Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2004-10-28 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com IRATE 11e [ ,, IV Meeting Minutes Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:00 AM PLANNING AND ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Joe Sanchez, Chairman Angel Gonzalez, Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Jeffery L. Allen, Commissioner District Five Joe Arriola, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS MV - MAYORAL VETOES AM - APPROVING MINUTES CA - CONSENT AGENDA M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS EM - EMERGENCY ORDINANCES FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES RE - RESOLUTIONS DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS PART B PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DELIVERED Present: Vice Chairman Gonzalez, Chairman Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Allen Absent: Commissioner Winton On the 28th day of October, 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 9:21 a.m. by Chairman Joe Sanchez and adjourned at 11:43 p.m. with various recesses as listed below: Recessed: 12:09 p.m. Reconvened: 2: 35 p.m. Recessed: 8: 33 p.m. Reconvened: 8: 42 p.m. Recessed: 9: 50 p.m. Reconvened: 10:00 Note for the Record: Commissioner Winton came in at 9:27 a.m. ALSO PRESENT: Joe Arriola, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk Chairman Sanchez: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to City Hall. The City of Miami Commission meeting, which was properly advertised for today, is being called to order. If you could please rise and have a prayer. Please rise and bow your heads and join me in a prayer. Prayer and pledge. Chairman Sanchez: First order of the day are the presentations and proclamations, but before we do that, we do have one of our colleagues who is celebrating a birthday today, so -- (Applause) Chairman Sanchez: Happy birthday, Commissioner Gonzalez. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, thank you. Chairman Sanchez: He turned 27 today. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No. Joe Arriola (City Manager): No, 28. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: 17. Chairman Sanchez: 17, OK. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Chairman Sanchez: All right. We'll go into the presentations and proclamations. Presentations made. City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-01195 MAYORAL VETOES CEREMONIAL ITEM Name of Honoree Presenter The Royal Caribbean G.I.V.E. Back to Communities Day Kristopher Smith John Nigro Carlos Rivera Kaseen Smith Michael Mitchell William Hayward Michel Rosyn Wilfredo Valladares Wilson Johnson Antonio Garrandes Sergeant Reginald Kinchen Officer Johnny Mathis Officer Carrie Palmer Faye McFadden VonCarol Kinchens Ernest King The Woman's Club of Coconut Grove Milam's Market 04-01195-cover page.pdf 04-01195-protocol. pdf PRESENTED Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Mayor Diaz Commissioner Winton Commissioner Winton Protocol Item Commendation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Proclamation Certificate of Appreciation 1. Commendations, Certificates ofMerit and Certificates ofAppreciation were presented by Mayor Diaz to employees who volunteered in the Royal Caribbean G.I. V.E. Back to Communities Project: Sherwin-Williams, Kristopher Smith, Helen O'Connell, Penny Phillips, Georgina Pintado, Robert Vazquez, Maria Sanchez, Clara Ponce, Anne -Caroline Brown, Rafael Nones, Mary Peck, Ana Guerra, Mark Musial, Doug Jones, John Nigro, Carlos Rivera, Kaseen Smith, Michael Mitchell, William Hayward, Michel Rosyn, Wilfredo Valladares, Wilson Johnson, Antonio Garrandes, Sergeant Reginald Kinchen, Officer Johnny Mathis, Officer Carrie Palmer, Faye McFadden, VonCarol Kinchens, and Ernest King. A Proclamation was also given to Royal Caribbean International & Celebrity Cruises. [Note: some of the listed honorees were not present.] 2. A Proclamation was presented by Commissioner Winton to the Woman's Club of Coconut Grove for its many contributions to the community, especially for its support for the Virrick Park Learn to Swim Program. 3. A Certificate ofAppreciation was presented by Commissioner Winton to representatives of Milam's Market for its hosting of block parties throughout Coconut Grove in support of the Crime Watch Program. 4. Commissioner Regalado presented a Certificate ofAppreciation to Coach Noel Cubela and Certificates ofMerit to members of the Miami Dream Team for winning the state tennis championship and going to Tucson, Arizona next month to participate in the national tennis tournament (all in absentia): Agustina Cybel, Gabriella Palacios, Emily Quinones, Romain Fautre, Rolando Martinez, Luke Mojica, and Juan Luis Perez. (Pursuant to Section 4(g)(5) of the charter of Miami, Florida, Item(s) vetoed by the Mayor shall be placed by the city clerk as the first substantive item(s) for the commission consideration.) City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 NO MAYORAL VETOES Chairman Sanchez: OK, ladies and gentlemen. We go into the order of the day. We have no mayoral vetoes from the Mayor. APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: Planning and Zoning Meeting of September 23, 2004 Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, to APPROVE PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Special Planning and Zoning Meeting of September 27, 2004 Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Special Meeting of October 1, 2004 Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: We go into approving the minutes of the following meetings, which is the Planning & Zoning meeting of September 23, 204 [sic]. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move to approve the minutes. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Vice Chairman -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Regalado. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. We move on to the Special Planning & Zoning of September the 27, 2004. We also need a motion to approve those minutes. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move to approve the minutes. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Special meeting of October 1, 204 [sic]. We also need a motion to approve the minutes. Is there a motion? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move to approve the minutes of the -- Chairman Sanchez: Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- October. Chairman Sanchez: Is there a motion -- is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. ORDER OF DAY Chairman Sanchez: We move into the consent agenda. Before we do that, would the administration -- does the administration have any items that they wish to pull from the agenda? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Nothing from the consent agenda. We are going to defer, for the November 18th meeting, PH 2. Commissioner Allen: PH2. Mr. Arriola: And we're going to withdraw PH.3. Commissioner Allen: PH 2, PH 3. Mr. Arriola: We're going to -- PH 10 is going to be deferred for the November meeting. RE.5 -- Commissioner Winton: PH 10 Mr. Arriola: -- will be at -- no. RE.5's going to be amended. No, I'm sorry. RE.6 is going to be deferred for the November meeting. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Winton: Which one was that? Chairman Sanchez: RE.6. Mr. Arriola: RE.6. Commissioner Regalado: R -- Commissioner Allen: Defer -- City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: RE.6, OK. Chairman Sanchez: Any other items, Mr. City Manager? Mr. Arriola: We have a CA.4, we're going to have a substitute for it. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Well, that's not being pulled. OK Mr. Arriola: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Any other items -- are there any items that any of the Commissioner wish to pull from the regular agenda, including the consent agenda? Commissioner Allen: Not at this time. Chairman Sanchez: None -- Commissioner Regalado: On my blue page, I do have. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Let's go by Commissioner. Commissioner Winton, do you have any items you wish to pull, sir? Commissioner Winton: No. I just want to make a comment on one briefly, whenever you want. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado, do you have any items that you wish to pull, sir? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to pull D4.E. Chairman Sanchez: D4.E? Commissioner Regalado: D4.E. I met with the Mayor yesterday and -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. D -- Commissioner Regalado: D4.E. I mean, D4.3. Chairman Sanchez: Oh. Commissioner Winton: D4.3, OK. Commissioner Regalado: I was looking at E here. Mr. Arriola: D4.2, no? Commissioner Regalado: PH.3. Mr. Arriola: Oh, 3, OK I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: Also -- Chairman Sanchez: That's the Miami -Dade MIA (Miami International Airport) No School Zone Proposal. Mr. Arriola: Yes. City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Is that the one you -- OK. Commissioner Regalado: Right, because it's going on to the County Commission. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: And, also, D4.4 -- Chairman Sanchez: D4. Commissioner Regalado: -- defer until the administration decides to bring it back. That's it. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No, I'm all right. Chairman Sanchez: None. Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: None. Chairman Sanchez: None. I would like to withdraw -- is it D -- well, it's been taken out, right? Hold on just a minute. See, I'm worried about you guys, and I don't worry about my own stuff. Commissioner Winton: Looks like yours already got pulled. Chairman Sanchez: It got pulled? I had an item -- Commissioner Winton: You don't have one here. Chairman Sanchez: -- I wanted to pull. Yeah, it's been -- it was S-1 -- SI.1, will be withdrawn. That was -- that has been taken care of so that item will be withdrawn from the agenda. Any other items? Hearing none, on the record, there has been -- the administration has deferred PH.2, PH 3, PH 10, RE. 6, Commissioner Regalado -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Chair. I have PH 3 as being withdrawn. Commissioner Allen: Withdrawn. Mr. Arriola: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Commissioner Allen: That's correct. Chairman Sanchez: I stand corrected, Madam Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Also, we're going to need to note that that is a time certain for 3 o'clock, so we'll have to restate it again at 3 o'clock. Commissioner Winton: Which one? Ms. Thompson: PH.10. Chairman Sanchez: We'll take that -- thank you. -- RE. 6, and then, of course, Commissioner City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Regalado had some items that he deferred, and I also withdraw my item. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's -- before we move forward, let me just -- we have a pocket item --I mean, two pocket items that Commissioner Allen has, but before we do that, we're going to come back at 2:30, and we're going to fry to get at least ten nonconfroversial PZ (Planning & Zoning) items from 12:30 to 3. Hopefully, we could do it. That's PZ.8, PZ.10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and hopefully, 22 and 23 we could also get out of the way, but before we do that, I think we've covered all the items on the agenda. Madam Clerk, is there an item that we left? Ms. Thompson: No. We just have the 5:30 time certain on Commissioner Regalado's, and then at 3 o'clock, when we come back, of course -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: -- we have those public hearings. Chairman Sanchez: Of course, when we come back, we will have PH.3 -- no, PH.6 through 9 because 10 was withdrawn. Ms. Thompson: That is correct. Chairman Sanchez: And a time certain at 3 o'clock. Chairman Sanchez: We'll be starting the Planning & Zoning items that are scheduled for 2:30. Before we do that, we do have some time certain items at 3 o'clock that are community development -- CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) items, but before that, we're going to try to get some of the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items out of the way that are nonconfroversial because we do have a voluminous agenda when it comes to the Planning & Zoning. At this time, I'd like to just read for the record that any person who acts as a lobbyist, pursuant to the City ofMiami ordinance, must register within the City -- with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activities before the City staff board or any committee, and therefore -- if you have any questions on that, you may see the City Clerk. Also, any person making slanderous remarks or being out of order, boisterous, while addressing the Commission, you will be asked to leave, as we try to maintain as much order as possible in this Commission meeting. Any person who seeks to address the City Commission on any item appearing -- must do the following: Must first come up to the podium and state their name and their address, and then, as we do that, let's get everybody sworn in that'll be testifying on any of the Planning & Zoning items, so Madam Clerk, could you swear everyone in that will be testifying on any of the Planning & Zoning items? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Ladies and gentlemen, if you're going to testify on any of those items, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand. If you're going to be testifying on any P&Z item, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand. The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. We had set aside some PZ items to go through that are nonconfroversial. PZ.8 is the Premiere Tower, Brickell Village; however, Commissioner Winton is in a meeting and has not come back out, so we'll go ahead and move on to the next one. Also in his district -- All right. CONSENT AGENDA City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 CA.1 04-01134 Department of Public Works RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RECOGNIZING THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ROAD RESTORATION AND DRAINAGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. C01-DERM-EEC, LOCATED ON NORTHWEST 62ND STREET BETWEEN NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE AND NORTHWEST 7TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS A JOINT PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER, PURSUANT TO SECTION 54-17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), TO WAIVE ALL CITY OF MIAMI PUBLIC WORKS EXCAVATION FEES, IN AN AMOUNT OF $28,000, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 54-43 OF THE CITY CODE. 04-01134-cover memo.pdf 04-01134-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01134-letter.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen CA.2 04-01135 Office of the City Attorney R-04-0688 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY FELIX ACEVEDO, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $72,500 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 FELIX ACEVEDO V. CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CASE NO. 04-16448 CA 21, UPON EXECUTING A GENERAL RELEASE OF 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. 515001.624401.6.652. 04-01135-cover memo.pdf 04-01135-memo.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen CA.3 04-01139 Department of General Services Administration R-04-0689 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID OF TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, TO FURNISH COPIER SERVICES TO BE UTILIZED CITYWIDE, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING, ON A LEASE/RENTAL CONTRACT BASIS, FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD, AT AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $258,181.48, WITH AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL CONTINGENCY AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000, City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 FORA TOTAL ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $333,181.48, AND A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $999,544.44; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF THE VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. 04-01139-cover memo.pdf 04-01139-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01139-bid security list.pdf 04-01139-tabulation of bid.pdf 04-01139-cost comparison.pdf 04-01139-contract cost comparison.pdf 04-01139-award form.pdf 04-01139-tabulation of citywide copiers.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0690 CA.4 04-01144 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LOCALLY FUNDED AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE "BISCAYNE BOULEVARD CROSS STREETS CONVERSION PROJECT" TO CONVERT NORTHEAST 9TH, 10TH, AND 11TH STREETS FROM NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE TO BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, FROM ONE-WAY OPERATIONAL TO TWO-WAY OPERATIONAL STREETS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $82,500; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ("CIP") NO. 341330, ENTITLED "CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT;" AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,500, FROM THE RETAINED CONTINGENCY FUND IN THE EVENT ADDITIONAL MONIES ARE NEEDED FOR CHANGE ORDERS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE ABOVE -MENTIONED CIP ACCOUNT. 04-01144-cover memo.pdf 04-01144-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01144-exh ibit. pdf This Matter was ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0691 CA.5 04-01149 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Police ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST NO. 03-04-102, THAT THE FIRM MOST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE INVENTORY City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE IS RGIS INVENTORY SPECIALISTS ("RGIS"); AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH RGIS, AT AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND, PROJECT NO. 690002, WITH SUCH EXPENDITURES HAVING BEEN APPROVED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS COMPLYING WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, "GUIDE TO EQUITABLE SHARING." 04-01149-cover memo.pdf 04-01149-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01149-affid avit. pdf 04-01149-memo.pdf 04-01149-inventory services.pdf 04-01149-memo2.pdf 04-01149-certificate .pdf 04-01149-acceptance. pdf 04-01149-exh i bit1. pdf 04-01149-exh ibit2. pdf 04-01149-exh ibit3. pdf 04-01149-Fact Sheet.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0692 CA.6 04-01176 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $395,000, TO BE USED AS MATCHING FUNDS AS REQUIRED FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI'S GRANT APPLICATION, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, TO THE FLORIDA BUREAU OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, SPECIAL CATEGORY GRANT PROGRAM ("BUREAU"), FOR HISTORICAL AND STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. B-30121, RESTORING THE HISTORIC PAN AMERICAN SEAPLANE TERMINAL ("CITY HALL"), CONTINGENT UPON: (1) THE AWARD OF SAID GRANT FUNDS; AND (2) THE CITY COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE BUREAU; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION INITIATIVE PROJECT NO. 327001, HOMELAND DEFENSE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR SAID PURPOSE. 04-01176-cover memo.pdf 04-01176-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01176-project overview form.pdf 04-01176-exh ibitl .pdf 04-01176-exh ibit2. pdf 04-01176-exh ibit3. pdf 04-01176-exh ibit4. pdf 04-01176-exh ibit5. pdf 04-01176-exh ibit6. pdf City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0693 CA.7 04-01182 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING 911 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS TO INCLUDE MAINTENANCE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE: POSITRON LIFE LINE 100 ANI/ALI CONTROLLER, CONSISTING OF ITEMS ON THE LIST, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FROM BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., AWARDED UNDER EXISTING BROWARD COUNTY REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST NO. 022300-RB, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,769,276; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SPECIAL SERVICE ARRANGEMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR A SIXTY -MONTH PERIOD, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $160,368; AND AUTHORIZING AN UPGRADE OF THE EXISTING DEFINITY TELEPHONE SYSTEM AND INSTALLING A COMPUTER TELEPHONY INTERFACE, FROM AVAYA, INC., AWARDED UNDER AN EXISTING STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT NO. 730-650-99-1, EFFECTIVE UNTIL FEBRUARY 16, 2005, SUBJECT TO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OR REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $266,855, PLUS $2,000 FOR MONTHLY MAINTENANCE COSTS, FOR TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $24,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE E911 OPERATING BUDGET, ACCOUNT CODE NOS. 196003.290531.6.840, 196002.290460.6.510 AND 196003.290531.6.670. 04-01182-cover memo.pdf 04-01182-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01182-BellSouth Scope of Work. pdf 04-01182-purchase plan.pdf 04-01182-BellSouth Addendum to Scope of Work.pdf 04-01182-city of miami example timeline.pdf 04-01182-city of miami 911 center scope of work.pdf 04-01182-pricing.pdf 04-01182-agreement Broward and BellSouth.pdf 04-01182-agreement ABCD.pdf 04-01182-agreement E.pdf 04-01182-agreement E attachmentl .pdf 04-01182-agreement E attachment2.pdf 04-01182-agreement FH.pdf 04-01182-Positron purchase plan.pdf 04-01182-certification.pdf 04-01182-contract. pdf 04-01182-exh ibit. pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 R-04-0694 Adopted the Consent Agenda Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, including all the preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen END OF CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Sanchez: So we'll move in -- straight into the consent agenda. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Commissioner Winton: Yes. I have a quick -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton, you're recognized. Commissioner Winton: I have a quick comment on CA.3. Mr. Manager, as you know, I've, since I've been here, criticized staff for their presentation on some of these consent agenda items, because it doesn't tell you anything. It just says, oh, we ought to expend the money. This presentation, written presentation on why we ought to spend this money is outstanding. This should be the model that everybody follows. You read this, you understand exactly why we're spending the dollars, how many dollars you're spending; the complete rationale, and so, whoever put CA.3 presentation together, fabulous. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any other discussion item on the consent agenda? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I move the consent agenda. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez to approve the consent agenda. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." The consent agenda has been carried. City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR MANUEL A. DIAZ DISTRICT 1 VICE CHAIRMAN ANGEL GONZALEZ DISTRICT 2 COMMISSIONER JOHNNY L. WINTON D2.1 04-01194 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FUNDING FOR THE MIAMI WORKS PROJECT. Marc David Sarnoff 04-01194-email. pdf DISCUSSED District 2- Commissioner D4.1 04-01175 District 4- Commissioner Tomas Regalado DISTRICT 3 CHAIRMAN JOE SANCHEZ DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING AN UPDATE FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE ADULT LIVING FACILITIES IN THE SHENANDOAH AREA OWNED BY FAMILY BOARDING HOME, INC. 04-01175-cover memo.pdf 04-01175-memo.pdf DISCUSSED Direction to the City Attorney by Commissioner Regalado to have his staff meet with the residents from Shenandoah that came to be heard today on Item D4.1 and give them a status report on the Adult Living Facilities (ALF)owned by Family Boarding Home, Inc. located in their area. Chairman Sanchez: We move on -- Commissioner Regalado: The last thing is a time certain, after we do whatever you -- your desire. Chairman Sanchez: Time certain. What -- Commissioner Regalado: It's just a few residents from the Shenandoah area, and the City City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 D4.2 04-01138 District 4- Commissioner Tomas Regalado Attorney has something to say. It will be brief so we can do it during the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items. Chairman Sanchez: What time would you like certain, Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: It's either before the time certain of 5: 30 or after, whatever you think. Imean -- Chairman Sanchez: 5:30 is fine with me. OK. Any other items? If not -- Commissioner Regalado: No, that's it. Chairman Sanchez: -- we have a voluminous agenda. We have thirty -some items of PZ. Going to fry to move it as quickly as possible. As a matter of fact, I would request that we come back at 2:30 to fry to get some of these PZ items out of the way and move this agenda along. Commissioner Regalado: While we got a -- while we wait for the third Commissioner -- second Commissioner, there is an announcement I would like to make. There's several residents of the Shenandoah area here. They're here for a different issue. I don't know, Mr. City Attorney, since this is going to take long, it will be unfair to them. Can you get one of your City Attorneys to -- I don't know if Elsa is still here. Maybe they can explain to them something, and then, you know, if they want to leave -- not on the record, but if -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): In your office. Commissioner Regalado: In my office, and then, if they want to leave, they can leave. If not, you know, we'll ask the Chairman, when he comes back, to give us some time. DISCUSSION ITEM MR. BEN BURTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MIAMI COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS INC., TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE FEEDING AND SERVICE PLAN FOR LOW INCOME AND HOMELESS FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. 04-01138-cover memo.pdf 04-01138-Feeding and service plan.pdf DISCUSSED Direction to the City Manager by Commissioner Regalado to schedule a presentation by the members of the Homeless Trust on the agenda for the City Commission meeting of November 18, 2004 regarding homeless feeding plan in downtown Miami. Chairman Sanchez: We'll move on to Commissioner Regalado, who has several items. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Last Friday, I attended -- on behalf of the City ofMiami as a board member -- to the Homeless Trust meeting, and the Chairman of the Board, Ron Book, when he called for a vote to endorse the City ofMiami Feeding Program in downtown Miami, said that that was the most important single vote that the Homeless Trust has done throughout the history, and by unanimous vote, the Homeless Trust endorsed, approved and agreed to participate in funding to the City ofMiami Feeding Program in downtown Miami. We have to -- we need to thank, first of all, the Coalition for the Homeless, the Homeless Trust and the City ofMiami Homeless Department, and I'll tell you, they want -- Mr. Chairman, members of the Homeless Trust wants to come on the next Commission meeting -- I guess, the November 18 -- and to just explain the support, even in funding, that the Homeless City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 D4.3 04-01193 District 4- Commissioner Tomas Regalado D4.4 04-01120 District 4- Commissioner Tomas Regalado D4.5 04-01190 District 4- Commissioner Tomas Regalado Trust had approved to this feeding program. It will be three sites in downtown Miami, and we will give you all the details, but I think you have already the background material, but if we can place on the agenda for November 18, presentation of the Homeless Trust regarding this plan, I think we all be very happy, and it all started here at this table. Some people thought the first meeting was very contentious. People were threatening to sue the City and all that but, by now, everybody is on board. All the churches, 80 churches agreed to this plan, and we will be having this in November 18. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING AN UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - NO SCHOOL ZONE PROPOSAL AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON DISTRICT 1 AND DISTRICT 4. 04-01193-cover memo.pdf 04-01193-pictu re. pdf 04-01193-schools within.pdf WITHDRAWN Item D4.3 was withdrawn by Commissioner Regalado. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-0610, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 9, 2004, TO INCLUDE THE WAIVER OF COSTS AND FEES FOR THE CO -SPONSORED ANNUAL SOURCE AWARDS 3-DAY EVENT, SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 2004; AMENDING SAID RESOLUTION TO REFLECT SAID CHANGE. DEFERRED Item D4.4 was deferred by Commissioner Regalado. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300, TO CO-SPONSOR, WITH THE CENTER FOR FREE CUBA, THE EVENT ENTITLED: "A CELEBRATION OF FREEDOM: THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL," TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 9, 2004, AT THE MANUEL ARTIME THEATRE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE DISTRICT 4 ROLLOVER ACCOUNT NO. 001000.920919.6.930. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0695 Chairman Sanchez: Is there any other item Commissioner Regalado that you wish to bring up, your items? Commissioner Regalado: The last one -- yeah, I have one -- is, Mr. Chairman, a resolution of the Miami City Commission authorizing the allocation of funds, in an amount not to exceed $300, to cosponsor with the Center for Free Cuba in Washington, the event entitled "A Celebration of Freedom: The 15th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall," to be held on City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 November 9, 2004 at the Manuel Artime Theater; allocating funds from the District 4 rollover account number 000 -- whatever. Move it. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion on the item and there's a second. Open for discussion. Madam Clerk, did you get the motion -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- made by Commissioner Regalado, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez? Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. DISTRICT 5 COMMISSIONER JEFFERY L. ALLEN City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING PH.1 04-01136 ORDINANCE Public Hearing Department of AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Public Works 55/SECTION 55-15 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS/VACATION AND CLOSURE OF RIGHTS OF -WAY AND PLATTED EASEMENTS BY PLAT" TO ELIMINATE THE TIME RESTRICTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR CLOSURE OF ALLEYS ABUTTING PARCELS OF LAND ZONED R-1 AND/OR R-2; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01136-cover memo.pdf 04-01136-budgetary impact.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez Chairman Sanchez: Let's go to Public Hearing 1. Commissioner Allen: PH.1? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. We have Public Hearing Number 1. The administration. As to the format, the administration will state on the record their recommendation and then we'll take it from there. Go ahead. Stephanie Grindell: Stephanie Grindell, Director of Public Works. This is an amendment to Code to the process for modified alley closures. In the current -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Excuse me, Chair. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: The mike, you turned it off. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't figure out -- you know what? I need mute for everybody here, so I could just turn everybody off. Commissioner Winton: I'll help you, for me. Ms. Grindell: The current code only allows the Public Works Department to accept applications for the modified alley closure process for the first 60 calendar days of the year, and this modification will allow us to accept applications year-round. Chairman Sanchez: OK. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none and hearing none, it is open for discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Commissioner Allen: Move it. City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion by Commissioner Winton. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Hearing no discussion, it is an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There is a motion and a second, and Madam Clerk, roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. PH.2 04-01137 ORDINANCE Public Hearing Department of AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Public Works 54/ARTICLE IV/SECTION 54-130 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS/NAMING OF STREETS AND NUMBERING OF BUILDINGS/NAMES OF DRIVES AND ROADS," BY CHANGING THE NAME OF SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 11TH STREET AND BRICKELL AVENUE TO BROADWAY; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01137-cover memo.pdf 04-01137-legislation.pdf DEFERRED Item PH.2 was deferred by the City Manager to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for November 18, 2004. PH.3 04-01172 ORDINANCE Public Hearing AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8309, AS AMENDED, EXTENDING THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH NUI UTILITIES, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, THE FRANCHISE EXTENSION AGREEMENT EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT UNTIL THE EARLIER OF 1) JANUARY 14, 2005, OR 2) THE DATE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANY SUBSEQUENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE CITY AND THE FRANCHISEE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABLITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01172-cover memo.pdf 04-01172-memo.pdf 04-01172-notice to public.pdf 04-01172-ordinance.pdf 04-01172-exh ibit. pdf City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 WITHDRAWN Item PH.3 was withdrawn by the City Manager. PH.4 04-01174 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING THAT IT IS PRACTICABLE AND MOST ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI TO WAIVE COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO THE AGREEMENT ORIGINALLY ENTERED INTO ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1979, FOR TERREMARK AT DINNER KEY, INC., WHO IS CURRENTLY DOING BUSINESS AS DINNER KEY RESTAURANT, INC., TO PROVIDE CONCESSION SERVICES AT THE COCONUT GROVE CONVENTION CENTER FOR ONE NINETY -DAY PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR THREE ADDITIONAL NINETY -DAY PERIODS; WITH A TERM NOT TO BE EXTENDED BEYOND SEPTEMBER 30, 2005. 04-01174-cover memo.pdf 04-01174-notice to public.pdf 04-01174-exh ibitl . pdf Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0696 Chairman Sanchez: OK. Moving on to -- oh, PH.2 has been deferred. PH.3 has been withdrawn, and then we move to PH.4, which is a four fifths vote resolution. Alejandra Argudin: Alejandra Argudin, Acting Director for Public Facilities. This is a bid waiver that requires a four fifths affirmative vote from the Commission, and it's for the concessionaire at the Expo Center. There is amendment -- I would like to bring an amendment to the floor, changing the corporation name to Dinner Key Restaurant, Incorporated. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion and a second. It is a resolution. All in favor -- Commissioner Winton: This is only in -- Commissioner Allen: Wait, wait. Commissioner Winton: -- 90 days, right? Ms. Argudin: It's 90 days with three 90-day extensions. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen, you wish to be recognized? Commissioner Allen: Yeah. I was just going to point out and ask you if this is somewhat City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 tantamount to a sole source type of effect, but what are the extenuating circumstances here? Ms. Argudin: Excuse me? Commissioner Allen: What are the extenuating circumstances here? Ms. Argudin: Well, that -- we don't know how long the Expo Center might be open for, and we don't want to extend a contract only for three months at a time so that they could provide services to our promoters for the contracts that we do have for the events that we do have at the Expo Center. Commissioner Allen: I see, so for efficiency purposes. Ms. Argudin: For efficiency purposes. Commissioner Allen: Right, OK. Commissioner Winton: And we're not likely to get any other bidder -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- with the uncertainty. Ms. Argudin: Right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any further discussion on this resolution? It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Excuse me, Chair. I'm sorry. I did not hear a second. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: I believe that Commissioner Regalado made the motion -- Ms. Thompson: Correct. Chairman Sanchez: -- and Commissioner Winton seconded. Ms. Thompson: Thank you, and I want to make sure that we understand it's modified. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): It is modified with a new name of the actual corporation. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, we got that. Ms. Argudin: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Well, there's -- Commissioner Winton: She put it on the record. Mr. Fernandez: That's the extent of her testimony. Chairman Sanchez: I believe she stated the amendment on the record already. City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Argudin: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Argudin: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. OK. Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: No further discussion. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" The motion passes unanimously. PH.5 04-01141 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF A SOLE SOURCE; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES AND APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SOFTWARE BASED SOFTWARE LICENSES, TRAINING, SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCT SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. ("ESRI") PRODUCTS WHICH INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, ARCINFO, ARCINFO WORKSTATION EXTENSIONS (ARCNETWORK, ARCCOGO, AND ARCSCAN), ARCEDITOR, ARCGIS SERVER, ARCGIS SERVER EXTENSIONS (SPATIAL OPTION, 3D OPTION, AND STREETMAP OPTION), ARCSDE, ARCGIS SCHEMATICS, AND NETENGINE, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, FROM ESRI, THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, FOR AN INITIAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000, AND A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $780,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC REVENUES, OTHER VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ACCOUNTS, GRANTS, AND THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 04-01141-cover memo.pdf 04-01141-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01141-memol .pdf 04-01141-memo2.pdf 04-01141-memo3.pdf 04-01141-memo4.pdf 04-01141-notice to public.pdf 04-01141-ESRI letters.pdf 04-01141-award.pdf City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 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 Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0698 Chairman Sanchez: OK. We move on back to -- which was the PH (Public Hearing) -- is it PH.5 -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): PH.5. Chairman Sanchez: -- where we left off? Ms. Thompson: PH.5. Chairman Sanchez: PH.5. Let's fry to get through as much as we can on the agenda, and once again, we'll be back at 2:30 to fry to get as many PZ (Planning & Zoning) noncontroversial items -- Commissioner Winton: Move PH.5. Chairman Sanchez: -- out of the way. PH.5 is a four fifths resolution. Do we have? Yes, we do. OK. There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Discussion. PH -- is the party here? Chairman Sanchez: Could we -- Commissioner Regalado: I'll second. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, is the party here? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Please, let's try to always have someone from the administration at the podium when it's the item, in case there's any questions, please. OK Just state what the resolution -- explain a little bit, and then we'll go ahead and move forward with it. Glenn Marcos: Glenn Marcos, Purchasing Director. PH.5 is a sole source purchase; it does require a four fifth Commission vote, and it's for the purchase of the ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) software. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Is there a motion? There was a motion by Commissioner Winton. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by -- Commissioner Allen: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: No, no. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, Commissioner Regalado. Open for discussion. City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 3:00 P.M. PH.6 04-01150 Department of Community Development Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen, you're recognized. Commissioner Allen: Yes. This was sole source agreement. I look at -- the term limit on this is five-year period of time. Can you explain why would it have to be five years versus a standard policy, perhaps, maybe of three years? What's the reason for that? Peter Korinis: Commissioner -- Peter Korinis, Chief Information Officer. The five years is principally for license maintenance, where we will continue to use these software licenses, we're sure, for five years, and therefore, we're locking in a better price now that'll get us five years into the future on that license maintenance than if we were to just choose a three-year, because we're very confident we will still be using this software, you know, five years from now. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. That's my concern. Obviously, in technology, software is always changing, and my position is, isn't there quite -- a possibility of maybe another vendor could probably offer something -- Mr. Korinis: Sir -- Commissioner Allen: -- better, but yet, we're locked into a certain deal for five years? Mr. Korinis: This -- what we're locking into is upgrades from this vendor. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Korinis: This is a very dominant vendor in this field, and again, we feel -- they have dominated this market for a number of years; we feel that will continue. Plus, we will have investments in skills, in products, in data that we would not probably benefit if we were to swap software. Commissioner Allen: OK. All right. Thank you. Mr. Korinis: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Good answers. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, I'm done. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Any further discussion on the item? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Hearing none, motion carries. Note for the Record: Items PH.6 - PH 10 were translated by a sign -language interpreter. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF 30TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $40,000, FROM THE EDGEWATER ECONOMIC City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC.; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS TO THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI PARTNERSHIP, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000, AND TO THE RAFAEL HERNANDEZ HOUSING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP., IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000, TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE -FOR -PROFIT ENTITIES, COMMERCIAL FAQADE TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND COMMERCIAL CODE COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORMS, WITH SAID AGENCIES. 04-01150-cover memo.pdf 04-01150-public notice.pdf 04-01150-file summary.pdf 04-01150-text file.pdf 04-01150-memo.pdf 04-01150-attachmentA.pdf 04-01150-exh i bit1. pdf 04-01150-exh ibit2. pdf 04-01150-exh ibit3. pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0705 Chairman Sanchez: All right. CDBG (Community Development Block Grant). We have time certain at 3 o'clock, PH 6, I believe, through PH 10. Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): Correct. Commissioner Winton: Wait, wait, wait. I want to get to my PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- I mean - Chairman Sanchez: Madam Director, go ahead. Ms. Rodriguez: Barbara Rodriguez, Department of Community Development. Commissioner Winton: Hold on, hold -- Chairman Sanchez: Hold -- whoa, whoa. Commissioner Winton: Hold on. I want to look at this. Chairman Sanchez: Do we have -- oh, yes, we do. OK. Commissioner Winton: What items are these? Chairman Sanchez: These are CDBG, which is PH 1 -- Ms. Rodriguez: 6. Chairman Sanchez: -- no -- PH (Public Hearing) -- Commissioner Allen: 6. City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- 6 through 10. Commissioner Allen: 6 though 10. Chairman Sanchez: 10 because 11 was deferred, correct? Commissioner Allen: Yes. Ms. Rodriguez: We'll get to there. Commissioner Allen: 6 through 10. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 10 was deferred. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Rodriguez: 10 was deferred. It is withdrawn. Chairman Sanchez: Withdrawn, OK. Ms. Rodriguez: 10 is being withdrawn. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Director, go ahead. Ms. Rodriguez: PH 6 is the transfer of the 30th Year CDBG funds from the Edgewater Economic Development Corporation, Inc. to Downtown Miami Partnership Inc., 20,000; and Rafael Hernandez Housing and Economic Development, 20,000. The Edgewater Economic Development Corporation, Inc. has closed their doors and the business is being transferred to be taken care by two other businesses. Commissioner Winton: May I make a comment about that? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Think about this: This is a CDC (Community Development Corporation), and when I got here five years ago, we had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- everybody got the same, you know, and I said, you know, y'all's objective needs to be to work yourself out of business, not to work yourself into longer term business, and we have one that has succeeded in working themselves out of business, and there isn't a role, there isn't a need, and what need there was, there's other agencies that are picking up the steam -- Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- so that's great news. Maybe some more will do that. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Are you done? Ms. Rodriguez: That's it. Chairman Sanchez: OK. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address PH.6, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed and it's open for discussion from the Commission. Is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: So move. City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton, second by -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen. It is a resolution. It is open for discussion. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: On the facade, Barbara, we -- are we doing facade? Ms. Rodriguez: We are currently doing facade. Commissioner Regalado: In Disfrict 4? Ms. Rodriguez: Yes, you are, and we put out an RFP (Request for Proposals). We got six proposals in, and it will be coming to the City Commission for Disfrict 3 and Disfrict 4 in December. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but are we doing -- Ms. Rodriguez: In the meantime, Downtown Miami Partnership is doing; Allapattah Business Development and Rafael Hernandez. There was a flyer distributed among all business telling them, in the meantime -- Commissioner Winton: He's asking if there's any actually -- Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- getting done in his disfrict. Ms. Rodriguez: Right. What happened is the company that used to do it in his disfrict left. Commissioner Winton: Right, but he wasn't clear on your answer. Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. There are three companies that are helping us out until there's a new proposal that is approved. Commissioner Winton: And those agencies that you just named are the ones that are helping -- Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- actually do -- Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- in his district? Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Commissioner Winton: OK. I didn't understand that either, so -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any further discussion on the item? If not, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." The motion passes unanimously. PH.7 04-01151 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Community ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY Development DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,965,179, FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") RESERVE ACCOUNT; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $776,210, TO THE CITY OF MIAMI CRA'S GRAND PROMENADE PROJECT, AND THE AMOUNT OF $2,188,969 TO THE DISTRICT 5 SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE CRA FOR SAID PURPOSE. 04-01151-cover memo.pdf 04-01151-public notice.pdf 04-01151-pre resolution 1. pdf 04-01151-pre resolution2.pdf 04-01151-pre resolution3.pdf 04-01151-exh ibit. pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0706 Chairman Sanchez: All right. PH.7. Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH.7 does two things: On April 25, 2002, the City Commission adopted Resolution 02-495 re -- that basically re -categorized previously approved CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funding for the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), in an amount not to exceed $5, 000, 000. Pursuant to that resolution, $2,900, 000 have been set aside with no project. We've been working on identifying projects. There has been one that has been approved by HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), which is the City ofMiami CRA will be undertaking, which is the Grand Promenade project. We are recommending 776,210. This was approved by the CRA Board on August 30, 2004, and we are also recommending that 2,188, 969 be approved for District 5 single-family rehab program, which right now, we have 121 applications in that are waiting for funding. Commissioner Winton: In District 5 or all over the City? Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Ms. Rodriguez: In Disfrict 5. There's 247 citywide; there's 121 in District 5. Commissioner Winton: And how many will this do? Ms. Rodriguez: In Disfrict 2? City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: No, not in District 2. Chairman Sanchez: No. How much would it do? Commissioner Winton: How many houses -- Commissioner Regalado: This do. Commissioner Winton: -- in District 5 will get rehabbed with this 2 point -- Ms. Rodriguez: 73. Commissioner Winton: OK. 73 of the one -some -- hundred and -- how many? Ms. Rodriguez: Of the 121. Commissioner Winton: Oh, that's great. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Before we open it for discussion, it is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Now it is open for discussion from the Commission or a motion, if appropriate. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Allen: -- just a quick question. First of all, I want to -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. We need -- Commissioner, we need a motion and a second for discussion, so -- Commissioner Allen: Oh, that's right. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner -- Commissioner Winton: Move it. Chairman Sanchez: -- Johnny Winton -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Winton: -- makes the motion, you second. Now it opens for discussion and you're entitled to a discussion. Commissioner Allen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I want to compliment Madam Barbara. We worked diligently and closely with her with respect to these particular funds that are, in my opinion, are time sensitive -- Ms. Rodriguez: They are. City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: -- I believe, at this juncture, and I just want to make sure that, of course, going forward, that there will be some money -- since this money comes -- the City gets the CD (Community Development) money, I want to make sure that these funds somehow find their way back to the CRA for capital projects in the year 2006, ifI can get an assurance with respect to that, because you've done a terrific job thus far in terms of trying to find projects to satisfy the needs here. Ms. Rodriguez: When we come -- when the funding comes every year, we will come to you -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Rodriguez: -- and the policy decisions at that time will distribute. Usually, it depends on the money that the district generates. We try to keep it in the district that generates the dollars. Commissioner Allen: Right, great, and I think also -- Commissioner Winton: What kind of answer was that? Commissioner Allen: Sure. Ms. Rodriguez: Hmm? Commissioner Winton: What kind of answer was that? Ms. Rodriguez: Well, what he's trying to say, can I guarantee. I don't. Commissioner Winton: I know what he said. Ms. Rodriguez: It's the policy -- Commissioner Winton: But I don't think -- Ms. Rodriguez: When the policy comes, the percentage of that district, that's the money we recommend to be put back on the district. No? Commissioner Winton: No, no. Ms. Rodriguez: OK. Commissioner Winton: No. Ms. Rodriguez: Tell me. Commissioner Winton: This money was allocated to CRA. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. I think -- Commissioner Winton: The CRA's in two districts, in Disfrict 2 and Disfrict 5. Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Winton: That's where the CRA is, and I don't give a hoot about the district because his -- Jeffery point was about CRA, and what he was saying is that when the appropriate time comes, reallocate CDBG money for the appropriate project in the CRA boundaries. It doesn't have anything to do -- I don't even understand what this formula thing -- City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Rodriguez: Do you want -- Commissioner Winton: -- is you're talking about. Ms. Rodriguez: What you're saying is, to make sure to go on record to put back the two point million next year? Commissioner Winton: That's what he said. Next year, the -- that's what Jeffery said. Ms. Rodriguez: We'll bring it -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: And the reason I jumped into this, I don't know ifI care about that or not, but the answer that you gave him wasn't the answer to his question. Ms. Rodriguez: Maybe I didn't understand. If you were saying put it on the record, I will do that. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, could you please? Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: And -- Ms. Rodriguez: Yes, Commissioner. Chairman Sanchez: I want to take it a step further as to -- in many ways, seeing that one of the biggest -- well, one of the biggest complaints that I get is that it's an uphill battle sometimes to meet all the requirements set by HUD and by CDBG. I mean, it's very complicated -- Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- and you're seeing that a lot of organizations had to end up giving the money back because they weren't able to use it for whatever reasons. Commissioner Winton: It's getting to be ridiculous. Chairman Sanchez: Well, it -- yeah. It's getting to a point where, I mean, it's really hurting us. Now, as I look at the notes that I have here, with all the new regulations and the more confusing demands that are set forth, I mean, have we ever though about a way that we simplify the process to be able to utilize that money? Because one of the things that really bother me is that, although we get the money from the federal government, at times, with all the restrictions that are applied to us, we aren't able to use it, and in many ways, either, one, we have to relocate it someplace else, or we have to give it back to the federal government and, you know, once that money falls into our possession and we have the right to utilize it to the best ability possible for our city, you know, we're not doing it, and at the end of the day, you know, we're having to give money back, and of course, we could be criticized for that. Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Chairman Sanchez: So is there anything that you could put on the record -- Ms. Rodriguez: We have been working with them, and we try to come up with policies and help City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 PH.8 04-01152 Department of Community Development the non-profit. I think what -- you're also dealing with very old money, and I think that once we clean up the old money, then we'll be in a better position to do projects that move faster and that are not as cumbersome, but we are frying our best to move projects. People are learning; we are doing training for the non-profit. We're having people come here and tell them the rules, and I think that's helping and people are learning that, and I think, as time goes by, it should be smoother. Chairman Sanchez: I just hate to give money back. That's all. Ms. Rodriguez: Well, it -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Ms. Rodriguez: We are in a timeliness -- Commissioner Allen: I agree. Ms. Rodriguez: -- issue that's serious because if they take it, we'll not be able to get it back -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Rodriguez: -- and it will hurt future allocations, so -- Chairman Sanchez: Any further discussion on the item? Hearing none, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,510.67, FROM CLOSED OUT ACTIVITIES; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI INGLE FAMILY PROGRAMS FOR THE HARD COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING REHABILITATION. 04-01152-exh ibitl . pdf 04-01152-public notice.pdf 04-01152-cover memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0707 Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH (Public Hearing) -- Chairman Sanchez: We move on to PH.8. Ms. Rodriguez: PH.8, again, we're trying to clean up all of our accounts and move dollars between the timeliness and things that we have outstanding. We are reallocating closeout City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 contracts, one being from the Miami Horizon Corporation, 3, 095.76;; City ofMiami Section 108 Debt Service, 1, 111.16; City ofMiami Parks -- this was a program two years ago --10,303.75; City ofMiami Department of Community Development, three years ago, $200, 000, and we're saying to please let us reallocate those funds to the City ofMiami Single -Family Program to be able to serve seven more residents. Commissioner Allen: I move to adopt. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a mo -- well, it's a -- Commissioner Allen: It's a public hearing. Chairman Sanchez: It's a -- it's all right. Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry, Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: No, it's all right. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard and recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Allen has moved the resolution. Commissioner Winton: Second. Discussion. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Winton, and it's open for discussion. Commissioner Winton, you're recognized for discussion. Commissioner Winton: Barbara, I was following you perfectly until your very last sentence. The use of this $214, 000 was what? Ms. Rodriguez: It's to serve approximately nine new loans. Commissioner Winton: Who? Ms. Rodriguez: Nine new loans for residents, single-family rehab. Commissioner Allen: And -- Commissioner Winton: Nine. Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. It's approximately up to $30, 000 per house. Chairman Sanchez: Barbara, how much is going to administration of that money? Ms. Rodriguez: None. Chairman Sanchez: None? Ms. Rodriguez: This is not going -- none going to -- Chairman Sanchez: So all the money is going to needy families? Ms. Rodriguez: It's hard cost -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: OK. City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Rodriguez: -- for single-family rehab. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Then in your -- in this document, this document absolutely does not say that. Ms. Rodriguez: It says funding to utilize for the processing of housing rehabilitation applications. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Do you know what that says? That says that this is about processing applications. Ms. Rodriguez: Well, we -- Commissioner Winton: This doesn't say -- Ms. Rodriguez: That's it's going to the -- Commissioner Winton: -- it's about hard costs -- Ms. Rodriguez: No, it's hard costs. Commissioner Winton: -- to do renovations. Ms. Rodriguez: No. What we fry to convey, Commissioner, is that we're processing -- that the people that are waiting, the applications that are waiting. Commissioner Winton: This -- but this cannot be written this way. Ms. Rodriguez: OK. Commissioner Winton: Ask -- Commissioner Allen: IfI can chime in, Mr. Chairman. I think Commissioner Winton is correct with that. Ms. Rodriguez: OK. Commissioner Allen: It clearly says processing of housing rehabilitation applications. Perhaps, it may not -- should not have been worded as such, because what you're saying is quite different from -- Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Allen: -- what I'm seeing here before me. Ms. Rodriguez: Then, can I mod -- would you -- Commissioner Allen: And this is a -- Ms. Rodriguez: -- permit me to modify it? Commissioner Winton: Please. City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: Yes, would love it. Commissioner Allen: And this is a citywide project, correct? Ms. Rodriguez: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Great, so -- Ms. Rodriguez: So then what would say, "Funding to be utilized for the processing of rehab residents' application for the hard cost," explain that it's hard cost. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's -- Commissioner Winton: I don't know why you have to say anything about the application. I think it's for hard costs associated with housing rehabilitation. Commissioner Allen: Rehabilitation, right. Ms. Rodriguez: OK. Commissioner Allen: That's the better way. Chairman Sanchez: The resolution has been amended. Ms. Rodriguez: Modified. Chairman Sanchez: Does the maker of the motion accept the amendment? Commissioner Winton: Who made the motion, did I? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Yes, I -- yes. Commissioner Allen: Do. Chairman Sanchez: And the second -- Ms. Rodriguez: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Does the second also accept the amendment? Commissioner Allen: Yes, second. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Rodriguez: Hard costs. City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Just for the record, the amendment has been accepted by both. Any further discussion on the item? Hearing none, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Hearing none -- Commissioner Regalado. Oh, you voted -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I voted aye. Chairman Sanchez: OK, so the resolution passes unanimously. PH.9 04-01153 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Community ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF EMERGENCY Development SHELTER GRANT FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,158.94, FROM CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESES OF MIAMI, INC.; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI HOMELESS PROGRAM FOR THE PROVISION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES (TEMPORARY SHELTER, JOB SEARCH ASSISTANCE, PERMANENT HOUSING REFERRALS) TO THE HOMELESS POPULATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH SAID AGENCY. 04-01153-cover memo.pdf 04-01153-public notice.pdf 04-01153-exh i bit1. pdf 04-01153-exh ibit2. pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0708 Chairman Sanchez: All right. PH.9. PH.9. Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH.9, we close out already a program. Catholic Charities ofArchdiocese has had 140,158.94. This was for their homeless shelter. They're not going to be using it, and we're requesting that you let us transfer it to the City ofMiami Homeless Program to be utilized for the provision of essential services; that is, temporary shelter, meal, job search assistance, permanent housing referrals, and we're requesting that you let us transfer it to the City ofMiami. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Was there a motion on that? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: I moved and he second. City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: There was a motion and a second. Commissioner Allen: And a second. Chairman Sanchez: OK. No further discussion on the item. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" I believe we're done with -- PH.10 04-01154 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION BY A FOUR- FIFTHS Community (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, PURSUANT TO Development SECTION 2-614 OF THE CITY CODE, WAIVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2-612 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ("CITY"), AS AMENDED, TO ENABLE FREDERICA P. BURDEN, PRESIDENT OF KIDDIE KOP CHILD CARE, INC., TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES/IMPROVEMENTS. 04-01154-cover memo.pdf 04-01154-public notice.pdf 04-01154-text file.pdf WITHDRAWN Item PH.10 was withdrawn by the Administration. Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): And PH.10 was withdrawn. Commissioner Allen: Is withdrawn. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Go back to -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Chair, for the record, we showed PH.10 as being deferred -- Chairman Sanchez: Deferred. Ms. Thompson: -- so we need to make sure, for the record, exactly what action is being taken. Ms. Rodriguez: It's withdrawn. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: So on the record, Madam Clerk, the item has been withdrawn. All right. Commissioner Winton: Now we're clear. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 ORDINANCES - EMERGENCY EM.1 04-01156 ORDINANCE Emergency Ordinance (4/5THS VOTE) AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12420, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE TO INCREASE CERTAIN OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01156-cover memo.pdf 04-01156-appropriation adjustment. pdf Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez 12600 Chairman Sanchez: We move on to -- well, the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) are time certain for 3 o'clock, so we could go to EM.1. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Correct. Chairman Sanchez: Emergency -- Mr. Director, go ahead. Larry Spring: Larry Spring, Chief of Strategic Planning, Budgeting and Performance. Commissioner, before you is a 2004 fiscal year budget amendment, closing out last fiscal year. The nature of these amendments are generally related to year-end closing transactions to maintain comparability between our actual financial statements and our appropriated budget. Generally, the nature of these are noncontroversial. I can quickly go through some of the larger items. We are appropriating the pass -through pension payment for the 175/185 state contributions for Fire P. We're appropriating a repayment of capital improvement of $1,200, 000 to the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning)/CIP (Capital Improvement Projects); that was a loan that was made to do the shoreline restoration project. Once we received our Parcel B settlement dollars, we are paying those dollars back now. We have some clean-up items. We have a contribution to special revenue for community development, 102,000; that's to clean up a deficit that was created or identified in the audit for a HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS) project; $315, 000 adjustment to the CIP Department to repay ineligible expenses that were charged against the CIP account. Various rollover adjustment items, as you can see there, for special revenue for IT (Information Technology), Parks, Public Facilities, elected official rollovers. You have the appropriation of the Quality of Life Initiative that this Commission passed to the tune of 152,000 earlier this fiscal year, and various special revenue account adjustments -- Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Spring: -- that are appropriating grants. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Any questions on this emergency ordinance? It's just a series of adjustments, right? Commissioner Allen: Adjustments. City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Oh, no. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, I -- well -- Commissioner Allen: No. I'm sorry. No. Chairman Sanchez: OK. It's an ordinance, so should it be open to the public, right? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Public hearing. It's a public hearing. Commissioner Allen: Hearing. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. Hearing none and seeing none, the public hearing is closed. We need a motion to approve the emergency ordinance. Commissioner Allen: I move to approve. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Allen. I believe there was a second by Commissioner Winton. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance for the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call -- first roll call. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Second roll call. Roll calls were taken, the results of which are stated above. Ms. Thompson: The emergency ordinance has been adopted, 4/0. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 ORDINANCES - FIRST READING FR.1 04-01165 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 4 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED: "ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT," TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW PARAGRAPH TO SECTION 2-267 ENTITLED "SAME -ENUMERATION," TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE AND ISSUE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH WILLING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR PROPERTY WHEN REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01165-cover memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: We'll move on to, I believe, RE.2. RE.2. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Actually, sir, we have a first reading ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Which one is that one? Ms. Thompson: FR.1. Chairman Sanchez: FR.1. All right. Let's go to FR.1. Mary Conway: Mary Conway, Director of Capital Improvements and Transportation. FR.1 is requesting City Commission delegation to the Director of Public Works to execute license agreements with full concurrence from the CityAttorney's Office. Right now, that responsibility rests with the City Commission, so this item is requesting delegation to the Director of Public Works. These license agreements are required, typically, on street projects where sidewalk repairs are being made, where there's a need to harmonize with the adjacent properties, so this item is requesting, when there are willing property owners, that the Public Works Director be delegated the authority -- again, in conjunction with -- concurrence from the Legal Department - - to execute these license agreements. Chairman Sanchez: All right. FR.1. Any questions on FR.1? Commissioner Regalado: Question. Commissioner Allen: I have a question. