOGAN AND HARTSON, LLP, COUNSEL FOR THE CITY. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SESSION, THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE SESSION. SAID COMMISSION MEETING WILL CONVENE AT CITY HALL, CITY COMMISSION CHAMBER, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 04-00071-cover page.pdf 04-00071- public notice.pdf A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and passed unanimously, to DEFER consideration of item ES.2 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 11, 2004 at 3 p.m. Chairman Teele: More deferrals, please. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. You had an executive session scheduled -- two executive sessions scheduled for today, ES.1 and ES.2. We would ask that it both be deferred to the next Commission meeting ofMarch llth. Negotiations are still ongoing. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Mr. Maxwell: Is there a time certain, sir? Chairman Teele: 2:45. Mr. Maxwell: The first meeting would be at 2:45, the second at 3:15? Chairman Teele: Second at 3. Mr. Maxwell: Second at 3. Commissioner Winton: At 3. Chairman Teele: We have a motion and a second, and both movers concur with the amendment of the time certain. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Those opposed have the same right. All right. City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PART B Chairman Teele: All right. Folks, let me tell you where we are. The time is now 5:15. We have a full legal team ready that's been purring here, waiting to get up. They're going to be up for at least an hour -- 45 minutes, plus 15 minutes, plus some other time. They're going to be here for an hour. We have time certain at 5 p.m., PZ.23, PZ.24 and PZ. 25. Now, are either of those -- any of those three items short, non -controversial, 23, 24 or 25? We also have a time certain at 5:30 of PZ.8, and then we have a time certain of 6 p.m. of PZ.26 and 27. Commissioner Winton: Well, obviously, we're not going to make all those. Chairman Teele: And at 6:30, PZ.21 and 22, so we're going to make a few decisions here. PZ.1 04-00079 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR COLUMBUS OFFICE TOWER PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 50 NORTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF A 38-STORY MIXED -USE BUILDING, WHICH CONSISTS OF 661,593 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, 29,508 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND A PARKING GARAGE CONSISTING OF 1,260 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 04-00079 Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00079 Analysis.PDF 04-00079 Zoning Map.PDF 04-00079 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00079 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00079 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00079 Plans.PDF 04-00079 Legislation.PDF 04-00079 Exhibit A - Modif.pdf 04-00079 Exhibit B.PDF 04-00079 Exhibit C.PDF 04-00079 Outside Cover.PDF 04-00079 Inside Cover.PDF 04-00079 Table of Contents.PDF 04-00079 Article I - Project Information.PDF 04-00079 Aerials.PDF 04-00079 Zoning Atlas.PDF 04-00079 Computer Tax Printout - Deed.PDF 04-00079 Ownership List.PDF 04-00079 Corporate Documents.PDF 04-00079 Owner Authorization.PDF 04-00079 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 04-00079 Article II - Project Description.PDF 04-00079 Article III - Supporting Documentation.PDF 04-00079 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 04-00079 Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 04-00079 Site Utility Study.PDF 04-00079 Economic Impact Analysis.PDF 04-00079 Survey of Property.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Columbus Office Tower Project LOCATION: Approximately 50 N Biscayne Boulevard APPLICANT(S): Miami Columbus, Inc, Owner and Cousins Properties Inc, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on January 21, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a mixed -use office -commercial development. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 90 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0111 Chairman Teele: PH 1 -- by the way -- PZ.1. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ.1 is a major use special permit for the Columbus Office Tower project, located at approximately 50 North Biscayne Boulevard. This project is going to to be comprised of a 38-story mixed -use building with 661,593 square feet of office space, 29,508 square feet of retail, and approximately 1,260 parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Department is recommending approval with conditions. It's also been recommended for approval with conditions to the Commission by the Planning Advisory Board. It was a unanimous vote. There was one design related condition that we had requested of the applicant that had to do with the west elevation. They had done a great job with the north, south and east elevations of the parking garage, but the west was still depicting exposed ribbon-like parking. We have asked them to continue to work with us on that. I'm happy to say, since the Planning Advisory Board hearing to today's Commission meeting, they have continued to work with us on it, and we have reviewed the amended elevations for the west facade and we're very happy with them, so we are recommending approval. Chairman Teele: Are there conditions? Are there conditions? Ms. Slazyk: The rest of the conditions are the standard major use special permit conditions regarding construction, parking -- Chairman Teele: Is there anybody here in opposition to this item? Is there anybody here in opposition to this item? Ma'am, would you like to introduce yourself for the record? Lucia Dougherty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the owner, as well as the applicants. With me is Jim -- Tim Hendricks, John Ward; the architects, Picard Chilton, John Picard and William Chilton. We are all here in representation of Cousins Properties, which is an office building developer out ofAtlanta, and they own over 20 million square feet of offices throughout the country, and we would urge your support for this project -- Chairman Teele: Are you all going to work with the staff? That's what we're waiting to hear you say. Ms. Dougherty: The answer is no, because we have completed our work with the staff. Ms. Slazyk: They did it, and they -- Ms. Dougherty: That's why they say they want to take away the condition. Ms. Slazyk: We accept it, yes. We accept that they've modified the plans to our satisfaction. Ms. Dougherty: So, we're always happy to work with the staff but at this point, we don't need a condition in the major use special permit because we've done that, and we're here and prepared to make a full presentation to you, if you would like. Chairman Teele: We would love one. Ms. Dougherty: Very good. Chairman Teele: But not today. Come back to Miami and give us one as we move this project City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 forward. Commissioner Winton: Everybody can see the rendering of the building, which, by the way -- Ms. Dougherty: We also have a model right there. Chairman Teele: Why don't we put the rendering of the building -- Ms. Dougherty: We have a model that might actually show it even better. Commissioner Winton: First new office building to be built in downtown, in the core of downtown since Wachovia, which was First Union, which was something else, which was originally Southeast, that was completed in '85 or '86, so this will be the first office building in downtown in 20 years. Commissioner Regalado: Where's that, Johnny? Commissioner Winton: You know where the single -story -- you know where One Biscayne Tower? Commissioner Regalado: Right, right, right. Commissioner Winton: On the north side, you got that one whole block of single -story retail. Ms. Slazyk: The Columbus Bizarre. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, yeah, yeah. Commissioner Winton: That's where it's going. Ms. Slazyk: The old Columbus hotel site. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Beautiful. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Chairman Teele: Who's the architect? Ms. Dougherty: Picard Chilton, and this is Bill Chilton and John Picard, and these folks used to be with -- or at least one of you. I'm not sure which one -- with Caesar Pelly, and this gentleman designed the largest building in the world. Commissioner Winton: And, Lucia, you're going to bring the development team to the table to work with us on our hiring City residents plan -- Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Commissioner Winton: -- that you've been so active in? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sole source. City ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Great. Thank -- well, you know, it's a different plan that Commissioner Teele and I had been working on that's really proactive, where the development community's stepping up and they're actually helping us design the plan that can get residents out of the City ofMiami to go to work on this job. Ms. Dougherty: This is the hiring for residents, absolutely. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Chairman Teele: It looks beautiful. Commissioner Winton: Do I need to -- so, the motion I need to make -- Ms. Slazyk: Approval with conditions -- Chairman Teele: First, you want to -- Ms. Slazyk: -- but eliminating condition number 10, because they've already satisfied it. Chairman Teele: We want to close the public hearing and thank -- did you all want to be heard in opposition, in support? Santiago Echemendia: It's not necessarily in opposition. Santiago Echemendia, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, with the law firm of Tew Cardenas, representing One Biscayne Tower, actually LB Realty, the owner of One Biscayne Tower, which is the property immediately to the south. We've gone back and forth and the owners of the property and the operators -- the managers of the building were concerned about the building. It's a minor, minor issue. It relates to the glare and the -- it's really just a design condition regarding the glare that could emanate from the building relative to One Biscayne Tower going south. The architects -- their architect has gone back and forth with our people, and what we're simply proposing and we are supportive of the project is -- and Lucia and I went back and forth this morning. She doesn't want to agree to a condition. I think we're requesting something that's very reasonable and we are supportive of the project, and that would be that the applicant would use best efforts to minimize the glare from Columbus Tower's glass to one Biscayne Tower, and that the applicant would use best efforts to ensure that Columbus Towers glass will not result in an increased heat load to One Biscayne Tower, so we're requesting -- Chairman Teele: Increase what? Commissioner Winton: Heat load. Mr. Echemendia: Heat load. So, if it's not best efforts, if it could be reasonable efforts, we're just suggesting a reasonable condition. Our concern -- and Lourdes -- if Lourdes addresses this, it could resolve the issue. There is a provision 1305.2(7) (3) relating to signage and lighting, and it provides orient outside lighting to minimize glare to adjacent properties. We submit that the -- that this is applicable to glare created by sunlight, especially in downtown where the buildings are occupied during the day. Commissioner Winton: Good thing we didn't do that with the CenTrust building. We wouldn't have that fabulous marker that the whole world looks at, that every single media shot that's shot for downtown. Go ahead, though, Santiago. Didn't mean to interrupt you. Mr. Echemendia: But, respectfully, John --I mean, Mr. Vice Chair, there are no buildings City ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 around the CenTrust Tower, so, I mean, we're immediately to the south. We just -- it's a reason - - it's not an unreasonable condition that they use some efforts to minimize the glare and the heat load. That's all we're asking. If Lourdes could at least confirm for the record -- Slazyk: That has to do with signage and lighting, not sunlight. That's not something that's in their control. Mr. Echemendia: In that case, we would respectfully ask for two reasonable conditions regarding the heat load and the glare and that's it. Ms. Slazyk: Let me just make one observation. I'm not sure how enforceable that is, to put a condition in a major use that's -- how would you enforce something like that? You know, when the building's done, and then what would you do? You find them not in compliance with their MUSP because the sun is reflecting on another building? I just don't -- I don't see how that would work. You know -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, maybe a suggestion would be if they provide sunglasses or something. Ms. Slazyk: I'm not sure how -- how would the City even begin to enforce something like that? And that's just, you know, for your consideration. If you can think of some way to enforce it, then -- Ms. Dougherty: I just want to say what my objection is. I don't want to be in a situation where we're trying to get a Certificate of Use at the end of the project and then trying to decide whether or not we use reasonable or best efforts and not be able to get a Certificate of Use. Chairman Teele: All right. Now, we're not going to debate this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: You're going to be given one chance to close up what your comments are and then we're going to hear from anybody else who's got comments. Mr. Echemendia: Something like the applicant will cooperate with One Biscayne Tower in connection with the glare and the heat load, something to that extent, that they will visit with us regarding the issue in good faith. That's all we're looking for. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Echemendia: If it's not a condition, if at least you could articulate that for the record to give our clients some comfort. Chairman Teele: All right. Are there further comments by anybody else that we've not heard from? All right. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Winton, for a motion. Commissioner Winton: I would move acceptance of the staffs recommendation, with the conditions minus -- which one? Ms. Slazyk: Minus 10. Commissioner Winton: Minus 10, and that's my motion. I'll say something else after my motion. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? City ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, call -- all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. Commissioner Winton: Lucia -- I mean, and client, you know, it would be a very good thing to try to work with -- Ms. Dougherty: We will continue our dialogue with the neighbors. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Would you do that, please? Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. We didn't put it as a condition in here, but I'm going to count on y'all doing some stuff -- Ms. Dougherty: Be happy to do that. Commissioner Winton: -- to try to work this out. Chairman Teele: Sir, where are you from? Where is your office? William Chilton: William Chilton, New Haven, Connecticut. Chairman Teele: Are you going to be spending much time down here? Mr. Chilton: I've been spending a lot of time in Miami, since June, and I love it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Have you been staying in our hotels? Mr. Chilton: I have. Chairman Teele: On the beach or in Coral Gables? Many Chilton: Sorry? Chairman Teele: On the beach or on Coral Gables? Commissioner Regalado: It's a frick. It's a frick. That's a trick. Don't answer. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Take the Fifth. Take the Fifth. Commissioner Regalado: Don't answer. Mr. Chilton: Where would you like us to stay? Chairman Teele: Well, we'd like for you to stay within the City ofMiami. Mr. Chilton: And we are. Chairman Teele: All right. Wonderful. City ofMiami Page 95 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Wonderful. Chairman Teele: Wonderful. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Chilton: Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much, and good luck to you. Mr. Chilton: Thank you. PZ.2 03-0414b ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2701 SOUTHWEST 27TH COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 03-0414b SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-041 4b Analysis.PDF 03-0414b Zoning Map.PDF 03-041 4b Aerial Map.pdf 03-0414b ZB Reso.PDF 03-041 4b Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0414b SR Legislation.PDF 03-041 4b Exhibit A.PDF 03-0414b FR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0414b FR Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 2701 SW 27th Court APPLICANT(S): G.B. Real Estate Ventures, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 24, 2003 by a vote of 9-0. See companion File IDs 03-0414 and 03-0414a. City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site for the proposed Tower Twenty Seven Major Use Special Permit Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele 12489 Chairman Teele: All right. Next item. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ. 2, 3 and 4 are companion items for land use zoning change and a major use special permit for the Tower 27 Project. PZ. 2 is the change of zoning that's required for the project from C-1 -- from R-2 to family residential to C-1 restricted commercial. It was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department and approval by the Zoning Board. It also passed at the City Commission hearing on January 22nd first reading. PZ.3 is an official vacation enclosure of the public right-of-way. It's a portion of an alley that dissects the property. It has also been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department and approval by the Zoning Board, and PZ.4 is the companion major use special permit. This is -- it's to be comprised of 181 multifamily residential units, with 6400 square feet of retail space, and approximately 307 total parking spaces. This was also recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department and approval by the Planning Advisory Board. Chairman Teele: So, PZ.2, 3 and 4 are all related, is that right? Ms. Slazyk: Right, they're related. It's a zoning change. They did not need a comprehensive plan amendment. The property is also been land use restricted commercial. It was part of land use changes that were done in conjunction with the Metrorail Station, so this is the zoning change that would implement that comprehensive plan designation. Chairman Teele: All right, and this went before the various boards unanimously, right? Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Chairman Teele: Is there anybody here in opposition to this item? Is there anybody here in opposition to PZ.2, 3 or 4? All right, Mr. Fernandez, you want to tell us enough about it? Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me? Ben Fernandez: Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner Teele. Members of the Commission, for the record, Ben Fernandez, law offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here on behalf of Land Star Development and GB Real Estate Ventures, the owners of the property. As Lourdes was describing, this is really the only opportunity at this major intersection of 27th Avenue and U.S.] to increase development in order to foster Metrorail ridership. This is an avenue that's already busy. Across from it you have an industrial area that will not be redeveloped with residential development. You have a Shell Station to the east that primarily serves the vehicular traffic on U.S.], and you have a Crook and Crook Marina on the other side, which caters to all the marine traffic, serving Dinner Key, so we believe that this is a very appropriate development for this site. It's already designated for commercial on your land use plan, and our rezoning is consistent with that. We're providing 181 units. Chairman Teele: All right. That's a great presentation. City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: Excuse me, Commissioner. I actually just noticed that the -- while the Zoning Board had recommended approval, the Plat and Street Committee actually recommended denial of the vacation enclosure. Chairman Teele: That's Number 3. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. OK. Chairman Teele: Let's -- we're going to look at Item Number 3 closely. Commissioner Winton: Ben, couldl ask you a question? The townhome style units, they're the ones that back up against the single-family neighborhood; is that not correct? Mr. Fernandez: That's correct. Commissioner Winton: Wonderful. Mr. Fernandez: And that is a small street that we will be improving. It's really not utilized currently as part of the alley closure, which is -- runs down the middle of this project. It's really not utilized by the public. It's utilized mostly by the patrons of the existing retail on the property. Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, do you have any other conditions on this -- Chairman Teele: We're going to take up the -- Commissioner Winton: PZ.2? Chairman Teele: Number 3 closely. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Teele: But on PZ.2, do you have any conditions? Commissioner Winton: So, staff is recommending -- Ms. Slazyk: 2 is -- the recommendation is approval. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: 3 is the one there's an issue. Chairman Teele: Public hearing -- did you have anything else, Ben, on this? Mr. Fernandez: No, sir. Chairman Teele: Public hearing is closed. There are no persons who wanted to be heard on this, on PZ.2. Motion by Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Commissioner, did you have anything that you wanted to add to this? Commissioner Winton: No -- yes. I would like to point out something that I hope more and more developers along some of these busy corridors will take into consideration, and I think our Planning staffs working on it, but as you will notice, they've built a very significant amount of town house style units that back up against the single-family residential neighborhood, and the thing that always gets us in trouble with these single-family residential neighborhoods is that more times than not you have the tower that kind of hangs over the neighborhood and people really don't like that, and this is the kind of design -- now, this site was big enough to do it and some of these other sites, particularly along Coral Way are a bit problematic, but we have to figure out how to solve that problem. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, on many occasions, you basically have to give staff credit for it because, you know, developers want to -- in many cases -- Commissioner Winton: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- want to develop the land as much as they can based on density, and some of the projects that have come forth -- and this is just not the first one we see -- we're starting to see a lot that when they approach residents, they're coming down to the town houses, and it just -- you know, it separates a building of density to a residence giving that buffer zone, and it's more accepted -- Commissioner Winton: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- by the single-family owners. Commissioner Winton: So, good work. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Further discussion? No further discussion. All in favor, signify by -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): It's an ordinance. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): It's an ordinance. Mr. Maxwell: It's an ordinance. Chairman Teele: Ordinance. I apologize. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0. PZ.3 03-0414a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING THE PORTIONS OF ALLEYS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTHWEST 27TH STREET BETWEEN City ofMiami Page 99 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE AND SOUTHWEST 27TH COURT, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED). 03-0414a Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0414a Public Works Analysis.PDF 03-0414a PZ Analysis.PDF 03-0414a Zoning Map.PDF 03-0414a Aerial Map.pdf 03-0414a ZB Reso.PDF 03-0414a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0414a Legislation.PDF 03-0414a Exhibit A.PDF REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of Alleys LOCATION: Portions of Alleys Along the South Side of SW 27th Street Between SW 27th Avenue and SW 27th Court APPLICANT(S): G.B. Real Estate Ventures, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: See supporting documentation. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: See supporting documentation. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 24, 2003 by a vote of 8-1. See companion File IDs 03-0414 and 03-0414b. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the proposed Tower Twenty Seven Major Use Special Permit Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0112 Chairman Teele: Now, on PZ.3, let's hear from the Public Works Director. Is this the alleyway? Stephanie Grindell: Stephanie Grindell, Director of Public Works. The Plat and Street Committee met and although this does meet the technical requirements, this alley is currently being used for frash collection, and loading, and provided that it's -- I don't know at this time if it's only for the facility that they're actually going to be developing or not. If it's for other than that, some consideration needs to be given. Chairman Teele: What are you proposing that we do, Madam Director? Don't just tell us to consider it. What do you want to us to do? Ms. Grindell: Well, my recommendation -- City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Not that we're going to do it. Ms. Grindell: My recommendation is to deny it. If that alley is used for frash collection and loading, other than for this one location. Ben Fernandez: I'm sorry. IfI may? The answer to that question is currently, the alley is only used to provide garbage collection for the existing restaurant on the property and the ancillary retail uses. Once that is raised completely and this property is redeveloped, we will provide the necessary access for all public utilities and all garbage. We've met with your Public Works Department. We've provided a "T" turn around on 27th Court or an "L" turn around that is beyond the public -- what the public right-of-way would be there in the form of an easement, which will -- Public Works has signed off on -- Fire has signed off -- well, not Public Works. I'm sorry -- Fire has signed off on and we believe that it would provide all the necessary access. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ben, would you agree on a covenant on that issue? Mr. Fernandez: In terms of providing the easement, sure, we would do that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think that's the concern that the City has, and that's something that would be worked out in about 20 minutes, if we could bring this back, if you guys want? Commissioner Winton: Although, I'm not sure about that exactly because -- and I want to be clear on this. Ben, this is the aerial photograph and I'm -- and we're all very familiar with that intersection. All of the retail establishments along 27th Avenue there, they're all a part of this complex; is that correct or not correct? Mr. Fernandez: They will be, yes. Commissioner Winton: Yes. All of these buildings will be raised? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: So, there are no users left. They have bought the entire site, so -- Ms. Grindell: OK. Commissioner Winton: -- there's no one left that owns a business that could be utilizing those right-of-ways for garbage pick up. Ms. Grindell: OK. That being -- Commissioner Winton: Only this building. Ms. Grindell: That being considered, then we have no objection. Commissioner Regalado: That's a dead end alley. Commissioner Winton: That's correct. Commissioner Regalado: Because I know -- I know very well. That's a dead end alley. Mr. Fernandez: That's a dead-end. What you see here -- Commissioner Regalado: It ends on the bank. City ofMiami Page 101 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: -- is what we're providing is an "L, " so that it's no longer going to be a dead end. Commissioner Winton: So, now, Madam Director, now that you've learned that there are no remaining businesses left on that site, would you -- Ms. Grindell: We would recommend approval. Commissioner Winton: -- just say that your department is removing your objection to the -- Ms. Grindell: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- closure? OK Ms. Grindell: Correct. Commissioner Winton: So, is this a public hearing? Did we do -- Chairman Teele: It is a public hearing of sorts. Are there any other persons from the public who would like to be heard on this item? If not, the public hearing portion is closed. Commissioner Regalado, did you have a comment? You're straight on this item? Commissioner Regalado: I just want to mention, I know very well this site. I just want to mention that it was a dead end alley and the only purpose -- actually, it's a very ugly alley and the only person -- purpose is to pick up the frash of the existing restaurant. Commissioner Winton: So, I would move to accept the request for official vacation and closure of public right-of-way. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." Commissioner Regalado: It's an ordinance. No? Chairman Teele: It's a resolution. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, it's a resolution. Chairman Teele: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. PZ.4 03-0414 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13, AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE TOWER TWENTY SEVEN PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2700, 2730, 2742, 2744, 2746 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, AND 2701 SOUTHWEST 27TH COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF 181 MULTIFAMILY City ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 6,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 307 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 03-0414 MUSP Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0414 MUSP Analysis.PDF 03-0414 Zoning Map.PDF 03-0414 Aerial Map.pdf 03-0414 MUSP PAB Reso.PDF 03-0414 MUSP Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0414 Variance Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0414 Variance Analysis.PDF 03-0414 Variance ZB Reso.PDF 03-0414 Variance Application & Docs.PDF 03-0414 Plans.PDF 03-0414 Legislation.PDF 03-0414 Exhibit A - Modif.pdf 03-0414 Exhibit A.pdf 03-0414 Exhibit B.PDF 03-0414 Exhibit C.PDF 03-0414 Outside Cover.PDF 03-0414 Table of Contents.PDF 03-0414 Article I - Project Information.PDF 03-0414 Article I - Tab D - Aerial.PDF 03-0414 Article I - Tab E - Zoning Atlas Page 42.PDF 03-0414 Article I - Tab G - Warrenty Deeds & Tax Forms.PDF 03-0414 Article I - Tab H - Ownership List & Mailing Labels.PDF 03-0414 Article I - Tab I - State of Florida Documents.PDF 03-0414 Article I - Tab J - Directory of Project Principals.PDF 03-0414 Article 11 - Project Description.PDF 03-0414 Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 03-0414 Article III - Tab 1 - Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 03-0414 Article III - Tab 2 - Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 03-0414 Article III - Tab 3 - Site Utility Study.PDF 03-0414 Article III - Tab 4 - Economic Impact Analysis.PDF 03-0414 Article III - Tab 5 Survey of Property & Right -of -Way to Be Vacated.PDF 03-0414 Article III - Tab 6 - Photos of Property.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Tower Twenty Seven Project LOCATION: Approximately 2700, 2730, 2742, 2744, 2746 SW 27th Avenue and 2701 SW 27th Court APPLICANT(S): GB Real Estate Ventures, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FI NDINGS: City ofMiami Page 103 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 6-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval of the variance to City Commission on November 24, 2003 by a vote of 9-0. See companion File IDs 03-0414a and 03-0414b. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a mixed -use multifamily residential development. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0113 A motion made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and passed unanimously, instructing the City Manager to develop a plan for alleyway adjacent to S. W. 27 Avenue and 27 Court. Chairman Teele: PZ.4 is a companion item to 2. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. PZ.4 is the actual major use special permit which would allow the development. The Planning and Zoning -- Chairman Teele: What are the conditions you all are recommending? Ms. Slazyk: We're recommending the standard conditions of the major use. Also, that pursuant to the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board), the Planning and Zoning Department's review, the applicant shall be required to check fire wall requirements in order to make sure that the openings on affected facades remain as shown in the drawings presented at the UDRB and provide the landscape plan for recreation deck to be reviewed by staff. Because openings were shown and we -- they haven't gone through that level of review, we want to make sure the UDRB, especially, that that remained and that's it. This did include a variance, which was recommended for approval, finding that there was hardship because of the dead ending of the street in the back, the desire to keep vehicles off of that street to the town houses. They're coming from the inside of the project. We've found that they've mitigated it appropriately and we recommend approval. Commissioner Winton: And if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment because on the official vacation and closure of alleyways and rights -of -way, the law requires that there be a public purpose for that, and I would like to redefine on the record the public purpose, as far as I'm concerned, and the public purpose is that by officially vacating that alleyway and right-of-way, you end up with the capacity to build town homes that create the fabulous buffer between the single-family neighborhood, so, as far as I'm concerned, that is a public purpose and a very valuable public purpose, which is the reason I considered favorably the official closure. Ms. Slazyk: Right. They have also provided a more expansive open plaza space at the corner of the project, which, working with the Planning and Zoning Department, we asked them to consider for us to find that they also had the public purpose requirements met. Commissioner Winton: Great. City ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ben Fernandez: And just to reemphasize, for the record, there are some supporters here of the application and no opponents that we're aware of. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: All right. We have a motion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And a second. Commissioner Winton: I'll move it. Chairman Teele: And a second. Do we have further discussion on PZ.3? Commissioner Winton: 4. Chairman Teele: 4? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Hold up. All opposed have the same right. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Just a question about the alley. Right across the street from that project is a structure that has an alley behind. This structure is a TV (television) satellite studio. It's zoned an R-3. There is an alley that it keep the people -- some people keep throwing trash, abandoned cars there, so what is the story with the alley? Why cannot we allow just a fence to avoid any more trash, dead animals, the works? It's an alley that is no longer -- maybe 20 feet, but everybody uses that coming through a lateral street to dump frash -- right across. Right across the sfreet. Ms. Slazyk: Are you talking about a fence to actually close access to the alley? Because that would be closing the public right-of-way. Commissioner Regalado: There is no public right-of-way there. Ms. Slazyk: Right. On paper, I guess. Commissioner Regalado: Because there is a house -- there are homes that took alley -- took the rest of the alley long time ago, and the thing is that that portion of the alley -- Alicia, you know the place, I think. I'm talking about Miami News Net. Alicia Cuervo Schreiber (Chief of Neighborhood Services): Yes. We met with the owner on that property. That was one of the ones that's being studied because of its zoning characterization. It was a little different than the ordinance that was passed recently. Commissioner Regalado: I understand that, but how can we avoid the trash and the eyesore? I mean, look at this. We're going to have right across the street a spectacular project, and then you have dead animals and abandoned cars, stolen sofas, and drug paraphernalia every day there. Chairman Teele: Could we do this, then? Could we -- would you consider moving -- instructing the Public Works Department and Planning to come back with a written recommendation, within 30 days, on that alleyway that's across the sfreet so that we can get City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 everybody to come in and focus on it? Commissioner Regalado: Sure, absolutely. Commissioner Winton: Second the motion. Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Madam Director -- Madam Manager, do you understand the motion? Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: Yes, I do. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. PZ.5 03-0380 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL BY THE TOWER RESIDENCES CONDO ASSOCIATION, JEFF STEWART AND RESIDENTS OF THE RITZ CARLTON CONDOMINIUM, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2003, THEREBY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS OR DENYING THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 03-0009, TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A TOWER AT THE GRAND BAY HOTEL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2675 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A." City ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 03-0380 Fact Sheet.pdf 03-0380 Appeal Letter to CC.PDF 03-0380 ZB Reso.PDF 03-0380 E-mail to Appellant.PDF 03-0380 Code Enforcement Violations.PDF 03-0380 Appeal Letter to ZB.PDF 03-0380 Class II Special Permit.PDF 03-0380 UDRB Reso.PDF 03-0380 Misc Letters.PDF 03-0380 Class II Referral.PDF 03-0380 Letter from Applicant & Misc Docs.PDF 03-0380 Misc Docs.PDF 03-0380 Warranty Deeds.PDF 03-0380 Legislation A.PDF 03-0380 Exhibit A.PDF 03-0380 Legislation B.PDF 03-0380 Exhibit A.PDF 03-0380 - conflict.pdf 03-0380 - submission - appeal.pdf 03-0380 - submission - correspondence.pdf 03-0380 submittal on 3-25-04 by S Helfman Esq.pdf 03-0380 legal opinion.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Zoning Board Decision of a Class II Special Permit Appeal for a New Construction of a Tower LOCATION: Approximately 2675 S Bayshore Drive APPELLANT(S): Tower Residences Condo Association, Jeff Stewart (Resident of the Ritz Carlton Condominium) and Other Residents of the Condominium at 3400 SW 27th Avenue APPELLANT(S) AGENT: Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr., Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and uphold the director's decision. ZONING BOARD: Denied the Class II Special Permit appeal on November 3, 2003 by a vote of 6-0. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow a new construction of a tower at the Grand Bay Hotel. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and passed unanimously, with Vice Chairman Sanchez absent, to CONTINUE consideration of PZ.5 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 25, 2004; further requesting that the City Attorney provide a written legal opinion regarding assessory use and calculation of parking as it relates to the application for this project and calculation with respect to the floor area ratio (FAR). Chairman Teele: All right. Now, we're on PZ -- City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: 5. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.5. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, on PZ.5, I requested a legal opinion, although the legal opinion comes back stating that it's not a conflict of interest;; just a perception of a possible conflict that -- something that I want to shy away from, so I will not be voting on this and will excuse myselffrom -- Chairman Teele: Well, just sit right there because I don't want to take up PZ.5, anyway, so you gave me a reason. Let's go to PZ.12. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I just want to state that for the record, but I also want to complete stating why I'm doing it. The firm that I work for leases that building and me voting on this issue, although it's not a conflict of interest, it's a presumption that something is not right. Chairman Teele: It appears -- yeah. All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: All right. PZ.5. Did we have anything to be heard at a time certain of 3: 30? Nothing? PZ.5. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.5 is an appeal of a Class II Special Permit that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Director. The appeal was then heard by the Planning -- by the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board denied the appeal, and upheld the decision of the Planning and Zoning Director. Since this is an appeal, the appellant goes first in making their arguments. Should I repeat that? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. I didn't hear a thing you said. Ms. Slazyk: I know. OK. PZ.5 is an appeal of a Class II Special Permit for 2675 South Bayshore Drive. This is a residential project over at the Grand Bay. The appellants are -- there's a resident at the Ritz Carlton and other residents at the Ritz Carlton are appealing the Class II. Class II was granted by the Planning and Zoning Director. The appeal was then heard by the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board denied the appeal and upheld the Planning and Zoning Director's decision to grant the Class II Special Permit. Again, it's for a new residential tower at the Grand Bay. Chairman Teele: Is this a -- is there a legal method that we can send this to the District Court -- the Circuit Court or the County Court? There is a mechanism in the County, isn't there, on these appeals? Is there a -- isn't there a mechanism in the County? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Well, the County has hearing officers for zoning items and they go directly from there to the Circuit Court, but here this is a necessary stop. Chairman Teele: Can our ordinance be effected to give us the option of sending it directly there or not? Mr. Maxwell: On the option, I would have to research that question. Chairman Teele: Let me tell you why. No matter what is decided, we're going to get appealed, OK, and all we can do is muddy up the record, and somebody's going to say, "Well, one Commissioner was chewing gum; another Commissioner looked at me funny and, you know, and I didn't know if he was winking at me or whatever, " so -- City ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: It can be amended to have appeals go directly from the Zoning Board to the City - - I mean, to the Circuit Court, but what you asked me about was the options, so you want -- sometimes you want to hear it and sometimes you don't. Chairman Teele: Well, it's too late now. We've got to hear this one, is that right? Mr. Maxwell: Correct. Chairman Teele: Are you all going to appeal? Both sides are going to appeal, no matter what happens? Commissioner Winton: Well, they're probably not going to tell us that yet, are they? Chairman Teele: How long are you going to require, counsel, to make your argument? Tony O'Donnell: For the record, I'm Tony O'Donnell, with law offices at 1129 Palermo Avenue. I'm also counsel with Dexter Lehtinen's firm at 7700 in North Kendall Drive. Chairman Teele: Where's that, Palermo Avenue? You never say. Mr. O'Donnell: That's in Coral Gables. Chairman Teele: You didn't want to say that, huh? Mr. O'Donnell: I've worked -- I'm out of my house. Not far from the Biltmore. I would think -- because our presentation is an appeal and we have a record made before the Zoning Board with affidavits and testimony and transcripts and exhibits, I'm hoping to summarize our argument to you today with a minimal of exhibits that we've already entered into the record so that you can understand what our position is. I would think 30 to 45 minutes. We have a couple of people that wanted to speak, as well, but it'll be a lot shorter than our Zoning Board presentation. Mr. Schwiep: Very briefly, Paul Schwiep, from Aragon Burlington, 2699 South Bayshore Drive, and I represent the Executive Tower Residents Association. We are, Commissioner Teele, already in court. Commissioner Winton: Who do you represent? I'm sorry. Mr. Schwiep: The Executive Tower Residents Association, which is the North Tower, Commissioner Winton, of the Ritz Carlton Complex. Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. Mr. Schwiep: The North Tower has its own condo association. I represent that condo association. We filed a companion appeal to the appeal filed by Mr. O'Donnell on behalf of his clients. Our appeal was rejected on the ground the City found that we didn't have standing to proceed. We filed a lawsuit against the City ofMiami requesting a Writ ofMandamus to compel the City to grant us a hearing. In October the Circuit Court issued an alternative Writ of Mandamus requiring the City to respond within 20 days. The City, since that time, has, on three different occasions, sought an enlargement of time to respond to our complaint, and that case is pending, and based on that, we're going to request that this hearing be deferred, at least until such time as the court decides whether we are appropriately parties to this appeal or not. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Stand by. Sergeant -at -arms. Let's get the record straight now. Mr. O'Donnell, you're going to need 45 minutes? Mr. O'Donnell: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Counsel, you're asking for -- you're asking for a deferral. Mr. Schwiep: At least until such time as the Circuit Court rules whether my client should be appropriately part of this appeal or not. Chairman Teele: That's what you should have appealed to us. Mr. Schwiep: Well, the appropriate approach, I believe -- Commissioner Teele, I'm happy to appeal it to you -- was to take it to Circuit Court at that point. That was where I had to go. Chairman Teele: Well, I'll tell you this. IfI get the authority to rule, I'll rule right here, right now. You have standing and -- to go back and make this record all over again, but go right ahead. Steve Helfman: They have their own independent appeal. They chose not to join in with anybody else. They filed an appeal. The City looked at it very carefully. The City Attorney's Office advised the staff that it was an improper appeal. Chairman Teele: Are you going to answer my question or you're going to start arguing about this issue? Mr. Schwiep: Yes. I thought you were inviting me to respond to that. Chairman Teele: No. I'm inviting you to tell me how long are you going to require? Mr. Schwiep: 15 minutes. Chairman Teele: So, 45 minutes, 15 minutes, and a deferral, and your issue is a deferral -- so, I'm going to ask you to make your case for the deferral and the Commission's going to vote first on whether or not you are entitled to a deferral. Mr. Schwiep: Thank you so much. Chairman Teele: After we hear from the City Attorney. Mr. Schwiep: Should I proceed, Commissioner Teele? Chairman Teele: With the issue of why you are entitled to a deferral. Mr. Schwiep: Thank you so much. The Executive Tower Residences filed a notice of appeal of the Zoning Board's decision on September 26, 2003, which was timely, and it was filed at the same time that the appeal was filed by Mr. O'Donnell on behalf of his clients. Our appeal, unlike the appeal filed by Mr. O'Donnell, was solely on behalf of the condo association. No individuals were joined in the appeal. Chairman Teele: What is your proximity of the condo association that you're representing to the issue at -- to the property at hand? Mr. Schwiep: In geographical terms? City ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: In geographic terms. Mr. Schwiep: It's a rough estimate, so please don't hold me to it precisely, but it would be within a quarter of a mile. I mean, it's the Ritz Carlton versus the Grand Bay, so they're very close to one another, and incidentally, our appeal adopted entirely -- Chairman Teele: You said about a quarter of a mile? Mr. Schwiep: At most. Commissioner Winton: No, it's not that far. Chairman Teele: It's not -- it's probably -- it's probably within one City block; although, geographically, it's across the street. Mr. Schwiep: It's across the street. It's across the street and -- it's exactly across the street, so I -- I'm wanting to cast the nets as wide as possible, but -- yes, it's directly across the street, and our appeal raised precisely the identical issues that were raised in the O'Donnell appeal. Wasn't as though we were raising additional new novel arguments. We were saying "us, too." We are the Condo Association of North Tower. We're across the street. We're appealing, as well. Our appeal, for reasons that I think were wrong, was rejected, and based on that, we filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court and Judge Dresnick looked at our complaint and issued an alternative Writ of Mandamus against the City ofMiami. Now, all that does is say, explain to me -- explain to me, the judge, why -- Chairman Teele: Hold on one minute. Mr. Schwiep: Sorry. Chairman Teele: Let's break this down in very clear language. The mandamus -- the Writ of Mandamus that the judge issued essentially did what, in your mind, for your case? Mr. Schwiep: Directed the City to show cause why the Executive Tower residents should not be granted a hearing on its zoning appeal, and it directed that response within 20 days. Chairman Teele: When did the judge issue that? Mr. Schwiep: October 30 of 2003. Chairman Teele: And what was the City's response? Not from you, sir, but from the City Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: The City's response was, and the basis for the denial in the first place was that that particular applicant didn't have standing, that condo association, because in our opinion, under -- as a matter of law, condominium associations don't have standing to bring actions in zoning -- in zoning actions unless they can show that a procedural -- there was a procedural violation in some respects. In this particular case, they're raising legal issues. They're not challenging. They're not saying that the City violated any of its procedures. In the appeal that's before you, that condo association added an individual, Mr. Jeff Stewart. That's why that one was accepted as opposed to this second one that only listed the condo association. We don't believe they have standing. We have pending in Circuit Court right now motions to dismiss on two basis. One for failure to join an indispensable party and two, for lack of standing. There were also motions heard several weeks ago on motions to intervene, which the court denied. That is why that hasn't been decided yet by the court. City ofMiami Page 111 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Can you just help me understand why, without debating this -- what is the legal basis that asserts that they lack standing? On what legal basis is that predicated? Mr. Maxwell: Condominium associations, as a matter of law, do not have standing, unless they are challenging procedural defects. They did not -- what -- as pointed out by counsel, they adopted, in total, the appeal that's before you. They did not challenge procedural issues. Commissioner Winton: But individual (INAUDIBLE) ? Mr. Maxwell: The individual can, that's correct. Commissioner Winton: (INAUDIBLE). You guys blew it. (INAUDIBLE) have an individual. Mr. Helfman: IfI may, Steve Helfman, on behalf of the property owner and the applicant, 2665 South Bayshore Drive. Mr. Schwiep can participate today. He can represent his client. He can come here. You've invited the public. Nothing's precluding him from standing before this body and participating. What he's trying to do is effectively get an indefinite delay of this appeal to which he is not a party. He chose not to participate. He took his own appeal. The City decided that it was inadequate, and if he wants to be here and make a presentation, like anybody else in this room, he can, so I believe -- Chairman Teele: Mr. Helfman, let me just understand one thing. He was denied the right -- counsel, were you denied the right to appear at the zoning hearing? Mr. Schwiep: Yes, my appeal was rejected, and to suggest -- Unidentified Speaker: No. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney, was he or was he not afforded the right to appear at the -- to -- Mr. Maxwell: No. He could have participated, as pointed out by Mr. Helfman, like any other citizen. He could have presented evidence. He could have testified as any other citizen, but not as a party. Mr. Helfman: And, Commissioner, they were there. They didn't participate. Had they participated, they could be here today because they could have appealed the decision. They have a whole strategy. Chairman Teele: But can I tell you -- let's limit this to one issue, then. Mr. Helfman: OK. Chairman Teele: Let's start -- you're far enough down the road that you're at least going to get a decision on whether or not we're going to act on your deferral or not. Counsel, would you state whether or not you object or support the deferral and why? Mr. O'Donnell: Tony O'Donnell again for the appellant. We have no position on the deferral, for or against. We're happy to go forward today. We don't want any confusion, but that's my only comment. I -- at this point, we have no position one way or another. Chairman Teele: And, Mr. Helfman, can we suppose that you are strongly opposed to the deferral, and would you just state why? Mr. Helfman: Yes. We filed our application over a year ago. This has been an extensive delay City ofMiami Page 112 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 process. These are wonderful tactics. They got a tag team going. We're ready to go on Mr. O'Donnell's appeal. If they're granted the right to an appeal, God bless them. We'll go back to the Zoning Board and we'll come back here, if we need to. Commissioner Winton: May I (INAUDIBLE) -- Chairman Teele: And, so -- before you do, Commissioner -- and so you recognize that if, in your opinion, in the very, very remote chance that the judge, who issued the Mandamus, says we violated his rights, you realize that what we're going to do is start it all over again. Mr. Helfman: I think you'll find it will be a very summary proceeding because if you read his appeal, he says nothing, except we adopt his appeal, so I think we'll find that it will go very quickly, assuming that he even gets the opportunity to get in. Chairman Teele: The question in my mind is what's the harm in waiting for the judge to -- Mr. Helfman: Because we're -- Chairman Teele: If we take your position, why don't we let the judge just knock out his -- Mr. Helfman: Because we sit here and we'll just let them control the timing of everything. These two parties, of which he's not a part of this appeal -- Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Helfman: -- they're just going to control what happens. Chairman Teele: All right. It's Commissioner Winton's decision for the motion. Mr. O'Donnell: May I just make a brief rebuttal? Thank you. Chairman Teele: Or no motion. No motion, we go forward. If there's a motion to defer it, we'll vote on that. Commissioner Winton: My view is, let's -- you know, we got everybody here. Let's get a decision. Chairman Teele: OK. So, we're going to go forward. We're going to hear the case on the merits. Your side is allocated for 45 minutes -- up to 45 minutes, Mr. O'Donnell. Is that enough time for you, Mr. O'Donnell? Commissioner Winton: You don't want to lose our attention. Chairman Teele: Be careful what you say on the record, Johnny. . Mr. O'Donnell: I'm not going to say -- I'm not going to say -- I'm not going to say any thing more. Chairman Teele: Be very careful what you say -- Commissioner Winton: I know, I know. Chairman Teele: Be very careful what you say on the record. Mr. O'Donnell: For the record, Tony O'Donnell, representing the appellants today, the Ritz City ofMiami Page 113 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Carlton Tower Residents Condo Association. Chairman Teele: And before you do, I really apologize. You'll have to have a seat. Counsel. Mr. O'Donnell: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, for the record, again, my name is Tony O'Donnell. I'm representing the appellants on Item 5, the Ritz Carlton Tower Residents Condominium Association and Mr. Jeff Stewart, who is also a resident at that condo, which is located on 27th Avenue next to the intersection of South Bayshore Drive. We're here on an appeal of a Class II Special Permit for the Tower at Grand Bay, which is a 20-story residential project in front of the existing Grand Bay Hotel -- actually, between the Grand Bay Hotel and the offices in the Grove. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, I believe you lost your quorum. Unidentified Speaker: We have it back. Mr. Maxwell: It's back now. OK. Mr. O'Donnell: Our -- the residents below, before the staff the Director and before the Zoning Board challenged the legal authority of the Director to approve the Grand Bay Tower next to the hotel under the existing Zoning Ordinances of the City. I'd like at the outset just to say what we're going to argue, so that you know what our conclusions are, and then briefly go through the record that has been presented to the Zoning Board and staff and that is presently part of the record on appeal here today. Chairman Teele: Try it again. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you. The summary in front of you today is a summary of our argument. The Tower Grand Bay is illegal for several reasons. The first illegality is it has an excess of floor area under what you all call the floor area ratio limitations. That is, it is presenting to you a project that has far more floor area than we believe the Zoning Ordinance allows, and it does this by doing two things. One, it uses the park area across the street in Dinner Key, which is not open space, but is actually the Convention Center. It uses that park area to gain about 26 -- 27,000 square feet offloor area. It also goes back to the hotel, the Grand Bay Hotel and takes out of that hotel about 42,000 square feet by excluding non-residential floor area from the computation offloor area, so the total increase is from six to eight stories on this project. Now, the stories is not exactly right, because you could still go to the height of this project and make it a skinnier building, but that's simply based on the floor area that they're presenting. Commissioner Winton: Now, what was the second thing you said it did? Mr. O'Donnell: They have taken -- I'll explain it to you in detail, but this is what our position is, that they've taken this -- Commissioner Winton: No, I just didn't hear it well. Mr. O'Donnell: -- they've taken this floor area and by saying that the hotel no longer has that floor area, they can use it in their new condo, and I will get to that in a moment. Then they have a -- the next major problem that we have, aside from the overall mass of this project is that by excluding the non-residential floor area from the computations, they also exclude the required parking that has been historically presented and provided by that hotel since 1983, when it was built. They are taking 120 or more spaces currently serving the hotel in its accessory, commercial and function uses for parking and they are saying that that now is going to provide parking for a new condo and no longer for those accessory uses. Basically, as I summarize here, the hotel discrepancies that they're relying on from 1982 to 2004, in 1982, this hotel was City ofMiami Page 114 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 calculated to have 146,000 square feet offloor area. Today, they are purporting to say this hotel now only has 104,000 square feet offloor area. They took out 41 -- 42,000 square feet ftom that hotel. Where is it going? Into the condo. That hotel, which is a premier hotel, a signature hotel in the City was permitted with 286 spaces to serve its occupants, to serve its banquets, to serve its restaurant. Today, they're saying that hotel requires only 155 spaces, so they're generating 131 spaces from that hotel. This is a photograph of the site today, looking from across the sfreet as you come out of Dinner Key. To the left is the Offices in the Grove, which is a ten -story building. Next to that is a small office building, a two-story building down here. You can barely see it. Then you can also barely see the Grant Bay Hotel. The reason for that is as the members of the Architectural Board said, this was a beautiful step -back hotel, which this project is going to totally destroy and interrupt, in terms of the ambience of that particular road, and then the Grand Bay office behind that. These are from ten, 13, 14-story buildings. What's being proposed to go in there is from -- this is their document. This is not my document. This is the tower that they're proposing to go into that space. This you see outlined here, right here where my finger is going is called the outline of the existing office building. This is what's there. This is what's going next to it under their proposal. To give you some idea of how that works, this is an overlay. Again, here is the office building. You take it across. There's the office -- the line of the office building on the other side, and this is pretty much the size of the project that's going in there. Now, the question that came for us was how could this project, which is totally incompatible with the -- what exists along Bayshore, how could that go in, and how could it go in between our project and the bay, and how could it go in with taking out 120 required parking spaces? How could that happen? Well, this first exhibit, which is also an exhibit for the Zoning Board and part of the record is -- and which our architects prepared, again, based on their own filings -- shows the site of the Grand Bay Hotel as it exists today at the top. It then shows this small segment, the small parcel between the Grand Bay Hotel and the Offices in the Grove, which is now going to be an appendage to the Grand Bay Hotel, so that the project will go in front of the restaurant, next to the Grand Bay Hotel, right at Bayshore Drive. The first thing that this -- was a problem is, well, maybe what happened between 1982, when it was a hundred -- they went to their maximum in FAR (floor area ratio) in 1982 -- maybe they got more FAR, and - - by 2003, and we looked at that, and, in fact, there was an allowance of -- instead of the net lot area, which is shown in our exhibit, which is everything excluding right-of-way and everything outside the property, the ordinance was changed to allow an inclusion for a gross lot area to include the adjoining half right-of-way of the property -- the adjoining half right-of-way of the property, and that's shown here also in blue. Now, that could explain some increase in the overall floor area that would make it incompatible, but when we looked at the FAR, that's not accurate either, because the FAR actually decreased from 1.5 to 1.2 between 1983 and 2004, so whatever was picked up in terms of the one half right-of-way was compensated for, and I believe intentionally compensated for by lowering the overall FAR. So the general compatibility of the Offices in the Grove, the Grand Bay Hotel, the Grand Bay offices at this crucial intersection of the Grove was going to remain the same. Now, what this shows you is this property is across the street from the Ritz Carlton. Now, the Ritz Carlton Hotel is the two towers across the sfreet, which are about 20 stories high, but first, I want you to understand that they are -- the Ritz Carlton is in a different zoning district, sub -district. It's in SD-17, the high density sub -district of SD-17, and its FAR is 1.72, so it's not the same as on this side. The second thing that this particular exhibit shows is that there -- it's called improperly included non -adjoining park area as part of this gross lot area. Remember, I said that the ordinance, when you read it, says including one half of the adjoining right-of-way. What they've done is say -- interpreting that ordinance or applying that ordinance, they say an additional 70 feet of non -adjoining park area and open space of the South Bayshore right-of-way is included in their gross lot area. This is public land that they are claiming under your ordinance is included, even though it's not adjoining. It's across the street. Now, if we go back to the half right-of-way, that makes sense from a zoning perspective, and it makes sense from a real estate, real property perspective, because under Florida law, an owner owns the underlying fee ownership to the center line of a street, so this property here actually owns -- if the easement for public use was ever released from South Bayshore Drive, that would revert to this property, and so would 27th Avenue, so City ofMiami Page 115 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 there is an owner -- underlying ownership interest to the center line of the property. There's another important legal rationale behind granting the half right-of-way adjoining, and that is that your Zoning Ordinance, recognizing the real property issue, extends the zoning districts to the center line of the sfreet, so on this side, we have SD-17 office residential. On this side of that line, we don't have SD-17 anymore, and we don't have office zoning anymore. We just have park zoning under the park land use plan, so that the zoning line ends right here, so in doing this interpretation or application of saying that it's not -- doesn't have to be adjoining, you can go across the sfreet, they're including right-of-way, which is not in the same zoning district and not -- and having no property interest in the adjoining property owner and also that park. The other thing they're doing is they ignore the definition in the ordinance, one, that says adjoining, but it also says open space. There's no guarantee that it's open space at all of any of this property. This property is zoned park and recreation with certain FAR. It can be built. In fact, this particular park is not an open space park. This particular park is an active park with hangars, and boats, and convention centers and everything, so it's not even -- doesn't even meet the definition of real open space, and the ordinance doesn't say zoned PR. It says open space, public open space, and this does not qualify. If you take this out, what happens is -- if you include it, which they did, you take that and you multiply this green area here, this improper area, you multiply that and add it to the square footage. You multiply that by the FAR of 1.2 and you come up with a substantial two and a half stories in the particular building we're talking about. But that's really not -- that's really not the most egregious problem with this application, not that it's totally incompatible, obviously, and not that it is taking park land that it has no entitlement to. The most egregious problem with this project is what it does in terms of going back to that old Grand Bay Hotel and saying what used to be square footage is no longer square footage, and what used to be requiring parking, such as banquet facilities, such as meeting rooms, such as the tea room, the lobby tea room, offices, that those don't require -- First of all, they're not floor area anymore. We're just going to take them out. We don't count them, and we're going to recapture that floor area by sticking in a new tower, but more importantly, they don't require any parking, no parking for any of this you see in red, which is, again, their exhibit that we've mounted and -- for your review. At the bottom is all of this. You see the reception area, and the banquet, the tea rooms and all of that near the lobby. At the top, you see the old Regin's Lounge. Now, originally, when they filed this application -- now this is the truth -- when they filed this application, they included the Regin's Lounge for parking. They included the Regin's Lounge for FAR, but when we pointed out that they couldn't exclude the Bice Restaurant, because it was obviously a non -conforming commercial use that did not meet the accessory requirements of the ordinance. Did they provide parking? Did they -- no. They took out the Bice so that they could include the restaurant down below, and it's in the record. It's in our record what they did, and there's no justification for it, not in the record, not in the ordinance, so here, you have this excluded at the top. You have all the meeting rooms excluded on the third floor, and you have these meeting rooms, and the kitchen and offices next to the Bice Restaurant, also excluded. Now, in the record, both in testimony -- By the way, I have the transcript of the Zoning Board, which I filed with the Zoning Hearings Board Office, and I -- on January 15th. I don't know -- do I need to do that again or --? I'll give it to you anyway. Mr. Maxwell: It's part of the record now, is it not? Mr. O'Donnell: Yeah. I filed it with them, with the Zoning Board, butt just want to make sure -- housekeeping, because I don't see Teresita here. We had experts, licensed architects with BEA International, Phil Ward, who's a reputable long-term planning expert in this community, a realtor who actually assembled the Grant Bay Hotel properties originally, and we also had a report though not a witness of the traffic expert. Each and every one of them said that use of the -- well, the use of the park the way it was, was not authorized by the Code, and that exclusion of non -- of accessory non-commercial uses or non-residential uses was also not supported by the Code, and that it would have -- if it's allowed it would -- the realtor testified, based on the parking, and the traffic and the mass of that building and its impacts on views and the overall ambience of the neighborhood would have a very negative effect on one of our premier City ofMiami Page 116 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 developments, the Ritz Carlton, its hotel and particularly, our residents, and that's in the record. The affidavits are in the record and the testimony is now also in the record, and this, again, is an illustrative exhibit which our architect presented at the Zoning Board, showing a minimum of two stories of parkland being converted into condo, and this is all the non-residential space that somehow disappeared from the hotel, so it's now available for the new building. Now, what were the excuses for this? The first excuse was I can't raise the legality of this permit. I can't raise the legal issue as to whether or not the Zoning Ordinance would allow you to exclude non-residential and commercial areas from parking and from FAR. I can't raise that issue, they say, in this proceeding. I want to submit in the record ordinances that were provided to me by the Clerk, and at the beginning is Article 15, which sounds promising for this hearing. It's called Class II Special Permits, Detailed Requirements. Section 1500 regulations apply. Sounds promising on this issue, and it says that a Class II Special Permit is governed not at the whim or the discretion of the director, or his friends, or whatever they want to do. It's governed by regulations applying to particular uses or occupancies appearing in the official schedule of disfrict regulations, regulations applying to particular uses and occupancy that may be set out elsewhere in this Zoning Ordinance. Now, I didn't need that to make the argument, because it has to be legal or it can't be permitted, period, but just in case someone forgot, it's repeated in the very section that governs this particular appeal, and I'd like to submit this article, and under the disfrict regulations and other regulations which I'll be referring to and have already referred to in the record just so that the full text is there, ifI could. Mr. Maxwell: You can give them to the City Clerk, Tony. Mr. O'Donnell: Oh, it's over here. I'm sorry. I was used to the Zoning Board. The Clerk's on the other side. So the issues we raise today are important and are properly before the board. The Zoning Ordinance does govern, and this board cannot permit by Class II Special Permit what amounts to substantial variances in the parking requirements and the FAR limitations of the Zoning Ordinance, and while I'm on that subject, this is an important point that we made before the Zoning Board. In this particular district of the City, the SD-17 district of the City -- there may be other districts. I don't know about them, but in this one, there's a unique issue and that unique issue is that no variances of parking are permitted, so if you can't come to the board to get a variance, you're going to have to get an interpretation that you don't need the parking, so the parking -- Chairman Teele: Say that again. Mr. O'Donnell: In this particular district, the SD-17, there is an absolute prohibition on parking variances. There's also a prohibition citywide, I believe, on FAR variances. This particular project defies both of those. They are presenting you with a breach of the FAR by excluding 40,000 or more square feet of property and including park, mainly the exclusions from the hotel, and they're also not providing 120 parking spaces. This isn't a two parking space, 12 parking space, 50 parking space variance they're looking for here, it's 120, and that was supported by substantial competent evidence of experts who testified before the Zoning Board, and it's part of the record before you today. I also want to point out that in the record before the Zoning Board, no one addressed the exclusion of these non-residential floor areas except in one way. They said, well, the Ritz Carlton did it. At that time, we said the Ritz Carlton we didn't believe did do it. We don't represent the Ritz Carlton developers, and on looking at exactly what went on, we went to the architect of the Ritz Carlton today and got an affidavit, which I've included in composite exhibits I'm submitting today. That affidavit of the Ritz Carlton architect confirms the numbers that we have put together, which show that the Ritz Carlton project -- show that the Ritz Carlton project -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. O'Donnell, do you have a copy for opposing counsel? Mr. O'Donnell: I did. Actually, if the -- where is the Clerk? Here. Could I have that one back City ofMiami Page 117 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 and then -- because this has -- all that's new. The other stuff is repetitive from before. We did a comparison, and this is important for public policy, not only for this project. It's extremely important. Comparison between the Ritz Carlton PUD (Planned Unit Development) and the Tower at Grand Bay. The first point I already mentioned was it's in a different zoning with a high intensity of 1.72 versus one point -- the PUD is -- versus a 1.2 for the tower, the proposed tower, so it ought to be not the same, but substantially less in mass, overall mass, whereas they're attempting to make it the same or substantially the same. The second difference is the Ritz Carlton used the planned unit development provisions of your ordinance, and in doing that, it got bonuses of FAR, 20 percent bonuses of FAR for its project, but more importantly for our perspective, because we are talking about parking and traffic, they had to, by going through the PUD, go through the major use and provide a traffic study, which we have requested, and which has not been provided for this project, and those of you who may have been here at the time of the PUD for the Ritz know that traffic was an extremely difficult problem, and it's very unlikely that they could meet that problem today with the tower, but we don't know, because they didn't go through that, so they didn't get that 20 percent bonus and they didn't do a traffic study. The next thing that the PUD did, if you look at our figures in the submissions I gave to you, and those figures are confirmed by the architect's affidavit is that they complied with the ten percent limitation -- that is the PUD for the Ritz -- with the ten percent limitation on accessory non-residential uses in their building. Theirs comes out to about six percent. What's being proposed to you today is 23 percent of the project, and that's over and above the Bice Restaurant. So they don't even -- they violate the accessory use provisions of the ordinance, and then compliance with Off -Street Parking, in the summary of the PUD, it looks at it as excess parking. It's excess parking only in that it's in excess of what normally would be required of their accessory commercial uses in that project, and I'll show you the figures in just a minute, but what the PUD did for the Ritz is that it supplied each and every parking that was required one parking space per 350 square feet for it's non-residential accessory uses. None is being provided by the Tower, shortage of 120, and that's a fact. Now, where did this one to 350 come from? This property happens to be governed by the office disfrict zoning regulation, and you know what it says? It says for offices and other non-residential uses, one unit, one parking space per 350 feet, square feet. That's what it says. It doesn't say except if you have an old hotel, you want to ignore that 350 feet. It doesn't say except if you somehow can sneak it through and somebody will think, well, it's not FAR, so it can't be for parking or whatever interpretation they put on it. That's what the ordinance says, and I want to explain to the Commission, I've been here before in a similar situation on the Rally v. City ofMiami case. In that case, I represented a businessman who had warehouses and a bar next to -- in this case, it was a church, and that church was exclude -- the staff decided they would interpret the parking requirements of the C-1 disfrict to allow the accessory use of Sunday School to go without any parking. They would provide it for -- provide one to 50 for the auditorium for the church, but the rest of it was one -- they would not provide, which was required at the time, I think, one to 300. Now, that's fine if the ordinance says that. It's not fine when the ordinance doesn't say it, and that's what the Circuit Court told the Zoning Board. That's what the Circuit Court told the City Commission at that time. You cannot come in and just make it up because it sounds good, and that's on here, I believe, and that's what's going to happen here. When I present to three judges here's the "0" disfrict regulation that says one to 350 with no exceptions for all this stuff it's got to be one to 350. If this Commission in its wisdom wants to change that, it has the power to do it, provided that's a reasonable change, which I don't think it would be, but it does have the power to consider that issue, but it does not have the power to defy the law, and Rally v. City ofMiami is the precedent that shows that for sure. The final thing, because I don't want to -- I just want to show you, it's in your package, but here is the summary. Taking their overall square footages, there's -- they excluded from the -- and this was what maybe misled people -- they excluded 88,000 square feet of non-residential space in the PUD, but they had different types of exclusions. The general non-residential exclusions, no one has a problem with -- 42,000 -- for elevators, mechanical, mechanical, and then there were some special purposes areas, like the business center, boardroom and fitness center which are just for the hotel guests and the condominium (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Then they have the normal accessory non-residential use City ofMiami Page 118 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 areas, and all of them in the review, in the application, in the recommendations of staff and in the approval of their PUD is governed by Section 906.7, which limits it to ten percent, and if you add up all of their non-residential uses, you come down to about six percent of the total project is in these uses, so they complied with the accessory use, but more importantly from our perspective is they had excess parking. They provided 125 spaces parking for all these facilities when only 113 would have been provided under the one to 350 of the office district, so about the only argument that they had to exclude the PUD for the Ritz is they could have excluded that six percent of accessory use from FAR, and you know why -- you know what they got out of that? This is the truth. You ever hear of the Affordable Housing Fund, the City? Well, because the interpretation allowed them to take that square footage out of the FAR component, they didn't need to pay the full amount. They paid substantial amounts to that housing fund. They paid substantial amounts, but they didn't have to pay the full, and if you put all the calculations together and you add up all the bonuses if they had paid the whole thing, they were right in compliance. They were right in compliance, in my view. We don't have to visit that today, but I can tell you this: That every square foot that's taken out of the Tower, the project before you today, they don't have to pay for. They don't have to do a PUD with a traffic study. They don't -- they just get it. They get it by the interpretation. Chairman Teele: State what you just said. With every square foot that is what? Mr. O'Donnell: That is excluded through the so-called erroneous illegal interpretation of this Zoning Ordinance, it says that they are not required to put one parking space for every 350 feet, and also says it doesn't count for FAR. They are not paying for that square foot -- which they would have to do -- to the housing fund, and they're not paying a dime to the housing fund. I told you I was going to raise some political -- not political -- public interest issues, because, frankly, the whole idea of -- if they were to pay it, they couldn't provide the parking. OK? What they have here doesn't fit. It just doesn't fit, and if it doesn't fit, you can't approve it. Commissioner Winton: All this has gone over my head. You understand it? Mr. O'Donnell: OK I have with me today just two people. How long have we been? Chairman Teele: You're within your time. Mr. O'Donnell: OK I want to have a couple of minutes for rebuttal, because I suspect there may be some. OK. We have with us today nine or ten people from the condo, but I think only two people want to address you today, very briefly. One is my client, Jeff Stewart, who is a resident at the condo, who is one of the appellants and the other one is Sonny Holtzman, who is a distinguished member of our community at the Ritz Carlton, and I'll close mine at that point. I'd like, though, to make sure that these items get into the record for the Clerk's record, ifI could. Do we have it here? Is this included in the record? And in that, I summarize the -- from the Zoning Board, the Clerk's exhibit from the Zoning Board, Exhibits 1 through 7, which was before the Zoning Board. Those are summarized at the top of this, which is already in the record of the Zoning Board. OK? Mr. Stewart. Jeff Stewart: Commissioners, my name is Jeff Stewart, and I bought my apartment in 2002. Chairman Teele: Your address for the record, please. Minutes to PZ.5 - Part 2 Mr. Stewart: Oh, I'm sorry. It's 3400 Southwest 27th Avenue in Coconut Grove. One of the things I did in picking the apartment I picked and in buying in a condominium which, at the time, was in a state of disarray, because construction had stopped, was to check the legal requirements of the properties around the area. At the time, the builder of the Ritz was occupying the office on which the developer now plans to put a 20-story building, and he had City ofMiami Page 119 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 tried to buy the building, andl said, well, if you buy the building, how tall a building can you build? Because I was concerned about the size, and he said the City and the Zoning Board will only permit four stories, and I think I speak for a number of residents when I say that none of us expected a building of this size could ever have been built on this property. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: But you were relying upon the developer, who was selling you the unit, to give you that piece of information; is that what I just heard? Mr. Stewart: I also -- obviously, I retained my own lawyer, and we checked the zoning, and we thought that he was right. No, I wasn't relying -- I'm a lawyer. I don't rely on the seller for my information. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Mr. O'Donnell: OK, and I believe Mr. Holtzman wants to say a few words. Sonny Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Sonny Holtzman and I reside at 3400 Southwest 27th Avenue in Coconut Grove, and I appear before you as a resident of the Ritz Carlton Residences as a concerned citizen and sometimes public servant, having served on various boards and agencies in the City ofMiami and the County for over 45 years. I can tell you, without qualification, this application is one of the worse examples of good zoning I have ever seen. Mr. O'Donnell has told you why the application cannot and will not stand the legal test, in all due respect to your Zoning staff. This is not about blocking anyone's view, as my good friend, Mr. Helfinan, will have you believe and was articulated at the Zoning hearing. It doesn't take an expert to tell us that to allow a tower of the proposed size to be squeezed into this tiny piece of real estate without enough parking and improperly transferring development rights from the next door hotel is an insult to the integrity of our City and the great progress I have seen this Commission and the City ofMiami make in the past several years. Now, let me tell you this: The City ofMiami Beach and Surfside are going to the ballot next month to permit residents to vote on all development in their cities. I hope our City will not abdicate its zoning power. The bad decisions on developments like this are what drives citizens to take growth management and planned development to the ballot. If you allow this tower to be built, it will be directly across the street from our historic Dinner Key City Hall. This original Pan Am site will be in the shadow of a tower in the wrong place. Commissioners, I suggest to you that the planned building is too tall, it's too fat, it's in the wrong place and it's illegal. I ask that you do the right thing. Do not allow this application to proceed any further. Put a stop to it as a responsible thing to do. I humbly seek your help. Thank you. (Applause) Chairman Teele: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, let me just remind you that this is not a plebiscite. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. We are acting judges and you don't -- please refrain from applauding, or booing or congratulating any of the lawyers or the presentation. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to, ifI could, reserve two minutes, three minutes for rebuttal and -- Chairman Teele: You'll have time to rebut, yes. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you very much. Mr. Schwiep: When you're ready for public comment, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a public comment. City ofMiami Page 120 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Well, let's hear from any public comment that is in opposition at this time. That'll give Mr. Helfman an opportunity to respond to all of the comments. Mr. Schwiep: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Schwiep, 2699 South Bayshore Drive, on behalf of the Executive Tower. Although we're not a party, we're still obviously concerned about this appeal. Looking at this project, it's clear that the project is wholly out of scale and scope with the surrounding development. It's a 22-story monolith that's sandwiched between a ten -story building, the Offices in the Grove Building and then the Grand Bay Hotel, a 13-story building. How did they manage to maneuver such size out of the site which currently houses a two-story building? They did it in two ways, both of which should be of great concern to this Commission. The first is, they pulled park space, which they're not entitled to do, and attempted to use that park space to obtain for themselves FAR, which sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, in doing that, they attempted to avail themselves of open space requirements when the park space that they reached out to and reached out to improperly isn't even open space. It actually is park space. It's not zoned as permanent open space, and they did it also by arbitrarily reconfiguring the existing hotel, so that space that in the past required parking, for instance, suddenly didn't and was deemed accessory. They're playing games with parking, they're playing games with FAR, and their response to the objections from the two Ritz Carlton Towers is, well, you guys have yours and now you just object to our getting ours, but the fundamental difference is that when the Ritz Carlton went through its process, it complied with the law. It obtained and went through the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) process. They made the required contributions to the Affordable Housing Fund, none of which has occurred here, and so we respectfully request that you grant the appeal and deny the application. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Is there anyone else that would like to be heard in opposition to the project? All right. If not, Mr. Helfman, how long are you going to require? Mr. Helfman: I'm trying to stick to my 15 minutes. Chairman Teele: For the record, he said: I'm going to try to stick to my 15-minute commitment. Mr. Helfman: I know I announced my name earlier, but for the record, my name is Steve Helfman. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Weiss, Serota, Helfman. Our offices are at 2665 South Bayshore Drive. I'm proud to be here today on behalf of the Grand Bay, which is owned by Wyndham International. Actually, the applicant is PAH Grand Bay Miami Limited, which is an affiliate of Wyndham. The aerial that I put in front of you shows Bayshore Drive on the top, and it's indicated by a blue marking, either side of the street. On top of that on this is all of the City's land. City owns all of that land. It is designated park on the comprehensive plan. It is zoned park under your Zoning Code. The area which you see in red is four acres owned by the Grand Bay Hotel, by Wyndham, four acres. There is the portion that is already developed that has the hotel, and then there's a smaller area where there is a small office building right now, and it's covered, shaded primarily with shade trees, but you can make out a small building underneath there. That is all part of the four acres, the entire red space owned by the Grand Bay. In order to build on this property, you need an administrative approval from this City -- an administrative approval -- no variances, no rezonings, no comp. plan amendments, no MUSP's, no special exceptions, no public hearing approvals -- administrative approvals, a Class II Permit. And how do you get that? Well, the City has a code section. The section is 1305. I've blown up a copy of the Code. I'm not sure if you can see it there, butl think it's projected. 1305 reads considerations generally, and then the second thing that it says is standards -- standards. That's how you get a Class II Permit, because you don't make it up like the appellants would have you believe we do. What you do is you go to the Code, and there are seven standards, and then there is a general consideration at the end. Ingress and egress. What is the City staff supposed to look at for this project? They're supposed to look and see that your ingress and egress, your exits and your entrance to your property are safe. What else are they supposed to look at? That the parking that you've provided and that the loading spaces that you've provided City ofMiami Page 121 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 are safe. You're supposed to look at the garbage refuse areas, where the garbage is disposed of. You're supposed to look at signs and lighting, signs and lighting. You're supposed to look at utilities, where the utilities are for the project, how it's going to drain, and the natural features on the property. Those are the criteria to get a Class II Permit in the City ofMiami. That's how you get it, so what happens in this application? In January of '03, my client files an application. We're in the process until September of '03. For eight months during that process, we are bombarded with all of the legal arguments that you just heard, eight months of continuous bombardment of legal objections to our project. You would think that we just duped them, that they just figured out now that we just slipped this thing through. For eight months, Mr. O'Donnell has been pounding on your staff bringing all of this stuff to their attention, bringing all these drawings to their attention, bringing old zoning resolutions, bringing anything he could find to stop this project, and you know what they did? To their credit, in spite of our pushing, they stepped back and they said, we're going to give consideration to all of his arguments. This went through three Zoning Administrators. It went to Juan Gonzalez, who's no longer here; Joyce McPhee; Francisco Garcia, who's here today. Three separate Zoning Administrators went through all of this stuff OK? Juan Gonzalez went through this project before he left to make sure it complied. They've all been given this material. It went through two attorneys. Your Deputy City Attorney had to go to special meetings on this project to go over Mr. O'Donnell's complaints. It went to the attorney who is in charge of the Zoning Board. She had to come to special meetings to go over all of these complaints, those things that we just sort of slipped through if you believe the arguments of the appellants. It went to the UDRB (Urban Design Review Board) twice -- twice -- who approved it. Mr. O'Donnell would have you believe that they didn't want this project, that they didn't approve this project, that this was some monstrosity. This went there twice. Mr. O'Donnell was there. He put on all of his arguments there, and what happened after eight months of being pounded, we got our Class II finally. We finally got the administrative approval that we need to build on our property, but that wasn't enough. The residents at the Ritz didn't give up. They decided they're going to keep going, so they decided to appeal your staff decision to grant us this approval. They decided they want another bite at the apple, so what they do is they go to the Zoning Board. If you think this is a long hearing, you should have been there. They put on this entire case. They brought dozens of witnesses. They brought their expert realtor, who you heard today say that, you know, he thinks that this is bad for the community -- a realtor, OK? -- who's claiming that -- that's their expert to object to this. He also claimed that he thought it was illegal, the realtor and the architect, that we were using lands into the park for our calculations, and we'll address that in a minute. He brought all of the residents here. He brought Mr. Holtzman, who made that wonderful "do the right thing" speech. He put all of it on. He had a frial. He had a frial. He's a wonderful trial lawyer. You can watch him up here. He had a great frial, and you know what happened? Six/nothing. Six/nothing, unanimous vote, because that board understood that all of these issues -- all of these issues were considered by your staff by your lawyers, by your Zoning Administrators. We have spent tens of thousands of dollars -- excuse the expression -- being jerked around, having to respond to every one of these legal briefs, having to redesign every week, having to recalculate parking to prove that we have complied with the Code, so what's this all about? What is this all about? What could these lawyers all be arguing now about? What is he going to court about? I'll tell you what it's about. Even though Sonny told you it's got nothing to do with his views, that's not what his lawyer says. This is their memorandum of law in opposition to the Tower at the Grand Bay Project. This is one of the many documents that we've had to deal with in the past year. Look at the bottom. After telling you all the general stuff about the community, he says the location of the proposed Tower, moreover, portends to cause the residents special injury to their view corridors to Biscayne Bay. They want to see the water. That's what this is all about, and they don't live on the water. Isn't that a big surprise? Here's where they live, right here. Now, they have views of all of southern Dade County. They have views of -- through the park directly here. They have views of downtown. They have views north to the County line, and what they are trying to do is to keep us from putting a building right here on our property so that they -- and I think -- I bet all these unit owners live on this side of the building -- so that they can look through here. They want to protect their view corridors to Biscayne Bay. That's what their City ofMiami Page 122 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 document said. That's what this is all about -- all of this lawyering, all this money -- is these guys want to look through here. Somebody should have told them about the case of Fontainebleau versus Eden Roc before they jumped into this process, where the courts told somebody about this issue and said, guess what, Fontainebleau; guess what, Eden Roc? You can put a wall up. Your neighbor has absolutely no right to stop you from building what you're entitled to build, because you want a view, and that is what is their alleged injury. Their special injury is their view; exactly what the court said, is not protectable. Your lawyer will tell you the same identical thing. We've heard a lot about the Zoning Code. We heard that this zoning -- that this project is the most egregious and illegal application of the Zoning Code that he's ever seen. Can you imagine that after a year, your staff was duped into reviewing the most egregious application that he's ever seen, after all of this stuff? Do you think the Zoning Board -- look at this book he gave to the Zoning Board. He put it all out to them for the 15th, umpteenth time, all of these drawings, hiring architects. Your staff went through every bit of it. Lourdes is back there. She's probably sick of seeing this stuff and they made the right decision. They made the right decision, and one of the really important reasons they made the right decision is because what's sort of confusing about this application and why we're here -- and it should have taken ten minutes if we addressed the issue and not all of these red herrings. Mr. O'Donnell has been talking about the application of the Zoning Code for 45 minutes, but the Class II Permit is not about the Zoning Code. We will have to conform with your Zoning Code when we come in with plans for this project. When we try to build this, we will have to come in and meet all the provisions of your Zoning Code, but right now, before we can even get to the Zoning Code, we need the Class II Permit. You remember what the criteria are. This is an aesthetic review. A Class II Permit is an administrative aesthetic review. The Urban Design Review Board approves it. You talk about whether the refuse is right, the signage on your property, the lighting, that's what this is all about. He hasn't addressed one single issue in the standards in the Code for a Class II Permit, not one. Hasn't done it in nine months, because he knows if he does, he's going to lose, so what he's going to do is argue all the zoning stuff that they don't even look at. How could she make a mistake on something that she's not even charged with looking at? It's not her job. She's never looked at it. She can't make a mistake. How can you overturn a decision if she never was charged with the responsibility of looking at it? The Code doesn't allow her to look at it. That's a responsibility of the Zoning Administrator, not the Planning Director, but this is a wonderful way to get everybody all upset, keep them going, keep this developer out of the box for another, you know, eight months, take him to court, file all these, you know, proceedings. That's what's happening here, Commissioners. OK Now, you have the picture, hopefully, of what's happening here. The developer over here, he's concerned. I know why he's concerned. He's got a line of units. You can walk over there today and look at it. He's got a handful of units left right here that he wants to sell. No wonder he's here. I don't blame him. He -- because he wants to have a view through our property, too. Why do you think he's here? None of his residents are with him. He's here all by himself the developer. We have gone, your staff has gone through every hoop, every single hoop that we could. They didn't make a mistake. They did it right. In Mr. O'Donnell's own words, you can't make it up just because it sounds good. That's what he told you. His arguments sound really good, but he made them all up, because that's not what we're doing here. The Class II Permit was properly issued. I would like to have one of our experts, who did appear at the original hearing -- I understand that theirs have not come again here -- to just tell you again what he told the Zoning Board about this concept, which seems to be at the heart of their argument of using the public open space. You see this green line? This green line is that portion of public land that your Zoning Code says, when you're developing across the sfreet, all the way along here, we're going to let you take 70 feet of area along the edge of our public space and use it to bump up your FAR. OK? That's how you bump the FAR. Your Code has a special provision. How do you think we got there? Because we didn't pull any tricks. This is what you've been using all along. How do you think Terremark got built? How do you think the Grovenor got approved? How do you think Grove Hill got approved? How do you think Grove Tower got approved? How do you think the Mutiny got approved? How do you think that the Sonesta got approved? All of them went across the sfreet, took the benefit of the 70 feet over there and bumped their FAR using that land area. There's no City ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 mistake here. They've been doing that -- I would suspect that you've probably got -- along here, you've got at least eight of them, and I would suspect throughout the City, you have hundreds, maybe, who've used that methodology since Ordinance 9500 in 1982. Chairman Teele: Are you implying thatHr. O'Donnell just totally was misleading us? Mr. Helfman: No. I'm telling you that he -- not at all. I think that he's got a bunch of arguments that he's bringing in the wrong place. We're playing football. He wants to play baseball. He's got -- if he wants to make these arguments, go do it. When we get our Building Permit, challenge us. Challenge the staff when they apply the Zoning Code to our project, when they do, and, God bless them, let's go at it, but right now, all we want is a Class II Permit. She's supposed to look at refuse, signs. Chairman Teele: Counsel, let me just stay focused on one issue. Mr. Helfman: Yeah. Chairman Teele: You're representing to us that from the Terremark building there on the west shown there -- is that the Terremark Building? Mr. Helfman: Yes. Chairman Teele: And as you go -- that's east -- Mr., Helfman: And as you go down -- Chairman Teele: -- and as you go all the way west -- Mr. Helfman: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- and even back to the north -- Mr. Helfman: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- that all of those buildings abutting the main road there have been able to use the 70 foot -- is it 70 feet? Commissioner Winton: 70 feet. Mr. Helfman: Yes. Chairman Teele: 70 or 80 feet? Commissioner Winton: 70. Mr. Helfman: Under the current Code, it's 70. Under the prior Code, it was calculated based upon an intensity sector. It was a little bit different but -- Chairman Teele: But all of -- Mr. Helfman: -- they either had the opportunity or have used it, yes. Chairman Teele: So you're not saying they all used them. You're saying they all either had the opportunity -- City ofMiami Page 124 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Helfman: Or have used them, and we have presented before the Zoning Board -- Chairman Teele: Well, let's go with the most recent one that was built, which would probably be the Sonesta. Mr. Helfman: Yes. Chairman Teele: Do you know if they used it? Mr. Helfman: They used it. We presented evidence at the Board. Mr. Olmedillo, who's going to be appearing before you in just a moment, has done the analysis. He, in fact, wrote the Zoning Code, and he'll tell you about the intent of that Zoning Code, and why you have it, and he's done the analysis on the Mutiny site and -- Mutiny Sonesta, if you will -- and that's how they made their calculation. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Helfman: And I think your staff -- forget about our expert. Just ask your own staff. They'll tell you. OK, so ifI can, for the record -- I don't want to take any more time. You've got a lot of people waiting here. I'd like to take just one moment to have Mr. Olmedillo address the FAR issue and the issue regarding exclusion of FAR, that we somehow improperly excluded FAR. Beyond that, I would ask you, uphold your staffs decision. They did a yeoman's job. They've been putting up with this stuff for a year. They've looked at it over and over again. Commissioner Winton: We've heard that. Mr. Helfman: And please uphold their decision. Deny the appeal. Guillermo Olmedillo: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Guillermo Olmedillo, 330 Cocoa Avenue, Suite 107, in Coral Gables. The FAR issue is very simple. Ordinance 11000 answers the definition of lot area, and it says lot area gross is the net area of the lot as defined herein, plus half of adjoining streets right-of-way and 70 feet of any other public open space, such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like. The definition itself establishes that parks are included as part of the FAR when you're abutting a park. That goes back to Ordinance 9500, the predecessor of Ordinance 11000 that had the same provision, which is -- goes back to a fundamental of zoning law, which is the protection of light and air. When you have permanent open space in front of you or you have a right-of-way in front of you, you are allowed to take that much more space, simply because that is assured as permanent open space, so the definition is clear. The definitions as to what to compute as residential space and also as non-residential space is defined in the ordinance, and after a review of the plans that were submitted, I agree with staffs position that it meets all the requirements of the Code at this point. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to -- Chairman Teele: All right. Anyone else? Mr. Olmedillo: Only the thing that Steve Helfman alerted me to, to put my qualifications on the record. Chairman Teele: I think counsel will stipulate -- Hr. O'Donnell: I do. He's already appeared and testified. Chairman Teele: -- that you are a planning expert. Mr. Olmedillo: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 125 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Helfman: We have nothing else. Thank you for the time. Mr. O'Donnell: Mr. Chairman, in rebuttal, what Mr. Helfman failed to do is respond to our specific references to the Code that's being violated in this project, and even his expert failed to specify anyplace in the Code where accessory non-residential uses, accessory commercial uses could be excluded from parking requirements. Mr. Helfman and Mr. Olmedillo also talk about gross lot area. I just want to -- Chairman Teele: Talk about what? Mr. O'Donnell: Gross lot area. It's not the major heart of our case. The major heart of our case is that they are taking floor area out of computations of FAR and parking requirements from that hotel, which is still going to be operating. That hotel, as the evidence showed below, is already having parking problems, OK? And that was the testimony of our realtor. They are taking 120 spaces, and Mr. Helfman wants to ignore the fact that it's an illegal act. There is no standard that can overcome an illegal act. It's illegal to permit floor area to be used without parking, as required by the Zoning Code, period. I read to you from the applicable provision of Section 1500, which says that this board is obligated to impose and is governed -- the word is "governed" -- by the use restrictions of the office district, and the office district, I read to you in the record, offices and other non-residential uses sounds promising. One space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. They ignore that. They only look at the next provision, lodgings. One space for every two lodging units. That's all they're providing. They ignore the fact that the non-residential uses also need parking, and our expert fraffic consultant, Miles Moss' report suggests very strongly that the -- not "suggests" -- states very strongly that this needs to be -- you need to -- just as a fraffic matter -- forget the ordinance -- you need to provide for the non-residential accessory uses. The memo of law he cites was one aspect of it, and I don't withdraw saying that view is important. In fact, view is one of the -- view corridors are one of the things that are replete within your ordinance as something that needs to be considered. Do we have a right to a view if they have a right to build 20 stories of this huge building? No. Never said that we did. What we do have a right to, if we're going to neighbor this building, we have a right to have adequate parking, so that the 27th Avenue and South Bayshore Drive isn't overwhelmed, so the neighborhoods along Tigertail aren't overwhelmed with off-street parking problems and traffic problems. He mentioned ingress and egress as being one of the considerations of the standards of the Class II Permit, safe parking. How do you have safe parking with people backed up -- they're already backing up onto South Bayshore Drive. What's going to be happening when 120 spaces are taken away from all the banquets, 120 spaces are taken away from all the meetings? What's going to happen? We have a right and we have standing to raise those issues, and they were not addressed in rebuttal at all. No one has cited one specific provision of the ordinance of this City which allows anybody to exclude non-residential floor area, no matter where it is. I don't care if it's in the basement, if it's -- I don't care where it is, you have to have one parking space for each 350 square feet in the office district, and as I pointed out, the PUD did provide that at the Ritz. The reason it took so long was that -- the developer going to the City is that, it's true, we had three Zoning Administrators, and when I finally tried to appeal, which I did at the same time as I appealed the permit, I appealed the Zoning Administrator's -- timely appealed his decision, and it was decided by staff to put the whole matter into one appeal, that my appeal to the Zoning Administrator, who made a specific separate decision -- it's in the record, I appealed it on the very grounds, and I'm going to raise those issues as part of this appeal. Mainly -- Chairman Teele: Part of what appeal? Mr. O'Donnell: This appeal that I'm taking right now includes -- Commissioner Teele, you -- what they have said to you today is if -- you can permit a Class II Permit, which on its face is unlawful and not authorized. That is not the law of any State of the Union, certainly not the law City ofMiami Page 126 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 of the State of Florida. And the Rally case I cited to you, I guarantee to you, I'm not misrepresenting a thing to you on that. In terms of this park -- Chairman Teele: There you go. Now, just help me understand why -- Mr. O'Donnell: Yeah, I want to address that, because I'm sorry that I wasn't here for these other projects. I'm sorry that I took a few years off OK? And I'm sorry that the interpretation has been of the language of the Code this way, OK? I'm really sorry about that. But you know what? That doesn't prejudice my client. Chairman Teele: But you are admitting -- Mr. O'Donnell: I am not admitting anything. I am telling you that the Ritz Carlton did not use it, and I am telling you this project cannot use it. That's what I'm saying, and that's what I have a record on. The net lot -- this is with the definition that we're talking about, and this isn't the crucial thing. The crucial thing is in the residential -- Chairman Teele: Counsel, counsel, counsel, hold on one minute. Mr. O'Donnell: Yes. Chairman Teele: The issue that has been raised as to whether or not it is the normal calculation in this area, this geographic area, utilizing the green space across the street and whether or not that has been used in the past. Are you aware or are you not aware -- Mr. O'Donnell: I'm aware -- Chairman Teele: -- that other buildings, including the Sonesta -- Mr. O'Donnell: I've heard the testimony from staff and from Mr. Helfman that the Sonesta used it. I heard the testimony that the Grove -- Chairman Teele: Is today the first time that you heard that? Mr. O'Donnell: No, no. I heard it at the Zoning Board, that the Grovenor used it. That doesn't make it legal, and under Florida law a mistake by this board, by the Zoning Board and by the staff that an interpretation of a Zoning Ordinance does not estop this Commission from doing what the law requires today. It does not estop them. That is the law of Florida, and I can tell you the Fontainebleau Gas and Wash case stands for that proposition. We had a CO (Certificate of Occupancy), a final CO for -- Chairman Teele: Which case was that? Mr. O'Donnell: Fontainebleau Gas and Wash versus Dade County issued a final CO -- Chairman Teele: That was one of the first zoning cases that I sat on in 1991. Mr. O'Donnell: Yeah, and I was there for the bank, because we were really upset. Chairman Teele: And it was a mistake made -- Mr. O'Donnell: And it was -- Chairman Teele: -- in the issuance of the permit. City ofMiami Page 127 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. O'Donnell: But to correct the mistake, just like correcting the mistake today, is not to continue an illegal act, and the Third District said, no, you are not estopped from enforcing this ordinance. They come back to the Commission and say, Commission, we think this is the right thing to do, and I'll be here to say why it's not, but I'm telling you today that it's not even legal to do, and that is the definition of gross lot area is net lot area -- Commissioner Winton: What is the illegal act again? Mr. O'Donnell: There are two applicable laws on this project that believe are violated. One is the floor area ration limitation of 1.2 times the appropriate gross lot area of the project. Commissioner Winton: Mm-hmm. Mr. O'Donnell: They undermine that in two ways: By ignoring accessory non-residential floor areas of the hotel -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. O'Donnell: -- and by grabbing parkland that isn't theirs, and that is across the street, and is not adjoining. It's not adjoining. That's one -- that is where -- and then they don't provide the parking required by the "0" district. Those are two fundamental illegal acts which I -- I don't know how it can be -- Commissioner Winton: Is that two or three? Mr. O'Donnell: And -- pardon me? Commissioner Winton: Is it two or three? Mr. O'Donnell: Well, the major violation of FAR comes out of improperly excluding gross -- excluding non-residential floor area from the hotel and including the parkland that isn't adjoining. The violation of the parking, it comes from excluding the non-residential floor area from the parking requirements, and the law of Florida is clear that you cannot grant a variance - - particularly in this case, a variance of those provisions cannot be granted, no matter how many times you may have done it inadvertently, intentionally before. Now, in the old ordinance -- let me -- just one more thing. This says adjoining. In the old ordinance, when they meant to go across the sfreet, they said it. They said it by adjoining, adjoining parks or properties that are separated only by a public right-of-way, and then they used that park. You know what they used it for? For the open space Mr. Olmedillo talked about, to get a little credit, a little credit for a setback, not to build a building that's out -- that violates FAR. That's not how this was used in the past. I wasn't there when Mr. Juan Gonzalez left and first approved this project, but when I got it, I said, this is wrong. He was gone. The person who was the interim person, I never got to meet. The final person who came in on the eve of the Zoning Board during that time, however, they did respond. I'm not blaming staff for anything, except they're wrong, but what they did do is they realized they were wrong originally, and I told you one of the instances in which they were excluding the Bice Restaurant from all parking. They weren't requiring any parking, and they weren't counting it for FAR. That's what Juan Gonzalez approved, and that's what his successor approved, and finally, they looked at it and said, boy, O'Donnell is going to get us here. We've got to do something, so they just took it. They said, well, maybe we can win on Regin's Upstairs. That's what happened. We have a legally recognizable interest in sufficient parking in our area and in traffic, and we have a legally recognizable interest across the sfreet in the mass of the building that's going here, and frankly, the delay has not been in the interest of my clients, and I do want to correct one more thing. I am not a tag team with this representative of the hotel. This representative of the hotel, Mr. Schwiep and Mr. Helfman asked for the deferral last time, and I'm not doing it just for fun. I could care less about the deferral. My City ofMiami Page 128 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 people are paying me money, and they don't like paying me. OK? It's a lot of money for residents. I don't care how much you think they have. They don't like this sort of -- Chairman Teele: That may have just cost them even more money, ifI may. Mr. O'Donnell: But really, I -- well, I -- never mind. I just want the record to be clear thatl want to get this over with in as direct a way as I can. If I'm wrong -- I've been wrong before. I'm not wrong here. Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Well, I will say this: I think counsel is right, that some very important issues were not addressed. If this had -- no, no, no. We've had the public hearing. That was rebuttal. Dolly Maclntyre: OK, I'm sorry. I didn't realize it had been closed. Chairman Teele: Well, we will reopen it for you, ma'am, if you'll be very brief please. Ms. Maclntyre: I'll be very brief. My name is Dolly Maclntyre. I live at 1835 South Bayshore Drive. This project is frightening, and I live in the Grove, and I'm very active, and I didn't know about this, and I know there was -- there were red zoning signs on that little two-story building. I'm stunned by this, what I've heard here today, and I'm frightened, and I'm counting on you to see that the law is enforced. If this happens, we are -- we've had it. I mean, we're in trouble now, but if this kind of thing can get through, the changing of -- you know, the uses of buildings, and parking and all this, please -- and Mr. Winton, I know -- Chairman Teele: No, no. Make your comments to the Chair, please. All right. The public hearing is closed. I apologize for reopening it, Commissioner. Counsel, you are right that -- I think, counsel, your opposing counsel did not address certain issues, particularly the parking and the ancillary activities, but unfortunately for you, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, not a judicial proceeding. If we were judges, you may have won on just that issue, but we're going to allow the staff to put in the record, as we always do, and to further amplify to us, and, staff Madam Director, it's up to you now, and if you want to tag team with the Zoning Administrator, since his name has been invoked. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah. It appears that most of the questions really are the zoning -- the application of the zoning regulations. With respect to the open space and the inclusion of the park -- Commissioner Winton: Before you go there, though, I guess that's what I'm confused about. This -- I don't understand the difference between -- I mean, the connectivity between the Class II Permit and then what happens next. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Before a Class II Special Permit can be issued, there has to be a Zoning review of the project, and then it gets referred to Planning for a Class II to be done. What Planning -- Division of Planning and Zoning looks at in a Class II is what Mr. Helfman pointed out. It goes to the aesthetics, it goes to the ingress and egress and it goes to different issues but it does not include zoning. Zoning does a review of the project before the Class II is issued, but then after a Class II is issued, they must go get a Building Permit, and they have to go through Zoning again for the full and final calculations before a Building Permit can be issued, so while zoning is done -- it's done before and after a Class II. It's done in both -- Commissioner Winton: But why would it change in the second round in front of Zoning if it made it through the first round? Ms. Slazyk: Because usually, before -- just like a Major Use Special Permit, before a Class II is issued, the developer is not going to go into the details of working drawings until they know they City ofMiami Page 129 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 have their Special Permit. Once they have their Special Permit, then they go into full working drawing details, and those have much more specificity, and sometimes, things change a little bit, so they have to go back for another full Zoning review. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: And in fact, I don't know if I've ever seen any Special Permit go to Building Permit exactly the same way as it was issued in the Special Permit, you know. Fire comes in, other departments -- Building, Structure, Mechanical, Plumbing -- and things have to be moved to meet other building codes, and they don't do that up front so Zoning -- Commissioner Winton: OK, so where are you headed next with -- Ms. Slazyk: All right. Zoning had done the review, and then the Class II Special Permit was issued, which means that during the Zoning review process, which both of them have told you lasted months, all of these issues were looked at. The final Class II Special Permit set of drawings did include a floor -by -floor, what's in and what's out of FAR for calculations. By definition, our Zoning Code defines what you don't count as FAR in a project. In a hotel and residential project, there are certain things that are -- specifically don't count as FAR, which is common areas, a gym, you know. Restaurants, I think are included, up to the sizes that are specified in the ordinance for convenience establishments. All of those things were reviewed, and Zoning determined that it was in compliance. Also, non -FAR does not count for parking, and again, that is -- it's all in the Code. Same thing with the definition of what gross lot area is and how it's been applied, not only in the corridor that they showed you right now, but citywide -- Commissioner Winton: Well, let me ask you a question about parking. Ms. Slazyk: -- the application. Commissioner Winton: Are they add -- they're going to build a new tower that's going to house residents. Are they adding new parking to this new component? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, there's new parking being added, yes. Commissioner Winton: And how much new parking is being added? Ms. Slazyk: The final count of the proposed parking, I believe, is very close to about 300 spaces. Commissioner Winton: And how many units? Ms. Slazyk: How much is new is -- I think it's 52 new units. I don't have the plans in front of me. I believe it's 52 new units. They have to do one parking space for one -bedroom, two parking spaces for two, just like the Code requires, so depending on how they broke it down, but they met the requirements. What happened is the exiting hotel -- Commissioner Winton: They're going to build 52 new units and add 300 parking spaces; is that what you just said? Ms. Slazyk: No. 300 is the total that's going to be provided for the existing hotel, plus the -- Commissioner Winton: But that isn't my question. Chairman Teele: That's not his question. City ofMiami Page 130 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Oh, how many new spaces are they adding? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. You've got a new building. How many spaces exist -- Ms. Slazyk: Their architect could probably answer faster than me. Commissioner Winton: How many spaces exist in the current complex as it sets today, and how many spaces will we have if this building is built as we've heard? Ms. Slazyk: It would probably be faster for their architect to answer than for me to find those numbers in here. Would you like him to come up? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Teele: Johnny, Commissioner Winton, let me say this. Your questioning is exactly where my train of thought is, in terms of trying to understand this issue. The only thing that I need for Lourdes to answer before the architect comes up directly is, does Class II -- and I assume that it does, but I may be wrong -- does Class II Permit include a determination of the propriety, the legalness (sic) and the sufficiency, sufficiency of parking? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, it does. Chairman Teele: So this is not something that is premature in terms of the question to be answered? Ms. Slazyk: No. Zoning's original signature, which refers it to Planning for the Class II, does include a review of parking, just to determine if they need a variance, and Zoning determined that it was in compliance with the existing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Teele: Well, why is this taking so long to get an answer? I mean, this -- you didn't ask the number of miles to the moon. Mr. Helfman: Mr. Baldwin, who is the architect, is going to help answer that question for you, but I can assure you that we have been through this for eight months, and these people have looked at it over and over. Commissioner Winton: I want a quantifiable answer. Chairman Teele: Well, maybe the other side knows. Don't answer. I'm just -- Commissioner Winton: But that's part of the argument. Minutes to PZ.5 - Part 3 Chairman Teele: That's a huge part of the argument. I can tell you right now, my vote in zoning matters, since I have been here, has weighed more on the parking, sufficiency of parking -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Chairman Teele: -- than any single issue. Commissioner Winton: And not on view corridors, and Commissioner Teele and I have looked at this exactly the same. City ofMiami Page 131 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: So, Mr. Chairman, just to understand, while they go through the paper, how many parking spaces are they lacking in this project? Gail Baldwin: None, none whatsoever. Chairman Teele: We haven't even figured out how many they have yet. Commissioner Winton: No. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Please identifyyourselffor the record, sir. Mr. Baldwin: Gail Baldwin, architect. Mr. Maxwell: And your address. Address, sir. Mr. Baldwin: Address is 1600 South Bayshore Lane, Apartment 8-B, and my office is also in the Grove. Commissioner Winton: While you guys are looking for that, let me ask another question, then, and you all can find out, OK? Lourdes, I'm also curious about this whole issue on our Code, and I want to understand this, and I want to hear it on the record. Does our Code, in fact, allow for additional FAR if you build a building that happens to be across the street from a public park? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, it does. What it does, it allows your gross lot area to benefit from 70 more feet of land included in the calculation. You take the area of your property, you multiply it by a number -- Commissioner Winton: I know. I don't need that. I got it. Ms. Slazyk: -- and you come up with how much you can build. Commissioner Winton: Well, if Dolly Maclntyre, if that was her giant fear, it is equally my giant fear, because I have never heard, since I've been here, that we allow buildings to get built and they get to be built bigger, and I'm kind of new to the -- Ms. Slazyk: This has been -- Commissioner Winton: I understand if they don't have to build the same green space, provide the green space requirement, because they can use it across the sfreet, but to get to build a bigger building because you got a park across the sfreet? I mean, the logic to that just totally escapes me. Ms. Slazyk: It's been in effect since 1983. Commissioner Winton: Then we really need to modify our Code, frankly. I mean, that is the scariest -- in my district in particular, when we're going to have -- this battle is going to go on this isn't -- this battle isn't going to be about just here. I mean, we're going to have this battle on -- we're having this battle and we get to -- we have one more of these deals coming up later in the evening on the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor about height, and density and all that stuff and so this whole park issue -- we really have to revisit that quickly. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Just for the record, it's in the definition of gross lot area is where it says you go up to the center line of the street you're adjacent to, and then, if there is open space across the City ofMiami Page 132 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 street that includes parks, rivers, lakes, or a bay, you get to go 70 feet into that and include in your calculation. Commissioner Winton: Wow. Ms. Slazyk: It's not that you're using -- you know, inappropriately using the zoning of the park and that this isn't allowed in the park, because you're not using the park. It's just -- it's an added calculation. Commissioner Winton: It was just bad public policy creation 25 years ago. Chairman Teele: Commissioner, Commissioner, be very careful how you opine on this issue, because I can assure you that if -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I've already done it. I can't be careful that -- Chairman Teele: You know, because what you're saying, Commissioner Winton, is 100 percent right in this regard. This activity may very well establish the precedent for the City ofMiami citywide, and if our interpretations have been wrong or have been viewed in a manner that a judge would agree with one of the counsel, I mean, it's going to affect everything that we're doing, and we need to make sure we're right on what we're doing here. Do we have an answer on how many parking spaces from the architect? Mr. Baldwin: Yes, we do. I didn't want to interrupt you. Just for your information, that sort of philosophy is applied north of Omni, as well as on the new projects that are going up there. Commissioner Winton: Oh, I know. I know. I asked her that question in private, butt wanted her to put it on the record, so. Mr. Baldwin: By Code, we are now -- we are required to have 206 self -parking spaces, and we've provided 308 parking spaces, of which there's 51 valet spaces run by the hotel. Commissioner Winton: Wait, wait -- Mr. Baldwin: And in addition to that -- Commissioner Winton: Start that over again. Start that over again. Chairman Teele: The first question was how many parking spaces does the hotel currently have? Mr. Baldwin: I can't answer that because I don't have that paper here, but -- butl -- he has it, but the numbers again, Johnny, it's 206 self -parking spaces required. In other words, they don't allow you to count valet as a required space. We are providing 308 spaces, of which 51 are valet. Commissioner Winton: Well, if you're providing 308, how could you tell me you don't -- why did you say, Gail -- I don't get that, why you said you don't know how many you have. Mr. Baldwin: No. Commissioner Winton: I mean, is not "have" and `providing" the same thing? Mr. Baldwin: That's a different question. What did the hotel have prior to these calculations? City ofMiami Page 133 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Yeah. What does the hotel have right now? IfI walk across the street and count all their parking spaces, what have they got? Hr. Baldwin: I don't know. Commissioner Winton: OK. Hr. Baldwin: They've consumed a great deal of their parking in -- Hr. Helfman: Let me see ifI can help. Let me see ifI can help. There are 286 spaces that are there for the hotel use now. In addition to that, there are, I am told -- and I think this is correct. Is this number -- In addition to that, there is a required cross parking agreement when the Grand Bay Office Building and Grand Bay Hotel were approved together, with an additional 452 spaces, so -- and as you all may well know that the hotel functions, the valet uses the office building, and there's a cross -parking, and so overall, there are well into almost 700 spaces available. We are adding 20 spaces by virtue of this application. There will be an additional amount of spaces. Now -- but what the real important thing is -- Chairman Teele: Hold it. Just stop right there. Hr. Helfman: Yes. Chairman Teele: This is the first time the number 20 has been used. Commissioner Winton: Right. Chairman Teele: Now, what does 20 represent? Hr. Helfman: 20 represents additional spaces that are going to be created on site -- Commissioner Winton: Over and above. Hr. Helfman: -- above and beyond what are there today. Commissioner Winton: And you're building how many new units? Hr. Helfman: 52. Chairman Teele: And approximately how many bedrooms do the 52 units have? Hr. Helfman: I don't -- it'll depend on how the sales go. That's why what they're telling you is when you come in for a permit, those calculations are going to be made, and at that point, you're going to be able to determine what it is. Chairman Teele: Yeah, but our Code says -- Hr. Helfman: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- that you're required to build one parking space per bedroom unit. Hr. Helfman: We meet your requirement. Your staff has come up here several times. We have looked at it for eight months. We meet your requirement. What -- I know the direction that it's going, but the question is, have we submitted a set of plans that conform with your Code? Your staff is telling you that you do. OK? They've looked at it. They've been presented with this information for a year. City ofMiami Page 134 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Well, let me ask a different question. Hold on. Let me ask a different question of staff. In order for this math to hold up, and this math -- let me repeat it. They're building 52 units. We don't know how many bedrooms. So let's just assume, for the sake of conversation right now, that every single one of these 52 units will be one -one's, that's all they're building, and our Code requires 52 new spaces, but they're building 20, so are you then telling me that the 700-plus parking spaces that exist on the project right now have excess capacity over what the FAR was built originally? Hs. Slazyk: Correct. If they have excess spaces, then they can use the excess spaces to meet the requirements somewhere else within their complex. Now, when they come in, if that assumption you just made, that they were all one -one's, what if they all come in two-two's, OK? Commissioner Winton: Or three -three's. Hs. Slazyk: Yeah. If they have a deficit, they will either have to cut the number of units, come up with more parking or go get a variance, but they won't get a building permit if they're short, and that's the kind of thing you don't know till they come in for a Building Permit. In fact, Ritz -- Commissioner Regalado: So what you're saying -- Hs. Slazyk: IfI remember correctly, Ritz came in for an after -the -fact Building Permit for height variance, because once they started building, they were too tall, and they came back in and got a variance for height, which happens. Commissioner Winton: Who did? Hs. Slazyk: Ritz. Commissioner Winton: Oh. Hs. Slazyk: It happens, so, you know -- Commissioner Regalado: Lourdes, what you're saying is that they will be able to use valet parking for visitors of the apartment building? Hs. Slazyk: They can, but we don't count the valet spaces as required spaces so -- Commissioner Regalado: So we're -- Hs. Slazyk: Right, so they're -- Commissioner Regalado: -- knocking down 51, 51 valet. Hs. Slazyk: Right, so the -- the 51 valet don't count as required, which means -- but they are real spaces, so they will be used. Commissioner Regalado: So your only requirement is one per unit, no visitors? Just one? Hs. Slazyk: No. I think there is a visitor requirement. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Hs. Slazyk: Yeah. City ofMiami Page 135 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Can you tell me how many? Ms. Slazyk: It's a one -- it's a ten -- here's the visitors. One per every ten unit, so they'd have to have 5.2, which is rounded up to six, six visitor spaces count in that required parking, yes. Commissioner Regalado: Six visitors for 51 units? Ms. Slazyk: Per 52, yeah. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, but that's our Code. Ms. Slazyk: It's one per every ten. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so not counting the valet parking, so you still -- people will still have to park in the hotel or the office building, right? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: So how many -- Ms. Slazyk: The complex as a whole is OK, though. Commissioner Regalado: So it's OK if they identify some parking far, far away from the building? That's what the Zoning philosophy is? Ms. Slazyk: As long as it's within the -- Commissioner Regalado: As long as you identify some parking, you don't have any problem? Ms. Slazyk: If they have excess within their own premises, yes. Commissioner Winton: No, only in their own complex, not somewhere else. Ms. Slazyk: Not across the street or down the block but -- Commissioner Regalado: So suppose that there is a shopping center that can provide parking for one store, and that -- and that shopping center has -- provides the necessary parking required by Zoning. Would that be a problem for Zoning to issue your permit? Ms. Slazyk: If somebody has excess parking within their property and they want to lease some of the excess parking spaces to someone who's got a shortage down the street, there's a mechanism to do that in the ordinance. By special exception, you can do 25 percent of your spaces off site within a certain radius, so -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no. I mean on site, on site. Ms. Slazyk: On site? If it's all on site, you meet the requirements. Commissioner Regalado: All the requirements? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Now, I have another question, because it seems like -- two more questions. One is this -- the accessory use provision, and you said things like gyms and common City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 areas, and elevator shafts and those kinds of things aren't included in the requirement anywhere in our Code for calculating parking -- oh, no, for -- Ms. Slazyk: FAR. Commissioner Winton: -- calculating the FAR. Ms. Slazyk: And it's by definition. It's in Article 25. It specifically lists all the things that count as FAR and what doesn't, so it's -- it is defined. Commissioner Winton: And in this particular project, because there are two restaurants in this project -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. One of them, they counted, and they have the parking required for it, because that one is a principal use -- it's a principal use of the property. Now, the other one, which is the ballroom upstairs, it is accessory. It's not signed outside. It's a ballroom, and that's how they have it marked in their plans. If they -- Commissioner Winton: And that's what our Code says. Ms. Slazyk: And our Code does not require those to be -- that to be FAR, because it's not residential use, it's not a restaurant. It's labeled a ballroom. Commissioner Winton: But you could technically have one hell of a large ballroom in a building that adds significant square footage to a building, and that has a dramatic impact in terms of massing. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, and like, I mean -- Commissioner Winton: And we leave it out of the calculation. Ms. Slazyk: You know, and Mutiny, and Sonesta, and the Ritz, all of them have the same thing. Commissioner Winton: But you're saying right now that it's in our Code. Ms. Slazyk: That, yes, it's specifically excluded by definition. Commissioner Winton: And so I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but that's another issue that I think, from a public policy standpoint, we also need to review. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: But I don't want to -- that's just a quick statement. Chairman Teele: Write it down. Ms. Slazyk: If you'd like Francisco Garcia, the Zoning Administrator, to read you what those definitions are, you can very clearly see why it -- you know, in the application of the Zoning regulations, the approval was granted, because these definitions very clearly say what's in and what's out. Commissioner Winton: And you've said that, and I'm trying to understand what our Code says. Ms. Slazyk: OK. City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: The next issue relates to massing and compatibility for design of the building. Hs. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: Now, the opposing counsel showed us kind of a massing diagram that supposedly was provided by you all at one of the public hearings you had to go to. Now, what can't understand is whether or not that was just simply a massing diagram that you provided or whether that was giving us an indication of what this building is going to look like relative to the surrounding buildings in not only your own complex, but other properties surrounding it, and is that what that is, and what stab do we have at making sure that -- because that design, I thought was totally incompatible with its surroundings, completely. I mean, it was a big, block box. We don't even have any big block boxes, and it's in a -- which I think is -- the developer's out of their mind, also, because they're taking a very nice property and putting a big square box in the middle of their own asset, which I don't get that idea, but -- Hs. Slazyk: This did go through design review. It's not a big solid box. They've got windows and balconies. It's residential and I'm -- I was just asking if they had any of these drawings on boards for you, butl could pass these around. These are -- it did go through design review. As far as scale, and character and massing, there are no variances. It complies with height. It complies with everything else. It's the same height, and scale and character as what's permitted on Bayshore Drive. It's when something starts breaking that box to get -- you know, if they've come in for a 30-foot height variance to be -- you know, a needle sticking up where everything else on Bayshore Drive is relatively the same height, then we would have had a scale issue, a massing issue, a character issue. The biggest issue that this Class II Special Permit had, had to do with the treatment along Bayshore Drive, and if you look in your packages in the Class II Special Permit, it was approved with three conditions, and the conditions have to do with softening the Bayshore Drive facade by including landscaping it. They had some service areas behind those walls, and it all had to do with softening the ground floor of Bayshore Drive. That was the only potential adverse impact we saw, which is what 1305 requires us to look at under Class II. The only one we saw had to do with the actual ground floor frontage on Bayshore Drive and working with them on a landscape plan to soften that edge. That was it. Commissioner Winton: And so that all meets Code. Well, I'm going to ask you a question that doesn't have anything to do with Code, but the question is you have two assets already on site. One's an office tower and one's a hotel, both of which have long rectangular design. Why didn't you create a design that's similar to the first two buildings which would, at least in my mind, create that additional harmony with the surrounding assets that you already own, your client? And I would be willing to bet that if something like that happened, you'd probably get further along. That isn't in our purview, apparently, because you're meeting Code. Chairman Teele: You don't have to answer it if you don't choose to. Commissioner Winton: Correct. Chairman Teele: But it would be good. Commissioner Winton: Oh, it is. Hr. Helfinan: It is a question that was raised at the UDRB by your Urban Design Review Board. They had us go back and alter the design, because there was a box -like appearance to this. They made us begin to set the building back. They changed the facades. Would we push it back further if we could? Absolutely. There is no -- at that point, there is no space. In other words, we're using the space that we have that is afforded to us on the site. This is the amount of building we're allowed to put on. Could you change the design? Yes, but you would not be able City ofMiami Page 138 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 to put this on, but that's obviously a decision that the developer would do, but the Architectural Review Board -- again, these are not big surprises. This is something -- they've raised these issues at that board. We had to go back and redesign twice to address your specific concern. Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, would you put on the record -- show the drawing as it's reflected coming out -- not -- but it needs to be on camera and show it to everybody in the audience, also, so I -- Ms. Slazyk: What this drawing shows is the footprint of the existing Grand Bay and the footprint of the proposed building, and you can see it in the green here. That's what's proposed. It -- in scale, in footprint, and how it's situated, it is compatible. What happens is their tower comes up, and it's -- it was a little more squared off in shape, and through the UDRB, and design review and what we've been doing with them to soften up Bayshore Drive, we felt comfortable that this project complied with all the criteria, and the Class II was granted. Chairman Teele: All right. This meeting and this evening is totally out of control now. The Chair is going to ask -- Did you need to say anything else? The public hearing is closed. Counsel, did you need to say anything else? Did you need to? Mr. Helfman: No. Chairman Teele: Counsel, did you need to say anything else? Mr. O'Donnell: I just want to say that the so-called cross parking agreement was raised for the first time on surrebuttal (sic); that it, as a matter of law, would not satisfy on -site parking in the City ofMiami. Chairman Teele: Pull up your mike. We can't hear you very well. Mr. O'Donnell: I'm saying they -- sort of a -- try to get you out of -- you nailed them. They have 20 new spaces for 51 new units. OK? They tried to avoid that by saying, we have cross -parking agreements with the office, but that's what they already have, and they're already overcrowded at that point, and as a matter of law, it does not satisfy the parking requirements. Where they got their parking is by taking out the gross floor area, non-residential floor area that historically and still does -- is required under "0" district zoning, one parking space for 350. They're not supplying -- Chairman Teele: Hold it. Do you understand this issue, Mr. Attorney, the issue that he's just raising relating to the "0" -- what is it? Commissioner Winton: The "0" zoning. Mr. O'Donnell: The office district. That's the governing district of this -- it's pretty simple. It says one parking space for every 350 square feet of non-residential space, and we've shown you that 42,000 is not being given for parking. Chairman Teele: No, no, no, don't make the argument. I just want to make sure that the lawyer understand the clear issue. Mr. Helfman: Now I do need to say something. You invited him up here. I need to address this. Number one -- Chairman Teele: I invited both of you up. Mr. Helfman: I understand. First of all, we are not suggesting that we are using the office City ofMiami Page 139 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 building parking to meet the required parking. That is excess parking. It is not being used to meet our requirement. OK? So that's additional spaces that are available to us, above and beyond, and the district doesn't control the number of spaces. The use controls the number of spaces, so it's not a district issue. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Commissioner Winton for a motion and we'll have all the discussion you want to have. Commissioner Winton: Well, Mr. City Attorney, would you -- and whoever else from staff I just want to understand if there is -- would you explain to me any basis we have for supporting the appeal? Do we have a legal basis to support the appeal? I've sat here and I've listened to a lot of technical issues. You're our legal counsel. I hear one lawyer on one side saying that what we're doing is totally illegal, and I hear the lawyer on the other side saying it's absolutely legal, and I ain't a lawyer. I'm a City Commissioner. Mr. Maxwell: That's the nature of a quasi-judicial hearing, Commissioner. Based on that -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I have a City Attorney sitting there that I've asked a direct question of. Mr. Maxwell: You've heard competent evidence on one side. I don't think Mr. O'Donnell has introduced into the record proceedings below. I don't know if there were any experts that he tendered below. Courts have held that attorneys' testimony is argument and not competent evidence. You have heard expert testimony on the appellant -- the appellee's side. Therefore, unless there is -- Commissioner Winton: Are you answering my question? Mr. Maxwell: Yes -- Chairman Teele: Nowhere near it. Nowhere near it, Johnny. I'm so sick of this process where everybody tells you what they want you to hear and -- Mr. O'Donnell: Joel, just before you answer -- Chairman Teele: Counsel -- Mr. O'Donnell: -- we have our experts in the record. Chairman Teele: Counsel, stand down, please. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you. But we have expert testimony -- Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, would you ask the question again? Mr. Attorney, would you answer the question, please? Commissioner Winton: If two sides, one said we're doing things that are -- didn't say things that we shouldn't be doing or the neighbors don't like or anything else. He said what we're doing is illegal -- illegal. I'm not a lawyer, and the other side that says everything we're doing here is absolutely legal and fully within our Code. So the question I ask you -- and you're the lawyer. I'm not the lawyer. I'm a Commissioner -- is do we have any legal grounds to -- let's see. We have an appeal going here. Mr. Maxwell: The answer -- City ofMiami Page 140 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: So to -- do we have any legal grounds to accept the appeal? That's the question. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, you have legal grounds to accept or you have legal grounds to deny the appeal -- Commissioner Winton: Then explain it. Mr. Maxwell: -- because there's been evidence supported on both sides. Chairman Teele: You're right where you started. Mr. Maxwell: There's competent -- yeah. Commissioner Winton: Holy mackerel. Chairman Teele: You're still right where you started. Commissioner Winton: Oh, that was pathetic. Mr. Maxwell: There's competent and substantial evidence is what -- Commissioner Regalado: Johnny, just -- we can either vote yes or no. Chairman Teele: That's the same section of the law books where they teach that you don't have to share a jail cell with your client. Commissioner Winton: Then why do we have him here? Mr. Maxwell: The court -- what you are -- this is a quasi-judicial -- Commissioner Winton: Joel, you might as well go home. Mr. Maxwell: Let me explain, Commissioner. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Commissioner Winton: I already figured that part out. Mr. Maxwell: You hear evidence from both sides. If these attorneys are doing their jobs, which they have been doing, then you are going to get competent evidence on both sides. You, as the decision maker, are charged with weighing that evidence and making a decision. Commissioner Winton: Well, maybe I didn't ask this right. Let me see ifI can ask this question one more time. Chairman Teele: Why don't you frame a motion, Johnny? You're not going to get an answer out of a lawyer on that. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Well, Francisco -- yeah, and I will right now. Francisco Garcia: He's right. IfI may, for the record, Francisco Garcia, Zoning Administrator. As your Zoning Administrator, I thought I'd -- actually I'll just start with you. I think it might facilitate your task if you have concerns regarding the appearance or any of the aesthetic components of this project that are under the Class II Special Permit properly, then that's one City ofMiami Page 141 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 issue. However, if your concerns are about the series of regulations that we have utilized to calculate compliance for this building, I need to offer this to you. If it were sent back to us again to recalculate, we would be using the same rules we used in the first place, and the result would be exactly the same. Commissioner Winton: So I think that said, and sitting on this side over here is the hotel group, I don't have any constituents there. Sitting on this side over here is the condominium group, and they're all my constituents. Chairman Teele: All of them are your constituents. Commissioner Winton: Every -- no, no. There's no voters over there at that hotel. Commissioner Regalado: Two. Commissioner Winton: There's a whole bunch of voters over here, but -- Chairman Teele: There's a whole lot of people that work there, hundreds of people. Commissioner Winton: -- but as the elected official, my job is to make a decision based on what our Code says, and as much as I would like to emotionally support the concept that you all have provided, I have asked our City Attorney, I've asked our Zoning Administrator, I've asked all of our staff whether or not anything we're doing here, looking for the hook -- we don't have the hook, and so there isn't -- and what we're tasked to do, also, is to make sure that we do things that are following our Code, and if we're doing things or if our -- or if we determine, as we have tonight, where there's parts of our Code that are awful, then our next step is we've got to go fix the Code, but you can't fix the Code in reverse, so I can't figure out for the life of me how I can say or accept the appeal and/or deny the applicant this Class II Special Permit. I can't figure it out. If one of my colleagues can help me, I'd love to support it. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: What you have before you is an appeal of the Zoning Board's decision. The Zoning Board denied the appeal, so what you're charged with doing is determining whether or not there's evidence before you which would reverse the decision of the Zoning Board. You've heard evidence from staff that the Zoning Board's decision was correct. You could base your decision on that. You have heard evidence that it wasn't correct. Unless they have provided evidence, substantial -- enough evidence to convince you as a board that the Zoning Board was incorrect, then you should uphold the decision of the Zoning Board. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. I'd like to think about this tomorrow. Commissioner Regalado: But the Zoning Board could have received the same volume of information that we did. Is that -- Mr. Maxwell: They probably did. Commissioner Regalado: They probably did. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, and they -- Commissioner Regalado: So they may have gotten the same information, that it's illegal and legal, so the Zoning Board made a decision because they weighed those both sides. City ofMiami Page 142 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, but in this case, what you have, you have the Zoning Administrator, who is charged with interpreting your Zoning Ordinance, telling you that the information -- that the decisions they've made -- and staff by the way, because this is an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director -- they're both telling you that they have interpreted the Code in a certain way. They're charged with making those decisions, and they have tendered that information on the record. You've heard -- Commissioner Regalado: So let me ask you, why are we voting here? Mr. Maxwell: Because you're required to. Commissioner Regalado: No -- Chairman Teele: Because someone appealed their decision. Commissioner Regalado: I know, I know that, but if you say -- if you say that the Zoning Administration have made a ruling, have made a statement, and we have to guide for it, you're telling me how to vote. Mr. Maxwell: No, sir, I'm not. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, you are. Mr. Maxwell: No, sir, I'm not. Respectfully -- Chairman Teele: Gentlemen, gentlemen, hold on just -- let me tell you, this is where I wanted to go. I wanted to get a motion, a second, and then I -- this is where I was going to come in. I was going to ask that the item be deferred, pending a written legal opinion from the City Attorney for which I want to base my vote regarding the two issues that are strictly legal that have been raised by counsel. One is as to the non- or the accessory use in calculation of parking as it relates to this particular application of this particular project and the second one was -- what was the other legal issue in which you said -- Mr. O'Donnell: The same calculation with respect to FAR, and then the third issue is the inclusion of non -adjoining park across the street. Chairman Teele: Well, I didn't want to get to the non -adjoining park, but those two legal issues, I would like to get a legal opinion from the City Attorney based upon the fact situation in this to consider before I render my decision on the vote. Commissioner Winton: So would I. That's a great idea. Chairman Teele: You have a problem with that, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Because, you know, this thing is going to wind up in court either way, and we may as well let a judge have the benefit of what -- the legal advice we received as a part of that record. Commissioner Winton: So move. City ofMiami Page 143 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Well, one of the parties have already said in the paper that they will go to court. Chairman Teele: But there will be no further public input on this matter at all from the Zoning Administrator, from the staff, from counsel, from friends of the court, whether you have standing or not. We'll do it in a public hearing where you -- where we receive their opinion. We will then vote on this, but this will not be discussed anymore. Commissioner Winton: So move. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded for the request of a deferral. Ms. Slazyk: Date certain? Commissioner Winton: Yes, date certain. Ms. Slazyk: April or -- I don't know how -- March or April? Chairman Teele: How long does the City Attorney need to give a well reasoned bulletproof opinion in which no judge is going to dare -- Mr. Maxwell: The year 2035. Commissioner Winton: No, no, no. Chairman Teele: How long do you need, 30 days or 60 days? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, that's fine. Commissioner Winton: So March. Ms. Slazyk: March 25th? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Teele: March 25th. Is that OK with everybody? Commissioner Winton: Not a bad idea. Thank you. I was looking at you to try to help me. Chairman Teele: All those in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. The item is deferred with instructions to the City Attorney as stated. Thank you all very much. PZ.6 03-0188 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING OR DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY RIVERHOUSE PIER I LIMITED ("APPELLANTS"), AND REVERSING OR AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ("HEPB"), WHICH DESIGNATED EAST COAST FISHERIES LOCATED AT 40 SOUTHWEST NORTH RIVER DRIVE AS A City ofMiami Page 144 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 HISTORIC SITE. 03-0188 Fact Sheet.pdf 03-0188 Zoning Map.pdf 03-0188 Aerial Map.pdf 03-0188 Appeal Letter.PDF 03-0188 HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0188 Class II Special Permit.PDF 03-0188 Designation Report.pdf 03-0188 Q&A Historic Designation.PDF 03-0188 Legislation a.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit A Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit B HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0188 Legislation b.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit C Designation Report.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit A Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit B HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit C.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Historic and Environmental Preservation Board Decision of a Historic Designation LOCATION: Approximately 40 SW North River Drive APPLICANT(S): Planning and Zoning Department APPELLANT(S): RiverHouse Pier I Limited APPELLANT(S) AGENT: Jena E. Rissman, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. HISTORIC & ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Approved the designation on September 16, 2003 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not result in the historic designation of the above property. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and passed unanimously, to CONTINUE consideration of PZ.6 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for May 27, 2004. Chairman Teele: Next item for deferral. Janet Rissman: Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board. Janet Rissman, law firm Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan and Berlin, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard. We are here on the deferral of PZ.6. We are still in discussions with the Hatford and we are working together and request a deferral until the May meeting. City ofMiami Page 145 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: PZ.6. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and second. Is there anyone here from the public who objects to the deferral? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, is that to the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda in May, was it? Ms. Rissman: Yes. Chairman Teele: Is there anyone here objecting -- without further notice, is that right? Without further publication. Mr. Maxwell: May 27th. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. The item is deferred. Ms. Rissman: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you. We encourage deferrals or withdrawals. Commissioner Winton: Yes, we do. PZ.7 03-0386 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING THE APPEAL, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING, WITH MODIFICATIONS, A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 10'0" (20'0" REQUIRED) FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1840 MICANOPY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A." City ofMiami Page 146 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 03-0386 Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0386 Appeal Letter.PDF 03-0386 Analysis.PDF 03-0386 Zoning Map.PDF 03-0386 Aerial Map.pdf 03-0386 ZB Reso.PDF 03-0386 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0386 Plans.PDF 03-0386 Legislation A.PDF 03-0386 Exhibit A.PDF 03-0386 Legislation B.PDF 03-0386 Exhibit A.PDF Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez and Teele Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Regalado R-04-0123 APPEAL GRANTED, ZONING BOARD DECISION REVERSED Chairman Teele: All right. Let's start from the beginning. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Goodnight. Chairman Teele: Let's start from the beginning of these PZs (Planning & Zoning). Where are we now? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 7, I believe. Chairman Teele: PZ.7. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, gosh. Ms. Slazyk: PZ. 7 is another appeal of another variance. This is for property at 1840 Micanopy. The appeal was -- the Zoning Board denied the variance. The Planning & Zoning Department had recommended approval with conditions. The property owner had requested a front yard setback of five feet, where 20 feet was required. They wanted a 15 foot variance. The Planning & Zoning Department had recommended approval only of a 10 foot variance, rather than the full 15 they were requesting. The justification for the hardship is that there is some landscaping -- there are trees on the property that are being proposed to be saved, and they needed the variance in order to do that. The Planning & Zoning Department felt that the 15 foot variance they were requesting was excessive. It was not the minimum amount of variance necessary in order to save the trees. That -- what they were doing was pushing the front of the house way too close to the street, and we would recommend approval of a 10 foot variance on the front, in order to save the tree. Lucia Dougherty: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 -- This is a really, really simple appeal. It has nothing to do with the size of the house. It has to do with where the house is placed on the lot, and -- This is the subject lot, and you can see that it dead ends on Micanopy. Micanopy doesn't go any further. Then -- and this is Tigertail -- excuse me -- Tigertail, Micanopy, and this is South Bayshore Drive, so the lot dead ends right here, and the question is, where do you put the house on the lot? The house is 2,000 square foot smaller than any house that could be built on the property. Question is, do we build City ofMiami Page 147 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 it, the house, further back on the lot or further front on the lot? We believe, as well as the staff believes, as well as the HP (Historic Preservation) Board believes, as well as the neigh -- the houses right here believe that the house (INAUDIBLE) so that you preserve the trees in the rear and that her views are most substantially preserved by moving the house forward. It's as simple as that. We believe -- we had actually applied for a 10 foot setback in the front -- excuse me, 5-foot. The City recommended 10 feet. We're happy with the 10 foot, if that's what the City wants. Chairman Teele: All right. Who's here in opposition? Please come forward. How many people are here in opposition to this item? Please come forward. Dolly Maclntyre: Dolly Maclntyre, 1835 South Bayshore Drive. Commissioner Winton: What item is this? Chairman Teele: PZ.7. Ms. Maclntyre: If this item had been heard when it was scheduled, you wouldn't have to seen me all night. I'm sorry. Commissioner Winton: We love seeing you all night. Chairman Teele: We apologize, too. Ms. Maclntyre: I live at 1835 South Bayshore Drive, which is not quite contiguous with this property, but our corner lines kind of touch. A variance, as I understand it, is granted in the case of a hardship. The hardship here seems to be to save a tree. Ifl may have the portable mike and ifI may be allowed to use their drawings to illustrate something, I would appreciate it. The rendering. This is a lovely drawing of this property, but it is deceptive. Commissioner Winton: Totally. I know that site very well. Ms. Maclntyre: There is a house right here, so this green space will not exist. This part doesn't show up on the site plan. This area here is not -- will not be a green area, as they show. This property line is right here. This house looks quite wide to me, but it is going on a lot that is very narrow. There's no reason for them to push this way up here when they have this room back here. There's no reason for this to be this close to the road. It's tight in there now with nothing there, and if they build this house so that that garage is 10 feet setback, instead of the required 20 -- Commissioner Winton: It's five. Ms. Maclntyre: -- then you have a real canyon in there. Commissioner Winton: They're asking for five, not 10. Ms. Dougherty: We asked for five. The staff recommended 10. We agreed at the 10, and let me just explain to you -- Chairman Teele: Hold on just for -- Is there anyone else here in opposition? Were you completed, ma'am? Ms. Maclntyre: Yes. Chairman Teele: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 148 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Dougherty: Mr. and Mrs. Abud live in this house right here. They are supportive of this variance because they would prefer to have the frees in the backyard that they are looking at, as opposed to our building in the backyard. The issue is not where the -- how big the building is. It's where it sits on this lot. This MicanopyAvenue dead ends right here, so really, this street is actually the driveway to the house across the street, which also supports this variance, so -- yeah. Here's the -- here's where it dead ends, so this actually is just a driveway into somebody else's drive -- house right now, so the question is, do you move the house this way in order to preserve the trees, which the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) Board suggested we do, or do you move it back, not to preserve the frees and have two houses looking directly into each other? This way they are sort of soft toothed, preserving the best views for both houses. All of the neighbors who are immediately surrounding are supportive of this variance. Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Move to accept staffs recommendation on 10 foot setback. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: I don't know what it does. Ms. Slazyk: It is supporting the appeal with a modification. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): So this is reversing the Zoning Board. Ms. Slazyk: With a modification that it be a 10 foot front setback. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those opposed have the same right. The item is adopted on a vote of 3 to 0. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Commissioner Winton: And trust me, in that little zone, if those neighbors were opposed, they would have been here all night. PZ.8 04-00078 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, REQUIRED SIDE STREET YARD, TO ALLOW A SIDE STREET YARD SETBACK OF 10'0" (15'0" REQUIRED) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3689 LOQUAT AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A." City ofMiami Page 149 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 04-00078 Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00078 Appeal Letters.PDF 04-00078 Appellant Case Summary.PDF 04-00078 Analysis.PDF 04-00078 Zoning Map.PDF 04-00078 Aerial Map.PDF 04-00078 ZB Reso.PDF 04-00078 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00078 Plans.PDF 04-00078 Legislation A.PDF 04-00078 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00078 Legislation B.PDF 04-00078 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00078 - submission - summary.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0122 APPEAL DENIED, ZONING BOARD AFFIRMED, VARIANCE GRANTED. Chairman Teele: All right. PZ.8. We had called them for 5:30 today. PZ.8, PZ.7, all the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items are next. Who's here on PZ.8? Madam Manager. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.8 is an appeal of a variance that was granted by the Zoning Board. This is for a required side street yard setback. The Zoning ordinance requires 15 feet. The devel -- the property owner is proposing a setback of 10, which is a 5-foot reduction. This is a piece of property that is a corner lot. It is 30 feet wide, along Douglas. The Planning & Zoning Department had recommended approval because they found hardship in that -- with a 35 -- a 30-foot wide lot and a 15-foot side yard setback, it was -- it did cause undue hardship on the property. The Zoning Board agreed and they granted the variance. Chairman Teele: All right. Ms. Slazyk: This is an appeal. Chairman Teele: All right. We're going to have to take a 3-minute break. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No quorum. Ms. Slazyk: No quorum. Chairman Teele: We're going to take a 3-minute break. We lost the -- but you know that we've not been out playing golf so we apologize for the way this has flowed tonight. Thank you for your patience. Ms. Slazyk: OK. I just have one last comment for the record. Pursuant to Public Work's comments on this item, Douglas Road, in this location, is a scenic transportation corridor and any improvements in the right-of-way would require approvals by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. Other than that, we recommend a denial of the appeal, approval of the variance, and upholding the Zoning Board. Commissioner Winton: What item is this? City ofMiami Page 150 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: This is PZ.8. It's an appeal of a variance. The variance was recommended for approval by Planning & Zoning. It was granted by the Zoning Board. It does comply with the hardship criteria. It is a narrow property that has a -- it's only 30 feet wide and it has a 15-foot setback on the Douglas Road side, which, once you put the setbacks into place in this property, it does unduly restrict the property for reasonable development. As it is, the house being proposed is very narrow. It's very small, and the setback variance that's being requested is reasonable. Chairman Teele: Tell us again, how did this matter come before us? Ms. Slazyk: It was granted by the Zoning Board. They're the ones that hear variances, and there is an appeal by neighbors. Chairman Teele: So, the neighbors have brought the appeal? Ms. Slazyk: The appeal, correct. Chairman Teele: So, the neighbors go first? Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Chairman Teele: You're here with the neighbors? Glenn Terry: Yes. Chairman Teele: And who is the (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? OK, fine. Very good. Nobody went home. Mr. Terry: May I begin? Chairman Teele: Please. Ms. Slazyk: The neighbors go first. Commissioner Winton: Hey, Glenn, pull the microphone closer to you and straighten it out. Mr. Terry: It's a new day. It's great to be here. We're a group of neighbors here standing up for the aesthetics and the safety of our neighborhood, and I don't think it'll take long to explain it to you. Chairman Teele: Give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Terry: Good point. My name is Glenn Terry. I live at 3659 LoquatAvenue. I actually live right next to this development. In August of last year, the gentleman asking for this variance, Karim Bayzid and his dad, Nader Bayzid, they bought this lot, which is next to me. I live right here. It's four lots. There's one house in the middle, and they were going to develop it and build several houses. Commissioner Winton: How many houses are they -- there now? Mr. Terry: There's one house right here now. There's one house. They'll knock that down. They're going to build several houses, and I'm sure they considered different configurations, but what they decided to do was to build a house on each of these lots. Now, this first one is quite restricted. It's your basic 50-foot lot, like all the others, but the first 10 feet are owned by the City. The second 10 feet are owned by the owner, but they're dedicated to the City for public -- City ofMiami Page 151 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 solely for public purposes; leaving him with a 30-foot lot. It's 140 feet long. It is a buildable lot, and he can build something on it starting today. In fact, they started building a structure here on lot number 2 last week. It's about two feet high, but what want to point out is that Mr. Bayzid and his dad develop property. They bought these four lots together. They bought them at the same time. They bought them under names of three corporations; one corporation here, another one here, another one there. This gentleman that's here tonight asking for the variance, he is the architect for this development. When he showed his plan to us, there's four houses there. When they bought the property, they -- according to the tax records -- they all paid the same price for all the lots, yet, this one over here is much smaller. This is 60 percent smaller and it's 25 percent of the buildable area of the other lots, but it appears to us that they bought them together then, perhaps, to create sort of an illusion of hardship, saying, it's just me. I'm not related to the rest of it, but they're developing the four lots. What we are suggesting is that when he's asking for this variance, he has no hardship at all. He bought the property knowing what was there. They had four lots to work with, but still, he's trying to build a small house on that end, lot number 1. We're saying that when you build into this area with a setback, you are causing a hardship on the neighborhood in that you're building closer to Douglas Road. We had some serious issues with this area right here. As you can see in this illustration -- Reggie, could you pick that up a little bit? -- this is what it looks like looking east on Douglas Road. This is lot number 1 over here. It's very overgrown, and there's a fence over here coming into the public area. Over on the other side is St. Hugh Oaks, a development to the north, and there's a sidewalk, a Swale -- Douglas is a little wider. It looks great and feels safe, and we want -- we'd like to see that type of development over here. This is -- as you can see, what lot number 1 looks like from Douglas Road. There's about three feet to walk next to the road. It's bumpy. There's some wood chips down there right now, and we'd like it to look more like that, but the sidewalk issue is kind of on the side, but it's related because we want that area next to the road preserved, and we want the 15 foot setback next to the public area preserved. It's further down the line, but it's related, that the sidewalk that ends in front of side -- St. Hugh Oaks can and should be extended all the way down to Loquat. We have people walking in the road. It really hit me a month ago driving home from work. I saw a young man who moved into Loquat four months ago in a wheelchair. In a wheelchair -- he was going up in his wheelchair -- his name is Marlon -- to catch the bus over here at the bus stop, and the more I noticed this -- I just moved in a few months ago -- I'd see families -- it's 15 kids that live here and they come down walking their kids, going to Plymouth Church, and I'd see them walking with their kids in the road or in this area right here, which is, as you saw in the photographs, covered with vegetation. What we'd like -- and it's really not the issue exactly on the table, but it's related -- we'd like to take back this 20 feet of public space. We'd like to see a sidewalk in there, and we don't want -- we want the buffer zone preserved, the 15 feet setback preserved next to the -- side street setback preserved. There are alternatives. The developers could have replatted this and built four full-size houses. If you look in the diagram in there, they could have put three lots here, one there. They could have been unity of title, or they could have built a house here, a house here, or a house spanning lot 1 and 2. We think they had some real reasonable concern -- alternatives, as opposed to going for his variance, pushing this -- what they propose -- what looks like a 20-foot high 80-foot wall five foot closer -- five feet closer to Douglas Road. Chairman Teele: All right. Is there anybody else? How many other people will be -- Mr. Terry: I think we have four speakers, is that correct? Chairman Teele: All right. Well, let's do this. Last time. Would everybody that's here now please stand and raise your right hand if you've not been sworn and be sworn. (INAUDIBLE) Commissioner Winton: On all the remaining P & Z items. Chairman Teele: On all the remaining P & Z items. City ofMiami Page 152 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 The City Clerk administered oath, required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Thank you. Reginald F. Nicholson: I have a little speech here. It's very short. Start off good afternoon, and I wrote good evening, and now I'm going to say good morning. My name is Reginald F. Nicholson. I live at 3635 Loquat Avenue. I'm the past president of the Loquat Park Villas Condo Association, and I'm the past commodore of the Coconut Grove Sailing Club. My wife and I have lived at this address since 1994, and I have been a resident ofMiami for 57 years. Primary, my job tonight to speak you is of the developer's claim of hardship. Mr. Bayzid and his father bought this land with full knowledge that there is a 15 foot setback along lot number 1. Lot number 1 is, and in fact, a buildable lot, as is. True, the developers may not be able to build as big a house, but they knew the situation when they made the purchase. They have other ways of taking care of the situation, of rearranging houses, like Terry said, et cetera, and, in fact, if the son wants to sell the land back to his father and give him more room for three houses, that would be fine with me. Second point I'd like to make is that the land in question needs to remain in the public trust. The variance that's being given is going to decline people's ability to -- authority -- let me read what wrote. The land in question needs to remain in public trust for safety and general welfare of the residents on Loquat and nearby streets. Instead of the existing fence, which is sitting illegally on City land, there should be an open area that is set back to the proper City requirements. Every time I try to cross Douglas, or make a left turn onto Douglas, the already existing limited view of oncoming traffic is problematic to any safe maneuvers. You can see from the other side -- if you saw that -- just three feet there and lots of hedges and lots of stuff so every time you try to get across that intersection, it just creates -- I've almost gotten killed two or three times. One night, my beautiful '94 Buick stalled and it was almost -- I almost met Saint Peter. I'd like to prevent any problem coming up like that again. We have the opportunity now to get rid of that problem and take care of it, and I'd like to do it now while we still can. The third point is really personal, as a citizen of the community. We had a petition that had 80 names on it asking that this variance not be granted from the neighborhood. Eighty names, and we were told at the Zoning Commission meeting that our petition and everything was irrelevant, and would like to say that I'm here tonight to let you know that and my neighbors don't feel irrelevant. We feel that what we have in our neighborhood, we'd like to keep. As far as the safety, we would like to improve. As far as the ability to maneuver our cars in and off of Loquat, et cetera, and Commissioners, I cannot thank you enough for being here this late at night and working as hard as you do. Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney, comment on the relevancy of a petition in this context. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): For purposes of rendering a decision, petitions do not factor into the decision -making process, so to that extent, they are irrelevant. They are introduced into the record, but they do not -- they're not a basis for you to make a decision, as you've pointed out earlier. It's not a plebiscite, so it does not matter how many people are for or how many are against. Chairman Teele: Just to clarify the record. Go right ahead. But every person is important. Mr. Nicholson: Well, I'm allowed a rebuttal, I think. Chairman Teele: You're not allowed to rebut a legal opinion. Mr. Nicholson: No? I didn't know that. That's why I thought we had juries, and courts, and attorneys for, and rights. Commissioner Winton: What is the argument? City ofMiami Page 153 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: What's the argument? Mr. Nicholson: OK. Chairman Teele: What would you like to rebut? Mr. Nicholson: Nevermind. I can understand. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Commissioner Winton: Good idea. Kathleen Kelly: Members of the Commission, my name is Kathleen Kelly, and I am a resident at St. Hugh Oaks community for the last four years. I live at 3668 Franklin Avenue. For the last four years, almost everyday, I walk from our community to LoquatAvenue. Right now, I'm taking my son, who's in a stroller. He's two -and -a -half. I'm asking you to keep the setback at 15 feet so the block can be pedestrian friendly. There is a lot of pedesfrian traffic that goes from St. Hugh Oaks community to LoquatAvenue. That goes beyond a small community of 23 houses. We have 14 children in our community whose parents are runners, walkers, and bikers. We're asking to preserve the safety of this area for us and other pedestrians. We want the Bayzid's house to be setback 15 feet from this area, as the law now requires. If you let him build it five feet closer, it'll be a hardship on the rest of our community. Our houses at St. Hugh are set back 15 feet, and his should be, too. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much for being brief. Madam Manager, we're going to ask -- is the Public Works Director still here tonight? Alicia Cuervo Schreiber (Chief of Neighborhood Services): Is she still here? No, she's not. Chairman Teele: Is her boss here? Unidentified Speaker: I'm here. Commissioner Winton: She's there. Chairman Teele: No. We're just going to ask that the -- that your office comment on how we got in this position, and what are the right-of-way issues here, as it relates to this commentary that we're hearing a lot on? Not now, but just, please, monitor this very closely, butt really do think that if we're here on these items and we know what the issues are, then the appropriate staff should be, but -- Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: Commissioner, I was briefed on the items and it was that it was a scenic transportation corridor, and they recommended that any improvements in the right-of-way require approval by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. That was the recommendation from the Public Works Department. Commissioner Winton: Well, you could still get that. Chairman Teele: All right. Let's don't get sidetracked. We just want to make sure staff is paying attention to this component, in case Commissioner Winton raises a question. Yes, sir. Thank you for being here. Joshua Billig: Thank you, Commissioners. My name's Joshua Billig. I live at 3615 Plaza Street, about a block down from the proposed development. Well, I'm speaking to support this repeal because -- for various reasons. For one, I support putting in a sidewalk and improving the easements in the City -owned areas for all the same reasons as everybody else has spoken City ofMiami Page 154 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 about, and we do need that. We have a bus bench that we can't even get to from our street, and conversely, people in St. Hugh Oaks got to get down to the mailbox, which is down on our corner there, and so -- but besides this, I think that there's an issue of-- when you come down south on Douglas Road, you have a big, wide corridor. You pass the cemetery, and at St. Hugh Oaks, you have improved easements and sidewalks, and then you enter into the South Grove area, and as you enter the South Grove, you have a nice tree shaded area, residential, and I think to allow the houses to begin to encroach more tightly upon the sfreet would be a mistake. The -- when the woman was speaking about the -- having to go through the historic environmental corridor approval and everything, it seems to me that it's not just the easement on the outside, but also this buffer zone of 15 feet. By bringing these houses closer into the street, you're creating a situation that -- well, it's hard to explain. You do have issues of -- you have noise reflection coming off buildings. You have reduced sunlight into the corridor of the street itself, and reduced free canopy space, and it just brings like a canyon type corridor effect into a wide open type of neighborhood, so we already have problems now with too much traffic and not improvements, like sidewalks, and I think it would be a mistake to allow a building to encroach - - or to sit that close to the sfreet, and that's basically all I want to say. Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Billig: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Is there anyone else that's going to say something different now? We're becoming very repetitive. Craig Wall: I'm going to say much of the same lines, but I'm a homeowner in St. Hugh Oaks. My name is Craig Wall. I reside at 3613 South Douglas Road, and I've been in Miami -- Miami-Dade County resident since 1969, and -- Commissioner Winton: You said you are going to say the same things everyone else has said? Mr. Wall: I am going to say some of the same, butt just want to make sure that get -- you know -- Commissioner Winton: Well, we'd rather hear something new. Mr. Wall: Well, everybody's talked about, you know, walking through this little section right here. I can tell you that my children -- I have a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old -- and my wife takes the kids -- if she doesn't drive them, a lot of times she walks -- to Plymouth Congressional, to their daycare for three or four hours everyday, and this is definitely a hardship, and I would like to see -- I would like to see it more in this manner, which is the way -- if you turn it around here - - which is the way it's set up. Yeah. Chairman Teele: Hold it. Hold it. Mr. Wall: I mean, I would believe that the founders had designed this so that at one time, you know, we could utilize this space, and now is the time that we could, and I've also, you know, signed a proposal -- and I guess it went to Mr. Commissioner Winton's office -- with 35 homeowners, proposing that we extend this sidewalk all the way through to here, which would make it a lot more pedestrian friendly. Obviously, you can see that, but that picture, I mean, is worth a thousand words. If the historical society could just walk that any given day, they would definitely recognize the need for this. Thank you for hearing me. Chairman Teele: All right. Yes. Is there anyone else from the appellants? All right. Thank you very much. We're going to hear from the property owner. City ofMiami Page 155 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at Greenberg Traurig, 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Karim Bayzid. First of all, for the record, I'd like to state that there's only one appellant in this particular case, and that's Mr. Glenn Terry. His is the only letter of appeal that was filed in a timely manner within the timeframe that's allowed. There was a letter filed subsequently, which had some other property owners' names on it, but for the record, I think it's important to get that straight, that there's only one appellant in this particular case. Now, I'd like to move -- Teresita Fernandez: May I? Teresita Fernandez, for the Hearing Boards. Adrienne is correct. The only appellant is Mr. Glenn Trice. Unidentified Speaker: Terry. Mr. Fernandez: I mean -- did I say it wrong? Mr. Terry: I don't know if it's important, butt was told that -- before I filed the letter, that could file a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Chairman Teele: You're going to have to speak into the mike, sir. Mr. Terry: I was told by the people at the Hearing Boards, I could file a revised version of my letter signed by nine people, and I filed it about a week later. Chairman Teele: Well, we've heard from everybody. They can argue about this all night. We've already heard it, so -- Ms. Pardo: I'm not objecting to the testimony. I'm just saying, for the record, though, as far as there being an appellant, there's only one in this particular matter. Chairman Teele: Right. Ms. Pardo: I just wanted to get that straight. Second of all, I think it's important to note that the variance that was filed by Mr. Bayzid was only for lot 1. He only owns lot 1. His father purchased lots two, three and four. Those are not before you today. He filed a variance application on lot 1. You can see lot 1 before you. It has a width of 50 feet. Many years ago, there was a requirement to dedicate ten feet to the City. That was done. There was another provision on the City's platting maps that provided for another 10-foot dedication, so that's 20 feet already from Douglas Road. Now, the base building line starts at that dedication, so your base building line, instead of starting -- and I think -- Is this on? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Is this on? What's important to note is all the neighbors keep saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to have this set -- this variance on his setback because it's going to allow him to build closer to Douglas Avenue, but that's totally incorrect. Number one, in the R-1 district, you have to be set back 15 feet, so normally, you could be set back from here 15 feet, and you could start to build your house right about here. He's required to dedicate 20 feet already, and then from that 20 feet, he's supposed to go in 15 feet, so what he's asked -- and you can see it showing this area here -- what he's asked, instead of being able to build only a house that's 10 feet wide in width, that he should be able to build a house 15 wide in width, so this house that he's proposing -- and it's a very charming, little house. You can see it. I think it's important to take a look at it. It's not a big structure. It's not going to take away any sunlight or create canyon effects, like one of the neighbors had suggested. This house is actually being set back 30 feet, not 15, like all of the other -- you know, which is your normal side yard setback, but it's set back 30 feet ftom Douglas Road. You clearly have a hardship in this case, and I don't think it was addressed by any of the neighbors. They keep talking about the sidewalk. The sidewalk is totally irrelevant, and I didn't want to interrupt them as they were going through that, because I know you'd say let them go on, and Ms. Pardo, just wait for your own argument, so City ofMiami Page 156 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 I've waited. The sidewalk has nothing to do with this case. I don't know why all the neighbors think that if this variance is granted, a sidewalk may not be able to be installed at a future date. It's possible. There's not one there now, but the sidewalk and the variance have nothing to do with one another. A variance was shown in this case. It's very rare that staff will actually support a side yard variance, especially for single-family houses. Chairman Teele: A side -- a what variance? Ms. Pardo: A side yard variance, but in this case, you clearly had a hardship. You had the 50 foot yard -- 50-foot wide property yard that, because of these dedications, was only allowing for a house to be built 10 feet in width, and this allows for a house to be built 15 feet in width. All the landscaping that's along Douglas, that's remaining, and in the write-up there was also some comments that if you granted this side yard setback variance, that you weren't going to be able to have as much open space, and I wanted to show you that these are all the existing frees that are there now, and these are two large ones, and this is the proposed house. You can see that all the frees are remaining, and they've also added some trees, so there's no detriment -- Commissioner Winton: Where's Douglas in that diagram? Ms. Pardo: So there's no hardship whatsoever. In this case, as I stated, you have the support of the -- your Planning staff and we went to the Zoning Board, where we requested the approval of the variance, and the Zoning Board granted the variance at that time, as well. It's the neighbors who are appealing it. We also have some neighbors who are here in support of this application. I know everybody has waited a long time. It's now 12:30, so I'd like to call them up to speak to you, particularly because my client had been working with the neighborhood, and they'll get into that in their discussion, how he had revised his plans and been working with the neighborhood in order to seek approval of this variance. Chairman Teele: Adrienne, before you bring any -- Ms. Pardo: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- people up, Counsel, just clarify, in very clear and simple language, what the appellants have argued tonight that the second setback of 10 feet would not be granted, and that the -- only the first would be granted, and the sidewalk would not be built. Is that a correct statement or are those incorrect statements? Ms. Pardo: I think they're incorrect statements as to why they keep saying the sidewalk can't be built. You had the 10 foot -- There's room for a sidewalk, if a sidewalk was, you know, so desired. Chairman Teele: Well, I don't -- but, Adrienne, look. The first setback of 10 feet has already been done, right? Ms. Pardo: Yes. Chairman Teele: The second setback of 10 feet has also been done, yes or no? Ms. Pardo: No. A waiver of dedication was granted on the second 10 feet. You can have a sidewalk on the first 10 feet. Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm confused. Chairman Teele: See, you guys are -- City ofMiami Page 157 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Pardo: But I'll tell you why the base building line -- Chairman Teele: Adrienne. Ms. Pardo: -- that's where -- Chairman Teele: Adrienne, Adrienne, look. Ms. Pardo: Yes. Chairman Teele: Just look at their little yellow thing there. Ms. Pardo: OK. Chairman Teele: OK? Look at their sidewalk that they've got up there coming down to -- the other one. The one up top. No. The other one. Commissioner Winton: The St. Hugh Oaks Chairman Teele: The St. Hugh Oaks. Now, that alignment is the second 10 feet there. Ms. Pardo: Yes. Chairman Teele: Now, is that alignment going to be -- Ms. Pardo: Our setback -- our variance is from this line here in. Our base building line hasn't changed. However, the Public Works Department had granted a waiver of this dedication. They can -- Chairman Teele: OK. Ms. Pardo: -- at a future date, if they want to, but our variance, which is very important -- This is the key here. Our base building line stays the same whether that land is dedicated -- is required to be dedicated or whether the waiver is granted, so our request for a variance is from this line here, and it's 15 -- instead of being 15 feet in, it's 10 feet in. Chairman Teele: Adrienne, you're being very, very careful now. It's 12:30, and you're taking my issue and confusing it. I want to focus on one simple issue, because I think we need to be very clear in what we're saying here. The second 10-foot setback, a waiver has been granted by the City? Ms. Pardo: A waiver of dedication has been granted by the Public Works Department, yes. Ms. Slazyk: But the base building line doesn't change. Chairman Teele: We're not talking about the base -- Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Teele: That has not been any of the discussion tonight. The discussion -- Ms. Pardo: But that's what it's all about. Chairman Teele: The discussion -- City ofMiami Page 158 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Why have we done that then? Chairman Teele: Huh? Commissioner Winton: Why have we done that? Why have we -- Ms. Slazyk: The Public Works Department grants waivers of dedication in cases where other properties on the same street already encroach in that dedication that's required, but you can't build in it. Can't build in it. That means if someday in the future they acquire all of the other properties in line, then they will widen the street and they'll require the dedication, so, for purposes of this setback variance, it's very important because the 15 foot setback required is not from the line of waiver of dedication. It's as if it were dedicated. Ms. Pardo: Exactly. Ms. Slazyk: So, imagine if a 50-foot wide lot, 20 feet has been taken by the City, 10 in actual dedication and 10 in a future dedication, so these people have to start counting their setback 20 feet away, that leaves them with 30 feet of property, of which 15 setback on one side, five on the other, and they're stuck with a 10 foot wide house. This is the classic hardship case that is -- you know, that is an unreasonable limitation that is not by their doing. They didn't do anything to cause that situation. It's the City coming in and saying we need you to dedicate. We need you to dedicate again, and it isn't of their doing. It's the circumstance -- Commissioner Winton: Where would we put -- If you put sidewalks in, where would it go? Ms. Slazyk: It would go in that second 10 foot -- Ms. Pardo: It could go here, and our setback is from this line in. It's not from over here. It's from the same place whether the waiver is there or not. Ms. Slazyk: So, a provision of a sidewalk is not prohibited. Commissioner Winton: In our Code, 15 feet, and they're asking for 10 instead of 15? Is that what I'm hearing? Ms. Slazyk: They want five feet to be able to build five more into the 15, so they're going to leave 10 feet. They're asking for five more so they could do a 15 foot wide house, instead of a 10 foot wide house. Ms. Pardo: But we're already -- Chairman Teele: See, the issue here is this. By them not making the dedication, then they're counting the land that is -- You're not counting the second 10? Ms. Pardo: No. That's what I'm frying to tell you. My base -- Ms. Slazyk: No. Ms. Pardo: -- building line is in the same place. I'm not counting it. Ms. Slazyk: As if the dedication were made. Yeah. Ms. Pardo: I'm still -- my base building line is being counted from the same place. Let's assume that that 10 feet is -- the waiver wasn't granted. My base building line is still right here, and from this line, I've got to go 15 feet in. City ofMiami Page 159 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: From everything I've heard -- you know what, if you all would proffer to give or to revoke, or whatever it is, what Public Works has already done and go just for the waiver, you know, that's a fair compromise. In other words -- Hs. Slazyk: They still need the variance. Chairman Teele: Huh? Hs. Slazyk: They still need the variance. Chairman Teele: I understand. I understand, but at least the issue that everybody has raised here tonight, which is the safety issue, the -- Hs. Pardo: It's a non -issue, though. It's just been like it has nothing to do with the variance. It's like they've just -- they needed an issue to base it on, and that's what they're selling the neighborhood on. They can't, you know -- Hs. Slazyk: If the City wanted to build the sidewalk, they would require the dedication and build the sidewalk. Chairman Teele: But I thought we grant -- Commissioner Winton: Why wouldn't we require the developer to build the sidewalk, by the way? Hs. Slazyk: I don't know if we do on single-family resident -- I don't know that. That's -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I've seen it. Hs. Slazyk: Yeah. Oh, then I don't know that answer. I don't. Chairman Teele: But that would be a hardship. Commissioner Winton: What? Them building a sidewalk? Chairman Teele: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Oh, we require single-family home developers to build sidewalks all the time. Hs. Slazyk: Yeah, but the sidewalk is not part of the variance issue, and I -- Commissioner Winton: I know. Hs. Slazyk: -- think that's what Adrienne is trying -- it's not -- it's not one of the criteria for hardship. The criteria for hardship is, you know, are they -- you know, can they -- are they unreasonably limited due to their situation? Did they cause it? You know, what is the minimum amount of variance needed for reasonable use of the property, and a 15-foot wide house is -- well, it's narrow. It's reasonable. Chairman Teele: All right. Hs. Pardo: Could I have the other neigh -- City ofMiami Page 160 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: We're going to let your people that need to say something -- that have something to offer on this to please come forward at this time. Then we're going to grant the other side three minutes to say anything you all would like to say in rebuttal, since you're the appellant, and then we're going to close it, and Commissioner Winton's going to do -- make a motion and guide us in this process. All right. Not everybody at once, but at least somebody. How many people will be speaking, please? Three. All right. Welcome. Robert Ferreira: Welcome. My name is Robert Ferreira. I live at 3663 Avocado. I also own -- which goes from Avocado to Loquat. I also own the two houses to my east and the two houses to the west, so I own five houses. They're involved in this. I want to say that all of the neighbors here today are all here because we believe that in an ideal world, we would have no changes on Loquat. You know, we're all interested in having the beautiful street that we have to remain exactly as it is, but we also have a problem with the fact that some of us view -- and I -- we appreciate all the hard work that Glenn and his people have done. Glenn bought the house from me that he lives with -- lives in, next door to this development. I was going to purchase this property because I was -- me and Andy Parish, because we thought we could put four houses on this and not disturb any of the land -- all the beautiful frees. To us -- to Andy and I, this was all about the site, all about the trees, all about keeping this street looking the way it now looks. When this developer came in and beat me and outbid me for this property, I went to see him and asked him if he would consider our input. He has had at least three meetings of all the neighbors who would attend at my house to go over the plans. He has made three substantial changes to the plans. He allowed me to come on his property and supervise the movement of frees so that I was assured that all the trees were moved, so what this is all about, to me, is whether or not we can find a way to try to influence and work with developers. They're not always the enemy. I would like -- and I believe, with all of the other neighbors, would like to have no development, but we're going to have development, so we're frying to find a way -- some of us here -- to work with a man who has come forward and said, I am willing for you to look at our plans. We will make changes. We will do whatever, and this is the kind of development that we believe we should encourage in the Grove, and although I agree totally that there are a whole lot of issues that need to be dealt with that have all been brought up here today by my neighbors, I think that in this case that we need to bend a little so that we can all benefit. Chairman Teele: He made three changes to lot 1, or to lots 1, two, three and four? You said the developer made three changes. Mr. Ferreira: Yes. He made every single change that we asked him, and he -- Chairman Teele: On lot 1 ? Mr. Ferreira: On lot 1. We were going to build a 10 foot house, Andy and I, because that's what's allowed. We could have -- without any variance, we could have build a 10 foot house. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Ferreira: Everybody in the neighborhood said that's too skinny a house. Chairman Teele: OK. Thank you. Mr. Ferreira: So we decided we would ask him to build a -- do a 15, and that's what he wanted to do. That's why he's looking for a variance. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Ferreira: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 161 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: All right. Adrienne, we're going to need the testimony to be on the point of the variance, please. Just -- Who else is going to be coming? On the point of the variance, please. Yes. Come right on, ma'am. Welcome and thank you for being so patient. Who's the third person? Just, please -- Nina West: My name is Nina West. I live at 3690 Avocado Avenue. I'm one block behind this development. The houses on Douglas Road -- on Avocado, come out about 15 feet beyond where his fence is, so they're built right into the road, and they're old, old houses. Then, it cuts back in on the next two properties, which would be the property on the north side ofAvocado and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of Loquat, and then all the way down Douglas, all the way to Main Highway, they are out at -- beyond where the sidewalk is there, so the only two pieces that come in at all are the Avocado, Loquat, and Loquat to St. Hugh's pieces, so there's no reason in my mind why we should be looking at slither housing when we could look at a 15-foot house. It's beautifully designed. All the trees are saved. Every design change we asked for, they accommodated. They moved huge trees to save every tree on that property, and they planted more trees and they buried the setback so it doesn't look like a block of houses. See, this, to me, is a hugely responsive, responsible, caring developer, and if they could all be like this, I think we'd all be a lot happier. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Andre Aisner: My name is Andre Aisner. I live at 3650 Avocado Avenue. I'm an architect, and I'm in favor of this variance because a couple of reasons. As a small lot, if the developer/builder is only allowed to do a 10 feet wide home, it will be like a big huge wall on 37th Avenue, with very little aesthetics. Whatever is the setback that the owner is allowed to have, the fence on his property is going to be on the same 30 feet property line, leaving the same 20 feet for sidewalk, no sidewalk, people to walk two years old, or whatever is decided to go by there. That's not going to change. What's going to change is the quality of the architectural product that is built and offered there, and seeing the project, I think that it goes well with the rest of the spirit of the Grove, and I'm totally in favor of that kind of development. I even prefer that kind of development than a huge, big monster big house that could have been build in this lot, and would have destroyed the character -- keep on destroying the character of what Coconut Grove is. It's better to have smaller houses, less expensive for more people that are part of the community. Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Thank you all for being so patient. All right. Adrienne, does that close you all out? All right. You all will -- sir, you'll have -- we're going to limit it to you, and you have -- take the time you need for rebuttal. Mr. Terry: We -- I don't believe whoever gave you the impression they were going to keep us from developing this public area to being a safety zone with a sidewalk, but the sidewalk that exists, lines up right to the edge of this 20-foot area, and we're asking that that be done some day, but we didn't want his house to be closer. We wanted his house to be set back 15 feet from that area, have that buffer zone, and he talked about hardship, but, yet, this 30-foot wide house, with that narrow area to build, that's exactly what he bought. That's not a hardship. You get what you pay for, and he knew what he was getting. He works with his dad. You go by there and there's one development. There's one sign out advertising the financing, for instance. They bought the property -- they bought the four properties on the same day. It has the same mailing address, and it's very clear to us that it's one development, and they could have built the three -- they could build three houses here without using the variance, without building this narrow house. I mean, 10, 15 feet, they're both, we think, aesthetically displeasing, and they're just trying to shoehorn in one more house to our street. It's a high -density street. Lots of traffic. Lots of accidents right here. We think it's wrong. We're asking you to deny their request for variance. City ofMiami Page 162 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. The public hearing's closed. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I guess it's the reason that we're required to listen to everybody's comments, because when I read this item, my mind was pretty clear -- and when I looked at this book, and that was that here comes another McMansion, as they call them in the Grove, and I don't see any reason why we would grant this variance, but, Glenn, I'm going to tell you and the group that's here, you have to be very careful what you wish for. We can deny this variance. No question about it. He can then go build three crappy McMansions on the three lots. You'll have your setback from Douglas, but you're going to have the same kind of stuff that we're seeing popping up all over the Grove that all of us hate, and they will have a right to do that without any appeal of anybody anywhere. Done. So my question to staff is this: They've shown us a picture of a quaint little house right here that will be on Douglas. I haven't seen the pictures of the other three houses. Too bad. I want to know, if we grant this variance -- and I also don't believe that it's necessarily a hardship variance either. I think could go either way, so right now I'm leaning in favor of accepting the fact that we're going to call this a hardship variance, but I'm leaning that way only because what see as product being built is the kind of thing that we do want to see. Chairman Teele: Then you're not saying grant the appeal then? Commissioner Winton: I'm saying grant the appeal -- no, no, deny the appeal. Mr. Maxwell: Deny the appeal. Chairman Teele: Yeah, OK. Commissioner Winton: Deny the appeal, only though -- Ms. Slazyk: If they build this house. Commissioner Winton: -- if we're getting what we're being promised here. Ms. Slazyk: Absolutely. The variance was approved by the Zoning Board per plans on file, which means that's all they can build. If they don't build that, they don't get their variance. Commissioner Winton: Now, have we seen what they're building on the other three lots? Ms. Slazyk: The other three were not a subject of this application. I have not seen them. Commissioner Winton: Well, maybe they want to proffer something here. Chairman Teele: Gentlemen, please, this is a Commission meeting. You just -- if you want to say something, feel free to come forward and we'll -- and be recognized, if the Commissioner wants to hear you. Ms. Pardo: He has a rendering. He'll show them to you. The neighbors had seen these other houses -- Commissioner Winton: And their qualities. Ms. Pardo: -- that his father was (INAUDIBLE) -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Now, and one last point here. Can we also -- because the safety issue is the issue that really heard over and over and over again. That was the principle issue City ofMiami Page 163 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 that heard that is of real concern. In fact, I've got a formal resolution from the homeowners' association requesting us to go deal with this lack of sidewalks, which we're going to put into the system as soon -- it may already be in the system from my office, butl think we need to get this sidewalk in that is part of this waiver of-- what was it? Ms. Slazyk: Waiver of dedication. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. We need to get that sidewalk in. Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: Commissioner, the building permit may indeed require that, once they pull the building permit, as part of the restoration of-- I mean, the construction of the home. Commissioner Winton: Well, maybe we would like to have that. Well, too bad, because I will tell you. I'm looking at these aerials and it is not reasonable, and I'm looking at this in a whole series of areas in the Grove where people have decided, around their property, that they're going to string strings up around it, and forces the rest of the public to walk in the sfreet. I'm not going to accept that anymore. I think that's dangerous and I think it's elitist, and I think it's terrible. (Applause) Commissioner Winton: So, the fact that some neighbors don't want sidewalks, and think that they can then rope off the entire public right-of-way is not going to be acceptable to me anymore. I want to do something to get the sidewalk in so that the kids on strollers or the little old ladies, or the person in the wheelchair, or me, for that damn matter, doesn't have to walk in the street when I want to go through there, so how do we make that happen? Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: I believe it's Ordinance 456. Ms. Slazyk: I do know that any side -- even a sidewalk here would have to go to the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) Board for review and approval. Commissioner Winton: It's OK. I don't mind that. Ms. Slazyk: The thing is that -- and you heard one of the other -- what was saying earlier. The reason waivers of dedication are granted is because elsewhere on that block there are houses that exist that are already beyond that base building line, so that's when Public Works says, we're not going to take a dedication over here because the chances are very unlikely that we're ever going to get the dedication up and down the whole sfreet to do the sidewalk, but the City could do a sidewalk just on this block. It would just not continue on other blocks. Commissioner Winton: And also, by the way -- Slazyk: You know what mean? Commissioner Winton: -- the sidewalk doesn't have to be straight. Why can't the sidewalk curve in those areas where it doesn't fit right? Ms. Slazyk: Well, it would have to go onto the street, then, and the street -- you can't narrow the -- Commissioner Winton: No, no. It's 20 feet. You've got a 10 foot sidewalk. Ms. Slazyk: On this block. Commissioner Winton: No, no, but it's somewhere else. Maybe it's 10 feet. City ofMiami Page 164 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. That would have to be looked at. That's what I'm saying, but a lot of houses -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, I don't want to get -- Ms. Slazyk: -- up and down this corridor already extend into what would be the sidewalk. Commissioner Winton: We can start the process -- Ms. Slazyk: Somewhere. Absolutely. Commissioner Winton: -- by making sure there's a sidewalk here, and then we can deal with the rest of this baloney later, and I want to make sure that, as part of our motion here, that in some fashion or another, we're going to require a sidewalk in that right-of-way. Ms. Slazyk: Well, that wouldn't be a set -- Commissioner Winton: Or that -- Ms. Slazyk: -- not related to the variance. A separate motion directing that they look at that. Commissioner Winton: Then y'all better -- Mr. Maxwell: I suggest that -- Commissioner Winton: Y'all better -- y'all might want to consider proffering that or maybe the -- maybe my motion changes. I'm sorry? Come to the microphone, please, and I want to go -- Ms. Pardo: Are you asking him to build the sidewalk? Is that what you want me to ask him? Commissioner Winton: Well, that may already be a requirement, so I don't know. They're going to check on that. Ms. Pardo: OK, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think the requirement is to replace sidewalk -- Commissioner Winton: If it is, then we have to anyhow, but I want to make sure -- Mr. Maxwell: Is the section -- Commissioner Winton: -- is that the dedication there that there is a process in place that moves somebody forward with getting that sidewalk built. If y'all are already required to, you can be required to -- Mr. Maxwell: There's a provision -- Commissioner Winton: -- but what I don't want is to stay on the books this concept that we're waiving the right to put that sidewalk in. We need to get a sidewalk going. Ms. Pardo: There can still -- Mr. Maxwell: There's a section of the City Code, 54-56, which requires that sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pavements, and other modification to existing drainage systems be constructed anytime City ofMiami Page 165 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 reconstruction or construction in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars or more in value occurs. I would assume this is more than twenty-five thousand dollars. Commissioner Winton: So, the Code probably already deals with it, and so I don't have to do anything there; is that correct? Ms. Slazyk: So it's required. Mr. Maxwell: It's required. Now, how far it would go or where, you know, that sidewalk will be located, I couldn't tell you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Property has a property line. Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: It's part of the building permit process -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: -- but I think that they will be checking the limits on either side. We have to read the rest of that Code. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: You could add it as a condition. I mean, it's -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: That doesn't solve your problem. Commissioner Winton: Fine. So let's make that motion. The motion is to -- Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, but it's not -- Commissioner Winton: -- to -- Ms. Slazyk: Deny the appeal. Commissioner Winton: -- deny the appeal -- Ms. Slazyk: Uphold the Zoning Board and -- with conditions, and then you'll -- right. Commissioner Winton: -- with conditions, correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Discussion. All those in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. Commissioner Winton, I would like to proffer to you that I think the decision that is being rendered is fair. I don't -- I do think that the staff should keep an open mind as to who's paying for this sidewalk, but it just -- I cannot understand why -- and then to hear Lourdes start saying, well, it depends when we have a map before us, and we've heard testimony in the record that there's a bus stop there and the next block up. It just seems to me that it's sort of common sense. It's a public safety issue. We don't want to have the public run over by cars. Douglas Road is a very busy, narrow road, and I mean, I could see a dialogue if City ofMiami Page 166 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 this was some interior street, you know. This is Douglas Road, and I don't -- I think our goal, our right should be the protection of the public, and so, I just want to commend Commissioner Winton for making it so clear because I just think there's somebody around here that doesn't get it yet, that we've got to protect the public. Douglas Road, that's a dangerous situation, per se, so thank you, Commissioner Winton, and I know that everybody's not happy, butl think it's a very Solomonic decision that has been rendered tonight. Hs. Pardo: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you all. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Good night. (Applause) Chairman Teele: First time I've ever seen anybody get their appeal denied and they're happy. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And happy. Hey, it's a first for me, I'll tell you that much. Unidentified Speaker: We love our city. Commissioner Winton: Well, we heard your message, I think. Chairman Teele: We heard you. PZ.9 04-00077 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING OR DENYING THE APPEAL, REVERSING OR AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING OR DENYING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 9, SECTION 936.1-7, TO ALLOW A DAYCARE OF 7500 SQUARE FEET OR MORE GROSS LOT, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 51 CHILDREN IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3675 NW 11TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A," PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. City ofMiami Page 167 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 04-00077 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00077 Appeal Letter.PDF 04-00077 Analysis.PDF 04-00077 Zoning Map.PDF 04-00077 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00077 ZB Reso.PDF 04-00077 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00077 Plans.PDF 04-00077 Legislation A.PDF 04-00077 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00077 Legislation B.PDF 04-00077 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00077 - submission - floor plan.pdf 04-00077 submittal.pdf 04-00077 submittal letter.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Zoning Board Decision of a Special Exception to Allow a Daycare LOCATION: Approximately 3675 NW 11th Street APPLICANT(S): Yaima Crespo, Owner APPELLANT(S): Yaima Crespo, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the special exception and denial of the appeal. ZONING BOARD: Denied the special exception on December 15, 2003 by a vote of 6-3. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow a daycare with a maximum of 51 children. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, to CONTINUE item PZ.9 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 25, 2004; further stipulating that said item be scheduled as PZ.1. Chairman Teele: All right. Next item. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.9. Chairman Teele: We apologize to all of you people that are coming up and all that are waiting. We're still here, too, especially -- Ms. Slazyk: PZ.9 is an appeal of a special exception that was denied by the Zoning Board. The Planning & Zoning Department also recommended denial of the special exception. This is to allow a daycare center, with maximum of 51 children in an R-1 residential zoning district. The Planning & Zoning Department recommended denial in that it is found that the proposed project is located at the corner of Northwest 11 th and 37th Avenue, Douglas Road, a major traffic artery. The parking stalls along 37th Avenue were not appropriate and did not meet the minimum requirements for ingress and egress, and for the children to be dropped off. The City ofMiami Page 168 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 project -- after the Zoning Board denial and the Planning & Zoning recommendation of denial, the applicant came back to the City to work on some plans that would now meet all of what our objections were. Since that time, we have worked out a plan with the applicant that we now believe complies with the criteria and addresses our concerns. If the City Commission were to accept the modified plan, the Planning & Zoning Department would have no further objections to the proposed daycare center. Chairman Teele: Do you -- Ms. Slazyk: So if you do that, you could accept it with the modified plans on file. Ivan Cajina: Good evening, members of the board. My name is Ivan Cajina. I reside at 371 West Park Drive in Miami. I'm here presenting (UNINTELLIGIBLE), who is the owner of the property. As she said, we were here before on the 15th of -- Chairman Teele: Do you accept the Director's recommendation? Mr. Cajina: What's that again? Chairman Teele: Do you accept her recommendation? Mr. Cajina: Yes. Actually, we did the changes. Chairman Teele: OK. That's very good. Commissioner Winton: You don't have to show us. Chairman Teele: That's very good. Let's just stop right there. Is there anybody here in opposition to this -- Commissioner Winton: Modified plan. Chairman Teele: -- modified plan? Are you here in opposition to the modified -- Mr. Cajina: No, he's with me. Chairman Teele: Is anyone here in opposition to the modified plan? If not, thank you very much. You did a great presentation. Mr. Cajina: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: All right. Public hearing's closed. Mr. Cajina: Great. Chairman Teele: Who's the district Commissioner? Commissioner Winton: I think it's -- I'm not? Oh, you are? Oh. Commissioner Gonzalez: I am, Mr. Chairman, and I'm very, very familiar with this site. I drive by here every -- They're leaving. Chairman Teele: Hey, sir. Nothing's happened yet. Don't leave. Just have a seat. Mr. Cajina: OK Thank you. City ofMiami Page 169 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm very familiar with this site here because I drive by this place three and four times a day, maybe sometimes more than that. As a matter of fact, going home now, I will drive by this intersection. This location is a very dangerous location to have that type of business, a daycare. First of all, they have no access to the property to drop off the kids. The property is an old house with -- I believe, there used to be an illegal unit in the back of it. With the improvement of 37th Avenue, the rebuilding of 14th Street, the proposed development of Grapeland Park, which is about a block away or less than that, with the remodeling of the entrance to the expressway, you know, these are all circumstances that really affect this site to be developed as child care. Though I'm in opposition of this appeal. Chairman Teele: Huh? Wait a minute. OK. Commissioner Gonzalez: In addition to that, I don't see -- Chairman Teele: All right. Well, OK I've got to preserve the applicant's rights now, so now, sir, you really do need to put on your best case, and if you would like to defer this item, in light of the application and continue to work with the staff that might be a good course of action, given the time of night, if the district Commissioner would allow it, because what you have here right now is, you've got to put on a full case, because the Commissioner who hears this case is basically saying he's got some concerns over and above what the staff has recommended. Mr. Cajina: I understand and I understand his point very well. That's why we made all the changes necessary to secure the safety of the drop-off of the children. Chairman Teele: But forget that now. Now, you've got to put your whole case on as if there's no recommendation before us. You've got to present your best case. Mr. Cajina: In that case, what would be the best -- next step to do it? Just defer the case? Chairman Teele: If Commissioner Gonzalez would allow us to do that, which we would all urge him to do in essence of time right now, and to preserve everybody's right. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there will be anything actually that will change my mind, in reference to this application. Another ingredient is that property doesn't even have a space to park one single car. I mean, you know -- and you're talking a site that is going to have 50 some kids that are going to be dropped there in the morning and picked up in the afternoon, and we're talking about 50 kids. We don't know what it's going to be after this has been approved. Commissioner Winton: I think we're going to hear it all. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, do you have parking? Mr. Cajina: We have come up with the amount of parking space that is required by the law. Chairman Teele: How many parking spaces? Mr. Cajina: As you can see on the copy that we just gave you, you have seven -- total of seven parking spaces. We not only -- we also decreased the amount of children from 51 to 41. We compromised on that issue to be able to meet the criteria. Chairman Teele: I'm forced to make a Chair's decision. Everybody who is going to have a controversy and a full debate to protect the fairness of this proceeding at 1 o'clock at night -- City ofMiami Page 170 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Cajina: I understand. Chairman Teele: -- we're going to ask that these items be rolled over to the next regular agenda. If you want to make your presentation here tonight, sir, be my guest, but discretion should be the better part of most valor, because it's 1 o'clock; none of us have had lunch -- now, I didn't. I don't know if the management provided for lunch for some of the other Commissioners, butl didn't -- Cajina: I understand. Chairman Teele: -- eat dinner or anything, so I mean, you know. Commissioner Winton: No. They didn't -- he skipped out and went home and had dinner. Chairman Teele: Everybody skipped out and went home and had dinner, so, I mean, you know, we want to -- I want to make sure we're fair -- Commissioner Winton: No. Just the Manager. Just the Manager. Everybody else stayed here. Chairman Teele: I just want to make sure that we're being fair to everybody at this point in time in the evening. Mr. Cajina: Appreciate it. Chairman Teele: And it's very difficult to be focused and to give you a fair hearing -- and I'm telling you, given the concerns of the district Commissioner, you need to be well suited up to put your best case on because it doesn't look good. Mr. Cajina: I understand that. Ms. Slazyk: Can we recommend March 25th to make it PZ.1 so it'll be sure to be heard? Chairman Teele: Why? Why can't it be the next regular meeting? Either one. What's convenient for you? Mr. Cajina: That'll be fine. Ms. Slazyk: 25th? Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Gonzalez, would you allow the item, please, to be deferred over, and all of the other controversial items tonight, so we can get out of here? All right. Motion to defer, then, the item to PZ -- the next PZ agenda as Item Number 1. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Winton. Seconded by -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Mr. Maxwell: March -- Chairman Teele: -- Commissioner Sanchez. Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? City ofMiami Page 171 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PZ.10 03-0417 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6 IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTION 601 TO ADD A NEW SPECIAL SUB -DISTRICT ENTITLED SD-1.1 KING HEIGHTS ORCHARD VILLA SPECIAL DISTRICT, ADDING AN INTENT STATEMENT AND CREATING SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. 03-0417 SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0417 PAB Reso.PDF 03-0417 & 03-0417a MCTB Reso.PDF 03-0417 SR Legislation.PDF 03-0417 FR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0417 FR Legislation DRAFT.PDF 03-0417-Memo-Corrected Scriveners Error.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 03-0417a. PURPOSE: This will add a new special sub -district entitled SD-1.1 King Heights Orchard Villa Special District. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele 12494 Chairman Teele: What's the next item? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 10 and 11 is non -controversial. It's second reading on the new SD-1.1 King Heights Orchard Villa Special District. It was already approved by the City Commission first reading, January, recommended for approval all around. Chairman Teele: Read the ordinance into the record, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: All right. Ma'am, you want to put your name and address on the record? Marva Wiley: Marva Wiley, Acting President of the Model City Trust. City ofMiami Page 172 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: And is there anyone else here that you want to introduce, please, on this item? James Brimberry: James Brimberry, representing Brim & Neighbors Investment Corporation. Chairman Teele: All right, and anything -- anyone else here? All right. Is there any person here in opposition to this item? If not, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Winton, for a motion. Commissioner Winton: So move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? Madam Clerk, call the roll. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been passed on second reading, 5/0. PZ.11 03-0417a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, AMENDING PAGE NO. 12 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED R-3 AND GENERALLY BOUNDED BY NORTHWEST 62ND STREET TO THE NORTH, NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE TO THE WEST, NORTHWEST 12TH AVENUE TO THE EAST, INCLUDING THOSE PROPERTIES FRONTING ON 12TH AVENUE, AND ON NORTHWEST 58TH STREET TO THE SOUTH, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (EXCLUDING ALL R-2 ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS AREA) FROM "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "SD-1.1" KING HEIGHTS ORCHARD VILLA SPECIAL DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 03-0417a SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0417a Analysis.PDF 03-0417a Zoning Map.PDF 03-0417a Aerial Map.pdf 03-0417a PAB Reso.PDF 03-0417 & 03-0417a MCTB Reso.PDF 03-0417a SR Legislation.PDF 03-0417a Exhibit A.PDF 03-0417a FR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0417a FR Legislation DRAFT.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential to SD-1.1 King Heights Orchard Villa Special District to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately NW 62nd Street to the North, NW 17th Avenue City ofMiami Page 173 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 to the West, NW 12th Avenue to the East, Including Those Properties Fronting on 12th Avenue, and on NW 58th Street to the South (Excluding All R-2 Zoned Properties Within This Area) APPLICANT(S): Planning and Zoning Department FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 03-0417. PURPOSE: This will add a new special sub -district entitled SD-1.1 King Heights Orchard Villa Special District to those properties listed above. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele 12495 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.11 is the companion atlas amendment. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? Is there anyone here in opposition? I assume both -- Mr. Brimberry, you're here in support? The public hearing is closed. Is there a motion? Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ.11. Chairman Teele: Is there -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Second. Is there objection? Commissioner Regalado: He has to read it. It's an ordinance. Chairman Teele: Is it an ordinance? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Chairman Teele: Hold on one minute. This is PZ (Planning & Zoning) what? Ms. Thompson: 11. Mr. Maxwell: 11. Chairman Teele: 11? Were you here on that item, ma'am? City ofMiami Page 174 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Unidentified Speaker: No. Chairman Teele: OK. Roll call, please. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on second reading, 5/0. Chairman Teele: Mr. Brimberry, we -- PZ.12 03-0419 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING PAGE NO. 25 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM PR PARKS AND RECREATION TO R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1390 NORTHWEST 24TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 03-0419 SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0419 Analysis.PDF 03-0419 Zoning Map.PDF 03-0419 Aerial Map.pdf 03-0419 PAB Resos.PDF 03-0419 SR Legislation.PDF 03-0419 FR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0419 FR Legislation DRAFT.PDF 03-0419 - submission - correspondence.pdf 03-0419 - submission - correspondence - 1 .pdf 03-0419 - submission - legislation.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from PR Parks and Recreation to R-3 Multifamily Medium Density Residential to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 1390 NW 24th Avenue APPLICANT(S): Planning and Zoning Department FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 5-1. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified residential development site. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 175 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele 12490 Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Gonzalez has got a lot of his good constituents that are here. They've been very patient and we've -- they've worked with us, and as a courtesy to Commissioner Gonzalez, we'd like to take up PZ.12. Commissioner Winton: Here, here. Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.12 is a second reading of a zoning amendment, Page Number 25 of the atlas, for the property located at approximately 1390 Northwest 24th Avenue from PR Parks and Recreation to R-3 multifamily medium density residential. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department, denial by the Planning Advisory Board and passed by this Commission, first reading, January 22nd. Chairman Teele: All right. Who's going to be representing the applicant here? Ms. Slazyk: The applicant is the City, butt guess there are neighbors -- Commissioner Gonzalez: There is some opposition, I believe. Chairman Teele: Oh, there's some opposition? Commissioner Gonzalez: I think so. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. There are individuals here -- Chairman Teele: You're representing who? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I am speaking on behalf -- in support of the application and on behalf of the Allapattah Action Committee and Miriam Urra, and all of these individuals that you see here today. Chairman Teele: Would you ask Hs. Urra -- would you come to the -- would you introduce yourself for the record, please, Ms. Urra? Welcome to -- Miriam Urra: Thank you. My name is Miriam Urra, and I'm here representing Allapattah Community Action, a non-profit organization in the City ofMiami, located at 2257 Northwest North River Drive. Chairman Teele: Would you ask the people that you're here representing to stand? Ms. Urra: Yes. Chairman Teele: Ms. Urra, you have to do that on the mike, just to -- Ms. Urra: (Comments in Spanish). Chairman Teele: All right. Well, we want to thank all you fine people for coming. You may be seated. Thank you very much. Now, we understand that there are some -- thank you. You may be seated. We understand that there are some persons here who may be in opposition to this application, so what I'd like to do is hear from everybody who's in opposition to the application, City ofMiami Page 176 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 and then we'll ask the City staff to address those concerns, all right? Could we see the hands -- could those persons that are here in opposition, would you all please stand? OK, very good. Very fine. Thank you very much. Sir, if you would like to speak or the lady, we'd be delighted, and take as long as you need to make your points. George Warren: Hello. My name is George Warren, and I live at -- Chairman Teele: Pull it up, yeah. Mr. Warren: How's this, better? Chairman Teele: Much better. Mr. Warren: My name is George Warren, and I live in the area where this property is. I'm an immediate neighbor of that area. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I please ask that the gentleman give his address in the record, not the area. Chairman Teele: Of course, that's required. Commissioner Gonzalez: Right. Chairman Teele: Would you state your name and address for the record, as the form there probably says? Mr. Warren: George E. Warren, 2353 Northwest 14th Street, Miami, Florida. All right? Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, you can do your presentation. I have a couple of questions for you later, but go ahead. Mr. Warren: All right. Back in 1989, the issue came up about this property, which is an ex -City nursery. The City, at that time, wanted to develop that land or to make that property into low-income housing or housing for the elderly. Myself and all the neighbors in that area didn't see the need to destroy an oak forest to meet that means, and so we did come to the meetings at that time, and we -- and the result of that was we got the City to compromise to us, that they would only develop the back half and leave the front half virgin, and that the front half would be made into a mini park. Now, that was a promise that the City made to us. You can note that into the Miami Herald articles at the time. Since that time, in 1992, a building was started to be built on that property, but it was never completed and it has remained abandoned there, incomplete, since about 1992 to this day, on that same property. If you could see those photographs that my wife has handed out, you could see how it currently stands. The short story is that it was never made into a park, as was promised by the City back in 1989, and in all of that time, the residents of that area have been waiting for that to happen. Now, recently, I have gone around to speak to all of the neighbors in the area, and of all the neighbors that spoke to, 162 wanted to sign their name, saying that they oppose the development of this property, and that they were still, in fact, waiting for the park that the City had promised them. Many of these people couldn't come to this meeting today at 3 o'clock because they have jobs, and they asked me that if they sign their name, would I please represent them today for this purpose, so the City -- the residents of the area are still waiting for the park that we were promised back in 1989. Chairman Teele: And just -- Mr. Warren: I also have -- City ofMiami Page 177 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: -- for the record -- Mr. Warren: I also have a letter -- Chairman Teele: Just for the record, sir, your assistant has given us a list of names on about five sheets ofpaper here, and we're going to give this to the Clerk and we'll let everyone on the Commission review this. Mr. Warren: Absolutely. I have copies. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Warren: There are 162 names in that immediate area, not going any farther than three blocks away from that area. I also have a letter from the chairperson of the City ofMiami Committee on Beautification and the Environment and the president emeritus of Treemendous Miami, Incorporated that would like to read to the Commission, ifI might? Chairman Teele: Please go right ahead, sir. Mr. Warren: Oh, you all do have copies of that letter, do you not? Steven Pearson, Esquire at the head. Chairman Teele: Your assistant passed out a letter, but if you'd like to read some portion of it into the record? Mr. Warren: Well, yes, I would. Chairman Teele: Not the whole thing. Mr. Warren: "In a City" -- Vicky Garcia -Toledo: For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo. May I see the pictures that are being -- and the petition, as well as the copy of the letter, please? Thank you. Commissioner Winton: But don't' think you ought to interrupt the person that's talking the next time you do that. You know what mean? Well, but you'll get a chance to -- Mr. Warren: Should I continue? Chairman Teele: Yes. Mr. Warren: "Dear City ofMiami, I'm writing to you in my capacity as chairperson of the City ofMiami Committee on Beautification and the Environment and as president emeritus of Treemendous Miami, Incorporated. I've been contacted about a proposed development of the City's old nursery property on Northwest 24th Avenue. That property contains many valuable trees, including substantial oak trees. Some of the oaks are reputed to be in excess of 100 years old. In a City that has far too little tree canopy, it would be ideal if this property and its trees could be preserved as a park for the benefit of all citizens ofMiami." Now, this was the promise that the City was made -- had made to us back in 1989. They saw the value of this oak forest, as if you can see in the pictures that my wife has handed out. It is not just a vacant piece of property that we're trying to prevent development on. It is a wooded property that is ancient, and we're trying to preserve it, as well as we're trying to get the City ofMiami to keep its promise to the neighbors of the area. While we have been patiently waiting for that to happen, this has come up in the most recent few months to redevelop the front section that was promised to all of us to be made into a park. Notwithstanding, we have all had to put up with what is an City ofMiami Page 178 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 eyesore in this incomplete building, and if you can see from the photographs, there is accessibility by this open door that swings in the wind, that all kids who can jump over a fence can enter that building or whomever wants to and do whatever they want to. Also, in the photograph you will notice that this property is adjacent to a kiddy ranch where small children are and who could have access to this property that is dangerous indeed. In all these years, since 1992, since that building has been incompletely finished, we have all had to see this building, and it is as far from the City of keeping its promise to develop that small two acres into a park, so I am opposed, me and 162 people who signed that, who are the immediate neighbors, and their children want that to be a park, too. Many of those signatures have families and have children, and would really appreciate the City taking down the fence and making it accessible to us as the park that was promised to all of us since 1989, 15 years, not to develop that front two acres. Chairman Teele: Who was the Commissioner representing that area when that promise was made in '89? Mr. Warren: I do not remember. I have -- Commissioner Winton: We didn't have district Commissioners in '89. Chairman Teele: But they had a requirement that you live somewhere, didn't they? They didn't? Mr. Warren: I'm sorry? Chairman Teele: '89. Well, let me ask you this -- and I don't want to get into a debate here. You've made one reference -- you've made one issue, you've made eight at least -- seven, eight references to it. There was a promise made by the City to build that as a park. Mr. Warren: Which, we, as a people, thought of as a covenant. Chairman Teele: Which what? Mr. Warren: Which, we, the people of the area, thought of as a covenant. Chairman Teele: OK. Where is the evidence of that promise? That's what we're looking for. They ought to tell me who the Commissioner was, too. No, no. Anything you say has got to be said on the record. Mr. Warren: I'm sorry? Chairman Teele: You have to speak from the record right there. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): The document, as well, Mr. Chairman. Could you read into the record -- Chairman Teele: Well, I'm going to look at the document to determine if I'm -- Mr. Warren: What I've just handed to you are archival reports from the Miami Herald that go -- that span the years from the 1989 promise current -- to current now. Chairman Teele: This is a document -- Miami Herald archives, January 8, 1994. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, all her comments need to be on the record. You want to give her the microphone, portable? City ofMiami Page 179 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Now, this issue has been before us before and -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, as you're aware, all the documents that are -- Chairman Teele: Any document that review, I'm going to give to the Clerk after I review it. Mr. Maxwell: And opposing counsel has a right to see it, as well. Chairman Teele: And opposing -- well, counsel in this case has the right to see it, but she's not opposing counsel. The City -- you would be opposing it. This is a City application, is it not? Is it or is it not? Mr. Maxwell: That's right, butt wouldn't be opposing counsel. Chairman Teele: OK. Well, you will have the right to see it. There's a resolution dated 88-569 "Approving, in principle, the Allapattah Business Development Authority as a non -for -profit to undertake the development of a medium density residential development on city -owned" -- and this is highlighted, and so you can't read it, but it's saying "nursery site affordable to low and moderate income, including the elderly; further directing the City administration to submit a plan amendment to the State of Florida for the reclassification of the site and any other requirements necessary to move forward the proposed development, and further directing the City Manager to convey title to that portion of the site required for the residential use by the sponsor of the development." And this is date in the meeting ofJune 9, 1988 -- hold it. Hold it, hold it, hold it -- and Xavier Suarez was the Mayor, and it doesn't say what the vote was. This document, I'm going to ask that the Attorney -- Madam Clerk -- the attorney for the City review it, the opposing attorney review it. We'll make a copy of it and make it into the record, but this document speaks in direct opposition to what your statement is on the record. Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE). Chairman Teele: Hold it. You've got to go to that microphone, state your name, et cetera. Jenny Warren: My name is Jenny Warren. My address is 2353 Northwest 14th Street. My husband and I, we went around the neighborhood and we got signatures, and that's --1989 -- actually, 1988 there was -- City ofMiami wanted to change that land (UNINTELLIGIBLE) law PR (Parks & Recreation) to residential -- multiple housing residential, and that time it -- that time they were given -- that time residents -- area residents, they opposed to it, so 1989 -- actually, 1989, City ofMiami compromised with residents -- Unidentified Speaker: Compromised. Ms. Warren: Yeah, compromised with area residents. Back of half will be developed for lower income and elderly people, and the front portion, less than two acres of front portion will be developed -- not developed, but it will be -- make it as a mini park (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 1989 resolution. Chairman Teele: OK. Now, another resolution has been forwarded that is ordinance -- Ordinance Number 10644, and that's an ordinance and that's doing a zoning change in the area, and I'm going to give this to the City Attorney to review, and then Item Number 10, which is Bill Hoppy's letter -- I don't know who it is -- the Miami Civic League, so Madam Clerk. Mr. Warren: OK We have tried to get copies of the minutes. Chairman Teele: Your name again is Mr. Warren? City ofMiami Page 180 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Warren: Warren. Chairman Teele: OK. All right. You apparently left the Commission meeting in 1989 pretty bitter, too. Mr. Warren: No. We left with a compromise. Chairman Teele: One of those things says that "they talk to us as if we weren't even there. They never listen to us." That's what the Herald quoted you as saying. Mr. Warren: That's what I said because it seemed at that time that we were going to lose, and at a later meeting, we found that we could find a compromise and we all agreed to it, and decided that's what was going to be, but it never did. Chairman Teele: All right. Did you all have anything else that you wanted to submit for the record on this item? Mr. Warren: You have all the photographs of how it sits now, right? Chairman Teele: Yeah. Mr. Warren: Nothing else, no. Chairman Teele: Thank you, Mr. Warren, and thank you, ma'am, for being here with us. All right. Mr. Warren: Thank you, sir. Chairman Teele: All right. Well, what we're going to do is, we're going to close the -- did you have something you wanted to add? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Very quickly, Commissioner. I'd just like to object on the record to the petition. It appears that that's a petition from 1989. It has the same color quality of paper and appearance as the other documents that are, in fact, dated. That petition is not dated. Chairman Teele: Well, why don't you ask the gentleman. Let's don't play lawyer. Let's don't play Perry Mason. Don't leave it up to us not knowing what we're looking at. Are these signatures -- for the record -- when were these signatures taken up? Mr. Warren: These signatures were all taken within the past three days. Chairman Teele: OK. You want to restate your objection? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I'm sorry, but I just have to rely on what I'm seeing on the documents that have been submitted. Chairman Teele: They look 10 years old to you? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: They certainly do, and dealing with paper as much as I do, I'm pretty comfortable with that. Further, I'd like to put on the record just a few things. The resolution that you just read, Commissioner, is, in fact, the City ofMiami gave at that time transfer property to the Allapattah Action Committee to develop at that site that you read of which is 1388, directly next to this property, elderly housing. There is a project now there that houses 64 elderly families. Many of the individuals you see here today live in that facility. On a daily basis we have requests for housing. On a daily basis, we have to turn people away. There's 36,000 City ofMiami Page 181 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 people, mostly elderly, in waiting lists throughout Dade County. The property -- and you have seen pictures, and I would like to give you additional pictures of the condition of the site. It's an abandoned building owned by the City ofMiami. Your NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Administrator and your administrative staff in the City spent an inordinate amount of time having to board up that abandoned facility continuously because it gets broken into. The elderly residents that live directly next to that site are having to be in fear of their life and safety because of the amount of gangs and other negative and crime -ridden activity that takes place at that site. Further, you heard testimony during the first reading from your Parks Director that this property has never been a park. It has never been on a park list. There are -- there is no budget and no funding for now or the future to develop or operate a park, which means that if this property is not rezoned and is actively put to good use, it will continue to be in the same derelict conditions that it has been all these years. We would respectfully request you to approve this matter in second reading so that, hopefully, the elderly in our community can find a shelter. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Do you need to say something else, sir? Technically, you don't have a right to, but if there's something you need to put on the record -- because I don't want you to walk out of here this meeting like you walked out of the last Commission meeting and say the Commission didn't even listen to you. We're all listening to you. Mr. Warren: All right. I just wanted to say that the people who live in the area thought they had a voice in 1989, when the Commission agreed to a compromise with us, and the same people today in the area wish that their wishes be honored just as well, and the area has all of these beautiful trees in it that nobody can understand why should be destroyed just to find housing. I think it is a noble undertaking and an ambition to find housing for those people who need it. Chairman Teele: All right. You've said all of that and you're repeating it. Is there anything new you want to put on the table that you haven't said already? Mr. Warren: I think haven't said that we believe that the area residents should have a stronger voice than people who don't live in the area. That's about it. Thank you, sir. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. The public hearing is closed. Something very important? Ms. Warren: Yes. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) our neighbors because I -- me and my husband went around the neighbors, so we -- Chairman Teele: Oh, you all are husband and wife? Ms. Warren: Yes. We went around the -- Chairman Teele: We limit husband and wife to one voice. Go right ahead, ma'am. Commissioner Winton: They're in frouble now. You're in frouble now. Ms. Warren: We have 162 votes on our back. That's why. Yes. We heard so many complaints about that -- what happened, that park, and a few complaints about that -- some -- there is just so many traffic and so many noise of the traffic, and some people -- some residents, they cannot back up their car because it's so much traffic there, and some residents, who are living right beside that new developer that -- for elderly buildings for elderlies, there is a road going down to that -- those building. Those people who live right beside there, they said they are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) lower than that road, so when it's raining, that flood. Their backyard will have flood, and all junk will flood to their yard. Yes. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. City ofMiami Page 182 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Warren: Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. The public hearing is closed. Madam Director. Madam Director, would you like to respond to anything that any of the public that has spoken in opposition to the City application has said? Would you like to put anything on the record? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): No. Chairman Teele: Is this a park? Ms. Slazyk: Unless there's any questions. Chairman Teele: Is this a park? Ms. Slazyk: This is not a park today. It's zoned PR, but it's not -- the Parks Department could answer anything more specific about whether it functions as one. It's PR zoning, though. Chairman Teele: It's what? Ms. Slazyk: It is PR zoning. Chairman Teele: But is it a park now? Ms. Slazyk: It is not a park. Chairman Teele: OK. I just think you need to put that on the record. All right. Further discussion on that, Madam Director? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Before making a motion, I would like to, as I did at the last meeting, I would like to give a little bit of history of this property. As the gentleman pointed out and as the Chairman read the resolution, 88-569, this parcel of land was dedicated or was assigned to Allapattah Business Development Authority, of which I was the Executive Director back then. We accepted the property and we initiated the development of 52 homeownership affordable housing project. Actually, the property at that time -- and I -- as a matter of fact, ABDA (Allapattah Business Development Authority) keeps record of the photos. It was an abandoned property by the City ofMiami. It was a park -- nursery. It was never a park. We had to demolish four old structures that were on the site. We had to remove some abandoned vehicles and some large pipes and other type of construction debris and construction materials in order to achieve the construction of this project. Later on another track of land was given to Allapattah Community Action to build a 68 202 project for the elderly. Later on -- andl was still the Executive Director ofAllapattah Business Development -- another track of land was assigned to the Cuban Municipalities in Exile to build their headquarters and also a social club. I am really surprised that during all of these different constructions, nobody came in opposition and nobody expressed dissatisfaction of these projects going through. The project of the Cuban Municipalities in Exile fell. I don't know what the problem was, but the building was left abandoned. Only -- they only built the structure and the roof and it's been abandoned for quite a few years. We have an opportunity now to build some additional elderly apartments, and as I always say, we are all not going to be able to retire with a good retirement. We are all not going to retire millionaires or rich, and we have the responsibility to think about our elderlies, and as it was said by counsel, we have sixty -some thousand people waiting in a list for affordable housing. I think this is a good project. It's a project that is going to provide affordable housing for the elderly. We are going to make sure, and I'm, as the District Commissioner, going to make sure that these trees are preserved and that we reserve them, and that's what I'm going to ask from the director of the Allapattah Community Action, and in addition to that, we have just took City ofMiami Page 183 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 on a project to clean up Fern Isle Park. Fern Isle Park, I believe, is a 17-acre park that was also abandoned for years and years and years. Vice Chairman Sanchez: A dump site. Commissioner Gonzalez: We just cleaned it up. It was a dump site. It was a dump site. It was just cleaned up, and we're working on building a huge park and this park is only about four blocks or six blocks away from this site. We also have another park, Sewell Park, which is about 12 to 15 blocks from this address, and we also have Grapeland Park, which is in proximity. It's on about 37th Avenue and this project is on 24th Avenue so, you know, this area has three large parks surrounding this property, so there isn't a situation where we don't have any parks and there isn't a situation where, you know, we don't have an area of recreation. We're going to have two major parks built in this community, so my motion is to approve the recommendation of the staff. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion. Chairman Teele: All right. Discussion on this item. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion on the item. I just want to state for the record that I have not seen any legislation, and I would love to see one, if it was designed to build a park. However, the evidence show that we do have legislation right here, this Resolution 88-569, which basically puts that towards affordable housing for the elderly. Now, I'll tell you where I stand very firm is on those trees. Commissioner Winton: And this is dated 1988, this resolution. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Exactly, but I do want to have a strong commitment from whatever's going to be done there that we do not tear down 100 year old oak trees. Those are unreplaceable (sic), so I commend the Commissioner of the area for making that commitment, butt would like to have that as a condition that, please, work around the developments so we don't tear down these 100 year old oak frees. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner Sanchez -- for the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo -- since this is a zoning item, it cannot be conditioned, but we would like to voluntarily proffer that we will work with the architects -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I could accept that. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- and the Planning Department to do everything within our power to protect the frees. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I could accept that. Chairman Teele: Well, that may not be good enough. I think -- Mr. Attorney, what is it about every time I get ready to speak, you want to -- is there something you want to say, or you want to correct me before I say it? We need a little bit more, Madam Director, than a voluntary proffer. What we need is a review by the Manager of a plan and that the plan must be satisfactory to the Manager, at a minimum, and, Commissioner Gonzalez, can you live with that? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Gonzalez: Definitely. The only thing is that -- City ofMiami Page 184 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: I mean, if you -- if it gets to a fight, then that means it's going to wind up having to come here. Commissioner Gonzalez: The only thing is that what we are approving here now is just the rezoning of the property. We are not discussing here the project itself. I believe they have to build -- they have to do their drawings; they have to do their plans; they have to be submitted, and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And then we can address that. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- at the time that it comes before us, then we -- Chairman Teele: Well, it may -- Will this come back before us -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- Madam Director? Ms. Slazyk: No. A housing project would not necessarily come back here, unless they need some special permit, but they do have to get tree removal permits -- Chairman Teele: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- and that is something that is in the City's control, and can be denied by the City and then they would have to appeal it and then it could eventually come back under appeal of a tree. Chairman Teele: Yeah, but why don't -- Does this -- this is a zoning issue, right? Ms. Slazyk: This is just a zoning change. Chairman Teele: Is there any way, Mr. Attorney, that we can mandate or require that the free removals here be in accordance with the City's ordinance, specifically? Mr. Maxwell: Well, they have to be in accordance with the existing tree removal -- with the ordinances now, but you can't place any conditions, as was pointed out, on this, but their actions in developing the property would have to be in accordance with the City's ordinances regulating tree removal. Chairman Teele: You're saying that we cannot add in here as a condition -- Mr. Maxwell: Not mandatory. Chairman Teele: -- or as a statement that any -- that all actions related to frees must be in strict conformity with City ordinance? Mr. Maxwell: That's correct, sir. Chairman Teele: OK. Then I accept that, and Commissioner Gonzalez, thank you for correcting the record. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Call the question. Chairman Teele: All right. We're going to do this. There's a lot that can be said and, perhaps, City ofMiami Page 185 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 should be said, particularly for the benefit of this wonderful husband/wife combination team and this petitioning government, and I want you to take seriously the fact that all of us, all five of us listened to you all very closely, and you had lot more time than the law really out requires that you be given two minutes, so what I'm going to do is ask the Clerk to call the roll, starting with the Chair, and let Commissioner Gonzalez vote last. Mr. Maxwell: This is an ordinance, sir. Chairman Teele: Would you read the ordinance? The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Priscilla Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Chairman Teele? Chairman Teele: And I should have said for the purpose of explaining your vote. I would be voting "no, " if this item were just what was presented by the opposition, but it is not that. This is an area in which the City is undertaking to reclaim a 15-acre park in the neighborhood within the geographic areas, which has been laying dormant and, candidly, it was toxic or not suitable for human beings. Additionally, this City -- Commissioner Winton: Fern Isle. Chairman Teele: Huh? Commissioner Winton: It's Fern Isle Park you're referring to. Chairman Teele: Fern Isle Park. Further, this Commission has undertaken a massive program to add to the collection of parks throughout this City, particularly by adding upwards of 30 acres to the Little Haiti area as a park complex. I think it's very important that the public know -- because the public sees what is said, and if it's not -- if it is not in -- somehow put in a different context, people see it and they go away and that's it. This Commission has been very committed to building, expanding parks, and this is not about the destruction of a two -acre park. If you had come here five years ago and made the same argument, I would be voting absolutely with the opposition because we had no commitment to parks at that time. We're adding parks all the time. The issue of the frees is a legitimate issue. It is a fair issue, and the existing City ordinance protects those trees that are necessary to be protected while balancing the need for some development, and so I think your concern and the concerns of those of the Beautification Committee are properly protected, and I would urge you to continue to monitor the project, but I am absolutely voting "yes" in favor of this project to go forward. Thank you. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. City ofMiami Page 186 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is adopted on second reading, 5/0. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Two things real quick for counsel. Vickie, I just had a quick question. You said that there is no money in the budget today for creating a park, and there's no money in the future. How did you know there's no money in the future? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: During the first reading on this item, the Director of Parks spoke before you and said on the record that this property had never been identified as a park, and that it was not included in any budgetary plan in the City to put money to develop this site as a park or to operate this site as a park. Commissioner Winton: So, I didn't -- Chairman Teele: The implication of what he was saying is that two acres is an insufficient mass of land to budget the staffing of a park. Commissioner Winton: I just wanted to understand where that came from. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you all. The item is approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Thank you all very much. Commissioner Gonzalez: And I want to -- Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman for coming here and presenting his point of view, which is well taken. (APPLAUSE) Ms. Urra: I -- for the record, my name is Miriam Urra again, representing Allapattah Community Action. Chairman, Commissioners, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you all on behalf of our elderly in our community, which are in a need of housing drastically, so thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Thank you. All right. Thank you all. You all were wonderful. (APPLAUSE) PZ.13 04-00002 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION" TO RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER ARCHEOLOGICAL ZONES AND SITES WITHIN THE CITY; TO CLARIFY OR AMEND CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM PROTECTION MEASURE THAT WOULD PRESERVE A PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR DESIGNATION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS; FURTHER CLARIFYING CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS; ADJUSTING THE MAILED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TO OWNER; PROVIDING THAT SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF City ofMiami Page 187 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 APPROPRIATENESS DECISIONS MADE BY THE BOARD IN MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS ARE ADVISORY TO THE CITY COMMISSION; ALLOWING THE PRESERVATION OFFICER THE ABILITY TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS; AND MODIFYING THE FEE TO APPEAL A BOARD DECISION; CHANGING THE CODE REFERENCES FOR UNSAFE STRUCTURES; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTIONS 23-1 THROUGH 23-6; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00002 SR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00002 SR Legislation.PDF 04-00002 - submission house pix-1 .pdf 04-00002 FR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00002 FR Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Chapter 23 of the Miami City Code APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will enable the City to retain jurisdiction over archeological zones, provide for an interim protection measure for properties proposed for designation, and enact certain "housekeeping" measures. NOTES: This is a companion to File ID 04-00002a. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele 12496 Chairman Teele: All right. Are there any controversial items here? Is everything else sfraight down the line? Let's just go sfraight through them all because we're going to have to lose one of our Commissioners here. We're going to take up SR.1, I think, before you leave? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: What's SR.1? I don't even have that (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Gonzalez: SR.1. Chairman Teele: Come on, ma'am. Madam Clerk -- come on, Madam Director. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.13, second reading ordinance, amendment to Chapter 23, recommended for approval. Chairman Teele: Public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. There are no persons coming forward. City ofMiami Page 188 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: So move. Chairman Teele: Read the item into the record. Commissioner Winton: Oh. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Winton: Or guess. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. PZ.14 04-00002a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE VII OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD" BY PROVIDING THAT THE BOARD MAY INCLUDE PALEONTOLOGICAL SITES ON A HISTORIC SURVEY, AND THAT PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THE BOARD WILL INCLUDE AN ARCHEOLOGICAL STAFF MEMBER OR CONSULTANT AND CORRECTING NAME OF PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00002a SR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00002a SR Legislation.PDF 04-00002a FR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00002a FR Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Chapter 62 of the Miami City Code APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will provide for an archeological staff member or consultant to assist the City to add paleontological sites to historic surveys, and to enact certain "housekeeping" measures. NOTES: This is a companion to File ID 04-00002. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 189 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele 12497 Chairman Teele: Next item, please. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 14, second reading, amendment to Chapter 62, regarding historic environmental preservation. Commissioner Winton: So move. Ms. Slazyk: Recommended for approval. Chairman Teele: Public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. There are no persons coming forward. Moved by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: -- Sanchez. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Apologize. That's the word that tore me up the last time. The same word. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Chairman Teele: Item is adopted unanimously, 5 to 0. PZ.15 03-0423a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3163, 3165 AND 3175 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, 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. 04-0423a SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0423a Analysis.PDF 03-0423a Land Use Map.PDF 03-0423a & 03-0423b Aerial Map.pdf 03-0423, 03-0423a & 03-0423b School Brd Recomm.PDF 03-0423a PAB Reso.PDF 03-0423a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0423a SR Legislation.PDF 03-0423a FR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0423a FR Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Duplex Residential" to City ofMiami Page 190 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 3163, 3165 and 3175 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Blue on Coral Way, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 21, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 03-0423b. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site for the proposed Blue at Coral Way Major Use Special Permit Project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to CONTINUE item PZ. 15 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 11, 2004. Note for the Record: Commissioner Regalado stated that he does not want to hear this item until he gets all the information from the City and the Developer on a similar project located two blocks away on approximately SW 22nd Terrace and 29th Street, wherein the street has not been fixed and there is a breach of covenant. Chairman Teele: Next item. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.15 and 16 are companion items, first reading, for zoning and land use change for properties on 22nd Terrace. These are companion items to the Blue on Coral Way, major use special permit, which is not on the agenda tonight. It will be at the next meeting since these are the first readings of the land use and zoning. Chairman Teele: Are there any persons here in opposition to Items 15 or 16? Any persons here in opposition? Any person here in support? Any persons here in opposition? All right. Commissioner Regalado: I -- Ms. Slazyk: It's been recommended for approval all around. Chairman Teele: It's recommended for approval. Would you read the ordinance? Commissioner Regalado: This is my district. Chairman Teele: Hold it, hold it. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move this, but -- Chairman Teele: Before you move it -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE) let's get (INAUDIBLE). City ofMiami Page 191 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Public hearing. No persons being -- coming forward. Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second for the purpose of discussion. Chairman Teele: For discussion. Read the ordinance into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: Discussion by Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Next time, until we get all the information regarding what the City is doing and what the developer is doing on 22nd Terrace and 29th -- a combined project, Adrienne worked on that, but I don't think that nothing ever happened. It's -- the street has not been fixed. It's -- I don't know. The City has not participated as we said we would. I don't know what's going on. At the same time, there is a breach of a covenant on that same address that the City has not resolved, so I -- not until we get this information about a similar project two blocks away, 29th Avenue and Coral Way. Ms. Slazyk: Oh, not on -- I thought you -- there was a covenant on this one that we didn't know about. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. Ms. Slazyk: Oh, it's -- Commissioner Regalado: The covenant -- Ms. Slazyk: -- two blocks away, OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- that was violated is -- but it's parallel to what the City -- remember -- that we did to help the developer expedite the repairs on the street and all that. I don't know what's been done. Adrienne Pardo: Actually, the agreements were just -- were sent by the City, maybe like a month ago, and they were signed and they were sent back to the City, so now they should be proceeding -- Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Ms. Pardo: -- but they had to get the final document. Ms. Slazyk: OK. I'll look into it. I'm not sure what it is. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to hear this until I have all the information because I made a commitment. Chairman Teele: You mean you don't want to hear this tonight? Commissioner Regalado: No, no. I don't want to hear this tonight or -- Chairman Teele: Motion to defer. City ofMiami Page 192 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Pardo: No, no, no. He means the next time. Didn't -- weren't you going to -- We have to come back for the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) because that's -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. Ms. Pardo: -- another case. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. Ms. Pardo: Can we go forward? Commissioner Regalado: The City and the developer have taken -- Chairman Teele: Are you pulling this off the agenda right now? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Pardo: Do we -- Chairman Teele: Motion to defer. Commissioner Regalado: For the next meeting. Ms. Slazyk: March 25th? Chairman Teele: For the next meeting or the next regular meeting? Commissioner Regalado: No. The next meeting, if -- Ms. Pardo: Could I just make -- We have to come back -- Chairman Teele: No, ma'am. Ms. Pardo: -- a second time. Chairman Teele: No, ma'am. To the next meeting or the next zoning meeting? Commissioner Regalado: The next meeting. Chairman Teele: Motion to defer to March 11 th. It's moved. Commissioner Gonzalez, would you -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is it objection? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed, say "no." Commissioner Regalado: OK. Remember, this information has to come before. All the things we promised the neighbors and the residents -- Chairman Teele: That was on Item 15. Commissioner Regalado: Nothing has been done. City ofMiami Page 193 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PZ.16 03-0423b ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3163, 3165 AND 3175 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 03-0423b SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0423b Analysis.PDF 03-0423b Zoning Map.PDF 03-0423a & 03-0423b Aerial Map.pdf 03-0423, 03-0423a & 03-0423b School Brd Recomm.PDF 03-0423b ZB Reso.PDF 03-0423b Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0423b Legislation.PDF 03-0423b Exhibit A.PDF 03-0423b FR Fact Sheet.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 3163, 3165 and 3175 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Blue on Coral Way, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 15, 2003 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 03-0423a. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site for the proposed Blue at Coral Way Major Use Special Permit Project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, to CONTINUE consideration of item PZ.16 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for March 11, 2004. Chairman Teele: And Item 16 is a motion to defer on 16? Vice Chairman Sanchez: But does it pertain to this development? City ofMiami Page 194 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): No. Adrienne Pardo: No. Commissioner Regalado: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Then why'd you bring it up? Chairman Teele: Motion to defer on Item 16. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: It's your motion. Commissioner Regalado: It's my motion. I need a second. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? The item is deferred to the next regular agenda. We said already anything that's controversial, we're going to do it -- because all we're going to do is have a big argument tonight. Everybody's tempers are short. Commissioner Regalado needs to go to his other job, and so, we need to be very mindful of this. Ms. Pardo: OK. Chairman Teele: What else is here left now? PZ.17 04-00080 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 400 AND 420 SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 195 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 04-00080 SR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00080 Analysis.PDF 04-00080 Land Use Map.PDF 04-00080 & 04-00080a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00080 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00080 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00080 SR Legislation.PDF 04-00080 FR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00080 FR Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 400 and 420 SW 7th Street APPLICANT(S): 420 Property, Inc & 414 Property, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 04-00080a. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site. Motion by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 17 and 18 are companion land use and zoning changes, recommended for approval by staff approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and approval by the Zoning Board. Chairman Teele: Is there anyone here in opposition to 17 or 18? Mr. Fernandez, you want to identify yourself? Ben Fernandez: Yes. Ben Fernandez, law offices at Berkow Radel, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, on behalf of the applicant. We ask that you approve this application. Chairman Teele: Are there any persons here in opposition? There being no persons in opposition, the public hearing is closed. Mr. Attorney. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): You have a motion on it, sir? Chairman Teele: Just read. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion? Motion? City ofMiami Page 196 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Joe's district. Chairman Teele: It's in your district, Joe. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? Madam Clerk. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Chairman Teele: The companion item is adopted unanimously. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you very much. PZ.18 04-00080a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 36, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 400 AND 420 SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED, IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00080a SR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00080a Analysis.PDF 04-00080a Zoning Map.PDF 04-00080 & 04-00080a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00080a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00080a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00080a Legislation.PDF 04-00080a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00080a FR Fact Sheet.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 400 and 420 SW 7th Street APPLICANT(S): 420 Property, Inc & 414 Property, LLC City ofMiami Page 197 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 26, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 04-00080. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site. Motion by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Chairman Teele: The companion item. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Companion recommended for approval. It's the zoning change, recommended for approval also by the Zoning Board. Chairman Teele: Read the item, please, Mr. Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move. Chairman Teele: Is there any person here in opposition to this item? There are no persons. The public hearing's closed. Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: By Commissioner Gonzalez. Madam Clerk. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.20 is a first reading ordinance for -- Chairman Teele: The item is adopted by a unanimous vote of 5 to 0. Did you have anything else, Mr. Fernandez? Ben Fernandez: No, sir. PZ.19 04-00081 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 18, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL WITH AN SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, 2.10 F.A.R. FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3574, 3650, 3660, 3670, 3680 AND 3690 NORTHWEST 36TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED, IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A City ofMiami Page 198 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00081 SR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00081 Analysis.PDF 04-00081 Zoning Map.PDF 04-00081 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00081 ZB Reso.PDF 04-00080a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00081 Legislation.PDF 04-00081 Exhbit A.PDF 04-00081 FR Fact Sheet.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from C-2 Liberal Commercial to C-2 Liberal Commercial with an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, 2.10 F.A.R. to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 3574, 3650, 3660, 3670, 3680 and 3690 NW 36th Street APPLICANT(S): Adrian Industiral Properties, Ltd APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 26, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will add the SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, 2.10 F.A.R. to the properties listed above. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, can we take PZ.19? Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. We can take whatever you want. PZ.19. Mr. Brimberry, we apologize, again, to you, and we appreciate very much you being here on this item. Commissioner Winton: 19. Chairman Teele: PZ.19, you said? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.19 is a request for a change of zoning from C-2 to C-2 with an SD-19 designated FAR (Floor Area Ratio) overlay district for an FAR of 2.10. It has been recommended for approval by the Planning & Zoning Department, and approval by the Zoning Board by a unanimous vote. This piece of property is of particular consideration for the SD-19 designated FAR overlay district because of its location on 36th Street. The subject properties have the C-2 zoning designation that allow residential facilities equal to R-3 or higher. The additional requested floor area will allow the applicant to build an additional floor to the already approved new multi family residential project. The FAR is City ofMiami Page 199 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 necessary in order to accommodate reasonable development. The property is still subject to the other C-2 requirements, which is a height limitation, and it will not exceed that, and the -- it will allow 18 additional units on the site. This is within scale and character of the surrounding area, and it's recommended for approval. Commissioner Gonzalez: I move PZ.19. Chairman Teele: Hold it one minute. Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm sorry. It's a public hearing, right? Chairman Teele: You want to give us your name for the record? Gil Pastoriza: Gil Pastoriza, 2665 -- Chairman Teele: Can't get any better than that, Gil. Commissioner Gonzalez: I want to get out of here. Mr. Pastoriza: I'll take it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, Counsel -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Let's move the entire agenda. Chairman Teele: All right. Are there any here -- are there any persons here in opposition to this item? If not, the public is closed. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move and second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: He's already moved it. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Sanchez. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: This can be called downtown Allapattah? Commissioner Gonzalez: That's right. Chairman Teele: Downtown Allapattah. Commissioner Winton: Downtown Allapattah. Commissioner Gonzalez: Downtown Allapattah. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. City ofMiami Page 200 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Good night. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, Counsel, great job. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez: Good job. Good presentation. PZ.20 04-00109 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLES 6 AND 10 IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTIONS 627 AND 10.6 TO ADD SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE SD-27.2 BUENA VISTA YARD WEST SPECIAL DISTRICT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00109 SR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00109 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00109 SR Legislation.PDF 04-00109 FR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00109 FR Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on February 4, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. PURPOSE: This will add sign regulations for the SD-27.2 Buena Vista Yard West Special District. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Chairman Teele: PZ.20 is what? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 20 is an ordinance amending our sign regulations in order to put sign regulations in place for the new SD-27.2 Buena Vista Yard West Special District. Commissioner Winton: So moved, or I guess we need a public hearing. City ofMiami Page 201 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Public hearing. Spencer Crowley: Mr. Chairman, Spencer Crowley, with Gunster Yoakley, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here representing Developers Diversified Realty, Dan Herman. Daniel Herman: Dan Herman, Developers Diversified Realty, 3300 Enterprise Parkway -- Commissioner Winton: Is there anybody in opposition to this? Mr. Herman: -- Cleveland, Ohio, 44122. Chairman Teele: The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Regalado: There's no one here. I mean, there's no one. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: Lourdes, what does this do? When we say "signs" -- I'd just like to -- Ms. Slazyk: This is -- all right. When the SD-27.2 district was adopted, it was adopted with sign regulations as for C-2. What this does -- that didn't recognize the special signage considerations that were necessary for some of the big box retail, and for the entrance type signs you need to a complex this size, so this is the sign regulations that would allow for that kind of signage, and it also requires design review for everything they do in signage. Chairman Teele: And they have a C-2 designation? Ms. Slazyk: The -- no. When it was approved, the signs were approved as for -- as if they were C-2, which was a liberal sign code, but it didn't address all the particular needs that the big boxes would need, and this is the sign regulations now that do that. It's -- but it still requires design review. Chairman Teele: Can they put up a billboard there? Ms. Slazyk: No. Chairman Teele: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is passed on first reading, 5/0. Mr. Crowley: Thank you. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. PZ.21 04-00108 ORDINANCE First Reading City ofMiami Page 202 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Planning&Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING -- City Commission ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO AMEND SEC. 609, SD-9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT, TO MODIFY SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO HEIGHT, SETBACK AND FOOTPRINT LIMITATIONS AND TO INCORPORATE CERTAIN DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00108 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00108 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00108 SR Legislation.PDF 04-00108 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00108 - submission - memo.pdf 04-00108 - submission - overlay.pdf 04-00108 - submittal.pdf 04-00108 - submission - correspondence 1 .pdf 04-00108 - submission - correspondence 2.pdf 04-00108 FR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00108 FR Legislation DRAFT.PDF 004-00108 - final report.pdf 04-00108 - legal opinion.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FI NDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on February 4, 2004 by a vote of 5-3. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will modify special district requirements along the SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, to call a special meeting for April 29, 2004, at 3 p.m., to consider Item PZ.21 for Second Reading; further requesting that the administration provide in writing a report on all other pending major projects. A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was City ofMiami Page 203 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 passed unanimously, to direct the City Manager to establish a study committee, appointed by the Manager in consultation with Commissioner Winton's office, to develop a plan to limit the height of new buildings along the SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District and report back to the Commission within the next 60 days; further recommending that the Manager hire a consultant for the calculations of said plan; further requiring that said committee hold publicly noticed meetings. [Note: The verbatim minutes for item PZ.21 are included following item PZ.22.] PZ.22 04-00082 ORDINANCE First Reading Office of the City AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A Attorney 90-DAY TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF 85 FEET (COMMERCIAL) OR 95 FEET (RESIDENTIAL) IN HEIGHT FOR THAT AREA LOCATED IN AND REGULATED UNDER THE SD-9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; PROVIDING FOR A TERM; PROVIDING FOR PENDING APPLICATIONS; PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00082 SR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00082 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00082 SR Legislation.PDF 04-00082 FR Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00082 FR Legislation DRAFT.PDF 04-00082 - submittal - 6.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 21, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. This is related to File ID 04-00082a. PURPOSE: This will establish a 90-day temporary moratorium on the acceptance of applications for new buildings over a certain height along the SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District. Moratorium was set for 90 days. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele [The following verbatim minutes include discussion related to item PZ.21 as well as item PZ.22.] City ofMiami Page 204 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Now, do we have anything else that required a 4/5ths vote that we jumped over this morning? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): No, I don't think so. Chairman Teele: All right. What was the item relating to the rule? Commissioner Regalado: What is he going to do? Chairman Teele: Did you have something else? Unidentified Speaker: No, Commissioner. Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Regalado: OK. While you get the people, can we do the ordinance, first reading on repealing the parades? Commissioner Winton: No, no, no. Chairman Teele: You don't want to repeal? Commissioner Regalado: Not yet? Commissioner Winton: No. Commissioner Regalado: They left. Commissioner Winton: Are you sure? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Oh. Chairman Teele: Who left? All right. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, that's SR.1 thatyou inquired about. Chairman Teele: All right. Madam Director let's -- Madam Director, let's move forward on PZ-21. Is that it? Commissioner Winton: That's it. Chairman Teele: And as you fine people come in, we want to apologize to you. I think you know we've not been out playing golf tonight. We've been right here, and we do apologize about the time inconvenience thatyou all have suffered, but you've suffered along with us, so, Madam Director. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you. PZ.21 is a first reading ordinance amending Article 6, specifically, the SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District in order to enact a series of amendments for the boulevard, to protect and enhance its major gateway role into the City ofMiami. These amendments specifically enact height limitations while relaxing footprint and setback limitations to promote a lower density, more pedestrian - friendly boulevard. The amendment also incorporates design guides and standards by reference City ofMiami Page 205 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 simply as a guide for new development. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I need to interrupt you. Mr. City Attorney, I want to introduce something here. I think you've seen this. My partners and I, at one point, had a piece of land under contract. The contract was never hard and we never closed on Biscayne Boulevard within this zone, and I asked the City Attorney if that would present -- our simply having it under contract, whether or not that would put me in a conflict of interest position, which would disqualify me from taking part in these proceedings. He opined that that would not put me in a conflict position. However, after further consideration, I felt that that may at least present an appearance of conflict, so I presented the City Attorney this morning, or yesterday afternoon, actually, with a copy of a letter from my partner to the seller that cancelled the contract in its entirety and freed the seller to sell the land to anybody he wants to sell it to, so we have no association. My partners and I have no association, whatsoever, with any parcel of land, period, within the zone, so do I have any conflict, whatsoever, Mr. City Attorney? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): No, sir. I've reviewed the document, as you indicated. The regulations before you now are general in nature, and a vote by you on them would not inure to your special private benefit at all, so there would be no conflict of interest even if you hadn't cancelled the agreement, but in canceling the agreement, you have gone a step forward and you've removed even the appearance of impropriety. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: Thank you. The proposed amendments to the SD-9 District originally included a portion of SD-8, between 36th and 39th Sfreet. The Planning Advisory Board, on its review and recommendation to the City Commission of this ordinance, had recommended approval with three conditions. First, that the SD-8 properties should be removed from the amendment, specifically because the SD-8 is the little piece between 36th and 38th Sfreet that was zoned SD-8 specifically to serve as a gateway into the Design Disfrict. This is where the Design Disfrict meets Biscayne Boulevard, and there is already a project approved on the west side of the boulevard right on the boulevard in that location which exceeds these regulations. The SD-8 is on the very, very southern tip of the district, and the Planning Advisory Board felt that that should be removed. It's really not the same as the rest of the character of the upper boulevard. The second recommendation was that the -- there is a mega block of approximately where Ivax is, in the 4000 block range or so of Biscayne Boulevard. There were some new regulations in this ordinance that did not allow access from Biscayne Boulevard to properties if access was available from some other street. The idea with this was to create a more pedestrian friendly boulevard by eliminating the curb cuts that disrupt the kind of pedestrian flow and the kind of pedestrian friendly ground floor activity we were frying to encourage. The mega block there proposed -- actually, it posed a specific problem in that they do have access from another street. It just happens to be along the FEC (Florida East Coast) Corridor on the other side, so without being able to have any kind of curb cuts on Biscayne Boulevard to access your property, you'd have to go, you know, the equivalent of three, four, five blocks out of your way to enter from the rear. That was understood as a specific dilemma of that mega block, and they asked us to address it, which we did in the ordinance before you tonight. We allow access from blocks -- over 500-foot length blocks would be allowed access from the boulevard, but they should be minimized to the extent reasonably possible. The third condition was that the Planning and Zoning Department should come back within six months with amendments to the guides and standards. The Planning Advisory Board, upon some of the testimony they heard about the specific nature of a lot of the guides and standards, were concerned that it might dictate an architectural style, even though it really was waive -able by Class II if an architectural solution was posed that better reflected the urban character of the boulevard, so they asked that we come back within six months with modifications to that. What we've done between the Planning Advisory Board hearing and tonight, is actually further soften and clarify the language that those are -- the guides and standards are not mandates. They are not required. They're simply City ofMiami Page 206 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 guides and standards if the architectural style chosen happens to be consistent with what the guides and standards include. Therefore, we do recommend approval. Some of the concerns that came up at the Planning Advisory Board also had to do with the height, the height limits being proposed. We're proposing 85 and 95 feet with seven and eight stories. Seven -story buildings -- non-residential buildings would be allowed the seven stories, 85 feet height max. The additional feet and height there from seven stories to the 85 feet is to allow for bigger floor to ceiling clearances. On ground floor retail, you typically don't find, you know, ground floor retail at nine foot ceilings or ten foot ceilings. They typically come in at 12, even 14, so the additional height there is to allow some flexibility in the architecture, but still limit to seven stories. The residential uses are being allowed at the eight -story 95-foot max in this ordinance, because residential floor plates are a little bit smaller than commercial floor plates, so in order to still allow the reasonable development, given the existing FAR's of the properties on the boulevard, the eight stories was something that we worked out through the consultants after the charrette process as something that was reasonable and allowed the FAR there, the 1.72, without being reduced. What we've done since the Planning Advisory Board hearing is worked with a real practicing architect here locally, Julio Diaz from Fullerton Diaz, and we've handed out to you some sketches that were done by them that showed real -- five real -life scenarios on Biscayne Boulevard, real properties of different sizes, configurations. There's corner property, triangular property, very small property and some larger properties. What we've asked Julio to do in these drawings is to take our new ordinance and actually conduct some massing studies of what it would look like, how the -- how a project could be implemented on these properties and can it be done? Is it achievable to reach -- to get the 1.72 FAR, given these height limits? Could it be brought down any lower? That was a specific question we asked, because of the concerns at the Planning Advisory Board hearing. There seemed to be some opinion that you could probably come down lower. What these drawings illustrate is that the heights that we had recommended in the ordinance originally are pretty much what you can do. On the smaller properties, this ordinance will not affect them in any way, because the smaller properties can't get to a 1.72 FAR, anyway. The parking becomes the governing factor. On these small properties, you can see that there's no way to get any kind of parking ramp or garage on the properties, because the dimensions of the properties just aren't there to accommodate ramps and parking. Therefore, these properties could only fit as much development program on them as what they could park for, in some cases, only four, five and six spaces, which means that you wouldn't get buildings too much taller than about three to four stories. The larger properties and the average size properties could fit the base FAR of this district, or the permissible FAR, 1.72, within the height limits that were proposed and still be able to accommodate the parking. Therefore, with these studies, we recommend approval of the ordinance as presented tonight. If you have any questions of -- Chairman Teele: All right. Two or three housekeeping matters. We received a letter, which I'm going to put in the record and ask a copy be made from the -- the BASF (Builders Association of South Florida), Truly Burton, the Governmental Affairs Director, requesting a deferral of these two items. Unless I'm being overruled, the Chair is not going to entertain a deferral at this time, in that this is first reading; is that correct? Commissioner Winton: Right. Chairman Teele: And it will come back, so, you know, the time sensitive would be on the second reading, and I'm going to ask this be made a part of the record in its entirety. Secondly, we're going to need to have everyone that expects to testify to stand and raise your right hand -- hold it, not yet -- and be sworn. We would like to get some idea as to how long this is going to go. Now, Mr. Attorney, are we in a legislative or quasi-judicial mode? I assume legislative. Mr. Maxwell: This item, you're correct, this is legislative. Chairman Teele: OK, so this item is a legislative item for which we will have a public hearing. City ofMiami Page 207 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Are there any issues that can be segmented, Commissioner Winton, I mean, so that -- is there any way that we can segment, or segregate in some way? For example, the issue related to the 195 area, is that -- wasn't there a recommendation that there be -- that a -- the 195 portion of this be withdrawn? Ms. Slazyk: The Planning Advisory Board had recommended that the SD-8 piece, which is what you're talking about be withdrawn, and we have done that between PAB (Planning Advisory Board) and now, so that is not before you tonight. That's already been withdrawn by the department. Chairman Teele: OK, so the full matter is before us. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, so what this is, is from about 38th -- it's all the properties on the boulevard north of 36th that have SD-9 zoning. SD-8 has been pulled out already. Chairman Teele: OK, and from 36th Street to what? Ms. Slazyk: To the City limits, both sides of the boulevard. Chairman Teele: And both the east and the west side of the boulevard. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Anything with the SD-9 overlay, which is pretty much the commercial frontages of the boulevard all the way to the City limits. Chairman Teele: Please, if you expect to testify, would you please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn -- oh, my God, not all of you. (Comments in Spanish) The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: All right. This is a public hearing. Any person testifying in support of this item, please come forward. We will then hear from those persons -- How many people do we have in -- why don't we do one of each. That way, we won't get bored and get out of time. Any person who would like to testify in support, please take the microphone here. Any person who'd like to testify in opposition, please take the microphone to my right, to your left, and is there any attorney that is here that is representing a group of people on this matter? All right. Well, why don't we do this: Why don't we hear from the representatives first, and then we'll hear from those persons who'd like to speak, unless there is somebody that needs to speak right now. Jeffrey Bass: Mr. Chair, just on a point of order, ifI may. Jeffrey Bass, 46 Southwest 1st Street, here on behalf of the Morningside Civic Association, together with several individuals, just on a point of order. As the Chair noted, this is a legislative matter. There will be two readings, and it's 9:30 at night. To the extent that there is a desire to compress at this time some of the speakers on behalf of, I've checked with my clients. As long as we're not giving up any rights to do it at the second reading, you know, the will of the Chair to expedite it, we're going to all speak in support of it. I can tell you that now and I can save us some time, but the people who have come out would like the opportunity to speak in support of it. Provided we have the opportunity to do so at second reading, we'll be extremely brief tonight, if that's the will of the Chair. City ofMiami Page 208 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Second reading will be as bad as this one, so -- Chairman Teele: Well, I think you're making a wonderful suggestion, with the understanding that we'll have a full blown on second reading, and everybody who wants to say anything will do it, and if you would allow me, then what I would like to do is ask all of the people in opposition who have the need to testify to come up and testify first, in opposition to this ordinance, and then we'll hear summaries, and rebuttal, and all of that, and that way, we'll keep it smooth. Any person here in opposition to this ordinance or some portion of the ordinance? If so, just come to the microphone, please. Now, just remember, you're going to have a chance to testify on second reading, and if it's not urgent, it's not necessary that we be redundant tonight. Yes, ma'am. You're welcome. Truly Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I'm Truly Burton. I represent the Builders Association of South Florida. I'll be -- I've submitted a -- I will be submitting my letter to the Clerk, and I appreciate the opportunity to be heard tonight, and since the hour is late, I will be very brief. Several things. We're concerned about this ordinance for several reasons. First of all, it does discuss a moratorium on both sides of Biscayne Boulevard. We're concerned about that. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Does this ordinance discuss anything about -- Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. That's an ordinance -- that's the next item. Ms. Burton: I'm sorry. I apologize. If this is the -- that is the height limitation issue. Several things. One of the things that I think that makes a very exciting corridor anyplace in the world is having varying heights of buildings. That's what makes a livable, walkable community. I think that anything on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard deserves a different type of treatment than those -- than the land on the west side, and for that reason, I think that height limitation honestly just does not work. A couple of things. Chairman Teele: Truly, are you saying height limitations on both the east and the west, or are you saying -- what are you saying? Ms. Burton: I'm saying that height limitations on the west side, I think, are of great concern to us. There's no bonuses also in the proposal so that if somebody wants to give a public park, an amenity or something else in exchange, they are unable to do that, because there are no incentives, so that's our concern right now for that height limitation. I think it's -- while Ms. Slazyk has really done a very good job in reviewing -- in proposing to various options, again, I'm concerned that this is -- has not been well thought out, and we just need a little bit more time to work with you on this, because height limitations I don't think work. Chairman Teele: When do we expect to bring this back for second reading? Commissioner Winton: 30 days. Ms. Burton: March. Chairman Teele: You're going to have enough time, right? 30 days is plenty time? Ms. Burton: Also, one other point. The FEC Corridor Study, which is right next to Biscayne Boulevard needs to be made part of this entire study. We need to begin connecting the dots between the west side of Biscayne Boulevard and the FEC Corridor, because that's what I think makes little communities. City ofMiami Page 209 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: What is the date of the second meeting in March, Madam Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The second meeting in March will be Thursday, March 25th. Chairman Teele: What is the first meeting in April? Ms. Thompson: April 8th. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, could you live with this item having an exfra week or so and coming on April 8th, and not getting in another zoning queue, like we've got now, so that they're -- at least it'll be the only zoning issue that we'll take up? Commissioner Winton: You all want to have to deal with three hours on that? Chairman Teele: See, Johnny, this is my point -- Commissioner Winton: I mean I'm not -- Chairman Teele: If we this -- Commissioner Winton: I don't know ifI want to -- Chairman Teele: -- if we put this in the second meeting in March -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, we're going to be right where we are. Chairman Teele: -- we're going to be in the same box we're in now. At least if we put it in the first meeting in April, we don't have zoning on that, and we'll be able to give it sufficient time. Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't have a problem with that if you all are comfortable with the time. That's OK with me. Chairman Teele: OK. I mean, it gives you -- I mean, it gives this issue a preferred status, because it gets a full hearing, and we won't have all the other people here on a bunch of other issues, and it sort of gives them a little bit -- gives them an exfra ten days. That's all we're talking about here. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. No problem. Ms. Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Anybody else in opposition? Are you in opposition, sir? Elvis Cruz: I'm sort of. I'm splitting down the middle. Some of the stuffl agree with, and some, I don't, Commissioner. Chairman Teele: This is a good time to let us know what you agree with and what you don't. Mr. Cruz: OK. Shall go ahead, then? Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, sir. My name is Elvis, home at 631 Northeast 57th Street. Gentlemen, we have a wonderful opportunity tonight to correct the mistake made many years ago. City ofMiami Page 210 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: How long are you going to take? Mr. Cruz: Just six minutes. It'll be worth it, sir. Back in the early 1920's, Miami's Upper Eastside was a series of single-family neighborhoods, and there was no Biscayne Boulevard. Commissioner Winton: Elvis, you need to give your name and address on the record, please. Mr. Cruz: I'll do it again. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Sfreet. Back in the early 1920's, Miami's Upper Eastside was a series of single-family neighborhoods, and there was no Biscayne Boulevard. The yellow line you see here is the FEC Railroad. This plat map shows a sfreet named Dixie Boulevard, which had medians and was lined with single-family homes. The blue triangle is where Christman School is today. Notice how the sfreet becomes much narrower as it leaves one subdivision and enters another. In the last 1920's, Mr. Hugh Anderson, the developer ofMiami Shores bought properties along these streets and created Biscayne Boulevard to connect downtown with Miami Shores. Dixie Boulevard became part of Biscayne Boulevard. This is why to this day, you can still see 15 single-family homes along Biscayne. They've all been converted to businesses, but they stand as undeniable proof of the history of Biscayne Boulevard. This is why the lots along Biscayne are so shallow. They were laid out for single-family homes. This is why Biscayne is so narrow. It was originally a street through single-family neighborhoods. Unfortunately, at some point, Biscayne was rezoned to allow unlimited heights on these shallow lots on this narrow street. What is good urban design? The City ofMiami Planning Department's Upper Eastside Master Plan on Page 61 recommends a height limit along Biscayne of 30 feet. The master plan's 30-foot height limit makes perfect sense, as 95 percent of the properties on Biscayne north of 48th Street currently have a building height of only two stories or less; two stories being about 20 feet. This is the existing built environment in which new consfruction should be compatible, according to the principles ofgood urban design. A 30-foot height limit would encourage the adaptive reuse of existing buildings as recommended by the master plan. 30 feet would maintain the built character and aesthetic integrity of the area and be in keeping with a comfortable human scale. As part of the planning charrette last May, the City published this newspaper, the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor Study. From the front page, I quote our Commissioner Johnny Winton. "The plan will establish standards that emphasize a human scale pedestrian friendly boulevard that promotes compatible development to respond to the context of the boulevard and its immediate surrounding neighborhoods." Thank you, Commissioner Winton. We agree completely. The same newspaper has seven different photographs of examples of good urban planning and design. Please note that every one of those photographs, all seven depict two- or three-story buildings as examples ofgood urban design. Most importantly, perhaps, please note that commercial development would still be very viable under this height limit. Many new businesses have opened up or are soon to open that are two stories or less. Some of them are adaptive reuses, as recommended by the master plan. The former American Red Cross Building, OLA Restaurant, 55th Sfreet Station or the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Complex, Ondiamo Pizza, Dog McGrill, Cafe 71, DNA Architecture, Yao Veterinary Clinic, Citronell, Gourmet Station, and Empire Plaza. Other new businesses are completely new consfruction. Burger King, Starbucks Coffee, Shops at Belle Meade, Discount Auto Parts and Antique Plaza. Even an existing motel can be rebuilt as an adaptive reuse. Here is an example of that, a project on Miami Beach that Architect Chad Oppenheim is involved with, and then there's the whole fraffic issue. Biscayne is rated "F" by the State of Florida. This video shows the morning backup of southbound fraffic at 36th Street, backing up all the way to the Publix Supermarket at 48th Sfreet. One proponent of high-rises has said, these buildings won't make any difference. The State of Florida has already rated Biscayne Boulevard an "F" street, so it can't get any worse. That's like a kid bringing home an "F" on his report card, and his parents telling him, that's OK, son. Now that you got an "F," you don't have to study anymore, because you can't get any worse. The northbound traffic jam in the evenings is usually even worse. What is the will of the people? Here's what we don't want: High-rises blocking our sky, sun and breezes and making our terrible fraffic even worse. Here's what we do want: As City ofMiami Page 211 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 part of the planning charrette, the neighborhood associations of Bay Point, Morningside, Palm Grove, Bayside, Belle Meade, Shorecrest and the Upper Eastside Miami Council collectively endorsed and submitted a 30-foot height limit. Please note that this consensus was agreed upon through a democratic process. What we want is something more like Ocean Drive. Like Biscayne, Ocean Drive was once considered a blighted street of aging hotels in need of demolition and high-rise condos until the public woke up and fought the good fight. South Beach today is the crown jewel ofMiami-Dade County's tourism, known and beloved throughout the world. Like Las Olas in Lauderdale or Main Street in Miami Lakes, Biscayne may never be oceanfront, but it can become a Miami modern version ofMain Street, U.S.A. Gentlemen, tonight is the fifth time in three months that the Upper Eastside has come to City Hall on the issue of Biscayne high-rises. To demonstrate the will of the people, I ask all those in the audience in favor of a 30-foot height limit to please stand at this time and be recognized. Thank you. In closing, please correct the historic mistakes. Tonight, we have a wonderful opportunity to correct the historic zoning mistake that converted narrow single-family streets through a commercial thoroughfare with unlimited height. If good urban design is important, the height limit should be 30 feet. If the will of the people is important, the height limit should be 30 feet. Please enact a 30-foot height limit on Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you. Chairman Teele: I guess I'm glad I gave you your six minutes. Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, sir. Chairman Teele: That was a very well thought out presentation. Mr. Cruz: I appreciate it. Chairman Teele: Excellent. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chairman Teele: You're really to be commended. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, sir. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Ma'am, did you want to -- Jacki Tako: Good evening. My name is Jacki Tako. What happened to me is that I own a property on Biscayne, 5201 and 5215. Chairman Teele: What's your address, ma'am? We need your address for the record. Where do you live? Ms. Tako: I live in 12455 Keystone Island Drive, and I own two corner on Biscayne, 5201 and 5215. When I came to buy the property, the first thing I did, I went to the City and I checked. There was no height limits. The City -- I talked to a lot of people who wanted Biscayne to be in a better position than what it was four years ago. I came, I bought the property. I spent two hundred thousand to re -modify the property and it was a beautiful property, but I couldn't get it all rented. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and what is Biscayne all about? Now, Biscayne is coming up to a better position, what we had before we were putting a limit on the heights. If we are going eight to five and nine to five, we need floor for parking. What is left to build? So, please, consider that. Consider the money that we spent and the energy and the taxes we've been paying for all these years, and I don't want 27 floors. I want 14. The previous one was 27 floors. We want 14 floors. I'm talking about the other case before this, so I'm not asking for 27. We only -- I'll gladly risk 14, I'll gladly risk ten, I'll gladly risk 12. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 212 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Thank you for coming, ma'am. Yes, sir. Peter Erlich: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Peter Erlich with a residence at 770 Northeast 69th Street and a business on Northeast 59th Street and 4th Avenue. I'll be very brief. I'm in favor of height limits with certain exceptions. I favor the Kubik project currently proposed for Biscayne between 55th and 58th Street and is currently in the City pipeline. I think it'll be beneficial to our area. I favor slightly higher height limits west of Biscayne. 110 feet, for example, would give architects greater flexibility for design, and I'd also like to encourage development west of Biscayne in the Little Haiti area, and also the areas -- the FEC Corridor and the areas slightly west of the FEC Corridor. Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Yes, sir. Andrew Dickman: For the record, Andrew Dickman. Law offices, 9111 Park Drive, Miami Shores. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, and also a board member of the American Planning Association. I'm here representing Mr. and Mrs. Wing, who are residents ofMorningside, and they have asked me as an attorney and planner to represent them in this proceeding. We are here, and you all have in front of you, in opposition to the ordinance, simply because it's too generic. It's too generic, because it treats all land uses along the corridor equally. We feel that the planning efforts that have been conducted -- again, the same issues with the river -- lots of time, and money, and effort, and blood, sweat and tears have gone into the planning efforts on the boulevard. Citizens came out of the charrette with a feeling that 30 feet was what they wanted in that area, and here we are with an 85/95. Staff has given you information that perhaps 85/95 really isn't going to happen anyway, but we say that we're worried about variances, and we're worried about land assembly, and we feel that that creates a false expectation on the landowner's part, and it creates false fears on the residents' part. What we would rather do -- and we've got a recommendation before you, and again, anybody who wants to get behind our argument is that you should protect at all cost the neighborhoods that are along the boulevard, and you have a map in front of you that shows that. Have a Zoning Ordinance that will say anything abutting or adjacent to the residential neighborhoods that are on the boulevard, make that 30 to 40 feet, something lower and consistent with the neighborhoods. In the other areas, the gateway areas, which would be down near 36th Street and up at the Biscayne Plaza, go ahead and allow for higher density intensity growth there. At the last hearing, nobody liked this ordinance, because it just didn't make anybody happy. This is a lose -lose proposition. You have the talent and the staff to come up with a smart Zoning Code that will do both things, and I also want to encourage you that this is what it says in your comprehensive plan, that you will protect the existing neighborhoods from encroaching land uses. You can design a Zoning Code that will create lower densities where it's appropriate, and even look into what we would like, to transfer development rights where you would create a market for those folks that are in the -- near the neighborhood areas who can sell their rights to the areas which are near Biscayne Plaza, where development ought to occur in the areas. We also -- I don't know if we're going to -- hearing about the moratorium. We feel like the moratorium -- Chairman Teele: We're not on that one yet. Mr. Dickman: OK, we're not on that one, OK. We feel that -- Chairman Teele: That's the next one. Mr. Dickman: -- you should have a -- we feel that the Zoning Code should be done now the way that it ought to be done. Take the time to do it right. Don't just put something out there just because nobody agrees to it and 85/95 seems like to split the baby. Nobody is happy with this ordinance. The concept of whether you oppose or support this is kind of baffling, because, honestly, everybody wants, in the neighborhoods at least, height limits, as opposed to what it is City ofMiami Page 213 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 now, but this current ordinance is so generic it's going to create a bigger problem down the road, and everyone is saying, well, this is just a stop gap and we'll come back and fix it later. Well, why not take the time and do it now? The other point that I want to make is that -- and it was made earlier -- is that you do need to tie in. You need to connect the dots. You need to look at the FEC Corridor Plan and look at why is traffic backing up on Biscayne Boulevard. You have Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Avenue, and I would even say 7th Avenue Northwest, which are wonderful surface streets. Nobody will take those, because they're in such poor conditions, and you need -- I think if you take a look at the Zoning Code, that will emphasize moving traffic off of Biscayne Boulevard into the surface streets that'll take you over to those other avenues, you bring not only connectivity to your other planning efforts in the FEC Corridor, but you also bring economic opportunity for the residents that live west of the FEC Corridor in Little Haiti and other areas, so this Zoning Code I think needs to be rewritten. It needs to be addressed from the standpoint of protecting the neighborhoods as if they were a natural resource. Those are the economic driving engines of the Upper Eastside, the homeowners who live there and want that area to be successful, so I would ask you to deny this ordinance and send it back, and when we have the moratorium, definitely put that in place, and ask staff and others -- and we'll definitely assist -- to come up with a smart Zoning Ordinance that puts densities down low around neighborhoods, and allows for higher intensity densities at the gateway areas on the boulevard. Chairman Teele: But you also mentioned transfer of development rights. Mr. Dickman: Yes. Chairman Teele: Is that contemplated now, Madam Director? Ana Gelabert (Director, Planning & Zoning): On the guidelines that you have in front of you, no, sir. Chairman Teele: Sir, where is your client? Point into the people you're -- Mr. Dickman: Mr. Wing -- Chairman Teele: No, no, no, I don't mean physically, here. Mr. Dickman: Oh, where is he -- Chairman Teele: On your map. Mr. Dickman: Morningside, Morningside. Commissioner Winton: No, I thought that's what you meant, too. Chairman Teele: So let me get this straight. You want to push the development up around 79th Street and Biscayne Boulevard -- Mr. Dickman: I think that's where -- Chairman Teele: -- in the Biscayne Plaza area, and would you be proposing that development rights be transferable into that area? Mr. Dickman: Yes, exactly. I think that what you could do -- and this would take some thinking -- is that you would have an ordinance that calls for 30 or 40 feet throughout the corridor, except that the properties that are in the small pipeline, I guess, could sell development rights to the gateway areas, and that would create a market for them to get some economic realization while they keep their developments lower, and then allow for the wonderful development in an City ofMiami Page 214 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 area around Biscayne Plaza, where the infrastructure is already there, and also in and around 36th Street and on the so-called mega block, which is already there. You do that, you protect the neighborhoods that are dotting all along the area, and you create development opportunity and incentivize, instead of being a negative ordinance, to do that development in that area, and then you also deal with the streets to fry to create that connectivity with your other planning efforts and basically create the whole Upper Eastside, which I think is the interstate east and give everybody economic opportunities. Chairman Teele: All right. I understand some of this. It's late, butl don't really understand the fact that you want to take traffic off of U.S. 1, a federal road and put it into Northeast 2nd and Miami Avenue, but that's another story and we'll talk about that later. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Yes, ma'am. Adrienne Pardo: I'm going to borrow this (INAUDIBLE). Ben Fernandez: While Adrienne is doing that, for the record, I'm Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'd like to surprisingly agree with Mr. Dickman's comments. I'm here on behalf of Biscayne Plaza -- Chairman Teele: With whose comments? Mr. Fernandez: -- on behalf of Terra Nova. Mr. Andrew Dickman was just speaking to you. I'm here on behalf of the Terra Nova Corporation that owns Biscayne Plaza. Of course, we wholeheartedly agree with those comments, butl'd like to -- butl'd like to also just tell you that it's a good idea, and those are the types of ideas that developers, that builders associations would bring to this mix. They weren't a part of the charrette. They're not -- their ideas are not reflected in this proposed ordinance, and that's the reason why this should be continued. There should be additional meetings, so that you have a complete concept before you, not just a broad brush height restriction that limits height from north of 36th Street or 39th Street all the way to the City limits. Those are different neighborhoods. Morningside isn't Belle Meade. Certainly, the 79th Street/Biscayne Boulevard intersection, the intersection of two section line roadways is a very busy area that merits higher, more intense development. We don't want to create the problem that Miami -Dade County had with Bird Road, where you have a string of strip shopping centers, either. Chairman Teele: All right. I think you should note, though, Commissioner Winton has been very generous and agreed to two -weeks sort of additional time to give you all an opportunity to come to the table with some specifics. Commissioner Winton: We might have to give them two more. Ms. Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo with law offices at Greenberg, Traurig, 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of Strategic Property, Mr. Henry Pino, and I'd also like to say thatl agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Dickman said. I think he made a lot of sense, and it all comes together, and I think it would be beneficial. I know that's surprising to everybody. I have a -- Chairman Teele: Hey, he's picking up support around here. Ms. Pardo: I have a copy of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and I think if you look at it and you listen to what he said, and if you listen to where everybody else is coming from, it does make sense. Number one, the area shown in yellow is the single family, and then all along where I'm City ofMiami Page 215 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 pointing is Biscayne Boulevard. You can see the mega block is outlined in orange, and you don't have any single-family residential units that are directly abutting that particular piece of property. You do have the single-family residential properties directly abutting the Morningside, which is shown on red, and then you've got a lot of areas on both the east and the west side of Biscayne Boulevard, a little further up in the 60s where also, you don't have the single family directly abutting. You do have this neighborhood right here -- excuse me, but I've forgotten the name of it -- where again, you have a little of the C-1 zoned properties abutting it, but it does make sense for the following reasons: One -- Chairman Teele: What makes sense? Ms. Pardo: I think it makes sense to have different height limits. Perhaps you have a lower three- and four-story where you're directly abutting the single family and in those areas where you're not, such as the mega block, further to the south, and then areas further to the north, it would make sense to have higher densities, and also, a couple of years ago, the City had a development summit, and you were encouraging the developers, and this was one of the neighborhoods where there wasn't much activity, and it was encouraged for people to invest, and people did invest, and they have invested in this particular neighborhood, and currently, it's zoned C-1, where you have unlimited height. Well, it makes it very difficult for all of these property owners to all of a sudden say, OK, you're at eight stories. Well, with whatHr. Dickman is saying, with this transfer of development rights, that would allow those people that do have their properties, if they're decreased in height to a lower amount, it gives that property some value where they can sell those property rights to other properties either further north or further south, and therefore, it would help the entire community, those people who invested, who put their money and invested in an area before it was so called the popular place, and then for those areas where you already have height or you don't have the single-family residential developments directly abutting it, such as the mega block, where you already have a couple of 14-story buildings, and I think if the developers -- and we can work with the residential representatives, as well, we can come up with something. I don't think we're looking for 27 stories, or 50 stories on Biscayne Boulevard. I think everybody will work together. I think we might be able to come up with other solutions, such as 15 stories at the south end and the north end, and then perhaps the lower stories, the three and the fours in other places. Commissioner Winton: How long do you think that would take, Adrienne? Ms. Pardo: I don't think it should take very long at all. I think we could do it by the April 8th. I think that it's certainly doable. I think it's something -- it makes sense for everybody, it really does. Commissioner Winton: Can I weigh -- since this is legislative and not quasi-judicial, this isn't all news to me, you know, because I've talked to a lot of people. Everybody and their grandmother has tried to call me, and I've talked to several of -- lots of people and I'll tell you, Elvis got me going, because that presentation really was outstanding, when you take a look at those single -story, two-story buildings and the ambience that that can create in those areas of the boulevard where the boulevard is very narrow, and the thing that I've been struggling with from day one is how this ordinance seemed to have treated the whole boulevard the same way, and I was going to, in fact, modify the proposed ordinance to take a zone out that Lourdes says we're already planning on taking out, because it didn't fit, and I think what you guys are saying makes an awful lot of sense here, and -- but part of the folks here are very concerned about the concept of the horse being out of the barn, in that the concern here is that -- the Kubik, as an example. The concern is if we delay this for very long that we'll end up with this giant rush of applications. I guess a moratorium could solve that problem. Mr. City Attorney, if -- you've read the moratorium ordinance, I'm assuming -- Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 216 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: -- which is the next item. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: If we put a 60-day moratorium on things, would that not preclude this rush of projects in that fry to get under this whole planning process, where you'd have certain developers that try to jump in here and apply for their 27-story building? If we put a moratorium in place would -- for 60 days -- would that preclude that kind of thing from happening? Mr. Maxwell: Well, it wouldn't necessarily preclude it, but it may reduce the number that may qualify, and the reason that I say that is that under the Zoning Ordinance as it now exists, it says that anyone who files a complete application before the effective date of the change of regulations will be permitted to allow their application to continue, so the key would be whether or not they would be able to file a complete application. Commissioner Winton: OK. And -- Mr. Maxwell: It would -- and with less time, they wouldn't be able to do that. Commissioner Winton: And I have another question. Mr. Chairman or Mr. City Attorney, are we compelled to hear all the testimony before I offer some other kind of plan here? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. Chairman Teele: This is a public hearing. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's a public hearing. Chairman Teele: And at any point, you can begin to direct the staff. This is not quasi-judicial or whatever. Commissioner Winton: OK, so here is my thought, and Mr. City Attorney, you can kind of help me through this. My thought is -- and I'm king of -- I'm going to meld these two ordinances for the moment, just as a thought process, not in terms of actually how we deal with it. The thought is that we ultimately move to the next ordinance, and I put a 60-day moratorium in place. Back pedal here. We establish -- I don't know exactly how, but we get the right group of people together, including BASF, some of the land use attorneys, some of the property owners, and we take the next 60 days to try to recraft this plan. And I can tell you there is no one out there, as someone already said -- the pro people and the con people -- there's no one -- no one is satisfied with this plan as it exists, no one, so that was a true statement. I've been troubled by it, so I think what I would like to do is take this opportunity to move the next hearing back to 60 days, or maybe we -- to -- no, I think if we do it 60 days and even put it on the next -- I think we can come up with a plan that won't take us three hours to have to deal with it, so it could go on the P&Z (Planning and Zoning) agenda for 60 days from now and give folks the time to fry to craft a plan here, which would include our staff probably hiring a consultant who can help deal with the reality of this transfer of development rights, because the question in my mind is that there's -- somebody's going to have to calculate value all the way along those zones where we're going to put height at 30 feet, or 40 feet, or whatever the magic number is, and then you have to calculate whether or not you can create, in fact, the density on those -- 36th and 79th to transfer, because maybe you can't, so we have to have a consultant on board who can help do those calculations to make sure we don't step in another big puddle, so, staff if we can do that, then I'm prepared to make a motion. Mr. Maxwell: Let me -- ifI may, Commissioner. City ofMiami Page 217 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Yes, please. Mr. Maxwell: Just to make sure that the numbers that you're using are the ones that you're comfortable you want to use, if you were to wait 60 days for staff to come back with another plan at the same -- Commissioner Winton: And the community. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. But at the same time, have a -- let's say you have a 60-day moratorium. Remember, moratorium is first reading, and then you have second reading -- Commissioner Winton: I understand. Mr. Maxwell: -- and then it goes into effect 30 days later unless you change that. So that -- the moratorium wouldn't be in effect, and on the other ordinance -- Commissioner Winton: But -- I get the math. I mean -- Mr. Maxwell: Well -- Commissioner Winton: -- the other ordinance, we're going to be hearing second reading 60 days, and then it'll go into effect 30 days after that, so the moratorium would still be in full force and effect if we needed it to, because we may have to extend this process a little further. The moratorium would be in effect -- Mr. Maxwell: These next 60 days. Commissioner Winton: -- certainly before the plan was fully adopted, and the plan process may take a little longer. Who knows? I don't know. We're trying to squeeze something into a very, very short time frame here, and this planning process may take a little bit longer, and I would like to hear from -- Ms. Slazyk: The moratorium that is -- that's in your package tonight as the next PZ item was actually advertised at the 120 days -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, butt wasn't going to -- Ms. Slazyk: -- so you don't have to limit 60 -- Commissioner Winton: I wasn't going to accept 120 days. Ms. Slazyk: Oh. Commissioner Winton: So that was not my -- Mr. Maxwell: They can reduce it to 60. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. OK, yes, sir, Mr. Wing, and then I'd like to hear from Mr. Bass. James Wing: All right. My name is James Wing. I live at 5911 Northeast 6th Avenue in Morningside. My real job, I'm a frial lawyer with Holland and Knight, but I'm here in my personal capacity as a Morningside resident. Commissioner Teele, in one of the earlier matters, you asked for a legal opinion, and Commissioner Winton, you said, gee, if we're going to do transfer of development rights, TDR's, we've got to start doing some calculations, and how do we City ofMiami Page 218 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 figure out what we use? What both of those questions are asking, really, is, is there any kind of down -zoning fear here, legitimately, in which legal liability can be a question for this Commission, and to what extent do we take into consideration the apparent sacred cow of FAR's? Now, I have prepared an extensive memorandum, which I will put in the record and which I will give to everyone when I've got sufficient copies, which deals with our view on each of these issues. Putting it very succinctly, there was a decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in December 10th of this year called the Ambrose case, coming out ofMonroe County, and that decision, while it didn't really make new law, it basically confirmed what I think all of us knew, and that was whenever there is a legislative determination that some particular area is a matter of special Concern, or in that case, State concern -- the Florida Keys -- and where that concern extends to things like scale, density, the neighborhood, the effect on the neighborhoods, then there can be no vested rights, there can be no down -zoning claims, because the law says no one could ever have reasonably relied -- like this lady claimed she did before -- on existing FAR's, because what are FAR's? They're not an entitlement. They're a maximum. Now, that is the law on this subject. My memorandum considers not only that, it considers the issues of moratorium. Why do you have them? You have them for precisely the same reason that Coral Gables is considering. It was in the paper this morning. They've got the same problem. They got a 30 foot problem there, as well, because they're about to lose all of their little nice, smaller apartment buildings and multi family operations there to big -scale development. The City is facing -- you'll have another witness on this -- it's speculative uprising, if you will, because of the Green Span money machine here that's making the cost of capital next to zero, and away things go. Anyway, this is the memorandum. I will put it in here. In terms of the timing of this, these ordinances can be made refroactive. I'm sure the City Attorney will agree there is a specific provision in the Code that permits that, and I think they need to be made refroactive, because the whole point of moratoria, as the case law says, which I quoted to you, is that you do this just to permit and to stop a race to the courthouse, which is what we're seeing. We've got all these new applications. We've got to stop this, and we have to do this right. Thank you. Chairman Teele: There is no invoice associated with your memorandum of law, is there? Mr. Wing: Excuse me? Chairman Teele: There's no invoice with that, is it? Mr. Wing: There's no invoice, nor is there a firm letterhead, because I'm doing this as a citizen. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Commissioner Winton: Jeffrey. Mr. Bass: Again, Jeffrey Bass, 46 Southwest 1st Street. Just -- I'm a pragmatist, so I want to address what it is I think that you're aiming to do, but I'm also very, very, very cautious of the opportunity for mischief that might be created if we don't think very carefully about what we're doing, so what I would propose that the Commission consider doing is the following: Fast track the moratorium. Move that item tonight. Don't wait till April for the moratorium. Come back on the second reading of the moratorium immediately, and I might ask -- Commissioner Winton: Next month. Mr. Bass: As soon as possible. Two readings, 14 days, you could be back. Get the moratorium in place, and I ask you to do that not so much for my clients, but for you all, because that's what protects the City in its estoppel, and I'm going to ask you this: Take a look at who's speaking in opposition tonight, and let's see whether they come in and speak in opposition to the moratorium, because if they do, then their intention will be clear that what they're seeking to do is to delay this matter so that they can position their clients' property rights to maximize the City ofMiami Page 219 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 exposure to the City, which is contrary to your interest and contrary to our interest, so what I recommend that you do to keep this process moving that has been moving openly and publicly, with commendable participation is you recommend approval of the ordinance as is tonight on first reading, you recommend approval of the moratorium tonight. You have the moratorium come back as quickly as possible, you schedule second reading out 60 days. Any substantive, concrete improvements can come back to you in time for the second reading. We don't lose any time and we avoid having this killed in committee and the quagmire that always happens when something is up to the ledge, and then protestors come in and try to be tire kickers. There's one thing that you all are very good at, and that is amending your Zoning Code, and our feeling is, let's do it sooner rather than later, absolutely better rather than worse, but you've got to start somewhere, and there's something very viable in front of you, and we recommend that you do not blink. Do it now, because it'll only be used against you if you don't. Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney, how soon could we put the moratorium into place? Mr. Maxwell: After second reading, you could -- you could make the effective date on second reading. You can pass an ordinance, emergency ordinance making that ordinance effective upon second reading. Commissioner Winton: I don't understand that. I mean -- Unidentified Speaker: March 11 th. Commissioner Winton: March 11 th? Mr. Maxwell: No, no, no. That would -- Commissioner Winton: Thank you. That's a date. Mr. Maxwell: If you pass off. Chairman Teele: All right. I think there's two or three issues we've got to be careful about here now, and I know you're chomping at the bit. I don't like -- I think we're going to make a mistake if we talk about an emergency ordinance on this. I think the prudent thing to do -- Commissioner Winton: On which? Chairman Teele: On the moratorium. I think the prudent thing to do if you are inclined would be to approve the moratorium on first reading tonight and on second reading, within -- at the next meeting of this Commission, which is in 14 days. Commissioner Winton: No, I agree with that. Chairman Teele: OK. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Teele: But I don't want to get into an emergency -- Commissioner Winton: Not tonight. No, no, no, I'm with you. Chairman Teele: -- because then you'll get -- and what you could wind up doing -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. We're in agreement. We're all in agreement. City ofMiami Page 220 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: OK. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Teele: Now, that doesn't mean that we're going to do it, before she has a heart attack and Lucia -- Lucia Dougherty: I'm not going to have a heart attack. In fact, I agree with Jeff Bass by saying pass the moratorium tonight. Pass the moratorium in 12 days. I can tell you, no one's coming into this area, because this is a big pallor on it. I've had people come into the firm who were thinking -- Chairman Teele: Did you state who you are for the record? Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, 1221 Brickell Avenue. There isn't anybody who's buying property in here, trying to speculate, because they know this is happening now, but they didn't know it two and a half years ago when my client bought the Kubik property. I'd like Camilo -- what do you mean, yes? Oh, OK. This is Camilo Alvarado. He and his father started purchasing property two and a half years ago, and I'm going to show you where it is. It's on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. It's not the mega block, but it's an island and partially zoned C-1 without the SD-9, partially zoned with office with the SD-9 on top of it. Chairman Teele: What's the street there? Ms. Dougherty: This is 58th, this is 4th Avenue, and this is Biscayne Boulevard, a very unique site, so they're not in the situation that anybody else is in, and nothing has happened since the Planning Advisory Board, when I advised you that there are five pending projects in 50 blocks; five, that's all, five Class II's and one Major Use -- four C-2's, Class II's and one Major Use Special Permit. That hasn't changed. No one else has come in here and applied for anything, and nobody will be in the next couple of months, either, until this thing is settled, but let me just say this to you: These folks bought this property two and a half years ago. They paid eight million dollars for it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wow. Ms. Dougherty: They're going to purchase another piece of property from Mr. Sweka (phonetic) in order to bring down the property. They've revised their project two or three times. As a matter of fairness, I'm asking you on first reading to amend your Code in one of two ways to help somebody in the process. Either amend it to allow for a Major Use Special Permit in the process to be 150 feet, or alternatively, allow for somebody to have a year to pull their Building Permit. Currently, if they go through the process and they go through a Major Use Special Permit, you have to pull the Building Permit with 180 days of the permit being approved. What -- I would request you either do one of two things. Make it legal at 150 feet. The original project was at what feet? Unidentified Speaker: 175 feet. Ms. Dougherty: 175, or alternatively, allow them to have 180 days to pull their Building Permit after the Major Use Special Permit is approved, so I'd ask you to do that on first reading. Commissioner Winton: What was the second request? Or do what? Ms. Dougherty: Either make it legal at 150 or alternatively, instead of having 180 days to pull a Building Permit from the development order, a year to pull a Building Permit. City ofMiami Page 221 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Are you saying make it legal for those that are in the queue? Ms. Dougherty: Only for the one Major Use Special Permit in the queue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you talking about the five pending? Commissioner Winton: The one -- the only one we've got. Ms. Dougherty: Well, I'm only talking about one Major Use Special Permit at 150 feet. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Dougherty: OK, they want the -- I'm suggesting -- Ms. Pardo: And the Class II's (INAUDIBLE). No, I was just saying with the Class II's, these are on the west side -- well, mine's on the west side, too. Just because you have these property owners -- I mean, we want to work with the City and if we come up with a plan, it won't make a difference if we can work out an agreement. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wait, wait. This gets more confusing. Are they in the process already? Are they -- Ms. Pardo: Yes. Mr. Pino has -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: So they have their permits and stuff? Mr. Maxwell: No, the application. Ms. Pardo: No. He filed -- he filed a completed application for a Class II. Vice Chairman Sanchez: They have filed. How many do you have, the projects -- Ms. Pardo: I have one. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, how many projects are already in the process? Ms. Pardo: There are a total of five in total. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Five in total? Ms. Pardo: Right. I'm referring -- Lucia. Dougherty: One major use special permit and four Class IIs. Ms. Pardo: And four Class IIs. Ms. Dougherty: But only two -- Chairman Teele: You need to speak on the record, Ms. Dougherty. You're driving our Clerk crazy. Ms. Dougherty: I know of two on the east side, which we are not asking for 150 feet or anything like that, butt know of her client and my client on the west side, each of which would be 150 feet. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, ifl could be recognized? City ofMiami Page 222 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Please. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I know it's getting -- Chairman Teele: Please. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I know it's getting late, and this is the -- this is basically the first time that we've seen a group of residents take a proactive -- of working -- commendable participation from all of them coming together to protect their corridor. This is how I like to see residents taking control of their community, not coming here on a project by project basis to oppose it. In many cases, when it comes from recommendation from the City and everyone down, but this is the way to start, and I think that this is a step in the right direction. Let me tell you that there are some questions that I don't have the answer for. I'm very confused with the transfer of development rights. I haven't gotten it yet. I need to be educated more on that issue. That's a very complicated issue, OK, but let me just say, that in all fairness, the process is moving along and I see that there is participation from everyone. In all fairness, to keep that area from overdevelopment -- and I see it happening, because right now you've put, as they said, the false expectation and the false fear. Well, the fear is out there that you can develop, but it's good because the owners are protected, but when you have five projects that already are in that process, you know, it's also not fair to pull the rug from underneath them, but how do you work it out so where you put -- you know, they're it, and that's it. Nobody else could come into the corridor and basically develop. I mean, that's how I want to get the guidance. I don't know if we get it fi^om the City or we get it fi^om the community, or we get it fi^om the experts to not only protect your interests, but also the ones that have already put money into the projects, those that have bought the property. For instance, eight million dollars to buy a chunk of property, and now they're being told, well, you can't develop. I don't think that's fair either, but if we're able to solve these five pending -- and I hear there's only five -- maybe that's a start, and then from there on, that's it. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. You're not -- hold on. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, I'm just putting suggestions out to see what feedback I get. Commissioner Winton: And I'm going to echo something that Commissioner Sanchez said, and that is, with all due respect to Mr. Wing and your opinion about FAR, I'm going to ask our City Attorney to weigh in on this point as well, because I can tell you where I'm going to come from, from a public policy standpoint, and you've already heard what my position is as it relates to trying to move forward. That I will not put us in a position, particularly with the projects that are already in the pipeline, that may get us sued for millions of dollars. I won't do that. I won't risk it, so -- Chairman Teele: Well, I'm glad to hear you say that because I was just frying to figure out how I was going to make up to you for not going along with you, because I'm going to be honest with you. I have a fundamental problem when it comes -- and I know when the community starts mobilizing, they want to get everything -- but those things that are in the system, those things that are in the process, it is just fundamentally -- it raises a fundamental fairness question to me. Government can act but government needs to act in a balanced way and not do things because we have the power in an arbitrary and capricious way, and I think it raises that question, so as far as I'm concerned -- and I know there are going to be people saying, well, I have this land and I'm waiting to do something. Well, you know -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're not in the process. Chairman Teele: -- you're not in the process, you know, and the fact of the matter is, maybe we City ofMiami Page 223 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 can look at that and talk about transferring development rights or something like that for -- even for some of those, but the simple fact of the matter is, I would be hard-pressed to, in effect, take those entities that are in the process and cut off their rights to get to the end of the line, and so -- I'm glad -- I think we're saying something similar and I'm so -- certainly agreeing with Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But to be honest with you, I don't think they're asking for that either. Let me get that feedback. Are you asking for that? I mean, you say, those five -- Mr. Wing: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- get them through and that's it? Mr. Wing: No, no. What we're here for is good zoning. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Wing: And if -- one of the aspects of good zoning is you don't have a hodgepodge of a bunch of buildings, like that Falls building, which was even built illegally because they had to buy a house behind it to make their FAR, and the house is now for sale as a condo. I mean, that's crazy. We don't want to do that. We don't want to unnecessarily punish people. Chairman Teele: Right. Mr. Wing: But when you do those kinds of calculations and things, you also have to get into the numbers and you have to see what did they pay for the land. For example, Edgewater is now about sixty-six bucks a foot. Up here in the north side, it's only about thirty-four to thirty-eight on average, and so that gets into it as well, and you have to get down to cases and do these things right, and not just talking broad brushes. Chairman Teele: Very helpful. Do we have any perspective that we've not heard from tonight that hasn't been heard? You're always welcome and take as long as you need, sir. Robert Flanders: Chairman Teele, first, I'd like to start by saying thank you. Numerous reports have come to me of the complimentary remarks that you made earlier today on the work that the Bond Oversight Board has been doing. I can tell you that the members of the board very much appreciate that. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Thank you and the board. Mr. Flanders: My name is Robert Flanders, and for 23 years, I've lived at 720 Palm Bay Lane in Miami's Upper Eastside. Today, I'm appearing as a co-founder and vice president of the Upper Eastside Miami Council, the civic organization leading the charge since 1996 for the sustainable redevelopment of Biscayne Boulevard. We are a coalition of homeowners' associations, businesses, and individuals, and a recent offshoot is the newly incorporated Biscayne Corridor Chamber of Commerce. We are here today in support of the City Commission's wisdom to pass PZ.21, saying `yes" to the smart growth developer guidelines as proposed by City staff and approved by the Planning & Zoning Department and the Planning Advisory Board. These developer guidelines were created in collaboration with the Upper Eastside community, and they represent a major milestone in the revitalization of Biscayne Boulevard because they balance the needs of the residential neighborhood with the needs of the commercial property owners and developers. Twelve years ago, the Upper Eastside said "no" to the Boulevard's imbedded prostitution, drug havens, and other elicit activities and partnered with the City to build the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office in Legion Park. It was constructed with City funds and money from the local homeowners' associations. We've been City ofMiami Page 224 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 team players. In August 1996, we formed a citizens advisory group to participate in the first 3-day Biscayne Boulevard design charrette. NET Administrator, Ana Gelabert-Sanchez' idea was cosponsored by Miami's Community Development Department and the Florida Department of Transportation. The charrette addressed the physical and economic revitalization of the boulevard. The results are FDOT's (Florida Department of Transportation's) Biscayne Boulevard Improvement 2005 project that rebuilds the boulevard and the Upper Eastside master plan, which is a starting blueprint for the economic revitalization of the boulevard, and, in fact, this Commission, in June of 1999, adopted that master plan. After the charrette, five of the original attendees founded the Upper Eastside Miami Council and we have been building community ever since, so here we are at the end of a long road that we've traveled together, successfully, and we support height restrictions, as low as possible, without delay. We want to give our deepest appreciation to City staff who have worked long and hard for years getting us to this point, and we want to personally thank each Commissioner, your staff members, and also the Mayor and his staff members. We appreciate the City Manager and his staffs rapid pursuit of excellence in all the City's departments. It is clear to us that the Upper Eastside's burgeoning success has been built on a large pyramid of support from the City and the community. PZ.21 puts into place a starting framework that provides a working relationship between residents, landowners, developers, and City staff that will help remake the Upper Eastside into one of Miami's premiere areas to live, shop, work and play. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Could we -- Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Commissioner Winton: Could we please hear also anybody else, new thoughts, not repeat stuff so we can get on? Chairman Teele: We have a gentleman right here who's been waiting to be heard. Commissioner Winton: Great. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much for being so patient. Scott Crawford: Hi. My name is Dr. Scott Crawford. I live at 52 -- I mean, I'm sorry. 430 Northeast 52nd Street in Morningside. I'd like to show you a proposal for 5101 Northeast Biscayne Boulevard. This is about two houses away from my home. It's slated to be built soon. It's 135 feet high, and it's -- Commissioner Winton: Is that on the east side of the boulevard? Mr. Crawford: East side, sir. East side. I am two houses away from this proposed building. The setback is proposed to be five feet. I'll be living in the shadow of this building. Commissioner Winton: Has that been approved? Unidentified Speaker: It's one of the five. Commissioner Winton: It's one of the five? OK. Unidentified Speaker: And there's two -- two of them that are -- Chairman Teele: Hold on, sir. You can't -- Mr. Crawford: It is one of the five proposed -- City ofMiami Page 225 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: If you want to say something, just come to the -- Mr. Crawford: It's being proposed by Zyscovich -- planned by Zyscovich. With all due respect to the landowners, I would have to disagree with you. I was brought up to believe that liberty meant exercising one's rights, of course, but not in a manner that would recklessly harm those around you. I was taught that rights end where other person's begin. The fact that one or more property owners want to make certain profits on the sale of their land does not afford them the right to harm the values of land around them. Second, I've seen no evidence, no hard evidence to date that compels me to believe that only tall buildings can make a profit in the Upper Eastside. Quite the contrary, there are numerous single -story or two-story, or three-story buildings in the area with active businesses, all of which enhance and do not detract from the surrounding neighborhoods. Three, any excessive development which is allowed to burden the surrounding historic neighborhoods will, I believe, undermine itself over time. It will sow the seeds of its own decline. Communities are symbiotic relationships. Neighbors cannot negatively impact one another without harming themselves in the process. Surely, taking the farsighted approach to development that's mutually beneficial to the surrounding communities is the way to go, and, lastly, it defies any sense of reason or aesthetics to place 13-story buildings five feet from 70-year-old historic homes. Strict regulations against this sort of profiteering will benefit the community and protect the beauty and the reputation ofMiami. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. (Applause) Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Rod Alonso: Good evening. My name is Rod Alonso. I live at 451 Northeast 53rd Street. I'm on the board of the Morningside Civic Association, as well as the board of the Upper Eastside Miami Council. At the last PAB (Planning Advisory Board) meeting, an architect stood up and said that homeowners who live close to the boulevard should have known better back when we bought our properties. How dare someone suggest that the developer's right to squeeze every last dollar frumps the neighbors' rights to protect our own investments, which includes not just money, but time and dedication to the neighborhood building process. To the lady who spoke earlier, who owns the building on the boulevard (UNINTELLIGIBLE) height limits, I say we went years, years fighting for height limits. It's been no secret. Any developer or overdeveloper out there should have known better, and we are real neighborhoods. Morningside's the only place I've ever lived where neighbors actually know each other and greet each other on the street. That same sense of community is what has brought everybody in the Upper Eastside behind me here tonight. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) community is what has built up the Upper Eastside. The hard work of the neighbors working together with the Police Department, the NET, Public Works, and other departments is what has brought the neighborhoods around. The commercial sector on the boulevard has followed the residential in the neighborhoods and not the other way around. At the last PAB meeting, also, an architect stood up and said that height limits would zap creativity. To that, I say I'd rather have a short building that is merely an example of banality than a tall building that reeks of creativity looking down into my and my neighbor's backyards. Also, about a year ago, as you may recall, a developer wanted to build 22 stories on 55th Street -- actually between 54th Street and 55th Terrace. Would I have preferred eight or nine? You bet, but even that's too high. Therefore, I urge you to please support 30 feet, as requested by the citizens in this charrette and numerous City planning over the years. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Now, folks, we've got to get this to focus in. Is anybody going to say anything that hasn't been said? Jesse Diner: I'm just going to fry to say something constructive so we can cut it off. I know the City ofMiami Page 226 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 hour's late, Commissioner. Chairman Teele: Please. Mr. Diner: That's exactly what I'm here to say. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Diner: I know everybody wants to weigh in in different ways, but think there are practical approaches. It's past 10:30. It's been a long day for you. It's been a long day for the people who came out tonight. What request is -- Chairman Teele: Unfortunately, when you all finish -- Commissioner Winton: We got a lot more. Chairman Teele: -- we're going to still be here, so that -- Mr. Diner: OK, so it's about to be a longer day. What wanted to say is, first of all, those five properties will be dealt with -- Ms. Thompson: We need a name and address on the record, please. Mr. Diner: Jesse Diner, 644 Northeast 57th Street, Miami. Those five properties will be dealt with whatever way they are in the pipeline. If they are legitimately in the pipeline and they have vested rights, and they're entitled to a MUSP or whatever else, they'll be dealt with. They've made application and they'll be dealt with, and whatever you do here tonight and whenever else will fall into place, and I don't think anybody's suggesting that if they have any vested rights that legitimately belong to them, that this legislation should take that away, so what really suggest is, number one, pass your moratorium. Bring it back on second reading as quickly as possible. Number two, pass the ordinance that's up before you because with the moratorium and what you're trying to do, you can fix it between first and second reading, whether it's 60 days down the road or whatever else, and then pass what's right after you've studied it during the moratorium period, but you don't have to go back to first reading on an ordinance after taking 60 days in the moratorium. That's the practical approach. That's what I propose as a resident and as a longtime attorney in this community. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Now, is there anybody else that needs to be heard on either of these items, the standards or the moratorium, either one? JeffMorr: Yes. Chairman Teele: Is there anybody else that has to be heard -- needs to be heard? You need to be heard on this? Yes, sir. Mr. Morr: I would like to. I've been here since 3 p.m., andl don't know how you guys sit here all day. I commend you. My name is JeffMorr, 801 North Venetian Drive. I own Majestic Properties. I'm also a developer. I just bought the old Prescott mansion off 69th Street and Biscayne, so I will be a resident of the Biscayne Corridor. I have a couple of pieces of property on Biscayne. I renovated -- I was one of the pioneers in restoring and renovating buildings on Biscayne, 5046 Biscayne and 7300 Biscayne. I bought two pieces of property for development, one at 68th and Biscayne, one at 87th and Biscayne, within the past year, based on FAR, based on height. I definitely support a height limit, but 95 feet is not enough. I think something around 110 to 120 is, and the reason being that at 95 feet, you have to cram the building into 9-foot ceilings. You cannot reach your FAR at nine -- at eight stories. You need to reach it at nine, City ofMiami Page 227 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 and cram in 9-foot ceilings. I'm all about high ceilings. I think what we're going to end up with are buildings that are not as good. The quality will not be there because we are creating these boxes. We're pushing the setbacks back. We're bringing the buildings back closer to the houses, instead of getting them away from the houses, making them a little more vertical and creating better buildings. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much, and we look forward to you coming on across the Venetian Causeway. Robert Stebbins: Good evening. My name is Robert Stebbins and I live at 410 Northeast 52nd Terrace, and I happen to live directly behind Ms. Tako's investment property. You know, the charrette was what pretty much everybody agreed on. We started at 30 feet. They said 137. Now, I'm hearing 175. From what I've heard, we agreed to up that to 40 feet to meet a compromise and make the buildings a little more, you know, usable, and then we also increased the footprint. They came down very little. We increased ours by 33 percent. If they had decreased theirs by 33 percent, it would have come out to about 58 feet. It would have brought them down to around 70 or 80 feet, so now you're at 40 feet. They're at 70, 80 feet. Somewhere in the middle is about 60 feet, 55 feet. I got to tell you. I've been in Morningside almost 10 years, and I've been through a lot with all the boulevard and all the nonsense that's been going on over there, and I'm not going to waste your time this evening with it, but, you know, the thought of somebody moving in in the last little bit of time and buying the piece of property -- the 13-story motel, or the 13-story rental apartment that they were talking about over here is across the street from me. My neighbor -- I walk out my front door, I see his and it's the property next to his, and that was the drawing that gentleman was holding up -- and my neighbor's already sold his house and moved, and he was the guy who brought me into the neighborhood. He owns a club in the Design District. He showed me the house and I moved there, and he's gone. He sold his house. That's what's happening. Nobody wants to live next door to a 13-story apartment building, you know. I already have a two-story abandoned, unimproved empty crackhead motel next to me, and I really don't want to see it compounded, so thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. All right, now -- please, please. (Applause) Kay Hancock Aptul: I want to put one thing on the table that I don't think anyone else has mentioned tonight. We've heard a great deal about the -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. We need your name and address -- Ms. Hancock-Aptul: Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Thompson: -- for the record. Ms. Hancock-Aptul: My name is Kay Hancock-Aptul. I reside at 550 Sabal Palm Road in Bay Point. The issue -- the one item that I don't think has even been mentioned tonight is the actual value. We've heard a great deal about the eight million dollar pieces of property and people that bought it. I've done that in my past. I know sometimes in the development world you win a lot, and sometimes you win less, but don't forget that on my street, Sabal Palm Road in Bay Point, you don't have to put too many houses together to come up with eight million dollars. You can go into Morningside, there are many houses in there that are over a million dollars, so there's value in the real estate on both sides, both in the residential side and in the commercial side. I came in here tonight with the 85, 95 because I thought it was time that we get on with this process and that we develop, because I believe that development -- I don't like those crack motels or anything else that are in our neighborhood, but all I'm interested in, sincerely, is the very best for us. As a developer, you have to make money, but as the residents, you can't destroy our City ofMiami Page 228 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 properties either. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Public hearing is -- anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Eileen Bottari: I'll be fast. My name is Eileen Bottari. I reside at 505 Northeast 76th Street in the Palm Grove neighborhood, and I have a copy of what I'm going to say. Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no. Just say it from there and we'll pass it out as you -- get somebody to help you. Ms. Bottari: OK. Well, I have a copy of -- OK -- This is the SD-9 that we were working on in 2002, before we had the charrette, and you can see in the SD-9, this was a work in progress, and if you read, I highlighted the page numbers where it says different areas of the boulevard, different heights were recommended, OK, so were working on something like this, and this is what we've been talking about tonight, that there are areas on the boulevard that you can put high rises. Our neighborhood -- Palm Grove neighborhood abuts to our commercial on the west side of the boulevard, and there's very, very little room for high rises in front of the Palm Grove neighborhood. We don't want to walk out of our doors and have a wall of cement in front of us. We want the sunlight to come into our yards, so we're asking that -- with the moratorium, that we revise and we do not have 85 to 95 feet across. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. The public hearing's closed. Commissioner Winton: I'm seriously thinking about changing my mind. Chairman Teele: Well, I'm going to be very honest with you, folks. This public hearing just got closed. Now, if y'all got something to say, then appeal the Chair's decision, but we're going to get out of here tonight and we're not hearing anything new, and we're not going to make any definitive decisions on the issue that everybody's opining on. We're going to work this back with staff so unless somebody's got to give a speech, they're not going to be heard on this. The issue is, Commissioner Winton, are you going to move forward with the moratorium tonight and have it come back in a short term, or you want -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- to defer that item? Commissioner Winton: No. I'm going to absolutely move forward with the moratorium tonight and have it -- Chairman Teele: Read the ordinance related to the moratorium, Mr. Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: You need a second. Chairman Teele: We don't have a motion or a second at this point. Read the ordinance, please. Mr. Maxwell: The way it's presently in the packet. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: My motion is to put a moratorium in place, and I guess we can go to second reading, on what date? Mr. Maxwell: March the -- City ofMiami Page 229 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, the first meeting in March. Mr. Maxwell: Next meeting, March 11 th. Ms. Thompson: March 11 th. Commissioner Winton: OK, and I want the length of that moratorium to be 90 days, not 180. Chairman Teele: 90? Mr. Maxwell: Not 120, you mean. It's now 120. Commissioner Winton: I don't want 120. I don't want 180. I want 90. Mr. Maxwell: 90 days. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: There's a motion and a second on the item, which is actually PZ -- Ms. Slazyk: 22. Chairman Teele: -- 22, as amended. Is there anybody here that wants to be heard in opposition to this motion? Is there anybody here that wants to be heard in opposition to this motion? If so, come forward at this time. Commissioner Winton: We're dealing with the moratorium, not height limits. Chairman Teele: The moratorium. Your name and address for the record. Rick Walsh: It's actually a point of order because that -- Chairman Teele: You don't get to raise a point -- Mr. Walsh: -- has a moratorium -- Chairman Teele: You don't raise a point of order. Mr. Walsh: OK Chairman Teele: All you have is a discussion, if you're for it or against it. Mr. Walsh: OK Rick Walsh, 5605 North Bayshore Drive in Morningside. The moratorium is for 85 to 95 feet, but the discussion was that there's some areas that we want 30 feet, so could you have the moratorium -- Chairman Teele: One moment. Was the moratorium -- Mr. Maxwell: 85 and 95 feet. That's right. Commissioner Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. We were -- yeah -- and I think the mor -- I'm sorry. Good point. Mr. Walsh: And I would just like -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, yeah, yeah. City ofMiami Page 230 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Walsh: -- the moratorium to cover to 30 feet -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Walsh: -- while we're in the discussion phase. Mr. Maxwell: I believe, if you want to drop it below the 85 and 95, you'd have to re -advertise this item. You couldn't do it tonight. It was advertised at 85 and 95 feet. Commissioner Winton: Well, if you re -advertise, then that means it would come back when? Mr. Maxwell: March the 11 th. Commissioner Winton: Well -- Mr. Maxwell: We could come back on March 11 th -- Chairman Teele: I don't -- Mr. Maxwell: -- on first reading. Chairman Teele: Look, look, the Chair is going to rule that if you want to amend it to 35, you can do so under the guidelines that in most jurisdictions, there is no discussion on first reading. The public -- and I'd like for these lawyers that are down here with the County and all that -- Ben, you guys -- is this -- am I right or am I wrong? In most jurisdictions, there's only a public hearing at second reading; is that right? Mr. Bass: That is absolutely true. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why is it that attorneys could never agree? Commissioner Winton: You should have never asked that question. You got the answer. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why is it that attorneys could never agree? Commissioner Winton: Lawyers. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Lawyers. Can't live with them, can't live without them. Commissioner Winton: So -- Gil Pastoriza: Gil Pastoriza. Second reading is a public hearing on an ordinance. Chairman Teele: Second reading is the public hearing. Mr. Pastoriza: Second reading is the public hearing on an ordinance. Commissioner Winton: Just because we do it wrong doesn't mean it's right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Teele: All right. We're going to entertain it as amended, and then we'll deal with that. If we -- if on second -- City ofMiami Page 231 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion. Chairman Teele: If, on second thought, we have to go back and do it, then there's no harm done, but we will have done it tonight. Mr. Maxwell: What is the -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Maxwell: What are the figures? (Applause) Commissioner Winton: We will have done it tonight, and it's amended later. Chairman Teele: We will have done it tonight -- Commissioner Winton: No, no, no. This isn't a -- Chairman Teele: This is not a debate, Mr. Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: To -- no, no. I'm saying, to what height limit -- Chairman Teele: Huh? Mr. Maxwell: -- so I can make the changes here? To -- no, the moratorium -- no, no, not 90 days. What are the height limits we're talking about? Chairman Teele: 35, he said, I thought. Did you say -- Commissioner Winton: No. He said you have to re -advertise, so if we're going to pass one tonight -- well, I'm sorry, but thought he said, if we're going to pass one tonight -- Pastoriza: Excuse me. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. You're not -- this is us talking. Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, Gil Pastoriza again. I do believe that if you're going to limit -- further limit the height beyond or lower than what has been advertised, you got to start all over again. Commissioner Winton: Well, that's what the City Attorney just said, so -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And we're frying not to do that. Commissioner Winton: So, if we pass the moratorium with what's been advertised in this reading, we can make an amendment and advertise it differently for the second reading? Mr. Maxwell: I believe -- no, no. It doesn't have to go to PAB. This will be first reading. You drop it down to 30 or whatever it is. I -- frankly, I'm advising you thatl don't think you could do it tonight because you didn't advertise it at that, OK, but -- Commissioner Winton: Do what tonight? City ofMiami Page 232 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: -- you've made a ruling on that, so you drop it down to 30, or whatever it is. It'll be first reading now, and it'll be re -advertised at the new height for the second reading. Commissioner Winton: Because -- I didn't understand this. Tell me what's going on now. Try that on me one more time. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's incredible. Mr. Maxwell: You -- the ruling from the Chair was that you're going to amend it tonight as first reading. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Maxwell: It will be -- when it's advertised for second reading, it will show the height that you adopted it at tonight, 30 feet, 35 feet, whatever it is. Chairman Teele: The ruling of the Chair was that would entertain any Commissioner's motion on what he wanted, not that we're going to do it that way. If Commissioner wants to do 35, that's what we're going to do. If he wants to stay with 90 or whatever it was, then we'll do that, but we're going to pass something tonight on some number so that the word is clearly out there. Commissioner Winton: I want to pass whatever we can pass tonight that gets the ball rolling. That's what want to pass. Vice Chairman Sanchez: On first reading. Commissioner Winton: And I'm in -- butl think that where we really want to go with the moratorium is at the 40 foot level. That's where we want to be. Now, you tell me how to get there, but tonight we want to pass whatever you say is legal for us to pass. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 40's legal. Chairman Teele: Then if you want -- If he's framing the motion that way, then the Attorney has read it into the record at how many feet? Mr. Maxwell: 85 feet. Chairman Teele: 85 feet, and the motion stands as it is. Commissioner Winton: And it will come back -- then what happens? Mr. Maxwell: It will come back to you at 85 feet. Chairman Teele: It will come back to you -- correction. It will come back to you at 85 feet for second reading, and it will come back to you at 40 feet for first reading. Mr. Maxwell: Yes. We can advertise it to do that. Correct. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Got it. OK. OK, so we have a motion on the floor. Chairman Teele: We have a motion and a second and everybody has been heard. It's an ordinance, right? Ms. Slazyk: He read it. City ofMiami Page 233 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: You've read the ordinance. Madam -- Mr. Maxwell: 90 days, 85 and 95 feet. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Just for point of clarification -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: For point of clarification, the five pendings, they're not included in the -- Ms. Slazyk: Anybody that's -- this is a moratorium on accepting new applications, so any complete application already on file precedes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. I just wanted to clarify that, in all fairness. Commissioner Winton: But it doesn't mean, by the way, that -- Ms. Slazyk: That they'll be approved. Right. Commissioner Winton: -- all of those that -- Chairman Teele: It doesn't mean that -- Commissioner Winton: -- are in the pipeline have been accepted -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Commissioner Winton: -- nor are they -- do they qualify. Ms. Slazyk: They're not approved. Chairman Teele: This does not affect the five that are there. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right. Chairman Teele: It doesn't help them. It doesn't hurt them. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: They are not approved yet. They're pending. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: And if they don't meet all the guidelines -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Fine. Commissioner Winton: -- they get whacked. City ofMiami Page 234 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: OK, so we all under -- does the public fully understand? Tonight, if this passes, it will be reflected that we have passed it at -- how many feet is it? Mr. Maxwell: 85 and 95 feet. Commissioner Winton: 85. Chairman Teele: 85. Ms. Slazyk: 85 -- Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: -- for non-residential, 95 for residential. Chairman Teele: 85 and 90 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I think we're all in accordance. Ms. Thompson: 95. Chairman Teele: -- for a second reading, and the next meeting, it will come back with the same - - for second reading, but there will also be another one on for first reading at the lower level. All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Call the question. Mr. Maxwell: Let me read the title again into the record, Mr. Chairman, just for -- An ordinance of the Miami -- Is that the motion? You're ready for that, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Teele: Huh? Commissioner Gonzalez: There's a motion and second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: A motion and second. Mr. Maxwell: There's a motion and second. Chairman Teele: There was motion and second on what you read. Mr. Maxwell: I wanted to read it one more time -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: State it for the record. Mr. Maxwell: -- if you don't mind. Yeah, and for the record, I think we should. Chairman Teele: I don't mind. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. City ofMiami Page 235 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. Commissioner Winton: Now, the next issue is back to PZ.21. Ms. Slazyk: 21. Chairman Teele: Would you read that ordinance and -- Commissioner Winton: Hold on. Before we go there, I want to make a public statement. This is going to follow along the lines of something you had to do probably a year or so ago. There are those who are sitting in the audience tonight that were spreading a rumor that me and my partners were planning on building a 30-story building on Biscayne Boulevard, and that was in writing, and it was yak yak, and just so all of you know, I'm going to say two things about it. One is, it was an absolute out and out damned lie. That's number one, but number two, those people are also part of your group, and you know, I'm a human being, and as a human being, I have frailties. I get ticked off and you know how hard it is to do the absolute right thing when you have people that are on your side that are lying to you and your neighbors, so just remember that. In the future, if you hear things about your Commissioner, pick up the damn phone and call me and ask me, and I'll tell you the facts. End of story. Sorry. (Applause) Commissioner Winton: The next motion is to make sure -- Jeffrey, you've got to come on up to make sure I'm focused right on this. I think the next motion is going to be to pass the ordinance, as recommended by staff tonight, on first reading. We will not bring this ordinance back for second reading until probably 60 days, as opposed to the 45. In addition to that, we're going to set up a special study committee, and what I need to do is get people probably to send my office - - tomorrow or the next day -- names of people who ought to be participating on this, and I think my office is probably going to ultimately decide who those people are. Is that legal? Mr. Maxwell: I would suggest that you may not want to do that. Chairman Teele: Never ask the question if you don't know what the answer is going to be. Commissioner Winton: But I -- you know, I'm looking at my City Attorney to protect me. I don't want to make a mistake. Well, who would you -- so, who would you suggest do that? Mr. Maxwell: If you can -- is this an advisory committee? Commissioner Winton: Well, it's going to be advising the -- of course, it's an advisory committee. Chairman Teele: What we will do, Johnny, is direct -- Mr. Maxwell: Why don't you just have them work -- Ms. Dougherty: What is wrong with that? Mr. Maxwell: -- like charrettes? Just have them work -- Ms. Dougherty: What's wrong with that? Commissioner Winton: Huh? City ofMiami Page 236 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: -- with the Planning staff. Ms. Dougherty: What is wrong with that? What's wrong with his office being the mediator? It's his district. Commissioner Winton: I mean, I do it all the time. Chairman Teele: It's not judicial. Ms. Dougherty: It's not judicial. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. Chairman Teele: But the way, I think -- you know, look, the way to do it would be to have -- at the end of the ordinance, to direct the Manager to convene a committee to do whatever you want to do, and further require that the Manager confer with your office -- Commissioner Winton: Perfect. Chairman Teele: -- in making those appointments. Commissioner Winton: Deal, and those of you who want to serve on the committee, send me your names and address so I can get hold of you and we can get this thing rolling right away, but -- and it needs to start right away, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'll send you an e-mail. Commissioner Winton: I'm making a motion to adopt the ordinance for first reading. It will not come back for 60 more days, as suggested by staff and that we do get this committee established to work on the plan, as outlined by a number of people that we've already heard that I don't want to have to re -describe. So move. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Winton: You want to re -describe it? Chairman Teele: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: OK. Chairman Teele: No. That's your motion before you do the ordinance, right? What's your motion again? Commissioner Winton: No, I'll -- I'm -- there's -- probably there's two parts to it and I need -- Chairman Teele: Let's do the ordinance first. Commissioner Winton: And we'll do the ordinance, so I'm -- Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney, read the ordinance again into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. City ofMiami Page 237 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no. Wait, wait, wait. Now, the critical thing that we need to establish is when will the second reading be in doing this? Ms. Slazyk: Second meeting in April. Chairman Teele: The second meeting in April isApril 22nd. Now, we can agree on that now, if the staff will agree not to load up that agenda because we need to be able to provide four to six hours to this issue alone. I mean, we need to be -- this is a very important issue. It involves property rights. We've got people here that are ready to have a heart attack, and we want to make sure that everybody is fully heard on this issue and that their rights to be heard were not in any way cut off by the Commission or the Chair in any way, so can we agree that we're going to limit the agenda -- the zoning agenda on April the -- on the second meeting in April to a limited number of items, and this is going to be the primary issue that we hear? Ms. Slazyk: I believe there are approximately six major use special permits moving forward that were going to hit that agenda. I don't know if we should look for a special meeting. I'm just -- Chairman Teele: Then I would be prepared -- Ms. Slazyk: I'm just telling -- Chairman Teele: I would be prepared to recommend that the following Thursday, which isApril 29th, that we have a special meeting on that, as long as we don't start in the morning. Let's start at 1 -- 2 o'clock or something like that. A half a day. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: On the item -- on the timing issue? Commissioner Regalado: On the timing issue, I think that it should be a special meeting because, you know, when -- this what we're doing tonight -- and I'm very happy that we're doing it -- it would have a domino effect. The people from Shenandoah will be asking a moratorium on Coral Way, and, you know, the people in Brickell, around Brickell, will be asking moratorium in Brickell, and these people should and will be heard, and we need the staff to come back and tell us how many of these huge projects are in the pipeline, because we need to know, but this is not an isolated thing. This is the beginning of the end of big development in the City ofMiami and, you know -- (Applause) Commissioner Winton: No, no, no, no, no. I'm not accepting that applause -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. I mean -- Commissioner Winton: -- and I'm not accepting -- Commissioner Regalado: I'm just saying -- Commissioner Winton: -- that theory either. Commissioner Regalado: I -- well -- Commissioner Winton: Because there are zones within the City ofMiami that are zoned for high density, and we're not changing them. City ofMiami Page 238 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: No, no, but, Johnny, what I'm referring to is as to what we call the popular spots now, in terms of development. I'm saying, you know, Coral Way, Miami Avenue, Brickell, and I'll tell you why. Last night we had a long, long meeting in -- with the neighbors in Shenandoah, and after the curbs and the sidewalks, the next thing was, well, you know, high rises in Coral Way. Commissioner Winton: Right. Commissioner Regalado: And we need to do something and historic and whatever, so this will be the beginning of a series of things, and we need to know, understand what is going on within the system in the City ofMiami. That's what I would recommend, to do a special or -- you know, because we -- Chairman Teele: OK. Commissioners -- but let's just fry to get this issue resolved. He's agreeing to a special meeting. I'm recommending that we have a special meeting, commencing at 2: 30 -- Commissioner Regalado: 3 o'clock. Chairman Teele: -- 3 o'clock on Thursday, April 29th, and I'll also recommend that we postpone the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting on that Monday and make that that Thursday so we wind up with -- Commissioner Winton: Doing both. Chairman Teele: -- with three meetings that we're going to have anyway, so that way we can consolidate something. Is that OK with you, Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Teele: Does that appear to be all right with everyone else's schedule? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK with me. Chairman Teele: So, with the -- so the motion would include with the public hearing to be held at 3 p.m., on Thursday, April 29th. All right. Now, do we have a motion? Commissioner Winton: I thought I made one. Chairman Teele: I thought he read it. Do you have a motion? Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. Ms. Thompson: I have a motion on the ordinance, but, Commissioner, ifI could just get clarification. I thought that whenever you called a special meeting, you had to have a separate motion requesting the meeting so we could advertise. What I'm hearing is that you're putting that as part of the motion on the ordinance? Ms. Slazyk: It's -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no. He's doing a different -- no, no. Chairman Teele: No. That's not at all what we're doing. City ofMiami Page 239 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: No. He's doing a different motion. Chairman Teele: I'll help you. I'll help you. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Let's just follow this motion. Call the roll. Ms. Thompson: Roll call on the ordinance for PZ.21. Chairman Teele: With the hearing date as established. Go right ahead. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Chairman Teele: Now, a motion by Commissioner Winton to call a special meeting on Thursday, April 29th, for the purpose of taking up the zoning item previously discussed -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: -- at 3 p.m. Commissioner Winton: So move. Commissioner Regalado: And a report from the administration regarding other major projects in the pipeline by -- in writing. Chairman Teele: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: As a backup material. I mean -- Ms. Slazyk: We produced it -- Chairman Teele: Well -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Teele: -- the item would include all of the issues in the pipeline and everything related to that and the ancillary matters related to the issues that have been discussed tonight. All right. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. We will produce a report. Chairman Teele: Including what Commissioner Regalado just said. All right? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Teele: On the motion calling the special meeting, is there objection to that? All -- We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? Now, on the motion by Commissioner Winton to have a working group to be appointed by the Manager after consulting -- in consultation with his office on the appointees, would you make that motion? City ofMiami Page 240 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection or discussion on that? Do you want to limit the number of people or say how many people, or keep it open? Commissioner Winton: I don't -- Chairman Teele: And they -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, I think we ought to keep it open because we want to -- I want to think about it, and, you know, we're not going to make it an unwieldy group, butt want to make sure that we've got a real good -- that we've got very good representation, and that we also don't have people that are going to be -- there will be no shrill voices that I'm going to allow on there. I can assure you. Chairman Teele: The only thing that I would recommend is that the group have meetings that are in the public, but they not entertain public discussion. Anybody wants to come and -- anybody who wants to come and watch can come and watch, but it would be up to the presiding officer as to whether they let people talk. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Teele: But I think it should be done very much -- Commissioner Winton: I agree with you a hundred percent. That's a good idea. Chairman Teele: -- as a provisory -- Commissioner Winton: Very good idea. Chairman Teele: So anybody will -- you'll know when the meeting is, but this is not a workshop where everybody comes and talks. This is a group of people who will be appointed, who will come in and will deliberate among themselves, and then they will report back to us -- Commissioner Winton: And it will be publicly noticed, you're saying. Chairman Teele: And will be publicly noticed. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, it will be. Commissioner Winton: I think that's a real good idea. Chairman Teele: All right. In the motion -- Commissioner Winton: Not sunshine. Publicly noticed. Chairman Teele: In the motion -- Mr. Maxwell: It will have to -- Commissioner Winton: This is an advisory. City ofMiami Page 241 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: If this group is going to make -- Commissioner Winton: This is an advisory. Mr. Maxwell: -- recommendations to you, then it's going -- it'll be subject to sunshine law, but that means we'll notice and it'll be publicly noticed. It'll be open to the public. Commissioner Winton: I'm not sure that agree, you know. You need to make sure that you research that law appropriately. Chairman Teele: As -- sunshine law, as appropriate. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Teele: As appropriate. Commissioner Winton: Because I'm not sure you're right, so -- Chairman Teele: All those -- Commissioner Winton: And my intent wasn't to create a sunshine meeting. It was to create an open meeting. Chairman Teele: Is there any discussion on the motion relating to this? Where are my glasses? Mr. Maxwell: No. Chairman Teele: Somebody take my glasses? Well, I won't be able to see anything. Commissioner Winton: There they are. Here they are. Now, I have -- Chairman Teele: Is there anybody here that wants to be heard on that motion? Because I don't want anybody to say they weren't heard. You wanted to be heard, ma'am? Ms. Tako: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Right here. Right here. Be very brief please. Ms. Tako: OK With all those meetings you've been talking about -- Chairman Teele: Your name for the record. Ms. Tako: My name is Jacki Tako. We never had any letters sent to us. I've been visiting the City daily with my building, daily with the neighborhood -- the NET side daily. Nobody told us about this charrette that's going for a year. Nobody that has property in Biscayne has been in any of these meeting, and I want to say it fi^om the first day I was here. I have people that have plan in the City. They never knew about your (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- you are planning for reducing the height. Chairman Teele: All right. Let me just say this. The motion that is before us now ensures that you will have notice if you take one of the newspapers of daily circulation. We will not be giving you mail notice, but we will put it in the newspaper, the notice of the time and the place of the meeting. Does that meet your requirements? Ms. Tako: I'm going to keep calling the City. I hope they will give me the right information, ifI City ofMiami Page 242 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 read it in the paper or if not, butt will be calling them. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Ms. Tako: Thank you. Chairman Teele: On the motion -- Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: No, not on the motion. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. Commissioner Winton: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I need to put something else on the record, and I -- and, Commissioner Regalado, I don't want to create a debate here, but it's important. There were people that came to me and asked me to consider this moratorium to begin with and I was opposed, and the reason I was opposed is because moratorium create -- you can almost expect that you're going to create the law of unintended consequences, and you just talked about it, and I want this on the record and I want it crystal clear. I am not supporting a moratorium in Brickell or in downtown, or those other areas that have high density, long-term planning, period. I don't want to slow down those developments, and I'm not sending a message to the development community that we're out to kill you all. That is not the message we want to send. The message we want to send is that in certain corridors, not broad swaths, but in certain corridors -- of which Coral Way is absolutely one and I've used that example over and over again. Biscayne Boulevard, Coral Way, and a few other -- there's maybe a couple of those narrow corridors that deserve this very, very detailed and special attention, and that's what this group is focused on doing, and that moratorium is related only to that and to nothing else, so that's just for the record to the public and the development community out there at large. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You've made it very clear. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Winton: Next subject. PZ.23 03-0416a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1001 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "INDUSTRIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 243 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 03-0416a SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0416a Analysis.PDF 03-0416a Land Use Map.PDF 03-0416, 03-0416a & 03-0416b Aerial Map.pdf 03-0416, 03-0416a & 03-0416b School Brd Recomm.PDF 03-0416a River Comm Recomm.PDF 03-0416a PAB Reso.PDF 03-0416a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0416a SR Legislation.PDF 03-0416a - submission Winston.pdf 03-0416a - submission Kinsella.pdf 03-0416a - submission Jubilee signatures.pdf 03-0416a - submission River Commission.pdf 03 - 0416a submission - signatures opposed.pdf 03-0416a - submission Dickman.pdf 03 - 0416a submission - Spring Garden.pdf 03-0416a - submission Grafton.pdf 03-0416a - submission drawing.pdf 03-0416a - submission maps.pdf 03-0416a FR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0416a FR Legislation DRAFT.PDF 03-0416a - submission - article.pdf 03-0416a - submission - disclosure.pdf 03-0416a - submission - petition.pdf 03-0416a - submission - resume.pdf 03-0416a - submission - correspondence 1 .pdf 03-0416a - submission - photo.pdf 03-0416a - submission - correspondence.pdf 03-0416a - submission - correspondence - 2.pdf 03-0416a - submission - correspondence - 3.pdf 03-0416a - submission - Comprehensive Plan.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Industrial" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 1001 NW 7th Street APPLICANT(S): Royal Atlantic Developers, LLP and 1001 NW 7th Street Properties, Inc APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Unanimously recommended approval to City Commission. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File IDs 03-0416 and 03-0416b. City ofMiami Page 244 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site for the proposed Royal Atlantic Major Use Special Permit Project. Motion by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Regalado Noes: 1 - Commissioner Teele 12492 Direction to the City Clerk: by Commissioner Gonzalez to provide him with a franscript of the discussion on Item PZ.23 by February 27, 2004. [Note: Clerk notified Commissioner Gonzalez that transcript could not be completed by February 27th and delivered franscript on March 1, 20041 Chairman Teele: Any other deferrals? Commissioner Sanchez is going to hear -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if we could take PZ.23, it was time certain at 6, I believe and -- Chairman Teele: 23 or 24? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry, 24. Chairman Teele: OK. Before you do, we're going to hear two items from this morning's agenda, consent agenda. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Teele: You've got to go? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, please. Chairman Teele: All right. PZ-24, at the insistence of the Commissioner. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ's 23, 24 -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Commissioner, I'm sorry -- Ms. Slazyk: -- and 25 are companion items. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner, I wanted to make sure that if anyone was going to speak, they may not have been sworn in, because we've had people shifting in and out. Chairman Teele: All right. Hold on one minute. Hold on, hold on. Everybody's got their issues. What about PZ-21 and 22? Was that what you're saying, Lourdes? Vice Chairman Sanchez: 23 and 24. Chairman Teele: 21 and 22, were they companion to 24? Ms. Slazyk: No. 21 and 22 are companion to each other, and then 23, 24 and 25 -- Chairman Teele: Is anybody here on 21 and 22 for a deferral? Are you here for the deferral or City ofMiami Page 245 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 to hear the item? You're here to hear the item? All right, all right. Is there anyone here for the deferral of any other item? If not, ladies and gentlemen, please come in. We have chaos with time. Commissioner -- at Commissioner Sanchez' request, we're going to take up PZ Item Number 24. We recognize that Item Number 21 and 22 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: 23 -- Chairman Teele: -- have also been called for, but they will not be heard until 24. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, 23 and 24 are companion items. Chairman Teele: 23 and 24? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Ms. Slazyk: And 25. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Chairman Teele: Ladies and gentlemen, we need your cooperation, please. Madam Director, would you proceed? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. PZ. 23, 24, and 25 are companion items. PZ's.23 and 24 are for a land use and zoning change for the property located at approximately 1001 Northwest 7th Street. This is from industrial to restricted commercial, with a companion zoning change going from SD-4 to C-1. These properties have been recommended for approval for zoning and land use change by the Planning and Zoning Department. Planning Advisory Board recommended approval for the land use change to the Commission and the Zoning Board recommended approval of the zoning change. PZ.25 is the companion major use special permit for the Royal Atlantic Project. The project is going to be comprised of two 27-story buildings, with a total of 744 multifamily units. Chairman Teele: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to have to suspend everything if we cannot bring ourselves into the decorum necessary to conduct the meeting. We need your participation. Go right ahead, ma'am. Ms. Slazyk: Thank you. All right. The Royal Atlantic Project is going to be comprised of two 27-story buildings, with a total of 744 multifamily residential units, 9400 square feet of retail space and 1,073 parking spaces. The proposal was recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning and Zoning Department, and the Planning Advisory Board had recommended denial to the Commission. The Planning Advisory Board recommended approval of the land use change, but the recommendation for denial of the project was because they felt that the land use and zoning change were appropriate going from industrial to restrictive commercial category, but the project was not the best project that could be accommodated on the property. The Planning and Zoning Department recommended approval with conditions. The project was reviewed and recommended for approval by the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) -- hold on. They recommended approval with conditions that the service be relocated to enhance the green space and remove the service away from the river's edge; that they create a new access point to the river walk that is better suited at the end of ll th Avenue, and that they continue to study the west elevation to break down the massing of the long wall on the west facade. The applicant has modified the project and was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department. Let me just go to conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: OK. The conditions from the Planning and Zoning Department were those of the City ofMiami Page 246 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 UDRB, that they continue to work with us on the 11 th Avenue to enhance the green space and to articulate the parking facade so they don't look like a parking garage. Other than that, it was recommended for approval. Chairman Teele: Counsel, how long are you going to need? Lucia Dougherty: In light of Commissioner Sanchez' requirement of having to leave at 7:30, I will defer -- I mean, I will make my comments very brief in about 10 minutes, maximum. Chairman Teele: Normally, we limit the other side to the same amount of time as the applicant makes. How many people do we have here that want to speak in opposition to this project, that want -- Unidentified Speaker: There are many outside. We're not being allowed in. Andrew Dickman: Mr. Chair -- Chairman Teele: Sir, every -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Everyone's allowed in. Chairman Teele: Every person who wants to speak will be allowed in, but this is the problem. The problem that we're going to have is, if the applicant doesn't use but "X" amount of time, normally the opposition is limited, so we're going to have to have some liberal applications of the rule here. We're going to hear from everybody who wants to speak, as long as something is being said differently, but we're not going to have -- I want to be very clear to everyone that's here on this item. The rule is the opposition is limited generally to the amount of time that the presenter takes. The presenter's only taking 10 minutes. We will be very liberal with those people in opposition, but we will be totally insensitive to speeches and redundancy tonight, OK, so counsel, you may proceed. Commissioner Winton: Could I interrupt one second to help, because there are people out there that I think are trying to get in, and there's no room, and could I ask of the audience then, potentially, if you're not here for PZ.24, at the moment only -- what's the two items -- three items? Is it two or three? Mr. Dickman: IfI could help you. There are a lot of people here for the SD-9 ordinance, which is -- Commissioner Winton: I understand that. Mr. Dickman: -- 21 and 22. Commissioner Winton: I'm frying to -- Mr. Dickman: If they could go and then let the other people come in. Chairman Teele: We're going to get to that. Mr. Dickman: OK. I think that's what you're -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Going to have to cancel. Commissioner Winton: But what I was asking is what the PZ items are, Commissioner Sanchez, that we're dealing with right now? Is it 24 and 25? City ofMiami Page 247 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: 23, 24, and 25. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 23, 24 and 25, but believe that some of the statements that are -- Commissioner Winton: Hold on. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- were presented here at the last Commission meeting, so I'm hoping that they won't be -- Commissioner Winton: Hold on. If -- those of you in the audience, if you're not here for PZ.23, 24 and 25, which is about a zoning change on a project on the Miami River, would you mind going outside, out in the -- out there (INAUDIBLE) -- Chairman Teele: Or go to Commissioner Winton's office -- Commissioner Winton: -- or something. Chairman Teele: -- or my office and make yourself at home. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, and then let the people that are here for the Miami River thing come in so that they can participate where they want to, and we'll reorganize. Mr. Dickman: I thank you for that. Commissioner Winton: Thank you all very much. Sorry. Chairman Teele: No, you did -- all right. Commissioner Regalado: That's the nicest way to kick people out. Very nice way. Chairman Teele: Counsel, you need to go right ahead into your presentation. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today with my co -counsel Don Darrach. We are representing Edwin VertiSoto, who is a contract vendee for the property. Last time you heard several hours of testimony regarding the down zoning of this property from industrial to C-1, and you approved it based on the acoustical engineer, the traffic engineer, the Planning Department, the appraiser, the economist, the homeowners who live directly across the street, all who have recommended approval, and you agreed to that approval for this mixed use zoning designation from industrial to general commercial -- I mean restricted commercial. We will again not repeat all of that testimony tonight. I just want to remind you that this is a site with an existing office building of 221,000 square feet, that it could accommodate at least 500 employees, including, under the current zoning, having a container ship yard, a cannery, a ship building use right on the Miami River. That is what is allowed today, butt want to also remind you that the exact same size of building that we're proposing is also allowed. It's just it would have to be 10 stories or 120 feet, so the same size building, much more noxious uses than what we're proposing. I'd like Larry Cohan now to come forward -- he's with Britto and Cohan -- to make the presentation of the actual project itself. Remember, you never saw the project last time. You only listened to testimony regarding the zoning criteria, and I'd like them to make the presentation on the project and then I will wrap up and reserve time for rebuttal. Larry Cohan: Good evening. My name is Larry Cohan. I'm one of the principals of Britto Cohan & Associates. We're the architects for the project. Our offices are located at 4942 Le Jeune Road, and I'm here to tell you a little bit about the -- I'm sorry. City ofMiami Page 248 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Just one moment. Everyone that is in here now that expects to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn. Madam Clerk. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 tothose persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Cohan: I'm here to describe to you tonight the design of our project. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, Commissioner. We do have individuals who want to speak on this that need an interpreter. Through use of Official Spanish Interpreter, Ondina Suarez, the City clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Mr. Cohan: I'm still here to talk to you about the design of our project. I have nine boards that I'm going to present fairly briefly, but they are very important, and I do want to take the time to show each of them to you. The boards are going to describe the project as currently designed, and two of those boards are going to give you an insight into the thought process that we went through, and also the design decisions we made during the evolution of the design of this project. A lot of those design solutions and design decisions we made were based on feedback and in response to comments from the Spring Gardens neighborhood, from your staff Planning and Zoning, and from the Miami River Commission, and those design decisions we made early on are the decisions that have affected and lead to the massing, and the height and the density of this project. My goal tonight, my objective is for you to look at this project as a project as we see it, and that many others see it as an attractive project. It's a project that is economically feasible for the developer, and it's a project that is looked at as a welcome residential project in the East Little Havana neighborhood. First, I'd like to just go back to one board that was presented to you at the last meeting, just to refresh your memory, or if you had not seen it, to give you an idea of where our project is located and what is surrounding it. Our proposed project, it's a substantially large site. It is 6.3 acres, and that's net acres. It is bounded on its north side by the Miami River. At that point, the river is approximately 150 feet, and to the north of the river is the Spring Gardens neighborhood. We're located on the south side of the river in the East Little Havana neighborhood, and as we look to the board or the picture on the left, more specifically, you can see there are -- is our site. It's bounded by Northwest 7th Sfreet, Northwest 11 th Avenue and South River Drive. Immediately to our west, that adjacent building that you see on our west property line is a Dade County maintenance facility. Across the street on South River Drive are one-story warehouses. Across from us on Northwest 11 th Avenue are the sides of those warehouses and a City ofMiami fire station. As we turn onto Northwest 7th Sfreet, it becomes a little bit more residential in scale. Right there at the corner of Northwest 7th Street and Northwest 11 th Avenue is the Jubilee condominium. Next to it is an asphalt on grade parking lot, and then some more apartments as you head towards the east. Our eastern boundary is shared with Allied Marine, which is a marine maintenance facility, and to its east is an active freight yard. Again, you're looking at the Miami River, about 150 feet wide, and the town houses along the river belong to the Spring Garden neighborhood. The next board that I'm going to show you are the site plan of the project, and I will very briefly describe what the project is. In essence, it is a two-phase project. Phase 1 has a parking garage, has a tower. Phase 2 also has a parking garage and a tower, and I'd like to show you the boundary of the site. That's 1,048 linear feet along the river, and that's approximately 400 feet in width. In the first tower, it's a total of 27 stories; 21 stories of tower rising from a six -story pedestal, and the second phase has the same characteristics, 27 stories in total, rising from a 21-story pedestal. More specifically, I'd like to address Northwest 7th Street, because that's where we're frying to create a neighborhood within a neighborhood. It is going to be the first of a residential project for this City ofMiami Page 249 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 area, and to do that, we have lined the garage along Northwest 7th with retail. That's the 3-D graphic you're looking at right there. Above the retail are town houses, which also screen all of the garage from the street, and above that on the 7th level is an open lani (phonetic) deck. Now, we're requesting a C-1 zoning, and the C-1 zoning comes with height and it comes with density, and I'd like to talk to you a little bit about how we have handled what we're requesting, and also go back to some of the issues of how we have used both the balance of height and massing. On your left is the landscape plan for the project. The condominium, Phase 1 right there, is 27 stories. Phase 2 condominium is 27 stories. The balance of everything you're looking at in my little circle of beam is seven stories total. Actually, six -story garage with an open deck. Same thing there. If you go over to this visual, notice that the open space -- and when I'm talking about open space -- I heard some comments about FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and what we are talking about in area. My area in percentages are based on the net value. In other words, that is the perimeter of our property. We are 55 percent open space. Well over half of our 6.3 acres is landscape open space, no structures, period. The towers -- each of the towers only represents six percent of the entire site, so if you take the entire footprint of the 20-story monster being described to you, those 27 stories only equate to 12 percent of the entire site, and that was done absolutely, positively on purpose, because what is important to us and what should be important to both sides of the river is view corridor. It should be light. It should be what this project looks like, and I'd like to go back just a half second to the original project and the comments that were originally made about that and why things were changed. This is a site plan of our original project. There were three buildings there at the time. The buildings were 31, 34 and seven floors and they encompassed a great part of the site. Even more important, in some ways, is this mass, which is a building right in the middle. That was a two-story club and pool deck. Staff asked -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: What -- I'm sorry, what was the original -- the original -- the buildings, how tall were they? Mr. Cohan: this -- 31, 34 and seven. Commissioner Winton: And then what are they now, did you say? Mr. Cohan: They are 27 and 27. The third building was entirely deleted, and the club building was entirely deleted. Chairman Teele: That's from the last presentation that (INAUDIBLE)? Mr. Cohan: No, no, sir. This is from the presentation atMiami River. During the Miami River presentation, there was a lot of discussion about that building and about open space. The other thing we realized is when we removed the building, we also oriented this Phase 2 building differently. If you look at the orientation of this building, it has now been squared off. There's much more view corridor than there was. There was less building than there is and, really, what we did from building to building is, the buildings we have today, the two buildings are 25 foot longer than the original buildings, and we were able to recapture almost all of the saleable for the developer by doing that, and by the way, the first building was not -- it was studied. It was not a bad building, and I believe the comments were correct. It was not the best use of a building on this site. I think the project we have today is far more compatible with what is happening and certainly a nicer building for both the residents who will live there and those around it. Now, let me go back to the landscape plan for a second. Missed a very important part. Part of the requirements to develop this site were to provide a green belt, not just any green belt because we're not just any site. We're 1,048 linear feet along the Miami River, and so the 20 feet from the river into this piece has been given to the City as part of a green belt. That 20 feet extends down the two sides of our property, and it is 15 feet along South River Drive, 15 feet along Northwest 11 th, and 15 feet along Southwest 7th Avenue. City ofMiami Page 250 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Dougherty: It's not simply a green belt. It is a river walk open to the public. Mr. Cohan: Correct, which is what you're looking at in that rendering right there. The area being given by the green belt is 43,500 square feet. That's literally a mile of green belt. In order to do this, we needed to do certain things, and what we needed to do was basically have a taller, slender building profile, and that's what this hearing to me is really about, is do we want to go low and swatty or do we want to go slim and open, and I believe, again, that the drawings speak for themselves. We have provided the following dimensions. Chairman Teele: Let me just understand one quick thing. The six percent of the -- the footprint representing six percent and six percent, which is 12 percent, is that 12 percent of what? Mr. Cohan: Of the net area, of the boundary of our site. Our land area. Chairman Teele: Of the boundary of your site. Mr. Cohan: Yes. Chairman Teele: Is that before the giveaway of your green belt or the river walk or is that after? Mr. Cohan: That's including. In other words, that 12 percent includes the river walk area. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Cohan: Dimensions. OK. Just want to go through briefly again the importance of what we have given back. From our western property to the first tower, that's 325 feet of basically lawn, landscaped area; 325 feet, no buildings, wide open space. The building separation that we have is 125 feet at the closest point from tower to tower, and 85 feet in between the two garages, or 175 feet, again, from the tower back to our property line, so in fact, we have not covered much of this site with buildings taller than seven floors, and in order to do that, we arrived at a 27-floor figure, which, again, I believe is quite proper for this size site, and I just leave you again with the following two images. These are the views from the river. The one on the right represents the river walk. That is public area, 20 feet wide for City residents use. Commissioner Winton: Is there a bulkhead along there now? Mr. Cohan: There is a bulkhead, yes, on the sea wall, yeah, and part of the Miami River Commission's conditions were to provide cleats. We can have full-time dockage there, but there will be cleats on that wall, and the second image again is the view from the Spring Gardens neighborhoods, and the last view is the view from the East Little Havana neighborhood. I hope you find this project worthy of an approval vote, because I think it is an excellent project for the area. Ms. Dougherty: I'm going to just close now, and reserve some time for rebuttal. Commissioner Winton: Could you put the site footprint up there again, the entire site? Yeah, the actual site plan. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, how would you like to handle the folks who are here in support? Would you like them just to stand up and then -- would everybody in support of the project please stand up? And these folks actually live in the condominium across the street from this particular site, on the same side of the river and the condominium. They're homeowners in Little Havana. Commissioner Winton: Could I ask you a question? City ofMiami Page 251 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Commissioner Winton: What did you say is planned for the big open green space to the left of your left most tower there? You probably -- you need to answer that on the record. Ms. Dougherty: I'm sorry. Say it again. What's planned now is basically a recreational area for our residents. It will -- however, through the recreational area is a walkway open to the public. In other words, the public has access to the river walk this way, this way, this way and this way. Commissioner Winton: Could you build another tower in that green space in the future? Ms. Dougherty: No. We don't have any FAR to do that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You don't have the FAR? Ms. Dougherty: We do not have the FAR. Chairman Teele: Would you do a covenant? Ms. Dougherty: Perhaps. I haven't talked to the client, butt have to talk to him about it. Commissioner Gonzalez: What was the question? Ms. Dougherty: Would we do a covenant. Commissioner Gonzalez: (INAUDIBLE) covenant (INAUDIBLE). Vice Chairman Sanchez: That she won't develop that area. Chairman Teele: A recreational open space -- Don Darrach: We would consider (INAUDIBLE). Vice Chairman Sanchez: Or -- Chairman Teele: You're going to need to -- Ms. Dougherty: He would consider that. I haven't talked -- Mr. Darrach: I'm sorry. My name is Don -- Chairman Teele: You're going to need to put your name on the record. You know the rules. Mr. Darrach: I'm sorry. My name -- Yes, Commissioner. I'm sorry. My name is Don Darrach. I am not the developer. I'm an attorney, as general counsel for the developer. The developer is here. We would certainly however entertain something to that nature. We didn't have the FAR for that. We've also talked to the Trust for Public Land. They have expressed an interest in that property. We are -- have ongoing discussions with them as to use of that property, possibly as a park. We just have left it there in limbo. Commissioner Winton: Well, I think that's the direction both of us were -- that all three of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: The other issue is the -- that -- covenant that you won't close the City ofMiami Page 252 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 walkway also. That could be a concern later on. You want to close the walkway. Ms. Dougherty: That could be a condition. It could be a condition ofyour approval. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Chairman Teele: Is the walkway being donated? Ms. Dougherty: No. It is a public walkway, just like everyone else on the river and on the bay. It's a public walkway open to the public. It's not -- Commissioner Winton: But who's responsible for maintaining it? Ms. Dougherty: We're responsible for maintaining it. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, perfect. Chairman Teele: Then I think Commissioner Sanchez' idea was a great idea. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Chairman Teele: The condition that it will be -- Mr. Darrach: Yes. We will maintain that walkway. That was always our concern. Chairman Teele: But it would be -- Madam Director, what Commissioner Sanchez raised, the potential of making the fact that it will always be open to the public as a condition. Ms. Dougherty: It would be open to the public at the same hours as your City ofMiami parks, for example. That would be fine. Mr. Darrach: That's fine. Ms. Dougherty: Did you want to talk about your condominium declaration? Mr. Cohan: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: He has prepared some language in response to some concerns that both -- I believe it was you, Chairman Teele Mr. Cohan: I will take two to three minutes ofyour time for this. One minute. Lucia said one minute. Chairman Teele: Counsel. Mr. Dickman: Said I'd like to cross the architect at some point. Chairman Teele: Go ahead. Mr. Cohan: This is still our case in chief. We'll just wrap it up with this. Commissioner Teele had expressed some concern at the last -- the first reading on the rezoning of commercial activity contiguous to the condominium parcel, and we talked about the -- that we would be willing to put a disclosure language in our condominium documents. I'm expressing this issue because I'm the guy that draws up the condominium documents, so I would be personally handling this. We could put the following language both in bold, large print that would say the developer discloses City ofMiami Page 253 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 to the buyer and the buyer hereby acknowledges that historically the Miami River is a, quote, "working river, " with continuing sound producing commercial activity, specifically the contiguous parcel to the east of the condominium property consist of a commercial marine facility, and the contiguous property to the west of the condominium property consists of both City ofMiami and Miami -Dade County facilities. Chairman Teele: That is brilliant. Who came up with that? Let me tell you, if this item is -- I know that Commissioner Gonzalez is paying very close attention because the problem that we continue to have along this river are these changing uses, and if we can get the first developer to agree to put that in, we may then begin to use this as a standard that we may be looking for as other developments come down, and I would think that would be very, very helpful and very responsive to my concern. Mr. Cohan: We have -- we will put that as a covenant as a condition. No problem with that whatsoever. Commissioner Winton: Can I read that? Mr. Cohan: I'll reserve, I guess, my rebuttal for the recommendations. Chairman Teele: Could we get a copy of that, please -- Mr. Cohan: Yes. I have copies for everybody -- Chairman Teele: -- Madam Clerk? Mr. Cohan: -- already. I'll get them for you. Chairman Teele: All right. Ms. Dougherty, you're going to spend the rest of your presentation, is that the idea, and we're going to allow them to cross-examine? All right. Why don't you -- what would you like to do, counsel? Mr. Dickman: I'd like to start off by crossing the architect real quickly. Chairman Teele: They took a total of 20 something minutes. Mr. Dickman: I understand. Chairman Teele: You're limited to that amount. Mr. Dickman: Well, respect -- Chairman Teele: You are limited to that amount. Mr. Dickman: Right. Respectfully, we didn't -- the MUSP was not before us last time. We only talked about the zoning and land use, and we have a number of people here from both sides of the river that would also -- we have two experts. Chairman Teele: Counsel, you are limited to that amount. I'm not limiting the public. Mr. Dickman: Understood. I'll talk quickly. Mr. Cohan, you're familiar with the Miami Commission River Infill Plan? Mr. Cohan: I have read through it, yes. City ofMiami Page 254 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Dickman: OK And you're also familiar with the City's comprehensive plan? Mr. Cohan: Again, I am familiar with it. However, there's a zoning attorney that has guided us through this process. Mr. Dickman: OK Do you have any idea what it says about the middle river, what the middle river recommendations are for -- in the infill plan? Mr. Cohan: We have seen that and we've addressed it at previous hearings. Yes. Mr. Dickman: OK Who -- do -- who is the engineer that worked on your property, the -- did Kimberly Horne also work on your project? Mr. Cohan: No, they did not. Mr. Dickman: They were not part of your project, the architects? Mr. Cohan: They did not work as one of the consultants for us. Mr. Dickman: They were one of the consultants. Mr. Cohan: They were not one of the consultants. Mr. Dickman: They were not one of the consultants. OK What -- exactly -- you mentioned last time what the product basically of this building is going to be. Can you tell us approximately what the construction costs are going to be and what the average unit price will be for this project? Mr. Cohan: We have not really talked to a contractor at this point. We are, again, just beginning the design development working drawing process. I can tell you that a typical floor has 16 units per floor. There are five two -bedroom two -bath units, which are 960 square feet. That's four units that are one -bedroom, one and a half units that are 780 square feet, and the balance is six units are one -bedroom, one -bath that range from 620 to about 760 square feet. In other words, they're small units for this neighborhood. Mr. Dickman: And approximately, what's the price range? Mr. Cohan: I don't determine the price range. Mr. Dickman: You don't have any idea what the construction costs are, either? No? Not at all? Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney -- City Attorney, is price range a relevant matter? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Sir, I fail to see the relevancy of that question. Mr. Dickman: The relevance is whether this project is buyable for that area. That is the relevance. Chairman Teele: Well, you know, on one hand, we care about everybody, but in a zoning matter, whether they go bus -- Mr. Dickman: Well, it goes to the point of speculation and driving up land costs in an area that the plans -- and we'll demonstrate -- Chairman Teele: All right. Let's just keep moving on. City ofMiami Page 255 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Dickman: OK, fine. I have no further questions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just never heard that argument before, but you're entitled to it, sir. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, thank you. Appreciate that. Chairman Teele: Anything further? Mr. Dickman: Yes. We are -- we -- we're not going to cross-examine anymore. She doesn't have any more experts to put on, but we would like to go ahead and put on our opposition, if we could. Chairman Teele: All right. Did you have a case in chief you were going to put on? Mr. Dickman: Yes. We are going -- if she is finished, we will go ahead and do that. Chairman Teele: She's through. You're on. Mr. Dickman: She's done. OK Thank you very much. For the record, Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9111 Park Drive, Miami Shores, Florida. I am here representing the homeowners in Spring Garden. I am going to talk to you very briefly about the zoning, about the river plan and then I'm also going to put into the record a testimony from Dr. Paul George, a historian who was here earlier and had to leave to go teach a class. We have our architect, Thorne Grafton, who would like to come up and speak to this project, and then I would also like to have Gonzalo Deramon, who is a developer, who lives in the area, who's very familiar with development process, and budgets, and prices, and then I also want to bring forward the two homeowners' presidents, one on the Spring Garden area and the other one from the south side of the river in East Little Havana. Chairman Teele: We're going to allow you, but we're not going to allow an economic analysis for the project and discussion on the project; am I correct, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: As it applies to the major use special permit, economic impact is one of the -- Commissioner Winton: No, no, no, no. Mr. Maxwell: -- elements of it. Commissioner Winton: He's talking, not about economic impact of neighborhood. He's talking about the economics of whether or not the project is economically feasible -- Mr. Dickman: No, no. Mr. Maxwell: Not relevant -- Commissioner Winton: -- which is market analysis. Mr. Maxwell: Not relevant, at all. Mr. Dickman: Actually, I beg to differ. Our point is, is that this project will change -- I mean, they had testimony at -- Chairman Teele: You've got 16 more minutes to lay out your case. City ofMiami Page 256 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair. Chairman Teele: You cannot take more time in zoning proceedings -- the case in chief does not take more time, and, counsel, I'm going to help you. You don't need to advance the cause of the homeowners' associations. Mr. Dickman: OK Chairman Teele: They have an independent right to be here. Mr. Dickman: Fine. Chairman Teele: So, don't count that as your time. Mr. Dickman: OK Chairman Teele: Count the time of the professionals that you're putting on. Mr. Dickman: I'll get right to the point, then. We are here, first of all, because the Zoning Board, itself voted against the change of the zoning because -- at the first go round. They then voted to approve only with the recommendation -- and that's not in -- it wasn't read into the record -- only with the recommendation that they cooperate and work with the neighbors. To date, they have not done that. We have met, but they clearly have not done that. They have taken down the building by three stories. Our issue is principally that this building -- these buildings are far, far, far too high for this property; that the river infill plan, which your City, that the State, that the County, that all kinds of people worked on in past and have adopted calls for middle river to be low-rise and mid -rise. That's what the plan says. We have pages and pages, and ifI could ask you to hand out the reports that we have. We're going to put that in the record so you could see that. We have umpteen pages from the river plan that says over and over two things for middle river. Preserve the SD-4 maritime uses on the river from encroachment, from incompatible land uses. It says that over and over. Look at tab one in the books that you are getting. It says it repeatedly. You can see the diagram that I've put up on -- this is all stuff that has come from the plan, and what we're saying is that the plan matters. You have invested a lot of financial time -- financial money and staff time to build not only the river plan, but also your own comprehensive plan, and our point is that if you allow this building on a section of land in the middle river area, you are violating not only the recommendations that are coming from the River Commission in their plan, but you are also violating your own comprehensive plan, which addresses the river port as the fourth largest port, and that it talks specifically about those land uses in your own comprehensive plan. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Isn't the river Commission supporting (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Dickman: That's the -- we wish that the river Commission was here tonight, because it is unfathomable -- Chairman Teele: I saw the representative -- there he is right there. Mr. Dickman: Is the river -- please, come up. We would love to cross -- Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no, no. Mr. Dickman: Please. The River Commission has a plan that they have just adopted and it -- the diagrams. Point to the diagrams. I don't -- you could look at these -- this plan over and over, and it says do not encroach into existing maritime uses. It says that. If you look at this zoning map. Look at this zoning map. The yellow uses are residential. The green uses on the City ofMiami Page 257 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 river from 12th Avenue bridge down to 5th Street bridge are all maritime and SD-4, uses. You are going to rezone a property to C-1, not C-2 or anything else, but to C-1, which is the maximum, into a piece of property which will split the SD-4 maritime uses and begin a domino effect of depleting all of those SD-4 maritime uses. It not only says it in your comprehensive plan, which has the weight of law that you are going to have land uses that protects the Maritime uses on the river, but the Urban Infill Plan, which, again, over a hundred and fifty thousand dollars of State, County, local money went into doing that. All of the people that are here -- most of them went to those meetings, and had input. I wouldn't be up here if it just had one recommendation, but it literally says over and over -- it says it in the East Little Havana area. It says it in the Spring Garden area that these areas have suffered desperately from the intrusion of high-rise development. Your comprehensive plan itself says that housing on the Miami River should be in the downtown area, which is essentially the lower river, and that is what our case is, is that we feel that you all need, hopefully, to support these plans, or else planning is nothing. If you do not support plans, then planning is not worth the money that you put into it, and so we are here begging you, and you will hear testimony that the river infill plan is a good plan. There's a lot of blood, sweat and tears in that plan, and it says repeatedly that do not encroach into the SD-4, maritime uses. Protect the low and mid rise areas of East Little Havana and the other neighborhoods that are in the middle river, and we have people here from both sides of the river who are going to tell you the same exact things, so I will leave it with that. Chairman Teele: No, no, they're not going to tell us that, because you just did. Mr. Dickman: What's that? Chairman Teele: They're going to tell us something different ftom what you just told us. Mr. Dickman: Well, they're going -- that's right. They're going to -- we -- well, we want them -- we also wanted you to recognize that in the book, there are over 200 signatures in there, and a lot of those people are here today. Chairman Teele: But counsel, I just want to be very clear. We're not being funny. This is not -- zoning is not a plebiscite. This is not how many people are for it versus how many are against it, and how many times the same people say they're for it, some that are against it. We're looking for competent evidence, OK? Mr. Dickman: That's right, and we believe that we're submitting into the record lots of competent evidence as to your -- first of all, the plans should control the public policy decisions that you are making, and we feel that the plans themselves are justification enough for you to deny this, and what we are going to recommend is that you either Al, leave it as SD-4, because that is what it calls for in the plan, and we believe that since any SD-4 use that goes in there has to have a Class II permit -- and you heard a whole discussion about that before, and there are criteria for that. The applicant's going to give us a lot of scare tactics and a whole lists of horribles about what's going to go there, and they read those into the Zoning Board, but the truth of the matter is, is that my clients are in favor of having maritime uses there, and that they are not afraid of a Class II permit going in there because it's going to have to go through scrutiny of evaluation from staff about compatibility and other things. Ifyou feel that you do not want this property to be SD-4 anymore, then for God sakes, don't make it C-1. That is a residential sfreet, and I can't think of any place where you would put a C-1 zoning on a residential sfreet. Ifyou have to make it zoning -- residential, then make it a C-2 zoning, which would allow for low or mid rise residential, so with that, I would like to -- basically, I'm going to go ahead and put into the record -- I won't read it -- Dr. George's testimony. I'll give copy to the applicant and put it into the record, and then I would ask -- Chairman Teele: Then how does the opposing side get to cross-examine what you're putting in the record? City ofMiami Page 258 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Dickman: They cross-examined him last time when he was here. It's essentially the same thing. Chairman Teele: OK. Mr. Dickman: And I'll give them a copy. If they'd like to speak to it, they can. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: I do have a concern on some things that I just heard from this gentleman. We keep hearing about the Miami River Commission Plan, and Miami River Commission -- us violating the Miami River Commission ordinance or plan or whatever. As far as I know, if it was before I was a Commissioner, then you might be right. The Miami River Commission did a study and they did some kind of planning, but it hasn't been adopted by this Commission. That hasn't -- Chairman Teele: Not formally, you're absolutely correct. Commissioner Gonzalez: Not formally. OK Madam City Clerk -- Chairman Teele: But I think it's even more dramatic that the Miami River Commission has endorsed this project, and that's a part of the record below us, is that correct, Madam Director? The Miami River Commission. Ms. Slazyk: My recollection of the previous hearing is that they did, and if they're here to answer -- Chairman Teele: They were at the last meeting. Ms. Slazyk: -- that they should. Yes. Chairman Teele: They should have stood up and put it in the record. Commissioner Gonzalez: Right. Madam City Clerk, I would like a transcript of this discussion tomorrow in my office, especially the section where there is a reference of how the Miami River should be distributed, what should go where. Please provide me with that for future references. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: OK. Could we get on the record what -- Chairman Teele: OK. Counsel, you've opened the door to something and they are not represented by the lead counsel, so we're going to rule that he's got an opportunity to at least to come up and rebut what you just said about the Miami River Commission. Hold on, so you're recognized, sir. Brett Bibeau: Thank you, honorable Chairman, honorable City Commissioners. Good evening. My name is Brett Bibeau, and I'm the Managing Director of the Miami River Commission, with offices located at 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida, 33149. I am here to provide you with the Miami River Commission's official statement to all City Commissioners, as requested via City Commission Resolution 00-320 regarding February 26, 2004 City Commission agenda items PZ. 23, 24 and 25, which impact the Miami River. On September 8, City ofMiami Page 259 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 2003, the Miami River Commission heard a presentation from Ms. Lucia Dougherty, Greenberg Traurig, and Mr. Larry Cohan, Britto Cohan & Associates regarding the pending major use special permit application for the Royal Atlantic Development, located at 1001 Northwest 7th Sfreet. The presented MUSP application included the pending land use and zoning amendments. We found the proposed project to be consistent with the award -winning Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan, in that it has mixed uses, featuring retail spaces on the ground floor with residential units above, and has a facaded parking garage. The MRC (Miami River Commission) noted the original proposal had been reduced in density from three buildings, the tallest being 36 stories, to two 27-story buildings, and that the planned parking garage on the eastern side of the Royal Atlantic Project would serve as a buffer between the proposed residential units and the immediately adjacent marine and industrial businesses to the east of the site. In addition, the MRC found the proposed Royal Atlantic Development to be consistent with the Miami River Green Way Action Plan in providing a 20 foot wide publicly accessible river walk, in addition to an on -road green way along Northwest 7th Sfreet. Therefore, the Miami River Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Royal Atlantic major use special permit application and the related land use and zoning amendments. I thank you for your time. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, can I ask the Executive Director a few questions? He's opened -- Chairman Teele: You can ask him as many questions (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Dickman: I would love to. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like for the camera to zoom in on this graphic over here, and perhaps you could come over here and take a look at this. Is that familiar to you? Chairman Teele: Give him a hand mike. Give him a hand mike. Mr. Bibeau: Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: That's familiar to you? Mr. Bibeau: I know this plan by heart. Mr. Dickman: Can you tell me what this says for middle river, like what are the recommendations for middle river based on this graphic? Commissioner Winton: What's the boundary of the middle river? Mr. Bibeau: The middle river is seen as the 5th Street bridge to the 20 -- Chairman Teele: (INAUDIBLE). Counsel, let me just tell you one thing. I was sort of -- I'm sort of on your side on this. There's a rule. Don't ask a question if you don't know the answer. Of all the people in this room, this guy knows the answer to any question you're going to ask him about this thing, so be very careful -- Mr. Dickman: That's fine. That's fine. Chairman Teele: -- what you ask him. Mr. Dickman: That's fine. Chairman Teele: Go right ahead. Mr. Bibeau: The middle river is seen as the Northwest 5th Sfreet bridge to the Northwest 22nd Avenue bridge. The rendition depicted is a Bernard Zyscovich rendering, which is a part of the City ofMiami Page 260 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan. The Zyscovich firm did three renderings, which are general -- stereotypical, if you will, generalizations of the lower river, the middle river and the upper river. Certainly, the lower river, middle river and upper river, these are generalizations, if you will, and I believe that that answers your question. Mr. Dickman: OK Let me ask you about East Little Havana, because your report, this award -winning infill plan report that you used apparently -- theoretically, you use it to evaluate projects on the river. On page 24 of the infill plan -- and we'll put it up here on the board -- it states -- explain this to me. It states -- this is about East Little Havana, one of Miami's earliest suburbs. Much of its historic housing stock remains, but has suffered intrusions of large scaled residential development, and integrity -robbing altered -- alterations. Can you explain that to me? Mr. Bibeau: Mr. Chair, I have a procedural question I need to ask. I'm the Managing Director of the Miami River Commission. It's my role to forward the position as requested by the City Commission on this agenda item. I believe I've done that. I have distributed the letter. I do not set policy. I am not a voting member of the River Commission. I'm only here to forward their position as set forth on September the 8th of 2003, and I really don't feel very like procedurally -- Chairman Teele: Well, once you come up and testify, he can cross-examine you only to the extent ofyour testimony. Now, if you're saying -- if you would like to proffer that that's beyond the extent ofyour testimony, then you're free to answer that -- he can't bring in new things that you didn't put into evidence. Minutes to PZ.23 - Part 2 Mr. Bibeau: OK. With that in mind, can you repeat your question? Mr. Dickman: Well, first of you'll, Mr. Chair, they've made it a point at every hearing to come on behalf of the applicant. Every hearing, not as staff or some -- Chairman Teele: Factually, you're very incorrect. They opposed many of the applications. Mr. Dickman: No, on this one. On this one. Chairman Teele: I'm just saying, they make a point of appearing, as required by our ordinance, to give their recommendations as the Miami River Commission; is that correct, Madam -- Mr. Attorney? So, they are obliged to be there. They're not like official intermeddlers. Mr. Dickman: OK, fine. On -- I just want to read one other thing. On page 25 -- this is again about East Little Havana. It says, finally -- and this is in your book. It's in the record -- "Finally, throughout the neighborhood, considerations should be given to establishing height and FAR limits to help protect the scale and character of this neighborhood. This is about East Little Havana. Could the Executive Director address that? Chairman Teele: If he would like to, but -- if he feels that it's consistent with his testimony. Mr. Bibeau: I will be happy to repeat a component of the statement, which partially addresses this issue. The MRC noted the original proposal had been reduced in density from three buildings, the tallest being 36 stories to two 27-story buildings, and that the planned parking garage on the eastern side of the Royal Atlantic Project would serve as a buffer between the proposed residential units and the immediately adjacent marine industrial businesses to the east of the site. Mr. Dickman: OK Mr. Chair, I'll just ask two more questions and then I want to just ask you a City ofMiami Page 261 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 question about what the criteria is for doing that. This has to do with -- we've talked about the housing and the scale, but want to talk about the maritime uses, because the plan purports -- Chairman Teele: Ask him the question. Mr. Dickman: I'm asking the question. On page 43 of the plan, it says -- this is about maritime uses -- the one strong position of the Miami River's marine industry has eroded through competition from other land uses. Is it a position of the plan and the Commission to protect the maritime uses on the river? Sir? Mr. Bibeau: I'm just trying to fit that into the context of the written statement that have the authority to provide this evening. The marine interest -- Chairman Teele: I think the statement -- the generic statement, and his statement is, is that your mission -- it's the mission of the agency to protect the maritime use on the river. Mr. Bibeau: It is the role of the Miami River Commission to bring 33 different agencies on the Miami River that have some level of jurisdictions over the river, together to the same table to work together to improve the river. That's environmental improvements, transportation improvements, neighborhood improvements, residential improvements, and one component certainly of the Miami River is the marine industry. The Miami River is tied with Tampa for the fourth largest port in the state. It does -- the marine industry does generate local jobs, both on the shipping side and the recreational boating side, in addition to commercial fishing. Mr. Dickman: OK Finally, you are the Executive Director of the River Commission, aren't you, sir? Mr. Bibeau: Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: OK Finally, on page 87 -- and this is the area in the back, which is all the itemized recommendations. This is page 1.20 in your booklets. It makes a list of -- it categorized things into recommendations. Here's one recommendation. We could provide you with a book. Let me read this recommendation. `Request the City ofMiami and Miami Dade County to require that new residential development not display existing maritime industrial land uses, and should be substantially separated from marine industrial land uses." Can you explain to me what that recommendation is, and if you really want to make that recommendation, here's the City Commission. Make it. Mr. Bibeau: Again, I'm just going to keep my comments focused on the letter that have the authority to put forth this evening. In relation to the marine industrial -- Chairman Teele: Well, what is -- hold it. What is the existing marine use in the current location? Mr. Bibeau: And that was going to be my point, Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Dickman: Land usage. It says land uses. Mr. Bibeau: The former Miami News site -- more recently, I believe a public school site, Miami -Dade County Public School site -- as far back as I know, has not had an active marine industrial use, and that was duly noted by the River Commission when they heard this item at a publicly noticed meeting and came up with their position, which I am forwarding at the City Commission's request this evening. Mr. Dickman: OK City ofMiami Page 262 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. All right. How much more do you have, counsel? Mr. Dickman: We -- I'm going to produce to you now Thorne Grafton, our architect, who will put on the record as an expert architecture and planning. Thorne Grafton: Thank you, Andrew. May I ask how much time I have to make this presentation? It will be brief. About five minutes is my plan, if that's all right with you, Commissioners. Thorne Grafton, architect. I live at 2814 Chucunantah Road, City ofMiami. I am an architect here in Miami for 24 years. Most of my experience has been in historic preservation and community planning. I'm representing my friends in Spring Garden here tonight. I have a few points that I will make. I will skip over some of the points that have been made already. This project is out of scale with the surrounding historic neighborhoods. The primary problem is height. Two 280-foot tall buildings is unprecedented outside the downtown and Brickell area. Even the condos in Coconut Grove do not get that tall. In my opinion, as a matter of fair play, the mantra of property rights should not be raised until the issues of neighboring property rights are satisfied when you're talking about an up zoning. I'm sorry. I heard tonight that this is a down zoning, but if you're going from a three-story building to two 280-foot buildings through a rezoning, I consider that to be an up zoning. The proposed buildings across the river are taller than the distance than they are separated from the historic Spring Garden disfrict. Winter afternoon sun angles will cast shadows on portions of the neighborhood, including two parks, where residents come to enjoy the view at the river, as they have for decades. Why has the developer not addressed the concerns of the residents of an abutting historic district? The zoning district lines between Spring Garden and the Royal Atlantic Project join in the middle of the river. Therefore, you're being asked to change the zoning adjoining a historic disfrict to allow a project that is obviously incompatible with the scale of that disfrict. The residents of Spring Garden pursued and achieved historic disfrict status, at great sacrifice of the possibility of achieving a quick financial return, preferring instead the road of making a place to call home for generations. Again, the expectation was not having a looming backdrop demeaning their special context. Let me tell you how, out of context it is with what's there already. The largest buildings in the area are nine stories. That's the buildings around the Victoria Hospital complex. There's a few taller at the Jackson Hospital complex. That's really a separate node, so if you look at the whole East Little Havana area and Spring Garden area, nine stories. We're talking three times higher than anything that's there. Now, will this ultimately be in context with something that's perhaps going to be a wonderful new, high neighborhood? Clearly not, and not likely -- not unless the Commission continues to up zone the surrounding properties. Zoning classifications in the immediate area, while R-3, "0" for "Office," and GI, government institutions classifications would theoretically allow unlimited height, however, they're all applied to small blocks, half blocks, half blocks in depth, and one small piece of government owned property with a fire station on it now, which will continue along into the future. If built, the Royal Atlantic Project will look like an example of incompatible spot zoning because that is what this is in my opinion. I'm going to just end because I think my five minutes is almost up. I have other thing that were inserted into your booklet and certainly, I'll get some very good questions from counsel on this other side. The ability to revitalize existing neighborhoods that possess human scale and historic character with compatible new development is the essence of good urban design. Urban design is meant to inform the rezoning process. Urban design is meant to inform the MUSP process. The notion that anything can go anywhere is no urban design, with individual mistakes able to create grave damage to much larger urban systems for decades to come. The Royal Atlantic is currently planned radically out of scale with its surroundings and in this low -scaled river front neighborhood is such a mistake. Until these issues are corrected, you need to defer this project. Thank you. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, Thorne. I'd like to ask Gonzalo Deramon to come up and speak for City ofMiami Page 263 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 the area in terms of the property values. Gonzalo Deramon: My name is Gonzalo Deramon, 1040 Northwest North River Drive. I'm talking in opposition of the development. Let me give you a little bit of my professional background and the reason why I consider my presentation important to this board. I'm the vice president for Community Development, a real estate development for Bank ofAmerica. I'm also a board member ofAffordable Housing Advisory Board for the Miami -Dade Housing Agency. I'm also a member of the Homeless Trust, and the chair of the Housing Committee, and I've been working on the steering committee of the green way for the City ofMiami River Commission. I'm also receiving some other plans for the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Institute, so I think that community development should be part of this presentation for part of the position of this development. We have gathered over 150 -- close to 125 signatures from the south side of the river, just walking door to door explaining to the neighbors of this neighborhood what kind of development is coming to this door. We also have over 125 signatures from the north side of the river, and one of the issues that we're going to emphasize here is that we should not look at this development as the south of the river, north of the river. I think that we have encompassed a coalition, of what we call the middle river association of neighbors. Some of the things that we were kind of getting prepared for tonight was to cross-examine the professionals, then all the previous five presentations that these neighborhoods has been going on and on we were exposed to. The first one was on the traffic study, and the traffic study -- and you will see that in your package in Section Number 1. The traffic study recommended that a left turn should be allowed in order to facilitate the development of this particular site. There is a letter from the Miami River Commission requesting such to the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) and it's a letter from the FDOT saying that that left turn is not going to be feasible, even with extension of the current bridge because you're going to expand the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the queue on that particular bridge, and they're actually recommending in order to make a left turn or to east turn into that particular corner, go around 12th, 12th Court, underneath the bridge and going back on 11 th Avenue back to 7th Street. That's their call. It's expressed on the first page of Section Number 4. That was not addressed by the parking study. The last presentation was briefly addressed by the Planning Advisory Board, where it was -- this application was rejected. It was discussed at length, where here we discuss about the lack of -- excessive uses on the bridges and those are the issues that we discussed last time, but when we go back and forth in the different Planning Advisory Board presentations, the traffic study was all addressing Spring Gardens. They were not addressing the actual impact that this 1, 000 plus vehicles is going to have on this section in East Little Havana. We also were discussing about the sound impact, and they came back with a study of Spring Gardens that would not address the impact of the sound and the echo on the East Little Havana section, and we asked why? The reason is very simple. Spring Garden may have a more coherent association in their homeowners and we were able to react -- we were able to probably come up some questions on the presentation. We come out now with enough representatives of East Little Havana so they have these same questions that they need to be addressed and they were not presented. There are also some situation about the zoning, that the zoning is actually abutting 1, 000 plus feet ofR-3 than C-2. There was also the issue about the transfer of the -- supposed to be -- allow other uses on this particular site on the SD-4, when, in reality, C-2 will not allow that. We know by the fact that when they were gathering signatures from the Jubilee condo, they were telling some of the neighbors that we know that the proposed development will consist of a hundred units and otherwise -- and plus a factory will be installed on that side because it's allowed under SD-4. I think this neighborhood deserve better, and I think that economic analysis of this deal is very important. This MUSP plan is based on the market -- on the feasibility -- two factors. One is that the sales price or the average sales price of this development is going to be around two hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, and that the construction cost is fifty dollars a square foot. That, on their proposal, makes this deal feasible. The market study won't support more than two hundred twenty-five thousand dollars sales price as an average, and I do agree with that. I think that we have enough studies done in that area that the average income and the location, the proximity to bridges, the traffic study won't support more than that price. What is ridiculous is to assume that these towers are going to be built by City ofMiami Page 264 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 fifty dollars a foot. That's not reasonable. I mean, I don't have a GC license, but can -- you know, you have enough exposure to real estate developer that can tell you that the most likely scenario will be hundred fifty dollars a foot. If -- please, please. You can look at Section 6 and you look at the simple analysis that I prepare. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir? Mr. Deramon: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That argument -- Mr. Deramon: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- irrelevant. Mr. Deramon: Well, Commissioner Sanchez, just let me just finish and tell you why I think it's relevant. I think it's relevant -- Commissioner, just let me finish that. If this deal doesn't come to fruition because of the feasibility analysis, that piece of land is going to be sitting there now with a worth value of ten million dollars. East Little Havana has scarce land and community development, you know that, Commissioner Sanchez, the big problem that we have is land cost. If we bring this cost of this neighborhood, all the surrounding area is going to be just exploited. All the empty land, all the available land is going to be skyrocket based on a speculation, and the redevelopment of Little Havana is going to be stalled, so I think that from the impact that this non feasible development has in East Little Havana is going to be so bad, so negative that think it should be (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else on your side, counsel? Mr. Dickman: Yes. I'm going to ask Alicia Diaz and J. Veber to come up. They are the representatives of the homeowners' associations, just to give you their position. Chairman Teele: Why don't we do this. Why don't you put on your case in chief and let the homeowners' associations come up, and that way, we can keep a little bit of balance about time. Mr. Dickman: This is -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Is there anyone from Little Havana in opposition to this project here? Mr. Dickman: OK Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there anyone -- Mr. Dickman: Everybody from East Little Havana. (Comments in Spanish) Mr. Dickman: Incidentally, their signatures are in the packet that you've received. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, and they are in opposition to this project? Chairman Teele: All right, counsel, we want you to conclude yours and then we will open it up to the homeowners' associations and anybody from the public who wants to speak. Mr. Dickman: OK Let me -- City ofMiami Page 265 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Unless you're bringing people here from the public. Mr. Dickman: No. What I'll conclude with, again, is our position that the plans, both the river plan, which we fully support, and which we hope that the City willfully support, calls for low to mid -rise residential and preserving the maritime. We also -- I also close with the fact that your own comprehensive plan in numerous sections, not the least of which is going to be the port of -- the port -- the river port and the land use section say that this kind of development is absolutely contrary to that. This is a piece of zoning that is a spot zoning. It's a very intense piece of zoning on a residential street. The fraffic at that intersection of 12th Avenue and 7th is at "F" already and that -- we have a letter -- it's in your packet -- from FDOT saying that no one will be allowed to make left-hand turns southbound, and that they are going to have to loop around through these -- this -- their neighborhood, which is a neighborhood street. All of those cars will have to do that. The letter's in your area. I know that the River Commission's recommending it and FDOT said, "No. No way," so with that, I would like for the neighborhood to come up and speak. Chairman Teele: All right. We'll hear from people in opposition to the project at this time. If you would just come up and line up, if you would like to speak. Each person will be allowed one minute to make your presentation. Give her a hand held mike. Alicia Diaz (Translated by Odina Suarez, Official Interpreter): My name is Alicia Diaz. My resident is 800 Northwest 13th Avenue. I come here for representation of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and river mark. We have a community of more than a thousand residents, older residents. We are not in opposition of the project being -- coming to life, but since -- it is a great benefit to our area. (INAUDIBLE) we wanted our Commission take into consideration the following circumstances. That project is going to have two towers, 21 feet high, OK, but we want it to be 10 feet high only. What is the reason -- we have 4th Avenue, which is constantly packed with traffic, 7th Street, because as I said, even though our community already has more than a thousand residents, we are in an area where there are hospitals and fraffic is constant. Our concern is that project to have anywhere from 500 to 1000 parking or maybe even a lot more. In our building, rescue has to be coming out all of the time, five and six times a night, and also the Fire Department. 12th Avenue mostly is always congested, so there's going to be that many parking and that many cars, we ask ourselves how is the rescue, how are the people, how are the emergency, how are they going to reach our buildings? There's a lot of (INAUDIBLE) we're leaving this to the consideration of our Commission, a community of elderly people who need. I'm asking for your help with that respect and thank you very much. Chairman Teele: No applauding. No applauding. (Comments in Spanish) Chairman Teele: Please, please, please. Thank you very much. All right. We let her go on and on for three minutes -- three -- four minutes. Sir. James Veber: Honorable Commissioners, am I, too, limited to the one minute, as the president of Spring Garden? Chairman Teele: You're limited to one minute, but you'll take as long as you want probably. Go ahead. Mr. Veber: I'm J Veber, schoolteacher by day, Spring Garden Civic Association, president weekends and evenings, and we're all united in one cause here in this room tonight, and that is, we want to see Miami reach its full potential, all of our neighborhoods. We all agree on that. We may have some differences in the way we're seeing that come about, but we know we want a City ofMiami Page 266 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 vibrant community of neighborhoods in the middle river. This river runs right through the middle of our neighborhoods and it's really a cool mix of friendly residents and river marine industries. We have tour guides going up and down the river. The tourists remember what a nice place on the river it is, how different it is, how serene and, yet, hard working at the same time. There are few places like it. The Miami River Commission remarked upon the very special nature of this portion of the river, we remarked on that earlier. Chairman Teele: Your time is up. Now, you haven't even started yet. That was introduction. Mr. Veber: Yes, I have. Chairman Teele: Why don't you give us very clearly what your concerns are. Take as long as you need, but let's go directly to your concerns. Mr. Veber: OK. I will be simple and blunt. The Royal Atlantic condominium development will not enhance our neighborhoods. It might well fit into the lower river, the City center. It doesn't fit here. We're not Brickell Avenue. We don't want to be. The project's too big. It's too densely populated. Its height is out of character. It would be an overbearing eyesore. It would cause serious traffic problems. It will create night pollution, light pollution at night, pollution at night, and I'll end quickly. If you allow this project, it will permanently affect and change the middle river and once it's done, it can't be undone. Do the right thing and reject the project. Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Comments regarding the project that we've not heard, please. Thank you. Sean Calpin: Well, you're going to save my breath. I don't really have a speech. I have -- all I have is am underwhelming -- Chairman Teele: Give us your name and address. Mr. Calpin: Oh, I'm sorry. Sean Calpin, Spring Garden resident, 1000 Northwest North River Drive. This is the onyx project that was approved last time I was here. It's a 28-story building. This is the artist's conception. It was in The Herald on February 20th, and it -- what it shows is the building in the middle, 28 stories. The next building to it is 14 stories, which at 14 stories, the new building dwarfs that 14-story building. The building on the other side of it is a two-story building, which is the scale of my neighborhood and you can clearly see how completely out of scale a 28-story building is out of -- you know, out of scale with our neighborhood. We're not against development in the neighborhood, but I just submit this to the Commission to see the perspective because when you see the buildings on their drawings, they're beautiful buildings, but they're so close up, you can't see the scale, so this is more of an accurate perspective and it's on the water, so you can -- you know, there's a -- maybe there and an analogy there. Chairman Teele: Without objection, it will be admitted into the record. Just give it to the Clerk. Thank you for being so brief. You need to give that to the Clerk over here, if you don't mind. Thank you. Harry Bender: My name is Harry Bender. I live at North 980 Northwest North River Drive, directly across the street from this complex, and I believe that this complex is an abomination to the middle river, is against every planning study that you've spent tens of thousands of dollars doing. In response to Commissioner Sanchez, who was sitting over there saying, you people are all against it. These are the residents in that area against it. The ones that are for it are the ones that live in the very area. Chairman Teele: Mr. Bender, make your comments. Let's don't evoke -- City ofMiami Page 267 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Bender: I'm not invoking anything. All I want to indicate is that the people that are for the project are ones that are very close to it, that want to flip their property and hope that they can make some money off of it, being across the street. The situation is very clear. Hurricane Cove is a thousand units going up just up the river, and it's being required to be put in arterial roads, widening and everything else. North -- 7th Street is two lanes and it's a narrow two lanes. Arterial road coming into that road are even narrower and allow street parking. You're putting seven hundred and some units -- potentially seven hundred and some cars going onto roads that don't even have the access now to sustain what is there now. The DOT saw it, and they wanted this rejected. You go to 5th Street bridge, old antiquated, under plans for shutting it down. 12th Avenue, I just read that plan where you're going to spend four years redoing the 12th Avenue bridge. What's going to happen to a 27-story project, with 750 units, when no access even over the rivers or down the front streets? It's nice that they build a barrier there so it looks pretty, but the street is not changing. You're not widening it. You're not doing anything with it. I think this is a situation that's tremendously out of place. You've spent a lot of money down river for all those units, the lofts, and all the ones that are going up, and you're doing the infrastructure, you're doing the roads, you're doing everything else to do it, the Brickell Avenue area, west Brickell. That's where these projects belong, where the infrastructure is capable of sustaining it. Chairman Teele: You must have put the fix in with the Clerk because they didn't turn the timer on for you. You got away with it. Judith Gray: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Judith Gray. I live at 1036 Northwest North River Drive, directly across from the proposed two towers. I fully endorse the opposition that's being presented this evening. I also fully endorse the development ofMiami as a world class City that celebrates its river. The proposed Royal Atlantic Development is just too high. I do agree that we need to have some improvement in the area, and I would like to work -- to use whatever we do in this property to bring these neighborhoods together and not divide us by two oversized towers. The one group that has not been asked to stand up is the Spring Garden residents, and I ask them to please stand, the Spring Garden residents who are in opposition to this development. My neighbors and I are fighting for the quality of life afforded us as residents of Spring Garden (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the downtown area. Please don't ruin this lovely part of Spring Garden neighborhood. Once a historic district loses its character, it cannot be reclaimed. A historic neighborhood designation ends at the river. The character of the neighborhood extends beyond the river. We have what everybody wants, a vibrant involved community of single-family homes, with plenty of green space and a location near downtown jobs and services. I'm pleading with you to work with us to enhance this area and not overwhelm it with these two huge towers. Please help us work together to maintain the character of these very vital and precious neighborhoods. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Excellent presentation. Thank you, Ms. Gray. Well, well, well, well, welcome. Pull the mike down. Ellen Moncos: OK. Can you hear me? Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have lived for 20 years at 1024 Northwest North River Drive, and once again I'm right off the town -- the conflict with their building, and I live -- I've lived in this area for many years. I was born in Miami. I live two blocks north of the river. I grew up there. I've known the river, how it is, where it was -- Chairman Teele: Doctor, you need to put your name on the record, I'm being told. Ms. Moncos: OK, great. My name is Ellen Moncos. My address is 1024 Northwest North River Drive, the rest (UNINTELLIGIBLE) be here. The major problem, as I see it, with the proposed complex is its location. It's a beautiful project. The pictures they show us are wonderful, but just don't think it belongs where they've put it, and certainly not with two 27-story towers, City ofMiami Page 268 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 because these towers will be very conspicuous on the river. They'll be at least 20 stories above the highest buildings that are currently present in the area, and on top of that, they'll stand at least 23 stories above the frees on both sides of the river. Now, these -- we have these two towers standing out. Miami is an important City now. The Miami River is an important part ofMiami, and the Miami River should look -- still look beautiful, and yet, if we have these towers there, they just don't belong there. In addition to that, if the board agrees to let them build this complex, it means a beginning. It means that probably the area will start having towers all over that part ofMiami. This means that the commercial part ofMiami will extend into this area, whereas you have all quoted, and I believe it does really belong, and I actually believe -- I believe that the area we're talking about should not be SD-4 and it should not certainly be restricted commercial, but shouldbe -- have some kind of zoning that's purely residential and has only residents, or make a park, but what we're doing, I don't think, in my opinion -- of course, this is only my opinion, it's not right. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Michael Cox: Michael Cox, 828 Northwest 9th Avenue. Mr. Chair, I'm against this Royal Titanic development. If you deny this application today, you'll just allow this project to come back before you and to set a more realistic value to this land. We would support a project just like this before you, something more in scale with the neighborhood. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Thank you for being so brief. Richard Veber: I guess I'm forced to be brief. I'm forced to be blunt. Again, Miami River Corridor Infill Plan recommends medium density or maritime uses. My name is Richard Veber from 1024 Northwest North River Drive, and they should be -- the maritime uses should be substantially separated from any changed zoning. This is not the case. This is zoned C-1. All of the surrounding properties are medium density. This should be medium density. There's a Fire Department directly adjacent across the street at 11 th Street, and one block beyond that is an "F" rated intersection at 12th Avenue and 7th Street, which is the worst rating it can have, and this intersection is just south of the south end of the 12th Avenue Bridge where we have emergency traffic frequently going over to Jackson. The schools in the area, the elementary and the junior highs are going to be 119 to 128 percent above the proposed maximum for those schools. The sewer will backup near these sites. This is just too much for the infrastructure for that area. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. John Kramel: Hello. John Kramel, 842 Northwest 9th Court. I'll be very brief. I just want to show you a picture. This is a picture taken from a friend's roof in Sao Paulo, Brazil. I have more, if you want. Commissioner Winton: OK. Andrew, pass those out. Mr. Kramel: I have one for each Commissioner who's in the chamber right now. You allow 125 plus building in a neighborhood, pretty soon you get another one and another one and another one and another one, and you end up looking like what is generally regarded throughout the world by including the residents of Sao Paulo as the ugliest city in the world. Do we want this City to be a contender for that? Don't let this be your legacy. Thank you. Chairman Teele: In that this is Mardi Gras carnival season, I would have rather seen a picture ofRio during the Mardi Gras. Yes, sir. Charlie Hand: Good evening. My name is Charlie Hand, 743 Northwest 7th Street. City ofMiami Page 269 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Pull that down to you, Charlie. Mr. Hand: Charlie Hand, 743 Northwest 7th Sfreet Road. I'm a ship's master in the Port of Miami, and I just want to bring up a point that a marine industrial zoning is not a terrible thing, and there are no new shipping terminals coming to the Miami River. If anybody thinks that there's going to be a 24-hour terminal on the Miami River in the middle river -- you might be shaking your head, but all the interest on the river are looking for other places to go as far as shipping terminals. There are other things that could go into a marine industrial area, such as in and out boat storage, yacht harbor, different private boat sources, but I just don't think that we need to be so scared about our marine industrial zone. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Anyone else? How many more people, please? All right. The last two. All right. Yes, ma'am. Well, welcome. Ruth Greenfield: Ruth Greenfield, 752 Northwest 7th Sfreet Road. My grandparents came over there to Spring Garden in '21. I have been there a long time. I've seen what's happened to other neighborhoods. I grew up on 23rd Street. It's become a monster. I am so proud of our neighborhood. Looking out over the river, especially in the park area, the pollution alone would drive us out of any of our green spaces. I am begging all of you who have any feeling of tranquility, of shopping for tranquility to please think about height because we're in the tropics, and height does not go with the tropics. Chairman Teele: Thank you, Ms. Greenfield. Nina West: Hello. My name is Nina West. I live at 3690 Avocado Avenue in Coconut Grove. I'm a property owner in Buena Vista. I'm here to, I believe, oppose this project but based on something else. There are many, many studies, planning -- and this is going to be a very big vibrant City. We have a very high real estate tax rate in the City ofMiami. We have not a great school system in the City ofMiami, and we need way to support all of this development before it falls down on us. I am here to ask you to follow your own plans. You send out consultants. You need to vote on these things. You need to make decisions and you should follow, I think, the experts that you hire, at great expense, and sit down and make some decisions on these areas, rather than have developers run in and your zoning is really a reflection of all the property -- the upzoning, down zoning, whatever it is that you approve, and that became your -- becomes your master plan, rather than being at it in an organized way, and I think that until you have some kind of plan in place, you should at least stick to the zoning that is here now until you have some idea of what you want to do. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Any other person from the public? All right. Counsel. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I respectfully ask you to follow what your Planning Advisory Board did by denying this, recommending denial. Your Zoning Board only recommended approval with the condition that the developers work with these neighbors and solve these problems, follow your plans, do the right thing. This is going to be an issue over and over and over, not only on the river, but on Biscayne Boulevard. I plead with you to follow your planning and don't break that chain. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. We have a little bit of a modified rebuttal in that we ask you not to put on anybody from the public. If you feel the need to, you may do so, but let's try to keep this to a rebuttal. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. First of all, I wanted to say that the Zoning Board never voted to deny this project, notwithstanding what the counsel said. He wasn't there, but Charles Flowers was here. I don't know if he still is. I think he can testify that there was never a vote to deny this project. They did ask us to meet with them on the other hand and I tried on numerous occasions City ofMiami Page 270 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 to do so, the last of which was my e-mail to counsel on February the 13th. I have a copy here -- asking, please let me know if you and your client would like to get together. We'd like your support for the project. If you think it would be valuable to gain and explore any mitigation efforts, please let me know. No response. Chairman Teele: Counsel. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: We'll let the City staff clarify the record as to the zoning vote. Madam Director. Ms. Slazyk: Actually, I need the Hearing Boards Director. I'm not -- Chairman Teele: But don't you have a summary there? Ms. Slazyk: Well, as to the Zoning Board voted yes, I do, but I don't have -- I don't know if they ever made a previous motion before that. Chairman Teele: What is the vote -- Ms. Slazyk: Their vote is for approval. There is no such thing as conditional zoning. Mr. Maxwell: On a zoning change, there would be no conditions and they couldn't have conditioned a vote -- Ms. Slazyk: They couldn't have. Mr. Maxwell: -- that it be on terms that were mentioned by counsel. That would be improper delegation. Chairman Teele: Counsel, would you like to clarify or withdraw that remark? Mr. Maxwell: Probably was a recommendation. Chairman Teele: The remark that counsel made was that the Zoning Board denied this. Mr. Dickman: The first vote -- they fried to go for a vote and there was great hesitation, and I -- they did not approve this, but then when the discussion turned to OK, well, you know, if they work with neighbors and mitigate these things, then maybe we'll let it -- we'll approve it. Chairman Teele: They either approved it or they denied it. Mr. Dickman: Well, I -- Chairman Teele: All right. Let's hear from the Zoning Board Hearing Officer and get the record straight. Teresita Fernandez (Executive Secretary, Hearing Boards): I do not have -- Chairman Teele: Your name and title for the record, ma'am. Ms. Fernandez: Teresita Fernandez, Hearing Boards. I do not have a recollection of a vote for denial, butt have to research this further. The vote that is in your agenda is the right vote. City ofMiami Page 271 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Would you state for the record -- Ms. Fernandez: It's for approval. Chairman Teele: -- what the vote was, when it was taken, and what the vote is? We don't need personal recollections. We need an official record here, because this thing may wind up getting appealed. Ms. Fernandez: Yes, it was approval, 9 to 0. Chairman Teele: By the Zoning Board. Ms. Fernandez: By the Zoning Board. Chairman Teele: On what date? Ms. Fernandez: On the 15th of December 2003. Chairman Teele: All right. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chair. Chairman Teele: Thank you for the record -- Ms. Fernandez: But I just was saying that I don't have any recollection of any denial. Chairman Teele: You're here as the recordkeeper for the City. Ms. Fernandez: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: And we need what the record is. Ms. Fernandez: Yes. That's what this record is. Chairman Teele: OK. That's somewhat serious when a representation is made. Go right ahead, ma'am. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, Mr. -- Dr. George, I would object to his written statements in the record before the record today. Last time that he came here, I did cross-examine him and I asked him, what the effect of a full industrial project would be across the river from Spring Gardens and he said at that time, I would be bad, so he's not here to be able to testify to that today and I would object to his comments in the record. Thorn Grafton, who is an architect said that this was out of scale. It may be out of scale to some extent based on what the size of the buildings are because the one that he spoke about was a nine -story building directly across the street from this building. It is an "0" district, allowed to be the same size as this one, but these are the homeowners who live in that building, who are supporting it. They are not people who are speculating. These are homeowners in condominium development who are sitting here today, and they don't want to see an industrial site directly across the street from them. They don't want to see the existing derelict office building that is directly across the street from them that used to be a banking facility and it used to be a Miami Herald News thing with helicopters. It used to be a 24-hour operation and for those neighbors who are concerned about traffic, can you just imagine if it was continued to be an office building or a full container yard with 24-hour operations and people coming and going all night long? It wouldn't be a disaster for their neighborhood, as well, so the reason that this -- City ofMiami Page 272 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: I interfered with your presentation by asking you to cut it short and not bring up anybody. You need to bring up at least one or two people because that was not put in the record today. I -- Ms. Dougherty: Which -- Chairman Teele: That is a resident. You're testifying for the residents, but you need to put that in. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, I will do that. The other thing is that the reason that there are -- these are low scaled buildings is because there has been no Economic Development in East Little Havana for a very long time, and this is a market rate project bringing home ownership into East Little Havana without any subsidies, and it is a market rate product that is a mixed income product. These are not millionaires that are living here. These are folks who are beginning homeowners. These are people who come from -- who are nurses and orderlies and teachers, et cetera, people who can afford 900 square foot houses, so these are not your millionaires as they were characterized at the last hearing. These are market rate projects. It's a middle -- mixed income project, and the annual taxes will be three point six million dollars, other fees -- one other -- the other fees will be three point four million dollars. The traffic engineer is here today and he did testify, and I might have to bring him up again that the traffic under the existing zoning is more than would be proposed or projected for this new project. Remember, again, that it used to be an industrial or commercial building. Your bond ratings were just increased. Thank God for that and everybody and all of us who live in the City ofMiami. It's going to save us six million dollars a year on every hundred million dollars worth of bonds, but why did they do that? Because of the political stability and the real estate development and the migration of people back into the inner cities. That's what did it, so with that, I would like to have one representative of the homeowners the who live across the street, and if you need testimony on traffic and what the conditions, then I'll be happy to bring them forward, too. I also want to put into the record what counsel made have been looking at is an old Miami infill plan that was a -- that was a draft. In fact, this property is outside of what they consider the East Little Havana Neighborhood Conservation District in which they said -- in which they were quoting, so there's actually a map and this property's directly outside of it. Mr. Dickman: Just for clarification, that came right off of the River Commission website. Right off it. That's where it's posted. Chairman Teele: What she's saying is apparently there's a draft document and the new document is -- Ms. Dougherty: I would like somebody from the home -- a representative from the homeowners who live across the street to come forward. Fernando Gonzalez: Good evening. My name is Fernando Gonzalez. I live at 128 Northwest 18th Avenue. I went this week around the neighborhood, around the -- you know, visiting the business people in the area, telling them about the building and about the condition and whatever. All of them signed in favor of the consfruction of the building. Chairman Teele: All right. That will be admitted without objection. Mr. Gonzalez: Yes. I was telling them, you know, no time to convince them. Telling them about what they thinking about, I don't -- you know -- and they signed this petition for the consfruction of the building. In our neighborhoods, since long time ago, you know, we living in deterioration for long, long time. Right now, everything change. I know that the Spring Garden is a very nice neighborhood. I know that place. I know everything in my neighborhood, but everything have to change. The future have to come to our neighborhood. Sixty thousand families living in our City ofMiami Page 273 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 neighborhood for long time in older buildings and you know, and poor condition. Right now we have to bring the prosperity to our neighborhood. That's excuses of the -- you know, of the traffic and whatever, you know, that's -- you know. We want, please, don't miss this opportunity to let us to helping our neighborhood, prosperity, better condition, better neighbors, and better customers to our business in the area. Please. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. All right. The public -- Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a copy of the signatures. We've provided them -- Chairman Teele: Yes, without -- with -- Mr. Maxwell: He didn't actually submit it. Did you -- did he submit it into the record? Chairman Teele: Yeah, he submitted it, and we said without objection and give him -- give the attorney a copy of that. All right. Does that close the rebuttal? Doug Mayer: For the record, my name is Doug Mayer. I'm the director of development for Jubilee Community Development. We built the Jubilee Villas project at 1060 Northwest 7th Street. Just for the record, this building is not 150 feet away. It's not 200 feet away. It's not 300 feet away. It's directly across the street. It's about 35 feet from this proposed project. This is a building that the City ofMiami has a million dollars of Community Development dollars in to help make these units affordable to these families. The people that live there are concerned about the fact that this industrial zoning, this old building that sits across the street could be used for some industrial purpose that is just not compatible with residential living. They have seen the project that is being proposed. They've seen the picture of it. Yhey know the scale of it. They know the number of units in it. Somebody briefly just tried to say that we did not represent the size and scale of the project to the people that we talked to, and that is absolutely not the case. Chairman Teele: How many stories is the building you're in? How many -- Mr. Mayer: It's a four-story building. One of the reasons that we would like to see this project go forward is because the character of the neighborhood needs to change. The fact that there's industrial uses there at night, there's an element that hangs out around there at night. We would love to see a new up scaled development there. We've had problems with people breaking into cars and so on. We just feel that this is a positive thing for the neighborhood, and to leave this as an industrial zoned site leaves the possibility for things that are just not compatible with residential living. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Mayer: And I'd just like to have one of my residents to say a few words. Chairman Teele: Now, is this a rental or home ownership? Mr. Mayer: These are homeowners. All of these people bought these units with support, not only from the City, but the County and the State, as well. Yolanda Montero (Interpreted by Odina Suarez, Official Interpreter): My name is Yolanda Montero, 50 Northwest 7th Street, which is Jubilee Villa. We are very interested in this community to improve, especially the cleanup of the river. We also want this to continue to be a good community. With this development that is going up being better than a lot of other enterprises coming in, businesses and so forth that bring a lot of other problems with them to the community. We have been living in the area already three to four months and we have already City ofMiami Page 274 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 had major difficulties in security for example. We don't want factories or other kind of elements that might bring problems to the area, to the families. That is what we hope and all of us in the area -- this is what we hope that it will be a very residential project. Thank you. Mr. Darrach: Commissioners, Don Darrach again. As part of the public speaking, Luis Sabina has asked me ifI could, with your permission, read a very, very short letter into the record on behalf of the Small Business Opportunity Center. "Dear Commissioners, it has come to my attention that the Royal Atlantic Development Corporation is planning a major new mixed use primarily residential development at the site of the old Miami news warehouse. Given SBOD (Small Business Opportunity Development) provides support for small business in East Little Havana, I wish to express my support for City approval of this development. This City needs to do whatever it can to encourage new development, which will help revitalize East Little Havana and expand the City's tax base. The new customers that the Royal Atlantic Development will provide will be a boost for all," and that's underlined -- "nearby businesses in East Little Havana. I strongly urge you to support the Royal Atlantic Development by granting its request with a change of zoning and Major Use Special Permit approval. Sincerely, Luis Sabina, Jr. Director for Small Business Opportunity Center." Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: All right. The public hearing's closed. This has gone on long enough. Madam Director, did you want to -- Ms. Slazyk: I just need to make one clarification on the record. The opposition stated that they felt that these changes were not consistent with the Miami Comprehensive Plan in that it was not consistent with the Port ofMiami River goals, objectives and policies. I just want to read that the -- within the comprehensive plan, the Port ofMiami River is defined, and it is specifically defined as the Port ofMiami River is simply a legal name used to identify some 14 independent privately owned small shipping companies located along the Miami River, and is not a port facility within the usual meaning of the term. The identification of these shipping concerns as the Port ofMiami River was made in 1986 for the sole purpose of satisfying a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing build pump outs. This property, being that it is old Miami News property and not an existing indusfrial -- water front indusfrial or independent privately own small shipping company along the Miami River would not be subject to these, so the goals, objectives and policies that were read into the record as being incompatible don't apply here. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would yield at this time to hear the statements or the comments from my colleagues, and then I'll make a motion. Chairman Teele: I'd much rather we have a motion and debate a motion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move to approve. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion. Chairman Teele: Discussion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What we have here is two neighborhoods divided by a river, a beautiful river, a river with a lot of tradition, working river and a historical river. On one side you have a beautiful historical neighborhood, Spring Gardens. On the other side, you have an area has gasping for economical development. The zoning there now, as it was stated, is industrial, and at times you've got to be careful what you ask for because it has been stated that you could get a shipping yard there with containers working 24 hours. You could get other City ofMiami Page 275 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 businesses that will come on board that will be making noise just like we get complaints here all the time from new development that's coming in because they complain because 24/7 hour of the marine industry, so and let me just state. If this was on the other side of the river, on the Spring Garden, first of all, it wouldn't be here because this administration or Planning, nobody would support that. On the other side of it, and the position that I'm in -- and I've listened to both sides, and let me tell you, this has got to be -- no matter what do, I'm not going to please both sides, but based on the arguments made by both attorneys and made on the issue that this project is being -- been approved by the Planning and Zoning, the Miami River Commission, the Planning Advisory Board, coming to us with those recommendations, you know, it's pretty tough to vote against it. I have never voted against an issue that's been supported by everyone before it comes to us, but the concerns that are brought forth -- let me tell you the concerns that are brought forth by the other side. One, saying that there's no buffer. You're talking about a river that's 150 some feet wide. I mean, that's a significant buffer to have. If it was right next door to Spring Gardens that would be an issue, but also taking into consideration that 55 percent of open space will be open, and that the river walk will be open to the public, and the covenants that have been introduced, that will also introduce in this -- in the motion -- one of the covenants that was presented to us was the one disclosing to the condominium owners that it is a historical river, a working river. That's very important. The other issue is that the covenant consists that you never block that walkway and the other covenant that want to put is that that other property next to it not be developed, the one that you did not meet the FAR. You know, compared to the original phase, I would have never approved the original phase. You're talking about 34 stories. We're talking about a 30 -- 34, 31 and 7, if I'm not mistaken, in that parcel of land, you know, but based on the building that's presented to you and 12 percent of the property consisting of the building and looking at the other side, which is Little Havana that's gasping for economic development, you know, I have to lean towards supporting it, because no matter what you do, the development of the river along that corridor, it's being pushed for development. It's going to continue to be pushed for development. Development's going to come its way whether we want it or not. It may not happen when I'm here, when you're here, but basically, it's going to happen. On the other side of the river, it's protected because basically you have this good neighborhoods there and you have properties that are already there with restaurants and stuff but development -- we have to control it. Whether it's smart growth or not growth. You know, taking a step to develop in that area, I think would add to the energy and infusion of other developments coming into the area, so it's a tough call for me to make, butt have to support the area that represent, which is Little Havana and I see this project as being good for the area, so that's why I voted in support. I know I'm not going to please anybody. My decisions up here are -- I'm in that position. I can't please everybody, so that's why l made the motion to approve. Chairman Teele: Further comments? Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Winton: All's been said. Chairman Teele: I just would like to say that agree fully with the comments that Commissioner Sanchez has made up to the decision line, butt want to say to the developer, I think the developer has come a long way. The covenant that is being proposed is encouraging because I think it will serve as a -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: The three covenants that want to have on the record. Chairman Teele: But one covenant or one statement that would be a condition in all -- a disclosure in all of the contract documents or condominium documents is a quantum leap forward, I think, and it will help the Miami River and all of us as a precedent for future development along this area. I don't want to comment on the two covenants because I think the lawyers need to determine what's a covenant and what's a pledge and what's a -- City ofMiami Page 276 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Condition. Chairman Teele: -- a condition, but I am still concerned with the traffic issue, which I don't think can be adequately solved because of the levels of service on 7th Avenue and I am very, very much concerned that the historic neighborhood is going to be overwhelmed. At the same time, I feel that the historic neighborhood needs to be very careful about overreaching in these issues. I mean, this neighborhood is -- I can remember has objected to a lot of things for a long time, and preserved its neighborhood, and I supported it in the Metro -rail, the east/west extension, the corridor that was going to be built from FIU, the Metro -rail coming through, very contentious issue. A whole series of issues, but I do think, for the record, reaching across a river that's 150 or so feet is not going to win you any favors with issues of Commissioners that are sitting on this dais down the road, and I think we need to -- I think the community needs to be very careful about overreaching because there's going to come a point where there's going to be something right in the middle of your neighborhood and at some point you can yell too long, too loudly about this. I think this is a legitimate issue, but I could easily support and understand why Commissioner Sanchez, who is representing one of the toughest area in terms of the lack of economic development in this City, as you heard some of the debate this morning back and forth between he and I, can say, hey, look it's time that we redevelop East Little Havana, and it's almost a flip of a coin, as far as I'm concerned. I strongly believe that East Little Havana needs this kind of development. I wish the development were more to the scale, you know, and using more of the footprint in sort of like the -- what is that, the river run south that was put up there, but that's the developer's decision and I think the developer's in his right. I'm just not convinced and therefore, I will be voting in the opposition with an understanding that I believe that this is a close call and Commissioner Sanchez and anybody else who votes for it is within their -- clearly the evidence can support it going either way, as far as I'm concerned, so with that, Mr. Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading 4/1. PZ.24 03-0416b ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 24 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM SD-4 WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1001 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 277 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 03-0416b SR Fact Sheet.PDF 03-041 6b Analysis.PDF 03-0416b Zoning Map.PDF 03-0416, 03-0416a & 03-0416b Aerial Map.pdf 03-0416, 03-0416a & b School Brd Recomm.PDF 03-0416b River Comm Recomm.PDF 03-0416b ZB Reso.PDF 03-0416b Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0416b Legislation.PDF 03-041 6b Exhibit A.PDF 03-0416b FR Fact Sheet.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from SD-4 Waterfront Industrial to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 1001 NW 7th Street APPLICANT(S): Royal Atlantic Developers, LLP and 1001 NW 7th Street Properties, Inc APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Unanimously recommended approval to City Commission. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 15, 2003 by a vote of 9-0. See companion File IDs 03-0416 and 03-0416a. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site for the proposed Royal Atlantic Major Use Special Permit Project. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Regalado Noes: 1 - Commissioner Teele 12493 Chairman Teele: All right. The next item, the companion item. Quickly. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, this is the zoning change. Recommended for approval by the Zoning Board. Approval by the Planning and Zoning Department. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion? Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ.24. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. City ofMiami Page 278 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Yes Ms. Thompson: Vice Chair Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Teele? Chairman Teele: No, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading 4/1. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. PZ.25 03-0416 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 13, AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE ROYAL ATLANTIC PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1001 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF TWO 27-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 744 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 9,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 1,073 TOTAL PARKING SPACES, AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 279 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 03-0416 Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0416 Analysis.PDF 03-0416 Zoning Map.PDF 03-0416, 03-0416a & 03-0416b Aerial Map.pdf 03-0416, 03-0416a & 03-0416b School Brd Recomm.PDF 03-0416 River Comm Recomm.PDF 03-0416 HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0416 PAB Reso.PDF 03-0416 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0416 Plans.PDF 03-0416 Legislation.PDF 03-0416 Exhibit A - Modif.pdf 03-0416 Exhibit B.PDF 03-0416 Exhibit C.PDF 03-0416 Outside Cover.PDF 03-0416 Inside Cover.PDF 03-0416 Table of Contents.PDF 03-0416 Article I - Project Information.PDF 03-0416 Aerial.PDF 03-0416 Zoning Atlas.PDF 03-0416 Computer Tax Printout - Deed.PDF 03-0416 Ownership List.PDF 03-0416 Corporate Documents.PDF 03-0416 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 03-0416 Archeological Plan.PDF 03-0416 Article II - Project Description.PDF 03-0416 Article III - Supporting Documentation.PDF 03-0416 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 03-0416 Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 03-0416 Site Utility Study.PDF 03-0416 Economic Impact Analysis.PDF 03-0416 Survey of Property.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Royal Atlantic Project LOCATION: Approximately 1001 NW 7th Street APPLICANT(S): Royal Atlantic Developers, LLP and 1001 NW 7th Street Properties, Inc APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. HISTORIC & ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* on October 21, 2003 by a vote of 6-0. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Unanimously recommended approval to City Commission. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File IDs 03-0416a City ofMiami Page 280 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 and 03-0416b. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a mixed -use multifamily residential development. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Regalado Noes: 1 - Commissioner Teele R-04-0118 Chairman Teele: There's one more item, but let me just announce what we're going to do. The Manager's asked that we take up CA.9 and CA.15. We're going to take those up while people are leaving quietly and then we're going to bring up Commissioner Winton's request, CA -- Commissioner Winton: PZ.21. Chairman Teele: PZ.21. PZ.21 will be next, so -- Lucia Dougherty: Don't we have one more item on this one? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. Chairman Teele: Yes, we have one more item. Go right ahead, Madam director. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.25 is the actual major use special permit, recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department, recommended denial by the Planning Advisory Board. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. -- Commissioner Sanchez, may I make a suggestion in connection with this? Two conditions with this one. Prior to the building permit provide proof of the language in the condominium documents that were proffered. Secondly, that the river walk be conditioned open to the public at the same time as all City parks, and furthermore that we provide a covenant that there be no residential or commercial structures built on the west green space. Vice Chairman Sanchez: On that piece of land, my other concern is -- Ms. Dougherty: Any of the green space. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. You know, you might build something else there. I want to -- Ms. Dougherty: I want to be able to build recreational structures. Vice Chairman Sanchez: As long as it's not in a residential -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, just -- Ms. Dougherty, I think you -- what you asked the Commissioner was that this Commission require the covenant. You are proffering this covenant, are you not, voluntarily? Ms. Dougherty: He requires two conditions and I proffer one covenant. Mr. Maxwell: And you are proffering that covenant. Ms. Dougherty: Correct. City ofMiami Page 281 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: Correct? That was what was said. Chairman Teele: Are you proffering one covenant or two? Ms. Dougherty: One covenant. Commissioner Winton: Or three. Chairman Teele: What's the one covenant? Ms. Dougherty: One covenant, two conditions. The conditions are before building permit provide you -- evidence provide the Building Department -- I mean, the Planning Department evidence of the language that were proffered about the condominium. Secondly, the river walk be open to the public at the same time as all City parks, and thirdly, that we provide a covenant that there be no residential or commercial development or structures built on the open space. Chairman Teele: I just want to make sure the record's clear. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ.25. Ms. Slazyk: With conditions. Commissioner Gonzalez: With conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What -- Ms. Slazyk: With the two additional conditions and accepting the proffer. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." Chairman Teele: All opposed. "No" The vote is 4 to 1. The item is adopted. PZ.26 03-0190 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY J&J FLORIDA PROPERTIES, INC. ("APPELLANTS"), AND MODIFYING IN THE MANNER PROVIDED HEREIN, A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ("HEPB"), WHICH DESIGNATED THE WOLPERT APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 2500-2512 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AS A HISTORIC SITE. City ofMiami Page 282 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 03-0190 Exhibit A Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0190 Exhibit B HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0190 Exhibit C Designation Report.PDF 03-0190 Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0190 Appeal Letter.PDF 03-0190 HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0190 Designation Report.PDF 03-0190 Q&A Historic Designation.PDF 03-0190 Exhibit A Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0190 Legislation a.PDF 03-0190 Exhibit B HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0190 Legislation b.PDF 03-0190 - submission - photo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0121 APPEAL DENIED, AFFIRMED DECISION OF HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, designating only the 1927 section of the building as historic and not designating the 1923 section of the property as historic. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, can we take PZ.26, please? Chairman Teele: We can do anything you all want to do. It's out of control. Thank you all very much. (Applause) Chairman Teele: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you all very much for your patience. If you're here on a zoning matter, it will be taken up tonight. It will not be deferred. Several people have asked the question. Any -- all of the zoning items will be heard, so we're not going to have you be here. Commissioner Gonzalez, you asked that a certain item be heard. We do need to go back to the beginning, but -- Commissioner Gonzalez: PZ.26. Chairman Teele: PZ.26? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: At the request of my colleague, PZ.26 is being heard. We would like to get back to PZ. 7 -- I mean, start from the beginning. Madam Director. Sarah Eaton: Mr. Chairman, Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer for the City ofMiami. PZ.26 is an appeal of a decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, which designated the WolpertApartments at Biscayne Boulevard and 25th Street as a historic site. Any decision regarding historic site designation must look only at the criteria for designation as set forth in Chapter 23 of the City Code. As stated in the designation report, this property clearly meets criteria 3, 5, 6 and 7. Only one criteria is required to be met. This historic site remains as one of the few surviving buildings that illustrate the grand plans once envisioned for Biscayne Boulevard. I think it's interesting we're talking about a historic site on Biscayne Boulevard after several hours of discussion on the current state of Biscayne Boulevard. That development at City ofMiami Page 283 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Biscayne Boulevard, in the '20s, was the single largest development project in Miami's history. The WolpertApartments is particularly important because it represents a building that actually predated the master plan for the boulevard, but was retained and added onto because its design was consistent with the overall architectural theme. In that respect, its significance is almost identical to that of the Priscilla Apartments, which, unfortunately, was demolished a number of years ago. The WolpertApartments is also a fine example ofMediterranean Revival style architecture as applied to a mixed use building, and is an outstanding work of prominent architects CeCe Webber and Alexander D. Lewis, who designed the 1927 edition to the Wolpert Apartments. This team set the tone for the architectural design of Biscayne Boulevard from its very beginnings, and is responsible for the comprehensive approach that once characterized Biscayne Boulevard. The WolpertApartments is an outstanding example of their adaptation of existing buildings to their architectural design scheme. The building also contains elements of design, detail, materials and craftsmanship of outstanding quality. The designation of this building was first considered by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board in March of last year, and was continued several times at the request of the applicant so he could have additional time to consider the effects of designation. Although the owner has objected to the designation, the consent of the owner is not a criterion that can be considered. Staff respectfully requests that the City Commission deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. How many of these appeals have we heard under this ordinance? Ms. Eaton: There have been several appeals that have been filed. A number have been -- Chairman Teele: My question was -- Ms. Eaton: None have actually been heard. Chairman Teele: -- how many appeals has this board heard under this ordinance? Ms. Eaton: None. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Jerry Solkol: My name is Jerry Solkol. I live at 140 North Hibiscus Drive in Miami Beach. I know it's been a long day for you, so we're going to fry and be real brief and real concise. Chairman Teele: And you represent who? Mr. Solkol: I'm here on behalf of my father, David Solkol, who's the owner of the corporation that owns this building, and also our entire family, including my wife, my family, my father-in-law, Ronnie Krongold. We're all here in -- Commissioner Winton: And how's Ronnie Krongold tied into this? Mr. Solkol: Ronnie's my father-in-law. I'm married to his daughter. In any event, we're here to ask that you not designate our family's building as historic, and we're going to explain to you and demonstrate clearly that this very dilapidated apartment building that you're looking at is really in no way historic, and while we truly appreciate the hard work of the Preservation Board staff and the Preservation Board in trying to preserve historic sites in the City, in this one instant -- in this instance, they're wrong. By way of brief background, my father first came to Miami in 1947, after World War II, to go to the University ofMiami. He then came back to Miami for good in 1957, after serving in the Korean War. He purchased this building in 1968. For 36 years, my father has kept the building up. He's paid City taxes, and he's personally -- as my two sisters and my one brother and I have grown up -- he's personally gone down and collected rents City ofMiami Page 284 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 in this -- in what was an economically challenged, and until fairly recently, crime -ridden neighborhood, so that one day he could realize the value of this property when the neighborhood finally came around. This is his retirement nest egg. Well, as everyone here knows, the area really has had a vast increase in value, and then we get a notice in the mail about a year ago that the Historic Preservation Board wanted to designate this historic, and my father, who's been a realtor in the City for 40 years and as a CCIM and knowledgeable about value, knew that this would really be a bad thing for him, as it would impede his future development rights and there would be a lot of cost and bureaucracy in maintaining this dilapidated building, and it would substantially diminish the value of this building. As you know, the Historic Preservation Board had a hearing before coming here. Unfortunately, the Historic Preservation Board -- and this is a very important point because I know that Joe Sanchez -- Commissioner Sanchez had mentioned that he had an issue when there was a certain vote on a lower board, and I think it's important that -- this is a very important time for us because this is the first time -- I've come in front of you guys a couple times and we've had some continuances, but this is the first time that I feel that we have a real chance of getting an impartial tribunal because what happens -- and I'm stating the obvious here -- is the only people who are willing to devote the time to be on Historic Preservation Board tend to be devout historic preservationalists (sic) who are really predisposed to designating buildings, so I really -- I'm going to ask you very much to listen to what we're going to say here because I believe that if you listen to what we're going to say -- and we have with us -- we have a historic architect and we have a structural engineer, and I truly believe that if you listen to us, you will see that we make -- that we are making very compelling arguments that this building should not be designated historic. Commissioner Winton: Is he designated as a historic architect? Mr. Solkol: I'm not sure his age, but maybe you can -- and I don't know your authority to do that, but maybe well take a vote on that. In any event, what I'm going to do right now is, I'd like to turn it over to our historic architect, James Dean, to talk about -- he's going to get into the substance and refute the designation report, and then after that, Herb Gopman, our structural engineer, I think will give some very important insight that is not contained in the designation report as to the structural -- as to the current structural situation of this building. Thank you. James Dean: I do feel historic. My name is James Dean. This is the 53rd year of my architectural practice in this community. I'm past president of the Florida Association American Institute ofArchitects. I'm past president of the Historic Association of South Florida and I'm past president of your Science Museum. I've done my community service in this community. To qualify you with my other credentials, I'm the architect who formed the group to salvage and preserve the Douglas entrance in Coral Gables. I'm the architect who renovated and rehabbed the Vanderbilt Estate in Fisher Island for preservation. I'm the architect who established the preservation techniques for the continued use of the Coral Gables Biltmore Hotel, previous to the Coral Gables City purchasing the property. Sarah has given you a brief history of the property, and I think it's important so that we can put this structure in context. The building was started and permitted in 1923. In 1924, the Shoreland Company began construction on Biscayne Boulevard and its widening so it could reach his properties in Miami Shores. In 1926, the Shoreland Company went belly up. I know with the hurricane, the peak of our real estate market was in '25, and the Biscayne Boulevard Company, which we know as the Bessemer Company, purchased the Shoreland Company and completed Biscayne Boulevard. It was opened in 1927. This is important because I think what I'm saying to you is that the original building, which was remodeled in 1927 by the architectural firm of Webber and Lewis, came upon the scene after the original structure. There is an error in the staffs report, saying that the original building, built in 1923, had a tower structure. This is not true. I've personally been climbing in the attic of this building to find evidence of it. The original building was a simple box building with a nondescript architectural character, facing on 25th Street, and similar to those that you see throughout South Florida. In fact, I lived in one of these buildings right after my college in 1940, 1950s. In 1927, when Bessemer came into the property, in order to bring this facility into City ofMiami Page 285 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 the character that they were frying to establish for Biscayne Boulevard, they wrapped the building on two sides with an ornamentation of Mediterranean Revival applications. Unfortunately, what they did -- and I -- sir, again, describe this as an outstanding example -- Chairman Teele: I'm having a hard time hearing you. Mr. Dean: Excuse me. What they did -- Commissioner Winton: There you go. Chairman Teele: Go over and help adjust the mike so he can get closer to it. Mr. Dean: OK What they did was apply certain ornamentations to the existing building and to the one-story and 3-story structure they built at the corners. I'm going to walk around and show you what the original building looked like and what was applied to this structure, with these photographs that we've been provided. Chairman Teele: All right. You've got to take the mike. No. Here you go. Here you -- Mr. Dean: This is the west side of the existing building, and it's very similar to what the east side, facing Biscayne Boulevard, was like at one time, and you can -- This is the north side of that building and you can see where the wrapping of this exterior ornamentation occurred around to this point. The application of an ornamentation on the structure. My contention is that Bessemer did this because the original building was god -awful and ugly, and they were trying to overcome the lack of architectural character for the original building. To classify this as Mediterranean Revival is erroneous. Staff has used the definitions ofMediterranean architecture from the Community Development manual on the history and architecture of Dade County. This building contains no combination of roof slopes, no arcades or colonnades, no multi -roofs, no courtyards, no towers, nor ornamental ironwork, except for security, and really none of the elements that are necessary for medieval -- the Mediterranean Revival style. The architects, Webber and Lewis, were outstanding. They had a three-year stint with Mediterranean Revival on Biscayne Boulevard, and Bessemer changed the architectural character, in 1930, to art deco, with the building of the Sears tower, the Shrine building, and the Burdines. As to the preservation of this building for future use, what do we have? My client, Mr. Solkol, has no reasonable anticipation of meeting the current building codes, which are in effect in this community. Historic buildings, under the Florida Building Code, are exempt from the technical aspects of the Code, but you have to be able to present to your Building officials an achievable equivalency. This means, in essence, that the Code requirements for fire safety, handicap, and building structure, mechanical and electrical, have to be met. This is a problem with this particular structure. Under the Fire Code, this building has only one stair exit. The rear of the building is exited through windows to a fire escape, which is not allowed by the Code. This building has no rated interior access corridors of a IR fire rating for life safety. There is no sprinklers in the building. Under handicap accessibility, the apartments of this structure are four feet above grade, and there's no way that an elevator or a ramp can be utilized to enter this building, so the aspects of this building meeting the handicap codes are nil. The most important part of the Building Code occurs in the rule of the application of construction dollars spent in relationship to the value of the building. When you remodel a building beyond 50 percent of its value, you have to bring the entire structure up to building Code. This building has valued with the Property Assessor's Office of a hundred and seventy thousand dollars. After that would be eighty-five thousand dollars I could spend without bringing the entire building to Code. The building contains about 1400 square -- excuse me --14, 000 square feet of space. This means I have less than six dollars a square foot to bring this building up to Code, and that's unreasonable and there's no way in the world that this building will ever meet Code under our present ordinances. The Wolpert building is like a painted old lady on her last ffing. City ofMiami Page 286 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Vice Chairman Sanchez: What was that? Say that again. Mr. Dean: Well, it's a painted old lady on her last fling. She needs to die. Don't prolong her life. She's already -- Chairman Teele: You better be glad it's five men up here because five women, you'd be (INAUDIBLE) -- Mr. Dean: Because I'm dead. I thank you very much. This building has no value as a historical designation to our community. Chairman Teele: All right. Anybody else? Herbert Gopman: Herb Gopman -- Commissioner Winton: Is his presentation as long as the first one? Mr. Solkol: No. This is going to be two minutes, and then I'll wrap up, OK? Here are some pictures. Mr. Gopman: Gentlemen, I assure you I'll be very brief. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Herbert L. Gopman. I'm a professional engineer licensed in the state of Florida. My offices are located in North Miami Beach at 192 Northeast 168th Street, and Naples, Florida, and I also reside in Miami Beach. I've been in practice since 1967, consulting as a structural engineer. I currently serve on a blue ribbon committee for the City ofMiami Beach to assess conditions for historic structures and to adjust the current ordinance for 40-year recertifications. I also serve on the City's board -- Zoning Board ofAdjustment. I have inspected the building located at 275 Northeast 25th Street, owned by J & J Florida Properties, Inc. The building is a 3-story structure, used primarily for residential purposes, with the lower front portion on Biscayne Boulevard used for retail purposes. My inspection led me to the assessment that the building has very little use for life left as a residential habitat. The building is constructed mostly of old style cinderblock with very little reinforced concrete, as would be used in today's construction technology. The floors, including the first floor and roof are composed of light timber framing. The window frames are of wood, as is shown in the pictures I have taken, and you will note the window frames are deteriorated from dry rot and termite attack. The floor systems are being deteriorated by dry rot and wet rot, and in many cases, have been re -supported in Rube Goldberg fashion because they were incorrectly designed and are over -spanned. As you can note in the pictures, BX cable is rampant below the wood floors, which is unacceptable by today's standards, and can be eventually be deemed a fire hazard. Future maintenance of the building can be expected to become overwhelming. In my expert opinion, the building has a useful life span of no more than five years. Additionally, there are no existing plans available that would enable anyone to properly initiate repairs when required. I thank you very much. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Solkol: Commissioner Teele, ifI could just please close after both of them. Thank you, Commissioner Winton. Although I'm not an expert in historic designation, I have had a baptism by fire over the last year. I've studied the criteria from the City Code and I can assure you my dad's building does not meet this criteria, and hopefully you understand that now from listening, particularly, to James Dean. When you read the report that was given to you from the staff it talks about Mediterranean Revival. It talks about the grand plan of Biscayne Boulevard to combine residential with commercial. It really feels like manufactured language to support a predetermined and pre -desired result. It is really reaching far for architectural and cultural significance. There have been so many changes over the course of the last 80 years that there is City ofMiami Page 287 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 no architectural integrity. The building is next to a KF -- a Kentucky Fried Chicken. On the other side is an IHOP (International House of Pancakes). Across the street is a Cuban -- is the Cuban Cafe. This is not an area that is being set up to be a historic district. To spot district an old dilapidated building full of rats, with decaying windows is not serving any purpose. It's not a church. It's not a courthouse. It's not the Biltmore. It's not -- There are plenty of buildings in this City worth preserving. I ask you to be objective, to look at these pictures, to please listen to the true experts, to listen to people who are not predisposed to declaring anything that is old historic. Just because something is old does not make it historic. It must, according to the Code, have either architectural, cultural, or -- cultural or architectural significance, and this building has none. It is just an old building. My dad's been a good citizen. All the buildings around town that are like this -- a lot of these old buildings, people tore them down. My dad kept it up. He didn't tear it down. Sarah knows he could have torn it down when we first got wind that it may have been designated, and he opted not to, and he shouldn't be punished for that. This is simply an old building that my dad has kept up. He'll continue to keep it up as he will, but there's no reason to impose upon him the incredible burdens of this. It's not a way to punish him. It's not a way to punish our family, and the truth of the matter is -- and I think the most important point -- is not to give us -- that we're asking for any mercy here. It's to look objectively at the facts and to see that this building is not something that we need for our children, for our visitors. This is just -- as James Dean said, this is simply an old, rotting dilapidated building, and I hope that you will find it that way as well. Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: All right. Response from the -- Dolly Maclntyre: From the painted old lady, and I assure you this is not my last fling. I'm a preservationist because ofJimmy Dean. I started my interest in old buildings with the Douglas entrance. Chairman Teele: We're going to need your name and address for the record. Ms. Maclntyre: Sorry. I forgot and I wasn't going to do that. I'm Dolly Maclntyre, 1835 South Bayshore Drive. I don't know this building personally well enough to tell you which side is correct in the reality. My concern here is a precedent setting potential. Your professional staff has studied this building and deemed it to be worthy of designation. The professional staff has a neutral interest here, in that there's no financial interest on the part of the staff. The owner, obviously, has a financial interest, which tends to color the way they see things. Now, there are cases -- I'm told numbers of cases -- of successful, financially successful buildings just like this one. The purpose of designation is to provide protection. The purpose is also to provide dialogue and benefit of professional expertise in solving the problems of historic buildings. We don't look to penalize an owner because he happens to have a historic building, but we do have to recognize that it is a public purpose to save buildings that have been designated, and Supreme Court has support that. This could go all the way to the Supreme Court and the court would say, we have already made that ruling, so I ask you to consider seriously the precedent of reversing a designation. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. We're waiting to hear from the -- Ms. Eaton, are you going to respond to them or how are you all handling this? Ms. Eaton: I believe my presentation actually responded to the points that were raised. We feel -- we have no doubt whatsoever that this building is eligible for designation. As many members of the preservation community will tell you, I'm very conservative in the buildings that propose for designation, and I've often been criticized in the past for not recommending buildings for designation. I don't take the recommendation lightly in proposing the designation of a historic building. This building is clearly significant in the development of Biscayne Boulevard, which was the single largest development project in Miami's history. The developers took an existing building and modified it and adapted it to their plans in their development and architectural City ofMiami Page 288 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 scheme for Biscayne Boulevard. We feel the building clearly meets the criteria for designation. If the arguments presented by the engineer were true, virtually no building in the art deco district in Miami Beach would have been rehabbed. We respectfully recommend that you deny the appeal. Chairman Teele: All right. The Chair has made an error in that actually the appellant should have made the first presentation. Your presentation that you made first should have been -- Ms. Eaton: I apologize. Chairman Teele: -- the rebuttal, and so now we're back to you for a rebuttal rebuttal. Mr. Solkol: OK Thank you. Chairman Teele: Unfortunately. Go right ahead. Mr. Solkol: Hopefully, that's not a direct shot at me, so -- Chairman Teele: No, not at you, at all. Just at me. Mr. Solkol: I understand. In any event, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak again. I think there are some important points to be made. I mean, one thing is that -- the statute is -- it's very subjective. It says, "you may." It doesn't say "shall." It says you may designate if it -- only if it has these three criteria. We disagree completely that it has these criteria of significant architectural, cultural, or historic -- and we also do not think that it has architectural integrity because of all the renovations over the 80 years, but notwithstanding that, it's a "may," not a "shall, " and that's why -- it is subjective -- and that's why it's up to you. I disagree with one comment that was made by -- not by Sarah, but by the other person speaking, in that they said -- I agree that the Preservation Board has no financial incentive to designate, but I do think that it's important for you to reflect upon and realize that the Preservation Board and the Preservation staff are, by nature, preservationists, so while they may not have a financial interest, they've got an interest that I think is even deeper than financial, and therefore -- and it's not their fault. Everybody is the way they are, but I think it makes them biased towards designating a building that I think you need to look at and say, you know, is this the kind of building that we need to preserve as historic in our city? It's not a whole area, like the Miami Beach that they referenced. If it was a whole area -- Chairman Teele: Counsel, if you are correct in your argument -- Mr. Solkol: Yeah. Chairman Teele: -- then we may as well dismantle the board. If you're saying that the board is, per se, biased -- I mean, that's your argument. Mr. Solkol: Well, if not -- Chairman Teele: Your argument at this point is that the board is, per se, biased. It's deeper than financial. It's -- Mr. Solkol: Well, let me -- ifI can -- and I understand your point. I'm not -- I'm saying that it is important that if there is an appeal from the Historic Preservation Board, I think it is more important, like when Joe Sanchez says he very rarely votes against -- Commissioner Sanchez -- against a recommendation, I think that it is incumbent and important for you to look at the composition of this particular board. I don't know what other boards there are, butt know that the component -- that the members of the board are preservationists by nature. That's my only City ofMiami Page 289 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 point. Quite frankly, I feel right now I'm having back and forth and more dialogue. When I went into that hearing -- and I hope I'm not doing myself a disservice by telling you this, but every word I said fell --from my perspective, and I'm just being frank -- fell upon deaf ears, and right now, it's not falling upon deaf ears. OK. It was -- I was very upset after that hearing, not in the outcome but in the fact that I felt like it was a forgone conclusion, and I'm just being frank, OK. Having said that, I think that because of that, it's important for you to look at whether this spot designation -- not an area, Commissioner Winton, where there's a bunch of buildings together, like the art deco district. You have a single building across from a Kentucky Fried Chicken and IHOP. The -- I think it's the Latin Cafe across the street, and, you know, again, I mean, I've made my points thatl think it's important not to set a precedent that just because a building's old where you can really reach out and find some little piece of art -- of neat architecture that's not Mediterranean Revival, like the Freedom Tower or like, you know, some really significant buildings, then we need to be careful because if we do that, you know, people will end up having a race to knock down just old buildings faster than they would otherwise be knocked down, and they wouldn't have the incentive to do what my dad did, which is -- you know, people have told him, you know, it's an old building. Chairman Teele: You're going to have to limit your comments to what she said. You've gone completely over everything again. You want to just bring it into a summation for us, please? Mr. Solkol: My summation is that hope that you all vote not to designate this historic. Thanks, Commissioner Teele, for helping me on that. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. OK The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Well, I guess a couple of points. We don't have a zone in the City of Miami that's like Ocean Drive in Miami Beach. It doesn't exist. However, we are the only city in South Florida that has a 105 year history of architecture that's scattered all over the place, and this city has done an absolutely deplorable job of protecting that architecture, and Edgewater, you know, near this area, is a classic example where we failed because we allowed -- it wasn't us, but the Commission in the mid-'80s up -zoned that area. We're going to pay the awful consequences of it because the train wrecks coming down the tracks by upzoning that area, and they bulldozed fabulous, fabulous neat buildings along there, and this building right here on Biscayne Boulevard, to me, represents everything, as far as I'm concerned, that we ought to be working at, at least in some fashion, trying to preserve, so that's my -- you know, and I'm not a historic preservation guy and I don't -- butl know when I look at it, that it seems to me to be of a character that suggests -- and you get a look at what old Miami looked like, which is what preservation, seems to me, is all about; where you're protecting a look from your community from times past. This works for me. Now -- and also your argument about -- on the structural side -- and by the way, when did you say you bought this? Mr. Solkol: 1968. Commissioner Winton: So y'all have owned it for 35 years, so, you know, the deterioration -- I'm -- you know, it's a little curious you've owned it for almost 40 years and this deteriorated building -- 40 years is a long time to have owned a deteriorated building, so -- but I'll get off that point. Key point about structural. There isn't a single -- you know, maybe two buildings on Miami Beach, where there wasn't a structural engineer -- because I listen to all that stuff -- who didn't come and say, "This building is not economically viable. It's falling apart. It's awful. It's this. It's dilapidated. It's got rats in it. It's got homeless in it, therefore, it needs to be torn down." That's what every single argument was, and had we bought into that argument about the condition of the buildings, they would have saved nothing. You know, if we buy into that same argument, we will save nothing in this community, as well. Now, I have some questions about this that don't understand about historic preservation. I have seen instances where there have City ofMiami Page 290 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 been buildings that -- if you take this building and you follow part of their logic that isn't so illogical to me -- and it's probably the 1923 building versus the 1927 building -- but is it possible, in our preservation efforts, to work out an arrangement with owners of properties like this where we strike an agreement that saves the 1927 frontage, but allows them to take out the 1923 box and develop something back behind it that has greater mass, but that it's in keeping with that kind of architectural style? Is that possible in this historic preservation stuff? Hs. Eaton: That can be done at the time of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, when a development scheme is planned for the property. Commissioner Winton: Well, see, I think that would -- Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Johnny -- Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: -- that is exactly what happened with the Tower Theater. It took the City -- remember, remember -- it took the City two million -- two additional million dollars, when we were poor, and two additional years, and Joe Sanchez remember that, because the state said that you have to preserve the frontage. Commissioner Winton: If we moved in a direction to do something like that, are y'all in agreement or in disagreement with that? Hr. Solkol: Commissioner Winton, that's an excellent suggestion, and certainly, I was -- wanted to -- I've thought about that. In other words, you know, my family's strong preference -- and I've made it quite strong, obviously -- is for you -- is for the five of you not to designate this building, and I definitely don't want to say that in any uncertain terms. However, if you're so inclined to believe that this building does have historic value, then we would certainly be willing to discuss a compromise whereby the 1927 part, which is actually the one story -- Commissioner Winton: And the facade behind it. Hr. Solkol: -- and the entire two-story tower in the corner. Commissioner Winton: Right. Hr. Solkol: So you have the whole tower in the corner and the store is where we designated that -- if I'm asking for too much, just tell me, but one thing that I think would be really neat for us and that -- you know, people often feel like when they're getting designated or they might be designated, they tear the building down and -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Hr. Solkol: -- they run for the hills. What I'd like to propose -- and if I'm being overaggressive, just tell me -- that you don't -- that if we do that, that you don't count the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) in the -- because we believe the 1927 part is so dilapidated. If you look at the pictures that Herb Gopman took -- Commissioner Winton: The '27 or '23? Hr. Solkol: I'm -- the 20 -- no, no, '27 even, so if we preserve that -- because it is historic -- so you have this nice frontage -- Chairman Teele: Which one are you saying, if we preserve which one? City ofMiami Page 291 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Solkol: Preserve the '27, which is the Biscayne Boulevard frontage. It gives you the combination of stores and apartments, which, I mean -- I don't believe it, but the report says that the combination of stores and apartments is a big -- is a good thing. It gives you that. It has those arches on the -- Commissioner Winton: I already -- Mr. Solkol: -- on the one story. Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Solkol: If we preserve that, then I would like to propose that we would accept that right now, if we could -- I don't know if you have the authority to even do this -- to not count the FAR in that portion as part of the total FAR that we're allowed. Obviously, I pre -thought about this. Chairman Teele: Hold it. You know, I'm going to clarify, procedurally, two or three things. First of all, Mr. Attorney, we are in a quasi-judicial -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: OK. Is there any wrong that can come before equity that equity cannot find and address a remedy? Mr. Maxwell: Not that I know of. Chairman Teele: That's well established common law. That's lawyer to lawyer talk now. Commissioner Winton: That was for sure. Mr. Solkol: I'm an attorney and I didn't follow that. Chairman Teele: So, Commissioner Winton, the opinion of the other lawyer here, Ms. Eaton, may not be consistent with equity, and what I'm suggesting to you -- because this is a case of first impression -- if you want to frame a motion in the manner that you're outlining, we'll ask the City Attorney to work in making sure that it's framed, because I think, in equity, we can carve a remedy based upon a grievance that is being presented here, which -- Now, I don't know about the FAR. We're not here hearing FAR. We don't have jurisdiction over that matter in this proceeding, but in terms of preservation and what you're outlining, I think you should move forward with that approach, if that is what a majority of the Commission wants to do, and then we'll worry about letting it work out through the lawyers and the court system, if necessary. Mr. Solkol: IfI may, I mean -- Chairman Teele: Especially since they've agreed pretty much to it. Mr. Solkol: Well, ifI may, and I hope I haven't -- Commissioner Winton: Well, they'd rather not have that, but they're willing to -- Solkol: Maybe I'm already way past this, because I've already moved off-- is there -- if this is ridiculous, just tell me. Is there any way to take a vote to see if we could not designate the whole building or am I -- I shouldn't even ask -- Commissioner Winton: What? City ofMiami Page 292 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Solkol: Is there any way that we can still not have the whole building designated? Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm trying to get there, but you keep going, you know -- let, you know -- that's what I was suggesting. Chairman Teele: You're literally asking for two bites at the apple. In other words, if you lose -- Mr. Solkol: I don't know what I'm asking. Chairman Teele: -- if you lose on the -- Mr. Solkol: The whole building, then I'd like to have a fallback. Chairman Teele: -- on the whole building, then you want to come back and consider the -- Mr. Solkol: That's what I'd like, ifI can't do it. Chairman Teele: Not a chance. Mr. Solkol: OK Chairman Teele: Not a chance. Commissioner Winton: Sarah, back to you, so -- Mr. Solkol: You blame me for asking? Commissioner Winton: -- so does that kind of process work for us? Ms. Eaton: It's up to the Commission. We do not recommend the designation of a part of a building. A building is either significant in its whole, or it's not significant. Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Solkol: I think there's an argument here because of the two buildings. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Commissioner Regalado: I have a question regarding to the future. Suppose that we decide to declare that or half of that, so what happens with Code enforcement? That building is in noncompliance and has not been in compliance for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), Code, so what happens? Do we send the inspectors? Mr. Maxwell: You have to keep it up. Commissioner Regalado: Huh? Commissioner Gonzalez: Is this building occupied now? Mr. Solkol: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: Certainly, they have to comply. They still -- Commissioner Gonzalez: People living in there? City ofMiami Page 293 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: -- they still have to comply with Code. Mr. Solkol: Yes, it is occupied. Chairman Teele: You always have to comply with Code. Mr. Maxwell: I'm not so sure I understand your question. Commissioner Regalado: My question -- that's my question. Commissioner Winton: But it has certain grandfathered provisions that apply, and so, it -- Commissioner Regalado: Because my second question is, if the building is declared historic -- and not this case, another building -- does the City works with the people not to apply all of the rules and regulations regarding Code enforcement, and work with the people in order to bring the building to Code without the hassle and the nightmare of the people? Commissioner Winton: But, see, we're not -- in all of these instances, there isn't necessarily a requirement that the building come to current Code. It's only once the 50 percent rule is triggered. Fifty percent rule is that if you file for a permit within the City to do a major renovation and the cost of that renovation is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the value of the building, then you have to meet all the current Codes, and most of these building owners never do that for that very reason, so they're able to operate, essentially, in their grandfather clause that allows them to main -- keep their properties the way they are. Anyhow -- so, I would like to make a motion. Chairman Teele: Please. Commissioner Winton: And the motion is that we -- and I'll need a little help here. Is it that we're going to designate the 1927 -- I want to protect the 1927 piece, so -- Chairman Teele: Procedurally, this building has been designated by the agency that designates. We are entertaining an appeal to remove that designation or not to grant that designation. Mr. Maxwell: Or to modify it. Chairman Teele: Or to modify that designation, and that's where you are right now, on the modification. Commissioner Winton: So, my motion would be to modify the designation so that the part that's included in the historic preservation is the 1927 model, and not the 1923 model. End of story. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Second. The motion is limiting the designation to the 1927 features, as in the document before us, and to grant the appeal relating to the 1923. Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. What you're doing is you're affirm -- I think you will be upholding the decision of the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) Board, but modifying it as Commissioner Winton pointed out. Chairman Teele: Fine. Mr. Maxwell: You're not -- that's whatl think you're doing. City ofMiami Page 294 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Stating the same thing. Fine, if you want to say it that way. Discussion on the motion. Discussion on the motion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: None. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, I think what you're doing is brilliant. I think it's equitable. I think it's fair, and I think it's consistent with historic preservation across this country, where, in many cities, like Washington, D.C., all you have to do is maintain the facade of the -- Commissioner Winton: Original. Chairman Teele: -- of one-fourth of the building, that is on just the front. The Jewish war building -- Jewish war veterans' building, which is a building that own in Washington, D.C. on New Hampshire, all we had to do was that. Now, that cost two million dollars to do that, but that's the way it's done. It's consistent with the Performing Arts Center, in terms of what is being done there, and I think, you know, what it does is it provides leadership to these other -- to the boards below us that we need to look at this both in terms of how we can maintain the history and not -- and give the owner flexibility to keep the property -- and, in fact, incentivize the owner to do what it is we're trying to do by preserving (INAUDIBLE) -- Commissioner Winton: And to not rush out and bulldoze all these properties. Chairman Teele: And to not rush out and bulldoze, so I think what you're doing is commendable, and I think it's a good precedent in terms ofMs. Polly -- what's her name? Ms. Eaton: Dolly Maclntyre. Chairman Teele: Yeah, Ms. Maclntyre, because I think it's very, very important that we do establish a precedent. This is the first time this has come before us that we're listening to all sides to this and we're trying to come up with the -- an equitable solution. Ms. Maclntyre. Ms. Maclntyre: I just want to tell you that at the National Trust level, they call this proposal a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Teele: That doesn't sound nice. Ms. Maclntyre: It isn't nice. What you're talking about is shaving off a front of a building and attaching it to a new one. This is the worst kind of preservation. Chairman Teele: Would you rather we bulldoze the whole -- Ms. Maclntyre: I almost would rather you bulldoze than suggest that you save the front of one side of the building, and do whatever you want with the rest. Chairman Teele: Well, that'll be -- this is great. That means both sides are unhappy, so we're doing the right thing. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Maclntyre: No, but there's a right thing that you can do here. Mr. Solkol: I don't mind making her happy on the bulldozing concept. City ofMiami Page 295 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: And by the way, that is not my motion. That is -- Ms. Maclntyre: There's a right thing that you can do here. Commissioner Winton: I'm not -- Ms. Maclntyre: You designate the property and then you let the dialogue take place that would allow the property owners to do what they need to do to make it work. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Ms. Maclntyre: Without the designation, you have nothing to -- you have no way to have a dialogue. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. On the motion, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed, say "no." The item is adopted 5 to 0. Mr. Solkol: Thank you very much. PZ.27 03-0422 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING THE PORTION OF A ROADWAY (SOUTHWEST 2ND COURT) BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 17TH ROAD AND I-95, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED). 03-0422 Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0422 Email from Hearing Brds to Law.PDF 03-0422 Public Works Analysis.PDF 03-0422 PZ Analysis.PDF 03-0422 Zoning Map.PDF 03-0422 Aerial Map.pdf 03-0422 ZB Reso.PDF 03-0422 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0422 Legislation.PDF 03-0422 Exhibit A.PDF 03-0422 submission transcript.doc 03-0422 scriviner error.pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of a Public Right -of -Way LOCATION: Approximately a Roadway (SW 2nd Court) Between SW 17th Road and 1-95 APPLICANT(S): Century Homebuilders, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire City ofMiami Page 296 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: See supporting documentation. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: See supporting documentation. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 15, 2003 by a vote of 5-4. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, to CONTINUE consideration of item PZ.27 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for April 8, 2004. Chairman Teele: Early on -- and we have the Community Development public hearings that are set for 2:45, and when we have all of the zoning -- and do we have any matters in the Community Development that are -- that involve the public? Unidentified Speaker: They're all public hearings. Chairman Teele: I mean, they're public hearings, but are they -- do we have a lot of people here on any of these items? All right. Then what I'd like to do -- and if we go long, we're going to stop in sufficient time to let Commissioner Sanchez hear all of the public hearing items, but let's just fry to get through the zoning agenda, if it's all right with everybody, because we are going to have a problem this afternoon. Would everyone that's here on a zoning matter, please raise -- stand, raise your right hand to be sworn. Stand up, please. Raise your right hand, if you're going to testify. If you're going to testify. Madam Clerk. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Chairman Teele: Madam interpreter, translator. All right. Through use of Official Spanish Interpreter, Ondina Suarez, the City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Chairman Teele: All right. Are there any deferrals -- ladies and gentlemen, we're going to need your help, please. Your voices are traveling very strong, so work with us a little bit. Please don't talk inside. If you need to talk, just take the person outside and we'll try to figure out how to cooperate with you and ask you to cooperate with us. Do we have items for deferral, please? Yes. Alex, don't leave. Ines Marrero: I did speak up. OK, there you go. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Ines Marrero, attorney with 1-- with the law firm of Akerman Senterfitt, 1 Southeast 3rdAvenue. I'm here on item PZ.27., that had been specially set for 6 o'clock -- 5:30. I'm here with Tucker Gibbs, who represents the Miami Roads Neighborhood Association, and we would like this matter deferred. We're continuing our dialogue regarding this matter. Chairman Teele: Let me tell you the problem with getting these time certains. I'm going to tell everybody the problem with these time certains. First of all, we shouldn't give out time certains -- City ofMiami Page 297 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Agreed. Chairman Teele: -- unless any -- if any Commissioner requests one, we're going to give them out, and if it's done in the meeting, we're going to give it out, but we need to stop these time certains, Madam Clerk, and everybody, except when a Commissioner wants one or when one is agreed to in a public meeting. We administratively handle it, but the problem with a time certain is, if the word is out on a time certain, then you can't even take it up until that time certain. It's not fair to defer it, so we'll take up the deferral ofPZ.27 at 5:30. Ms. Marrero: Very good. At the pleasure of the Commission. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): It's time certain for 6. Ms. Marrero: 6. Chairman Teele: 6. You're exactly right, Madam Clerk. Ms. Marrero: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why can't we listen to it now? Chairman Teele: Because there may be people who have notice of the time certain, who are going to show up and they may object to the deferral. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Both counsel are in agreement. Tucker Gibbs: Can I address that? The time certain was announced -- Commissioner Winton: Name? Mr. Gibbs: My name is Tucker Gibbs, representing the Miami Neighborhood -- Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. At the last meeting, when this matter was set for -- it was set at the meeting for a time certain, my clients were all there. I can speak for my clients -- Chairman Teele: But you can't speak for the public. Mr. Gibbs: No, but the public, who was there on this issue, were my clients. I can speak for them, and I can say that they know -- Chairman Teele: Counsel, let's don't debate it. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. Chairman Teele: It's not a good policy to do it, and you cannot speak for the general public. You can only speak for your clients. Mr. Gibbs: Right, only my clients. Chairman Teele: And at that time, we'll do it, but just as a matter ofform -- Mr. Gibbs: OK. That's fine. Chairman Teele: -- you can wind up getting all of our proceedings in real jeopardy by taking up an item that has been set for a time before the people know. City ofMiami Page 298 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Gibbs: I understand. Chairman Teele: So, let's just do it and we'll -- Mr. Gibbs: We'll see you at 6. Chairman Teele: We'll have less discussion then than we are having now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ines Marrero: Chairman, may I request that we -- some of the staff needs to move on to another meeting. CA.13? Commissioner Winton: No. I -- we -- Chairman Teele: All right. We have several items to be deferred. Hold on just one a minute. Several items to be deferred. You want to put the requests for deferral? Ms. Marrero: Ines Marrero, 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue. PZ.27. Commissioner Winton: So move. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in -- Did you give her your name for the record? Ms. Marrero: Yes. Chairman Teele: She didn't get it. Ms. Marrero: I'll give her a card. I did say it for the record. Chairman Teele: Just say it again, ma'am. Just say your name. Ms. Marrero: Ines Marrero. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): What date? Chairman Teele: When did you want -- Commissioner Winton: When do you want it back? Ms. Slazyk: March 25th or April? Ms. Marrero: The first April meeting, because Commissioner Sanchez will not be here for the first March. Ms. Slazyk: First meeting in April? Chairman Teele: First meeting in April as a special item. Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? City ofMiami Page 299 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 NA.1 04-00204 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING, IN PRINCIPLE, THE FLORIDA FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS ("FTAA"), INC.'S BID PROPOSAL TO HOST THE FTAA PERMANENT SECRETARIAT AS ESTABLISHED IN FTAA. 04-00204 - memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0126 Mayor Diaz introduced a video presentation on the proposal ofMiami as the FTAA Permanent Secretariat. Chairman Teele: All right. At this time, with permission of the Commission, I will deviate from the printed agenda and ask the Mayor, Mayor Manny Diaz, if he would present our very distinguished guests that would like to make a presentation. Mayor Diaz: Thank you. We are honored this morning to be joined by a very distinguished group, as you indicated. First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking this item up out of agenda. I really appreciate it, but it's very exciting and you'll see in a couple minutes why, and we have with us Ambassador Chuck Cobb, which many ofyou know was selected to chair the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), Inc., our City's regions efforts to secure the FTAA in this area. He is joined by Jorge Arrizurieta, who is the Executive Director of the FTAA, Inc., the FTAA Organization of Florida, and Susanne Jule, who's been doing a phenomenal job at getting the word out and working on something that you're going to see very shortly. This is -- the reason I wanted to bring this up is because, as I indicated earlier, this is something that is extremely exciting. I know all ofyou throughout the last few years, when this became an issue in this area, have been working very hard in your own individual ways to make sure that Miami secures the permanent Secretariat of the FTAA. You've all heard the numbers before. This has the potential for creating 90, 000 jobs statewide, has the potential for adding thirteen point six billion dollars to Florida's gross State product. This is, as we all know, the biggest economic catalyst that this State and certainly this region could ever have. In our efforts, we have also all worked hard to make sure that the site that is ultimately selected as the site that represents the United States, is located within the City ofMiami, and what I'm here to tell you is that the presentation that you're about to see is a presentation that is going to be submitted to the 34 Trade ministers, who will be convening sometime late summer, we believe, to select a City among the many applicants that have applied. The package that you have in front of you is one piece of it. It's -- you'll see the books. You'll see the DVD's. The Ministers are also getting a DVD player to view our presentation. It's a very exciting presentation, and what I'd like to do is just take a couple of minutes to show you the overall -- the overview of the presentation and you'll see all of the other specifics, so if we could roll tape somewhere. I hope you all enjoyed it. Commissioner Winton: I vote yes. Mayor Diaz: This is -- I want you to know this is really hot off the press. I don't even think the board of the FTAA seen this yet. We just got it yesterday and I wanted to share it with you immediately. What you've seen is an overview in one language. The presentation is in four languages, and the presentation, after the overview, you can log in to different areas, like you have in your memo -- transportation, hotel, telecommunication, security, human resources, City ofMiami Page 300 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 quality of life, which includes arts, education, religion, and everything else you can imagine, financial resources and commitments, so it's like an encyclopedia of our area, talking about airport and seaport and everything else, so it's a phenomenal presentation, and I think they all deserve a lot of credit for putting this together in a very short period of time, among other things, and so that's it. I wanted to share it with you. You all have -- we've given all ofyou the DVDs. If you need a player, we can provide you with one, and in closing, I would just ask that you approve the resolution that's in front ofyou supporting this bid to locate the Free -- the FTAA here in the City ofMiami. Commissioner Winton: I would move the resolution as submitted by the Mayor's office. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Mayor Diaz: We're very privileged to have six former Ambassadors living in our area, and all are very active in this whole FTAA process with the board. Chairman Teele: Further discussion? There being no discussion, all those in favor -- Madam Clerk, call the roll. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Chairman Teele: The vote's unanimous, 4/0. Mayor Diaz: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Congratulations. Chairman Teele: Thank you, Ambassador Cobb. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Great presentation. (Applause) Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. NA.2 04-00201 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "FTAA REIMBURSEMENT FUND" AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,500,000, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY TO REIMBURSE THE CITY OF MIAMI/ CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF POLICE FOR PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR THE 2003 FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS SUMMIT HELD IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM NOVEMBER 17 TO NOVEMBER 21, 2003; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD AND TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT. City ofMiami Page 301 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 FTAA Resolution for 2-26-04 Commission Meetingl .doc 04-00201 - memo - 1 .pdf 04-00201 - budget analysis - 2.pdf 04-00201 - federal award - 3.pdf 04-00201 - grant - 4.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0100 Chairman Teele: I did -- I -- if we could, could we -- is Commissioner Winton here? Could we take up the item relating to the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) grant so we can release those people? Commissioner Winton: Oh, sure. Chairman Teele: I apologize. Mr. Manager. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is a resolution accepting the reimbursement from the U.S. Department of State for -- Commissioner Winton: What's the resolution for? Mr. Vilarello: -- FTAA. It's a resolution -- would you like me to read it into the record? Chairman Teele: Please. The Resolution was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, did you want to put anything on the record on this? Joe Arriola (City Manager): No. They're here just strictly in case you had a question. That's why I was hoping to get an acceptance so they can go to work. Chairman Teele: All right, butt have the same reaction that someone else had, and I thought we had to accept grants by ordinance. Is this a resolution of intent? Mr. Vilarello: No, this is a resolution -- I recently provided you a legal opinion that addressed the issue of accepting grants and budgetary changes by resolution. The question had -- we had always done, as a matter of practice, by ordinance and in the Charter, the Charter was amended in 2001 to remove that requirement. If the City Commission wishes to establish a policy to adopt these by ordinance -- Chairman Teele: Absolutely. Mr. Vilarello: OK. Chairman Teele: Could I see the opinion when you get a chance? Could I read it? City ofMiami Page 302 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Hr. Vilarello: Certainly. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much for that clarification. All those -- is there discussion on the item? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? Commissioner Regalado: I just have a question. This is a grant, eight million and a half right? We spent three million? Hr. Arriola: Our expenses are about three point two on it, sir. Commissioner Regalado: What did we do with the other -- Hr. Arriola: The other eight? Commissioner Regalado: We give it to other municipalities? Hr. Arriola: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: They would -- not the County. Hr. Arriola: Well, we're presently in a heavy debate about that, sir. Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Huh? Hr. Arriola: We're in a debate, who gets this money -- the rest of the money right now. The County, as you know, has put in fourteen million dollars of expenses against this, and -- but they're not going to get it, of course. Commissioner Winton: But the County is going to be -- Hr. Arriola: A participant on the -- Commissioner Winton: -- eligible -- Hr. Arriola: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- for the part of the remaining funds? Hr. Arriola: Absolutely. Commissioner Winton: OK. Chairman Teele: Will the distribution come before this Commission? Hr. Arriola: No, sir. Commissioner Winton: It shouldn't. Chairman Teele: All right. All in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 303 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. All right. NA.3 04-00210 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REPEALING SECTION 54-6.1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PARADE AND ASSEMBLY PROHIBITIONS" THAT ESTABLISHED REASONABLE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER REGULATIONS CONCERNING MATERIALS AND OBJECTS THAT MAY BE POSSESSED, CARRIED OR USED BY THOSE PARTICIPATING IN PARADES AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00210-cover memo.pdf 04-00210-legislation.pdf Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, directing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to be considered on first reading today at 4:49 p.m., to rescind the parades and demonstrations ordinance which was approved November 2003. Subsequently, the ordinance listed above passed on first reading with a direction to the City Manager to schedule its second reading on the March 11, 2004 agenda. Direction to the City Attorney: by Chairman Teele to obtain a transcript ofJudge Graham's arguments regarding parades and demonstrations references in the City ofMiami Code. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, can we do the first reading of the ordinance that we promised to do in the morning? Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney, read the item into the record. Commissioner Winton: Are you sure they're not hiding in the weeds out there? Commissioner Regalado: Huh? They're not here. Commissioner Winton: Are you sure they're not hiding in the resfroom? Commissioner Regalado: They're not here. Chairman Teele: Alex has it. PZ.8, time certain at 5:30, will be heard next. PZ.7 and 8. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Regalado. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: It's a public hearing. Any person desiring to be heard? There are no persons coming forward. Madam Clerk -- Discussion. Madam Clerk, call the roll -- and, by the way, when is the second reading? City ofMiami Page 304 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: March -- no. March -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Well, ifyou want it to come back on March 11 th -- Chairman Teele: March 11 th. Commissioner Regalado: March 11 th. Mr. Maxwell: -- we can advertise it and bring it back on March 11 th. Commissioner Regalado: Because that way we don't have Planning & Zoning. Commissioner Winton: Time certain midnight. Commissioner Regalado: Midnight. Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is passed on first reading, 4/0. Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you. I'll regain, and Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized for an additional blue page item, and then we'll go directly into the public hearing. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This one has a sense -- a little sense of urgency. We all know about the situation in Haiti and how it would impact South Florida. We also are most surely following the situation in Venezuela and how that country will probably become one of the hot spots and having large communities of these people means that there will be massive demonstrations, eventually. I think that we have -- at least from the part of the City ofMiami, in terms of the economic, we have closed today one of the chapters of the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), and I think that we should go ahead and close another chapter of the FTAA, so I am presenting a motion to rescind the FTAA ordinance, the parades ordinance that was approved by the City Commission. Commissioner Winton: That wasn't an FTAA ordinance. It was a parades ordinance. Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean, it was called the FTAA ordinance. If the parades and meetings -- how is it called, Mr. City Attorney? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Parades and demonstration ordinance. Commissioner Regalado: Parades and demonstration ordinance, to rescind that ordinance and go back to the old ordinance that we had before. Commissioner Winton: I would second that motion for discussion. Chairman Teele: It's been moved and second. Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney, I think that, from my view point, as I remember our debate, none of us were overly thrilled about the ordinance in the first place. I think what we -- from my view -- this is me speaking -- I think we need to hear from -- now, what is the procedure for -- is this a -- is it a public hearing to rescind an ordinance and it requires two readings? City ofMiami Page 305 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Commissioner Winton: OK. So, if we do this round one, it comes back in 30 days and that gives everybody time and the administration to figure out -- to weigh in their views on this issue, and we can make the final decision in 30 days. Mr. Vilarello: Correct. Commissioner Winton: OK, so -- Mr. Vilarello: I would have to prepare -- I have not prepared the first reading -- the ordinance rescinding it yet. Commissioner Winton: So, it have to come -- first reading (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Vilarello: And I could do that before the end of the day. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It will come back for first reading. Chairman Teele: The motion would be to instruct the attorney to prepare an ordinance for first reading today at time certain of 5 p.m. Commissioner Regalado: There is a time certain of 5 p.m. Chairman Teele: 4:49. Commissioner Regalado: 4:49. Commissioner Winton: Because we have 10 5o'clocks, so what's one more? Chairman Teele: For the purpose -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: For today? Chairman Teele: -- recalling -- repealing the item. Is that agreeable to you? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Is that agreeable to everybody? Vice Chairman Sanchez: But today? Chairman Teele: Today. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why today? Chairman Teele: It's first reading today. Commissioner Regalado: First reading. We have to do two readings. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, I could support it on first reading, and then get educated on the issue and come back -- Commissioner Winton: Exactly. City ofMiami Page 306 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: Well, I want to say one thing, Mr. Attorney. I was shocked, if it's true, to learn that a federal judge challenged -- appeared to challenge that this is a clear and blatant question as to the constitutionality of this document. Mr. Vilarello: If that were true, Commissioner, you should be shocked. Mr. Defiti did, incorrectly quote Judge Graham. Judge Graham was talking about several archaic ordinances, which had nothing to do with the parade and demonstration ordinance. Chairman Teele: I want to see a transcript of Judge Graham's arguments. Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: And I'm going to say this: Alex, we need to be very careful here and the City Attorney needs to protect the Commission, not the Manager, not the Mayor, not a Commissioner, but the institution of the Commission, and ifJudge Graham said that, you know, I'm going to want to have a real one-on-one discussion with you, because I'm relying on your legal analysis and your legal judgments that this is clearly a defensible ordinance, and if we are passing ordinances that are, in the minds of a federal judge, that I -- whom everybody in this community holds pretty much in high regards, very much in high regard, you know, we need to look very closely at this, so I just -- I really want to read what -- the context of Judge Graham's statement. I prefaced it by saying, "if true," because I know and you know that you can always -- people write things to make their point sometimes. Mr. Vilarello: Judge Graham's statements were attributed to the parade and demonstration ordinance by a columnist. He was absolutely incorrect. Judge Graham's statements did relate -- Chairman Teele: You're saying the columnist -- Mr. Vilarello: The columnist was wrong. I'm not saying that Judge Graham was wrong. Chairman Teele: Oh, OK. Mr. Vilarello: That the columnist was wrong in attributing it to the parade and demonstration ordinance. In fact, it wasn't. In fact, It wasn't challenged. It was a challenge to another ordinance that dealt with streets and sidewalks and insurance and bonding requirements, which have never been applied to demonstrators or -- so, Judge Graham's comments were relating to these archaic ordinances, which had been on the books for many, many years. Commissioner Winton: On whose books? Mr. Vilarello: On our -- in our City Code. Commissioner Winton: Oh. Chairman Teele: In our current City Code? Mr. Vilarello: In our current City Code. It has nothing to do -- his comments were not directed to the new parade and demonstration ordinance that we adopted last fall. Chairman Teele: Well, that just raises another question. On the motion. On the discussion. Further discussion? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. City ofMiami Page 307 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 NA.4 04-00214 DISCUSSION ITEM City Commission Discussion of early voting sites. 04-00214 notice.pdf DISCUSSED Direction to the City Clerk: by Chairman Teele to publish a notice to alert citizens that there is an item scheduled on the March 9, 2004 election ballot which is of general interest to the public, not limited to the Democratic Primary issues; further reiterating the importance of an individual in the City Clerk's staff to be dedicated to matters related to elections. [Note: Clerk published the March 9, 2004 election ballot in the Miami Herald on March 2, 2004; in the Diario Las Americas on March 4, 2004; in the Miami Times on March 4, 2004; and in Haiti En March on March 3, 2004.] Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chair, just one brief comment. I will give you -- I'll give all the members of the Commission an advertisement that was published by Miami Herald regarding the early polling places for the March 9 Presidential Election. City ofMiami only has the Stephen Clark Center, 101 --111 Northwest 1st Street. The rest is Miami Lakes and North Dade, Aventura, Miami Beach, Hialeah, Miami Beach and Homestead, Coral Gables, Kendall Lakes, Hammocks, Homestead and Florida City. Just for the record, I'll give you this, because, you know, we should -- I placed in the agenda for the next meeting the early voting for the presidential election and I just want you to be aware of the -- Commissioner Winton: For the next meeting or at the last meeting? Commissioner Regalado: No, the next meeting. Commissioner Winton: Oh (INAUDIBLE). Chairman Teele: He's talking about this (inaudible). Commissioner Regalado: No. I'm talking about the presidential. Chairman Teele: And he's talking about the (inaudible). Madam Clerk, are there any items on this ballot that are general items that are non -Democratic preference balances in March? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I haven't seen it. I'm sorry, sir. I'm not -- Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Chairman Teele: But aren't you our chief elections person? Ms. Thompson: Yes, I am, but I'm just letting you know that I've not seen the ballot, so I don't -- Commissioner Regalado: I have. Chairman Teele: Well, I will -- Commissioner Regalado: It's a change of procedure for the Mayor and the County Commissioners, in terms of the election dates and the swearing in dates for the Mayor and County Commissioners throughout Dade County. It's a non -Democratic -- Chairman Teele: See, the media is being very misleading and the County has been even more misleading, and let me tell you why this is important. A lot of citizens in my district take pride in City ofMiami Page 308 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 NA.5 04-0424 Office of the City Clerk the fact that they vote in every election, a hundred percent voters, and if someone says that it's a Democratic party primary, then you don't have to vote, but if there is a general election item on that ballot, you are now no longer a one hundred percent voter, and for all the computers that run the different models, it drops those names out. Commissioner Regalado: In fact -- Chairman Teele: I think it's important and I think we should authorize the City Clerk to do a notice to the citizens ofMiami as to what is on the ballot, that is non -Democratic Party issues, because I think, you know, we should serve notice that we're going to protect our citizens. Commissioner Regalado: In fact, there is a lot of confusion because the media is saying Democratic primary, right? But all residents in my district that voted absentee are getting absentee ballots to vote on this election, because there is this one issue that the County placed in the ballot, and they don't know that, as Republicans -- they think that, as Republicans, they can vote in the Democratic primary. Chairman Teele: But if you read the press, if you read the media, it's very clear that everybody's being told that this is a Democratic Party election. It is not a Democratic -- it includes a Democratic Party election. It is a general election for the residents -- for all of the residents of Miami -Dade County, and I think, again, Madam Clerk, you know, this whole discussion underscores the importance of having an elections -specific person in the Clerk's Office of the City ofMiami who is knowledgeable, who's up on this, who's following all of these various issues related to elections, to represent us. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. APPOINTEES: NOMINATED BY: Haydee Regueyra Commissioner Tomas Regalado (term to expire on January 31, 2007) Jack Blumenfeld Commissioner Angel Gonzalez (term to expire on January 31, 2007) Barbara K. Bisno Commissioner Johnny Winton (term to expire on January 31, 2007) Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0129 A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to appoint Haydee Regueyra as a member of the Community Relations Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and passed unanimously, to appoint Jack Blumenfeld as a member of the Community Relations Board with a City ofMiami Page 309 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 waiver, by a four/fifths (4/5) vote of the members of the full City Commission, of the residency requirements in Section 2-1152(b) of the Code of the City ofMiami, as amended. A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Regalado absent, to appoint Barbara Bisno as a member of the Community Relations Board. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized for an appointment. Commissioner Regalado: I -- Madam Clerk, I need to make an appointment for the Community Relations Board, that is correct, just one appointment? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): OK. What we have here is the request from the Community Relations Board to make all of their appointments. We had planned to have that scheduled on the next meeting, but there is a need to have appointments -- Commissioner Regalado: There is a need, so I am -- my appointment will be Haydee Regueyra. Community Relations Board. Ms. Thompson: OK. I'm sorry. Mr. -- Chairman Regalado, according to my list here, the CRB (Community Relations Board) nominated individuals and they list under you Sam Feldman -- Commissioner Regalado: No. They changed -- they met -- I rejected the three appointments. They met last night and they gave me three names in which -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: What are we doing, appointments? Commissioner Regalado: -- Haydee Regueyra is here. Chairman Teele: It's a motion by Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Winton. All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. Commissioner -- Commissioner Regalado: I do not need to reappointment Brenda Shapiro, right? Ms. Thompson: She's OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are we appointing boards now? Commissioner Regalado: OK Thank you. Chairman Teele: There's an urgent request from the CRB to make appointments based upon a panel of recommendations that the CRB, Community Relations Board has issued. We're saying that any time anybody would like to make those appointments, you're in order. Commissioners, the majority of this agenda at this point requires a four fifths vote. If there is any Commissioner who has objections about anything, please advise us so that we can determine whether or not the management would like to wait until there are five Commissioners on the dais so we can move forward. City ofMiami Page 310 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 NA.6 04-00215 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Move forward. Chairman Teele: All right. What else do we need to do? Commissioner Gonzalez, did you have a couple of pocket items that you wanted to take up tonight? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. First of all, I would like to make an appointment on the CRB (Community Relations Board) Board. Jack Blumenfield, with the waiver of residency. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Winton: And Barbara Bisno to CRB (Community Relations Board). Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Barbara Bisno to CRB. Need a second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: All in favor, say "aye." All opposed? Commissioner Winton: I'm done. Chairman Teele: Any other matters to come before the Commission before we turn on each other? If not, the meeting stands adjourned. DISCUSSION ITEM Reconsideration of PZ.3 and PZ.4 from last meeting DISCUSSED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, to reconsider prior vote taken on items PZ.3 and PZ.4 at the February 12, 2004 Commission meeting, which items were denied a change of the zoning classification and a change of the land use designation at approximately 3160, 3170, 3180 and 3190 Oak Avenue from R-1 single-family residential to R-2 two-family residential and from single family residential to duplex residential; further directing the City Manager to schedule said matters on the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 25, 2004. Gloria Velasquez: Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Velasquez, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. At your last meeting, I was here on a Planning and Zoning Item, Number 3 and 4. It was a rezoning and land use amendment item. It was voted on, and at this time, I would like the board to reconsider this item to the next March 25th hearing. Commissioner Winton: 3 and 4 to March 25th? Ms. Velasquez: Excuse me? Commissioner Winton: You said 3 and 4 to March -- Ms. Velasquez: It was from the last meeting -- City ofMiami Page 311 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Chairman Teele: It was -- it's not this agenda. Ms. Velasquez: Right. It was the last meeting, PZ.3 and 4, addresses 3160 through 3190 Oak Avenue. It was a rezoning and a land use amendment -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And you're asking for a reconsider -- Ms. Velasquez: -- and I'm asking for a reconsideration -- Commissioner Winton: You're looking straight at me, right? Ms. Velasquez: Excuse me? Commissioner Winton: You're looking at me? Ms. Velasquez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Velasquez: And I'm asking you to -- Chairman Teele: Now, normally, Madam -- Mr. Attorney, only a person on the prevailing side can vote to reconsider, is that the rule of the City? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): No, sir, not under your rules. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Not under Mason's. Chairman Teele: Not under our rules, so anybody can do it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Winton: OK. I move this -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Mr. Maxwell: Under Robert's, but not Mason's. Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: By Commissioner Sanchez to reconsider the items, which places it on the next regular zoning agenda. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): The March meeting. Chairman Teele: In March meeting. Mr. Maxwell: March 25th. Commissioner Winton: But a word of caution from me because -- Commissioner, they think that they have real -- this was the item that you andl debated, Commissioner Teele, and they think they have real community support, so I'm willing to give them time to seek that community -- but City ofMiami Page 312 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 NA.7 04-00216 30 days isn't very long, and I don't -- we don't want to have to -- so -- Chairman Teele: Why, in an abundance of caution, don't you do this in April? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Velasquez: Let me just -- something that I failed to mention at the board last meeting is that we had that community support before we went to hearing last hearing. We had no objectors and we had met with the community, so I believe that 30 days to the March 25th would be plenty of time. Commissioner Winton: Resolution? Ms. Velasquez: Excuse me? Commissioner Winton: Resolutions. Ms. Velasquez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: Further discussion? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Item -- all opposed? The item is concurred with and the item will be placed on the March agenda -- Mr. Maxwell: March 25th. Chairman Teele: -- for reconsideration. Ms. Velasquez: Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM Recognition of Pee Wee Patrol. DISCUSSED Chairman Teele: Now, are any of the 5 or 5: 30 time certain items very short? If not, we're going to take a moment and recognize Officer Ramon Carr and Officer Tracy Sloan, and we're going to ask all these fine Pee -Wee Patrol -- the City ofMiami's Pee -Wee Patrol to stand up and come down front and look at this audience the way we look at them. You all come down real quick and just look out at the audience so that the people can see you and you can see them. The City ofMiami's Pee -Wee Patrol is here watching government in action. Commissioner Winton: And what a sight. (Applause) Chairman Teele: We really appreciate you all coming down, and is there any questions you all want to ask the Manager over there? OK. If not, well, thank you all very much, and let's give them another big hand as they take their seats. (Applause) City ofMiami Page 313 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 NA.8 04-00237 DISCUSSION ITEM A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and passed unanimously, to waive the rental fee at Robert King High Park for the Cuban Municipios picnic on March 21, 2004. MOTION Chairman Teele: Commissioner Regalado, are you going to make any appointments before you leave? Commissioner Regalado: No. I did make already the appointment, but I do have a very short pocket item about the Cuban Municipalities. It's a motion waiving the park rental fee for the Municipals picnic. It's scheduled to be held at Robert King Heights Park on March 21st, 2004. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. NA.9 04-00203 ORDINANCE Draft AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 31/ARTICLE II, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS/OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES," TO CLARIFY GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 31-35(B) (4) OF SAID CODE, ENTITLED "APPLICATION PROCEDURE; GROUNDS FOR DENIAL;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED as an emergency measure, waiving the requirement for two separate readings PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12499 Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: I have two ordinances here. An emergency ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending Chapter 31, Article II -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- of the Code of the City ofMiami, Florida, as amended, entitled "Licenses and Miscellaneous Business Regulations -- Occupational License," to clarify grounds for denial of the issuance of an occupational license. More particular, by amending Section 31-35b4 of said Code entitled "Application Procedure Grounds for Denial," containing a City ofMiami Page 314 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 repealer provision and a severablity clause, and providing for an effective date. So move. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and second. Public hearing. Commissioner Winton: Is this an emergency ordinance? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes. Chairman Teele: Any person desiring to be heard should come forward. If not, the public hearing is closed. Madam Clerk. Emergency ordinance. Commissioner Gonzalez: Emergency ordinance. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Commissioner Winton: Because that closes a big loophole. Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Teele? Chairman Teele: I hope you know what you're doing. I'm voting "yes." Ms. Thompson: Second roll call. Chairman Teele: It's late at night. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Late at night, I mean. I'm a bit concerned, but -- Commissioner Winton: That was a good ordinance. Commissioner Gonzalez: Got to do the second reading, right? Roll calls were taken, the results of which are stated above. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Could we make the second -- City ofMiami Page 315 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted as an emergency measure, 4/0. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Could we make the second reading early on so we have public participation? NA.10 04-00205 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ARTICLE 21, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, VIOLATIONS, AND PENALTIES," TO INCLUDE GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES OR PERMITS; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 2106 OF SAID ORDINANCE, ENTITLED "ZONING CONFORMITY REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF LICENSES OR PERMITS;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00205-cover memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Commissioner Gonzalez: I have another emergency ordinance of the City ofMiami Commission amending Article 21 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City ofMiami, Florida, as amended, entitled Administration Enforcement Violation and Penalties," to include grounds for denial of the issuance of licenses or permits, more particularly by amending Section 2106 of said ordinance, entitled "Zoning Conformity," require prior to issuance of license of permit,; containing a repealer provision and a severability clause, and providing for an effective date. So move. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? Public hearing. Any person desiring? There are no persons coming forward. Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Teele? Chairman Teele: I hope you all know what you're doing. I vote -- Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. -- I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to City ofMiami Page 316 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 the zoning ordinance, which cannot happen on an emergency basis, so -- Chairman Teele: So it's first reading. Mr. Vilarello: -- it'll be first reading. Chairman Teele: It's first reading. Commissioner Gonzalez: First reading. Commissioner Winton: The second one is? Alex. Chairman Teele: The first one or the second one? Mr. Vilarello: The second one. The one that was just adopted. Chairman Teele: I vote "yes." Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Thompson: So, it's passed on first reading, 4/0. NA.11 03-0246a RESOLUTION City Commission A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE LITTLE HAVANA HOMEOWNERSHIP ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. APPOINTEE: NOMINATED BY: Angelica Rodriguez Vice Chairman Joe Sanchez (Public Advocate Seat) Motion by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0128 A motion was made by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, as was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Regalado absent, to appoint Angelica Rodriguez to the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board. Chairman Teele: Further items? Pocket items? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Two pocket items, Mr. Chairman, none having a financial impact to the City. One is appointing Angelica Rodriguez to serve as the -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- public advocate board member to the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board. City ofMiami Page 317 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 26, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed. NA.12 04-00220 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE MIAMI ECUADORIAN LION'S CLUB, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $600, FOR RENTAL OF THE TOWER THEATER, FOR A FUNDRAISING CONCERT OF SOUTH AMERICAN MUSIC TO BE HELD ON APRIL 9, 2004; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE DISTRICT 3 SPECIAL EVENTS ACCOUNT NO. 001000.921054.6.289, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. 04-00220 - memo - 1 .pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Teele Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0130 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second resolution is the City ofMiami providing support of the amount not to exceed six hundred dollars to the Miami Ecuadorian Lions Club from the District 3 Special Event Account. So move. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? City ofMiami Page 318 Printed on 1/7/2008