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado and then Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Regalado: Question. Is -- Mary -- and this is more for the City Attorney. What do we do when there is a resident who do not want to cooperate with the City in offering some of the property to build a sidewalk? Can we eminent domain those eight feet? City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): That's a tough question. The -- we need to look at the plat, how the plat dealt with dedication. If the City needs -- and we're able to establish -- meet the test for eminent domain, the answer is yes. Now, in the past, courts have -- in this particular issue where you deal with an individual property owner and it's an issue of platting, when the land was originally platted, whether it was considered to be necessary that there be sidewalks or not, courts have gone both ways on that, so that's an issue that there is no definitive answer to that, and it's best handled also -- always by frying to negotiate and getting consent from property owners. Commissioner Regalado: I understand that, but we have this problem in 16th Terrace. We are doing the whole street,• we're doing the sidewalk, which never was there. It wasn't any sidewalk, but the residents and the plan called for sidewalks, and new sewers and all that, and one or two property owners didn't want to give the City the eight feet necessary because the property runs up to the street, and now we're building the sidewalks, but it's like (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and go around. It really doesn't look nice. I mean, if they don't want to, it's fine, but that's not the point. The point is that if the City is working right now doing one block of sidewalks and we have one property owner who, for some reason, refuses to sign the waiver, what do we do? Ms. Conway: The only thing that would add to the CityAttorney's comments is also the fiscal impacts associated with acquiring the right-of-way. On 16th Terrace, for the most part, the property owners -- it was time intensive to track down all the property owners, but the vast majority did execute the license agreements. The instances where there were problems were a little bit unique and, as you stated -- in that the property owners had actually built physical improvements to the right -- to the -- to their right-of-way line, so the only way that they would have been able to dedicate would have been if they had made modifications to physical building structures, and I believe that those are going to be very isolated instances throughout the City. Commissioner Regalado: OK Chairman Sanchez: Any other question? Commissioner Allen, you're recognized. Commissioner Allen: No. I'm afraid Commissioner Regalado answered my question. I think the operative word here was willing property owners, so that was answered. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any other questions on FR.1, which is an ordinance on first reading? Hearing none, it's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Chairman Sanchez: We need a motion from -- we have a motion by Commissioner Winton and we need a second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, we pass it over to the City Attorney to read the ordinance, and then we'll go to the City Clerk. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 RESOLUTIONS RE.1 04-01140 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Finance ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING AN INTEREST RATE SWAP OPTION TRANSACTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE FUTURE REFUNDING OF THE OUTSTANDING CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ("CITY") NON -AD VALOREM REVENUE BONDS TAXABLE PENSION SERIES 1995; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF CITY NON -AD VALOREM VARIABLE RATE REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS, TAXABLE PENSION SERIES 2006, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000,000, TO REFUND THE OUTSTANDING CITY NON -AD VALOREM REVENUE BONDS, TAXABLE PENSION SERIES 1995; APPROVING THE SWAP COUNTERPARTY; APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERNATIONAL SWAP DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC., MASTER AGREEMENT, SCHEDULES TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT, A CREDIT SUPPORT ANNEX AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; APPROVING MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED AS THE UNDERWRITER AND REMARKETING AGENT OF SUCH REFUNDING BONDS; APPROVING A SWAP FINANCIAL ADVISOR; PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01140-cover memo.pdf 04-01140-exh i bit1. pdf 04-01140-exh ibit2. pdf 04-01140-exh ibit3. pdf 04-01140-exh ibit4. pdf 04-01140-exh ibit5. pdf 04-01140-exh ibit6. pdf 04-01140-exh ibit7. pdf 04-01140-exh ibit8. pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-04-0697 Chairman Sanchez: We move on to -- OK. We have a time certain, which is RE.1. We have the consultants here and, of course, we're paying them by the hour, so let's listen to that item, and then we'll get them out of here. Commissioner Allen: This is -- Chairman Sanchez: RE.1. Commissioner Allen: -- RE.1. Chairman Sanchez: We have the bond counsel present -- Commissioner Allen: Oh, OK City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- and also the finance advisors and other -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- that are here. OK. Linda Haskins (Deputy City Manager/Chief Financial Officer): Commissioners, this is an item that involves our -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Can we have your name for the record, please? Ms. Haskins: Linda Haskins, Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, the City. This is an item that results from our efforts to continue to reduce debt service cost at the City. We have, thus far, refinanced all the bonds that we could refinance. We are -- still have a large issue of pension bonds, the 1995 pension bonds, with $62, 000, 000 outstanding. Those bonds cannot be refunded until December of 2006. We wanted to take advantage of the low rates today, and we're asking for the ability to enter into a fransaction, which we would sell an option to enter into a swap with Morgan Stanley in December of 2006, and potentially negotiate with holders of the bonds to sell call rights. We are anticipating that the net present value returned to the City is a minimum of approximately 4,500,000. It could go as high as $7, 000, 000. At the low point, that would be seven percent of the -- seven -- in excess of seven percent of the bond outstanding amount. Our hurdle is three percent, at the high end; 14 percent of the bond amount versus our hurdle to refinance bonds of three percent. This fransaction was approved by the Finance Committee, and we bring it to you today to save the City net present value somewhere between 4.6 and $7, 000, 000 in debt service. Chairman Sanchez: Linda, could you have -- I know that you and Pete did a good job explaining it to me, but you -- could you come up and explain it better in -- Ms. Haskins: Sure. Chairman Sanchez: -- the form of maybe English, as to -- Ms. Haskins: I did explain it in English. Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- but to be honest, there's a lot of words there, like -- Ms. Haskins: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- flop and -- Ms. Haskins: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- what was the other word? Ms. Haskins: Swap -- Chairman Sanchez: Swap and -- Ms. Haskins: --and option and calls, and all of that. City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- option and all this stuff. Could you -- Ms. Haskins: OK. Chairman Sanchez: I believe we need bond counsel to come up and -- I think that the concern that I have is to have all the safety mechanisms in place to assure that -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- this investment is a worthwhile investment for the City of Miami, and I could support it, but I think that it needs to -- Commissioner Winton: And to understand what the downside risk may be -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: -- is what you really want to know. Chairman Sanchez: Exactly, so please come up. This is a very important item. It's just not an item that I think is just going to fly through without anybody saying a word here. Commissioner Allen: Right, and -- Chairman Sanchez: So, please step up and convince this legislative body as to why we should support this. Commissioner Allen: And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to weigh in, as well. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, you're recognized, Commissioner Allen. I apologize, sir. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Jolinda Herring: Go ahead. I just -- I'll just introduce myself. I'm Jolinda Herring with the firm of Bryant, Miller and Olive Law Firm, and we do represent the City as bond counsel, and I'm happy to answer any legal questions you have, but I'm going to let your suave financial advisor explain the transaction -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Herring: -- for you. Jon Moellenberg: My name is Jon Moellenberg -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: -- and I'm a Managing Director with RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) Dain Rauscher. Commissioner Allen: And, typically, as you very know, these are derivative types of transactions, which are very -- can be very complicated deals, and you can also lose your shirt if you're not -- if it's not done correctly. We all agree with that. Having said that, just tell me generally what are you hedging against. Is this a variable versus fixed? Are you swapping the derivatives with the asset that you're swapping? Is it hedged against the interest rates, the rising interest rates, or could you expound on that? City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Moellenberg: Let me start with a little history. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. Moellenberg: The bonds that were issued in 1995 -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: -- are callable in December of 2006. Commissioner Allen: Correct. Mr. Moellenberg: As we all know, fixed interest rates were low, and they're significantly lower than the rate on those fixed rate bonds. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: But since the City can't redeem those bonds, it has this optional redemption provision that doesn't occur until 2006. The City, if it were to issue refunding bonds, couldn't take advantage of the savings in the market, so it went through the process that Linda described and solicited ideas from around the financial community. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: And those ideas were presented in a proposal as a response to an RFP (Request for Proposals), and the firm ofMorgan Stanley, represented by Ron Williams, who's here today, were selected because of their structure. It is the sale -- I'm sorry. Morgan Stanley is purchasing, and the City is selling, an option to enter into a swap contract in the future -- Commissioner Winton: Can you get closer to the mike, please? Mr. Moellenberg: -- when the bonds are callable and, at that time, the City will begin -- if Morgan Stanley exercises its option, the City will begin making fixed payments. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: So it's not entering into a situation where it has variable rate exposure or interest rate exposure in the future. It has a fixed payment that it's entering into at that time, and that fixed payment is much lower than the fixed payments on the bonds that are currently outstanding. In return, the City will be receiving -- and Morgan Stanley will be paying -- a variable rate. That's the swap. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: At that time in the future, this resolution also authorizes the City to issue variable rate bonds, and so those variable rate payments that the City will be receiving -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: -- will be going right out to pay variable rate on bonds. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: So, essentially, you're locking in a fixed rate refunding through the derivative markets that you can't in the bond market because of the timing. The call on those bonds are too City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 far into the future to effect any savings through a normal bond refunding, which you see often, you know, in the normal course of business. Commissioner Allen: Well, you know, clearly, I have a background in this. That's why I was asking. It appears to me that you guys are doing, perhaps, the most conservative type of swap transaction, it appears to me. Is -- would that be safe to say or conclude? Mr. Moellenberg: Yes. As you know, these bonds are taxable -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. Moellenberg: -- and so we're doing simply a LIBOR (London Inter -Bank Offer Rate) or a swap -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: -- and so, it's a very, very standard -- Commissioner Allen: Standard. Mr. Moellenberg: -- contractual arrangement, and the documents, in fact, that are attached to the resolution are the standard industry documents. Commissioner Allen: OK. OK. Chairman Sanchez: What are the downfalls, or the pitfalls, or the -- Mr. Moellenberg: Well, I guess one downfall is, now or in the future, fixed rates could be lower, and therefore, the City would have obtained more savings. Chairman Sanchez: But that's not predicted? Mr. Moellenberg: We're not in the business of predicting where interest rates are headed. We can say that the government Finance Officers Association says that a city should consider refunding its debt when it can obtain three percent net present value savings in a transaction. A fixed rate refunding, as I described to Commissioner Allen, doesn't obtain that objective. Chairman Sanchez: And in this case, this applies to the three percent savings? Mr. Moellenberg: Yeah. It actually exceeds -- in the current market, exceeds nine or ten percent present value savings. The six percent -- $6, 000, 000 that Linda spoke of is roughly a ten percent net present value saving, so it's significantly better than your standard fixed rate refunding. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Chairman, ifI could, please? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, you're recognized. Commissioner Allen: Could you give the Commissioners some idea about the termination provisions? Could you expound on that a bit? Vis-a-vis, as well as, with respect to Morgan Stanley's fee, with the impact -- the overall swap, or that sort of thing. Mr. Moellenberg: In the swap -- Commissioner Allen: The value of the overall swap. City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Moellenberg: -- Morgan Stanley will stand as principle, or counterparty, so they will be the contractual entity -- Commissioner Allen: Great. Mr. Moellenberg: -- in the agreement with the City. There aren't -- as you saw, there is a draft schedule which sets forth all of the termination events. It's typical in these transactions that if Morgan Stanley is downgraded significantly in its rating, or alternatively, the City is downgraded significantly in its rating, that one of those two parties could terminate. We have -- we're in the process of negotiations and, obviously, the schedule that you saw is a draft in, significantly, its final form, so we just have to go through the termination event, but needless to say, Morgan Stanley was selected in large part because of their strong credit rating, and so, it's likely that they wouldn't -- a termination event wouldn't occur. If a termination event were to occur and rates were to stay low, it's likely that the City would make a termination payment if one of the two parties were downgraded to that extent. However, if rates were to rise, it's likely that the termination payment would be significantly less than the $6, 000, 000 being received right now, and if rates were to rise significantly, there's a possibility that Morgan Stanley would actually have to pay to terminate. It all depends upon future interest rates. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: So there is a risk if interest rates stay very low and Morgan Stanley's credit rating is downgraded significantly, probably something like four or five notches from where it is today. Commissioner Winton: Is this termination for the life of the bond? Is this termination provision -- does it last for the life of the bond? Mr. Moellenberg: The termination event -- Commissioner Winton: So is it -- Mr. Moellenberg: -- the termination provision, as you described, is in the contract now, and would exist not only during this option period, but also during the swap period, so for the life of the bonds. In that instance, it's conceivable that there would be a termination payment either to or from the City. Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: And if the swap were terminated, the City would then have variable rate bonds, or interest rate exposure. Ms. Haskins: What -- in the Drexel Burnham days, when Drexel Burnham went under, what basically happened in the Drexel Burnham transactions is there was not a termination of their agreements. There was assignment of the agreements to other firms, so it -- even in the event of termination -- in a termination event, when you're dealing with firms this size, typically, there's an assignment to another firm, rather than a termination. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen and then -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was briefed by Linda yesterday and I understand the risk. I just wanted to say that the law of probability says that the City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 interest will go up instead of going down, so, you know, the risk that we're taking is very, very small. That's what I wanted to say. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Frankly speaking, I think Commissioner Regalado has just pretty much answered the question, butt guess -- let me just ask one last question, if you will step up again to the mike, please. Just for the purpose of my fellow Commissioners, with respect to the master swap agreement, obviously, the schedule to the master swap agreement, I believe you are changing some provisions; could you expound on that? Just for our sake, if you will, please. Mr. Moellenberg: I don't know of any provisions that will specifically be changed. I will say that the City and its bond counsel will likely enter into one more conference call, or two more conference call, and document review session for people to provide comments, so it's significantly in its final form, but it's subject to revision should any negotiations require such revisions, so -- and it is a schedule that we've looked at and we approved, but again, I think a couple of more -- it's a complicated transaction, so a couple of more conference calls to discuss the documents and to make sure everybody's comfortable with all the provisions, I think, would be wise. Ms. Haskins: The -- there cannot be changes that would make it worse for the City. We would have to come back to the City Commission. We can only negotiate better provisions. Commissioner Allen: Right. One last question, just for the purpose of the Commission and you'll be done. Just explain to the Commission, with respect to Morgan Stanley's fees vis-a-vis this deal. Mr. Moellenberg: OK. The benefit that Linda described and the benefit that you see before you is net of any fees ofMorgan Stanley. They won't be taking a fee on the transaction. RBC Dain Rauscher will take a fee on the transaction as swap advisor, and that provision is also attached. Our -- it's called our Advisory Scope Letter. The scope of services that we're providing are included as an attachment to your resolution, so we are receiving a fee. Morgan Stanley, on the other hand, as swap counterparty, or swap principle, will be establishing an interest rate and a payment level for the swap on the day the swap is executed at the current market. We, as swap advisor, will be providing to the City an opinion that says the pricing is fair. Swaps like equities, like stocks, are priced on a bid/ask, and we will provide a fairness opinion that the Morgan Stanley offer is within that bid/ask range, and that it's fair. Ms. Haskins: Could -- Jon, could you talk about the fees that were negotiated with Morgan Stanley on the refunding of the bonds? Mr. Moellenberg: And I don't have the exact dollars, but they've also agreed that, in 2006, when the City starts to receive variable interest rate payments, that they would underwrite the variable rate bonds. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Moellenberg: And -- Commissioner Allen: So just to be clear, we're moving, you know, fixed versus variable. At some point in the future, we'll be under the variable rate provisions. Mr. Moellenberg: You'll be receiving variable -- Commissioner Allen: Receiving variable -- City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Moellenberg: -- and paying variable. Commissioner Allen: -- rate funds, right. That's correct. Mr. Moellenberg: But the net effect is -- Commissioner Allen: Effect is -- Mr. Moellenberg: -- that you'll still be in a fixed rate instrument. Commissioner Allen: A fixed, right, so we won't go below -- could you give us some -- can you quantify that? We won't go below what, 7.1 or something? I mean, give me -- is it safe to throw out a figure or what? Ms. Haskins: The -- Commissioner Allen: Linda. Ms. Haskins: -- what our fixed rate is -- our -- in -- on our fixed rate, if we did the entire amount just in a swaption, would be about 6.35 percent, is what we're bringing our effective rate to. With a combination of -- on the better scenario, with the combination of the option and selling a call right, we believe we would be at a net fixed rate of somewhere a little bit south of six percent versus the 7.11 percent we're at today. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Haskins: I think the other value in this bond, which is not really -- we haven't quantified it in the write-up because we didn't feel like we could put it as a firm savings because, in December 2006, if rates are higher than they are today, the swaption might not be entered into, but we've negotiated fees for the refinance. Typically, what you see in the municipal bond market is a charge from the underwriters at $5 per bond. Morgan Stanley has agreed to a fee of $1.95 a bond. There's also a remarketing fee. In the case of variable rate bonds, the bonds are remarketed every three months as the interest rates -- as -- to reflect changes in interest rates. Remarketing fee is typically in the 15 to 18 basis points range. We've negotiated a rate with Morgan Stanley of eight percent. On that part of the transaction, as well as the other dynamics of it from the financial side, we're very excited. We want Bond Buyer to write about our deal because I think we did a -- we got a good deal for the City all the way around. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I concur. I really -- yes, I'm done. Chairman Sanchez: Any other questions? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Linda, you confused me on something you said. You said, in 2006, if interest rates go up, what? Ms. Haskins: Well, this is what happens, and this is -- we didn't have a chance to meet face-to-face but, right now, Morgan Stanley has agreed to pay us because we're giving them the option to ask us to enter into an interest rate swap with them in December 2006, and that's worth something for them; they're going to pay us for that. What happens in December 2006 is the first time the bonds become callable, and that's the time that Morgan Stanley must exercise their City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 option. Chairman Sanchez: And -- Ms. Haskins: So, if interest rates -- if fixed rates of interest are higher than they are today, there's a likelihood that Morgan Stanley would not enter into the agreement because, remember, we're agreeing -- in December 2006, if they enter into this agreement with us, we're agreeing to pay them a fixed rate, but if fixed rates are higher than they are today, they don't want that from us, so if they don't exercise the option, they still have to pay us the $4, 600, 000. We still locked in the lower rate. Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. Got it, got it. OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any further discussion on the item? Hearing none, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, Chair. We've gotten ahead of ourself [sic]. I need a motion and a second. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Winton, second by -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Madam Clerk, I apologize. Hearing no discussion, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously. Unanimously. RE.2 04-01166 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-0516, ADOPTED JULY 29, 2004, RELATING TO JOB ORDER CONTRACTS APPROVED FOR SEVEN (7) CONTRACTING FIRMS IDENTIFIED THEREIN, TO CORRECT THE CONTRACT AMOUNTS LISTED FOR INDIVIDUAL AND COMBINED CONTRACTS OVER THE INITIAL TERM AND ONE RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACTS RESULTING IN A COMBINED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58,000,000, FOR ALL CONTRACTORS FOR THE SPECIFIED PERIOD; CLARIFYING CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT RENEWALS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECT ACCOUNTS, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-01166-cover memo.pdf 04-01166-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01166-pre resolution.pdf 04-01166-award. pdf 04-01166-procurement.pdf 04-01166-addendum 1. pdf 04-01166-add a nd u m2. pdf 04-01166-add a nd u m3. pdf 04-01166-project manual.pdf Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Winton and Regalado R-04-0699 Chairman Sanchez: Moving right along, correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk, but we go to RE.2. OK, RE.2. Mary Conway (Director, Capital Improvements & Transportation): Again, Mary Conway. RE.2 is an amendment to an item that was previously passed at the July 29th City Commission. This item is the piggyback on the City ofMiami Beach job order contract. When this item was brought before the Commission previously, it was incorrectly drafted, in that it had used an incorrect total. The City ofMiami Beach contract allowed for five contractors at a $5, 000, 000 annual value; two job contractors at a $2, 000, 000 annual value, and did provide for four additional one-year renewals that would bring the aggregate total from 29, 000, 000 to 145, 000, 000. It was not presented correctly at the July 29th meeting. This item is requesting an amendment to allow those one-year renewals, and if you'll -- Commissioner Winton: Is that what we missed -- left out, was the one-year renewals? Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Conway: And -- Commissioner Winton: And these are on Miami Beach's contracts? Ms. Conway: It's the exact piggyback of the Miami Beach job contract that was allowed previously, and this item is also clarifying the renewal method, specifically stating that -- in compliance with the terms of the Miami Beach contract, that the renewal options are affected by the City Manager, subject, of course, to continued satisfactory performance by the job contractors, and to the availability of funds when the maximum annual value of the contract is reached, or when the one-year period has expired, whichever occurs first. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: I do believe we spoke on yesterday and I had some concerns. Do you recall those questions, and -- Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- have you been able to provide information pursuant to that, or -- City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- so could you -- Ms. Conway: One of the con -- Commissioner Allen: -- answer the several concerns -- Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- that I had, please? Ms. Conway: One of the concerns that you had raised was regarding the ability, through this contract, to employ people in the local neighborhoods and local community. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Conway: The City does have -- the only mechanism available to the City right now is the first source hiring program, which applies to the prime contractor, and the City does have the ability for the prime contractor to impose the first source hiring requirements, so that provision does exist. Commissioner Allen: Right, because my concern is, these contractors, I believe you're asking for a seven-year -- five-year, I'm sorry. Ms. Conway: This is five. Commissioner Allen: Five-year. Ms. Conway: One year with four year -- four -- Commissioner Allen: One year with -- yeah. Ms. Conway: -- one-year renewals. Commissioner Allen: Right. With the four-year option -- with the option of revision offour additional years, correct? Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Right, and I looked at some of their projects. They're actually -- they're taking place -- a great many of them are taking place in District 5, which is my district, so my concern there is making sure that those individuals that are residents of District 5 are employed, or have some ability to participate in this activity that's taking place, and what I was requesting was something not just simply tantamount to aspirational. Maybe we could really make sure this comes to fruition with some level of employment because of the statistical evidence in my disfrict; high unemployment and the like. Ms. Conway: I'll defer to the City Attorney. Commissioner Allen: Comment to that. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): As Ms. Conway has stated, the County has a program in place where the prime contractor would be asked to take into account the local workforce. Much beyond that, we cannot guarantee employment through these contracts to any given City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 number or any given percentage of people. The expectations are that they will comply with the City's plan or program that we have in place for them to employ locals. Ms. Conway: And the Chief Procurement Officer just reminded me that when the contractor signed accepting the terms of the piggyback on the Miami Beach contract for the City ofMiami, that they did agree to minority and local participation as part of accepting the piggyback for the City ofMiami. Commissioner Allen: And you will assure this Commission that you'll place some quality control in place to make sure that comes to fruition? Ms. Conway: Yes, and we can generate reports and report back, and then I'd also like to add that -- and just to clarify -- this is requesting authority, but this does not necessarily mean that the job order contracting will be the delivery method for $145, 000, 000 worth of contracts. We're still looking at other contract delivery methods, going through our standard procurement processes, so while we're requesting this authority so that we're exactly duplicating the terms of the Miami Beach contract, if job order contracting for a particular project or projects is not the most time- or cost-effective deliver method, then it won't be utilized, and the spreadsheet that was provided to you that listed projects will be subject to change, and projects may be added or removed from that if there's a superior delivery method. Commissioner Allen: Right, and that's a perfect answer because you would understand an ordinary layperson, when they see something of this effect that's being extended for a long length of time, it makes it appear as if no one will ever be able to compete and to offer their services, so Ms. Conway: Of course. Commissioner Allen: -- so that's our concern, and that's my concern as we expressed with you on yesterday. Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: So thank you. All right. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton and then Commissioner Regalado on the item. Commissioner Winton: Both Mary and Commissioner Allen, this -- one of the things I found in this job thing we've been working on with the general confractors, the developers of the high-rises in downtown Miami -- and to be quite clear here, the people that are getting hired in these jobs do not live in District 2, because I don't have the same problem. The people that are being hired live in, principally, in your district and Commissioner Gonzalez's district, and Commissioner Sanchez's district, which is the objective because that's where unemployment is high, and the jobs are being created in District 2 in these high-rise developments, and what I have found is if we have a mechanism to encourage these people to -- they're willing. They're willing participants. The problem is that this stupid agency called South Florida Workforce Development, or whatever the hell it's called, that receives millions and millions every year has the stupidest rules you've ever seen in your life, and we can't get people to work. It's infuriating. We take a few volunteers; meet with the general contractors. They need workers. They need workers. South Florida Workforce can't figure out how to connect the workers to the jobs. We're doing it ourselves, as volunteers, so two points, I guess. One, get off my soapbox; the other is the real part. If our City staff works with these general confractors and urges them and makes some connections to some of the neighborhood activists, you could get -- we'll get people hired absolutely for sure, but the other thing that we're all going to work on together is the war we're going to have with South Florida Workforce -- I'll show -- I'll distribute a letter soon that City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 we're going to launch because we are going to start a war with them because what they're doing in our city, and I suspect in a lot of cities, is absolutely, as far as I'm concerned, criminal. They've got what, $40, 000, 000 a year, and we get nothing, except -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner, you're recognized. Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: 100, 000, 000. Commissioner Winton: OK, whatever. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: I told you so five years ago, remember? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Remember? OK Just want to find out, does Miami Beach have a living wage ordinance? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Ms. Conway: The City attorneys are saying yes. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so I guess we'll be OK with this because they have to pay those employees the living wage, which is $9.35 an hour. Ms. Conway: I would have to double-check if that's actually a provision in this contract. I'm not sure if it does -- Commissioner Regalado: What do you mean it's a provision? Ms. Conway -- or if it applies across the board. Commissioner Regalado: It has to be a provision. If there is -- Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yeah. I don't know if it's $9.35, but it does have -- Commissioner Regalado: Living wage -- Mr. Arriola: -- a living -- yeah -- Commissioner Winton: The City Attorney should provide -- there's -- this isn't a debate. There is an answer to this. Let the City Attorney answer the question. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, it is. They have it in place. Now, the exact amount, I don't know whether it's 9.35, or 9.65, or whatever the amount is, but they have one in place. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. It's tailored to the one in the County. The County and Miami Beach have 9.35 with medical and 10.15 without medical. That's what the County, I think -- I'm not exactly sure, but that's -- 9.35, something like that, the living wage. City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Well, who cares what the number is -- Mr. Fernandez: To the extent that we're piggybacking -- Commissioner Regalado: But -- Commissioner Winton: -- if they have the problem. Commissioner Regalado: But the point is that it will be nice to check if those companies are paying those people -- because they got the contract to Miami Beach, so they have to go by the Living Wage Ordinance. Commissioner Winton: Well, the question is, are they required to, and that's the question in my mind. Commissioner Regalado: The question is -- Commissioner Winton: Are they required -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. The question -- Commissioner Winton: If we piggyback -- Commissioner Regalado: They are required. Commissioner Winton: -- are they required to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that? Commissioner Regalado: They are required, but now, on piggyback, if they are required -- Commissioner Winton: That's the question, right. Commissioner Regalado: -- to pay the living wage -- Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Mr. Arriola: It's in there, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Arriola: The living wage is in there is what I'm saying. Commissioner Winton: We know that. Mr. Arriola: We are adjusting that. The other thing I wanted to tell you that, in regards to you, NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) is putting a job fair in -- I think it's in March, where we're going to bring all these contractors together to do a job fair, which will include, probably, your district, your district and Commissioner Sanchez's district to put workers with the people that are doing business in the City ofMiami. Commissioner Winton: But that's a -- Mr. Arriola: I know. Commissioner Winton: -- that's a one-shot deal -- City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Arriola: I agree with you, sir. Commissioner Winton: -- and what has to be going is seven days a week. That's when it works. Mr. Arriola: I couldn't agree with you more. Chairman Sanchez: Any further questions? I do. Mary, this is a 145, 000, 000 in unbid contracts, correct? Ms. Conway: I'm sorry? Chairman Sanchez: 145, 000, 000 in unbid contracts for five years. Ms. Conway: They were bid through the City -- they were competitively bid through the City of Miami Beach, and we're piggybacking on those competitively bid contracts. Chairman Sanchez: The -- all of us up here want to get all the confracts done as quickly as possible, you know. It's not to argue otherwise. I think that, just for the point of clarification and all transparency as to the amendment being made here, on July the 29th, when this was presented to the Commission and approved, it was 29, 000, 000 -- Unidentified Speaker: One year. Chairman Sanchez: -- for one year, OK. Ms. Conway: For one year and it referenced the one-year amendments. It just did not include the aggregate total, you're correct. Chairman Sanchez: And the minor correction -- so we call it a minor correction now -- on this resolution (UNINTELLIGIBLE), we would give two contractors 10, 000, 000 over five years, and five confracts 25, 000, 000 over five years. Ms. Conway: If they're able to satisfactorily perform, the possibility exists. Chairman Sanchez: Exact -- Ms. Conway: It's not a mandate, and ifI just might add that we're exactly piggybacking the terms of the City ofMiami Beach confract, but right now, there are two of these five contractors who the City is unable to utilize because they have not been able to meet bonding requirements, and so, while we are piggybacking the exact terms of the Miami Beach confract, we will not necessarily use all of this authority, or even a significant portion of the authority, depending on the firm's ability to deliver and whether they're satisfactorily performing for the City. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Now, one concern that I do have and I think it's a good argument to make and that needs to be addressed is, how are we going to make sure that these contractors, as we have learned in the past through the experience of all the Commissioners here, that once we provide them the work, that the work -- I mean, you're basically -- or you've given then already -- let's say for the sake of argument, you're giving two contractors $10, 000, 000 over five years, OK -- that those contractors are providing the best possible service to the City. In other words -- Commissioner Allen: Quality service. Chairman Sanchez: -- we will be monitoring them to make sure that if they don't provide the adequate service as so requested or so demanded by whatever agreement we make by them, that we could turn them off or how does it work? City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Conway: Yes, and we're not ex -- and also to clarify, we're not executing a $25, 000, 000 contract or a $10, 000, 000 contract with any of these firms. We're executing tap -- project by project, so if they do not successfully perform on one project, they will not be assigned any further projects. Chairman Sanchez: Well, I just want to make sure that we do have checks and balances in place Ms. Conway: I understand. Chairman Sanchez: -- to make sure, because let me just state it on the record very clearly here. Not only am I the Chair of the Commission, but I'm also the Chair of the CIP project that are going on in the districts, and not only in my district, the entire city, and I want to make sure through your expertise and your leadership in your department to make sure that we have all the necessary mechanisms in place to make sure that we accomplish what we want to accomplish because, you know, it was great -- I said it years ago when we passed the bond, and I said, "Great. We got the bond," and then I said, "Wow. What do we do now?" Because, you know, there's a lot of projects going out there, and people need to realize that just as Commissioner Allen looked through the -- his page to see his items, I look through mine and make sure that mine were being done, and there's always that concern that the level of service by these contractors are there to make sure that we do things in the best interest of the City, so I want that assurance from you, being that I do have the utmost respect for you and I think you are a true professional, but I'm very worried about taking this leap offaith, which is a giant leap offaith of $145, 000, 000 to contractors in five years. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: I'm very concerned about it. Commissioner Allen: And, Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Chairman Sanchez: I'll yield to you, Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Yes. I, frankly, concur with your concerns, as well. That was one of my concerns, and we've had a lengthy discussion on yesterday -- Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- in addition to the previous concerns that we've addressed. I would assume that, generally or overall, you are looking to create a more expedient delivery process, right, with respect to spending the bond money for construction projects. That's the whole purpose of this, right? To -- Ms. Conway: For the short-term, yes. Commissioner Allen: For the short-term, so we -- Ms. Conway: For the short-term, yes, that's correct. Commissioner Allen: That's the entire objective of this, correct? Ms. Conway: Of using this job order contract, yes. Commissioner Allen: Right, and you found that it was successful in the Miami Beach format or City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 paradigm, correct? Ms. Conway: They've used it very successfully, but again, it's not a one -size -fits -all. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Conway: This is not used by the City ofMiami Beach for every project; it's more suitable to some projects than to others, and that's why we're continuing to work on other contract delivery methods to make sure that we've got all the right tools, depending on a specific project. Commissioner Allen: Right, and the chairperson's concern, with respect to the quality of work, is a great concern on my part because, once you give someone an opportunity ad infinitum, for lack of a better description, they can just slough off on the job because they know there's no other competitor, so what's the quality assurance in place? Where are the quality controls? Is there anything that you can tell us that's a hard and fast rule at this point -- Ms. Conway: That's -- Commissioner Allen: -- to satisfy the chairperson, as well as myself? Ms. Conway: That's a hard and fast rule as we stand here today, no, but what the CIP Office is working on is similar to what's been done at other agencies, such as the Florida Department of Transportation, which is a consultant grading and a contractor grading system, so that we're formulizing and tracking the performance. We've also discussed previously where we have contactors who are not performing, that we'll be working with the procurement and legal offices regarding debarment, so those firms will not be able to bid again on City ofMiami work, so we are working to put the checks and balances into place. Commissioner Allen: And this will be all incorporated or annexed to this existing agreement, or Ms. Conway: No. These are across-the-board controls that we're putting in place for all projects and all contracts. Commissioner Allen: Any timeline on that, when you expect to do that, or it's just in a conceptual stage at this point, or what? Ms. Conway: I think we ought to be able to come back to the Commission within 60 days with a draft plan to report back. Commissioner Allen: To report back within 60 days. City Manager. Chairman Sanchez: Let's have the City Manager, then the City Attorney, and Mary, we'll go back to you on this one. Mr. Arriola: Let me give you a typical example. I -- we -- Commissioner Gonzalez and I went through some very bad experience in some roads -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We're still going through -- Mr. Arriola: Well -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- some very bad experience. Mr. Arriola: Yeah, but -- City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: So you know for your knowledge -- Mr. Arriola: We're having the baby now. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: So you know for your knowledge, a group of residents are getting together to either come to the Commission or to come to the Mayor's Office to see if we can finally finish that project. Mr. Arriola: I know that. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Fire the contractor. They want someone's head. At this point, they want someone's head. Mr. Arriola: And I don't blame them. You know what we've been through. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And, you know, it's been eight months -- Mr. Arriola: Oh, it's horrible. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- too much -- Mr. Arriola: The whole idea was that, when we bid that contract, we only had one contract in place, and you and I discussed, you know, to fire the guy and bring another -- it's been a horrible, horrible experience. One of the things that you're having with this delivery thing is that you have four or five people lined up; that if somebody were to miss or not do the job correctly, you would immediately have somebody to back it up, fire that group and bring another group within a very short period of time, which we did not have, as you know. We didn't have the ability to fire the guy and, you know, and bring somebody else right away. We had to kind of digest it. Now, with this delivery service, if somebody fails, you could fire him, and you have somebody that can go and take over within a period of days, which we didn't have before. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you. I -- Mr. Chairman. I was -- when I received these calls this morning, I was thinking about the process. You know, I -- by the way, I requested from your office, you know -- and I don't know -- I know that you don't like me to get into these type of issues, but it's my responsibility. As Commissioner Regalado said early, we are the ones that have to respond to the people, and we have to put everything out in the air so everybody knows what is going on, OK I request from your office information about who are the consultants that we have hired; how many projects are they handling; how much money is costing us per consultant, per project in each project; who are the architects; who are the engineers; how much money we're paying these companies; what is the return back that we're getting in production from all of these companies. I requested all of that information, and I told via e-mail from my office thatl wanted that information for today's meeting. Still, 11:30 in the morning andl don't have it, so -- but let me tell you. I was thinking this morning, in my district, Florida Department of Transportation has done three or four projects. You know one thing that Florida Department of Transportation does? And some of these ladies came from Florida Department of Transportation. Apparently, they didn't work on the same type of system. They assign a person to each project to be in constant contact with the neighbors, or with the business people and, you know, and keep the community informed of the progress of the job, the difficulties, but at least the people are talking to somebody. We, as the City, are spending millions of dollars in consultants, millions of dollars in architects, millions of consultants and designers that, by the way, the biggest screw up that had in my district was caused by the designer that designed this project -- that designed the project wrong, OK If you go on 19th Terrace, you see these drains - - one, you see them here; at the other one, you see them here, you know. It's a total disaster, but the point is that we are approving this amount of money and I don't know what projects this City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 money is going to cover; when they're going to begin; where they're going to end because, you know, we go through the exercise of asking money -- you know, for our administration, they feel good when they know that they can -- they have $20, 000, 000, $40, 000, 000, $100, 000, 000 to spend, and that make them feel good, but they don't do anything to spend it and to spend it right, and to put projects out there right away. The bonds were approved back in 2001. We are in 2004. In my district, I've been crying for projects for three years, and I'm talking about building one single block, one single block and I can't get it done, OK. What I'm going through now, I don't -- you know, I hope none of you have to go through what I'm going through now in my district, in Grapeland Heights. It's a total, total disaster. I have to thank the Manager that now him personally, him personally is going every week to talk to the contractor, and to talk to the people that are working there to make sure that this project is finished because, you know, they're giving me completion dates. They gave me a completion date of September, and when I look at it -- and I'm not an engineer. I'm not an architect. I don't know how to build roads, but I have eyes and I have a little bit of common sense, and when I saw what was going on in there, and I told them, "Well, you know, let's say that you're going to finish in October. Forget about September. I'll be happy if it's done in October." Guess what? Now, we're told that if we have good luck, it may be completed by Thanksgiving, and other people are saying that it might be completed by the beginning of next year, and we're talking about one single road. We're not talking about doing an entire neighborhood; it's one single road. That -- the project was composed of two roads. Instead of fixing one first, and then start to fix the other one, OK, they removed the asphalt; they removed sidewalks, everything, on both streets, and it's been eight months. Mr. Arriola: I got to tell you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And it's still counting. Mr. Arriola: He can -- whatever he says, multiply it by two because I've been there. It has been the most frustrating thing -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: So you have an idea -- Mr. Arriola: -- we've ever been -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- what these people have done. Commissioner Winton: Right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: They have dumped -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- materials all over the neighborhood. If you have a house five blocks away from this project, they're dumping gravel and they're dumping sand in front of your house on your grass, on your Swale area, and that is being done in the entire section between 17th Street and 20th Street, from 30th Avenue to 37th Avenue. It's totally, totally -- you know, and I keep talking about it and talking about it, and I'm so frustrated because I don't know what to tell these people. I have walked house -to -house frying to give these people some consolation; trying to tell them that we're on top of it, that we're going to finish soon, that we're -- but, Johnny, you know, colleagues, I don't even want to -- and I live in -- and you know what? I live in that neighborhood and people are coming to my door -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- knocking on my door, on Sundays, at night, demanding -- with all City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 the right in the world because they have all the right to demand -- and nothing is getting done. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Point well taken. Commissioner Allen and then -- Commissioner Allen: In light of what you expressed earlier, Commissioner Sanchez, as well as hearing Commissioner Gonzalez, let me turn to you. Is the objective of this particular reso -- resolution, is it a time sensitive matter? Ms. Conway: For the first year renewal, it would be a time sensitive matter. The way that the provisions are laid out, it's stated that whenever the maximum annual value is reached, or the 12-month period, whichever comes first, this spreadsheet identified projects for several of the contractors that would exceed the annual authority, so in that regard, it would be for the allowance of the first renewal. Chairman Sanchez: So, on that regard, we could -- this legislative body could approve the first year, $29, 000, 000, and maybe -- Ms. Conway: The first year renewal? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, the first -- Commissioner Allen: Yes. Ms. Conway: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- year reunion [sic] -- and then come -- renewal and come back and maybe entertain and find ways -- Ms. Conway: If and when subsequent renewals -- Commissioner Allen: Correct. Ms. Conway: -- are needed, yes. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen: That's my concern because I'm hearing some different opinions here -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: -- and -- Chairman Sanchez: That could be an option of the -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commission. Is there a motion to approve RE.2, or is there a motion to approve the first year -- yes, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: On the companies, Mary, do we have a record of performance of these companies in Miami Beach? Ms. Conway: Yes. They have all been performing satisfactorily in Miami Beach, and they have City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 been receiving repeat assignments in Miami Beach. Commissioner Regalado: Back to FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation), why is it that we cannot use the same standards that FDOT uses -- Ms. Conway: We -- Commissioner Regalado: -- for projects? Ms. Conway: We can as far as the pay items, the specifications. That was not a City past practice. That was not the practice when the project in Commissioner Gonzalez district was designed and put out for bid. At this point, it's probably close to two years ago. That was not the past practice. It is the practice now. All of the projects that are being designed now, all of the specifications, all of the contract documents are following those standardized specifications so we do not have a repeat of 19th Terrace. Commissioner Regalado: And 16th Terrace. Ms. Conway: And many other street projects -- Chairman Sanchez: And many other street and terrace -- Ms. Conway: -- that have been under construction in the last -- Commissioner Regalado: And -- Chairman Sanchez: -- and avenues, and -- OK. Listen, we've debated this long enough. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: Because, you know, they're not working on 16th Terrace today. I don't know why. Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I hope you realize that by approving this item as it sits in front of you right now, you are not obligated to, in fact, proceed to spend the entire amount of money with any of these confractors. This is giving you the widest possible range of options so that staff can expeditiously proceed to do the projects they need to do, either by going through these confractors, which would be in place, or by them procuring separately, in years out as they would have more time, better options and better contracts and, you know, that type of thing, so my understanding -- and correct me, Ms. Conway, if we're on the same page -- is that this is giving the most flexibility to the administration to do the task that you expect them to do, but that it doesn't necessarily obligate them to either use a contractor that doesn't perform, or to use confractors if the deal that, you know, is being offered, they can get a better one through other procurement germane to the City, originated by the City, that they wouldn't do that, and certainly, the critical year is this year that we're presently in, but as years roll out, the City would have better opportunities to compare and contrast, and fry to get even a better deal for the City, not obligating it to -- Ms. Conway: That's correct. That's correct, and again, the way that this is drafted is just to exactly mirror the way the Miami Beach contract was set up. City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Right, andMr. Chairman, ifI may. So, Mr. Attorney, we aren't giving these particular contracts or creating for them some sort of legal right or expectation of contracts going forward whereby they can come back and say, "Look, we had somewhat of a right to be entitled to do work on this particular project." Thus, creating a legal right, and there we find ourselves in litigation. Mr. Fernandez: No. These -- in essence, by doing this, we're putting them on notice that we have the option to use them, and that the way has been cleared by way of the authorization, or the passage of this resolution that you have in front of you, but they don't have an absolute expectation that they would be given that much work over the next five years. Commissioner Allen: Right. Madam City Staff -- OK, so you're asking for us to extend an option with respect to these seven contractors for an additional five-year period. There's been discussion on the dais that's here with respect to, perhaps -- respect to the issues that are time sensitive, the ongoing projects, this one-year period, maybe we could come back at a later date to address the other issues concerning extending the period. Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Could you comment to that? Would that be -- Ms. Conway: Well, I'd like to just comment on the last discussion, which is the contract very explicitly states that any renewals are at the City's sole discretion, so there is absolutely no obligation for there to be any renewals, and then regarding your question just now, if the Commission wanted to make an amendment to the resolution as it's proposed, to allow the first -year extension, that would be sufficient for the projects that are identified as we stand here today to allow those projects to move forward, if the Commission was comfortable with that. Chairman Sanchez: So for the point of clarification, nothing forces us to renew after a new if we don't like the service, the way they're going. In other words, it's a five-year deal, but if we don't like how things are going after the first year, we could always -- there's a clause in there to terminate service, correct? Ms. Conway: Yes, and in addition to that, we do not have to -- again, we are not signing a contract for a full $5, 000, 000 or $2, 000, 000; it's specifically tied to projects. Chairman Sanchez: We've debated this back and forth. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: I think that, for the sake of harmony and for the sake of moving forward in a very voluminous agenda, I think that maybe someone needs to make a motion to renew the first year and get things going, and continue to work out and hammer out the rest; see how things go and maybe bring it back and see -- because some of the concerns expressed by the Commissioners are that some of these contractors aren't providing the adequate service, and it just creates an incredible inconvenience, not only for us, because when we get the calls, of course, we call you, so I think that for the sake of harmony and moving the City forward, I think that we -- I would love to have someone entertain a motion as to renew the first year, and later on, have the administration come back with the additional four years to be approved by this legislation -- legislative body. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: Is there a motion? City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Conway: IfI -- Commissioner Allen: Yes. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would move to make a motion mimicking exactly what you just said with respect to the time sensitive issues going forward right now, that one-year period, and then, of course, the administration can come back to us at a later date with respect to the additional four-year that's been requested by City staff. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before we do that, let's get a second on the floor. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: It is second. OK. Mary, you're recognized. Ms. Conway: Just one point of clarification. What was before you was the first year and four one-year renewals. Mr. Fernandez: Options. Ms. Conway: Options. What we would like to see is the first year and the first year option. Commissioner Allen: I see, so you're -- Ms. Conway: Not the following three, just the first -year option. Commissioner Allen: First year option, so therefore -- thus, a minimum of two years, in effect. Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: Mary, the motion that's on the floor, could I amend something to it to request that you provide us with a monthly report as to the projects that are moving forward? Ms. Conway: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: I believe you -- do you do that now? Ms. Conway: Yes, we do, and we also will -- the spreadsheet that was specifically set up for the job contracts, we'll continue to provide that to you on a monthly basis. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. OK. Any further discussion on the item? It is a resolution. It doesn't require a four fifths vote. There's three Commissioners on the dais. There's a motion and a second. Well, we could vote on it. It doesn't need a four fifths vote. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): No, it doesn't. Commissioner Allen: It doesn't, right. Chairman Sanchez: No. It's a resolution. Commissioner Allen: It's a resolution. Chairman Sanchez: It said a resolution amending an amendment. OK. All in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously, 3/0. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairperson. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Just for our record purposes, I want to make sure that we state on the record that this has been modified. Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. Commissioner Allen: That's correct. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Modified. Mr. City Attorney, anything you want to add to the record? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, and make sure that it's modified to be the first year and the first year's option. Commissioner Allen: Correct. Chairman Sanchez: As stated by the City Attorney on the record. All right. RE.3 04-01169 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH MINNESOTA MUTUAL, THE TOP -RANKED FIRM IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 03-04-078, PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 04-0675, ADOPTED OCTOBER 14, 2004, FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFIT LIFE AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT PLANS, FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL TWO-YEAR PERIODS EACH. 04-01169-cover memo.pdf 04-01169-memo.pdf 04-01169-Substitute Cover Memo.pdf 04-01169-exhibit Contract.pdf Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Winton and Regalado R-04-0700 Chairman Sanchez: Moving right along -- thank you -- we go to RE.3. We could still get through some of these items. RE.3. City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: I move to adopt RE.3. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a second, but also, I'd like to put -- you need to put something on record. Always -- as the Chair, I'm requiring that the administration put something on the record as to what we're voting on. Ramona Fiumara: Ramona Fiumara, Assistant Director of Risk Management. This item is asking for permission to negotiate the attached agreement. We did substitute the wording. Originally, as it reads here, states "in a form acceptable to the City Attorney," and we did send a substitute that says "as in the form attached." We provided you with the agreement, so we're asking for permission to execute that agreement. Chairman Sanchez: OK. This --All right. There's a motion and a second. It is a resolution. No further debate from the Commission. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Not debate, discussion. Commissioner Allen: Discussion. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" Hearing none, it passes. Motion carries. RE.4 04-01088 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO LEADERSHIP GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY OF OVERTOWN FOR TRANSPORTATION -RELATED PROJECTS, THROUGH JUNE 31, 2006, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $57,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "OVERTOWN TECHNICAL SUPPORT FUND," APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 04-0565, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 9, 2004, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 04-01088-cover memo.pdf 04-01088-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01088-textfile report.pdf 04-01088-master report.pdf 04-01088-ag reement. pdf 04-01088-project description.pdf 04-01088-estimated annual project cost.pdf 04-01088-general.pdf 04-01088-exhibit PSA.pdf 04-01088-exh i bit2. pdf 04-01088-exh i bit4. pdf 04-01088-Substitute-Exhibit 3.pdf City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0701 Chairman Sanchez: RE.4. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move RE.4. Chairman Sanchez: RE. -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- 4 is -- it's a resolution. There is a motion and a second. I just have one question on that, and could someone answer the question: Has FIU (Florida International University) turned in all the necessary required paperwork for this? Hello? Anyone from the admimistration? This is the -- Mary Conway (Director, Capital Improvements & Transportation): Agreement between the City ofMiami and Florida International University. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Does the University ofMiami -- no, I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: FIU. Chairman Sanchez: FIU has turned -- Commissioner Allen: FIU. Chairman Sanchez: -- all the necessary documents in? Ms. Conway: Yes, and there is --I believe, it's -- here is Attachment B to be handed out to you, that is a slight modification from what was there before. Chairman Sanchez: So this resolution needs to be amended then? No? Ms. Conway: No. The resolution, as it stands, is accurate, but we are substituting, or amending, Attachment B. Chairman Sanchez: So it's an attachment? Ms. Conway: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There was a -- Madam Clerk, there was a motion and a second? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): That is correct. Chairman Sanchez: It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" Motion carries unanimously. City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 RE.5 04-01046 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND IN FAVOR OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ("COVENANT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO PROVIDE FOR: (1) LIMITATIONS ON FUELING TO LESSEES OF THE DOCKING FACILITIES AND PUBLIC AGENCY VESSELS; (2) RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF POWERBOATS LESS THAN ONE -HUNDRED FEET IN LENGTH THAT CAN BE MOORED AT THE FLAGSTONE ISLAND GARDENS MARINA FACILITY CONCURRENTLY; (3) RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF VESSELS MOORED AT THE FACILITY TO FIFTY (50) CONCURRENTLY; AND (4) RESTRICTION THAT SERVICE VESSELS CAN ONLY OPERATE WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE DOCKING FACILITY, WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN SAID COVENANT. 04-01046-cover memo.pdf 04-01046-exh ibitA. pdf 04-01046-exh ibitB. pdf 04-01046-exh ibitC. pdf 04-01046-exhibit agenda review form.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentA.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentB.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentC.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentD.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentE.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentG.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentH.pdf 04-01046-exhibit attachmentl.pdf 04-01046-Substitute Cover Memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0702 Direction to the Administration by Commissioner Winton to provide the Commission with periodic status reports of the progress of the Watson Island projects. Chairman Sanchez: All right. We move on to -- Commissioner Winton: We're finished. Chairman Sanchez: -- RE.5. RE.5 was not deferred, was it? Laura Billberry (Assistant Director, Economic Development): Yes. RE.5 is before you. Chairman Sanchez: It's before us? Ms. Billberry: Mmm-hmm. Chairman Sanchez: OK. City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: It's before us, right. Chairman Sanchez: It's a resolution. Go ahead, ma'am. Ms. Billberry: Lori Billberry with Economic Development. This is a resolution to allow the City Manager to execute a covenant to run with the land in connection with the DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) permit that's going to be issued for the Mega Yacht project on Watson Island, and it places certain conditions on the operations for the marina. We did distribute to you this morning a substitute resolution. Basically, we deleted a condition in the resolution that required DERM to agree in writing to release the covenant in the event the DERV permit expires or terminates, and construction does not take place. DERM does not have the authority to execute a release, as that must be approved by the County Commission. Therefore, we're deleting this as a condition in the resolution. We, additionally, will be substituting the Exhibit C to the covenant. DERM is providing amended backup that will delete reference to Flagstone at this point because they do not currently have a lease interest in the property, and the City will be the permitee on the property with the permit. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Allen: So move. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: We move on to -- Commissioner Winton: Could we -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: -- get a quick update in terms of where this project is from a development standpoint? Ms. Billberry: I do have Joe Herndon here with me also today from Flagstone. The Major Use Special Permit, as you may have heard, has been -- an appeal has been filed in the courts, and we are currently working with the Law Department and Flagstone's attorneys on that case. We are moving forward with all the permits, though, as far as the marina permits. This approval will allow us to go before the County Commission. They're frying to get us on the November 30th agenda, and then the Corps permit, hopefully, by December, we'll be getting that finalized. Commissioner Winton: Does the -- Mr. City Attorney, does the filing and the suit in opposition to our approval of the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) stop the project? City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): No. Commissioner Winton: Well, they can keep -- they just keep moving forward, right? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, arguably. Commissioner Winton: And so, are they and are we, or are we -- Ms. Billberry: We are continuing to move forward on many of the due diligence items. I think they're going to probably want to limit their actual expenditures in improvements, such as dredging and so forth, until they have the MUSP issue finalized. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Winton: But -- no, it does not. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Because -- well, Joe's going to come up and answer that. Joseph Herndon: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Joseph Herndon, with Flagstone Property Group, Island Garden, LLC. Other than the point that Ms. Billberry was making, actually, for purposes of vesting, this action you've just taken allows us to go before the County Commission on their agenda of November 30th. We're hoping by that time that we have the resolution from the Corps of Engineers, which we would require. We have had meetings with them, and they have informally told us that they're in concurrence, but obviously, we need documentation. The final component of that, of course, is National Marine Fishery is the only outstanding vesting item after the Corps, and the Corps is actually going to -- we understand -- help us in the process of getting National Marine Fisheries -- Commissioner Winton: And then -- Mr. Herndon: -- to step up or -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Herndon: -- you know, or bring the issue to a head. If we're able to get all those issues out of the way, then all the vesting issues are, indeed, out of the way. The only item being the lawsuit and when we can get to court, and we can't speak a great deal about that. The objective is, is to get into court, and I think, at that point, we have some opportunities to move this ahead (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Winton: But are y'all going to stop moving forward until the lawsuit is resolved, or you're continuing to move forward with the next steps beyond all of your entitlements? Mr. Herndon: Well, the next steps, which are financing, we're very much involved with. That's going on as we speak, as well as the negotiations with the flags and closure. Obviously, the lawsuit and the lack of the entire closure on vesting does limit our focus to those specific elements, which are, indeed, the next steps, but as soon as we get through those next steps, then we will be -- jump both feet into a very fast -track design process. We will be coming back to you soon with some easements on some adjacent properties necessary for -- to support consfruction and, as soon as we get those out of the way, then we'll also be ready to initiate the licenses and the easements to initiate consfruction activity next year. Commissioner Winton: OK. City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: OK? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you so much. Mr. Herndon: You bet. Thank you. RE.6 04-01164 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY ADORNO & YOSS, P.A. TRUST ACCOUNT, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $7,000,000 (SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS) AS FOLLOWS: $3,500,000, TO BE PAID NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 5, 2004 AND $3,500,000, TO BE PAID NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 5, 2005, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND SERVANTS, IN THE "REFUND" PORTION OF THE NAGYMIHALY, ET AL V. THE CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CASE NO. 98-11208 CA-01, UPON EXECUTING A GENERAL RELEASE OF 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. 109001.280905.9.952. 04-01164-cover memo.pdf 04-01164-memo.pdf DEFERRED Item RE.6 was deferred by the City Manager to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for November 18, 2004. City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 DISCUSSION ITEMS DI.1 04-01157 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL (CIP) MONTHLY STATUS REPORT. 04-01157-cover memo.pdf 04-01157-memo.pdf DEFERRED Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go to DL 1. Well, that's been deferred. Let's go to DI.2, which is a discussion concerning the Tree Protection Ordinance. They're in Winton's office and they're coming? Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chair. Chairman Sanchez: OK. DI.2 04-01196 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE "TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE". 04-01196-cover memo.pdf 04-01196-ordinance.pdf DISCUSSED Chairman Sanchez: We're moving along. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We're finished? Chairman Sanchez: Almost. Yes, ma'am. Sarah Eaton: Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer. At the July Commission meeting, the Commission directed the City to make some revisions to the proposed Tree Protection Ordinance. These specifically related to eliminating fees to appeal free removal permits. We have done that. There are now no fees to appeal decisions related to free permits for adjacent property owners, non-profit conservation organizations or homeowners associations, so that's taken care of. You also asked us to look at increased penalties, and we have done that in several ways. There is still a $500 fine that would be imposed when a free is removed without a permit. The Code Enforcement Board could also impose a $5, 000 fine for irreparable or irreplaceable violations. A property -- someone who removes a tree without a permit is also required to provide mitigation, and now there is a very clear chart for free mitigation for frees removed without a permit; that's on page 10 of the ordinance. This lists the number of new trees that would have to be planted as mitigation, or as an alternative, a fee that would be contributed into the Tree Trust Fund, and those fees are substantial. For instance, if an owner removes a 15-inch diameter free without a permit, he would not only be fined $500, but he would also have to plant 12 new frees, or make a contribution of $6, 000 into the Tree Trust Fund. The new provision that's been added permits -- Commissioner Winton: About time. Ms. Eaton: -- the City to withhold new building permits when a developer or an owner removes trees without a permit, so if there is clearing prior to the obtaining of a building permit, the City could withhold any new building permits related to that illegal free removal until the fine is paid, City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 the mitigation is provided, or the contribution to the Tree Trust Fund has been made. We think we have a much stronger ordinance now, and this will be -- has been scheduled for the Planning Advisory Board meeting of -- Chairman Sanchez: Exactly. Ms. Eaton: -- November 3rd because there are substantial changes since it was last scheduled on first reading, and it would be back here in December. Chairman Sanchez: This is just a discussion item and -- Commissioner Allen: Discussion item, right. Ms. Eaton: Discussion only. Chairman Sanchez: -- of course, there's no action to be taken. Any questions on -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Yeah, just a quick question, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: You stated a number of items, but what struck me is the punitive measures that you guys are imposing. For example, if I'm not mistaken -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you said $5, 000 can be an ultimate fine if the person fails to replace an existing free? Ms. Eaton: No. The $5, 000 is if the Code Enforcement Board determines that an irreparable or irreversal -- excuse me -- irreversible violation has occurred. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: And, Jeffery, let me give -- Commissioner Allen: But how are you -- my question is -- I want to sort of move on, but how are you coming up with these punitive measures? The cost -- I think you said $6, 000 is where (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Ms. Eaton: Of the mitigate -- the contribution into the Tree Trust Fund is based on an amount of $500 per free. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Eaton: We've had requests that if a free is allowed to be removed and mitigation is always required, sometimes there may not be enough room on the site to plant the new frees. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Eaton: So as an alternative, someone could make a contribution of $500 per required free into the Tree Trust Fund. Commissioner Allen: Right. OK. Ms. Eaton: So that had already existed. For illegal free removal, the intent was to double the required mitigation, so that's where those fees were derived from. Commissioner Allen: OK. All right. I'd just like you to take into consideration some of the City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 punitive measures that are being imposed, and also the thought of having this -- how do you go and enforce this? I would assume that Code Enforcement's going to be largely responsible for enforcing this, correct? Ms. Eaton: That's correct. Commissioner Allen: Are we not creating an additional layer of employees to carry out these objectives because there -- yes. Ms. Eaton: No. We currently have an environmental preservation ordinance that currently requires tree removal permits, so that's already in place. This is just strengthening the ordinance, clarifying a lot of provisions that aren't in place. Commissioner Allen: So you don't think we would have to hire any more -- any additional individuals to prosecute or carry out the objectives of this amendment? Ms. Eaton: That -- Commissioner Allen: The -- Ms. Eaton: The Code Enforcement Office would have to address that, but -- Commissioner Allen: Just please take it in consideration. I mean -- OK? Chairman Sanchez: OK. Thank -- Commissioner Winton: But let me speak to this. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Allen, the Grove feels very strongly about its canopy, and the canopy here is what's created value that's very dramatic. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. Commissioner Winton, I apologize. Commissioner Winton: No, no -- and it's the canopy in the Grove that creates the value that helps drive our City, and you would be shocked and ticked beyond belief at the number of developers that are sweeping through the Grove and cutting down 75-year old, 100 year old oaks and spitting in our face. I was at a site -- there's a developer around here; his name's Daniel de Iglesias, who is the absolute poster child for destruction of our neighborhood, and neighbors fight with him, everybody fights, and he literally spits on our face because he's going to build a $1, 200, 000 house; tree's in the way; I pay $500 to cut it down. What do I care? And so, this ordinance has been passed very strongly by -- pushed very strongly by Manny Diaz -- Mayor Diaz and myself because we just have to get a handle on these developers, and there are punitive measures in here that are very strong, and it's specifically to get after the developers that are spitting in our face. The good developers out there, they go get a permit. There's not an issue here. They don't get penalized. It's the ones that are -- and you know how Code Enforcement works. If somebody makes a mistake in any particular neighborhood and isn't spitting in our face, you can get -- you get warnings. This is designed to get after the ones that are literally spitting in our face and don't care about our community; don't care about anything, and there's an example: I got called to a house just the other day. If you remember, during the hurricane -- the Manager saw this. There was a giant ficus tree that got blown over in the hurricane on Main Highway -- or Ingraham Highway and -- I forget, but the reason it blew over isn't just because the root system was very (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but because somebody built a giant wall there, cut the root system down five or six years ago, and so, the tree blows over City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 where the root system's been cut. This guys -- there's probably a 60-year old oak in front of this house and the guy -- he could have put his sewer line anywhere, but he chose to come right by -- got this far from the base of the free -- he cut down two frees on top of it -- came right by the base of this tree, which is also against Code -- to put his sewer line that he wanted to connect out there, and that free, I guarantee you -- because the whole half of the root system is now gone -- that tree, in the next big storm, is going to blow on top of the neighbor's house, not his because the way the roots are cut, it's going to blow on the neighbor's house, so this is designed to get after the bad guys. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any further discussion? Thank you so much. We look forward to the ordinance coming in front of the Commission. City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 PART B PZ.1 04-00671 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 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 201 THROUGH 261 SOUTHWEST 6TH 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. 04-00671 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00671 Analysis.PDF 04-00671 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00671 & 04-00671a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00671 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00671 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00671 Legislation.PDF 04-00671 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00671-Su bmittal-Photo. pdf 04-00671-Submittal Letter.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 201-261 SW 6th Street APPLICANT(S): 261 Brickell, LLC, Owner and Omega Alpha Engineering USA Group, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gloria M. Velazquez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Unanimously recommended approval to City Commission on September 13, 2004. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on June 2, 2004 by a vote of 7-1. See companion File ID 04-00671 a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: Let's go to PZ.1. PZ.1. Let's get the applicant in here. City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. PZ.1 and 2. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.1. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.1 and 2 are actually a companion zoning and land use change item for the properties at 201 through 261 Southwest 6th Street. This had been recommended for denial by the Planning & Zoning Department; approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and approval by the Zoning Board. The applicant, at first reading, had said they were going to submit the designs for their building for -- to work with staff, they have done that. We had provided a series of comments to them, and they had made some modifications to the design of the project as a result. If the property is approved for the SD-7 zoning, they would have to go through a Class II process in any case, and I think what they were going to be doing today is proferring a covenant to -- for the project to be substantially in accordance with what they just went through design review for, with some -- a few little changes, and go through that Class II process for whatever else, but it would be substantially these, and I'll let the applicant explain that. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition on this item? OK. Applicant, you're recognized. Gloria Velazquez: Good afternoon. Gloria Velazquez, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. At our last meeting, you had asked us to work on the design with staff we have done so and presented to you the final design. We still need to work on it, but that is the substantial completion of the design. I just want to point out that we did receive Planning & Zoning -- a Planning Board recommendation, Zoning Board recommendation. We had neighborhood support at our previous hearings. We also met the River Commission plan -- Infill Plan and Greenway Plan. We were applauded for our design of the river walk. I think this is a spectacular building for this site. What I have -- I'm going to just pass around -- and just so you could become familiar with what's going on in the area. This particular building, if you're looking out of the Riverside Administration building, you will see, across the river, you will see the Storagemart. This project, per se, is going to go right in front of the Storagemart and would -- so I'm just going to pass this around so you can take a look at where this beautiful building will go on. Commissioner Winton: I have a question. Chairman Sanchez: I see it everyday. All right. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I'm curious about the parking structure elevations on -- or whatever the elevation is on -- and I'm going to assume it's parking -- on both the west and the south side, which isn't reflected here at all. Ms. Velazquez: The west side would be -- everything is lined with residential units. What I'm going to do is bring up the boards that show the lining of the residential units, and also planters with greenery on the riverside, and then on the west side are residential units. Commissioner Winton: No. I see that -- we've got the Riverside here. What I don't have is the south side, which is behind here -- Ms. Velazquez: OK Commissioner Winton: -- or the -- and the west side. Ms. Velazquez: Let me bring up the architect and show us the design. City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: I just want to make sure -- and, Gloria, just so you -- I think you've heard me say this. I'm going to watch carefully, carefully, carefully how these damned garages are treated because we're never going to have another one like that one that's -- Ms. Velazquez: Exactly. Commissioner Winton: -- going up in Brickell right now, ever. Chairman Sanchez: Lourdes, I -- while she does that, I have a question for you pertaining to that. The -- Ms. Velazquez: The south side is -- Chairman Sanchez: Oh, she's back? Ms. Velazquez: -- screened with a mesh, and the architects are looking for the board. Chairman Sanchez: Now, would that go Design Review? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. It -- the land use change is for restricted commercial. The zoning change was for the SD-7. The Planning & Zoning Department's concern with the SD-7 is that it's a very high FAR (Floor Area Ratio). Chairman Sanchez: Right. Ms. Slazyk: What the -- but the applicant -- we had discussed this as first reading. In the West Brickell area, the regulating plan is not ready. We were eventually going to be rezoning that and they couldn't wait, so they went ahead and applied for the SD-7, which they have a right to do. The increased density was -- the increased FAR was the concern, but whether you get this covenant or not that ties them to these plans, at a minimum, they're going to be going through a Class II for design review, even if they stay under major use threshold. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right. Ms. Slazyk: So the concern was more -- Chairman Sanchez: Because I think it's important for design review. Ms. Slazyk: -- how they were going to mask this big FAR, and that's what they just went through design review for with us. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen: OK. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: I'm beginning to become familiar with the way that this Commission does business in the area of land use, and I can't help but express some concern, and maybe this is an issue for us to work out in the future; either I get used to you all or I try to get you all used to me, in the sense of what I deem to be in the best legal interest of the City. When you're dealing with a Comprehensive Plan change, to be engaged in a discussion that deals with the design, or the look, or the feel of a building, 23 years doing this, is relatively unusual to be engaged in that. City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Now, the next item -- Commissioner Winton: Hold on. No. Hold -- but there's an answer to that. They volunteered to do this because we were not going to approve the comp. plan change. Mr. Fernandez: Well, their proffering it does not necessarily eliminate the need that you have to apply the criteria and the conditions for a comp. plan change that you need to apply. Because their proffer, if, in fact, for second reading on the next item -- which is on the item that a proffer would be appropriate -- they come up with a proffer, this brings us back to the same issue that we started talking about last time when I began to caution you about the nature of proffers that are being made on a continual basis. I gather that this is a historical -- I won't call it malady or any such negative word. I'll just call it custom practice tradition, but believe that better practices in the area of land use should begin to redirect our focus from design and structure and the like, because the truth of the matter is that, unless we really achieve a proffer that -- they, the applicant, if successful in the comp. plan change and then in the next item, they can put on the ground something that would look quite different or operate quite differently, and so I'm just raising some concerns, and I'm doing this in the hopes that, together with the staff we can put together some sort of a workshop for you so that we can begin to look at these issues from a holistic perspective, and then, perhaps, also get input or some participation on the part of the neighborhoods, concerned citizens, even applicant or developer, if you all deem it appropriate, but think that, internal to us, staff and my department, we need to get together and bring to you some better clear -- some better guidance with regard to how you conduct your business in the area of land use. Commissioner Allen: Great. Mr. Fernandez: And then again, for practical purposes today, you may continue, but I felt that owe it to you to give you that kind of heads up of what may be happening over the next several months. Commissioner Winton: Fine. Commissioner Allen: And, Mr. Chairman, ifI may weigh in? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: This is a -- this was an issue thatl discussed with the City Attorney. I believe we discussed this two days ago, and I'm very mindful that he does make some very interesting points here because, at this juncture, I would assume you're characterizing this as negotiations at this last minute, which is probably not the proper way to address this, and these proffers that are being made at the last minute, these things should have been ironed out well in advance, and for your office not to receive items at the last minute. It can impinge on your legal opinions, as well. Mr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Allen: Is that correct? Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: Correct, and you know, if applicant is successful at this first reading -- any applicant over the next several months becomes successful in their first reading of any item, I can assure you that any proffers they would make before the second reading, it would be carefully scrutinized by staff and by my office, and we will try to convince applicants that it's in their best interest also not to make proffers, but to rather practice land use law as it should be practiced, and the criteria that's contained in our ordinances and not on design models. City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, so -- Commissioner Winton: I'm frying to think about what he's saying because I'm -- Commissioner Allen: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, I -- Commissioner Winton: -- thinking about the practical implications -- Commissioner Allen: Do we -- Commissioner Winton: -- and the -- Chairman Sanchez: I think -- Commissioner Allen: Do we start anew? Chairman Sanchez: I honestly -- ifI may, as the Chair, let me just -- I tend to agree with him on the concept itself. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: I mean, the -- since I've been here the six years, it's been done this way. I mean -- and I feel like it's like a half-baked cake coming to me, not a fully baked cake, you know, and the only argument that would have now here is to say, are the proffers defendable in a court of law that are being put forth between the administration and them at the last minute? It's like a negotiating chip as to how far can I get without giving, you know, my chips up, you know. There -- I'm sure there has to be another way that would better serve the process, and basically, with all due respect, I mean, the CityAttorney's here to protect us, and when he brings this out as a -- coming from another -- coming from a County and his years of experience as to the way that things have been done here -- well, we've gotten away, for many years, doing it this way, but maybe there is another way -- Ms. Slazyk: There might be a better way. Chairman Sanchez: -- where, really, when it comes to us, we just put -- you know, we give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down as to, hey, this is it. It's fully baked and we don't have to get -- because -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- you know, I'm -- Commissioner Winton: And it'd be great not to have a lot of this dialogue -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, but that's -- Commissioner Allen: That's my -- yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- which is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: That's something that we need to explore, and you know what, Mr. City Attorney, I think it's a great idea to have a workshop and explore any other way and have feedback. Commissioner Winton: I don't want a workshop. I want you to figure it out with staff and give us the rules. I'm not going to any workshops. Mr. Fernandez: We can start by doing that, but eventually -- Chairman Sanchez: Why are you so hard to get along with? Mr. Fernandez: -- it will be discussed. Commissioner Winton: I'm just -- I'm easy to get along with; I just don't want more meetings. Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right. Let's -- we'll get to that another day, but that's something we need to explore. I just -- on this one, it's a question that I always have. Are the proffers defendable in a court of law? I mean, are they? Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, are they? Mr. Fernandez: Of course, I'm going to have to say yes. Commissioner Winton: Because we've been doing it so long. Mr. Fernandez: Number one. Number two, because you're asking me a question and the potent -- the up -- ifI say anything other than definitively yes, then it doesn't help our position at all ever as an admission against interest. Suffice it to say that I have some real concerns with a court of law looking at proffers in the context of a land use decision, and the question then becoming, if you could not exact that as a condition, why would you be accepting it as a proffer? And a whole host of other issues that arise out of there -- keep in mind, when a circuit court looks at any decision this board makes, they not only apply the law, but they also apply the law more strictly against you because they deem you to be in a position of control, and so we -- whenever we go into court, we go handicapped because any decision of government is always suspect in the court of law, and you -- and, therefore, it behooves us to have all of our ducks in a row, and not to do this in any other way but the surest and tightest. Chairman Sanchez: Well, I assure you, this is something we're going to be looking into in the near future on that, so on this PZ item, is there any further discussion on the item? Commissioner Winton: Well, yeah. I think -- Mr. City Attorney, what are we supposed to do? Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Commissioner Winton: You were here at the last meeting where we decided to do this. Mr. Fernandez: Again, the -- you know, it's pretty pictures. You may look at them. I would still say that you have enough testimony, by way of the applicant and by way of staff, to have competent substantial evidence on the record to consider the granting or the denial of both applications that are in front of you; the change to the comp. plan and then PZ.2, the companion item that requests a zoning change. City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Right, and -- Commissioner Allen: So, Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Winton: But not necessarily. Ms. Slazyk: For the record -- Commissioner Allen: Well -- Lourdes. Ms. Slazyk: -- the Planning Advisory Board recommendation -- Commissioner Allen: That's what I'm saying. Ms. Slazyk: -- was for approval. Commissioner Allen: Right, and there were conditions. Ms. Slazyk: No, no conditions. Mr. Fernandez: No conditions. Commissioner Allen: No, no conditions, but you're -- Ms. Slazyk: No. You can't put -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion to approve? Commissioner Winton: No, no, no, no, no. I don't understand yet. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Commissioner Winton: So there's -- I'm not making a motion yet. I don't -- so -- Ms. Slazyk: All right. The land use change is one thing and the zoning change is something else. Commissioner Winton: Umm-hmm. Ms. Slazyk: The land use change, they're going from general commercial to restricted commercial -- from industrial -- I'm sorry -- to restricted commercial, which generally speaking - Mr. Fernandez: It's the same. Ms. Slazyk: -- is the same -- it's -- yeah, it's a down zoning -- Commissioner Winton: I understand -- Ms. Slazyk: -- of sorts. Commissioner Winton: -- but -- Ms. Slazyk: It's a down planning. City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: -- staffs objection to this was relative to that change -- in fact, change in zoning -- Ms. Slazyk: Premature, maybe, yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- because what you could build here is something that has much greater density, by our current Code, than this does. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Mr. Fernandez: And you make -- Commissioner Winton: Which was the issue, which was precisely the reason I -- Ms. Slazyk: Which is more related to the zoning. Commissioner Winton: -- said -- huh? Ms. Slazyk: Which is more related to the zoning than the land use, actually. Commissioner Winton: But you -- Ms. Slazyk: Because -- Commissioner Winton: -- were opposed to the land use change. Ms. Slazyk: The -- we were opposed to the land use change because it was -- what we were doing was taking a look at this West Brickell area and preparing -- and it was -- it's something that's coming and they -- you know, it's premature, I guess. Commissioner Allen: Right, so -- Ms. Slazyk: That was our concern that -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- until it's all thought out, it might be premature. Mr. Fernandez: And -- Commissioner Allen: So there -- Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. Commissioner Allen: IfI may, Mr. City -- Ms. Slazyk: But the concerns about the intensity, the FAR, were more attached to the zoning change because the comp. plan doesn't have FAR. Mr. Fernandez: Right. Ms. Slazyk: It's the zoning change. Commissioner Allen: The zoning change, so -- wait. I -- City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: OK. Go ahead. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, ifyou will. I'm a little confused now, as well. Are you now approving this -- but it's sort of like an oxymoron. Are you now saying that -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: -- they are moving -- the applicant is moving a bit too fast, that they need to wait until some zoning changes are put into place -- Mr. Fernandez: Planning. Ms. Slazyk: The -- Commissioner Allen: -- or -- Ms. Slazyk: For -- All right. Commissioner Allen: -- can they -- or should -- or are you also advising us that the applicant should put their application on hold until these zoning changes are made or -- Slazyk: I can't tell anyone to put an application on hold -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- nor would I presume to. Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Slazyk: What we were saying is that there was going to be a regulating plan for the West Brickell area, which was going to address the area comprehensively. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: And that this application, again, going a piecemeal approach in the middle of an industrial area, until it's done as a whole was a concern, so our recommendation was for a denial. The recommendation for denial on the zoning change was based on a very high FAR -- Commissioner Allen: FAR. Ms. Slazyk: -- in an area where, quite frankly, the future vision was probably not going to be such a high FAR; maybe more than it was there today, but not as high as an SD-7, so those were our concerns. Commissioner Allen: Right, and their FAR exceeds the downtown (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, the FAR is a central Brickell FAR. The Brickell Village, which is -- FAR is in the seven range, which are high. Commissioner Winton: So are you -- Ms. Slazyk: So through -- Commissioner Winton: -- suggesting that we're approving the comp. plan change and not approve the zoning change? City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Our recommendation stands, OK. Commissioner Winton: So -- OK What -- Ms. Slazyk: Right, and -- Commissioner Winton: -- is your recommendation then? Ms. Slazyk: -- the recommendation was for denial, and I was letting you know that the Planning Advisory Board felt differently and they recommended approval, and through the zoning change, where your safeguards would be, if you wanted, is the fact that they do need a special permit for whatever they do. It was the FAR that's high. Commissioner Allen: I see, so to satisfy you, it would take place at the zoning. Ms. Slazyk: More so, probably. Commissioner Allen: Great. I'm done, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: All right. We did open it for the public, right? Is there any opposition or support? You have a comment? Step up and state your name and your address. Commissioner Winton: Now we have a map. Irela Bague: Good afternoon. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Bague: My name is Irela Bague. I'm the newly elected chair ofMiami River Commission, at offices at 46 Rickenbacker -- 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida, 33149. This letter serves as the Miami River Commission's official statement. "To all City Commissioners, requested in Resolution 00-320 regarding October 28, 2004, City Commission agenda items PZ.1 and PZ.2, which impact the Miami River. On September 13, 2004, Ms. Gloria Velazquez, Greenberg Traurig, and Mr. Michael (UNINTELLIGIBLE) presented reflections on the river, which would require land use zoning amendment from marine industrial to commercial with a SD-7 zoning overlay, located at 201 -- 261 Southwest 6th Street. The Miami River Commission unanimously found the proposal to be consistent with the award -winning Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan's recommendations for this lower river section, located at the east ofI-95. In addition, the Miami River Commission unanimously found the proposal to be consistent with the Miami River GreenwayAction Plan, in that it provides a publicly accessible river walk, with a minimum width of 20 feet, consisting of a minimum 16-foot wide unobstructed pedestrian path and an additional four feet of landscaping, lighting and other amenities. The development is set back 50 feet from the shoreline and features and on -road greenway section along Southwest 6th Street," and that does conclude my public comments, Mr. Chair. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so basically, Miami River Commission is in support of the project. Ms. Bague: Absolutely and unanimously. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton. All right. Listen, Madam Attorney, you have anything else to put on the record? If not, we need to move forward. Ms. Velazquez: I just want to clarify that our request is not going to increase the density. It's not going to increase the density. I just want the Commission to know that it doesn't increase the City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 density -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Velazquez: -- and we will be going through the Class II permit process. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I'm going to move a -- move approval of the comp. plan change. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion for approval of the Comprehensive Plan. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, it's a first reading ordinance. City Attorney, read the ordinance for the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. First reading. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. PZ.2 04-00671a 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 "SD-4" WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND "I" INDUSTRIAL TO "SD-7" CENTRAL BRICKELL RAPID TRANSIT COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 227-243 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET, 261 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET AND 201-227 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00671a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00671a Analysis.PDF 04-00671a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00671 & 04-00671a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00671a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00671a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00671a Legislation.PDF 04-00671 a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00671a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00671 a -Submittal Letter.pdf City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from SD-4 Waterfront Industrial District and I Industrial to SD-7 Central Brickell Rapid Transit Commercial -Residential District to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 227-243 SW 6th Street, 261 SW 6th Street and 201-227 SW 6th Street APPLICANT(S): 261 Brickell, LLC, Owner and Omega Alpha Engineering USA Group, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gloria M. Velazquez, Esquire FI NDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Unanimously recommended approval to City Commission on September 13, 2004. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 12, 2004 by a vote of 6-3. See companion File ID and 04-00671. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to SD-7 Central Brickell Rapid Transit Commercial -Residential District. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.2 is a companion item. Is there a motion? Well, before I do that, anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. We certainly want to -- don't want to deny anybody the public forum to address this Commission. Hearing none, seeing none, the hearing is -- public hearing is closed, and it -- Commissioner Winton: Move approval of the zoning change. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion for approval. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion for -- second. It is open for discussion from the Commission. Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance on first reading. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.3 -- Gloria Velazquez: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- was deferred. PZ.3 04-00723 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE 1237 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1237 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, 324 AND 444 NORTHEAST 13TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A 57-STORY MIXED -USE STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF 408 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, APPROXIMATELY 17,160 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/OFFICE USE, AND 570 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 90 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00723 Legislation.PDF 04-00723 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00723 Exhibit B.PDF 04-00723 Exhibit C.PDF 04-00723 MUSP Analysis.PDF 04-00723 Zoning Map.pdf 04-00723 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00723 Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 04-00723 School Brd Recomm.PDF 04-00723 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00723 Sp Ex Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00723 Sp Ex Analysis.PDF 04-00723 ZB Reso.PDF 04-00723 - submittal - 1.pdf 04-00723 - submittal - 2.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Cover Page.PDF 04-00723 Table of Contents.PDF 04-00723 Article I - Project Info.PDF 04-00723 Letter of Intent.PDF 04-00723 MUSP & Sp Ex Applications.PDF 04-00723 Zoning Write-Up.PDF 04-00723 Aerials.PDF 04-00723 Zoning Atlas.PDF 04-00723 Project Data Sheet.PDF 04-00723 Computer Tax Printout & Deed.PDF 04-00723 Ownership List.PDF 04-00723 State of Florida Docs.PDF 04-00723 Owner's Authorization Letter.PDF 04-00723 Directory of Principals.PDF 04-00723 Article II - Project Description.PDF 04-00723 Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 04-00723 Minority Construction Empl Plan.PDF 04-00723 Traffic Impact Study I.PDF 04-00723 Traffic Impact Study II.PDF 04-00723 Site Utility Study.PDF 04-00723 Economic Impact Study.PDF 04-00723 Survey of Property.PDF 04-00723 Plans.pdf 04-00723 Plans Re-submittal.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Fact Sheet 07-22-04.pdf 04-00722 MUSP Fact Sheet 07-29-04.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Fact Sheet 10-28-04.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Fact Sheet 11-18-04.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Fact Sheet 01-27-05.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Fact Sheet 03-24-05.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Fact Sheet 04-28-05.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Fact Sheet 06-23-05.pdf 04-00723 Outside Cover.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the 1237 Biscayne Boulevard Project City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 LOCATION: Approximately 1237 Biscayne Boulevard and 324 and 444 NE 13th Street APPLICANT(S): 1237 Biscayne Blvd, LLC, Owner and 1237 Biscayne Development Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on June 16, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. ZONING BOARD: Granted the special exception with conditions* on June 28, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the 1237 Biscayne Boulevard Project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to continue Item PZ.3 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for November 18, 2004. Chairman Sanchez: OK. We do have time certain CDBG (Community Development Block Grant). We have -- Joe Arriola (City Manager): Mr. Chairman. Can you forgive me? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Arriola: I wasn't here when the meeting started. I'm sorry for that, and I -- there's an item I wanted to defer. Chairman Sanchez: Could you state the item for the record? Mr. Arriola: Pardon me? The item -- Chairman Sanchez: Could you -- Mr. Arriola: PZ.3. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.3. Mr. Arriola: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Withdrawn or deferred? Mr. Arriola: I want to defer it. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Defer to -- Mr. Arriola: Next meeting. City ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- November the 18th? Mr. Arriola: The next PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting, yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: I make a motion we defer. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion to defer and a second to defer PZ.3 to November the 18th meeting. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Deferred. Yes. Ms. Dougherty: I'd like to put something on the record in connection with this. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel -- Ms. Dougherty: This is not something that I agree to. This is something that the Manager has requested, and I'm here on today -- this is the Opus project, which you saw three months ago. In connection with this, you asked for a deferral at that time so that we could meet with the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation), and three months have gone by, and apparently, there is now a zoning issue that I'm told. Mr. Arriola: This is deferred. Ms. Dougherty: It's a potential zoning issue -- Mr. Arriola: It's deferred. Ms. Dougherty: -- that, two days ago, when I spoke to the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Board -- Planning Director -- and I have to put this on the record -- there was no zoning issue. As of this morning, there is now a zoning issue that needs to be resolved in the next month. Well, the truth is, there has been three months to resolve this. In fact, there have been nine months to resolve it because this application was signed off by the Zoning Administrator probably nine months ago as being in compliance with all the laws, so at the last meeting, you asked us to defer this matter so that we could talk to do D -- FDOT. My client's collective reasoning is, if it's better for the community and everybody involved for the DOT (Department of Transportation) to buy this piece of property, we will abide by the community will. I want to put on the record, as of this time, there have been no offers made to my client. We do not know at this time whether or not there will ever be an offer made to our client. We have been told there is a possibility there may not be any funding. In the meantime, these continuances -- let me just tell you what they're doing. My client is paying taxing, increasing taxes because this property is going for astronomical amounts on Biscayne Boulevard. They're paying for salespeople. They've sold, without marketing, 250 out of 408 units already, so they're paying for all of these expenses and we're getting pushed back in the marketplace, vis-a-vis, our competitors. Every time you make a month go by that we're not selling out there, we're not being able to move forward, the absorption rate is only so much in Miami, so everybody else is getting to sell their City ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 property. We're still left behind, so I want to put it on the record, this deferral, it makes a real hardship for us. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, you've put it on the record. Thank you. OK We move on to time certain 3 -- oh, we're done. We're done. We're going to -- or else, we'll never get out of here. Gloria Velazquez: Mr. Chairman, last hearing, we moved Items PZ.1 and 2 for the first item on the agenda, and I believe it was passed earlier today without -- Chairman Sanchez: No, it was not passed. We went to items that were noncontroversial, and now we're going to go to CDBG, which are six items, and then we'll get back to the P&Z. Ms. Velazquez: OK Chairman Sanchez: So your item will be heard. Ms. Velazquez: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: First one is PZ.1, right? Ms. Velazquez: Yes, 1 and 2. Chairman Sanchez: So when we get back, we'll go to that one. Ms. Velazquez: Thank you. PZ.4 04-00522 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ("ZONING COVENANT") DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 15663, PAGE 0716-0720, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2947-2949 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A", IN ORDER TO AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE COVENANT IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED THEREIN. 04-00522 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00522 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00522 Applicant Letter & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00522 Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00522 Legislation.PDF 04-00522 Zoning Map.pdf 04-00522 - submittal.pdf 04-00 522-Submittal-2 . pd f REQUEST: Modification to a Covenant LOCATION: Approximately 2947-2949 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Judy Galindo, Owner of Latin American Cafeteria -Restaurant APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire City ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PURPOSE: This will allow a modification to an existing covenant. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Allen absent, to continue Item PZ.4 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for January 27, 2005. Chairman Sanchez: We go to PZ.4. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.4 is the -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Before you start, I was given wrong information on PZ.4. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: When the applicants were here, they -- I was told -- and we deferred this. I was told by the CityAttorney's Office that there was an agreement between the applicant and the attorney for the residents for a 90-day trial period, and that that would not come to the City Commission until the 90-day period was over. Now, to my knowledge, it hasn't been 90 days, so I don't know what's going on here. Chairman Sanchez: All right. The Commissioner -- is it your intent to hear the item, or just bring it -- Commissioner Regalado: No. I just want to know. I just want to know. Ms. Slazyk: No. We were going to request the continuance because it was actually -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: -- a court order regarding the 90 days, which the City Attorney can respond to, but since it was advertised, it's on the agenda. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: We're just going to recommend a continuance 'til January 27, 2005. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so motion to defer the item to the stated date. Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it. Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Moved by Commissioner Regalado. City ofMiami Page 95 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Winton. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, so item has been deferred -- Ben Fernandez: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: -- to -- Elsa Jaramillo-Velez: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification purposes. Elsa Jaramillo-Velez, Assistant City Attorney. We had spoken with -- this is to address Commissioner Regalado's concern. We had spoken with one of the attorneys who represented the neighboring -- the neighbors in the area, which is Guy Smith, and we also spoke with Mr. Fernandez regarding this issue, and we had an injunction in court, and what we did is we did an agreed order to have a trial period for a period of 90 days; test it out, see how the neighbors were going to work it out or not, and if not, if that was not going to work, then we would go back to the original September 1992 agreement where they would have the wall, the landscape and everything else. Commissioner Regalado: OK I'm -- just was asking why it was on the agenda because I was told there was a 90-day period. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. It's just that it had been advertised. Chairman Sanchez: The item has been deferred to November the -- when would it come back? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): January 27th -- Ms. Slazyk: January 27, 2005. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Moving right along. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I do have a question because I'm confused on this item. Even though it's not in my district, I have questions because now I don't understand what's going on. These people went to court, right? Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And the judge -- Ms. Slazyk: The judge granted -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- authorized them -- Ms. Slazyk: -- a nine -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- to use the exit, or the entrance, or whatever on 21 st Terrace, right - City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: 20 -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- for 90 days? Ms. Slazyk: For 90 days. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And they -- Commissioner Regalado: That wasn't the case. The judge didn't say anything. The both attorneys agreed. Mr. Fernandez: To the agreed order. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, the attorneys agreed. Ms. Slazyk: To a 90-day, correct. Commissioner Regalado: It wasn't -- this wasn't a court thing. The both attorneys agreed that they were going to have a 90-day period. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And how -- Commissioner Regalado: If it didn't work -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: How come they're saying it's a court order? If the judge doesn't order it, it's not a court order. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: It's an -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: It's an agreement between counsel. Commissioner Allen: IfI may, did you apply for a restraining order -- Mr. Fernandez: No. Commissioner Allen: -- in this litigation? Mr. Fernandez: No. It was -- Ms. Jaramillo-Velez: No, no. This is an injunction. Mr. Fernandez: It's an injunction -- Commissioner Allen: An injunction. Mr. Fernandez: -- but there's an agreed order -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I need your name -- Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. Ben Fernandez -- City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Ben Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez: -- law offices at Bercow Radell, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, on behalf of the property owner. This was a suit for an injunction, and there was an agreed order between the City and the property owner, and the attorney representing the adjacent neighbors for a 90-day trial period, and after that 90-day trial period, the City would then bring the case back before the Commission to resolve the application that's pending before you. Commissioner Winton: Who sued whom? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: So -- and so my question is, right now we are in the 90 days of this trial period, right? Mr. Fernandez: That's correct. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And the 90 days will be until January -- Mr. Fernandez: 27th. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- 27th? Mr. Fernandez: The reason it's before you is because, Commissioner, when we asked for the extension, or the continuance, we had not yet finalized the agreed order. Once we finalized the agreed order, we came up with a date certain, and so it has to come back before you now for another continuance to comply with the date of the agreed order. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Chairman, I move -- Chairman Sanchez: It's already been -- Commissioner Allen: Oh, it has been? Chairman Sanchez: It's already been deferred. Yeah. That's it. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Chairman Sanchez: No more discussion on the item. We move on to the next item. PZ.5 04-00780 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, REQUIRING CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 9, SECTION 934.2.1, COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES, PROCEDURES, TO ALLOW A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED, SUBJECT TO CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, ZONED "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4491 SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00780 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00780 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00780 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00780 Legislation.PDF 04-00780 Plans.PDF 04-00780 ZB Reso.PDF 04-00780 Analysis.PDF 04-00780 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00780 Zoning Map.pdf REQUEST: Special Exception Requiring City Commission Approval LOCATION: Approximately 4491 SW 8th Street APPLICANT(S): Central Residential, Inc., Owner and Dumes, Inc, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Peter Previti, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on June 28, 2004 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will change the ownership of an existing community -based residential facility. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-04-0709 Chairman Sanchez: The next item is PZ.5. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.5 is a special exception that requires City Commission approval. It's to -- it's required for a change of ownership to a community -based residential facility. It's been recommended for approval to the Commission by the Zoning Board and recommended for approval by the Planning & Zoning Department. The facility has been found to comply with its requirements, and there were no additional conditions, and we would recommend approval as presented. It's to change the ownership of an existing facility, not a new one. Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you're the applicant? Are you the applicant? Peter Previti: I'm the attorney for the applicant. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Previti: Peter Previti, 5825 Sunset Drive, Miami. Essentially, this is just an application for approval of the Commission for the change in ownership of an ALF (Adult Living Facility) facility at 4491 Southwest 8th Street. This is an existing facility; been in business for 15 years and, at this point in time, there's going to be a change in ownership, subject to the Commission's City ofMiami Page 99 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 approval. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: I have a question. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Is this facility in violation of any current City codes or regulations, or anything else? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): No. Commissioner Winton: So this is a good one. Mr. Fernandez: And, in fact, they have come in compliance. As a result of this application process, they have come into compliance with regard to the parking; is that correct, Lourdes? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. Ms. Slazyk: The parking -- Commissioner Regalado: No, they have not come into compliance with the parking. Ms. Slazyk: Let me just tell you what we found when we researched it. They actually had a previous change of ownership; I believe it was in 1994, and that request had included the parking reduction, so that was deemed to already have been in place. They didn't provide more parking to get rid of the need for that reduction, but they're not seeking a further reduction. That was my understanding when we reviewed the '94 plans, but no, they did not bring more parking into the deal. You're correct. Commissioner Regalado: I know that, but the last time they were here, there was an issue of parking. They were in violation of zoning. Zoning found out that, way back, other Commissions have made -- Ms. Slazyk: Approved it. Commissioner Regalado: -- granted, but you know, in theory, they do not comply with the parking requirements. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Because they did get a reduction approved in the past, but it was a different Commission, you're right. Commissioner Regalado: Now, my question to Mr. City Attorney, this is in District 4, and this could have some kind of adverse effect in our change of ownership case on six illegal facilities? Mr. Fernandez: You're making reference to the other -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- items that we have pending. No, it wouldn't. Commissioner Regalado: No, it would -- could they use the same argument? City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. Commissioner Regalado: Could they use the same argument to push for the change of ownership, the six facilities that would be coming here -- Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- for change of ownership, but that are in violation of parking and other -- Mr. Fernandez: Well, the other ones -- when they change ownership, they have to apply for a special exception. When the application is made, that gives then the City an opportunity, in their analysis of that application, to then demand of them that they come in compliance with all other existing conditions in our Codes, and if they're not in compliance with parking, then they will be asked to become compliant. Commissioner Regalado: He's not in compliant [sic] with the parking. Ms. Slazyk: They don't have the full parking, but they're not in violation because they have a previously approved reduction. Commissioner Regalado: It may not be in violation -- Ms. Slazyk: I know. Commissioner Regalado: -- but he's not in compliance. Ms. Slazyk: They're not in -- they don't have the full parking, but they don't have a notice of violation issued for it because they have a previous approval. Commissioner Regalado: That's -- Mr. Previti: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: But -- wait a second. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Commissioner Regalado: But they are not in compliance. Mr. Fernandez: All right. Then as long as the administration, which is the agency that evaluates the sufficiency of their application, finds that they are not in violation -- I'm trying not to use the word "compliance" here so that you don't catch me -- then the -- it comes to you with a presumption that's valid and it's complete. Commissioner Regalado: Well, that's the presumption of the administration and I'm afraid that they would have similar presumptions in other cases. Mr. Fernandez: Every application stands on its own, and we're only addressing here today this one applicant. When the other ones come in front of you, then -- Commissioner Regalado: But, Mr. City Attorney, we have another attorney here. I -- the only thing I know about law is the news I give regarding law. Every case is looked in the background in terms of other cases that have been before a court of justice; is that correct? City ofMiami Page 101 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. There is also -- what you're referring to is the precedential value of a case, of you holding in favor of this applicant, then that may come back to haunt you in other applications. I am here to tell you that, in the area of land use, that is not applicable. In the area of land use, particularly, in special exceptions, you look at every case individually, on its own merits, with all the facts and circumstances surrounding that one, and there is little precedential value in other decisions because no two cases are the same. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so what's the will of the Commission? This is a resolution. Is there a motion to approve the staff recommendation? Sir. Mr. Previti: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: Go ahead. Mr. Previti: Yes. Essentially -- Chairman Sanchez: Make your argument on the case. Mr. Previti: -- what I was saying before is that this is an application for approval of change of ownership alone. That's what we're looking to do. Just the -- to obtain the Commission's approval for the change in ownership. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion? Hearing none, it dies. We move -- Commissioner Regalado: I move to approve. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion to approve PZ.5. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I second it. Commissioner Allen: Second it. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: All having the same right, wishing to say "nay," may say so now. Hearing none, it passes. All right. PZ.6 04-00726 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, ACCEPTING, THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ("PAB"). 04-00726 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00726 PAB Reso.pdf 04-00726 PAB Reso 117-04.PDF 04-00726 Legislation.PDF 04-00726 exhibit-SEOPW Comm Redev Plan.pdf 04-00726-Memo.pdf REQUEST: To Accept the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community City ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Community Redevelopment Plan APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval in concept to City Commission on June 16, 2004 by a vote of 7-0. Pending final recommendation on October 20, 2004. PURPOSE: This will accept the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Plan. Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0710 Chairman Sanchez: PZ.6. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ. 6, we're handing out an addendum. PZ.6 is a consideration of accepting the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Community Redevelopment Plan update. This has been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board. At the Planning Advisory Board, we inserted an addendum into the plan. There had been a meeting between the CRA and some of the property owners in the Park West district in order to kind of clarify and provide a little bit more information for some of the intent for Park West, so the consultant that had prepared the plan for the CRA, from Dover Kohl & Partners, prepared this addendum in the form of a memorandum to the Executive Director of the CRA. The Planning Advisory Board had considered it in the Planning & Zoning Department and we recommend approval. It goes into a little bit more detail about the Park West and some of the things that the plan would approve. This does not change anybody's zoning; it doesn't change the comp. plan. What it does is it provides a framework for when we go on to the next step of creating a regulating plan for Southeast Overtown/Park West in the CRA area for the future, so we would recommend approval. Chairman Sanchez: Lourdes, the slight addendum, does it alter the plan? Ms. Slazyk: What it does is it clarifies that some of the things -- let me go through them. The first one is the goals from the Overtown Empowerment Trust will be referenced in the redevelopment plan in a new paragraph following the last one currently on that page. The goal will also be added as an appendix at the end of the document. That just goes to the goals. Chairman Sanchez: And it's basically a routine -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- packet? Ms. Slazyk: And another one clarifying the 7th Street will be changed to the 8th Street spine, and that was based on where -- some of where the track is and the property owners' desire that 8th Street really be the spine. There was a conceptual plan diagram to include more blocks up to 10th Street in Park West. They wanted to make sure certain properties were not left out of the intent for the district, and it also says that, for Biscayne Boulevard, there were some very specific things for the plan for Biscayne Boulevard, and as you know, most of those blocks, the City City ofMiami Page 103 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commission has already approved Major Use Special Permits for, so it's going to clean up the language to be consistent with what is already happening on Biscayne Boulevard. Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: All right. Chairman Sanchez: Is there a motion? Commissioner Allen: I move to adopt. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Allen. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Regalado. It's open for discussion. Hearing none, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" Motion passes unanimously. Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment Frank Rollason and the CRA Director, as well as Dover Kohl, on meeting with us. I -- you may recall we asked for a continuance at the last meeting, and folks who owned 11 blocks in the Park West area got together. We met with Dover Kohl and with Frank Rollason, and they made the changes that we think were significant to the plan. This is pretty -- a unique opportunity where 11 block owners get together and buy into a plan, so we are supportive and we thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. PZ.7 04-01099 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 ONYX 2 PROJECT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 421-455 NORTHEAST 28TH STREET AND 460-462 NORTHEAST 28TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A 543-FOOT, 49-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF 117 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, AND 163 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 104 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-01099 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01099 MUSP Analysis.pdf 04-01099 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01099 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01099 School Impact Review.PDF 04-01099 Pre -Application Review.PDF 04-01099 Planning Traffic Impact Review.PDF 04-01099 UDRB Reso.PDF 04-01099 URS Traffic Impact Review.PDF 04-01099 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01099 MUSP Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-01099 Variance Analysis.PDF 04-01099 ZB Reso.PDF 04-01099 Variance Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-01099 Plans.PDF 04-01099 Legislation.PDF 04-01099 Exhbit A.PDF 04-01099 Exhibit B.PDF 04-01099 Exhibit C.PDF Onyx 2 version1.mpeg 04-01099-Submittal.pdf 04-01099-Submittal-Compliance with MUSP.pdf 04-01099-Submittal-Opinion Of Counsel.pdf 04-01099-Su bmittal-Photo. pdf 04-01107-Submittal-Letter. pdf 04-01109-Submittal-E-mail. pdf 04-01099 Analysis Modified.pdf 04-01099 Exhibit A Modified.pdf 04-01099 Exhibit A 2nd Modif.pdf 04-01099 Outside Cover.PDF 04-01099 Inside Cover.PDF 04-01099 Table of Contents.PDF 04-01099 Article I - Project Information.PDF 04-01099 Aerials.PDF 04-01099 Zoning Atlas.PDF 04-01099 Project Data Sheet.PDF 04-01099 Ownership List.PDF 04-01099 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 04-01099 Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 04-01099 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 04-01099 Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 04-01099 Site Utility Study.PDF 04-01099 Economic Impact Study.PDF 04-01099 Survey of Property.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Onyx 2 Project LOCATION: Approximately 421-455 NE 28th Street and 460-462 NE 28th Street APPLICANT(S): 02, LLC City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on September 1, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Onyx 2 Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0713 Direction to the Administration by Commissioner Winton to immediately draft amendment(s) to the zoning ordinance to eliminate bonuses currently being granted to developers to stimulate economic development because this is no longer necessary. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.7, Onyx 2. All right. Are we ready? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. PZ. 7 is a Major Use Special Permit for the Onyx 2 project, located at 421 to 455 Northeast 28th Street, and 460 to 62 Northeast 28th Street. The proposal was to construct a 543-foot, 49-story high-rise structure to be comprised of 117 total multifamily units with 163 parking spaces. The recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Department is for approval with certain conditions. I'll go to the heart of the most important condition. The way this application was presented, the applicant was able to derive a very large gross lot area. They were to add -- because of their location along the water, they added approximately 38,120 square feet to their gross lot area. Because the project spans a street and is developed on two different parcels across the street from each other, the other option the developer chose to do was to move all of the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from one of the parcels across the street to the first one, and then they requested the 20 percent PUD (Planned Unit Development) bonus and the 25 percent Affordable Housing Trust Fund bonus. These bonuses together add up to an additional 76,694 square feet. Now, in and of itself, we recognize and acknowledge this is a high -density multifamily residential district, but the combination of what was done with the land and moving FAR over, and then with a large gross lot area and then all the bonuses kind of exacerbated the scale problem. The tower, in and of itself the height is not as big a concern as what happened to the base. The base of the project is very tall. Other projects of similar heights -- actually, not -- very few of this exact height, but other tall buildings in the area were not -- didn't really do this with their bases. They didn't get as tall as this, and it didn't go from, you know, lot end to lot end. The recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Department on this application is that the bonuses either not be approved, or that the applicant go back and reconsider dividing the mass of the building onto their two properties, instead of leaving one open, so you create two buildings that are more in scale and character with other development that may be coming to the area, rather than lumping it all onto one site, and again, it's not so -- and the building is designed well. We recommended -- you know, there's a couple little recommendations about the design, but generally speaking, it's a beautiful building. It's just by massing the building the way they did and doing what they did with the FAR, moving it all over to one site and then bumping the whole thing up with all of the bonuses, it creates a base that nobody else will really be able to do in that area, or they won't do bases that big, and that will be a forever scale issue, so that is our recommendation. Also, I did get additional conditions by the Public Works Department. First of all, an additional condition that the developer not block a portion of the travel lane during construction without constructing or providing City ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 additional travel lane in the area; meaning that the City will not approve a road closure/fence permit to allow the confractor to take over the right-of-way, unless he builds a temporary lane for each land he closes. The temporary lane design must be signed and sealed, and must be approved by Public Works; may require insurance, to be determined by Risk Management, and the second condition is the developer will ensure that the confractor makes arrangements to bus his employees to the worksite to avoid the traffic congestion because the streets are narrow in this area. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Gonzalez. Lourdes, before you step away, in effect, you're saying that this particular structure is not compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Slazyk: As presented, our recommendation is that it is a compatibility issue. Commissioner Allen: That there is -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: -- the incompatibility issue. Ms. Slazyk: There is an incompatibility issue. Commissioner Allen: Right, OK. Ms. Slazyk: It is R-4 zoning. It is high -density. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: It's unlimited height and it allows 150 units per acre, and they haven't exceeded those requirements, but some of the choices that were made on how to combine FAR and apply bonuses to such a large combined FAR, I think, have resulted in a compatibility problem, even with potential future development. Because in the past, we've said, you know, there may not be anything there of this size now, but it's zoned for it and we know other stuff is coming, but nobody else will able to -- be able to do exactly what this one did, so there will never really be another one, or it'll be very difficult to do exactly this, and that's a compatibility issue, and there's a couple ways around it; to either not approve the bonuses because it results in this issue, or to redesign it in a way that both properties are being used more equitably, and then it brings the scale and character back into what's going to develop in the neighborhood. Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Applicant. Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices located at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of 02, LLC, which is the owner of the subject property. With me here today is Mr. Willy Bermello, principal of BAP, the developer, Gustavo Miculitzki -- I know I just butchered them. I apologize. -- a principal of GGMDevelopers, Primi Conde, VP (Vice President) of Development and Design, as well as Tere Garcia, also with Bermello and Ajamil, Wally Lucky, our landscape architect, JackAhlstedt, our traffic consultant. This particular property is located on Northeast 28th Street, right across the street from Biscayne Bay. It's not directly on the water, but it's across the street. We agree with the conditions of Planning staff except items 10A and B and number 14, which was basically -- number 14 was to redesign the project. We have been before -- we spent a great deal of time working on this particular project. We've been before the Urban Development Review Board that recommended approval of this project. They had a few conditions, and we accept those conditions. We also went before the Zoning Board because we requested a variance along Northeast 28th Street so City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 that town homes could be -- could line the parking garage on Northeast 28th Street, and that variance was granted. Then we were also before the City's Planning Advisory Board and staff did have the condition in there that they wanted us to totally remove all the bonuses and redesign the project, and the Planning Advisory Board did not go with that condition that staff was requesting, and I think they based it on the fact that this particular neighborhood -- and it's very important to note -- is zoned R-4, which is high -density residential. Now, yes, there are other homes in the area that people live in that are single-family or duplex, but this neighborhood is zoned R-4, and then on top of the R-4 district, several years ago, the City came in and they said, "We want to encourage development within the Edgewater area, so we're going to put an SD-20 Overlay Disfrict on this particular neighborhood in the Edgewater area, " and what that SD-20 overlay did is, number one, it said regardless of what your height is, it's unlimited. Now, granted, here it was R-4 and you did have unlimited height, but the SD-20 said, regardless of what you're underlying district is, you're unlimited. You can go as high as you want, and they also reduced some of the parking restrictions, and there were a lot of things that the SD-20 Disfrict did in order to encourage development; in order to encourage people to come into these neighborhoods in this area of the city and say we want you to buy this land and we want you to go build on it, and this is what you can do, and that's what my client did. My client saw this piece of property -- it's a gorgeous piece of property -- and he looked at the zoning ordinance, and they figured out what they could build and they designed a gorgeous building. They lined the garage along Northeast 28th Street, and yes, we did put the development on the south parcel onto the north parcel, but I don't know if staff mentioned to you that what we're doing on the south parcel is that we're developing this as a pocket park, and that pocket park is going to be available to the public. It's not private land. We're not going to keep anybody off of it. We're going to open it up to the public, to the neighborhood, so yes, we did move the development, but we also are doing something for the neighborhood by creating this pocket park -- the pocket park, which will be open, and there really aren't any parks within this area, except Margaret Pace Park, which is several blocks to the south. Also, what my client's looking to do is, there is a land sfrip area at the -- right along the bay, and they want to make improvements to that area; they want to put in landscaping. They're willing to maintain it, and that is also open to the public, and they also want to put in pavers along these streets, which they would put in and they would maintain. I think some important things to note here is that the number of units being requested is 117 units. This particular district allows 150 units per acre. They could have as many as 175 units, so they're not seeking to max out on their density. The density that we're requesting, they're not maxing it out because they want to put in a whole bunch of little units and max out on the density. They're providing a lot less. It's about 50 percent less with 117 units, but what they want to do is they want to provide large units and nicer units, and that's why they want the additional -- the square footage and the bonuses that we're requesting. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: IfI may, and sorry to interrupt you, counsel. Ms. Pardo: That's OK Commissioner Allen: You just said something very operative, and I just didn't want just to flow by this particular issue. The land strip area, is there an issue with respect to common ownership of that area, with respect to the balance of the homes surrounding that? Can you address that issue, please? Ms. Pardo: Yes. Yes, I can. There were -- there was discussion as to who is the owner of this particular land strip area. On behalf of the property owner, we had submitted an opinion to the Legal Department stating that this ownership -- because it was field land, that the ownership of this goes to the City because the City is the upland owner of the street, and -- City ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Let me have the City Attorney weigh in on this because -- Ms. Pardo: OK. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): We have, in fact, obtained an Opinion of Title; reviewed the Opinion of Title that Ms. Pardo spoke about, prepared by -- and we are in agreement that -- because of two factors: One, the Opinion of Title that we received, we agree with; that the property is in the ownership of the City ofMiami because of the upland ownership; and two, this property has been off the tax rolls for years and has not been a subject of taxation because it is in public ownership, not private ownership. Commissioner Allen: Right, yeah, and so, therefore, all of the surrounding homes have in common or undivided interest. Mr. Maxwell: No. Commissioner Allen: Would it appear in this -- Mr. Maxwell: No. Commissioner Allen: No? Mr. Maxwell: No. They have no interest. It's owned by the City. It's owned by the City. Chairman Sanchez: It's owned by the City. Mr. Maxwell: They -- owned by the City. Commissioner Allen: It's owned by the City, but it can't be usurped for private purposes. I mean, at this -- Ms. Pardo: Correct. We're not using it -- Mr. Maxwell: You're -- Ms. Pardo: We're not including it. Mr. Maxwell: They're not using it for private purposes. Ms. Pardo: No. Mr. Maxwell: What they're doing is -- under our zoning ordinance, they're allowed to use that property for -- Chairman Sanchez: FAR. Mr. Maxwell: -- calculating FAR. Commissioner Allen: Right, FAR. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: Right. City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Pardo: Right. We're not using it for private purposes, and that area will be maintained and open to the public for the -- Commissioner Winton: But we -- Ms. Pardo: -- for public use. Commissioner Winton: -- would like to require them to maintain -- Commissioner Allen: Maintain it. Commissioner Winton: -- the public property there as a part of their development plan. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Pardo: That area has been unkept, and we're going to put in landscaping. Now, we have had several meetings with the neighborhood going back to May. Last May, we contacted -- Commissioner Allen: Right. That's -- ifI may, Mr. Chairman. Counsel, how do you answer the issue of the incompatibility of this building versus the balance of the community? And also, could you allude to address the issues of the surrounding homeowners; what's been the response from those particular individuals, as well? Ms. Pardo: Mr. Bermello is going to put up some boards showing you the surrounding area. Within the last-- probably, within the last two, three years, the number of projects that have been approved along Biscayne Bay in the Edgewater area, so we don't feel that we are incompatible with the development that has been approved along Biscayne Bay in this particular area, and Mr. Bermello wants to go through it, and he'll note to you the different projects. Willy Bermello: Commissioner Allen, I think your question and point is a very good one because the Assistant Planning Director made a comment about compatibility. In her same comments, she said she had no problems with the overall height of the building -- of the tower -- of the 50-story tower. She said her comments were more in that the base of the tower -- in other words, the parking garage. She has made those same comments on numerous occasions, not just here this afternoon. In my 30 years of working in the City ofMiami, I would say that 99.99 percent of the times I've been in agreement with Lourdes Slazyk; your Assistant Planning Director is very, very capable. In this particular case, we have a difference of opinion, and that's why we prepared this board that shows that a seven -story parking garage, which as a matter of fact, used to be eight stories. We agreed with one of the neighborhood groups to lower it to seven stories because we were found -- we were between the horns of a dilemma, where the City wanted us to put as many parking spaces as we possibly could, but then the neighbors really did not want that many, so we lowered it. At seven stories, that parking garage, which you see here, is more than in keeping with the parking garages of similar buildings within the Edgewater or the area called the Arts District. The real crux of this issue is a basic philosophical difference of opinion between the Assistant Planning Director and ourselves. I think, if Lourdes would have us design this project, she would have had us do two towers, not one. Where we failed -- professionally failed was in being able to convince Lourdes that when you have a larger property and a smaller property that's almost like a little square, where building a parking deck is almost impossible, that it was better for us to dedicate our property on the southern portion, and to do two things with it, Commissioner: One is to build, at our cost, a public park for the neighborhood where one does not exist, and number two, to be able to do a turnaround so that firefighting apparatus, which today, would have to make a three -turn movement, to be able to actually have a full turnaround because, in all of the MUSPs (Major Use Special Permits) that we have worked with, every time we have to meet the Fire Department, they have gut -wrenching exercise because they realize that when they get to a dead street end in any of these streets, it's City ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 very difficult to get, you know, fire -rescue equipment out of there, so what we, in fact, have done in this project -- which is within the parameters of the Zoning Code -- and, in fact, the Urban Development Review Board and your Planning Advisory Board, after hearing the conditions that you just heard from staff they agreed with us, so what we did instead of developing a property that was too small, we dedicated that for a park, at our cost, staying on the tax rolls, so we will be paying taxes on it, but it will be for the full use of the neighbors. Now, we have made modifications to the little park four times because, again, when you meet with different neighbors, different neighbors have different opinions as to what that park should be. Similarly, we have made numerous modifications to the roadway improvements along 28th Street, which we're making at our cost, as well as that sfrip of land that borders on the slip. Plus, we have been cleaning up the slip at our cost. Now, the variance that we went to the Zoning Board -- which was approved by the Zoning Board -- was not imposed by the developer. We did not require a variance. The reason we were forced to go to a variance was because staff asked us to do a liner building, which we, philosophically, agreed with, and we said we will agree with you, we will pay the variance fee, and we will get -- and we will go -- and, basically, the Zoning Board agreed with having the liner building, butt would submit to you -- and you can see -- I mean, a picture is a thousand words --that the height of this building is no different than Ice, which is two blocks to the north. We have under construction Onyx 1, which is 28 stories. Onyx 1 has an eight -story parking garage; this will have a seven -story parking garage. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Bermello: So the issue of compatibility, as measured -- by most municipalities is are we introducing something different in terms of the scale, height, bulk, building that would not be found anywhere else in the district, and the answer to that is we're not. Commissioner Allen: OK. I'm going to turn it back over to the Chairman. I don't know if he's opened it up for any public discussion. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Well -- Commissioner Allen: Where are we at this point? Chairman Sanchez: We're at this point, they will finish -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- and then, of course, we'll have anyone that's in support or in opposition. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: And then we'll open up to a public forum where everyone will have an opportunity to address this Commission. Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Please continue. Ms. Pardo: I'd also like to mention we have been in contact with the neighborhood and with the City NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office. We started back in May of last year -- not last year, this year -- it seems so long ago -- and we were in contact with the NET Office. We had meetings. We asked which neighborhood groups do you think would -- you know, are very involved, we should get -- we should have meetings with; we did. We had meetings with the concerned citizens of Edgewater. After that, we branched out to the neighbors in the immediate area, and overall, I'd say we've probably had about seven or eight meetings, different meetings, City ofMiami Page 111 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 different property owners, frying to reach out to everyone to get their input to see -- some of them, there were some discussions with regards to that strip of land at the end; how they wanted it landscaped, what frees they wanted. Some people wanted bench and some wanted lighting, some didn't, so we've been frying to work with everybody and make sure that it's something that the entire neighborhood would be, you know, proud of and supportive of. We do have some neighborhood support for this particular project, and we're going to have them speak, and you'll hear -- we do have some neighborhood opposition that we just couldn't, you know -- no matter what we did, we couldn't convince them otherwise, so with that, I'm going to -- if you'd like, I can turn the floor over to our architect to walk you through the project. I don't know if that's necessary if you need to, or we can just hear the public speak and then we can get back to it if you have any additional questions. Chairman Sanchez: Well, it's up to you. I mean, you -- I'm sure you prepared your presentation. Ms. Pardo: All right. I should -- Chairman Sanchez: You're the one that needs to decide how you're going to handle this. Ms. Pardo: OK We do have a short video, which we'd like to show you, and we do meet -- besides the variance on the setback, where we had to put the -- not had to, but where we put the liner uses, we meet all the other requirements of the City's zoning ordinance. We meet or exceed those requirements. Chairman Sanchez: Are you -- well, if we lose another Commissioner, then we lose a quorum, so I'm trying to avoid that here. As long as he's within sight -- Mr. Maxwell: You can -- Chairman Sanchez: May continue? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right. Go ahead with your visual presentation, please. Mr. Bermello: Again, the components of the project, Mr. Chairman, is a 17,000 square foot public park that will be a neighborhood park for the City on the south side of 28th Sfreet. The building containing 117 units, and as Adrienne mentioned, this is not an issue of maximizing number of units. It's in a 49-story tower. We actually don't count the 13th floor, so we refer to it as 50, and the parking base, which on the view there, has a recreation deck on the top of the 7th floor; houses a total of 163 parking spaces. The parking garage was designed with those liner units that you see on the front, which basically shields from 28th Sfreet, and also from the west, as you drive towards the bay, the view of the parking garage. All other mechanical areas, truck access, dock areas have been hidden within the building so that, as far as the neighborhood is concerned, you won't see a trash dumpster; you want see a dock, a truck loading or unloading along the street side. The building is a -- it'll look like a crystal lighthouse, very elegant in design. This is the project that will be in the range of $90, 000, 000 in sales, which -- I don't have a calculator here with me, but it'll translate into a good sum of annual increase to the City's tax base, and I think it fulfills the promise that many owners and neighbors in the area of Edgewater, for many years, have been waiting as to when is it going to be their turn for their neighborhoods and their properties to increase in value because of projects like this and many of our other neighboring new developments in the area. We have tried our best to work with the neighbors. We may not have been able to satisfy all of their concerns, but we have certainly listened to them, and I think some of them will tell you that we have done everything we've asked, and some will tell you that we have not done everything we've asked, but I can assure you that we have definitely tried, just like we have fried to work with staff. Unfortunately, there's a City ofMiami Page 112 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 philosophical difference between doing two towers on the two properties, with one which had been a mediocre and very poor design, almost unworkable, versus the City ending up with green space, and a building that -- actually, this particularly building and Ice, too, are almost of the same identical proportions. What I'd like to, do without boring you with a lot of architectural details, is simply tell you that this application was unanimously approved by both the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) and the Planning Advisory Board. After hearing the same comments that you just heard from the Planning Department -- and I think that you will hear from neighbors that are welcoming this project to the area. I think, architecturally, it's probably one of the most striking designs that we have done, and I think it'll be a landmark in Miami's skyline, and one that we can be proud of. I compare it to our design of the Four Seasons tower on Brickell. I think this will be cleaner, and I think Edgewater deserves this kind of elegant structure, so with that, we'd like to reserve the ability to answer questions and make -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, could we -- do you have anyone that will speak on your behalf as to -- in support? Mr. Bermello: I -- from seeing some of the faces in the audience, I know that there are at least six, maybe eight neighbors -- Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Mr. Bermello: -- in the area that are in support of this project. Chairman Sanchez: Let me see those that are in support of the project, please stand up. OK. Any of you wishing to step forward and speak on behalf of the project? Commissioner Winton: Well, are we going to a public hearing? Chairman Sanchez: Huh? Commissioner Winton: Is this the public hearing, or is this -- Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. They -- this is exactly it. They had the opportunity, then the opposition has the opportunity to come up and speak against the project. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Mr. Chair. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: I thought the lawyers did it. Ms. Thompson: I think -- Armando Rodriguez: I would like the people of the neighborhood association to come forward and stand up here behind me, please. Ms. Thompson: I think we had individuals, who may be up to speak, who have not been sworn in yet. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Just to -- for the sake of conducting a proper meeting and make sure that we are within the scope of the law, all those that'll be testifying on -- in support or against this project, please stand up and be sworn in by our City Clerk. Commissioner Winton: I thought that's all PZ projects. City ofMiami Page 113 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Thompson: Will you please raise your right hand? The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. What we're going to do for the sakeness [sic] of fairness is that we will allow all those who are willing to speak on behalf -- in support or against, two minutes, so, sir, always a pleasure to see you here and we'll start with you. Please state your name and your address for the record. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. My name is Armando Rodriguez. I'm the president of the Concerned Citizens of Edgewater. My address is 5700 Southwest 97th Sfreet, Miami, Florida. Some of your faces are very familiar for me. You know, the organization have been in place since 1987, and I have been here numerous times frying to clean Edgewater. We have been instrumental of creating a policeman station and increasing the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the street of Edgewater. We have been instrumental in avoiding crime and tearing down more than 40 crack houses in the area of Edgewater, and many, many other things that you are aware of. I'm talking as a owner in Edgewater and all of the people that are here with me, we have no problem with the project. I think the project is good. We met with them at the very beginning when they went there, and they asked what were our main concerns, and I think our main concerns have been most of them satisfied. We asked for a lot of light in the park, in order to deter crime, and that was accepted and was changed, and a kind of seating in the park to avoid people just to sleep in the park forever, and that was accepted and is in place. We asked for landscaping that will provide a safe environment, and that was, too, accepted, and we asked for more landscaping in the parking area because we don't want to see the parking just facing the neighborhood, and they're working on it. There is one more thing that we talked to them and it's on the way, too, but it's to initiate the process to close an abandoned alley between 27th and 28th Sfreet. It's an alley that is a source of a lot of criminal activities, and the -- I think the project is, to a certain degree, what Mr. Bermello said, something that the neighbors in Edgewater have been looking for for many, many years, so that's all I have to tell you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you -- Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: -- so much. Commissioner Winton: Armando, how long did you say you've been active in Edgewater? Chairman Sanchez: Years. Mr. Rodriguez: Since 1987. Commissioner Winton: 1987? Mr. Rodriguez: Umm-hmm. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. Juan Crespi: Good afternoon. I'm Juan Crespi, office is in 227 Northeast 26th Terrace, also Edgewater, and I'm in a unique situation because I've been a resident of Edgewater since 1970, City ofMiami Page 114 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 sixty -something, I'm sorry -- '61. I went away to school; I came back and I opened my offices 1980 in Edgewater. Being an architect, I also have an opinion that think can certainly render about the project. What want to say in the forefront is that this community was really hurting. In the '80s, we went to your Commission; we went to the Planning Department, and we participated in helping coming up with zoning, even in the overlay district that was -- facilitate development and save us from the situation we were in. It is now happening. The properties that I own there are worth more everyday. I, myself am considering development. The unfortunate part about this is that even though it's zoned for high residential, there's people in there that are still looking out as a single-family home, and it is not. This is the most active area in development at this point in the City, probably in the County. The fortunate part is that everybody has an opportunity. Before, we couldn't give away our properties, and mean it. There was no market to sell what you had. Right now, there's choices. You can sell at a great profit. You can join with others and be a development, or you can even sit there and take your chances, but think there's an opportunity now and we can't go back. We made, along with the Commission, made many decisions. The things that we decided are here today. They're complying with everything that's in the zoning and planning. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Mr. Crespi: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Pastor Jose Menendez: My name is Father Jose Menendez. I am pastor of Corpus Christi Church and we own a mission in St. Francis and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 28th and 29th Street Northeast. As a matter of fact, my property is 343 Northeast 28th Street, and you know, I have been there for 17 years. I have seen the neighborhood as it was; now it's coming better. We know that not pass one day that we don't receive a call from somebody who is willing to pay the price for my property. The property serve as a church. Has passed from $46, 000 for two lots and a half in that neighborhood to $500, 000 for one lot only. This is the change of the area, and the only thing is I see -- when I see a developer who comes to our areas, give us something better. Give us a new street or help us to rebuild that street. Help us to have a park, and we see people again, again saying that they miss the Australian pine, and that is something who is -- I don't think how people can see that, but you know, we have to accept diversity. Whatl think is I am a part of that people who works here and I am in favor of this, and I think that this is a plus for our area. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Anyone else? Good afternoon, ma'am. State your name and your address for the record. Marta Rodriguez: My name is Marta Rodriguez. I live in 417 Northeast 27th Street and I own property on 28th Street. I just want the Commission to know that, as a 31 year resident of the Edgewater area, I am very happy, welcome this development and the others from the bottom of my heart. It's about time that we were recognized as a beautiful location, as a place to be developed, and to be given the consideration for the ones that have been fighting for the long, long time in that area to improve it. I think it's our time, like Mr. Bermello said before, and I certainly agree with him 100 percent. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Is there anybody else? If not, counsel. Ms. Pardo: We'll -- Chairman Sanchez: Opposition will have its turn in a minute, sir. Ms. Pardo: We'll save for rebuttal time. City ofMiami Page 115 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: You'll save for -- so you're done with your presentation and calling -- OK. Ms. Pardo: If any issues come up that we need rebuttal, then we'll address them then. Chairman Sanchez: Opposition, counsel. OK. Sir, could you -- so we could -- why don't you come here? Dana Murphy: I have something here. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Whatever you're happy. Ms. Thompson: You need to be on the mike, sir. I'm sorry. I need your name. Commissioner Winton: You have to come to the mike. Ms. Thompson: I need you on your mike. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. You need to state your name -- Mr. Maxwell: You have to use your microphone. Chairman Sanchez: -- for the record and your address. OK. Mr. Murphy: My name is Dana Murphy. I am the owner and resident of 339 Northeast 28th Street. Mr. Chairman, I have some pictures that think will help us all understand the issues concerning Onyx 2 and their project. It's very easy for someone to sugarcoat something; it's another to deal with reality. I would ask that the board take a moment just to look at some of the pictures and what we're dealing with. We're dealing with some serious issues here. It's not just an issue of a high-rise going into an area. It's an area concerning a park. We have a park. Well, we had a park until they tore all the frees down. It was called Bankers Park. Now they want to bring in some other park, butl think that everyone needs to see what are the issues, so Mr. Chairman, I ask, can I show some pictures, please? Chairman Sanchez: Sir, absolutely. Mr. Murphy: You're a gentleman. Mr. Chairman, if you just give me a moment because I've never done this before. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there -- while you set up, is there anybody else on the other side, or do you have legal counsel? Mr. Murphy: Yes. We have an attorney here, also. I think maybe he can begin, certainly. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, you could, you know, proceed and then, when he gets everything going -- that way, for the sake of time -- we do have a voluminous agenda today that we want to get through. Andrew Dickman: I understand. Absolutely. For the record -- Chairman Sanchez: I know that would have to leave at 7:30 sharp, and I will leave at 7:30 sharp. Mr. Dickman: You're leaving at 7:30 sharp. City ofMiami Page 116 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: OK. For the record, Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9111 Park Drive, in Miami Shores, Florida. I'm here representing Mr. and Mrs. Auerbach, who reside and own property at 456 Northeast 29th Street. This is the property abutting the subject parcel directly to the north, and Mrs. Auerbach is here with me today and will want to say a few words, and I also want to go into the thing -- while he's setting up, I just want to point out one thing about the opinion that was put in, because we do have a issue with the property that -- right on the bay. The opinion, I was -- notice is dated the 28th. It's dated today. We have not had the ability to see this. I'm kind of surprised that, if it was dated today, the Attorney's Office was able to review it today. We haven't had the chance of reviewing it, so I just want to put that objection into the record. Commissioner Winton: So you think the property's then -- is private property? Mr. Dickman: That's one of the issues we're going to bring up. The opinion that they have -- and it seems as though the City Attorney agrees that it is City property, and we have a difference of opinion, and I believe the gentleman is also going to bring that issue up, and why don'tI go ahead and defer and let him show his pictures. Mr. Murphy: First off Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: I believe that Commissioner Winton had a -- Mr. Dickman: I'm sorry. Did you -- Chairman Sanchez: -- question for you. Mr. Dickman: -- have a question? Commissioner Winton: He answered my question. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, OK Commissioner Winton: I'm fine. Chairman Sanchez: OK, sir. Mr. Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I first just would like for people to see what this area looks like. You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to show pictures because I know this inside and out and I don't need pictures. Chairman Sanchez: I thought you wanted to show the pictures. Mr. Murphy: Mr. Chairman, if you look down here -- and I'm going to put this up so that maybe the folks on -- in the neighborhoods can see this. First off we had a park down the end of the street here, a very beautiful park. Onyx decided -- because this property that they have -- let me first show you the property. Commissioner Winton: There's no park there. Chairman Sanchez: Sir. Mr. Murphy: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Was -- City ofMiami Page 117 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: What park? Mr. Murphy: It's called Bankers Park. Right at the end here, which they've put these palm trees here, there was a park. It's called Bankers Park. There was one, until they came in and tore it down, cut all the trees down. I have pictures -- Chairman Sanchez: The City -- Mr. Murphy: -- of the park. Chairman Sanchez: The City -- Mr. Murphy: I can show it to you. Chairman Sanchez: -- has never had a park there, correct? What kind of park was that? Mr. Maxwell: I couldn't answer that question. Chairman Sanchez: Did somebody own a property and just let it be a park? Mr. Murphy: No. That's not the -- what they're showing you is something that's incorrect. That's not the park. Chairman Sanchez: Show me the park here, sir. Mr. Murphy: I'm going to show you the park, sir, in pictures. I think it would be much nicer. Chairman Sanchez: Let's -- Mr. Murphy: Give me just one second. Chairman Sanchez: You're entitled -- Mr. Murphy: I have it right now. Chairman Sanchez: Take your time. You're entitled to present your case, but let's be relevant on Mr. Murphy: OK. What you're going to see here is the park that we had before. It was called Bankers Park. This was a park that all of us on 28th Street are very, very much aware of. I will show you pictures -- Chairman Sanchez: But, sir, was it a City park? Mr. Murphy: No. It's -- this is a platted park, platted in our plat. Now, I have the plat here and the plat shows the dimension of this park. The City ofMiami sent its surveyors down. There is a survey of this park. While I'm talking, you think I would put it on the slideshow so you can see what it looked like. This is during the time that they were cutting all the frees in our area. There was a park there. Now, they talk about putting up -- building this park. The park that they're talking about building, it's not a park. It's just a couple of parcels of land that they're taking the building rights to switch it across the street. It's not a park. This, what you're looking at, is the park that we had before. It was a beautiful park. Now, the plat -- I have done my homework. The City -- Dade County has indicated that the only one that has the rights to this property is the raparian rights for the City ofMiami. Now, if we need to go to court and have a judge determine City ofMiami Page 118 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 who owns the property, but as far as all of us on 28th are concerned, this entire plat, we own that land; the same land that they're taking the bonuses to go up higher. Now, this park down here is very, very important to us because, as you will see in Onyx's picture here -- because Onyx doesn't have the land that it needs for this humongous building, it needed to take our park away, and ifyou look at this picture, this picture is designed in a fashion to give someone the opinion that all this property belongs to them. Now, this is the park that they're talking about, their so-called park. Now they talk about the alleyway, this platted alley. This alley is important. The reason why the alley is important is because it allows the fire vehicles to fight fires both on 28th Sfreet and 29th Sfreet. Now, they have indicated that, you know, they'd like to see this thing closed down, or the Fire Department needs to use this alleyway. Well, they can break down the gates, and so on, et cetera, but this building is entirely too big for this little sfreet. First off the street is only 30 feet wide. If you add on the sidewalks, it's 38 feet. You go to most streets and it's double the size. You cannot even get one car -- you can get one car to go down there at a time, and any other car moving in the opposite direction would have to pull over to let these cars in. Now, they want to talk about this building and the Zoning Board, and this and that. Well, the chairman of the Zoning Board didn't really like the building, if people look back at the tapes. If you look at this right here, this is a flat wall. Everyone on 29th Sfreet and facing north, that's all they're going to see is a flat wall 50 stories high. Now the parking garage, if you do some calculations -- these are expensive condominiums and most people are going to have two cars -- but ifyou do the math for one parking spot per one -bedroom, and then do the math for the other ones, you will find that this place is so short with parking, it's unbelievable. Secondly, this street is the smallest sfreet in length because we're the only sfreet on Biscayne Boulevard that has its own bay, the only sfreet. Consequently, there's no way you can add these cars in here. Now, we're not against urban renewal and we're not against high-rises going in, but this does not even make sense. Now they want to praise themselves on how nice they are and the wonderful things they're doing in our community. Let me tell you what they did. We had meetings and we tried very hard to work with them, and I told them, "I'll work with you. This will happen. I don't want your money and I don't want anything. We can make this happen." This is what they did: One, they told us, "We're going to put these water jets in the water to put oxygen in the water." I said to them, amongst with the other owners out here, and they said, "Oxygen in the water? This is the ocean. You don't need to put oxygen. You have a smell is because when the seaweed piles on top of one another, it dies and that's what the smell is. You don't need these jets." Well, what do they do? What did they do? They put these jets in the water and they turn them off every day at 5 o'clock. One day, it rained. I went home early and I saw these lights jetting up out of the water. It wasn't to put oxygen in the water. It was a light display with water going up. Now, let's go a little further back when they put these things in there. Commissioner Winton, when they put these things in there, what they did was they ran these cables, high voltage cables in the water. Let me show you -- I want to show you a picture because they claim that they're in our neighborhood doing all these wonderful things. Commissioner Winton: But -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: This issue is a Code Enforcement and policing issue, which has nothing to do with -- Mr. Murphy: You're absolutely right, Mr. Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: -- (INAUDIBLE) building or not, so -- Chairman Sanchez: But -- Mr. Murphy: But it's just to lend -- City ofMiami Page 119 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Could you please -- please. I understand. The Commissioner is right, but I don't want to deny you or the opposition the opportunity to address your concern. Your arguments -- we play a quasi-judicial here. You've got to make your arguments based on relevant facts as to -- for us to decide at the end, when we're going to vote, on how we vote. So far, I mean, you're basically -- you've shown some pictures. The only issue right now on the table is the legality of the property, whether it's owned by the City. That -- those are the things I think your attorney needs to be focused on. Mr. Murphy: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right and I agree with you. We're only here for the meat and potatoes, not emotions. Chairman Sanchez: But I don't want to deny you that process. Mr. Murphy: No. Chairman Sanchez: Please. Mr. Murphy: That's OK. Because I can eliminate the motions because we're not here for emotions. We're here for facts. The street is too small. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Murphy: It's too narrow; it's 30 feet wide. It's too narrow. They should not have been given the bonuses for this property for hardship because they had an opportunity, when they went into the neighborhood, to buy the amount of land that they needed. Because they decided to buy a small piece of property to put this humongous building on it, we should not pay for that. Now, they got bonuses based on that land being City -owned. It's not City -owned. I have a letter from the City saying it's not City -owned. Chairman Sanchez: Well, can you show that letter? Mr. Murphy: Yes, I will. Commissioner Winton: And give it to the City Attorney. Mr. Murphy: Mr. Attorney, can I -- Chairman Sanchez: No. Give it -- Mr. Murphy: -- pass it out to them, or -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, sir. Commissioner Winton: No. Chairman Sanchez: Turn it to the City Clerk. Mr. Murphy: OK. Chairman Sanchez: The City Clerk will distribute it to us, making it -- Commissioner Winton: But I don't want the -- City Attorney needs to see if that's a valid letter. I'm not going to know that. Chairman Sanchez: He's going to get a copy of it. City ofMiami Page 120 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Murphy: All they are is legal documents from the City. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, ifI could, while he's looking at that. The letter thatl have a copy of as well, is dated October 18th, and it's from Stephanie Grindell, the Director of Public Works, and it clearly does say that the City is not owned by -- the property is not owned by the City, so that's where the confusion is coming from. It absolutely says that in black -and -white, and it's copied to the Manager's Office and to everybody else in the administration. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Maxwell: We're aware of this letter. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Maxwell: Our office reviewed the title opinion, as I indicated earlier to you. We got the title opinion in this morning, as Mr. Dickman pointed out. Our staff reviewed it. We are of the opinion that by operation of law, the Public Works Department's letter of October the 18th was not correct, and that because, as I said of operation of law, this property is, in fact, owned by the City ofMiami. As I indicated before, taxes have not been paid on the property. If it was in private ownership, someone should have been paying taxes on the property, so the property, we believe, is owned by the City ofMiami. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Maxwell: Notwithstanding Ms. Grindell's letter of October 18th. Mr. Murphy: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Murphy: The property, as we see it, belongs to everyone in that plat. Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you've stated that for the record -- Mr. Murphy: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- and we'll take it into advisement. Mr. Murphy: It belongs to everyone in the plat. Commissioner Winton: He's making a legal opinion. Our CityAttorney's making -- has given us his legal opinion -- Chairman Sanchez: Exactly. Commissioner Winton: -- so -- Mr. Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this hearing be postponed until we are able to certainly get a legal opinion -- a title search to be done. I don't think Mr. City Attorney has a title search in his hand, but think that -- for the record, I think a title search needs to be done so that we're all clear, before any decisions are made, who, in fact, owns the property, because we, in the neighborhood, believe that we own it, and the City Attorney is saying that the City owns it City ofMiami Page 121 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 when, in fact, Asset Management says, no, you all own it. Public Works say, in essence, the same. I think -- I would ask that this be postponed until we can get some clarity. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Maxwell: All we'll end up with is dueling opinions. We have an opinion that we've accepted. It was prepared by a competent member of the title bar. We've accepted that opinion. If they come back with a separate opinion, which may be different, may not be different, all you're going to have now are two opinions, so I would suggest to you that we have an opinion that we've accepted that you can move forward on. If it becomes an issue at some point, a court can decide that. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Mr. Dickman: And just on that point. I mean, and with all due respect to the attorneys involved, we haven't had a chance to submit an opinion. We didn't even know that the -- Commissioner Winton: Well, that's your problem. Mr. Dickman: -- other side was going to submit one. Mr. Maxwell: It came in today, and I've just given you, for the record -- I did give you a copy of it, Mr. Dickman. You had it. Mr. Dickman: Five minutes ago. Mr. Maxwell: That's right. Mr. Dickman: But what I'm saying is, you're saying if we would have differences of opinion -- Mr. Maxwell: Would you like a few minutes to review it? Mr. Dickman: No. What I'm saying is -- Commissioner Winton: He's had 30 minutes to review it. Mr. Murphy: Mr. Chairman, ifI could interject -- and I'm going to call it quits after this. Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no. Listen, listen, listen, we're going to maintain this meeting in order. Counsel, you had an opportunity to review the court -- I mean, we're going to proceed. Mr. Dickman: With all due respect -- Chairman Sanchez: We are going to proceed with this matter. Mr. Dickman: -- five minutes of looking at an opinion that's been submitted -- what I'm -- whatl -- I'm not going to beat this horse because I think that basically, he's right, there's two difference of opinions, but we have not had a chance to submit an opinion or to do the title work on it. We've relied on a letter that was from the City's own Asset Management, under color of the City, and since this is such a huge decision and a lot is riding on what that land is, it may, in an abundance of caution, merit pausing slightly and waiting for the ability to really review this piece of property. That's all I'm saying. City ofMiami Page 122 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Well -- but here's the thing, this is an issue that's been going on for the longest time. Both of you know that you both debated on this issue, whether who owns the property or not; both sides had the same opportunity to do the same research and stuff. You know, we're going to continue with this. We're going to continue and -- the matter of the fact is here is -- Mr. Dickman: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- that both of you are going to make a presentation, and then this legislative body's going to vote on it. We're not going to defer. We're not going to -- make your presentation, just like the applicant did, and then this legislative body, quasi-judicial body will decide on this matter, but we're not going to be -- you know, later on another issue and you're going to need more time to research it -- you should have been prepared, as they are prepared -- Mr. Dickman: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: -- to come in from of this legislative body. Mr. Dickman: And in all -- Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no, that's it. Let's go. Move on. You want the floor, you have it, but are you going to be done? Mr. Murphy: Let him make his -- Chairman Sanchez: I think you've made your case already, but if you have anything else you want to put on the floor, let's put it, but let's move, let's move. Mr. Murphy: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of the public, I request that this is postponed because we -- what we would like to do with that land down the end there is to create a mechanism so that the City and the citizens of this city will have the opportunity to go down and use that bay as they've done for so many years, versus Onyx coming down here taking our bay. I'm done, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Counsel, you have the floor, and then, of course, you could call anyone that is in opposition of the item to speak. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, sir. Once again, for the record, I'm representing Mr. and Mrs. Auerbach, who reside at 456 Northeast 29th Street. That is who I'm representing here tonight, and just to preserve for the record, I understand that you've just talked about this issue, but in all candor, that opinion was not made part of the application. It was not put in the public record for notice. It was just given to us in -- five minutes ago, and that is a notice and due process problem, and I just want to put that onto the record, ifI can. The applicant -- or the -- my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Auerbach, live directly north of this property. You can see the aerial I've handed out to you, also various documents with exhibits. They are a single-family home with property abutting the Onyx 2. The conditions that they -- very quickly, the conditions that they have been enduring while this property has been prepared for this development have been, to say the least, disturbing and what I mean by that, the quiet enjoyment that they enjoy as single-family property owners on their -- in their house. They have endured a very large generator five feet from their private property fence. Commissioner Winton: What does that have to do with what we're dealing with? Mr. Dickman: Well -- OK. City ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, it's an R-4, for crying out loud. Mr. Dickman: The -- Commissioner Winton: That doesn't have anything to do with our decision. That's a policing issue. That's a code enforcement issue. That has nothing to do with us. Mr. Dickman: With all due respect, I will skip over this, butt want to just say to you that this has not been -- the context that this development is going into is a neighborhood. It is a large development going into a neighborhood. I would tend to agree with your professional planning staff not the appointed and elected members of your advisory boards, but your professional planning staff. In other words, they have told you, unequivocally, that this is too big for that piece of property. This is the equivalent of a perfect storm development. In other words, they have acquired property that has allowed them to do a number of different things to expand this development so large that it is, in the words of your own staff out of scale, inappropriate, not consistent with the adjoining neighborhood. They have used, one, the PUD bonus, the affordable housing bonus; they have used the gross lot area advantage to bring all of this over onto one parcel of property that is right up against my client's single-family home. Under Article 17, you have an obligation to look at the surrounding context of where this development is going. You have an obligation to look at it and decide whether or not it is -- is it a favorable or not favorable impact on the surrounding environment. You have an obligation to decide whether it adversely or negative -- or helps the surrounding living conditions, and I'm here to tell you that a building this size, five feet away from my client's property line, going from 0 to over 500 feet, is not compatible. This is an example of what my client is going to be dealing with. This is a -- the applicant's own elevation, with a picture of my client's home, that picture that you have before you, up to where it will be. It will be dwarfed, not only by the parking pedestal, but also by the tower itself. My clients are not saying no development whatsoever. They understand this is R-4, but we disagree with the fact that it means, unequivocally, unlimited development because, otherwise, why would you have an SD Overlay there? Why would you have Article 17? Why would you have, particularly, 13052, which is the design criteria? And what I've submitted to you is that design criteria, which, presumably, your Planning staff looked at when they reviewed this, and when they decided to offer up the recommendation for scaling this back, putting two buildings straddling the street, the residential street, and telling you that this is not a workable project. FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation), itself has said that the traffic impacts are insufficient; that they are go -- that at 80 -- 28th Street going on Biscayne, that the signalization there is improper; that it's already failing of the levels of service. In your own comp plan, you have an obligation to make sure that this isn't happening. FDOT, in the backup documentation that you have before you, has said that the traffic analysis for this project is wrong; that it is not taking into account the other projects that are coming on line; that you've already got problems at 28th Street and Biscayne, and this is only going to exasperate it. This is in your own staff recommendations. I also want to address the variance. They're asking for a total waiver of a variance and, as you all know, variances are required -- are set up to protect and to ease development into these properties. The law of variances is very, very clear; that it cannot be created by the property owner; it has to be something unique to the property. Not only does your Code say that, but the case law says that. It says that it cannot be created by the applicant. Commissioner Winton: I don't think it was. Mr. Dickman: It must say that the project cannot meet its goals without the variance and, in this case, they can develop it, and that there cannot be any reasonable use of the property. In other words, there is plenty of reasonable uses for this property. This is the case law in Miami, in the Third District Court ofAppeals, that says that you cannot grant variances based on things that the developer has caused. This variance requires 15-foot setback off the street, and you are -- they're asking for a zero setback, and that variance must be established on hardship. They have City ofMiami Page 124 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 not established any kind of hardship. They have not presented one ounce of information or substantial competent evidence for you to grant a variance, and that goes contrary to the established law, not only what you have in your Code, but also what you have in case law supporting that. This property is similar to other properties. There is nothing unique about it. They have assembled several 50 by 100 or so lots to make a larger lot, so that they can turn the whole thing around and face it towards the bay, and therefore, call that the front. They have done everything they can manageably do to increase the buildable FAR on this project. That's what you need to be looking at, is the FAR. The units are irrelevant. She's going to tell you that their units are under what they can develop. That'll (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 150 units per acre. Well, what we think -- we agree with is what staff is saying, give them the 1.2 --1.72 FAR, but don't beef it up with the other bonuses. Don't beef it up with the PUD bonus. Don't beef it up with the affordable housing bonus. Don't let them transfer this over onto one project -- under one parcel, and don't give them the gross lot area advantage. This is just way out of -- I think you saw the video. It's way beyond what any of the other larger developments are doing in the area, which are more to 10 to 15 stories high. This is a eight -story parking pedestal, with a 500-foot tower. Yes, those are nice ideas of having a beautiful park there, but no one has said whether or not they're going to put into the record of tying that park to the public. Nobody has said anything about that. This is just over the top. It is a bad decision. I ask you to follow your Planning staffs recommendation, and I just want to read this directly from what they have said. "Consider revising" -- this is the develop -- this is the Design Review Committee -- "Consider revising the scheme of the project by not including the proposed FAR bonuses and/or by providing two smaller towers on the parcels on each side of Northeast 28th Street. This will provide a more appropriate -scaled project and will provide an opportunity to create a great street section by designing buildings on each side of the street." The applicant will tell you that they have a philosophical difference. Well, that's fine. We have a philosophical difference, too, that while it is R-4, you have to consider that this is a neighborhood of residents. You have to consider that under your comp plan and under Article 17 and Article 1305. You have to consider these things, and those are the things that we're asking you to do. The variance, we feel, is being asked for in error. We also feel that the land issue concerning what is public and what is not on that sfrip of land along the bay is an issue, and for those reasons, we'd ask for you to either defer this so that it can be further discussed; let them meet with us and, perhaps, redesign their building, or deny it, but don't approve it with conditions because those conditions -- if they take off of those conditions, that is going to dramatically change the building. I don't understand why the recommendation would be for approval with the conditions, because if you take off those bonuses, this is going to be a radically different project and, quite frankly, that needs to come before you under the MUSP, so I would ask that you deny this, and I would like to also ask my client to come up and say a few words to you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, do you have anyone that's going to speak against the item? Mr. Dickman: Pardon me? Chairman Sanchez: Do you have -- Mr. Dickman: Any other -- I'm -- Chairman Sanchez: Do you have residents that are speak -- Mr. Dickman: As I said, I'm representing the adjacent property owners. Chairman Sanchez: OK. City ofMiami Page 125 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Dickman: I believe there are other -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, let her come up and state her name for the record and put something on the record, so we could expedite this. Mr. Dickman: There are other neighbors here who would like to speak against this on their own. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Well, let's go. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: Just before the first person speaks on this issue, I'd like just the record to reflect that Mr. Dickman passed out a document dated October the 28th, today's date, to the Commission in support of his position. It is to be -- in all candor, it seems to be a summary -- his argument, in chief that -- which he summarized a few minutes ago but, yet, he complained a few moments ago -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: -- about the same thing, so I just want the record to reflect that we're accepting his document. We reflected the other document. They're both dated October the 28th. Mr. Dickman: And with all due respect, I'm not the -- Commissioner Winton: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Mr. Dickman: -- I'm not the applicant here. Mr. Chair, I'm not the applicant, and that's the consideration of due process. They have to put their records before the public so that we can review them. I'm not the applicant; they are. Chairman Sanchez: OK, counsel. Ma'am. Betty Auerbach: Hello. My name is Betty Auerbach. I live at 456Northeast 29th Street. I want to begin by saying that this isn't a people who are pro -development and people who are anti -development. We've -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. You've stated your name for the record and your address? Ms. Auerbach: Yes, I did. Chairman Sanchez: Two minutes, please. Ms. Auerbach: We've owned this property for 30 years, and we have known about the zoning on the land. We are not against development. We're against development that doesn't make sense. I want to live in a city where the buildings that are put on these lots make sense. This lot is a narrow lot. It is not appropriate for a 50-story building to go on it. A 20-story building would not cause me the same agitation, and it would -- it still would -- could be quite as beautiful as this 50-story building. Nobody's saying it's not a beautiful building. It just doesn't fit on the lot. The other buildings that they have cited that are similar in the area, they're similar in terms of height, but not in terms of location. All of the buildings -- the Ice 2 is on a much larger lot, and all of the neighboring land around it is owned by the person who is building Ice 2. There is no other building that is in the same footprint of a lot as this building is going up. This narrow sfrip City ofMiami Page 126 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 of land -- I understand, we have a legal opinion from the applicant, dated today, that the City Attorney has agreed with -- it absolutely is a core issue here. They were able to greatly increase the height of their building because they were able to claim that that is public land. I have riparian rights in my abstract to that inlet to the bay and it is through that sfrip of land, as do other people in the Bankers Park Plat. That is really semi private land. I believe that if the owners in Bankers Plat wanted to get together and fence that off just for their own use, they would be allowed to do that. It is not a public piece of land and it is not owned by the City. The fact that nobody's been collecting taxes on it does not change the -- does not suddenly make it public land. I would also like to address the goal of putting -- the applicant has said they're going to pave the sfreet and re -landscape that strip of land. If you look at the pictures they've submitted, what -- putting pavers on that end of the sfreet and their idea of landscaping that piece of land makes it look like it's part of their building, so they're getting bay front land for free, and if you look in their brochure, they actually claim that they have 200 feet of private waterfront. I don't have their brochure with me, but they might have one. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ma'am, you need to make a finishing statement. Ms. Auerbach: OK The variance is not justified because the applicant is creating the hardship, because of his unrealistic expectation of developing his property as designed, which is out of scale with the buildings in the area. The FAR increases for being adjacent to the bay are not warranted because it's semi -private land. The affordable housing and PUD bonuses are not warranted because you'll be squeezing a huge building on too small of a building site -- Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Auerbach: -- and the proposed building is in a high -density multifamily zone, but it is not compatible with the surrounding buildings or what will ever be the surroundings buildings. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Auerbach: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. OK. Anyone else, counsel? Mr. Dickman: There are a few neighbors here who want to speak, I believe. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Winton: Well, could you get them -- yeah, bring them all up. Brennett Calliste: Hello. My name is Brennett Calliste, and I'm at 480 Northeast 29th Street. While I -- I do have a lot of personal gripes with Onyx, as far as putting 60 feet of cable across my property, without even saying anything to me -- coming to paint my fence; without even saying, I'm going to -- can I paint it? -- I have problems with you, and I've never seen anyone from Onyx at my house. Commissioner Allen: Near the mike. Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, you need -- Ms. Calliste: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- to direct all your statements -- Ms. Calliste: Now, my -- City ofMiami Page 127 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- through the Chair, please. Ms. Calliste: OK. Getting to the issues -- and I understand that we want to deal with the issues -- from my back yard, I can see the traffic coming on that street, and the fraffic that's coming there can hardly make it now. Two cars cannot turn at the end of 28th Street, and I feel that someone from this Commission needs to go there and see for themselves what we're talking about, and since you're the planners for the future, you need to make sound decisions -- excuse me, I don't mean to sound rude. -- sound decisions because big buildings are coming all over the place, and you're going to have -- I read in the newspaper that one of the biggest issues facing the new mayor is going to be fraffic, and I don't know if you know what Biscayne Boulevard looks like at 5 o'clock, and I know you haven't been down to 28th Street and see that two cars cannot turn at the same time. They can't, so it's not with planning. I'm just saying that, for the record. It's not good planning, and it will come back to haunt you if you keep making decisions that are not good. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Sir, state your name for the record and your address. Catero Manicuso: My name is Catero Manicuso and I live on 403 Northeast 28th Street. I'm opposed to this building because of the parking -- the parking situation, I think, is not solved; think we have too much -- too many cars going down there now and, in the future, with the building, it's going to be way over too congested, and anybody who has a property in there has to be concerned about the traffic because that's a negative, if anybody wants to go there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Mr. Dickman: I believe that's all the -- Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, does that -- Mr. Dickman: -- neighbors that are here. Chairman Sanchez: -- conclude your -- Mr. Dickman: Yes, it does. We'd ask that you support your staff and deny the bonuses and bring the building back to redesign. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Counsel, rebuttal. Commissioner Allen: Mr. -- Chairman Sanchez: You reserved time for rebuttal. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Allen: -- ifI may. Mr. Chairman Chairman Sanchez: Before we do that -- City ofMiami Page 128 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: -- for purposes of -- Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: -- for purposes of brevity, could we make sure that the applicant limit their discussion to competent and substantial evidence that we must take into account, not to simply rehash issues, if you will, please? Chairman Sanchez: I mean, I wish everybody did that -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- you know. Mr. Bermello: Absolutely. I think -- Commissioner Allen: But the reason why I'm saying -- Mr. Bermello: I'd like to share something -- Commissioner Allen: -- is because this gets very -- Mr. Bermello: I'd like -- Commissioner Allen: -- this gets very emotional and we don't want to get into those sort of arguments, so ifyou will, ifyou could just limit it to those issues. Mr. Bermello: I have to get this Willy chest, because I think I kind of heard enough on this topic and I hope -- just beg your indulgence -- Commissioner Winton: But I think -- Mr. Bermello: -- just for two minutes. Commissioner Winton: I think -- Mr. Bermello: And it will bear on this issue, because we have had four meetings with the neighbors, public meetings; one of them, we sent out notices to 500 feet away in terms of due notice, which was brought up a little while ago, and three private meetings. In two of those private meetings, one was with Mr. Dana Murphy and Mr. Manicuso, who just talked about here Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Bermello: -- and these gentlemen sat in my office for three hours. I took away time from my family. At the end of the meeting, they said, "Mr. Bermello, what we're talking about here is we need an exit strategy. Do you know what that means?" I said, no. You tell me what that means. Said, "Well, the exit strategy is, you know, you either think about buying our property out" -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy: That is not true. Do not go down that -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. City ofMiami Page 129 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Bermello: I'd like to finish the statement. Commissioner Allen: See, this -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you're out of order. Mr. Bermello: I'd like to finish the statement. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Bermello: I'd like the statement or -- Chairman Sanchez: Now, let's get into substantial evidence -- Mr. Bermello: Or -- I think this is important, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Willy -- Mr. Bermello, hold on. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: Let's get some order here, please. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: Let's try to focus on -- Mr. Bermello: I'll finish very quickly. Chairman Sanchez: -- relevant facts -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- and evidence to sustain your argument. Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. They have rebuttal right now. They're entitled to rebuttal, not the comments that are now being made on the record. Chairman Sanchez: Those comments are inappropriate. Mr. Maxwell: Only rebuttal at this time -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, those comments are inappropriate. Mr. Maxwell: -- Mr. Bermello. Mr. Murphy: That is false, what he said. Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Commissioner Winton: You're out of order also. Chairman Sanchez: Both of you are out of order, and there's -- City ofMiami Page 130 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Murphy: We're out of order. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Pardo: I'm going to address rebuttal -- Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Ms. Pardo: -- on some of the comments that were made with regards to the subject property. We have been working on this proper -- this project since January of last year. With regards to the opinion that was given to the City, I had received a call on Monday of this week, saying that there was an issue with regards to that land strip in calculating it within the floor area. Therefore, research was done. A title company was contacted, American Title, and information was provided and then additional research was done, and the Opinion of Title was given to the City this morning. With regards to -- I mean, one of the issues was that it's been on the tax rolls showing the City ofMiami -- and actually, one of the documents thatMr. Dickman had given -- the last page, it shows the tax printout of that strip of land that we're talking about, and it lists the City ofMiami. Now, granted, the Asset Management department says, "No, we don't have a record of this in our computer, " but it's been on the tax rolls, and it's the last page thatMr. Dickman gave you showing the City ofMiami as the property owner of that land strip, and we're not frying to make it our property. That's not the purpose here, at all. That property will remain open to the public. It will remain open for everybody's use and anybody who has riparian rights, they are still entitled to those riparian rights and to use that particular property. With regards to the bonuses, this project, if you take away all the bonuses, it doesn't work. It just -- it doesn't work. We meet the criteria of the Code with regards to the bonuses. There's certain criteria that if you want the bonuses, you have to have units a certain size. We meet that criteria. There is criteria with regards to the variance. The reason -- the only reason we put in for the variance, that variance cost the developer -- I'll have to look up the number, but it was something like 30, $40, 000 just the application fee for the variance because they wanted to line the garage. We could take away that variance, but what it does is, it takes away the lining of the garage and then you're going to see the garage on Northeast 28th Street, so they lined it with the town homes, and that was the purpose of that particular variance. With regards to the affordable housing bonus, yes, they are getting additional square footage, but they're also paying to the City $570, 000 for that affordable housing bonus, so that's $570, 000 that will go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the City ofMiami, so that additional housing can be built that can address those needs for people who need affordable housing. Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right. Ms. Pardo: And we would just request -- I just want to remind you that the Urban Development Review Board and the Planning Board approved the project as -is, with all the bonuses. We're requesting that you approve this project, but you do not include condition number 14, which requires a total redesign and removal of all the bonuses, and that you do not include conditions number 10A or JOB. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Does that conclude your presentation? Ms. Pardo: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right, and closes the public hearing. We'll go to the Commission. Commissioner Winton: Could we get those things down? City ofMiami Page 131 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Allen, you haven't -- I think -- is this your first Planning and Zoning meeting? Commissioner Allen: Yes, it is. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: They don't get any better than this. Commissioner Allen: Right. I want to -- Commissioner Winton: Since I got -- Commissioner Allen: We've got to stay with the issues or the pertinent issues that are important. Commissioner Winton: Since I got elected -- well, not since I got elected because development in Edgewater didn't start immediately upon my election, but from probably the very first project on, I've said the same thing over and over again, and that is this: The community -- and I've known this community since I got elected; however, the community, in the early '80s, because the Omni area was going in the tank, the community thought -- this was long before I was anywhere near public policy stuff -- the community thought the best way to answer that was to upzone the damn neighborhood, and this neighborhood now, as we can see, you can build a 50-story tower in a neighborhood that has streets that appear to be 15 feet wide. They're not really because they're legal streets, but -- and ifI had my druthers, this is what Edgewater would always have looked like: This. Because this could have been a beautiful, successful neighborhood, but the community decided they were going to upzone, and the laws in Florida have changed, and property rights have come around, and all this stuffs come around so you can't downzone, but I've been saying since day one, we're heading to a train wreck in Edgewater because you do, in fact, have narrow streets with no grid pattern that go one way this way and they end, and you've got to bounce back this way. I've said it on every single project and have voted to approve all of them because that's what the zoning is, and we're back in the same -- and just wait. Wait 'til we get ten more of these. Wait 'til seven of them get built and everybody's going to talk about traffic. It's going to be fabulous, so that's kind of the history of how -- where we are. We still have to deal with this particular project. We're not going back to this. This house isn't going to be there in 15 years. As much as I hate to say it, this is a beautiful house. It ain't going to be there. Too bad. The project, itself. When I first saw this project, I thought, this project is beautiful, and I think it is. This whole issue over the liner versus a standard garage -- and I want to speak to that in a little bit -- I think we also have to figure out some design criteria where it isn't a liner, but where the garage has an appropriate -- these stack garages have appropriate treatment that isn't a liner so that we don't end up in this thing where you're pushing right up against the property line for setbacks, and we're waiving those, so -- but here's what bothers me about this project -- and I'm very concerned about it -- and frankly, I don't get the idea of being in a single-family house. I don't get the idea of worried about whether it's 20 stories or 50 stories. I don't understand that logic. I could understand if it's seven stories or six stories versus that, but don't get the logic of 20 versus 50, frankly, but this is -- this is very bothersome to me. This blank wall on the north elevation, that looks like somebody took a meat cleaver -- and they -- you do this in downtown all the time -- but it -- but think this is problematic in that neighborhood as it relates to its treatment and interaction with the rest of the neighborhood. I'm struggling with the bonuses right now because whatl like about this project is, in fact, that it only has 117 units instead of 175 units because that, in fact, is going to help with traffic. If we force a redesign and they put 100 and -- and maybe if-- I don't know how many units you could City ofMiami Page 132 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 build without the bonuses, but if there was a forced redesign, it's probably still going to be significant and I don't want to see -- and we've had to deal with that many times -- the fewer units, the better. Long-term, that's going to be better for the community, so I'm attracted to that piece of it. Lourdes, can you tell us how many units there would be if the bonuses went away? Ms. Slazyk: The bonuses are a total of 76,694 square feet. If you calculate -- Commissioner Winton: Wow. Ms. Slazyk: -- an average of 1, 000 square feet per unit, that is 76 units. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, but these were bigger than 1,000 square feet, I'm sure, substantially. Ms. Slazyk: Right, so -- Commissioner Winton: At least, average two? Ms. Slazyk: -- so maybe 50, maybe 40, if you -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- wanted to go to a double. Commissioner Winton: But -- and let me ask another question. Bonuses aside, again, I'm not so troubled by the bonuses, per se, relative to this project, butl do want to talk about it again at an appropriate time, relative to public policy in Edgewater. I think it's a big issue. What can we do about this treatment of the north elevation? Ms. Slazyk: My understanding is that they had to have that much blank wall because of the percentage opening that they are restricted to because of fire separation. They can't have the open -- that -- Commissioner Winton: I can't hear you. and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Slazyk: They are too close to the property line next to them, and they can only maintain a certain percentage, not solid for fire purposes. The only way they could go to more transparency and less solid wall would be to get further away from those properties, and their width wouldn't let them do that, really, so all they could do now, from a design standpoint, is go to some of the things we listed in these conditions that we had set for this north ele -- you know, they said remove conditions 10A and B. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: One of them we addressed in JOB was the north facade. We said more so of the garage, that we wanted it to appear less garage -like and to create a pattern of windows and balconies that would make it look like something was there, even though they had to have it solid, so there are things they could do with articulation that could help take care of that, even though it's not a real use behind it or not a real window, and those are the kinds of things that we put in here in design conditions. You could make them keep working on this facade. Commissioner Winton: So we can. Ms. Slazyk: Break it up -- City ofMiami Page 133 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- put more articulation. Commissioner Winton: Now, tell me on the bonuses that you're recommending we take away, I'm still not sure I understand how, even if we -- Ms. Slazyk: OK. Commissioner Winton: -- take those away, how that changes scale. Ms. Slazyk: Let me explain. If -- there are two things. We said either remove the bonuses or make them redesign it so that both sides of the street get more proportionate buildings. If they do that and line it on both sides, you could have a nice street end with town houses on both sides, with garages completely hidden. If you let them keep all of the development on one side and leave the south side as open space as a little park, if you reduce the bonuses, they'll have to reduce the square footage, which means they're going to lose units. Units will bring the massing of that garage down, and the whole thing will get a little bit more in scale so that you're not having a seven -story parking structure for the entire length of that property. It may come down to five or four, which now is something that -- up against a two-, three- or four-story apartment building is not so out of scale. Commissioner Winton: But there's not going to be a two-, three- or four-story parking building. What are you talking about? Ms. Slazyk: The -- Commissioner Winton: They're going to -- that's -- Ms. Slazyk: -- smaller properties -- Commissioner Winton: -- an extinct animal in this neighborhood. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. It's R-4. Commissioner Winton: We've -- the City assured that those buildings are dead. Ms. Slazyk: If somebody fried on a singular double lot, they wouldn't be able to do this. They have to amass more property, so it's a matter of -- Commissioner Winton: That is absolutely -- Ms. Slazyk: -- can they or can they not. Commissioner Winton: That is absolutely not true. Ms. Slazyk: On a 50-foot wide lot, you can't do something this size. Commissioner Winton: No, no, you can't do something this size, but you can certainly do something more than two or three stories. Ms. Pardo: Mr. Chairman, could I just say that -- Commissioner Winton: You could do seven. City ofMiami Page 134 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Maybe. Ms. Pardo: Mr. Commissioner, could I just mention that we represent the property owner. There's a property owner here that came to one of the hearings and we represent them as well, and they are working on designing a project that's going to go up against this parking sfructure here. The parking (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Winton: Yeah, but the whole tower is -- Ms. Pardo: The parking sfructure, the parking structure. The reason why you have this -- Commissioner Winton: I know the reason. I heard that. Ms. Pardo: -- solid wall here is with -- Commissioner Winton: And that's -- Ms. Pardo: -- fire. Commissioner Winton: You know, it isn't -- that isn't acceptable. That is not good for long-term for the neighborhood, for the people that have that northern exposure, and so -- but you've come up with some ways we can deal with that. Ms. Slazyk: Articulation, yeah. Commissioner Winton: OK, so you've answered that question. The final point is, I don't understand why -- I understand your point about bringing the scale down now, and you described it, if you move it on both sides of the property, but the fact of the matter is, two- and three-story buildings are dead. There aren't going to be any in Edgewater, unless we figure out a way to limit development as it relates to traffic, because our Code's going to -- our Code, absolutely, on some of the smallest lots, is going to allow things that are much -- that are significantly taller than two and three stories, but the park that they're developing -- now, I'm attracted to this concept. I'm attracted to the concept of creating a little larger mass on a particular site in creating more real true green space that's accessible to the public. What I'm troubled by in this proposal, though, is that -- and I think there may be a conflict here -- the developer said that it's going to stay on the tax rolls and they're going to pay taxes, but they're going to assure that the public can always access it. We need to make sure that, in perpetuity, this is accessible to the public, and can't simply be changed -- Chairman Sanchez: It was stated on the record. Commissioner Winton: -- by some -- Ms. Slazyk: That could be in their covenant. Commissioner Winton: -- some -- Chairman Sanchez: That was stated on the record. Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm nervous about covenants. Ms. Slazyk: Well -- Commissioner Winton: I'm nervous about -- because -- City ofMiami Page 135 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: The fact that they're transferring all the FAR from here to the other property means it will forever be undevelopable. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Then, in the conditions of the major use, if they actually build their tower, they -- all of their affair is gone from there, including bonuses, because they asked for all of them, so it will forever be undevelopable because all the rights are gone, and then through the major use and conditions in a covenant, you just don't let them deny public access because they proffer -- they said that, that they'd do that. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Mr. Maxwell: Just one clarification to a comment Ms. Slazyk made. She used the expression "forever." Ms. Slazyk: Oh, unless Codes change, yeah. Mr. Maxwell: Under current law, it's not developable. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Mr. Maxwell: Under current law, they wouldn't be able to develop it. She said "forever." That's -- I don't think that's a correct statement. Ms. Slazyk: No. If the Code changes and the Commission decides to -- Commissioner Winton: I'm pushing here. Ms. Slazyk: -- give more FAR, then, yes, it'll be developable. Commissioner Winton: What if there was a requirement that that land be deeded to the City and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner? Ms. Slazyk: Can you -- Mr. Maxwell: I don't think we have provisions that require them to actually give us that property. That would be a taking in my opinion, and we don't have any provisions under chapter -- under our Zoning Ordinance that would mandate that. I think a covenant, even as tenuous as covenants tend to be these days, I would suggest to you that that would be a way that we can maintain it, in addition to the conditions and the transfer rights that have occurred, would be the best way to accomplish that, without being challenged at some point in the future. Commissioner Winton: OK, and finally, this is the last part, just so I make sure I understand it, Lourdes, because I want to be crystal clear on this. The treatment of the north elevation here, you have in your conditions -- whatever numbers those are -- conditions that's going to cure this significant -- what I think is a significant deficiency as it relates to its exposure to the rest of the neighborhood to the north. Ms. Slazyk: We had it with respect to the north facade of the garage. You could add to here the garage and the building, and make them keep working on both. City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: The -- absolutely. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: So -- Ms. Slazyk: It's exactly this wording. You would just say the garage and building face. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Mr. Bermello: Commissioner Winton, could -- I might just comment on that? If it would be our choice, that entire facade would have been glass. Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Bermello: Unfortunately, to permit this building, we have to comply with the City's fire requirements in terms of building separations, and the City has a percentage criteria that depending the setback from the adjoining property line, your -- you have a maximum amount of of glazed area that you can provide, which we are providing the maximum amount of that glazed area. What we did talk with staff and we agreed with the UDRB was that refinements of the reveals and treatment of that solid wall that we would continue to work with and bring back to the UDRB for their review and approval, which I believe was the condition to the UDRB's approval, and which we agreed to. Chairman Sanchez: That's one of the conditions that was placed on? Ms. Pardo: Actually, it's in the -- Ms. Slazyk: Condition number 11. Ms. Pardo: -- condition number 11, which -- Chairman Sanchez: 11 ? Ms. Pardo: -- we're fine with -- Mr. Bermello: Which we agreed with. Ms. Pardo: -- is UDRB. It says, "Work with staff to articulate the north facade of the parking podium" -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Ms. Pardo: -- "applying a stucco finish, and precast concrete in a way that both materials can be expressed." In -- it's in there. Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Ten and 11 -- Ms. Pardo: They're number 11. City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: -- have similar language. I think, yeah, ours was a little more specific, but, yes, same -- similar thing from the UDRB. Commissioner Winton: But I think this needs serious treatment. This can't be just colorful paint or something. I mean, you have to figure out a way to make that look, in some fashion or another, like -- I don't care if there's a wall back there or not, but it needs -- Ms. Slazyk: Like the building continues around, yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- to look like it's a continuation of the real building here. Frankly, I think that helps the building itself and it certainly helps the neighborhood, so -- Ms. Slazyk: Correct. OK. Commissioner Winton: -- I'm going to count on you to do that, so I don't know if other Commissioners have comments. Mr. Maxwell: One point -- Chairman Sanchez: Any other comments from the Commission? Mr. Maxwell: May I, Mr. -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: I just want to make sure the record is clear, Ms. Pardo. Has your client proffered the voluntary covenant that was discussed a moment ago? Ms. Pardo: Yes, we have proffered the voluntary -- Mr. Maxwell: On the record? Ms. Pardo: -- covenant on the record. Mr. Maxwell: That the property will -- Ms. Pardo: That with regards to the park, it will remain open to the public and that they will maintain it. Mr. Maxwell: For? Ms. Pardo: For -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Pardo: -- perpetuity. Mr. Maxwell: Perpetuity. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Winton: OK. My motion is going to -- Chairman Sanchez: Wait, wait. City ofMiami Page 138 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: IfI -- Commissioner Winton: Oops, I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: Just to make a comment. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: I remember that I first was elected, citywide, in 1996 and one of the first meetings I attended as a citywide Commissioner was to Edgewater, and Armando and his (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and all the residents were very vehement in favor of upzoning. Commissioner Winton: Absolutely. Commissioner Regalado: Upzoning. We need to -- Commissioner Winton: Absolutely, they are. Commissioner Regalado: Because -- let me tell you, these people -- I mean, these people have great things to say about them because they endure -- Commissioner Winton: The worst. Commissioner Regalado: -- times that were really hard in Edgewater. By 1996, you know, they were still battling with the homeless and the crack houses and all that, and they were there, and they stood by Edgewater. They bet on Edgewater, and that's what they requested. They wanted an Omni -type area, and -- I mean -- Commissioner Winton: And I still -- Commissioner Regalado: Now -- Commissioner Winton: -- and I still think that that was a mistake. Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Commissioner Winton: I love them dearly, butt still think that was a mistake, but -- Commissioner Regalado: I mean -- but you knew Edgewater, and I knew -- the Edgewater -- Commissioner Winton: Edgewater. Commissioner Regalado: -- that I knew on 1996 and that's why probably they say that, so I guess that now they're welcoming -- I see all the neighbors that I knew, I see here. Commissioner Winton: Absolutely. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Regalado: And still there, and I remember all of them of those meetings, so that's was my comment. You know -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: -- that's what they wanted. City ofMiami Page 139 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton, I believe you have a motion, sir. Commissioner Winton: I'm going to make a motion to -- let's see -- accept, I think the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board, except I want not only their conditions, but the conditions that Lourdes placed on it that doesn't include eliminating the bonuses, but does deal with all the issues relative to the north elevation of the garage and the tower, and the proffered -- Mr. Maxwell: Covenant. Commissioner Winton: -- covenant -- Chairman Sanchez: Of the park land. Commissioner Winton: -- that keeps all of this -- Ms. Slazyk: The open space in perpetuity. Commissioner Winton: -- what appears to be public space in the public domain. Commissioner Allen: Good. Ms. Slazyk: OK, so removing condition 14, modifying 10 -- Commissioner Winton: I don't know the numbers. Ms. Slazyk: And -- yeah, OK. I understand. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We did PZ.8? Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: PZ.7. Chairman Sanchez: This is PZ.7. Commissioner Allen: This is PZ.7. All right -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: But we did PZ.8 before, right? Chairman Sanchez: No, we have not done PZ.8. Commissioner Allen: Right. I second, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion and a second. The item -- is there any discussion? I believe we've discussed it -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- for discussion beyond, so let's go ahead and vote on it. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Chairman Sanchez: All in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 140 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion passes. Commissioner Winton: And could I ask one more thing of staff? Lourdes, I think that we need to be working immediately on a change in our ordinance, particularly for Edgewater, that will eliminate this -- the majority of the bonuses that we have because we don't need them to stimulate economic development. It's in spades there, and frankly, I think that we're going to ruin -- we're going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg by creating a traffic nightmare that's going to cause headaches for everybody in the future, and so the sooner we can get to some smaller scale on all the future projects, I think the better off we're going to be. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go to the time certain. Mr. Bermello: Chairman, thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. PZ.8 04-01109 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 PREMIERE TOWERS BRICKELL VILLAGE PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 824-850 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE AND 29-59 SOUTHWEST 9TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT TWO 579-FOOT, 52-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE TOWERS CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 556 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, APPROXIMATELY 91,096 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, APPROXIMATELY 19,969 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, AND 1,050 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 141 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-01109 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01109 Analysis.pdf 04-01109 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01109 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01109 Pre -Application Design Comments.PDF 04-01109 School Brd Analysis.PDF 04-01109 Response to Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 04-01109 URS Comments.PDF 04-01109 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01109 Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 04-01109 Plans.PDF 04-01109 Legislation.PDF 04-01109 Exhibit A.PDF 04-01109 Exhibit B.PDF 04-01109 Exhibit C.PDF 04-01 1 09-Submittal-E-mail. pdf 04-01109 MUSP Page.PDF 04-01109 Table of Contents.PDF 04-01109 Article I - Project Information.PDF 04-01109 Zoning Write-Up.PDF 04-01109 Aerials.PDF 04-01109 Zoning Atlas.PDF 04-01109 Project Data Sheet.PDF 04-01109 Corporate Document.PDF 04-01109 Authorization Letter.PDF 04-01109 Ownership List.PDF 04-01109 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 04-01109 Article II - Project Description.PDF 04-01109 Article III - Supporting Dcouments.PDF 04-01109 Minority Const Empl Plan.PDF 04-01109 Traffic Impact Analysis I.PDF 04-01109 Traffic Impact Analysis II.PDF 04-01109 Traffic Impact Analysis III.PDF 04-01109 Site Utility Study.PDF 04-01109 Economic Impact Study.PDF 04-01109 Survey of Property.PDF 04-01109 Drawings Submitted.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Premier Towers Brickell Village Project LOCATION: Approximately 824-850 S Miami Avenue and 29-59 SW 9th Street APPLICANT(S): Brickell Courtyards, LLC, Owner and BAP Development, Inc. Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Recommeded City ofMiami Page 142 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 approval with conditions* to the City Commission of a Certificate of Appropriateness on July 20, 2004 by a vote of 7-0. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on October 6, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Premier Towers Brickell Village Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0704 Chairman Sanchez: Could we go back to PZ.8? And the reason why it was passed was because Commissioner Winton was not present and it is in his district. This is the Premiere Towers of Brickell Village, so we'll take up PZ.8 and PZ.9 and PZ.10, and we should be done. No. I'm sorry. PZ.8 and PZ.10, correct? Commissioner Winton: Done with what? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah, 8 and 10. Chairman Sanchez: Well, with these. I mean, we've done a lot in half an hour. Commissioner Winton: Yeah -- no. I'm -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm trying to -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: I thought -- Chairman Sanchez: We're trying to get through the ones that are noncontroversial. Commissioner Winton: Oh. Chairman Sanchez: So we'll go to PZ.10. Commissioner Winton: I thought you were saying -- Ms. Slazyk: 8, right? Chairman Sanchez: PZ.8. Commissioner Winton: -- we were going to done -- be done with PZ (Planning & Zoning). I was going -- Ms. Slazyk: PZ.8 is the Major Use Special Permit for the Premiere Towers at Brickell Village. This property is located at 824 to 850 South Miami Avenue, and 29 through 59 Southwest 9th Street. The project will consist of two 579-foot, 50-story high mixed use towers; 556 residential units, about 91,000 square feet of office space, 19,969 square feet of retail and 1,050 parking spaces. It's been recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning Advisory -- by the Planning Department and the Planning Advisory Board. The conditions are the conditions that City ofMiami Page 143 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 are consistent with the other Major Use Special Permit except that, pursuant to the Urban Development Review Board's conditions, the applicant has to keep -- let me see -- design the north facade so that it demonstrates more depth than just adding the scoring lines; that's where they have a blank wall, and to add more character and definition to the first floor along the street to complement the Mary Brickell development, which is across the street. As the project's major uses go through the process, they further refine and detail those ground floors. We want to make sure they keep in contact with us as they do that so that it complements Mary Brickell Village. Other than that, it's a very good project in a great location and we recommend approval. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there any opposition on this item? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: There is opposition? OK. Are you ready to proceed with your presentation? OK, applicant, you're ready. Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of BAP Development, Inc., which is the contract purchaser on the subject property. With me here today is Mr. Scott Bakos, with B & A, Bermello & Ajamil Architects. The property is located on South Miami Avenue and Southwest 9th Sfreet. It's located directly across the street from the Mary Brickell Village. It's zoned SD-7, and it has approximately a 1.4 net acre. We have recommendations of approval from the Planning staff which we concur -- with conditions, which we concur with. Also, recommendations of approval from the Urban Development Review Board, the Planning Advisory Board, and we also had to go before the City's Historic Environmental Preservation Board, since it's located within an archaeological conversation district, and they also recommended approval on the subject property. This project will have two towers with 556 units. The maximum density for this particular project is allowed to have 688 units. They are not requesting the total density that they could have. We're requesting 556 units within the two towers. It'll have 91,000 square feet of office and 20,000 square feet of retail. This project, what they've done is they've totally lined the streets with retail. South Miami Avenue is a pedestrian pathway, so it's required to have retail along the ground floor; Southwest 9th Street is not. However, the developer wanted to create that environment, along with the Mary Brickell Village, and so Southwest 9th Street has retail all along the front, the ground floor, and then what they've done is they've totally lined the garage on Southwest 9th Street -- on both the street frontages, Southwest 9th and South Miami Avenue; it's totally lined with residential units and office uses, office square footage along Southwest 9th Street so that the garage is screened from view, and then, on the back of the building, the north side, what they've done is they've added scoring, and there's a picture of it at night where they're going to have some lights. Do you want us to bring you something closer? Commissioner Winton: That's the north elevation right there? That's the north elevation? Ms. Pardo: Do you want an explanation right now? I'll turn it over to -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't care. Whatever the sequence is. Ms. Pardo: OK I'll turn it over to the architect, and then he can go through that with you as to what exactly it will provide. Some of the other features that we have incorporated within this project, there is no -- there's only one access into the building; only one vehicular access because they wanted to make sure that this area was very pedestrian friendly, so there's only one vehicular access into the building. It's on Southwest 9th Sfreet, and it's all the way at the far west end of the building, so that if anybody's there to see the retail, they can walk around. They've also spent a great deal of time working with the developers ofMary Brickell Village, Consfructa, in order to make sure that these two projects complement each other, and I have a City ofMiami Page 144 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 letter from Constructa, which I'd like to submit into the record. Actually, it's an e-mail that they had sent, which I'd like to submit into the record, saying that they are in support of the subject property, and we spent a lot of time working with them to make sure that the sidewalks that are being put in would complement one another, and so that when people go down there, they'll have an entire experience between the two projects. We think it's a great addition to this particular neighborhood because you have the Mary Brickell Village, which is the retail, and then this will bring the residential into the neighborhood, which will create a lot of shoppers for the Mary Brickell Village, as well as having people within the area who could easily walk to Brickell Avenue and the office buildings along there, so we're hoping that we can create a real urban environment and have everything come together. This project does not have any variances being requested, nor have we requested any rezonings. We do have a planned unit development, bonuses under the planned unit development. We meet all the requirements there, as well as a -- some square footage with regards to the affordable housing bonus under section -- the SD-7 district. This project will have 1,050 parking spaces, where only 799 are required per the Code, and it'll be made up of various one- and two -bedroom units. Also, I'd like to say that it's very strategically located between the -- you have the Meforail and the Metromover. Whether you go west or east, both stations are right there, so we're hoping that'll create a lot of pedesfrian activity and people will, perhaps, start using the Metrorail and the Mefromover. It'll be a lot more convenient for those people that live there. At this point in time, I'd like to turn the floor over to our architect, who can walk you through the project, and particularly, address the north elevation, and then we can answer any other additional questions that you may have. Scott Bakos: Good afternoon. My name is Scott Bakos, offices at 2601 South Bayshore Drive. I know that you have a very big agenda today, so let me at least start by answering the question about the north elevation. In order for us to be able to have a liner along the south side or along 9th Street, we had to put the property line -- the north elevation just behind the property line on the north side, and we're allowed to do that because there are no side setbacks in SD-7, so we didn't need a variance for it, but what that prevents us from doing is, essentially, to -- we're limited with the amount of articulation on that elevation, so what we came up with was something where we would carve out from that north wall a series of horizontal bands and vertical bands where we would have a series of different colored tube lighting, which could be seen both daytime and nighttime, and that lighting could be kinetic, where it would have movement and so forth, so our intent is to move forward in that direction with a series of very deep horizontal score lines, as well as these tube lighting within the elevation as well, so that it does not go beyond the property line itself. One of the reasons why we feel that's important is because we foresee there being some point in time where a future development could come and butt direct up against that north elevation, and they have the right to do that, so as a result of that, we wanted to give as much as articulation -- elevation as possible. Commissioner Winton: Great. Mr. Bakos: I think Adrienne did a thorough job as far as the overall direction of the project and what we're intending to do. The most important thing is that we worked very closely with our shared neighbor, which is Mary Brickell Village, along 9th Street, where we located our back of house adjacent to their back of house, and had, beyond that, 100 percent of commercial space and no vehicular access off of the pedestrian pathway or South Miami Avenue. The towers themselves are twin towers, where they flip-flop between flats or single -story units, and then they go to a loft, or double -story, or two-story units, and that's where you get that horizontal banding all the way up the building. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Bakos: More than happy to answer any of your questions. Chairman Sanchez: Any questions? None. Counsel, are you done with your presentation? You City ofMiami Page 145 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 reserve time for rebuttal? Ms. Pardo: I would just like to reserve time for rebuttal and any questions. Chairman Sanchez: You got it. Opposition. John Shubin: For the record, John Shubin, Shubin & Bass, 46 Southwest 1st Street, City of Miami. I am here today representing Brickell Marketplace, LLC, as well as Intervest Properties, the owner of Brickell Marketplace, and Mr. Dale Williams. Commissioner Winton: What's Brickell Marketplace? Mr. Shubin: Brickell Marketplace owns the property immediately to the north on 10 Southwest 8th Street. Chairman Sanchez: Across the street, that vacant lot? Mr. Shubin: Abutting. Commissioner Winton: Oh, so they're abutting on the -- Mr. Shubin: North side. Commissioner Winton: -- on this north elevation here. Mr. Shubin: Yes. Commissioner Winton: OK, got it. Mr. Shubin: And we're here in a very, very unusual position. I want to preserve a couple of objections for the record, but part of our presentation is objection; part of it is not objection, and let me explain very, very briefly. Brickell Marketplace, in principle, has no objection to this project going forward, but candidly, Commissioner Winton, over the years, has given me the inspiration for this idea because he has recognized that as the City ofMiami develops, particularly its core areas, view corridors become less and less of a premium; that people have to live with their view corridors being obstructed, and what we want -- Brickell Marketplace wants to be clearly on the public record is that in the event that they choose -- and they do have plans in the future to develop their site immediately to the north with the same zoning, and perhaps, through the same MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) procedure, at the same density, that the public record fruly reflect, precisely reflect that the unit owners who move into this building, at some point, run the risk that their views, too, are going to be blocked. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and we don't want to be in a position, two or three years down the road, our client doesn't want to be in a position where this is a successful project -- and we hope it is a successful project -- the unit owners are there; they've formed an association, and their complaint is that our client should not be able to realize the same economic value from their property as this property owner, and one of the ways to do it is to show up, preserve this on the record, let the developer know that their abutting property owner, who they have not worked with -- They've worked with other abutting property owners, but not with this one. -- wants future unit owners to be put on notice that, at some point, a big building may go up on this site and may block their views, and that's one of the reasons we're here today. Secondly, we have two concerns to preserve for the record. The first is -- and you're going to hear this elaborated, I think, in some other presentations -- the open space requirement, based on my review of the plans -- and I was retained on Tuesday -- but based on my review of the plans, none of the open space requirement of approximately 71,000 square feet is being met on the ground level. It's all being met through promenades; those that are typically accessible only to the unit owners of the City ofMiami Page 146 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 building. The problem is, there's a definition of open space in your Code and it says, "any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved by permanent buildings in set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment, or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open spaces." The clear intent of any open space requirement, in any zoning code, is to provide a level of open space on the ground level. The reference to public or private is simply a reference to the fact that it is still private property. It's not like the dedication in Manhattan that you might see. In order to get additional FAR bonuses or additional density bonuses, sometimes developers are required to dedicate permanent open space. Your Code makes it clear that while it is still private property, the clear intent should be to have it positioned at the ground level so that people have open space at the ground level. That's what your Code says. That's what the plain language says. It's only a 25 percent requirement. There is still density that can be deployed at tremendous levels with this open space requirement, and allowing the developer to literally cover every square inch, virtually, of the pad and not leave open the 25 open -- 25 percent open space requirement, we believe is a plain violation of your ordinance as it is presently defined. Lastly, although you have heard, over the years, complaints over the affordable housing bonus, we'll preserve them for the record, but we understand that your position on that is very clear. You pay the money, you get your FAR, but on the PUD (Planned Unit Development) bonus, which in this case, will be 120,000 square feet, the mathematics for an inner core site like that of 120,000 square feet on a PUD bonus are significant. Article V of your ordinance, which deals with PUDs, makes it very clear that planned unit developments, when they're approved, that consideration shall be given to general housing needs in the City as a whole, housing needs in the neighborhood in which the development is proposed, and the need for particular types of housing, et cetera. It may or may not exist in this case, but it's our position, having reviewed the record, that there is absolutely no housing study that has been presented by the applicant, absolutely no demonstration of need through competent and substantial evidence to justify, essentially, a 120,000 square foot giveaway. It's not like your Affordable Housing Trust bonus, where at least there is monetary consideration that is given. This is 120,000 square foot giveaway without any demonstration in the record from the developer that the need is there. It may or may not be there, but the record is not developed on that. We remain ready, willing and able to work with our neighbor. Again, I spoke with our client as recently as this morning. They were never contacted by the applicant. We are all for progress because a rising tide lifts all boats, but at the same token -- by the same token, we do want to make it very clear that property rights don't stop at the property line, and that the unit owners in this building should be forewarned that they, too, may face a similar structure abutting them, and we want the record on that to be very clear. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any questions? Yes, sir, Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, although this is in Commissioner Winton's district -- Lourdes, if you will, please. Counsel, who just spoke, I don't know. Have you had an opportunity to look at any special conditions that may have been negotiated with Planning & Zoning Department, by any chance? Mr. Shubin: We've looked at the proposed conditions, the resolution. In fact, that's a good point. We would want -- if you all are inclined to approve this, we would want a specific condition in the resolution dealing with the issue so that it is a matter of public record and that there is never any dispute, if we lose our transcript to this proceeding, or if the tapes disappear in the future for whatever reason, that the resolution approving this MUSP makes it very, very clear that there are property rights that may be exercised, particularly on our property, and that unit owners should be put on notice. Commissioner Winton -- and I say this with tremendous respect -- there has -- I know you've had -- you've been frustrated over the years when you've had, in many cases, some of our clients complaining. You believe sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but the real issue is view. City ofMiami Page 147 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: When was I wrong? Mr. Shubin: That's for me to know, and you say, as we develop, as we begin to increase, as we become a more urbanized city, this is what we need to live with. One way of you, in the future, eliminating a lot of these hearings is to go into the sort of notice system. Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Mr. Shubin: And, again, I don't know if that's where Commissioner Allen was going with this, but if he was, that's a fabulous suggestion. Commissioner Allen: Be -- ifI may -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- Mr. Chairman, before the applicant chimes in with respect to a rebuttal, let me just turn to Madam Lourdes. In light of what the counsel has just indicated, he spoke of Article V, of the issue of open space. Can you -- and the affordable housing issue. Can you speak to those issues from -- Yes. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, sir. First of all, with respect to the open space, the definition doesn't say it has to be on the ground floor. In fact, it's not possible in this case. If you look at -- the applicant's net lot area is 60,000 square feet,; their open space requirement is 71,000. The intent in downtown is that the open space -- it's not possible to put it on the ground floor because it's a bigger requirement that their property. The intent is to create enough open space within the property that there's things open to the air. What most of these projects do, you'll see the open spaces, the recreation decks, the amenity levels, the arcades, plazas and the combination of these things is what gets the open space that works for the project, OK. With respect to the housing, the -- our Comprehensive Plan is what really governs more than anything. Our Comprehensive Plan has goals, objectives and policies specifically encouraging residential development in the downtown area to create a true urban center for the City ofMiami, so when we review residential projects in the downtown, the Comprehensive Plan is where these things are encouraged and, for years in the Brickell area, we even had bonuses if you had -- more bonuses than what's even already here for projects that included a residential component because the desire of the City, for the last 20 years, is to create a frue 24-hour downtown, and the component that was missing all these years was residential. True, we have a lot more of it now than we ever had before, but those goals, objectives and policies are still there and they still hold frue, so with respect to that, I believe our Comprehensive Plan answers that. Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: All right. I'll turn it back over to the Chair -- Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Rebuttal time. Ms. Pardo: With regard to the housing issue, I would like to state that within the Major Use Special Permit in the project description, there is a paragraph there dealing with housing within the City ofMiami. We feel that we've met all the requirements under the planned unit development within the City, and that the City had recently passed legislation with regards to the planned unit development and we meet that criteria, as well on this particular project. Also, with regards to the view -- one of the reasons they did two towers is so that you would have an opening in the middle instead of one really wide building and to block off the view, and with regards to language as far as any future development behind it, my client doesn't have objection City ofMiami Page 148 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 to that. Commissioner Winton: Very good. Mr. Shubin: Thirty seconds to respond to Commissioner Allen. I agree with Lourdes. Those are the goals, policies and objectives. My point is much more limited. When you ask for the extra 119,000 square feet beyond what you're entitled, come forward with some sort of showing why you're entitled to it, otherwise, it sends the wrong message to the public. If the developer can make those findings consistent with the goals, policies and objectives, then we're all saying the same thing. On the public space, it says "unimproved by permanent buildings and set aside, dedicated." The concept -- it just makes no sense whatsoever, whether you're a zoning lawyer or not a zoning lawyer, to think that open space is something that can be in a hallway or a plaza that is part of a condominium project. Coming forward with no open space is simply, I think, not in the best long-term interest of the City, and certainly, not consistent with the plain language of your Code. If you want to amend your Code, that's fine; that's your prerogative. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Pardo: And I was just -- I was remiss in not telling you that we do have approximately 10,000 square feet on the ground floor where we do have open space, with regards to some plaza areas on the corner, and then the sidewalk area at the ground floor, and that the developer is also going to put in -- to improve pavers, and they're going to maintain that and give a covenant to the City for those improved pavers and the trees, and the lighting, and things of that sort. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Are you done with your presentation? Ms. Pardo: Yes, I am, and we would -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: A number of things: Lourdes, what bonuses did we do away with in Brickell, and is West Brickell included in Brickell when we did away with the bonuses? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. We did away with them in SD-5 and 7. There was an automatic bonus that we got rid of that said if you had residential as a component of your mixed use -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: -- you get another 0.25 or whatever; that's gone. Underground parking bonus is gone and the bonus for retail -- we used to give a bonus for retail -- Commissioner Winton: But I thought we were getting -- Ms. Slazyk: -- on primary pedestrian pathways when it was required anyway, so -- Commissioner Winton: I thought -- Ms. Slazyk: -- all those, we got rid of. Commissioner Winton: I thought we were getting rid of all the bonuses in Brickell. Ms. Slazyk: No. The study that was presented to the Commission called for getting rid of the ones I just said, and then the ones that remained, we changed the criteria, so that you have to meet certain different criteria to get them. City ofMiami Page 149 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Could you give me -- I don't want to take up everybody else's time -- Ms. Slazyk: Give you a copy, sure. Commissioner Winton: -- but I want to read that again. Ms. Slazyk: Sure. Commissioner Winton: Because I think we really need to think about it. Ms. Pardo: You took away a huge bonus, the affordable housing 25 percent -- Ms. Slazyk: We reduced it -- Ms. Pardo: -- but you left it -- Ms. Slazyk: -- to 1.0. Ms. Pardo: -- for only 1.0 on the gross side areas -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Pardo: -- so that was a big -- that was the big bonus you were probably referring to. Commissioner Winton: Because from a public policy standpoint, it seems to me that, in these high -density areas, which is going to be Park West, downtown, and Brickell, that -- and this is where I disagree with counsel, and that is that I don't ever envision 25 percent green space -- ground level green space in these areas; that doesn't make any sense to me. Ms. Slazyk: Way too big. Commissioner Winton: What makes a lot of sense to me is that the developers should be paying a pretty significant chunk of money into a fund so that we can buy land to create real usable parks, as opposed to having these little -- Ms. Slazyk: Plazas, yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- plots of unusable flowered things that kids can't use; public can't use; nobody can use, so we'll deal with that later. Ms. Slazyk: Right, and we had talked about that so -- Commissioner Winton: And I have to say to the developer, I think this design is fabulous. It's done everything we want. You've -- we've got liners. There's a building in Brickell under construction right now that is just god -awful because the parking -- you just this -- ten stories of parking garage right up against -- I mean, it blows my mind that we allowed that to happen, and I'm going to watch every single MUSP from now on, and at least, on my watch in my district, it ain't happening again. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: And this is fabulously treated. The idea of getting -- and, Mr. City Attorney, we need to decide -- we talked about this at the last Commission meeting, where the project that overlooks Peacock Park had to do something. I don't remember now. I said specifically what it was, and I decided I might have been wrong, but I don't know if it was in City ofMiami Page 150 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 their condo docs. (documents) or whatever it was, but the City Commission required some sort of absolute notice to every buyer of a unit that you are buying a unit on a public park that's used for concerts and blah, blah, blah, blah, and the same issue relative to view corridors that was raised ought to be a requirement here because if it isn't, guess what? If you guys are still here, you're going to hear about every single buyer in that condo say, "Oh, my god. My views are going away, " and this is the way we stop that. I love that idea. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: That was the same type of conditions that were discussed for projects in the -- Chairman Sanchez: The river. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- Miami River. Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Ms. Slazyk: We did that on the river, too. Chairman Sanchez: All right. What's the wish of the Commission? Come on. Commissioner Winton: But I -- the City Attorney, I got a question to him. Chairman Sanchez: Oh. OK, Mr. City Attorney. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): It is a valid condition that this Commission can impose on the applicant to include in their documents, be they condominium documents or what have you, as well as, on the deed that transfer the property to the individual owners, the kind of disclaimers, or the kinds of notice that you're speaking about. This is rather common in all jurisdictions that I know -- Commissioner Winton: Can we require it in both? Mr. Fernandez: -- and you may make that a condition. Commissioner Winton: Can we require the condition on both the condo doc. and the deed? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. You can request that -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- that those, as well as, of course, be part of a public record and what's -- Commissioner Winton: Great. Mr. Fernandez: -- transpiring here. Commissioner Winton: I will move acceptance of staffs recommendations, including with conditions -- with the added condition that there be a specific notice that, I think, you all need to agree to work out -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- that will be put both in the condo docs. and in the deed -- City ofMiami Page 151 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- relative to site lines in the future. Mr. Fernandez: That's right. The property is being sold without an expectation or a right that their view will, in perpetuity, remain the same. Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Perfect. Mr. Fernandez: You know, and I'm sure that applicant will be very creative in giving me their best language. Commissioner Winton: And do you all accept that condition? Willy Bermello: Willy Bermello, with address at 2601 South Bayshore Drive, developers of the project. Commissioner Winton, we have no problem with that condition. As a matter of fact, we had tried to proffer a similar condition on language to counsel earlier today, which was rejected by counsel, so we have no problem with your suggestion. However, I think that any potential redevelopment of the adjoining property to the north should go through the identical process that we have gone through, and it should not send the wrong message to counsel, or to the principle that they represent that they're getting a carte blanche to do whatever they want to on their property. Commissioner Winton: Our Code doesn't say that. We're not changing our Code. Mr. Bermello: OK. Commissioner Winton: We're not changing our Code. Mr. Bermello: Because I -- Commissioner Winton: We're not changing our process. Mr. Bermello: The issue of -- as it happens in any sale center, the first thing that a sophisticated buyer says, "What's going to happen across the street? What's going to happen next door?" And, typically, our sales staff will say, "Well, there could be a building, a big building there some time in the future," which, I think, is what we're all concerned about. You don't want to have angry neighbors here arguing over the obvious. That is, obviously, you could tear down a one-story strip center and build a high-rise building, and we have no problem with that. At the same time, I have a -- and it's not what you have said, but think somebody could probably stretch what you have said into, "Guys, you can't complain about any building being built on the north side," and there may be reasons as to why -- there may be very valid reasons, some point in the future, that what may be done on the north side may not be kosher, and that's my only comment. We have no problem at all with either the deed restriction or the condominium documents making proper notice of what could -- might happen in the future -- Commissioner Winton: Fine. Mr. Bermello: -- with respect to views and shadows. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, I'm going to allow you one minute and we're done. Commissioner Winton: Why? City ofMiami Page 152 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Shubin: Sure. That's -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Why are we allowing that? Chairman Sanchez: We don't have to, but out of courtesy, just -- I think -- Mr. Shubin: Well, for one, I appreciate -- Commissioner Winton: Because then he gets and then she gets, and then we get -- keep going. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, one minute. Mr. Shubin: I want to agree with Mr. Bermello. The context -- Chairman Sanchez: All about the view. It's all about the view. Mr. Shubin: -- for this, just so you all know, since Commissioner Winton's identified it as a significant issue, we represented the gas station owner across from the American Airlines Arena, who was approached by the La (UNINTELLIGIBLE) development, and we negotiated something very, very similar in that case because the owner of that property, when the gas station's lease expired, wanted to be able to have the ability to develop that property, as well. The only objection I had with the proposed language was, one, I looked at it about an hour ago. Secondly, it was very general and I wanted at least the opportunity to work with the City Attorney to give my input on the language, as well, but ultimately, it's up to the City Attorney to make the ultimate decision. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: There is a --Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. I welcome the proffer but, frankly, we will do well, and we will work with the applicant to make sure that the intent of the Commission is accomplished. Commissioner Allen: Good. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion on the floor, as amended. Commissioner Allen: As amended. Chairman Sanchez: It's an amendment to it. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a second and it's open for discussion from the Commission. Hearing none, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." The motion carries unanimously. City ofMiami Page 153 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Pardo: Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: All right. We'll -- I thought that was going to be a noncontroversial. I apologize -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- for that. Mr. Fernandez: And for the record, the record is clear that the item passed with the amendment that has been made. Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. PZ.9 04-00079a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, RESOLUTION NO. 04-0111, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE 50 BISCAYNE PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 50 NORTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW FOR A CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FROM A 578-FOOT, 38-STORY BUILDING COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 661,593 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE, 29,508 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE, AND 1,260 TOTAL PARKING SPACES TO A 554-FOOT, 55-STORY BUILDING COMPRISED OF 523 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, APPROXIMATELY 15,517 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT USE, AND 722 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 154 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00079a Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00079a Analysis.pdf 04-00079a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00079a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00079a Pre -Application Review.PDF 04-00079a UDRB Reso.PDF 04-00079a Traffic Review Analysis.PDF 04-00079a School Brd Review.PDF 04-00079a PAB Reso.PDF 04-00079a Application & Supp Docs.pdf 04-00079a Plans.PDF 04-00079a Legislation.PDF 04-00079a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00079a Exhibit B.PDF 04-00079a Exhibit C.PDF 04-00079a Analysis Modified.pdf 04-00079a Exhibit A Modified.pdf 04-00079a Outside Cover.PDF 04-00079a Inside Cover.PDF 04-00079a Table of Contents.PDF 04-00079a Article I - Project Information.PDF 04-00079a Aerials.PDF 04-00079a Zoning Atlas.PDF 04-00079a Project Data Sheet.PDF 04-00079a Computer Tax Printout - Deed.PDF 04-00079a Ownership List.PDF 04-00079a State of Florida Documents.PDF 04-00079a Directory of Project Principals.PDF 04-00079a Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 04-00079a Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 04-00079a Traffic Impact Study - Part I.PDF 04-00079a Traffic Impact Study - Part II.PDF 04-00079a Site Utility Study.PDF 04-00079a Economic Impact Study.PDF 04-00079a Survey of Property.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit Substantial Modification for the 50 Biscayne Project LOCATION: Approximately 50 N Biscayne Boulevard APPLICANT(S): Columbus Development, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* (except condition #12 as specified in the Development Order) to City Commission on September 22, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. City ofMiami Page 155 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 PURPOSE: This will allow a substantial modification to the 50 Biscayne Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0714 Chairman Sanchez: Time certain, 5:30 and that, of course, is a Major Use -- Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- Special Permit, Villa Magna. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, we have a noncontroversial one, which was your next item. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry? Ms. Dougherty: Would you take up Item Number 9, which is a noncontroversial Major Use Special Permit. It was your next item on the agenda. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah. It's -- Ms. Dougherty: For the Related Companies. It's 50 Biscayne. Ms. Slazyk: Right, it's Columbus Tower. It's noncontroversial. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, this won't be -- Chairman Sanchez: It's noncontroversial. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go ahead -- Commissioner Allen: This is -- Commissioner Regalado: It's not controversial. Commissioner Allen: -- PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Commissioner Winton: Well, if it is, you can suspend the -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.9. PZ.9. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.9. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.9 is a substantial modification to a Major Use Special Permit for 15 Biscayne Project. It was originally approved as a Columbus Office Tower project. Since that time, the applicant has come back, and they're requesting a modification to allow a residential project instead. It will have a total of 523 residential units, 15,517 square feet of retail and restaurant, and 722 total parking spaces. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department and by the Planning Advisory Board. There was only one condition that the Planning Advisory Board and the Planning Department disagreed on, and that had to do with a City ofMiami Page 156 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Burle Marx pattern. The applicant was proposing a Burle Marx pattern up the building. We recommended that they reconsider that and possibly even meet with the Burle Marx firm in Rio de Janeiro to come up with a scheme that's appropriate. The PAB (Planning Advisory Board) disagreed with us and they recommended it without that condition. Commissioner Winton: Well, what did they recommend with it? Ms. Slazyk: They recommended -- Ms. Dougherty: Right. It's on here. Ms. Slazyk: -- the way they proposed it, and we recommended -- Commissioner Winton: Oh. Ms. Slazyk: -- that that may be inappropriate and they should reconsider and keep working on that or work with the Burle Marx firm to come up with something appropriate. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Here today on behalf of the Related Companies that have proposed this project. With me today is Joyce Bronson and Gary Cool, as well as the architects Charles Sieger, and this is recommended unanimously by all the boards. Both the Planning Advisory Board has recommended that we continued to have the arts screen. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: I just wanted to point out -- Chairman Sanchez: Looks like it's going to be a long night. Ms. Dougherty: -- to Commissioner Winton, who is a -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm out of here at 7:30. Ms. Dougherty: I just wanted to point out to Commissioner Winton, this is not a Burle Marx designed project. This is a Charles Sieger design project, in the Latin American flavor of Biscayne Boulevard and Miami, and we think it's a very exciting project and a very exciting design, and we would like to retain this exact art mural -- or not mural, but art on this building, so we would urge your approval for the project. Mr. Chairman, I don't need to take up any more time. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: If you want to discuss it -- Chairman Sanchez: Is there anyone from the public in opposition of this item, please step forward and be heard. Is there anyone in favor of the item that wants to speak on the item? Commissioner Winton: Public hearing is closed. Chairman Sanchez: Hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Is there any -- no opposition on it. Commissioner Winton: Move -- City ofMiami Page 157 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: -- recommendation with conditions. Chairman Sanchez: There is -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- a motion by Commissioner Winton to approve with conditions, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Ms. Slazyk: Can I, for the record, for a clarification on condition -- that condition 12 -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Winton: Good point. Chairman Sanchez: Put the conditions on the record. Ms. Slazyk: With the conditions. Commissioner Winton: Well -- Ms. Dougherty: Right. Commissioner Winton: -- I don't want to put that on the record again because I'll get all these calls from Rio de Janeiro that -- Ms. Slazyk: With the conditions. Commissioner Winton: -- I'm the worst guy in the world, so yy condition isn't that it match Burle Marx. Ms. Slazyk: OK, 12 is in then, OK. Ms. Dougherty: No, no. Please, understand what she's saying. She does not like this. We want this. Commissioner Winton: Is this Burle Marx? Ms. Dougherty: No. Charles Sieger: No, no. Ms. Dougherty: It's Charles Sieger. Commissioner Winton: Well, that's the point I just said. Ms. Dougherty: But she thinks you're going to keep the condition that we have to change that. We don't want to change this. Mr. Sieger: The condition they asked for is to change it, and we don't want to. City ofMiami Page 158 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Oh, no, no, no, no, no -- Ms. Slazyk: All right. Commissioner Winton: -- I'm not suggesting that they change this, nor -- Ms. Slazyk: OK. Commissioner Winton: -- am I suggesting that they go to Burle Marx. Ms. Slazyk: Oh, so you want to exclude condition 12 and approve, as presented? Commissioner Winton: I don't know the numbers. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. The motion -- Commissioner Winton: This is what -- Chairman Sanchez: -- excludes 12 -- Commissioner Winton: This. Chairman Sanchez: -- and as presented. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: That is what she wanted. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Winton: This. Chairman Sanchez: No further discussion on the item. It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition -- Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: -- having the same right, say "nay." It passes unanimously. Commissioner Allen: Good. Mr. Sieger: Thank you. PZ.10 04-01127 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A City ofMiami Page 159 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, RESOLUTION NO. 00-1134, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE 1060 BRICKELL PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1050-60 BRICKELL AVENUE AND 1051 SOUTHEAST MIAMI AVENUE ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW A CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR: REDESIGN OF THE FACADE OF THE BUILDINGS; REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM 605 TO 572; REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 1,022 TO 741 SPACES (601 SPACES REQUIRED); REDUCTION OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT FROM 54,595 SQ. FT. TO APPROXIMATELY 50,758 SQ. FT.; RELOCATION OF TOWER 2 TO THE NORTH BY 10 FEET SO THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT DIRECTLY BEHIND EACH OTHER; EXTENSION OF THE MUSP EXPIRATION DATE TO DECEMBER 14, 2006; AND TO PRESERVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) BONUSES APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 00-1134; 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. 04-01127 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01127 Analysis.pdf 04-01127 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01127 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01127 Pre -Application Review.PDF 04-01127 UDRB Reso.PDF 04-01127 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01127 Intent Letter & Supp Docs.PDF 04-01127 Plans.PDF 04-01127 Legislation.PDF 04-01127 Exhibit A.pdf 04-01127 Exhibit B.PDF 04-01127 Exhibit C.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit Substantial Modification for the 1060 Brickell Project LOCATION: Approximately 1050-60 Brickell Avenue and 1051 SE Miami Avenue Road APPLICANT(S): IMICO Brickell, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on September 22, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a substantial modification to the 1060 Brickell Project. City ofMiami Page 160 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-04-0715 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's rock and roll. All right. How long is it going to take PZ.33z to setup? Unidentified Speaker: Five minutes. Chairman Sanchez: About five minutes. Can we take up another one while you set up? Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: 10. Let's take up10. Ten -- PZ.10, it's a Major Use Special Permit. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. This is also a modification to the 1060 Brickell project, recommended for approval, no additional conditions. We think it's a better design. They're offsetting their buildings and they're actually changing the height. It's a great project. Chairman Sanchez: All right. State -- Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the property owner. With me here today is Mr. Henry Terech, as well as Mr. Joe Andriola with SB Architects. We have a substantial modification to a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Everything is basically staying the same, except they had changed the design of the building, and we know that when there's a change of design, the Commission now wants to see these projects, and that's why we're before you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Pardo: I don't believe we have any opposition, and -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, is there any opposition on this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none, hearing none, public hearing -- Commissioner Allen: I move -- Chairman Sanchez: -- is closed. Commissioner Allen: --I move we adopt. Chairman Sanchez: Great presentation. It's moved by -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- second by Commissioner Regalado. It is open for discussion. Hearing none from the Commission, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 161 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously. Ms. Pardo: Thank you, very much. PZ.11 04-01107 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A STREET LOCATED AT NORTHWEST MIAMI COURT BETWEEN NORTHWEST 14TH STREET AND NORTHWEST 15TH STREET, THE ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 41 FROM NORTHWEST 14TH STREET TO NORTHWEST 15TH STREET AND THE ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 42 FROM NORTHWEST 14TH STREET TO THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." 04-01107 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01107 Public Works Analysis.PDF 04-01107 Plat & Street Letter.PDF 04-01107 P&Z Analysis.PDF 04-01107 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01107 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01107 ZB Reso.PDF 04-01107 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-01107 Legislation.PDF 04-01107 Exhibit A.PDF 04-01107-Su bmittal-Letter. pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of a Street and Alleys LOCATION: NW Miami Court Between NW 14th Street and NW 15th Street, the Alley located in Block 41 from NW 14th Street to NW 15th Street and the Alley Located in Block 42 from NW 14th Street to the Florida East Coast Railroad APPLICANT(S): Eugene Rodriguez, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 13, 2004 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site. Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 162 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen R-04-0716 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Are they setting up or are -- do we have some time still? Chairman Sanchez: I believe they're setting up. Let's get the ones -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.11. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.11. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, OK. Commissioner Regalado: If we can -- Ms. Slazyk: PZ.11. Commissioner Regalado: OK Chairman Sanchez: PZ.11. Let's go to PZ.11. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. PZ.11 is a vacation and closure of a street and alley for the Ice Palace Subdivision. Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Ms. Slazyk: It's been recommended for approval. Chairman Sanchez: I believe there's some problem on that one on one of the alleyways not being fully owned by Mr. -- Ms. Slazyk: We're having -- we're handing out an Opinion of Title now. Chairman Sanchez: I -- well, that's -- listen. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Look, I realize that everybody wants to get their item up here and get out of here. It's going to be a very long night. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): I don't think there's an issue on this one now, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Well, it was when I read it. Commissioner Allen: Well, Mr. Chairman, it was -- yeah. Mr. Maxwell: I know, but I think that's been resolved. We've gotten an Opinion of Title on that one, as well. City ofMiami Page 163 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: That is -- that's been resolved? Mr. Maxwell: And I think the property -- everybody is in agreement on that, I believe. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, ifI may, quickly. Ms. Slazyk: And it's also (INAUDIBLE). Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Allen: That includes the -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner always has the right. Commissioner Allen: That includes the -- I believe it was an adjacent owner, was that what the issue -- Unidentified Speaker: Yeah. That's been resolved (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Allen: OK, so it's the adjacent owner -- Unidentified Speaker: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: -- who's a -- Gerald Houlihan: Well, I'm the adjacent owner. Chairman Sanchez: Are you in favor of it or not? Mr. Houlihan: I'm in favor of the closure. I just wanted to make sure that this -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Commissioner Allen: Your name for the record. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, sir. Commissioner Allen: Your name for the record. Ms. Thompson: I need your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Houlihan: My name's Gerald Houlihan, 1450 North Miami Avenue. I own property bordering the alley. I agree wholeheartedly with the closing. I just want to make sure that, according to Florida Statutes, that half goes to the abutting property owner. I'm the abutting property owner. The opinion that was rendered by counsel said that it all went to one property owner. That's what objected to. I think it -- Mr. Maxwell: Listen, we picked up on that and we reviewed the opinion. We picked up on that problem. We asked the attorney who had prepared it to address that issue. He did. We got a corrected Opinion of Title from him and it does, in fact, reflect that property goes to both abutting property -- City ofMiami Page 164 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Half and half. Mr. Maxwell: -- half goes to each one of them. Commissioner Allen: Half and half. Mr. Houlihan: That's fine. Commissioner Winton: That's what I thought. Commissioner Allen: Good. OK. Mr. Houlihan: I have no objection. Mr. Maxwell: And that is the law and that's our code, as well. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- the administration presented the item. It's in front of us, right? Let's follow the order of the day. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. We recommended approval -- Chairman Sanchez: It's presented in front of us. Sir, you're in support. Mr. Houlihan: I am. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone from the public against this item, please step forward. Hearing none, the public hearing is closed. The presentation has been made to the Commission. It is closed. Commissioner Allen: I move to adopt. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion to approve -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- the resolution -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- by Commissioner Allen, second by Commissioner Winton. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Congratulations to both of you. Commissioner Winton: What item was that? Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Thompson: PZ.11. City ofMiami Page 165 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 PZ.12 04-00406 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 1884 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00406 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00406 Analysis.PDF 04-00406 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00406 & 04-00406a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00406 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00406 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00406 Legislation.PDF 04-00406 & 04-00406a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00406 FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Duplex Residential" to "General Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 1884 NW 15th Street APPLICANT(S): Joseph Chambrot, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on April 7, 2004 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 04-00406a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to General Commercial. Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12601 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): OK. PZ.12 is a second reading land use, and PZ.13 is the companion zoning change. This is for the property at 1884 Northwest 15th Street. It was recommended for denial by the Planning & Zoning Department and the Planning Advisory Board, but recommended for approval by the Zoning Board. At the first hearing, the City Commission accepted a voluntarily proffered covenant whereby they proffered that they would use the property for office use only, which is what's there. We've reviewed that covenant City ofMiami Page 166 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 and we find no objections to that, and you have second reading today. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ma'am, could you state your name for the record? Lourdes Menendez: Good afternoon. My name is Lourdes Menendez, on behalf of Joseph Chambrot, the owner on the property, 1884 Northwest 15th Street. Chairman Sanchez: OK. It -- are you done? Ms. Menendez: Yes. We brought the proffer. I already gave a copy to Ms. -- Ms. Slazyk: Slazyk. Ms. Menendez: --- Slazyk -- I'm sorry -- and to City Attorney, and so I have it prepared and signed. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed, and at this time, we open it up for a -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move PZ.12. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There is a -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez has moved it. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There is a second. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, it is an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, please read the ordinance on second reading. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.13 04-00406a 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 "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1884 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 167 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00406 & 04-00406a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00406a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00406a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00406 & 04-00406a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00406a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00406a Legislation.PDF 04-00406a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00406a Analysis.PDF 04-00406a Zoning Map.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-2 Liberal Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 1884 NW 15th Street APPLICANT(S): Joseph Chambrot, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on May 10, 2004 by a vote of 6-2. See companion File ID 04-00406. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-2 Liberal Commercial. Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12602 Chairman Sanchez: OK. PZ.13 is a companion. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Right. This -- Chairman Sanchez: It is also on second reading. Ms. Slazyk: Right, and this is the one where you would accept the covenant. Chairman Sanchez: Exactly, OK It is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I move -- Chairman Sanchez: It is open for discussion and a -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- PZ.13. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Commissioner Allen: Second. City ofMiami Page 168 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, Mr. -- Madam Attorney, please read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.14 04-00574 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 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 10, 16 AND 100 SOUTHWEST 41ST AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "OFFICE"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00574 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00574 Analysis.PDF 04-00574 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00574 & 04-00574a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00574 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00574 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00574 Legislation.PDF 04-00574 & 04-00574a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00574a FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Single Family Residential" to "Office" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 10, 16 and 100 SW 41st Avenue APPLICANT(S): LP Investments Enterprises, Inc., Owner and Jorge Kasabdji, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Simon Ferro, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on May 19, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 04-00574a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Office. City ofMiami Page 169 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez 12611 Commissioner Regalado: 15. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Right, PZ.14 and 15 are companion items for land use and zoning change. They have been approved on first reading. The recommendation was for denial by the Planning and Zoning Department, denial by the Zoning Board, and denial by the Planning Advisory Board. The City Commission heard it on first reading and accepted a voluntarily proffered covenant. We have the covenant, and we have no further comments or objections. Commissioner Regalado: OK This is in my district, so we're going to close -- Commissioner Winton: You want me to take the gavel? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): It's a public hearing. Commissioner Winton: It's a -- we'll open the public hearing on PZ.14. Anyone from the public like to speak on PZ.14? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move PZ.14 in second reading. Commissioner Allen: I'll second. Commissioner Winton: We have a motion and a second. Do we have discussion? Is this an ordinance or a resolution? Mr. Fernandez: City Attorney, read the ordinance. Commissioner Winton: City Attorney, read the ordinance. Great line. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: Roll call, Madam Clerk. Commissioner Allen: Wait. Just for clarification purposes. Commissioner Winton: Oh. Commissioner Allen: For Planning and Zoning, this is OK? You said there were a supporting documentation or once again -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. On -- Mr. Fernandez: The next item. City ofMiami Page 170 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: On PZ.15 is where we would accept the covenant. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Winton: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 3/0. PZ.15 04-00574a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 32, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN "SD-12" BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "0" OFFICE, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 10, 16 AND 100 SOUTHWEST 41ST AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00574a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00574a Analysis.PDF 04-00574a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00574 & 04-00574a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00574a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00574a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00574a Legislation.PDF 04-00574 & 04-00574a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00574a FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-1 Single -Family Residential with an SD-12 Buffer Overlay District to 0 Office to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 10, 16 and 100 SW 41st Avenue APPLICANT(S): LP Investments Enterprises, Inc., Owner and Jorge Kasabdji, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Simon Ferro, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on June 14, 2004 by a vote of 7-1. See companion File ID 04-00574. City ofMiami Page 171 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to 0 Office. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez 12612 Commissioner Winton: PZ.15. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): This is the companion, and this is where you would accept the covenant. Commissioner Winton: This is a public hearing also. Anyone from the public like to speak on PZ.15. Don't see anybody rushing to the podium, so therefore we'll close the public hearing. Need a motion. Commissioner Regalado: I move, Mr. Chairman, PZ.15. Commissioner Allen: I second. Commissioner Winton: Got a motion and a second, with anything, Lourdes? Commissioner Regalado: The covenant. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): The covenant proffered. Commissioner Regalado: What is the covenant? Ms. Slazyk: With the covenant. Maybe the applicant could explain, because I don't -- can't find it -- Commissioner Regalado: What is it? Commissioner Winton: Well, who's read the covenant? Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: It came to the Law Department -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes, and we have reviewed and it's in order. Commissioner Winton: Thank you, so we don't need to -- Mr. Fernandez: And the covenant, in fact -- the applicant can state on the record, in very short terms, what the covenant promises to do. Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Simon Ferro: Good evening. Mr. -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. Ambassador, sir. Mr. Ferro: Thank you, sir. Simon Ferro, 1221 Brickell, at Greenberg Traurig. We're asking for office designation, but we're not going to use itfor office designation. We're going to use itfor City ofMiami Page 172 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 residential purposes, and the covenant states that, notwithstanding the office designation, it shall not be used for office or commercial purposes -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Mr. Ferro: -- but just for residential purposes. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, I have it right here. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Fernandez: And it says exactly that. Commissioner Winton: Great, so we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, Mr. City Attorney, would you please read the ordinance? Mr. Fernandez: Certainly. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 3/0. Mr. Ferro: I want to thank you all very much. Have a good evening. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Ambassador, you're always welcomed. Commissioner Allen: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Commissioner Winton: OK. PZ.16 04-00564 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 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3253, 3265 AND 3269 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. City ofMiami Page 173 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00564 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00564 Analysis.PDF 04-00564 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00564 & 04-00564a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00564 School Brd Recomm.PDF 04-00564 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00564 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00564 Legislation.PDF 04-00564 & 04-00564a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00564 FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Duplex Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 3253, 3265 and 3269 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Coral Way Acquisition Properties, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on May 5, 2004 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File ID 04-00564a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12603 Chairman Sanchez: OK. We move on to PZ.16,; it's also a land use change, 3253, -65 and -69 Southwest 22nd Terrace. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Right. This is -- Chairman Sanchez: Madam Director. Ms. Slazyk: -- a land use change with a companion item. Commissioner Regalado: Which one is that one? Chairman Sanchez: 16. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.17 is the zoning change. This was recommended for denial by the Planning & Zoning Department; approval by the Planning Advisory Board; denial by the Zoning Board. The City Commission approved it on first reading, accepting a voluntarily proffered covenant, City ofMiami Page 174 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 which we have reviewed, and we have no objections, so it's second reading. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Applicant. Gil Pastoriza: Gil Pastoriza, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, on behalf of Sergio's Cafeteria. I believe that we have submitted a covenant. I have the originals with me, which I will turn in to the City Attorney, with the Opinion of Title, and Commissioner Regalado, it's very clear that there's going to be no access to 22nd Terrace in that covenant. Commissioner Allen: So -- Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: OK Chairman Sanchez: Yes, Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: No. I just want to make -- I couldn't quite hear you. Did you say the traffic issues were resolved by -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- Commissioner Regalado? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Commissioner Allen: OK. Commissioner Regalado: No. It's just that -- Jeffery, what the concern is, that these restaurants that wanted to expand -- and this is a restaurant fronting Coral Way -- some of the restaurants are trying to get the exit on 22nd Terrace, which is the residential, and the people are really bothered by the flow of cars. In this case, the covenant says no exit, at all. All the egress and ingress has to do with Coral Way, which is a major thoroughfare. That was my concern on the first reading, and the covenant is clear on that. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: OK. It is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please be recognized, or step forward to be heard. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chair -- Commissioner Allen: --I believe I saw a hand up. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Oh. Yes, sir. Please step up and state your name and address for the record. Unidentified Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right, so just for the sake of clarification, there's no one in opposition to this item? OK. Was there a motion? City ofMiami Page 175 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: I move this ordinance, PZ.16. Chairman Sanchez: There is -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- a motion by Commissioner Regalado, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is an ordinance, a second reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. 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, 4/0. PZ.17 04-00564a 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 WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3253, 3265 AND 3269 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00564a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00564a Analysis.PDF 04-00564a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00564 & 04-00564a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00564a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00564a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00564a Legislation.PDF 04-00564 & 04-00564a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00564a FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 3253, 3265 and 3269 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Coral Way Acquisition Properties, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire City ofMiami Page 176 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on June 14, 2004 by a vote of 6-3. Also, recommended approval to change the zoning from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District for lot 34 and SD-12 Buffer Overlay District over the remaining lots 32 and 33. See companion File ID 04-00564. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District. Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12604 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.17 is a companion item. This is the one where you accept the voluntarily proffered covenant. Chairman Sanchez: All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We need a motion. Commissioner Allen: I move to adopt. Chairman Sanchez: Motion by -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen, second by Commissioner Regalado. Open for discussion. Hearing none, it's a ordinance on second reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance in the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Gil Pastoriza: Thank you. PZ.18 04-00897 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 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT City ofMiami Page 177 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 APPROXIMATELY 3685 AND 3695 SOUTHWEST 23RD STREET AND 3672 AND 3688 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. 04-00897 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00897 Analysis.PDF 04-00897 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00897 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00897 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00897 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00897 Legislation.PDF 04-00897 FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Duplex Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 3685 and 3695 SW 23rd Street and 3672 and 3688 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Morris Investments Partnership APPLICANT(S) AGENT: A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 21, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 04-00897a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12605 Chairman Sanchez: PZ.18. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.18 and 19 are also second reading land use and zoning change. This one was also recommended for denial by the Planning & Zoning Department, but approval by the Planning Advisory Board and approval by the Zoning Board. The applicant has also proffered -- voluntarily proffered a covenant, which we have reviewed and have no objections. Commissioner Allen: OK, good. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Applicant. City ofMiami Page 178 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Vicky Garcia -Toledo: For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with the law firm ofBilzin Sumberg, offices at 2500 Wachovia Center. Commissioner Allen: I move -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: This matter is before you on second reading today. Chairman Sanchez: All right. It is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. It is open for the Commission. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move PZ.18 -- Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion -- Commissioner Regalado: -- for second reading. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion by Commissioner Regalado. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.19 04-00897a 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 AND "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT OF 2.4 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2255, 2263 AND 2295 SOUTHWEST 37TH AVENUE, 3685 AND 3695 SOUTHWEST 23RD STREET, AND 3672 AND 3688 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 179 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00897a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00897a Analysis.PDF 04-00897a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00897a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00897a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00897a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00897a Legislation.PDF 04-00897a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00897a FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential and C-1 Restricted Commercial to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District of 2.4 to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 2255, 2263 and 2295 SW 37th Avenue; 3685 and 3695 SW 23rd Street and 3672 and 3688 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Morris Investment Partnership APPLICANT(S) AGENT: A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 26, 2004 by a vote of 6-3. See companion File ID 04-00897. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District of 2.4. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12606 Chairman Sanchez: PZ.20. It's a companion item. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 19, 19. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 19 is the companion. Commissioner Regalado: This is 19. Commissioner Winton: 19. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. Ms. Slazyk: I'm sorry. 19 is the companion item, and this is the one where you accept the covenant. Chairman Sanchez: OK. City ofMiami Page 180 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Second reading. Chairman Sanchez: It's a public -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Wait a minute. My 19 is not -- Chairman Sanchez: Your 19 should be a companion item to 18. Commissioner Regalado: Well, it's 37th Avenue, which is not -- I think they mixed the addresses here. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: No. It's 37th Avenue. Ms. Slazyk: This -- yeah. This is -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It is on Douglas Road. Commissioner Regalado: Huh? But the -- oh, because 18 -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: The lots that are being rezoned are different. Commissioner Regalado: -- 18 is in 23rd and this one is on 37th Avenue. Ms. Slazyk: Right. The rezoning -- Commissioner Regalado: OK, OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- lots are -- Commissioner Regalado: The Rex Art. Ms. Slazyk: -- for the SD.19. Commissioner Regalado: This is the Rex Art. Ms. Slazyk: Rex Art. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Correct. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: I wanted to say -- Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Chairman Sanchez: Sure. Commissioner Regalado: I did get the letter regarding the County, and hopefully, the County will do something about that -- those three traffic lights, right? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. We have hired Plummer & Associates to work on our behalf and on the City's behalf with the County. The County has already agreed that there are positive things that can be done to the signalization there to improve the situation. We have undertaken, at our cost, a signalization study, as well as a peak -hour traffic study that we can turn over to the City ofMiami Page 181 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 County so that they can change the timing and improve the intersections. Commissioner Regalado: OK Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: IfI can move, I'll move PZ.19. Chairman Sanchez: P -- OK. There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado to approve PZ.19. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Just for my sake, did we already open up the public -- did we open it up for the public? Ms. Thompson: No, you didn't. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's -- before I move any further, anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Mr. Attorney, read the ordinance for the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Roll call. Chairman Sanchez: Roll call. Commissioner Allen: Roll call, yeah. 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, 4/0. PZ.20 04-00670 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 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1636, 1646 AND 1650 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT AND 1655 & 1657 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" 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 182 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00670 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00670 Analysis.PDF 04-00670 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00670 & 04-00670a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00670 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00670 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00670 Legislation.PDF 04-00670 FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "General Commercial" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 1636, 1646 and 1650 NE Miami Court and 1655 & 1657 N Miami Avenue APPLICANT(S): Filling Station Lofts, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gloria M. Velazquez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on June 2, 2004 by a vote of 8-1. See companion File ID 04-00670a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12607 Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.22. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): 21. Chairman Sanchez: 21? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 20 and 21. Chairman Sanchez: 21. Ms. Slazyk: Right. 20 and 21 is a -- also second reading land use and zoning change for 1636, 1646 and 1650 Northeast Miami Court, and 1657 and 1655 North Miami Avenue. It is second reading, from general commercial to restricted commercial. It's been recommended for denial by the Planning -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. That's Commissioner Winton's district, and I certainly want him to be present. City ofMiami Page 183 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Sanchez: It's OK? Ms. Slazyk: That's fine. Commissioner Regalado: Is it Commissioner Allen or -- Ms. Slazyk: All right. PZ.22 -- Chairman Sanchez: No. Is it -- Commissioner Allen, is that your disfrict? Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: Is this PZ (Planning & Zoning) item in your disfrict? I just want to know. Ms. Slazyk: This is west of the Omni. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, this is west of the -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, I certainly don't want to pass a PZ item -- Commissioner Allen: -- Omni. This is -- Chairman Sanchez: -- not having the Commissioner here, either with opposition or without opposition. I think -- Commissioner Allen: Right. This is PZ.20, correct? Ms. Slazyk: 20 and 21. Commissioner Allen: Yes. I've had discussions with Madam Lourdes on yesterday regarding 20 and 21, and it meets my approval. I guess, with respect to the companion item, when we move to 21, there's an issue with respect to the FAR (Floor Area Ratio), but we'll address that -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. They have a covenant that they're proffering -- Commissioner Allen: Covenant. That's what I'm -- Ms. Slazyk: -- to limit themselves to a certain plan, which they will show you when the item comes up. Commissioner Allen: OK, so -- OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so -- Ms. Slazyk: If you want -- Chairman Sanchez: -- it is a public hearing. I mean, who's the applicant? Are they here? Lucia Dougherty: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Might as well state your name for the record and -- Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. City ofMiami Page 184 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- and bill some hours. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Ms. Dougherty: Get some I don't need. Chairman Sanchez: Huh? Ms. Thompson: I need to make sure that all the speakers are sworn in, if they haven't already. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, I think everybody was sworn in already, but just on the Ms. Thompson: I think -- Chairman Sanchez: -- advisement of the City Clerk -- Ms. Thompson: Yeah. We have a lot of new people coming in. Chairman Sanchez: Are there anyone that has walked in that will be testifying on any of the PZ items that has not -- that have not been sworn in? Please rise so you could be sworn in by the City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: I need you to raise your right hands, please. Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: I swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Lucia? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant. Henry Harper is the owner and the applicant. This is an item that you saw at the -- this is an item that you saw on first reading the last time, and you -- and I had asked ifI could have -- proffer a covenant to tie myself to this particular set of plans. I have submitted a covenant, and it has been approved both by the Planning Department, as well as the CityAttorney's Office, and I, again, show you a copy of the renderings of this particular plan. It is in the Wynwood area, adjacent to -- it's the Filling Station Lofts. It's right across the street from the cement batch plant, and we'd urge your approval of this particular project. Commissioner Winton: It's really in kind of West Edgewater, whatever that area is called. Ms. Dougherty: That's true. Ms. Slazyk: This is second reading. Commissioner Allen: Second reading. City ofMiami Page 185 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: I'll move it if we're ready to do anything. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Chairman, we're ready? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Allen: I'll move it to adopt. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- and a second. Before we open it up for discussion from the Commission, it is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. See -- Commissioner Winton: And, Lourdes, we -- I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed, so there's a motion, second. Discussion on the item. Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, we've got all the stuff from the developer that we needed? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. They gave a covenant, which ties them to these plans. Because this is not a special district, there won't be a special permit, but the covenant will do the same thing. Commissioner Winton: Great. Commissioner Allen: Perfect, perfect. Chairman Sanchez: OK. No further debate on the item. It is a ordinance on second reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance, and Madam Clerk, roll call afterwards. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the 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. Ms. Dougherty: Thanks very much. PZ.21 04-00670a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, 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-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT OF 2.62 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1636, 1646 AND 1650 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT AND 1655 & 1657 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," City ofMiami Page 186 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00670a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00670a Analysis.PDF 04-00670a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00670 & 04-00670a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00670a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00670a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00670a Legislation.PDF 04-00670a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00670a FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from C-2 Liberal Commercial to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District of 2.62 to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 1636, 1646 and 1650 NE Miami Court and 1655 & 1657 N Miami Avenue APPLICANT(S): Filling Station Lofts, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gloria M. Velazquez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 12, 2004 by a vote of 8-1. See companion File ID and 04-00670. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District of 2.62. Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12608 Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.21 is a companion item. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. Same thing and this is where you accept their covenant. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Anyone from the public wishing to step forward and address this Commission? Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We need a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Allen: I move to adopt -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Allen: -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and second by Commissioner City ofMiami Page 187 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Winton. It is open for discussion. Hearing no discussion -- discussion. Commissioner Allen: Just a quick one. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Lourdes, you're satisfied with the covenant, the conditions? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. In the covenant -- Commissioner Allen: Does this -- Ms. Slazyk: -- they've tied themselves to these plans, so what they're -- if they need to change it for any reason, they're going to have to come back here and go through a public process -- Commissioner Allen: Process. Ms. Slazyk: -- to change it. Commissioner Allen: Correct. Great. Chairman Sanchez: OK. No further discussion. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 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.22 04-00725 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 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, IN ORDER TO MODIFY PERMISSIBLE USES IN THE R-4 MULTIFAMILY HIGH -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO ALLOW PUBLIC UTILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE, PROVIDING FOR CRITERIA, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00725 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00725 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00725 Legislation.PDF 04-00725 FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator City ofMiami Page 188 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on June 16, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. PURPOSE: This will allow public utilities as a conditional use in R-4 Multifamily High -Density Residential. Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12609 Chairman Sanchez: PZ.22 is an ordinance on second reading. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Correct. This is to amend R-4 in order to allow the public utilities as a conditional use. This is by special exception. It's got all the screening requirements. They will have to go through public hearing, and we'll be able to review for design. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move PZ.22. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Before we do that, there's a motion and a second for the record, but it's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Hearing none and seeing none, the public hearing is closed. There's a motion and a second. It's open for discussion. Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 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.23 04-00898 ORDINANCE Second Reading 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 9, SECTION 917, TO PROVIDE FORA NEW SECTION 917.15, "SPECIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABLITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 189 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00898 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00898 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00898 Legislation.PDF 04-00898 FR Fact Sheet.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 July 21, 2004 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will provide for a new section entitled, "Special Parking Requirements for Historic Properties." Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12610 Chairman Sanchez: All right. As we go through these PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, PZ.23 is also an ordinance on second reading. Sarah Eaton: Sarah Eaton, Planning & Zoning Department. This is second reading on an ordinance that would allow the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board the ability to modify certain parking standards in historic sites and districts. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. It is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, and it's open for a motion. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is open -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second for discussion. Chairman Sanchez: -- for discussion. Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I do have a question, and the question is, what is -- when you say "special parking requirements, " what is the specialty? Ms. Eaton: Well, this would -- the standards would relate to size or location, not the required number of spaces. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: It doesn't require number of spaces? Ms. Eaton: No. It -- the board cannot waive the number of spaces with this ordinance, only the City ofMiami Page 190 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 size or location of those spaces. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you. That's it. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance for the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 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.24 04-00565 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 3525, 3541 AND 3545 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. 04-00565 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00565 Analysis.PDF 04-00565 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00565 & 04-00565a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00565 School Brd Review.PDF 04-00565 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00565 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00565 Legislation.PDF 04-00565 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00565-submittal 1- declaration.pdf 04-00565-submittal 2 - permit.pdf 04-00565 FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Duplex Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 3525, 3541 and 3545 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Coral East Development Corp. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. City ofMiami Page 191 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on May 5, 2004 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 04-00565a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.24 -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Ms. Slazyk: -- and 25 are next. PZ.24 and 25 are first reading ordinance with a change of land use and zoning for the properties at 3525, 3541 and 3545 Southwest 22nd Terrace. This is off of Coral Way. The Planning and Zoning Department's recommended denial, the Planning Advisory Board denial, and the Zoning Board has recommended denial. The Commission considered this on first reading and continued it fi^om the meeting of September 27, 2004. The applicant had proffered a covenant. We now have it, and in the covenant, they tie themselves to a set of plans that they're in the process of going -- getting a Class II Special Permit for, which I will let the applicant explain. Inez Marrero: Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Inez Marrero, with offices at 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue, here this evening on behalf of the applicant and the -- on both PZ.24 and 25. As you may recall, this application was deferred because there were neighbors here in objection to the facade of the property abutting 22nd Terrace. We have met with them. I am pleased to say that we came to an agreement. We met with the president of the Silver Bluff Homeowners Association, with Josefina Sanchez-Pando and Hilda Rodriguez from the 22nd Terrace Homeowners Association, and we have amended our application to continue to be tied to the site plan. We had an opportunity to present the project to them. They feel comfortable with it. We are adding additional landscaping along 22nd Terrace, and most importantly, we have agreed to an additional condition, whereby any change of use that is not what's being proposed here, any nonresidential use of those properties will require 100 percent of -- expressed written consent of all the homeowners within 500 feet, 100 percent. All those homeowners would have to agree to any change -- Ms. Slazyk: That's the most ironclad, yeah. Ms. Marrero: A hundred, so they feel that their concerns are addressed and they -- this is a covenant that they can take to the bank. Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, that means -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Ms. Slazyk: -- not only you guys, but they all have to agree. Ms. Marrero: They have to commit. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, and 100 percent of -- getting a hundred percent of cats. City ofMiami Page 192 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Almost not possible. Commissioner Regalado: Hundred percent. Commissioner Allen: That's pretty good. Commissioner Regalado: A hundred percent is good. Mr. Chairman, I -- Commissioner Winton: Is this in your -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, it's in my district. Commissioner Winton: You want me to chair? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, please. Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Oh, is this a public hearing also? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: I guess I'll open the public hearing first. We have a public hearing on PZ.24. Anyone from the public care to speak on PZ.24? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Yes. The main concern of all the Silver Bluff residents, of all the Golden Pines residents is the exit on 22nd Terrace. We dealt earlier with the restaurant and that is the only thing. They understand about Coral Way and the big buildings and all that. There is -- Coral Way is a buffer, so the reason that we defer that is because all the residents were not certain that there was going to be not an exit, plus some landscaping and residential area. That is the historic pattern of Coral Way, so -- but would this add 100 percent -- I mean, that would be the dream of all the candidates, to get a hundred percent votes, butt guess nobody gets that, so I'll move, Mr. Chairman, PZ.24 on the first reading. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Winton: Motion, second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in -- ordinance. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): An ord -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3/0. PZ.25 04-00565a ORDINANCE First Reading City ofMiami Page 193 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 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 WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3525, 3541 AND 3545 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00565a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00565a Legislation.PDF 04-00565a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00565a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00565a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00565a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00565a Analysis.PDF 04-00565 & 04-00565a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00565a Zoning Map.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 3525, 3541 and 3545 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Coral East Development Corp. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on July 12, 2004 by a vote of 5-4. See companion File ID 04-00565. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez Commissioner Winton: PZ.25. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ. 25 is the companion, and what we will do is, we'll -- before second reading, we'll finalize the approval of the covenant, so -- Commissioner Winton: OK, great. So I need -- public hearing on PZ. 25. Anyone from the public would like to speak on PZ. 25? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. Need a City ofMiami Page 194 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 motion. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move PZ.25. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Winton: Got a motion, second. Any discussion? Read the ordinance, please, Mr. City Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3/0. Inez Marrero: Thank you very much, and thank you for staying after hours for those of us who were still waiting. We appreciate it. PZ.26 04-00927a 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 3686-88 SOUTHWEST 15TH STREET AND 3685-87 SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00927a & 04-00927b Exhibit A.PDF 04-00927a Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00927a Analysis.PDF 04-00927a Land Use Map.pdf 04-00927a & 04-00927b Aerial Map.pdf 04-00927a PAB Reso.PDF 04-00927a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00927a Legislation.PDF 04-00927a-Submittal.pdf 04-00927a-su bmitta l letter. pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Duplex Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 3686-88 SW 15th Street and 3685-87 SW 16th Street APPLICANT(S): Napoleon & Eumelia Alvarez, David & Irene Mermelstein and Ignacio and Odilia Rios, Owners and Strategic Properties Group, Inc., Contract City ofMiami Page 195 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on September 22, 2004 by a vote of 3-5. See companion File ID 04-00927 and 04-00927b. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Urbanea Major Use Special Permit Project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Sanchez and Vice Chairman Gonzalez absent, to continue Item PZ.26 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for November 18, 2004. [Minutes for PZ.26 are located under PZ.271 PZ.27 04-00927b ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 40, 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 3686-88 SOUTHWEST 15TH STREET AND 3685-87 SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00927a & 04-00927b Exhibit A.PDF 04-00927b Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00927b ZB Reso.PDF 04-00927a & 04-00927b Aerial Map.pdf 04-00927b Zoning Map.pdf 04-00927b Legislation.PDF 04-00927b Analysis.PDF 04-00927b Application & Supp Docs.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 3686-88 SW 15th Street and 3685-87 SW 16th Street APPLICANT(S): Napoleon & Eumelia Alvarez, David & Irene Mermelstein and Ignacio and Odilia Rios, Owners and Strategic Properties Group, Inc., Contract Purchaser City ofMiami Page 196 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 26, 2004 by a vote of 9-0. See companion File ID 04-00927 and 04-00927a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed Urbanea Major Use Special Permit Project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Sanchez and Vice Chairman Gonzalez absent, to continue Item PZ.27 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for November 18, 2004. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.26 and 27 are a first reading land use and zoning change for the properties at 3686 through 88 Southwest 15th Street -- Commissioner Regalado: IfI can -- I was trying to get a briefing on this from the Planning Department and Ana gave me just a brief butl did -- I don't understand this one because we have gotten calls in our office, and we just -- we need to refer this to the City Attorney, so I would -- Mr. Chairman, I would rather defer this to the next PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting, because I really don't understand it. Commissioner Winton: Make a motion. Commissioner Regalado: So I move to defer to the November PZ meeting PZ.26 and 27. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Winton: Got a motion, second. Ms. Slazyk: November 18th. Commissioner Winton: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Winton: Like sign opposed? The motion carries. PZ.26 and 27 are deferred to the November P&Z meeting. PZ.28 04-01163 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 PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 721 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES" 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 197 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-01163 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01163 Analysis.PDF 04-01163 Land Use Map.pdf 04-01163 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01163 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01163 School Brd Analysis.PDF 04-01163 PAB Reso.pdf 04-01163 Legislation.PDF 04-01163 Exhibit A.PDF 04-01163 FR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transporation and Utilities" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 721 NW 1st Avenue APPLICANT(S): Planning and Zoning Department FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 20, 2004 by a vote of 5-0. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: All right. We just have three more to go. Let's go to PZ.28, which is a land use change at 721 Northwest 1st Avenue. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. This is a first reading ordinance. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning & Zoning Department and approval by the Planning Advisory Board. This is the old Miami Arena, and it's to change the land use classification from major institutional public facilities, transportation and utilities to restricted commercial. It's already zoned for the same thing. This is in keeping with the City's policy that once it's no longer owned by government, it really should not be governmentally land used, so -- and it is consistent restricted commercial with the neighborhood. Chairman Sanchez: It's an ordinance on first reading. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be heard. Seeing none, hearing none, it is closed. It's open for the Commission for a motion. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. City ofMiami Page 198 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Commissioner Regalado: Question: This means that this will stop paying taxes? Ms. Slazyk: I don't -- I'm not sure. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): No. Commissioner Winton: No, it shouldn't. Mr. Fernandez: It just means that it has -- now, it has the proper -- Ms. Slazyk: Land use, yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- land use classification. Commissioner Winton: It will start paying taxes when they close on it. Chairman Sanchez: It's no longer a government institution, right? Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean -- that's what I'm asking. Commissioner Winton: When he -- when the -- when Glenn Straub closes on this property -- Ms. Slazyk: Then it'll -- yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- as soon as that close, then it goes on the tax roll. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Chairman Sanchez: Well, basically, this -- what it says, it's no longer a government institution and it's now privately owned. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, and -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- when it -- when that -- when this completes, then it will be zoned and land used properly for private ownership. Restricted commercial is the classification of the neighborhood and it'll be consistent. Chairman Sanchez: Any further discussion on the item? Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney -- I mean -- yeah. There was a -- Madam Clerk, Commissioner Winton made the motion. Commissioner -- Ms. Slazyk: Allen. Chairman Sanchez: -- Allen seconded, for the record. There's no further discussion on the item. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance in the record. It's first reading. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. City ofMiami Page 199 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4 -- I'm sorry, 5/0. PZ.29 04-00984 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ZONING AND PLANNING, OF THE CITY OF MIAMI CODE BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XI ENTITLED, "ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT MURAL REGULATIONS"; CREATING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR LICENSE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR AN APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00984 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00984 Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend the Miami City Code APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will add a new Article XI to the Miami City Code entitled, "Arts and Entertainment Mural Regulations." NOTE: Per City Attorney's Office, item is remanded to First Reading due to substantial changes. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez Note: PZ.29 was bifurcated into two separate ordinances. (See below.) (PZ.29 04-00984a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ZONING AND PLANNING, OF THE CITY OF MIAMI CODE BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XI ENTITLED, "ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT MURAL REGULATIONS"; CREATING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR LICENSE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR AN APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONTINUED City ofMiami Page 200 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Sanchez and Vice Chairman Gonzalez absent, to continue companion ordinance on Second Reading for Item PZ.29, to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for November 18, 2004. Commissioner Regalado: OK We are -- we're back -- this is the mural ordinance, and this is a public hearing to -- this is PZ.29 -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah. Let me -- I need to explain a couple of things, why I handed out two ordinances. I also have other copies here if anyone from the public would like -- at the last hearing, the City Commission approved, on first reading, the mural ordinance, with some directions to make some changes. Some of those changes are substantive and some were not. What we've done for today's ordinance for you is taken the full final ordinance and bifurcated it into two parts, so that you can approve one of them tonight on second reading, which is -- I handed out two items to you; one of them has File ID Number 04-00984a, and the other one does not have an A. The "a" is what we are recommending that you approve on second reading. This is substantially what you approved on first reading, with some of the modifications that were -- we were directed to make, clarifications on the definition of the Wall, the CO (Certificate of Occupancy) and CU (Certificate of Use). Commissioner Regalado: Let me just ask -- Ms. Slazyk: Sure. Commissioner Regalado: Has Commissioner Allen been briefed in all these murals things? Ms. Slazyk: I briefed Commissioner Allen. I don't know if he has any other questions, but -- Commissioner Regalado: I mean, you know, because he just got here and we've been dealing with this mural thing, but -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, I understand. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, but some background information would be helpful, but just on first glance, are there limitations with this? Could you expound on that as well, or -- Slazyk: Yeah, sure. There are limitations. There's a lot of limitations. There is a limit on the number around the City. There's a total of 50 allowed. There is zoning disfricts that it's limited to, so it's not going to happen within every zoning district in the City. If you look at Section 4, you'll see the zoning disfricts where it's permitted. We also have distance limitations between such murals and between murals and residential districts. There is also limitations as to the size, that it can't exceed more than 80 percent of a wall, and in response to concerns raised by the County, we've put a total maximum square footage on the commercial component of a mural to 672 square feet. There is also a limitation that a particular licensee may not get more than eight in a one -month period, so that the first person in line doesn't come in and get all 50. There is a process by which each one will come to the City Commission for approval, after being reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and that the Office of Hearing Boards will keep a map of all of them that have been approved so that we can frack them. Other than that, we've made the corrections and clarifications that were required as of the last hearing, and then on the other item, which we're asking you to approve on first reading tonight, we've included what was considered to be the substantive changes, which is adding an additional ten signs for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. This is to allow the small guys to also come in because the fees for these murals are $10, 000 a piece, and the Disadvantaged Business, we added ten more signs, citywide. They will be at a reduced fee of $2, 500, and they -- let me see, what else this one did. Ten -- I think that was it, and there's a definition for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise City ofMiami Page 201 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 that goes to the state and federal laws that define these businesses, so the one with the "a", we could ask that you approve on second reading, and the one without the "a" is first reading and then it will come back to you a second reading in November. Commissioner Winton: And we're going to make sure that we deny all applications for any of these murals in that district over there where Eugene Rodriguez has his operation; is that right? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair -- I'm sorry, Chair, before you vote, I need a copy of what you're alluding to -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Ms. Thompson: -- because I need to make sure we sort this out. Commissioner Regalado: OK Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: But this is a public hearing, so let's open the public hearing. Anybody who wishes to comment on the murals -- I still don't understand why we have to -- you say "a" is the second reading? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, the one with the little "a" after the File ID B number. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Let me -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but I thought -- Mr. Maxwell: Let me explain -- Commissioner Regalado: I thought that they had substantial -- Ms. Slazyk: The substantial changes were pulled out and made a part of a second ordinance. If not, the whole thing would have been back before you as a first reading, which -- the one in your package actually shows these two merged as one document for first reading. By bifur -- Commissioner Regalado: But is this -- I mean, is this unusual, because you usually -- Ms. Slazyk: Oh, we've bifurcated ordinances in the past. If you want to make a change but you want the rest of it to continue moving forward, you can pull it apart and to pieces, and that's what we did here, so that this one can be adopted on second reading and this will follow in November for second reading. Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Slazyk: It's your choice. If you want to approve all of it together as first reading, that's within your purview, as well. Commissioner Regalado: OK Lucia Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. We are in support of this ordinance. I'm representing a company called Metro Lights that are in the wallscape business, and I just want to put on -- let Commissioner Allen know about two things that this ordinance does. One is that it is -- all of the money, which are substantial in fees, will go into the Arts and Entertainment Council to create City ofMiami Page 202 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 public art throughout the City. Commissioner Winton: That's the City ofMiami's Art and Entertainment. Ms. Dougherty: That's correct, not the Dade County one. The other thing, too, is that this is an ordinance that will allow these murals only on blank walls and occupied spaces, so in other words, you have a building such as the old Howard Johnson's, some of the murals on that wall look a whole lot better than the wall. Mr. Rodriguez had a -- has a building that is currently -- you know, has a big blank facade, and this mural actually allows him to keep up the building, so this is something that we think is a good thing in the City, particularly it's not offensive. It actually can beautify many of the walls. It will -- the money will go to a good cause, and we would ask your support of the ordinance. Commissioner Regalado: OK I have a question. The murals can only go on walls; they cannot go on the roof? Why not? Ms. Slazyk: Not on the roof. Roof signs aren't allowed in the City, first of all. Commissioner Regalado: I'm sorry? Ms. Slazyk: Roof signs. There's old ones that are grandfathered out there and they have a certain time. Commissioner Winton: Well, I've seen -- Commissioner Regalado: I've seen -- Ms. Slazyk: Not -- yeah, there's old -- there's a lot of -- but brand new -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, how come the American Airlines Arena, which is new, has a sign in the roof? Ms. Slazyk: What roof sign? Gil Pastoriza: Painted on the roof. Ms. Slazyk: Oh, painted from over -- Commissioner Regalado: AA, American Airlines. Ms. Slazyk: Right, but it's not a structure that sits on top of the roof with a sign. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. It's a mural. I'm talking about a mural. If you want to buy a license to paint a mural in the roof of one building that you can see from 836 or I-95, can you do that? Commissioner Winton: Got to be a little building. Commissioner Allen: That's a good question. Mr. Maxwell: This says attached to a wall. This is on a wall. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, and we -- Mr. Maxwell: This specifically -- City ofMiami Page 203 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: -- defined wall. Mr. Maxwell: -- said attached to a wall. Commissioner Winton: So the answer is no. Commissioner Regalado: So the answer is no? Ms. Slazyk: No. The answer is no. Mr. Maxwell: Cannot put it on the ceiling. Commissioner Regalado: How about those who has -- those who already have in the roof? Unidentified Speaker: You can only see them from an airplane. Commissioner Regalado: You can see it fi^om an airplane, you can see it from the expressway. Commissioner Winton: Well, but -- I thought you already answered this question, Mr. City Attorney. He said it has to be from a wall, not on the roof. Ms. Slazyk: No. Under this ordinance, roofs, it's not addressed; they're not allowed. Walls are it. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Pastoriza: I just would like to add one more thing. Gill Pastoriza, 2665, and the first location -- the first mural requires City Commission approval by special exception, so we're -- the applicant cannot simply administratively get approval. It has to come before you and you have to approve the mural. Commissioner Allen: OK. Commissioner Winton: Oh, God help us. Commissioner Regalado: OK Anybody from the public? Anybody -- public hearing. Yes, ma'am. Sandra Francis: Sandra Francis, 1000 Brickell, Suite 210. I'm one of the small businesses that because the Commission board, especially Commissioner Winton, took the time to listen and to understand the need for smaller businesses to be able to participate in assisting and making the playing field a little bit more level so we can get in, I'm appreciative of this opportunity. I mean, this means a lot to me because it not only helps me to get in, but it affords me to bring on other people, provide more jobs, and to be a bigger contributor for the City, so I'm in support and I am in support of moving it forward on the -- on both sides, on first and second reading for the other side, so I just want to say thank you. I'm just excited about the opportunity to participate as a small business, and I thank you very much for listening and understanding my plight as a small businesswoman. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Allen: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Dusty. City ofMiami Page 204 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Don't listen to pastors anymore. Dusty Melton: Good evening. Commissioner Winton: I said, don't listen to pastors anymore. Mr. Melton: For the record, Dusty Melton, 3430 Poinciana Avenue. I intend, as always, to tell the truth, butt have not been sworn in. If you want to swear me in or waive it. It doesn't matter to me. Ms. Thompson: You want to raise your right hand? The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Melton: The hour's late; you've had a long day, and I'm going to give you all the Reader's Digest version this evening. Commissioner Winton: How about smaller than that? Mr. Melton: Well, this is an important -- this is -- and I know you -- Commissioner Winton, I know you realize this is a very important issue involving the urban landscape of our city, and I'm not going to take a lot of time, but it's a very important matter that deserves the other side's viewpoint. First of all, let me register my serious disappointment that for the ordinary public that checks your agenda, that the message sent by this City is that because of substantial changes, tonight is only a first reading. That is what agenda Item PZ.29 says. Now, maybe there was a shuffle during the day. There's a -- an unusual bifurcation that has your Clerk confused, that has Commissioner Regalado confused, not understanding why, suddenly, a first reading has become a second reading. Commissioner Winton: It isn't sudden. This was a first reading a month ago, so this isn't the first time it's been before the Commission. Mr. Melton: But the agenda -- Commissioner Winton: There has been a first reading already. We've had the first reading. We've debated it in the public. We debated it in the public at a regular meeting, in the regular daytime, Dusty, so that's the reason. Mr. Melton: I just want to say that today's agenda item, which is traveling with -- to the ordinary public -- Commissioner Winton: So was last month's traveling to the ordinary -- Mr. Melton: -- that because of substantial changes from last month's first reading, that tonight would be a new first reading. The notion that we have a second reading on some bifurcated matter, which has your Clerk asking for copies and a Commissioner, one of three, confused, I think the record should reflect that the public is also confused about this bifurcation. Commissioner Winton: I think that's your opinion. Mr. Melton: No, that's -- right. City ofMiami Page 205 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: So keep going. Mr. Melton: Everything I'm going to say tonight is only my opinion. Secondly, the last time I appeared before this Commission to talk about out -of -home advertising industry -- and I'm going to start on a charitable note -- the City Manager was different, the City Attorney was different, and two of the Commissioners were different, so Commissioner Winton, Commissioner Regalado, you may very well recall our discussion back in April of 2002 about why the County Code governs in the City ofMiami on issues such as this, but for Commissioner Allen, who's new, Joel will understand it, but for the City Attorney and the City Manager, this is somewhat new ground. I'm not going to be lengthy, but let me remind you of what happened, the two major events that happened in the summer of 1985. The County Commission, at the request of the Miami City Commission, passed an ordinance accepting the City ofMiami's settlement with the out -of -home billboard industry on expressway billboards. They did that early in the summer of '85, and the County exercised its home rule powers and took zoning control over expressways and billboards along expressways. The second event in the summer of 1985 was the County passed a sign ordinance, originally intended to rewrite the County's Zoning Code only in Unincorporated Dade County, but it -- again, the County Commission exercised its home rule power and passed a sign ordinance controlling all signs of all sizes, in all locations, in all configurations, in all manner of manufacturer, in every city in this County, including the City of Miami. Our discussion in April of 2002 was mostly about expressway billboards. There was a lot of political rhetoric that night, a lot of bond bass, a marshalling of resources, a hiring of law firms to declare a war and wage a war on the billboard industry, much of which has resulted in, some would say, capitulation, but charitably, I would say, settlement of litigation. Tonight's discussion is about the second historic event from the summer of 1985, in which back when governments in this town used legal paper. The Countywide sign ordinance was approved. This ordinance defined the murals in the -- almost the same language that you have before you in your City Commission agenda tonight. It defined these murals as signs affixed to or painted on the walls of buildings, and this ordinance established the maximum rights of building owners and billboard industry people, and wall mural people, all of these fine folks in the audience tonight; it established the maximum rights that they have to do this kind of business in the City of Miami back in the summer of 1985. These restrictions have not been changed in the last 19 years, and they're real simple. I would pause to say I think color on buildings is great. I think revenues for worthwhile City programs are great. I think programs to help small and minority -owned businesses are great. This ordinance is not about those issues. It is about the rule of law in the City ofMiami, and the rule of law is this document from the summer of 1985. This is the standard. This law, which governs these signs in the City says, for example, that the maximum coverage of any wall, of any one of these murals or signs is far, far less than 80 percent. This standard, which is the law in the City ofMiami, says that there may be no commercial messages involving products sold offsite, but your ordinance specifically grants the right to have commercial messages for products sold wherever, specifically offsite. These are merely two of the most obvious and egregious examples of the disconnect between what is before you tonight, whether it's public hearing, second reading or first reading, or however you guys want to do it, but the essence of what is before you tonight in your two bifurcated installment is in extraordinarily simple and, frankly, egregious contradiction to the law in this City since the summer of 1985. This is the same Epistle I shared with the Commission two and a half years ago, and in a charitable moment, I would simply say that perhaps folks have lost sight of the fact that the governing statute -- and it may be very offensive. I find it very serious, Commissioner Winton -- it may be very simple -- is the fact that -- Commissioner Winton: I'm allowed to laugh. Mr. Melton: -- is that no hard-working, new bureaucrat working for the City ofMiami should reasonably be expected to understand what happened almost 20 years ago, but members of this Commission should remember. Two of you here tonight were reminded in detail and you City ofMiami Page 206 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 enthusiastically embraced that tutorial back in April of 2002. The message has not changed one word. This is the law. This proposition is totally -- is in material respects inconsistent with the law. That's, as we say, my opinion. That opinion happens to be shared by the folks downtown, whose job it is in the Law Department at the County, and the Planning and Zoning Department of the County to enforce this ordinance. They have sent their skilled staff people to meet with your administration to explain specifically how inconsistent this proposition is with the law of our land. They have communicated this in writing to the Manager, though I'm not sure, since it's dated yesterday, whether the Manager has had a chance to review it. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. -- Mr. Melton: I would urge the Commission to do what it thinks is right, because that's what always encourage my friends on the Commission to do. I think the law is pretty plain. It's real easy to digest. It's a confounding mystery to me why your excellent staff continues to provide you proposed legislation that is egregiously illegal. That's their professional prerogative, and I just want to reiterate one last time that discovering, as your Clerk and one of your colleagues seem to be, that suddenly what your written record says, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) substantially change were -- Commissioner Winton: The Reader's Digest version has gotten longer. Mr. Melton: Well, I do this every two and a half years, so you -- I appreciate the latitude, but when your agenda item says to the public it's a first reading, for the public to be here -- Commissioner Winton: This is a repeat. Mr. Melton: I would encourage you not to pass anything on second reading tonight, given the importance of this issue and given the questions that had been raised. Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, could we have the City Attorney to opine on this to some extent? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: It seems that you're making an argument that there's a conflict with the 1985 -- Commissioner Winton: County law. Commissioner Allen: -- County law. Mr. Melton: Which governs to this day -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Melton: -- and the system. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Regalado: And my question was --just go ahead and ask Commissioner -- answer Commissioner Allen -- but my question was, if it says first reading, why we have to vote City ofMiami Page 207 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 on second reading, which is not in the agenda? Mr. Maxwell: I'm sorry. I don't -- you said if it says -- Commissioner Regalado: If it's -- Mr. Maxwell: On the agenda, it says first reading. Commissioner Regalado: On the agenda, it says first reading, but this -- Mr. Maxwell: But this item did go to first reading back in September. Commissioner Winton: We heard it. Mr. Maxwell: It then -- you then asked -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, we know that. Mr. Maxwell: -- for certain changes, and it was bifurcated. There's no prohibition on it now being heard on second reading, even though the agenda may say that. It was properly advertised, and it was -- it's been advertised twice now. It was advertised for this meeting, too. Commissioner Winton: So that's point one. How about that -- Mr. Melton: For a CityAttorney's Office -- Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Excuse me. You're not -- Commissioner Regalado: The public hearing -- Commissioner Winton: The CityAttorney's working on answering the other question that Commissioner Allen asked, which was the legality all of this relative to County law. Commissioner Allen: Just to clear that up. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. I believe our staff looked at this and they found that as long as we complied with the minimum size or maximum size requirements of the County, that we would be in compliance with the County Code. I believe the County's maximum size for commercial signs is 672, is it? I thought 675. The 672, I'm told, and we do comply with those provisions. It's also my understanding that the County's staff did come over; they talked to our staff and that was their concern with our ordinance, as well, that the commercial message couldn't exceed the County's requirements. We agree with Mr. Milton that the County does establish minimum criteria for signs in the County. It applies to incorporated as well as unincorporated areas, but it's also our understanding and belief that we -- the ordinance that we have in front of you comports with the County's requirements. Mr. Melton: May I -- Commissioner Winton: And does the County think that we do or don't? Does the County think we're in violation? Mr. Maxwell: The County sent a letter over today or yesterday -- anyway, we saw a copy of it to the Manager -- where they had raised issues, and they also mentioned the fact they had raised those same issues during the Commission's consideration of the Jumbofron ordinance. Their concerns at that time, too, dealt with the size and we dealt with that issue by reducing the size. City ofMiami Page 208 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: I guess, not that I really want to agree with Dusty here, because it's late at night, butt will have to admit, this isn't an issue of life and death. It is something -- it's going to be around -- it has potential to be around for a long time. I don't see any reason why we don't continue this item to the next PZ (Planning & Zoning) item so that you have time to get -- clarify the issues with the County, and we can go to second reading then, then we don't make any mistakes. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Allen: so -- Mr. Maxwell: You're speaking of both items being continued, Commissioner? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Do we have a motion to defer? Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Regalado: OK, and -- Mr. Maxwell: This will be to the November meeting? Commissioner Winton: November meeting. Commissioner Allen: November. Mr. Melton: May I briefly express my appreciation for the consideration? Commissioner Regalado: Briefly. Commissioner Allen: Briefly, too. Mr. Melton: And -- Commissioner Winton: It's expressed. Mr. Melton: -- encourage each of you to obtain from your Manager a copy of the letter, which says -- Commissioner Winton: We'll get -- Mr. Melton: -- in bureaucratic terms what I've said tonight, this ordinance, as written, is impermissible and illegal. It's real plain. Commissioner Winton: Turn his mike off would you? Commissioner Regalado: OK Briefly. City ofMiami Page 209 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Dougherty: I'm only going to suggest that you at least pass the other one on first reading so they can be back together as one ordinance when it comes back to second reading, and the other thing is that I want to respond to what he says. In 1985, there was no mural industry. There were no murals on the building -- Commissioner Winton: We understand -- Ms. Dougherty: -- so they couldn't legislate on it. Commissioner Allen: OK. We're arguing -- the motion was with respect to both -- Commissioner Regalado: The motion was to defer both -- Commissioner Allen: Both A and -- Commissioner Regalado: -- for November 18th. Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, what do you think about the -- these are going to become one ordinance, not two, is that right? Ms. Slazyk: We could either bring them back as two or we could -- if you adopt the other one on first reading, we could merge them back together, if you wish it. Commissioner Winton: Well, it seems to me there's no danger in adopting the second one for first reading so that they both come back together as the ordinance as intended, instead of bifurcated, so that we don't have to deal with them in a bifurcated process next time. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney, is that OK? Mr. Maxwell: I mean, you -- Commissioner Regalado: So we have a motion to defer -- Mr. Maxwell: -- could do that, butt just -- Commissioner Regalado: -- PZ.29 and then you may -- Mr. Maxwell: Had you -- Commissioner Regalado: -- proceed on both on -- Mr. Maxwell: Just procedural question for the Clerk. Commissioner Regalado: The question is C-1 -- Mr. Maxwell: Before, did they vote on the -- Commissioner Regalado: No, we haven't voted on this item. Commissioner Winton: Haven't voted on anything. Commissioner Allen: No. City ofMiami Page 210 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: But we will readvertise it. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Yes, you could do that. Commissioner Winton: So maybe I should amend my motion then to -- maybe we should withdraw that motion. I'm going to withdraw my motion and then produce a new motion. The new motion would be to accept the draft on first reading for File Number 04-00984, and to move to accept that for first reading, which will then put it in lock step with 04-00984a. Commissioner Allen: 'A, "yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Allen: I second. Commissioner Regalado: We have a motion and a second. It's an ordinance. This is a public hearing. We close the public hearing. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: This is on first reading. Commissioner Regalado: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3/0. Commissioner Winton: My second -- my next motion is to defer or to continue? Ms. Slazyk: Continue to November -- Commissioner Allen: Continue. Commissioner Regalado: Continue. Commissioner Winton: Item 04-00984a and 04-00984, continued to the November PZ meeting. Commissioner Regalado: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Regalado: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. PZ.30 04-01101 ORDINANCE First Reading Planning & Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING -- City Commission ORDINANCE NO. 11000, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLES 4 AND 6, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND SECTION 614 SD-14 LATIN City ofMiami Page 211 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 QUARTER COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND SD-14 ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WITH REGARDS TO FOOTPRINT LIMITATIONS; ADDING CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01101 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01101 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01101 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 September 1, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. PURPOSE: This will relax footprint regulations in the C-1 Restricted Commercial and SD-14 Latin Quarter Commercial -Residential, and Residential Districts for projects that provide liners. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Sanchez and Vice Chairman Gonzalez absent, to continue Item PZ.30 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for November 18, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Do y'all want to defer -- or continue PZ.30? This is administration, PZ.30 and PZ.31 are companions. You want to do this now or you want to continue to -- Mr. Maxwell: Isn't this in Joe's district? Commissioner Regalado: No. This is -- it's just -- it doesn't say any -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah -- Commissioner Regalado: Oh, the Latin Quarter, yeah. Ms. Slazyk: It's citywide. It's -- yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, we need to defer it because Commissioner Sanchez need to -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, 30. Commissioner Regalado: So we have a motion to defer. Commissioner Winton: 30. Commissioner Regalado: Continue -- Commissioner Winton: Continue PZ.30. Ms. Slazyk: To November 18th. City ofMiami Page 212 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: PZ.30. Commissioner Allen: November 18th. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Regalado: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. PZ.31 04-01102 ORDINANCE First Reading Planning & Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, ESTABLISHING AN -- City Commission URBAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 380.06(2) (e), FLORIDA STATUTES; SETTING FORTH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE URBAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS WHICH SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE URBAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01102 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01102 Analysis.PDF 04-01102 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01102 Legislation.PDF 04-01102 Exhibit A.pdf 04-01102 UCBD Justification Report.PDF 04-01102-Lette r. pdf REQUEST: To Establish an Urban Central Business District APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 1, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. PURPOSE: This will designate the downtown area as an Urban Central Business District to encourage development in downtown. Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez Commissioner Regalado: PZ.31 is different. This is -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): This is for downtown. Commissioner Regalado: -- the boundaries on the Urban Central Business District. It's your City ofMiami Page 213 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 district. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: I don't know what this is. Commissioner Regalado: It's the book that we have here. It's the -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. This is -- this is an order -- Commissioner Winton: So they could be quick. Ms. Slazyk: This is one of the things allowed by the Florida Statutes to create an Urban Central Business District for our downtown master plan boundaries. It increases the thresholds for DRI (Development of Regional Impact), but they still have to come for major use. It doesn't change that. It makes developing in downtown more atfractive, which will help with the urban infill, instead of it sprawling out into the neighborhoods. Commissioner Regalado: More atfractive now, more density. Ms. Slazyk: No, no. It just -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, that's what it says there. I read the book. Ms. Slazyk: No. It does not change density, intensity, nothing. What it does is it says, you don't have to go to the State of Florida for your approval if you're at a higher threshold. You still have to get City Commission approval and Major Use Special Permit, but it saves you a year and a half at the State of Florida. Commissioner Winton: Tied to DRI. Commissioner Allen: OK. I move. I move to adopt. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Regalado: OK We have a motion and a second. It's an ordinance. It's a public hearing. You don't want to say anything? Thank you. We close the public hearing. Ordinance. Read the ordinance, Mr. City Attorney. Commissioner Allen: 31. Commissioner Regalado: 31. Commissioner Allen: 31. Commissioner Regalado: 31. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: Roll call. City ofMiami Page 214 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3/0. PZ.32 04-01133 ORDINANCE First Reading Planning & Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING SECTION -- City Commission 62-156 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED: "SCHEDULE OF FEES", TO INCREASE AND ADD VARIOUS FEES AS SET FORTH IN SAID PLANNING AND ZONING MATTER RELATED FEE SCHEDULE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01133 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01133 Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend the Miami City Code APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will increase and add various Planning and Zoning fees. WITHDRAWN PZ.32 was withdrawn by the administration. Chairman Sanchez: Let's go to the -- PZ.12 is a land use change, 1884 Northwest 15th Street. Madam Director. I'm sorry. Lourdes Slazyk: OK. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning & Zoning Department. I would first just real quickly like to announce that we are withdrawing Item PZ.32, OK. Chairman Sanchez: OK. For the record, PZ.32 has been withdrawn. OK. PZ.33 04-00460 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 98-450, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13, 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE VILLA MAGNA PROJECT (F.K.A. BAYSHORE PALMS MUSP PHASE II) LOCATED AT 1201 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS CONSISTING OF A TOTAL OF 787 UNITS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY AND/OR APARTMENT HOTEL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, APPROXIMATELY 32,950 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 1,520 PARKING SPACES; TO REPLACE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROVIDED ON EXHIBITS "A" AND "C," ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO (" FAR") BONUSES SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT "C," HEREIN; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING City ofMiami Page 215 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 216 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00460 Exhibit A - 5th Modif.pdf.pdf 04-00460 Exhibit B- Corrected.pdf 04-00460 Exhibit C - 2nd Modif.pdf 04-00460 Fact Sheet - 3rd Modif.pdf 04-00460 Analysis - 2nd Modif.pdf 04-00460 Zoning Map.pdf 04-00460 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00460 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00460 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00460 CC Reso 98-450.PDF 04-00460 Plans.PDF 04-00460 Legislation - 3rd Modif.PDF 04-00460 - submittal.pdf 04-00460 - correspondence gibbs.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Amended Complaint.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Analysis.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Appl. for Amdmt. to MUSP.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Appl. for Amdmt. to MUSP.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Binder.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Letter From Attny Dickman To Garcia-Toledo.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Letters.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-List Of Associations.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Mandelstam v. S. Miami Commission.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Memo. pdf 04-00460-Submittal-PAB Minutes.pdf 04-00460-Su bmittal-Petition. pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Pinellas County v. Woulley.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Presentation. pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Resolution. pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Resumes. pdf 04-00460-Submittal-Rinker v. City of N. Miami.pdf 04-00460-Submittal-State v. Goode.pdf 04-00460-Scriveners Error Emails Refernece to Exhibit B.pdf 04-00460-Old Exhibit B.pdf 04-00460 Outside Cover.PDF 04-00460 Inside Cover.PDF 04-00460 Table of Contents.PDF 04-00460 Article I - Project Information.PDF 04-00460 Disclosure of Ownership.PDF 04-00460 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 04-00460 Ownership List Part I.PDF 04-00460 Ownership List Part II.PDF 04-00460 City of Miami Zoning Map.PDF 04-00460 Article II - Project Description.PDF 04-00460 Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 04-00460 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 04-00460 Affirmative Action Plan - Section A.PDF 04-00460 Affirmative Action Plan - Section B.PDF 04-00460 Affirmative Action Plan - Section C.PDF 04-00460 Affirmative Action Plan - Section D.PDF 04-00460 Affirmative Action Plan - Section E.PDF 04-00460 Traffic Impact Study.PDF 04-00460 Site Utility Study.PDF City ofMiami Page 217 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-00460 Economic Impact Analysis.PDF 04-00460 Survey of Property.PDF REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Villa Magna (f.k.a. Bayshore Palms Phase II) LOCATION: Approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive APPLICANT(S): Tibor Hollo, Member, Excel.com LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on April 21, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Villa Magna Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez R-04-0717 Chairman Sanchez: PZ.33. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.33 is a substantial modification to a Major Use Special Permit. This was originally approved as the Bayshore Palms project, which was a two-phase project. Phase I is already under construction as the Jade, and this is a substantial modification for a phase II in order to substitute the original program with the Villa Magna project. The project has been recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning and Zoning Department and approval with conditions by the Planning Advisory Board. The conditions are very much -- again, the standard conditions in the Major Use Special Permit, the one I would like to bring to your attention -- I guess it is the most controversial one, maybe. It has to do with the bonuses. We have recommended that the bonuses for the retail on a primary pedestrian pathway, being their bay front portion of their property, that that be eliminated. With the primary pedestrian pathway, they're required to do those uses there, and to obtain a bonus from it seems to be something that does not make sense. It's the equivalent of approximately 43,350 square feet that we would recommend be eliminated. The applicant has already eliminated several other bonuses since their original application, and they reduced their development program slightly, which I will let them describe to you. Other than that, it's the remaining conditions that are in the development orders in your package, if you have any questions. Commissioner Allen: And, Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Is this the property that has -- was initiated by the developer with respect to affordable housing component? Is -- Slazyk: This one does have -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. City ofMiami Page 218 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: -- a request for additional FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Slazyk: It's -- Commissioner Allen: And that was initiated by the developer, pretty much? Ms. Slazyk: They're all initiated by them. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah -- yes. Commissioner Allen: Right, yeah. Ms. Slazyk: Their request is for 161,486 square feet ofAffordable Housing Trust Fund, which equates to -- at the 1,240 per square foot, about $2, 000, 000 -- Commissioner Allen: Right, OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- that would be contributed. Commissioner Allen: Good. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Tucker Gibbs: Mr. -- excuse me. Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gibbs: I'd like to bring a point. Mr. Maxwell: Strictly following your rules of procedure, as you've now -- as the Chair has now mandated, Mr. Gibbs is out of order. If he has an objection to the proceedings or -- he will have an opportunity when the objector's time comes -- Mr. Gibbs: It's a notice issue again. Mr. Maxwell: -- to place that on the record Mr. Gibbs: It's a notice issue again, Mr. Vice Chairman. Mr. Maxwell: Again, he would have an opportunity to raise those -- that objection at that time. Mr. Gibbs: I'd like to -- I'd like your indulgence at least to put it on the record, because what it may do is, if we go through this whole process and you have a notice problem, you're going to have to hear it all over again. Why not deal with it in the beginning? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney. City ofMiami Page 219 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: We usually deal with it in the beginning. Mr. Maxwell: I stand by the comment I made, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We're talking about an efficiency and notice? Mr. Maxwell: We've closely reviewed the title -- excuse me. I just drank some Cuban coffee. We've closely reviewed the title that was advertised this time. We were -- along with Planning staff -- we were cognizant of the errors that have arose in the past on this, and as far as we're concerned, there's no notice defect on this. Of course, Mr. Gibbs has a perfect right to place that argument on the record. He will have an opportunity to do that. We will address it at that time. The applicant can address it at that time, but we feel that the item is properly before you -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Maxwell: -- and should be decided today -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Maxwell: -- one way or the other. Mr. Gibbs: I'll place my record -- I'll place it on the record when I have my opportunity. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Good evening. For the record, my name is Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with the office of Bilzin Sumberg. We're located at 2500, the Wachovia Center, and I'm here today on the Villa Magna project, representing, of course, Mr. Tibor Hollo, who is the applicant, and I am joined by a team of consultants, including Mr. Jack Luft, Rosario Kennedy, Kevin McCabe, Mike Cannon, Tom Schloser (phonetic) and Rolando Llanes, and you will be hearing testimony from those individuals, who are experts in their fields, but before Igo there, let me bring a matter to your attention. It is the applicant's position that this project has already been approved, and it has been approved under Section 1706 of your Zoning Code. Section 1706 -- and let me read from that section -- says that "Upon the transmittal of recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board to the City Commission" -- and this, by the way, is on substantial modifications - - "the Commission may take such action as is appropriate in the matter provided. If the Commission has not acted after two regular meetings of the Commission have been held. Following receipt of application for change, the recommendations of the director of the Planning, Building and Zoning shall be deemed to have been approved." I present to you that I'm appearing before you today for the sixth time on this matter, so basically, this matter is approved and there is no further action required pursuant to that paragraph of 1706. Commissioner Winton: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) so are you saying that the original MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), as approved on 11/3/97, that approved 374 units, that's what's approved and that's what y'all are now building? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No, sir. What I'm saying is that pursuant to 2215 of the Charter, which refers a substantial modification back to Chapter 17 to follow all of the requirements of a MUSP City ofMiami Page 220 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 under Chapter 17, which this substantial modification has done, it says that once the City -- once your director has issued or rendered her recommendation, forwarded to the Planning Advisory Board, and the Planning Advisory Board has rendered their recommendation to you, you're almost in an appellate situation where you can veto those decisions, but you only have two agendas in which to take that action, and I present to you that we've had six agendas, so basically, this item, according to your Code, has been approved by lack of action during two agendas. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: Section 1706 reads as follows -- and this issue was just raised this afternoon, shortly after lunch, so as far as we could quickly research it. 1706 says the following: "Upon the transmittal of recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board to the City Commission, the Commission may take such action as is appropriate in a matter provided. If the Commission has not acted after two regular meetings of the Commission have been held following receipt of application for change, the recommendations of the director of Planning, Building and Zoning shall be deemed to have been approved." We believe that because of a combination of agreed continuances, cancelled special meetings, and jurisdictional notice problems, that the Commission has not had two hearings on this item. On May the 27th, the applicant agreed to a continuance. That was a first reading. On June the 24th, at 2 o'clock in the morning, as you may recall, the applicant was asked by the Chairman if they wanted to hear this item or defer it. Ms. Garcia -Toledo responded, "We prefer to defer to July 22nd." On July 22nd, there was a meeting. The Commission continued the item to a special meeting of September the 7th. On September the 7th, the item -- the hearing was cancelled because of the hurricane, special circumstances, and it was not held. The meeting -- the item was then held -- heard, renoticed on September the 27th. At that meeting, there were notice problems raised by Mr. Gibbs. We concurred. The City Attorney asked for an adjournment. We went into conference. We came back and advised the City Commission that yes, we felt there were notice problems, so the item was noticed again -- renoticed again, and it is before you now for the second properly heard hearing. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I beg to differ with Mr. Maxwell. Commissioner Winton: Well, excuse me. Now, who's going to make this decision? Mr. Maxwell: That's your call, Commissioner -- Commissioner Winton: Then -- Mr. Maxwell: Discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Winton: -- here's my recommendation: If the applicant needs to sue the City at some point over whether or not we did or didn't, that's his prerogative. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: But I would never support the idea that this project or any project like this, through some technical issue, that we're going to avoid a public hearing that is normal with a MUSP. I would never support that concept. I don't care what was going on, and my view is, let the applicant sue us at some later date, but my view is, this needs to be heard. Mr. Maxwell: You have the right to hear it, in our opinion. City ofMiami Page 221 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: IfI may put some other information on the record. I need to now create a record for that appeal. The Section 1706 does not make exception for continuances or who starts them, or who requests them, or who made them, or who agreed. It simply says that this matter, if you do not take action in two agendas, is deemed approved. That's number one. Number two, I think it's inappropriate, in view of case law in the State of Florida, for Mr. Maxwell to imply or try to make you think that, in fact, those continuances make any difference. The Supreme Court of the State of Florida, in Florida versus Goode has said, in addition to the statute's plain language, a basic rule of statutory construction provides that the legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions. If, in fact, what he is saying is accurate, then this section of your code is useless, and it's not applicable. Commissioner Allen: What's the cite of that case, counsel? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: 830 Southern Second 817. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Further, in Mandelstam versus the City of South Miami, court and other governmental bodies are prohibited from inserting words or phrases into municipal ordinances to express intentions that do not appear. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me. Is that a copy of the Supreme Court ruling? Commissioner Allen: That she's making reference to? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: The case law. Could we have Commissioner Allen revise [sic] it? Commissioner Regalado: Can I -- Mr. Chairman -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And, in fact -- Commissioner Regalado: -- can I just ask a question -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: -- to the City Attorney? I mean, we have done this several times, deferred -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Six times. Mr. Maxwell: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. Mr. Maxwell: -- there's a difference between -- Commissioner Allen: Wait, wait. Commissioner Regalado: In difference -- in different -- Mr. Maxwell: No, no. What -- Commissioner Regalado: -- cases. Mr. Maxwell: In different cases, but not -- what you have before you -- that section is a special City ofMiami Page 222 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 section. It applies to modifications ofMajor Use Special Permits. It does not apply to regular special -- a regular Major Use Special Permits that are coming before you for the first time, so this is a modification, and that provision is in there and we're aware that it's in there. We've known that it's in there, but it is there and it deals with modifications. It does not deal with major -- like the other Major Use Special Permits that -- MUSPs that you've had today that have -- well, it applied to two. The last two, in fact, were modifications, and it would have -- this section would have been triggered -- could have been triggered if you had not acted on -- in -- within two hearings, but that's why you have a lot of them to come before you several times -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but what I -- Mr. Maxwell: -- and some don't. Commissioner Regalado: -- don't understand, and maybe you can -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We disagree. Commissioner Regalado: -- help me, is what is "not acting in two agendas"? What -- I mean, because the notice, it wasn't their fault nor the appellant fault; it was the City's fault, right? Same scenario that we have on the moratorium here, but -- Mr. Maxwell: Well, no, not necessarily. Commissioner Regalado: No, but what I'm saying is, what is "not acting"? Mr. Maxwell: Well, that's a question of interpretation and it would be placed to the Zoning Administrator and not to the Law Department, but if you look at the intent, I would suggest that probably the intent and construction of that word would be that the City Commission should have rendered -- is to render a decision within that period of time, but then you can only render a decision when the application is properly before you. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Maxwell: Now, I don't -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And I believe the application was properly before you on several occasions, and let me explain to you why. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, counsel, before you do that, just quickly. You cited a case, I think it's 830 Southern Second 817 -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Um-hmm. Commissioner Allen: -- and that stands for which proposition? You're analogizing this case to the -- how are you analogizing this case to the current situation? I'm confused because you -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Well, when -- first of all, when Mr. Maxwell says that the fact -- Commissioner Allen: No, no, no, no. I just want the -- what's the proposition? What do you want this body to -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I want this body -- Commissioner Allen: -- understand for -- City ofMiami Page 223 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- to understand that Mr. Maxwell is putting language into Section 1706 that does not appear on its face, and ifI may send you a copy of 1706 -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- so that you can read the language -- Commissioner Allen: But the case you cited, if you could please explain to me -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: The case that I cited says that you cannot -- that you have to follow the plain language of the ordinance; that you cannot add words that are not part of the ordinance, and what he's doing is, he's saying because there were continuances -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- or before -- because -- that you weren't properly in front of this body, or because, or because, but all those things, all those justifications that he's giving you are not in the face of the language of that ordinance. Mr. Maxwell: We would agree -- Commissioner Allen: I don't know if counsel's -- if the City Attorney's had an opportunity to look at this case that they're citing. Mr. Maxwell: Not really. It was passed out, but on the day of a meeting -- Commissioner Allen: I'm just frying to -- Mr. Maxwell: -- we don't have time to look at that. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I -- Commissioner Allen: As I read it, respectfully, counsel, I don't see this case has having any bearing on the issue at hand. It's not like exact parallel, the way I look at this case, so maybe I'm interpreting it wrong. If you could -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I would direct you to page 6, the second paragraph, number 2. Commissioner Allen: All right, page 6. OK. On the other hand -- yes. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: In addition to the Statute's plain language, a basic rule of statutory construction provides that the legislature -- in this case -- Commissioner Allen: Wait, wait -- but wait. For purposes of City Attorney, you said page -- Mr. Maxwell: Which case is that you're reading -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: This is the Supreme Court case Florida versus Goode. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, and page 6. This -- you said the second paragraph. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And there's a paren 2. There's an actual number 2 there. This says that -- Commissioner Allen: Because -- City ofMiami Page 224 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- legislature cannot create provisions that are useless. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: If all the leg -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah, but -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney -- Commissioner Allen: I think -- Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: -- why are we debating this? I thought you ruled. Mr. Maxwell: We've given you our opinion, and -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Maxwell: -- you've also -- Commissioner Winton: So -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Maxwell: -- we've also indicated -- Commissioner Winton: And my suggestion was -- Mr. Maxwell: -- that now it's discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Winton: -- that we continue with the hearing -- Commissioner Allen: I agree. Commissioner Winton: -- so if we need a motion to do that, I'll be glad to make that motion -- Commissioner Allen: I agree. Commissioner Winton: -- that we continue with this hearing -- Commissioner Allen: Because -- Commissioner Winton: -- get out of this legal mumbo-jumbo -- Commissioner Allen: Right, because we're reducing -- City ofMiami Page 225 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: -- and let the lawyers -- Commissioner Allen: Right, I agree -- Commissioner Winton: -- do it later. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And -- Commissioner Allen: -- because we're reducing this to a legal interpretation, which is -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yeah, and I just -- Commissioner Allen: -- may be incorrect. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- wanted to create a sufficient record so that I can protect my client's interest -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- and take it up on appeal. I will be happy to proceed with the hearing because I'm being instructed -- Commissioner Allen: Yes. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- but without waiving any rights that my client may have under 1706 -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- or under the case laws that I have put into the record. Commissioner Winton: So to make sure -- Mr. Maxwell: Just for the record -- Commissioner Winton: -- we're clear here, so you don't get interrupted again, what -- the only thing you're doing, you continued that line of thought because you're putting it on the record, not because you want to debate us, right? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I was asked questions. I was asked -- Commissioner Winton: No, no, but you continued that line of thought after I said that we wanted to move forward -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Right. I just wanted -- Commissioner Winton: -- and you said, I want to put these things on the record. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes, and that's what I was trying to do. Commissioner Winton: OK, so which is it? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I was frying to put the cases on the record and the sections of the cases that were pertinent. I can do it very easily by name. However, I was asked how I was -- by the Commissioner, how I was creating an analogy to this, so I was trying to respond to him. City ofMiami Page 226 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: But I think it's -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Question, how many persons you're having testify on your behalf? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: As part -- Commissioner Winton: A ton. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- of our presentation, we have one, two, three -- about five experts that need to testify. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. How many persons do we have in opposition? Commissioner Winton: And then there's like 100 individuals. Mr. Gibbs: That's five from our team of experts, and then the public. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Has everybody been sworn in for this case? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I don't believe so. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Anyone who is going to be testifying on this item, please, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: May I proceed? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead, please. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. As you have already heard, we are before you tonight on a modification to the Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit that was approved in 1998. The changes that we're bringing to you today -- and the architect will certainly go into greater detail -- but basically, we maintain the pedestal that had been approved in the previous MUSP and there are two substantially -- substantial changes. One is that this was designed as a monolithic tower that ran south to north and north to south, and it blocked the views of all of the properties on Brickell Avenue, west of the bay. Now, we have created two towers and turned them on an east to west access, corresponding with all the other buildings along the bay front. This project also has an improved design liner units, all servicers that were on the public right-of-way have been internalized to the building and hidden from view. More height has been given to the commercial spaces in order to create two commercial space, and most important, the applicant has undertaken a CLOMR (Conditional Letter ofMap Revision) change, a CLOMR amendment or change is, he has applied to FEIVIA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to create the necessary changes in the wave activity at this area of the City to be able to build at street level. Before this -- and you will hear more about the expert -- before this, you -- the properties in this City ofMiami Page 227 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 area would have to have their ground floor at anywhere between 9 to 11 feet above the sidewalk. Now, due to what this applicant has undertaken, all the properties west of this Villa Magna property and the Jade property are now in a lower zone and we can, for the first time, as your staff and your Code have required for the last 20, 30 years, have that commercial activity at ground level. It has also triggered a major insurance reduction in flood insurance for all the neighbors of this area, but again, you will hear in greater detail from Mr. McCabe, who will address that issue. Let me also take care of some housekeeping matters as I proceed. We have letters of support from all of the homeowners associations in this area. We have the support of the Point View Association. We have the support of the Brickell Homeowners Association. We have the support of the Brickell Area Association, and one of the other buildings to our north, the Yacht Club at Brickell, has also given us their support. We also come to you with recommendation from the Planning Department, which, as you know, acts as your tech -- not only as your technical support staff but also as your experts and as the sole interpreters of your Code. You're going to -- and I am putting into the record -- have put into the record the resumes of the experts who will be testifying, Mr. Jack Luft, Mr. Michael Cannon, Mr. Kevin McCabe, Mr. Richard Garcia, and our architect, Rolando Llanes. I would also like to give you a little bit of history about this project. As it is the practice with Mr. Hollo, who, as you know, has been building for close to four years in the downtown area ofMiami, he visited with his existing neighbors at the Mark before we started the hearing process. He brought the boards and the project to his neighbors and he did a full presentation. At that time, they -- he and the neighbors entered into conversations that resulting -- resulted in a demand list or a concerned list, if you will, that was sent by Danny Collot, the building manager, with instructions to Mr. Hollo, that he respond to condo officers Federico Anselmetti and Andre Lemmers, and we have entered that particular letter into the record, and I'd like to share with you some of those requirements on that letter, ifI can find it. Commissioner Allen: Well -- and, Mr. Chairman, could I have counsel just to paraphrase the letter, if you could? If you can't, find -- to the best of your recollection -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Basically -- Commissioner Allen: -- could you paraphrase it? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Basically, they were asking Mr. Hollo to look at the possibilities of putting computer -- to pre fit the building -- their building for high-speed computer lines. Commissioner Allen: Correct. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: They were asking for marble at the garage entrances to the elevators. Commissioner Winton: What building is this? Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: This was the Mark. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, as I said on a previous item -- Commissioner Winton: We just went through this last time. Mr. Maxwell: -- that information is not relevant. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It is relevant because I need to -- and I'll tie it in. Mr. Maxwell: Well -- City ofMiami Page 228 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And I'll tie it in. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: No. We must be consistent here. On a previous item, we opined -- Chairman Sanchez: Make an open -- Mr. Maxwell: -- that -- information of that type wasn't relevant. Chairman Sanchez: Make your case, present your experts -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- have those that are supporting the project, so we could get going, because I'm going to tell you right now, I have to leave at 5 -- 6:30 -- 7:30, sorry. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Well, I'm going to start speaking very fast. Chairman Sanchez: 7:30, and I'll be back as soon as I'm done with what I had planned for quite some time now, and then I'll be back. I'm telling you right now, one Commissioner just left. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I want to -- Chairman Sanchez: He's not coming back. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: My purpose for establishing -- for introducing this letter is to establish the fact that Mr. Hollo made the -- had made an effort, started acting on these documents and, in fact, once -- Commissioner Winton: I thought our City Attorney just said that it's irrelevant and you're continuing to press on. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: What's up with that? Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We're in a public hearing mode. I have to create a record, because I've already been told by the opposition -- Commissioner Winton: Only create a record that he suggests -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- that I'm going to be appealed. Commissioner Winton: -- is appropriate to -- Mr. Maxwell: That's not a relevant point for the City Commission to consider, though. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It's fine, but the courts may wish to consider it, so ifI may have some indulgence here. The reason why I'm establishing this is to establish the fact that Mr. Hollo made an attempt to meet with these neighbors, met with the neighbors; they identified issues; they started to address those issues. Mr. Hollo sent people over to evaluate some of these things, City ofMiami Page 229 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 and in fact, agreed to most of these things, and then they obtained legal counsel. Legal counsel sent a letter saying that they were rescinding that letter, and so that we could not continue communications or continue to -- an effort to have some consensus here -- Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- and that is the point that I'm frying to -- Commissioner Winton: That's irrelevant. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- to reach. We also have the fact that there is a lawsuit pending in court by the Mark Yacht Club, with -- versus the Related Group, in which they claim that their building has been constructed below standards, and that that is causing a devaluation of their property. We are concerned over that issue because of the effect that it may have on our property. I also would like to let you know that we come before you with approval, unanimous approval from your Planning Advisory Board, and I want to read some experts -- excerpts from the comments that were made. We had a hearing that took almost three hours before the Planning Advisory Board, your planning entity for the City, and before they voted unanimously, Mr. Strang said -- and I quote -- "This is an intense R-4, which is a high -density zoning district, and to me, adding to this critical mass in this particular location is beneficial to the greater good of the neighborhood." Mr. Manner, another member said, and I quote, `Brickell Avenue area is our high -density residential neighborhood that is in close proximity to downtown, and if we don't build out and take advantage of that ability to use that density in a place that I think is appropriate, where else should we do it in town? I've seen a lot of favorable mitigation of many other elements of this project." And Ms. Arva Parks, another member said, and I quote, I think this is the better design than the previous one. I want to thank you for figuring out the flood plan" -- and that goes back to the FEMA issue -- "or whatever it's called to get those retails down on the street, but I actually think it is a wonderful job of hiding the parking garage, which has become my big thing, so I'm supporting it." And once again, unanimous approval. The site, which contains 2.5 acres, allows for 1,250 units. During our process with your City staff for design review, which took approximately a year, we lowered voluntarily, in order to meet their design requirements, the project by 42 units. We later, when they finished reviewing it and gave us their conditions and limitations, accepted another reduction that was suggested and imposed by staff as a condition, which lowered it another 88 units, and it also not only lowered the density of the units, but it also lowered the height of the building by four floors on each tower. During our hearing before the Planning Advisory Board, the Planning Advisory Board heard testimony from our neighbors at the Mark that they -- their building was built with only one space per unit, and that that has created the shortage in parking and overflow is going into the streets surrounding the property. Our client let it be known to the Planning Advisory Board that he could find to add approximately another 60 parking spaces in his pedestal, if they so desired, and the Planning Advisory Board then conditioned their approval on the applicant adding additional 60 spaces so that we could accommodate some of the overflow in the neighborhood and prevent deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood. Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: At this time, I would like to save the rest of my time for rebuttal at the appropriate time -- Commissioner Allen: Great. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- and ask the experts to come forward -- Commissioner Allen: Yes. City ofMiami Page 230 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- and in the following order. We will start with Rolando Llanes, the architect of the project, who will give you a walk through the project, and will show you what's already approved on this site versus what this applicant is doing through this substantial modification. He'll be followed by Jack Luft, who, as you know, is your former director of Planning, and who wrote most of the ordinances for the City ofMiami regarding plat -- not only your Zoning ordnance, but specifically your land use ordinances, and he will be addressing the issues of compatibility. He will be followed by Michael Cannon, who is a real estate valuation expert so that we can have the testimony and prove to you that the rumors that this building will cause a deterioration to the neighborhood is simply not so, and then you will hear from Kevin McCabe. Mr. McCabe is a coastal engineer and was the responsible party on behalf of Mr. Hollo, for obtaining the CLOMR amendment to improve not only the flood zone in this area, but to diminish the cost of insurance to all of our neighbors to the west of these properties. Chairman Sanchez: For the sake of time, the residents that'll be speaking in support of the project, could you have them lined up and signed up with the City Clerk so we could fry to expedite it? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: They are signed up. Commissioner Winton: Do they have to sign up? Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Winton: They don't have to sign up, do they? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: They've already signed up to speak. Chairman Sanchez: Well, if there's a large -- I mean, if there's a lot of people, they should sign up with the City Clerk. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I think the City Clerk -- Chairman Sanchez: Makes it easier. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- has already -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- received those. Chairman Sanchez: Your first -- could you call your first witness, please? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. Rolando Llanes: Thank you, Vicky. My name is Rolando Llanes. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): For the record -- Chairman Sanchez: Rolando, it's not work -- is it? Mr. Llanes: I think -- Chairman Sanchez: Try it now. Try it now. Commissioner Winton: It started. City ofMiami Page 231 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Llanes: Hello. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Llanes: OK Thank you so much. Commissioners, my name is Rolando Llanes. I'm the architect of the project at 5910 Southwest 35th Street, and I know that we're pressed for time so I'm going to go through this in a rapid manner. The project -- a project such as this, one of the important things to consider is that it has responsibilities to the City and the urban fabric at many different scales. This is a project that has to work, not only at the level of the sfreet, not only at the level of a mid -rise, but also at the level of a building that's understood from greater distances, and that's how we've fried to design this project. I take you to the ground floor plan that you see here. Sure that everyone can see that. Commissioner Winton: I can see it. Mr. Llanes: OK, and one of the unique aspects of this site is that the site doesn't really have a back, and one of the challenges of the project is that we've fried to design a building that has four fronts, and addresses each four individual unique frontages in their own unique way, so to the west, you have a 100 percent retail component along Brickell Bay Drive, which, by the way, going back to what Vicky said earlier about the flood elements that are going to be talked about later, that the owner has undertaken to do, that not only affect this site, but other sites around it. We're able to bring the building down at an urban scale to the sfreet level so that you don't have retail or office functions one full level above the sfreet, which is really kind of unfortunate, although you see that in many places around town. You'll notice, obviously, that the building is designed with two slender towers, each creating their own core. Each of those cores then create a front door; one to the north, one to the south, and then to the east to the waterfront, we have a restaurant that fronts the bay walk so that you see, as the building kind of rotates around on its base, it addresses each of those four sides in a unique way, and then one of the more very important, yet pragmatic aspects of this project that I want to point out, unlike one of the previously approved project is that we have completely internalized the service element of the four loading bays that we are required to have within the center of the base of the building, so what happens is that you don't have a kind of a back door, a back of house, exposed garbage and trucks and all of that. All of that happens with a 23-foot opening. The trucks come in, turn, load, and unload and leave, so that is something that we worked very hard to do in a building that's sort of strapped here the way it is, that's kind of a challenge, as it always is. Moving upwards in the building, the base of the building also is unique, in that obviously it contains the parking component of the project, but it also has liner units that affect all four sides of the building. In this particular level that you see, a typical parking level, you see the parking ramps, which, by the way, the ramps are internalized so they don't affect the facade of the building with unsightly angles and so on. You have liner units for 11 levels here that affect -- that look out to the east, north, west side of the buildings, and then on a kind of two-way typical levels of the base, we have not only the liner units, but we also have administrative office functions that face Brickell Bay Drive to further enhance the appearance of the building being an active building at street -- from sfreet side and not just what you see off and on -- often, which is simply a parking garage with a building on top of it, so the building is active on the ground floor. It's active in its center. It then transitions from the base to the two slender towers at the 14th level, which is the transition floor, which has, as you could see, in addition to having units on that floor, we also have multipurpose rooms, the pool deck, et cetera, and this is another element that I wanted to point out, where building two slender towers are not only sort of sitting at opposite ends of the base from each other to maximize the distance between them, they're also offset from each other, so there's a creation of kind of a diagonal view corridor here so that the -- as you can see in that rendering, it is not a stagnant design. It's kind of a dynamic design of a base with two towers that are sort of slipping on each other. The other point that I want to make, from an urban design point of view, that is important about that design, about the design that we're promoting is that the towers are perpendicular to the water's edge, and that is a notion in designing these City ofMiami Page 232 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 buildings on this kind of site where instead of turning the slab parallel to the water's edge, creating kind of a dense wall, we've turned it perpendicular to create better view corridors for everyone, not just certainly the buildings that we're proposing, and then, finally, this is just typical floor plan. They are renderings here, which I could refer to, and I think it's in your package, of the building from many different angles, and finally wanted to point to or show you the great care that we've taken to fry to create a pedestrian friendly environment on Brickell, but right around here with the canopy, the retail, the balconies off of the liner buildings, and also a facade that treats parking in a way -- in a decorative way so that the building is alive, as you see it from, not only Brickell Bay Drive, but as you walk around it from all four sides. The two -tower height -- Vicky, I think, spoke about the total number of units and the total number of floors in the building. The -- we worked very hard and long with staff to create a building that works in tandem from shaft -- from street to base to shaft (INAUDIBLE) the architectural aesthetic of this project (INAUDIBLE) is consistent (INAUDIBLE) from -- Commissioner Winton: Pull the microphone up. Mr. Llanes: -- from the top down and from the bottom up. It also on all four sides of the site. With that, I'm going to turn it back to Vicky. If you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel -- Commissioner Winton: You're going in and out. Chairman Sanchez: -- you'll have some time for cross-examine. Commissioner Winton: Hold the mike higher. Mr. Gibbs: Afterwards? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Because you go in and out. Hold the mike -- Mr. Llanes: OK. Chairman Sanchez: You will have time. Sit down. Unidentified Speaker: OK. Commissioner Winton: No, no, up. Chairman Sanchez: Relax. Commissioner Winton: Pull -- let go -- bring the mike -- the hand higher. Very good. Because when you hold it at the end, you go in and out. If you hold it like that, you keep going in and out. Mr. Llanes: Well, on that note, I'll hand the mike over to somebody else. Commissioner Winton: One hand works. Wrong hand. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Counsel, please. Unidentified Speaker: Got it. City ofMiami Page 233 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Chairman Sanchez: Your next witness. Mr. Luft, always a pleasure to have you in the house. Jack Luft: I'm sorry, sir? Chairman Sanchez: Always a pleasure to have you here, sir. Mr. Luft: Thank you. It's good to be back. My name is Jack Luft, 1717 Windward Way. Mr. Llanes: Jack, real quick. I'm sorry. Now that I figured out the mike, I have one more thing to -- Mr. Luft: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Llanes: I do have one other display -- I'm sorry -- that I wanted to show, which is this one. It's very important. This shows what has been previously approved, in terms of the massing, height, and also arrangement of the building on that site from the previous approval, and you see it there in evaluation from the waterfront. This is a three-dimensional depiction of the tower that has been approved in the previous MUSP application. Here's the Jade. There's that -- the building in question, and the last two exhibits show what we are proposing, which is a lower height building, two slender towers, the base, and here you see it in three dimensions, so you could see that the affect that I was talking about, about the process -- the principle of buildings along the coast that have already been established in the City, for the most part, along the coast line is what we're trying to follow. Perpendicular buildings, slender towers, with a few exceptions, along the coast to create better view corridors, so that if you can see and compare the difference between those two images, you could see that -- significant differences in between what was previously approved and what we're proposing in this project. Thank you. Mr. Luft: Jack Luft, 1717 Windward Way, Sanibel Island, Florida. The proposed Villa Magna project conforms to federal, state and regional and local policies for growth management, which include Regional Activity Centers, Chapter 380.06(2e) of the Florida Statutes and South Florida Regional Strategic Plan, Section 30 of Senate Bill 2474, the Florida Transportation and Land Use Study Committee report, and the 1997Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan, Land Use Policies, IA through 1E, and the concept of metropolitan urban centers, and the City ofMiami Master Plan Policies, land use objectives 1.4 and policies 1.41 through 1.412, and HO1.1.9. Specifically, the City Comprehensive Plan establishes the goal L U1.4, which calls for the continuation of growth of downtown, as -- and the development of an urban residential base for the community. Policy HO1.1.9 states that the City's land development regulations will encourage high density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to Metrorail and Metromover Stations consistent with stationary design and development plan for each station. High density is defined in the interpretation provisions of the plan as up to 500 dwelling units per acre for the Brickell and downtown areas. The Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan, which all community plans in Dade County must be consistent with, stresses the following policy: High density, well designed urban center shall be facilitated at multimodal locations. Urban center regulations, 137 through 141, in the County Master Plan for Regional Metropolitan Centers require that FARs in the Brickell and downtown area shall average not less than 3 to 4.0 FAR. It says, "greater is preferable." This project complies with the urban center standards of the Regional Comprehensive Plan, and it additionally adopted City plan and companion downtown master plan provide for base intensities of 3.0 to 6.0 for the Brickell area, plus bonuses. The concurrency analysis, according to Florida Statute, Chapter 163, in support of these officially adopted plan policies, has established to the satisfaction of state and regional agencies the sufficiency of all municipal and County infrastructure to support these densities, and the Florida Statute, Chapter 380, Development of Regional Impact, Local Development Order for the downtown area, YDRI, has further established that the impacts of City ofMiami Page 234 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 development credits that would be issued to this project likewise meet all concurrency requirements to protect public health, safety and welfare. Your own Zoning Code sets forth substantial detail and explicit conditions and standards in Article 17, Section 1703 for any proposal, such as this, that must be demonstrated and satisfied as part of your considerations of the original MUSP request for approval. As I've outlined earlier, this project fully conforms to not only your plan, but especially policies for mixed use, intensity transit access, but complies as well with the County plan, the reasonable growth plan, smart growth, urban infill, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs growth management strategies. It further conforms to SD-5 zoning district regulations as to use, density, intensity, open space and coverage; setbacks, urban design guidelines and parking, facts certified by the Planning Department in their report. This project also conforms to the proposed bonus requirements under consideration as in additional intensity criteria for SD-5, as modified by Ms. Slazyk. As to the seven standards set forth in Section 1703 by bringing new jobs, services, and higher income residents of the City, and by increasing the tax base and tax returns to the City at a greater level than the cost of services, it will require a significantly favorable impact on the economy the City will result by locating jobs, residences and retail services, continue to build the region's primary mass transit systems and on major Mefobus routes, the project will efficiently use public transportation facilities. Currently, Metro is operating at 21 percent of capacity, and Metromover ridership is 26 percent of capacity. We have only begun to tap the potential of these two vital systems that are in place to support this type of development that is proposed today, and with -- it is within easy walking distance of this site. This project will contribute to better utilization of these facilities, which have cost the taxpayers over $1,800, 000, 000. By building housing, retail services, and entertainment in a vertically and horizontally integrated mix within one of the region's largest employment centers, the Brickell Financial District, optimal access to jobs for both on -site and nearby residents is assured. By building a City and County master plan intensities and densities, this project provides substantial value recapture for public investments and transportation utilities and public facilities serving the Brickell neighborhood, thereby assuring efficient use of necessary public facilities, and by concentrating development impacts in a planned high density district, the alternative to pushing growth to a low density or urban and suburban sprawl areas and auto -dependent uses will have major adverse impacts on sensitive environmental areas and resources is avoided. For those seeking the urban center lifestyle, the concentration of residential densities in Brickell is far preferable to several other locations within the City ofMiami, where low density neighborhoods invariably abut potential high-rise sites, inviting significant scale, fraffic and compatibility impacts. No such dramatic neighborhood differentials exist at this location, making it ideal for accommodating this vital high density market demand. By conforming to all City zoning regulations, urban design guidelines, and DRI (Development of Regional Impact) infrastructure, improvement requirements that are collectively designed specifically to protect enhanced neighborhood conditions, as well as contributing voluntarily to the rebuilding of surrounding public walkways, street landscaping, security lighting and fraffic circulation measures, the project will not adversely impact neighborhood living conditions, while yielding significant improvements for residents and visitors alike. By creating perimeter streetscape enhancements and open accessible building relationships with public sidewalks, the creation of active public street life, increase pedestrian circulation and use of public transit, while diminishing the reliance on private automobiles and commuting traffic will lead to enhanced public safety. The same amount of development in a non -core location in contrast will proportionately increase auto use, decrease pedestrian activity, and minimize active public use environments to the detriment of safety. Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Luft. Mr. Luft: I'm just about done. What I'm addressing here, sir, are the standards that must be addressed for the approval of a MUSP. Chairman Sanchez: I understand. I understand. City ofMiami Page 235 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Luft: This project meets the standards -- Chairman Sanchez: I hope it's not a book. Mr. Luft: -- of Section 1703, satisfies the conditions necessary for City Commission approval. As a substantial change to a prior approved MUSP, this project must comply with Section 2215.4, where the procedures set forth in Article 17, Section 1702 are required. This application has satisfied all MUSP review procedures required or set forth at the discretion of the director, including review by the Planning Board, Urban Development Review Board, and the Large Scale Development Committee, thereby satisfying Section 2215.4. Section 1703 also requires, as well the project satisfy requirements with Section 1305.8, control of potential adverse impacts generally. This section requires review for appropriateness shall be given to potentially adverse affects, generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area of the neighborhood in the City. Where such potentially adverse impacts are found, consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appropriate in the circumstance of the case. The City has well established procedures for providing this review through your Large Scale Development Committee, the Urban Development Review Board, and the PZ (Planning & Zoning) Internal Design Review Committee by City agencies. This combination of experts in the field of architectural planning, urban design, landscape architecture, preservation, transportation, planning, engineering and public safety, from both the public and private sectors has provided this review through multiple extensive design review meetings. After imposing several substantial modifications to the project's architectural design, tower orientation, the westerly relocation of the north tower to protect bay views from adjacent projects to the north, residentials phases to garage facades to architecturally buffer -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. Luft. Mr. Luft: -- internalizing service functions -- Chairman Sanchez: Jack, Jack. Commissioner Winton: One moment. Mr. City Attorney, I have a question for you. It is clear the expert testimony is reading a long document that is technical in nature. Mr. Luft: I'm done. Commissioner Winton: Why can't this information just be submitted as a part of testimony instead of being read to us? Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton, you know why? Because they're establishing a record. Commissioner Winton: Let him answer. Mr. Luft: Because they may cross-examine me. Commissioner Winton: Let him answer. Mr. Maxwell: It can been submitted into the record, since he's reading it, but he does have -- the opponents do have the right to cross-examine, but ifMr. Luft is just going to read the document, if he wants to, he can just submit it into the record. Chairman Sanchez: Why don't you stipulate -- City ofMiami Page 236 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: That's what I was going to advise, that you just simply submit the document. Mr. Maxwell: Do you have any -- Unidentified Speaker: No intention to cross-examine. He can submit the document. Commissioner Allen: Right. Could you waive -- we can -- both parties agree that -- Mr. Maxwell: He's waiving. Commissioner Allen: -- you waive the right -- Mr. Luft: I have one more sentence. Commissioner Allen: That'll expedite -- Commissioner Winton: But it isn't just for Jack; it's for whoever the other expert testimony is going to be. If they're going to read a document, submit it, and if it's all this technical stuff, just submit it. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Luft: They have internalized service functions away from direct impacts on surrounding streets, public streetscape enhancements and retail edges to promote pedestrian interface and after requiring height intensity and density reductions. All of these review bodies have given a full approval to the plans before you today. Section 1305.8 has been, in my best professional judgment, fully satisfied. I find the findings and recommendations of the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), the Internal Design Review Committee, UDRB (Urban Design Review Board) Board, and the Planning and Zoning Department for approval of this project with conditions as stated by the Planning Department to be acceptable. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Let me -- before you go on, let -- those of you that are not here on this item, first of all, let me apologize. It's just been a voluminous agenda, and when you have an item like this that comes in front of the Commission, as you could see, both sides are building a case on the record and they're going to read every document they can to put on the record and usually, when you look around and you see a court reporter here, it means one thing: this is probably going to end up in court, so we, as a quasi-judicial, have to listen to both sides and may -- then make the determination based on the compel -- evidence that's presented to us in this case, so it's going to be a long hearing. Those of you that are here for other items -- and I realize that we have maybe about another 10 or 15 items, so bear with us. Sir, please proceed. Michael Cannon: My height is shorter than Jack Luft, so I'll keep it short. Chairman Sanchez: Thank God. Mr. Cannon: Johnny understands. My name is Michael Y. Cannon. I'm Managing Director of Integral Realty Resources. My home address is 3251 Coacoochee in Coconut Grove. My offices are in Dadeland Towers, 9400 South Dadeland Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I'm a real estate analyst, real estate appraiser, consultant, and we perform market studies in the South Florida area. We were asked to review the MUSP, Major Use Special Permit application, which legally falls within the vested rights permitted under the existing code. We were asked to conduct a sell and resell analysis of existing condominium developments that are adjacent to new developments approved and under construction in the Brickell submarket area. The study and analysis that we performed reflects on average prices increased 8.6 percent, as compared to Countywide City ofMiami Page 237 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 increases of 7.5 percent. Interestingly enough, the survey that we conducted indicates the following: Over the past 40 years, 10,161 units were built in the Brickell East submarket area. In 1961 through 1969, eight developments had heights of 12 to 20 stories; increasing from 1970 to 1980 -- on Roman numeral page III, if you want to follow -- 11 to 29 stories, and from 1993 to the year 2000, 3,181 units with -- in buildings that had 15 to 70 stories. What's also interesting there is that there are 8, 811 existing units built in the Brickell area -- Brickell East area. There are 1,350 rental apartments. There is 3,527,345 square feet of existing office space, and there are 1,648 hotel rooms and under construction, you have 1,927 units planned in six buildings, including the subject property. No, excuse me, not including the subject property, and 2, 748 units are in the planning stage proposed condominium apartments being developed in that area. There are two churches in the neighborhood, two houses of worship, and there is one parcel that remains vacant and that's at the corner of 15th and Brickell Avenue. It is concluded -- it is my opinion, based upon the review and the review of the Villa Magna Development, whose plan prices -- price point averages of $650, 000 per unit, ranging from 450,000 to 850, 000, that Villa Magna price point ranges will not negatively impact nor compete with unit price points within the adjacent Mark or Jade condominium. Villa Magna does not negatively impact the views from the Mark to the north or Jade to the south. Villa Magna's design and placement on the site is deemed to be compatible to the surrounding developments in the neighborhood, and that Villa Magna's design concept complements the urban vision and skyline for development provided in the SD-5 zoning classification. Villa Magna, as planned, will be the last major waterfront development to be developed east, Brickell Avenue submarket area, and Villa Magna's existing zoning provides for the ownerships vested rights for up to 1,250 units under the City ofMiami's existing SDI [sic] zoning classifications. I'll be available for any questions, if need be. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Any -- Madam counsel, any other experts that are going to be testifying on your behalf? Commissioner Allen: And, Mr. Chairman, I would caution counsel, if any of these experts (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cumulative evidence, that we take that into account, but we need not hear cumulative evidence or testimony from experts. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: What did you just say? Chairman Sanchez: Sir, state your name for the record. Kevin McCabe: Yes. Good evening. My name is -- Commissioner Winton: Commissioner, what did you just say? Chairman Sanchez: Well, basically, cut through the you -know -what and get to the point. Commissioner Allen: In other -- Chairman Sanchez: Simple as that. Commissioner Allen: If these experts are going to -- Chairman Sanchez: Let's go. I mean -- City ofMiami Page 238 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: -- rehash other issues -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, I understand. Commissioner Allen: -- that have already been addressed, then it's cumulative. We don't need to hear it again. Commissioner Winton: That's a perfect point. Mr. McCabe: Yes. My name is Kevin McCabe. I'm with EDC (Environmental Development Consultants) Corporation, with offices at 2455 Southwest 27th Avenue, in Miami. The downtown Brickell corridor waterfront property is zoned by FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, as a flood zone VE. VE zones are typically in the waterfront areas, subject to high impact wave velocities, with waves as much as plus 15 or plus 16. As you can remember from the recent rash of hurricanes in Florida, you can see that wave impact is probably one of the most damaging aspects hurricane activity. In the FEIVIA V Zone, FEMA has set very strict criteria for development below the base flood elevation. In a VE Zone, where you have velocity zone waves, you're required to elevate your habitable floor structures above the base flood -- in this particular area, about a plus 15 -- and anything below that elevation shall be made breakaway and used for storage only. There would not be anything used for commercial or habitable space. Over the past couple of years, the developers in the area have been frying to come up with a method to perhaps maybe change the zone to accommodate different uses that would be chartered by the City's master plan, including restaurants and store shops and whatnot. In a VE Zone, those are not allowed. Several years ago, the applicant, along with several other developers, came together to try to find out a way to change the zone from a VE to an AE. An AE Zone is different from a VE, but it requires just still water flooding. Although the areas in an AE will still flood, they're not going to be subjected to high wave impacts. In 2001/2002, various developers, including the applicant, came to FEMA and suggested to change the zone by building a wave frip wall. A wave trip wall is a seawall that's designed to take the hundred year impact loads and to basically trip the wave as a sandbar would do, you know, from an offshore wave on the beach. When this wave approaches the shoreline and hits the wave trip wall, it breaks the wave and it causes the wave to tumble out and to lose its energy. Over a period of a short distance, those waves will then run themselves out and go into like a wave uprush and still water elevation. By running the mathematical computations and going to FEMA with the design concept, we were able to meet with FEMA in Washington and apply for what's called a CLOMR. CLOMR is a letter of map revision, but it's called a Conditional Letter ofMap Revision. You run through the calculations. You run through the structural design, and we've taken a regional approach to this because it just lends itself to the downtown Brickell corridor because there's lots of residential development in the area. The process was extensive, but we were able to achieve the CLOMR, and then the applicant went ahead to build the wall. That wall was built last year and it was actually then completed. We took the wall with the applications and we went back for what's call a LOMR (Letter ofMap Revision). The LOMR is actually called a Letter ofMap Revision. This is the process whereby FEMA fiscally changes the map for insurance purposes. These -- this application has gone through and it has been approved, and FEMA is actually now achieved a new zone classification for the entire area from 12th all the way down to the end of the Jade project, and this -- what this does is, this changed what originally was a VE Zone that extended from the Bayfront all the way to Brickell -- so all these areas were affected by the velocity zones -- with the installation of the wave trip wall, we've actually changed the map zone so the entire parcel, as you see there, is now changed to an AE. What this does is that the AE Zone now allows developers to construct habitable space below the base flood elevation. You can install restaurants. You can install shops. You can install commercial activities, as long as they're flood proof to the AE Zone, so this area is now completely redeveloped as an AE Zone. The added benefit to this is that it changes insurance rates. A building in a VE Zone, even partially, is considered a high risk structure and the insurance rates are extensive. With an AE Zone, now everybody benefits, not only the people City ofMiami Page 239 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 that constructed the wall and live on the waterfront, but those developers and residents that live landward of Brickell Bay Drive up to Brickell Avenue, so those insurance rates are dropped by orders of magnitude, and these things will continue to go on. Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. All right, counsel, any other expert witness? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: One more, just the traffic engineer. Chairman Sanchez: Let's go. Could I see the hands of those that will be testifying in support of the project? Richard Garcia: Hi. Richard Garcia, with Richard Garcia and Associates. Chairman Sanchez: All right. 18 people? Mr. Garcia: 2468 Southwest 8th Street. I'm the traffic engineer that did the traffic analysis -- Chairman Sanchez: About 12. Mr. Garcia: -- for this project. I don't know how much information you want from me. I don't really want to bore you with a lot of technical analysis that you may not understand or even care to hear. There's probably about 15, 20 pounds of analysis that I've done. The City has reviewed the analysis that's been performed; they've concurred. There was a letter submitted -- I'm sure it's in the record -- on February 5th from URS, the City's consultant, that has concurred with our analysis. The analysis done at this location is a person/trip methodology, which allows to put traffic, not only in vehicles, but in other modes; the buses, the rail, walking, bicycling, et cetera, and using that methodology, the level of service, at the worst case, was a Level of Service E, so the project has -- is in an area where there's plenty of capacities for roadway and other modes, and so the level of service has been maintained, and so the City's consultant has concurred. I could really get into a lot of details, butl think probably will -- Commissioner Allen: You've done a good job. Mr. Garcia: -- use the time to, you know, rebut anything. If there's any issues that have been raised, they haven't been brought to my attention. The client has even asked subsequent analysis to be done just for, I guess, his own sake, to make sure that they feel confident. Subsequent to the approval, we've done additional analysis, driveway analysis, which yield Level of Service A, so if there's anything that the Commission wants to hear, any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Commissioner Allen: That's it. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Any questions, Johnny, Jeffrey? No. Thank you, very much. The Chairman had to leave for a while, so I will be chairing this part, and then he'll come back and we'll finish, so counsel, Vicky, you done with the expert witness? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: My presentation is finished. Other than my time for rebuttal, there are members of the community, that are not part of our presentation, that are here in support of the project that want to address you, and -- Commissioner Winton: That we'll get to as part of a public hearing. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- of course, Mr. Hollo. Commissioner Regalado: OK Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 240 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Tibor Hollo: Good evening, honorable Commission. My name is Tibor Hollo. I'm at 100 South Biscayne Boulevard and I am the one who's respons -- Commissioner Allen: You need to come a little closer to the microphone. Commissioner Regalado: If you can -- Hollo: -- I am the one who's responsible for this project. Merely, I'd like to point out some advantages of this project, the substantial change, vis-a-vis the project that was originally approved on this site. I think it's important to note the difference between the previously approved project and this project. I'll just take a few moments to portray that to you, with your permission. The first project was a single, bulky building that was presented to you already by our architect, Mr. Llanes. We have two slender towers. The original project was parallel to the bay, blocking off the views of the building, such as 1221, behind us. Our -- we have created a view corridor by facing the orientation east and west, perpendicular to the bay. The building height of the original project was something like 780 feet, and our height is 574 feet;; some 230 feet less. The previously approved project had, across from the enfrance of the Mark building, a garbage enfrance to the building, an opened garbage enfrance and a loading dock, where the truck had to stick out of actually of the entrance. We have created, as a -- creates for great sensitivity that -- for the neighborhood, we created the loading and frash collection area inside a fully and closed service court. There's no unsightly or smelling garbage areas or those that affect surrounding properties. Car ingress and egress directed to two streets instead of one. Originally, it was on 12th. Now, we have the south building from the 13th and the north building from 12th. The original project had no linear [sic] units. Meaning, there was a totally unsightly garage that was facing Brickell Bay Drive, which is the most important street there. We have created what is called "liner units," together working with the Planning Board, and these liner units are at the pedestal on four sides, and it achieves a good City planning, as it was required by your department. The residences begin on the original plan at the 11 floor elevation, and the garage below was totally open. We have, besides the liner units, only decorative (UNINTELLIGIBLE) shields, anything from the street and from the bay levels. The original building had a minimal 1, 700 square foot convenience area shop on the 15th floor above the street level inside of the lobby. We have created, at a very great expense -- and I'd like to just elaborate on this just a little bit. We could have come to you three and a half years ago, when -- we could have come to you three and a half years ago, when there was no Jade, there was no Mark, there was no objection, but we wanted to be good, good public citizens, and we wanted to create the neighborhood as it was requested by the City Planning. The City Planning deemed 12th Street a pedestrian street with retail shops abundant. This could not have been done because there was a VE zoning, as it was elaborated on by Mr. McCabe. The stores had to be 11 to 15 feet above the sidewalk level, which is a nonsense. Nobody would go to shop there. We have created a neighborhood shopping, a small shopping area so the neighborhood can benefit from it, as it was observed by the Planning Department and as it was observed by the Planning Board. This was at great cost to us. This -- the cost of this was just the physical cost $1, 700, 000, plus the experts, plus the engineers, and plus the legal work that we had to do in order to achieve it, plus waiting for three and a half years. I justgive you a little brutal statistics. The flood insurance for a $10, 000, 000 building in a VE Zone is $138, 000 for a $10, 000, 000 building. In an AE Zone, it's $5, 000; 26 times less. We have gone and we fought for it for the betterment of not only our project alone, but for the neighborhood, for our neighborhood and for our City. We have continued to embellish the building on the Bayfront with bay front restaurants; again, done on the sidewalk level. The zoning allows 1,250 units. We have agreed in two reductions to bring this down at first at 1,208 and then to 1,118 units after discussing it with the Building Department. As I stated, the previous project was VE Zoned, we are the AE Zone. The previous project only included some repairs to the existing seawall. We have actually put in a table, 14 seawall, which is -- if you look at it, about five feet wide, much higher than the old seawall, which then allowed us to change the plan, the FEMA plan City ofMiami Page 241 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 from an VE zone to an AE Zone. The course, I have already have given you. The -- we have also created a bay front walk, at our cost, a 50-foot bay front walk. The City ofMiami has given $4, 000, 000 to Miami One to create that wall. We are doing it at our own cost, and we also created 110 foot --107 107-foot wide public promenade, with fountains between the Jade building and our building. The previously approved project makes no contribution to the public housing - - affordable housing. We are contributing $2, 046, 000 for that. The previous project had no underground parking; everything was above. We have included underground parking and we have waived, we have waived the bonuses that they were entitled to it under that, which is approximately 100,000 square feet of building. We have waived it. We have agreed to waive it. The Villa Magna application is not subject to the recent zoning change, setting minimum apartment sizes or affordable housing bonuses for FAR. We agreed to comply with it, although we are not under that code, but we have agreed to apply with it, and finally, I would like to state it to you that we have presented our project in a great detail to all the major associations in our area; Point View Association, the Brickell Homeowners Association and the Brickell Area Association, representing a total of 73 buildings, and from all these associations, we have received unanimous approval. I thank you very much. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Counsel. Opposing counsel, do you want those signs removed or do you -- Mr. Shubin: Yes, it would be helpful. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Let's -- please, let's remove those signs so we could have a clear view of the public, and counsel, do you have -- what -- Mr. Shubin: Just so the record is clear, John Shubin, Shubin and Bass, 46 Southwest 1st Street, on behalf of Brickell Equities Corp Limited, the owner of the property at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Let me fry to work through some logistics. There are two other lawyers here today representing separate clients. What we're going to propose, in the interest of efficiency, is that I have undertaken the responsibility of conducting some very, very limited cross-examination of three witnesses. It shouldn't take longer than five minutes. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Shubin: Mr. Gibbs needs to then make some procedural objections, and he will be speaking on behalf of his clients. Mr. Dickman is representing a separate set of clients. I will conclude and try not to be cumulative, but we have two expert witnesses; Mr. Olmedillo and Mr. Vargas, so we're going to do the best we can, and I promise you, I'm going to try to be as brief as possible on the cross-examination. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so we start with you -- Mr. Shubin: Sure. Commissioner Regalado: -- five minutes around. Mr. Shubin: Let me start with the architect, please. City ofMiami Page 242 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: OK Sir. Mr. Shubin: Do you have a general understanding or a specific understanding that this application is seeking an additional 137,000 square feet through what is known as a PUD (Planned Unit Development) bonus? Mr. Llanes: I have a general understanding of that, yes. Mr. Shubin: And do you have a general or specific understanding that as to the average unit size of the units that are currently being proposed for this project? Mr. Llanes: I'd have to look back at the information on my plans. I don't have that information readily available. Mr. Shubin: Well, then -- what I'm going to do then, I'm going to turn to Mr. Cannon, and then we'll get back to you in the interest of time, and I would hope that you could determine for me the average unit size, units proposed, average unit size. Mr. Cannon, the report that was submitted to the public today or to myself contained a letter in it fi^om yourself to Mr. Dehan, dated June 23, 2004. Did you conclude your analysis and transmit it to your client on June 23, 2004? Mr. Cannon: It was prepared, but it was not transmitted. Mr. Shubin: When was the first time that you submitted this book to the Clerk for purposes of putting into the record of this proceeding? Mr. Cannon: This evening. Mr. Shubin: Couple more questions. As part of your analysis, did you attempt to ascertain, on behalf of your client, what the average income level would be of a perspective buyer of one of the units in this project? Mr. Cannon: Not of the client, but we have that information on our database in the office. Mr. Shubin: So you cannot conclude or cannot provide the Commission with any type of testimony tonight as to what the marketing analysis demonstrates as to the average income level of a perspective buyer of a unit at this project? Mr. Cannon: I could from other studies that we've conducted in the area, yes. Mr. Shubin: Well, then, tell me what it is right now. Mr. Cannon: Ask me a specific question, please. Mr. Shubin: What is the average income of a perspective buyer of a unit in this project as proposed? You said that there was a price range of 450 to 800, 000. What has your marketing analysis revealed pertaining to the average income? Mr. Cannon: The current statistics of a average income per capita in the Brickell submarket area is $78, 000. However, the mix of units range in the Brickell market area from a low of the low IOOs. Some of the older -- now, let me finish, please. -- low to 100,000 unit -- per unit up to several mega millions, 5 and 6, 000, 000, some of the highest ones. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me, Mr. Cannon. Mr. Cannon: So the average income -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. City ofMiami Page 243 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Could I interrupt you? Mr. City Attorney, I'm struggling here. I'm struggling to understand the relevance of market data on sales and value and all of that stuff to this issue on whether or not we approve this project or not. That's a market question. Building and development is always answered by the market. The market will always determine where the values are and where the values are not, and I think it's totally irrelevant to our deliberations. Mr. Fernandez: To the extent that applicant introduce that into evidence, not that he -- even -- by their introducing it has any relevance to the decision that you ultimately make, perhaps, this gentleman has the right to cross-examine the applicant's expert in that regard. However, relevance, in my mind, continues to be an issue on this. You, as the ultimate decider, may choose to totally disregard it. Mr. Shubin: Commissioner Winton, let me explain at least my question. I'm not getting an answer. Mr. Fernandez: He's cross-examining. You should limit yourself to continuing cross-examination. I would think that you could find him, Mr. Chairman, out of order if he chooses to engage you in explaining his strategy. He's limiting himself now to cross-examining the applicant's expert, not you, as Commissioners. Mr. Shubin: Are you being an advocate for a specific position, sir? Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Look, look, look, look. Mr. Shubin: Commissioner, would you like -- Commissioner Regalado: We -- you know what? We stop the clock. Start again, Madam City Clerk. I mean -- Shubin: One last question. Do you know the average income level for a resident of the City of Miami ? Mr. Cannon: Approximately. Mr. Shubin: What is it? Mr. Cannon: 33,000. Mr. Shubin: OK. And I will just submit that we will tie it together through Mr. Olmedillo's testimony. Mr. Cannon: We're no longer the poorest City in the country. Thank you. Mr. Shubin: OK. Commissioner Winton: Well, it's too bad -- Mr. Shubin: Do you have -- Commissioner Winton: -- it got introduced by the applicant because it's all irrelevant. Mr. Shubin: -- are you familiar with the value of properties in the Brickell submarket? City ofMiami Page 244 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Cannon: Yes. Mr. Shubin: What is the value per square foot of development rights? Mr. Cannon: Development rights is not the same value as price per square foot of units. Mr. Shubin: Price per square foot of Bevel -- of square foot that can be developed for a piece of dirt. Mr. Cannon: It's gone upwards to $6, 000, 000 an acre. Mr. Shubin: OK, and what does that translate per square foot, in terms of square foot -- Mr. Cannon: Divided by -- Mr. Shubin: -- as it can be developed? Mr. Cannon: -- 43,560, I don't have my calculator here. Mr. Shubin: I'm going to move on to the traffic engineer and, one, we will submit that we -- we agree with the City Attorney, the analysis is not only not relevant; it was submitted today, there was absolutely no opportunity to rebut it, and it just violates fundamental fairness when a report that was submitted in June is put into the record in late October. I'd like to speak to the traffic engineer; should be two minutes. Mr. Fernandez: Again, Mr. Chairman, while the next person is coming up, you are hearing this testimony and you're to give it the weight that, in your mind, it deserves according to the application that's in front of you and the standards that apply. To the extent that it's competent substantial evidence that goes to prove or disprove a point, it's valid for you to take into account. Commissioner Winton: Traffic, I think, is relevant. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: Traffic is relevant. Commissioner Winton: The marketplace, I don't, at all. Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Fernandez: All right. Mr. Shubin: Mr. Garcia, you submitted a traffic report into the record, did you not? Mr. Garcia: My report was incorporated -- my analysis was incorporated into a report by the Corradino Group that was submitted to the City. Mr. Shubin: Are you familiar with the term "local intersection, " as it is utilized by traffic engineers? Mr. Garcia: Local intersection? Mr. Shubin: Yes. City ofMiami Page 245 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Garcia: Seems a bit ambiguous. Mr. Shubin: OK. Did you perform any analysis of the impact of this project on Brickell Bay Drive? Mr. Garcia: Yes. Mr. Shubin: Is it contained in your report? Mr. Garcia: Yes. Just a second. I believe it wasn't part of the report, but an analysis was performed on Brickell Bay Drive. Mr. Shubin: So it was not part of the report? Mr. Garcia: No. Mr. Shubin: OK. What about 12th Terrace? Mr. Garcia: I believe that was done subsequent, but the City's engineer did not -- the City's consultant did not require us to analyze those intersections. Mr. Shubin: Are you familiar with the term `future year analysis" as it relates to the conclusion set forth in your report? Mr. Garcia: Yeah, future year, sure, build -out year. Mr. Shubin: And could you just describe to the Commission what it means in layperson's terms? Mr. Garcia: Sure. It's the year when you can expect to have the building up and running or development built. Mr. Shubin: For the purposes of this report, what did you use as the future year analysis? Mr. Garcia: I'd have to check. I'm not sure. I'd have to check. I'd have to check the analysis, but it was accepted by the City's engineer. Mr. Shubin: Did you -- Commissioner Winton: Hold it. While he's checking, could I ask a question? The question you asked about sfreets that were identified, that they did the analysis on, what were those sfreets again? Mr. Shubin: 12th Terrace and Brickell Bay Drive. Commissioner Winton: And on Brickell Bay Drive and 12th Terrace, the answer to the analysis was what? Mr. Shubin: None. None in the report. Mr. Garcia: It was not considered a major intersection, so the major intersections were the ones that were analyzed, the ones that had the highest traffic volume and the greatest potential for impact, and that's what intersection -- I mean, we could go analyzing things all over the place, but we generally analyze what we feel -- and not just us, the City's consultant felt was the appropriate intersections and corridors to analyze. We just did what the City asked us to analyze. City ofMiami Page 246 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: What's the first street coming out of the project that runs perpendicular to the water? Mr. Shubin: Brickell Bay Drive. Commissioner Winton: No, no, not parallel -- Mr. Shubin: Oh, perpendicular. Commissioner Winton: -- perpendicular. Mr. Garcia: Really, just 12th -- Mr. Shubin: There's 14th -- Commissioner Winton: What is it? Mr. Shubin: 12th Terrace, 13th, 14th. Thirteenth is one-way, is that right? The entrance to 1221 is on 12th Terrace. Commissioner Winton: Oh, 12th -- Mr. Shubin: Just -- Commissioner Winton: 12 Terrace, right. Mr. Shubin: It's just -- OK. Do you have any reason to dispute that you used, as a future year analysis, 2005? Mr. Garcia: Well, I mean, you could change the future year analysis. The existing traffic also grows. What you have to understand here is, you could make it 2010, 2020. The road -- I'm not answering your question? Mr. Shubin: I just want to know what year you used for the purposes of the report that you're relying on. Mr. Garcia: I don't -- Mr. Shubin: I think it was -- Mr. Garcia: I don't recall. Mr. Shubin: I believe it was 2005, and I asked you if you had any reason to doubt that. Mr. Garcia: No, I'm not sure. I could possibly check. I don't know if I'll find it -- Mr. Shubin: And -- Mr. Garcia: -- quick enough for you. Mr. Shubin: And you explained to the Commission that the future year analysis is when the project will be built out, and a Certificate of Occupancy will be given, and the project will be operational, is that right? City ofMiami Page 247 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Garcia: Well, you know, traffic engineers, we don't know about certificate of occupancies. I'm a traffic engineer. You might want to ask the architect when that -- or the developer. Mr. Shubin: You would agree -- Mr. Garcia: You may be asking the wrong person. Mr. Shubin: -- you would agree with me, if the project was completed in 2007, it might be more appropriate to use 2007 as a future year analysis for purposes of your report? Mr. Garcia: Possibly, but the City's consultant is -- who tells us -- you know, they tell us -- ifI use 2007 and the City's consultant's telling me to use 2005, then he's going to come back and say, "I told you to use 2005; why'd you use 2007?" Mr. Shubin: Let me ask one other question. Let's just humor me for a second. Suppose you had used 2007, would it have changed your analysis -- would you have had to incorporate into your analysis more projects that would have been assumed to have been approved between 2005 and 2007? Mr. Garcia: Absolutely not. Mr. Shubin: Absolutely not. Mr. Garcia: That's right. Mr. Shubin: Why not? Mr. Garcia: It wouldn't change. Well, the person/trip methodology is very unique. It allows you to use a corridor concept. Have you -- maybe you haven't heard the term "corridor concept." Basically, allows you to load on a corridor, where there's a north/south corridor or an east/west corridor, the traffic in multiple modes. If you get to a point where that corridor doesn't have an adequate level of service, you can go to parallel corridors, like Miami Avenue, 1st Avenue, 2nd Avenue. We didn't need to go to that extent because the level of service was adequate, so worse case scenario, you know, you fry to load this thing up and say it's going to be built in 2010, you still have parallel corridors with plenty of reserve capacity, which basically means, in laymen's terms, that there's a lot of north/south capacity still available. Mr. Shubin: So -- Commissioner Winton: What was the corridor that was used? Mr. Shubin: That's my question. Commissioner Winton: What is the loading corridor? Mr. Garcia: Brickell. Commissioner Winton: Brickell. Mr. Garcia: North/south, yes. Commissioner Winton: OK. Thank you. Mr. Shubin: So you used a corridor in an interchange analysis; Brickell was your corridor. What was the closest interchange that you used? City ofMiami Page 248 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Garcia: We used Brickell -- I'm going by memory now. It's been a few months since I've done the analysis. Mr. Shubin: Well, you've been asked -- Mr. Garcia: Brickell, 8th, Coral Way; I think we also analyzed Miami Avenue as a north/south. We typically do two north/south, two east/west -- Mr. Shubin: OK. We -- Mr. Garcia: -- but the level of service were all within the acceptable guidelines. Mr. Shubin: We accomplished what we needed to accomplish. I'd like the architect to see if he has the answer on the average unit size, then I'll turn it over to Mr. Gibbs. Commissioner Winton: Could -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: Before he goes -- Commissioner Regalado: Your promise -- Commissioner Winton: No, I would like -- Mr. Shubin: I can't -- Commissioner Regalado: -- have not been fulfilled. Mr. Shubin: -- I can't control the answers, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: I understand that, but -- Commissioner Winton: But I have a question. Why didn't you use Brickell Bayview [sic] Drive - Mr. Garcia: Well, what happens is -- Commissioner Winton: -- as the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) corridor? It's on Brickell Bayview [sic] Drive. Mr. Garcia: Yeah. Again, you know, the City's consultant -- you know, we scope out, you know, how much analysis, the area of influence, you know, with the City's consultant, and so they look at the corridors that are going to be the worst affected. There's a lot of opportunities -- Commissioner Winton: Before -- let me ask this question. Mr. Garcia: -- to go west. Commissioner Winton: Hold on. The answer then is, you used Brickell Avenue rather than Brickell Bayview [sic] Drive because the City directed you to? Commissioner Regalado: That's what he said. City ofMiami Page 249 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Garcia: The City and us. We sat down and we had a scoping meeting. We scoped out the project to see what is appropriate, and when we made some recommendations, they made recommendations, and we concurred and we agreed to do a certain analysis. I mean, and this is standard in the industry. You know, the reviewing agency says, "Well, this is what we want, " and you say -- Commissioner Winton: I just wanted to know if the City -- Mr. Garcia: -- "Well, we think this -- and we just discuss it -- Commissioner Winton: You said earlier -- now you're saying something different. I just want to understand who decided what the primary corridor was going to be, was it you as their consultant or our City directed you to do that? That's -- Mr. Garcia: You have to understand something, that Brickell Bay Drive -- Commissioner Regalado: OK One second. Mr. Garcia: -- doesn't go through. Commissioner Regalado: One second, one second, one second. We just lost a quorum. Commissioner Winton: Oh. Commissioner Regalado: We need to just take a break. As soon as third Commissioner comes into the dais, we will continue. Welcome back. OK. We do have a quorum, so Commissioner Winton, Commissioner Allen, we are back in a quorum. Counsel, do you -- you want to -- Commissioner Winton, you done with questioning the fraffic engineer? You done questioning the traffic engineer? Can we move to the architect? Commissioner Winton: Well, I want -- I'm going to ask -- well, yes, for the moment. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Garcia: Well, I wanted to finish answering your question. Really, Brickell Bay Drive is not a corridor. It's not a through corridor, so it wouldn't even make sense for the City's consultant -- Mr. Shubin: You were asked to -- Mr. Garcia: -- to recommend analyzing that. Commissioner Winton: But the project is on Brickell Bayview [sic] Drive. Mr. Garcia: I understand. Commissioner Winton: It isn't on Brickell. Mr. Garcia: I understand, but it's not a through corridor, so when you have -- and you have -- it's on 12th, so you have 12th, 12th Terrace, 13th, 14th, 14th and 15th Road as all access points going from the east to the west, so there's plenty of opportunity for this fraffic to get onto the corridors, which is Brickell Avenue and Miami Avenue -- South Miami Avenue. In addition to that, you have 1st Avenue, 2nd Avenue as parallel corridors, which weren't even analyzed because that need never arose. Commissioner Regalado: OK Just -- Johnny, to clarify -- City ofMiami Page 250 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: -- if we can get the Chief of Operation -- Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: -- Alicia Cuervo. She is the one handling the consultant. Alicia Cuervo Schreiber (Chief of Operations): This project did meet transportation and traffic sufficiencies. As you know, the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) is putting a signal at 14th Street and Brickell, and also there's a traffic study being done on 14th Terrace, as well, for another signal there. Corridors are roadways and they involve any roadway that abuts your property, and I'm sure in your traffic analysis, all corridors were asked to be addressed for level of service, for entrance, et cetera. I know that you met the sufficiency, but I can't imagine that you weren't asked to look at the corridor smack in front of your building. Mr. Garcia: That is not a corridor. You're mistaken. The corridor is defined in the person/trip methodology. It's not the ordinary definition that's used for a corridor. Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: I understand that. Mr. Garcia: The person/trip methodology specifically defines corridors that go through and that have transit on them -- Commissioner Regalado: Are you debating here -- Mr. Garcia: -- so without a doubt, it's not a corridor. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: I think I'm done with my questions. Commissioner Regalado: OK Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: OK Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado: Counsel, the architect, maybe he remembers. Mr. Shubin: I won't even ask a question. I just want the answer to the previous question. Commissioner Regalado: You have -- Mr. Architect, do you have the answer to the previous question, and then you will bring another -- Shubin: I'm going to ask you for guidance. I know that there were a number of people from the public who wanted to speak in support of the project. Commissioner Regalado: Absolutely. Mr. Shubin: What do you think is -- Commissioner Regalado: And you can choose to let them speak and then bring your people, and then they will have time for rebuttal and that's that. City ofMiami Page 251 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Shubin: But you're the boss. I'm asking you what you would prefer. Do you think it would be more helpful to you to allow them to speak first before the -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, you know, I -- so we can have this process move along, I would rather have the other attorneys probably presenting their case, and then the public and then, you know -- Commissioner Winton: Then us. Mr. Shubin: We'll do whatever you want. I just raised the issue. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: Attorneys finished, then us. Commissioner Regalado: All right. You have the answer for him? Mr. Llanes: You were looking for average unit size? Mr. Shubin: Yes. Mr. Llanes: 847 square feet. Mr. Shubin: OK, and the PUD bonus is 137,000 square feet, correct? Mr. Llanes: Yes. Mr. Shubin: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: OK Counsel number two. Mr. Shubin: Well, I just did the cross-examination. I'll also -- Commissioner Regalado: I understand. I understand, but just to -- and to make it more lively, you know. Tucker Gibbs: Could we wait one second, while he sets up? I -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Gibbs: Actually, I can make my argument because this is the issue on notice. My name is Tucker -- W. Tucker Gibbs. My law offices are 215 Grand Avenue, in Coconut Grove, and just wanted to bring up a couple of issues, the first issue relating to the public notice on this. We were talking about case law earlier. I don't want to get bogged down in a case -- in cases, butl will tell you the case law says that public notice must adequately inform as to what changes are proposed, and the actual change must conform substantially to the proposed changes in the notice. The notice must adequately let the public know what is happening. To walk you down a little bit on memory lane, back in May, you all provided notice and you provided the same notice for the September meeting, that you all determined was inadequate. You set out the number of residential units, you set out a number of hotel units, you set out the square footage of retail space, and you set out the number of parking spaces, and you set out the square footage of the Planned Unit Development bonus, but you failed to set out the square footage of the affordable housing bonus, and your City Attorney correctly determined that this notice was defective. The public notice that have seen for this meeting -- and I have to put on the record, I have not seen City ofMiami Page 252 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 the notice that was on -- in the newspaper. I have seen a proof of that notice that has notes on it from the Planning -- the Assistant Planning Director. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me again. Tucker, are you on this notice issue? Mr. Gibbs: Yeah, because I was -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Gibbs: -- toldl had to wait -- Commissioner Winton: Now -- Mr. Gibbs: -- until we made our presentation to bring it up. Commissioner Winton: -- Mr. City Attorney, I'm -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- if the notice is a technical issue, I wouldn't -- even if it is, you know, let them -- as far as I'm concerned, let them deal with that in the courts, because I would have zero intention of sending everybody home, even at -- when this began, because the people on both sides of this fence have been here enough times, and for us to say one more time, over some technical issue that could be correct, that we're going to postpone all this is -- seems to me to be bad public policy. Mr. Gibbs: I'll cut to the chase then, Commissioner, just to place it on the record because the City Attorney will tell you, for me to be able to make an argument in court, I have to make it here first. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Gibbs: So, unfortunately -- Commissioner Winton: Make it briefly. Mr. Gibbs: -- you get to hear it. I'll make it very brief. The notice for the public hearing that was set out for today specifically talked about the number of residential units, the number of hotel units, the square footage of the retail, the number of parking spaces, and then it said "providing for certain floor area ratio bonuses specified in Exhibit C herein." That's in the published notice. Now, the last time I looked, I didn't see an Exhibit C in the public notice, and the Exhibit C obviously deals with the two bonuses, affordable housing and PUD bonus, which equal approximately -- I think it's 298,000 square feet additionally that was not in the public notice. The public notice that was provided back in May and in September specifically spelled out the PUD bonus, but not the affordable housing. I'm going to leave you with one thing. You all get in your package a staff report -- ifI can find it -- and your staff report, in very concise terms -- and I'm going to hand this out -- specifically spells out the MUSP, per Article 17, the MUSP per Article 17, in dealing with hotel spaces, residential spaces, parking spaces. The PUD bonus. It spells it out for you. Your City staff gives you notice, but fail to give the public notice as to the actual square footage of this project. That is a flaw. That is an egregious flaw. It does not provide the average citizen, who reads this notice that was in the paper, any kind of notice as to the exact project as being built, and to me -- I just wanted to put it on the record -- I think this is flawed. This matter should not be heard, and I think it's very problematic. I'll leave you with that. City ofMiami Page 253 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: Second issue. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Gibbs: Well, I've got several issues here. Commissioner Regalado: All right. Mr. Gibbs: On July 19th, I wrote a letter to the City --Assistant City Attorney, which I'll hand out to you all. City Attorney and Mr. Chairman, in -- for brevity's sake -- Mr. Chairman, for brevity sake, I'm going -- I'd like to incorporate that into the record. I've handed it in. What want -- what that -- the gist of that letter is that the Major Use Special Permit for this project, for the Bayshore Palms Project, essentially expired on April 28, 2004. It was not extended. That letter explains that this project was a two-phase project. The original developer of the project sold one-half of the project to Mr. Hollo or his predecessor, and at that point, the person who developed the property specifically said they wanted it divided. All calculations from that point were separated. It is our position that this Major Use Special Permit is dead. It has no legal effect, and you have no jurisdiction to hear this matter. Given what was said earlier, I just want to place that into the record, and the letter speaks for itself. Commissioner Regalado: All right. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, could we have -- Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Allen: -- the City Attorney to just give us an opinion with respect to this MUSP issue? Mr. Fernandez: These issues have been addressed and answered before. The Zoning Adminisfrator may have something to say about that; we don't. Mr. Gibbs: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The only answer I have received on this was from Lourdes Slazyk. I never got a response from Mr. Maxwell on this. I didn't speak to Mr.Maxwell. I spoke to Mr. Fernandez yesterday, who said he did not have an answer for me. Commissioner Regalado: OK, but the letter is dated on July 19th. Mr. Gibbs: It was dated July 19th, and I sent a subsequent letter last Friday asking for a response, and still didn't get a response. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Mr. Maxwell: That letter was addressed to me. It was in July 19th, as pointed out. Mr. Gibbs raised these issues and it was addressed on the record during a Commission meeting. It is a question of zoning interpretation. He addressed the question to us, the CityAttorney's Office, but clearly under zoning ordinances, Mr. Gibbs knows the Zoning Administrator makes -- answers questions of this type, not the City Attorney, and now, whatl would like the Zoning Adminisfrator to do, again, is respond to Mr. Gibbs -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, he did that on the previous. City ofMiami Page 254 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Maxwell: He did it, but I would -- because he's raised it again, if you will indulge us, Mr. Chairman, just for a quick response. Commissioner Regalado: But the -- well, the question is why would Planning respond while you say that the Zoning administration should respond? Mr. Maxwell: Well, when he says Planning, I think he says the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator, at that time -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, he said that Lourdes was the one -- the only one that -- Mr. Maxwell: No, no, the Zoning Administrator -- Commissioner Regalado: -- gave him -- Mr. Maxwell: -- did respond on the record, during the Commission meeting -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Maxwell: -- in July -- Commissioner Regalado: So it -- Mr. Maxwell: -- and it was -- it was the July 22nd meeting. Commissioner Regalado: So you want to do it again just to make the record clear? You want to follow the City Attorney's recommendation and just respond to his -- Orlando Toledo (Zoning Administrator): I'm going to go ahead and just read the way that the Code reads. "The Major Use Special Permit" -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Maxwell: Identify yourself for the record, please. Mr. Toledo: Orlando Toledo, Zoning Administrator. "The Major Use Special Permit shall be issued for a period of two years, subject to renewals for subsequent two-year periods." Commissioner Regalado: That's it? Mr. Toledo: That's it. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs: I'm sorry, I did not hear that. Could I see that, at least? I apologize, but -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney, could you help us with the technical -- Mr. Gibbs: Shall be issued for periods two years -- Commissioner Winton: -- stuff and move this along? Mr. Gibbs: -- subject to renewal. I understand that -- I -- I put it on the record. I understand this, it is subject to renewal. It was renewed and it expired. City ofMiami Page 255 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: But we're not going to do anything about it. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. I'm just placing on the record. Commissioner Winton: Put -- you put -- you just put this stuff on the record and keep going. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Gibbs: That's fine. Commissioner Regalado: OK Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: I just want to know if the Code section actually allowed it. I don't see this -- Commissioner Regalado: Any other issue -- Mr. Gibbs: -- as having any relevance. Commissioner Regalado: -- or should we move to the third -- Mr. Gibbs: We're moving actually to the meat of the argument. Commissioner Regalado: OK You want to do it, just go ahead. Commissioner Winton: Hey, could the three of you attorneys on that side help each other by somebody disfributing while one's talking? That'd be a good thing. Mr. Gibbs: I mean, that's the last thing I'm disfributing, so -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Gibbs: Because we want to go quickly, we were going to present a PowerPoint presentation. I'm presenting that PowerPoint presentation to you in that form so we don't have to go through it. Again, my name is Tucker Gibbs. I represent Topeka Holdings, Inc., Maria Inez Duarte, Richard Ivans, Hugo Bianchi, Maria Palacio, Edward Parra, Alberto Fahara, Francisco Coreya, Ana Codina, Jose Rodriguez, Julio Marra, all who are purchasers of unit at the Jade Condominium next door to this proposed building. I also represent 1111 Brickell Office, LLC, the owner of the Mellon Financial Center, which is at 1111 Brickell Avenue, which is another neighbor to the north and west of the proposed building. My clients both individually and corporately have one thing in common: They're interested in this community. They've invested in Brickell Avenue as a place to live and as place to do business. This investment is to the tune of millions of dollars. Jade clients are purchasing their units for upwards of $1, 500, 000; 111 Brickell purchased their property for $132, 000, 000. None of my clients relished the thought of opposing a developer, especially a developer building residential units in this area, but this project is so massive and the developer has evinced no desire to significantly reduce this density, that my clients have no alternative. My clients object to this Major Use Special Permit Amendment as proposed for several reasons: 1, the MUSP itself expired prior to the amendment, as I brought to your attention. It warrants a new application for a MUSP by the applicant. The project is a dramatic and massive inappropriate increase in density from the project that this Commission approved in 1998. This project is going from 100 -- 374 units that was approved on this site -- 374 units -- to 1,208 in terms of the application. My understanding, it's 1,118 now. There are no changed circumstances here, except that the developer wants to squeeze every last square foot and every last residential unit from this property. This project utilizes two development bonuses that have serious legal flaws. The affordable housing bonus: City ofMiami Page 256 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 It allows an increase in FAR of 25 percent, equaling $137, 200, and I'm going to talk to you all about that in a little bit. The trade-off for that 137,200 square feet is $2, 000, 000. A PUD bonus that allows an increase of 20 percent -- I'm sorry. I have it flipped. The 20 -- the PUD -- the affordable housing is 161,485 square feet, and the PUD bonus is 137,200 square feet. Do the math. That's over 40 percent of the size of this building is dealing -- you're dealing with on these bonuses. This project is too big. It's out of scale with other Brickell residential buildings. It will have an adverse effect to the living environment and conditions, and that's because of its incompatible scale. The Villa Magna proposal understates its floor area, overestimates its FAR calculations, and it requires too many FAR bonuses. They're trying to get every single bonus available. Let's look at the floor area. I'd like to look at some history. The last time this was before you at any length was June 21 st and at that time -- that was 2 in the morning, and I stood here and told you that this project exceeded the City's Code, the City Code's floor area and FAR bonus requirements. You deferred this item, and subsequent analyses by City staff as well as the applicant, confirmed that this project was well in excess of the City's requirements. I believe, when the applicant comes to you and says you have to do this within two meetings, it is incredibly disingenuous was, and it's disingenuous because they presented in their application a project that overstated the square footage. Those tread areas, equaling eight stories on one side and seven stories on the other, is the excess that their original application asked for, and it wasn't your City staff that came and said, this is a problem. It was my clients. My clients came to the City staff. Came to you and said, this is a mistake. The drawings are not accurate. Commissioner Winton: They didn't come to me. Mr. Gibbs: They came to the City Commission. We came to the City Commission on that meeting, on July -- in June 21st, at 2 in the morning, and told you that this thing was way too big, and the fact is, you guys could have approved it. If we hadn't checked it out, you all would have approved a project that exceeded your Code, so when they come and tell you it's your fault, that you have to said approve this automatically, I'm saying for the record, bottom line is, they bear a lot of responsibility, so right now, this is the size of the project. How has the applicant fixed the problem? And where did the excess floor area come out of the project? The south project -- the south tower's reduced by eight, the north tower by seven stories, but the applicant is still added 35,275 square feet of FAR counted area to the pedestal, and that amended application still needs to be reduced by 84,000 square feet of inappropriate and unpermitted square footage. 84,000 square feet. They come in four areas. Area number one, conversion of the floor area ratio space. A hundred -- 1,450 square feet of ground level FAR has been relabeled adminisfrative support as a mechanics -- in the mechanics room so it doesn't count against the FAR, and this may seem tedious, and I hesi -- and I understand that, but the point is, is when a developer squeezes every possible square inch, whether it's legal or illegal, it needs to be put on the notice - put on the record. Commissioner Winton: But just put it on fast and just -- so it's on. Mr. Gibbs: I'm going to say -- I just want to put it on the record, but I appreciate the fact that a developer can say how wonderful their project is. We need to tell you how wonderful it isn't. Relabeling the common space. Lobbies and hallways have been relabeled, even those hallways - - even though those lobbies and hallways reflect public areas. Office and accessory uses. They have added approximately -- going to find it here for you, to move this along -- in office space and accessory uses, 11,190 square feet of office space for adminisfrative support because they claim it is not counted as part of the FAR, when, in fact, it is counted toward the FAR, unless you can say it actually has something to do with running the building, and actually, in your Code, in Section 605.5, it says those uses must be "customarily accessory and clearly incidental to permitted principal uses." An 11,000 square foot office space in that building doesn't deal with the residential uses. I have to give you the -- what I call the finest example. The finest example of this creativity is the fact every single one of the 1,118 units is a space that is yellow on your drawings that you have -- that the City has, and that 20 square foot little space, that little square, City ofMiami Page 257 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 it's not shown as a room. It says it's for air handlers, so they get to deduct that space from their FAR, and you may say, well, gee whiz, that doesn't seem like much. Who cares? It's 20 square feet. Multiply the 20 square feet by the 11,000 and I will tell you exactly the square footage it comes out -- ifI can find it here, and I cannot. It's a hell of a lot. The air handlers -- 22,360 square feet. Again, you're talking about what's coming off of this -- what they're trying to do is squeeze as much square footage as they can. The Villa Magna is too big because it overestimates the allowable FAR. The retail bonus is overstated by 98,850 square feet. I won't go into the details, but that includes the restaurant that Ms. Slazyk has already talked about, which is 14,000. Remember, the retail bonus is three -times the square footage of the retail spaces. At the end of the day, the floor area shouldn't be 11, 040, 000 square feet. It should be 1,083,000 square feet, and that is a problem. It's too big because it's utilizing too many FAR bonuses. Underground parking bonus, that's 53,000 square feet. They withdrew that. The ground floor retail bonus, the 98, 000I was telling you about, that's three floors of both towers, that goes off and now the PUD bonus, 137,263 square feet, a 20 percent increase. That's five floors on both towers. You can take that off. In your Code, you have no clear definition of what a Planned Unit Development is, except that exist on lots of over 50,000 square feet and has a common area. That's your definition. The bonus language in the Code is confusing and defective, and here's the language. "An increase in floor area up to 20 percent over that allowed by the underlying district when allowed under the limitations of the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of the application." There's not -- it's not a sentence. There's not a subject and verb in this. You know, I hate to let the drafters of this know this, but I've been telling this to you all for years and nobody seems to pay attention. The language presumptively describes something, but it doesn't grant anything. If it does grant a 20 percent bonus, who grants it? Do you grant it? What are the standards for that bonus? Is it discretionary? What is the relationship between the Planned Unit Development in granting additional density, via this bonus? There is none. The bonus is a gift. It's a 20 percent gift with no relationship to any planning principles, as it is granted without standards and without any criteria. That's -- the next issue, according to the data sheet -- and I can't vouch for these numbers because I have no clue about what these people have done with these numbers over the last several months, but according to them, the affordable housing bonus is equal to 161,485 square feet, approximately six floors of this building. This bonus allows for an increase in FAR, an increase in square footage. Our point of finding, that the increase would not, one, cause the development to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that it wouldn't violate concurrency and it wouldn't result in a variance. In addition, the developer must agree to pay $12.40 into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for each square foot, and this is the issue, if people care about affordable housing in this community. This bonus is supposed to be an incentive to provide a benefit to the community. Here, if these numbers are correct, the developer gets 161,485 square feet, and what does the City get? The City gets $2, 018, 562.25. Let's look at the tradeoff. The developer's getting 161 plus thousand square feet of condominium. He can sell that condominium for 200 to $500 a square foot. Let's say it's an average of $300 a square foot. That's $48, 445, 000 that the developer can earn and make through the affordable housing bonus through that square footage. What does the City get? Remember, he's getting 48, 000, 000; the City is getting 2,000,000 and change. What can the City build in affordable housing for two million and change? Assuming that the City can build a $25 a square foot and owns the property, they can build a total of 26,914 square feet. If you divide that by a unit of 1500 square feet, guess how many units of affordable housing you get? You get 18, 18 affordable housing units, and this developer can sell a hundred -- he can sell his -- 161,000 square feet between two and $500 a square foot. The result is, the developer's making millions; affordable housing gets a token, and a final thought on Affordable Housing Trust Fund ordinance was the basis for the $12.50. I remember when it was $6.67. What was the basis for that? What was the basis for the $6.67 per square foot? Has an economic study or planning study been done that supports the fee? What is the relationship between this fee and a really honestly dealing with the affordable housing issue in the City ofMiami? Where does the money go? This bonus is an arbitrary -- is arbitrary and the payment has little, if any, relationship with the provision of affordable housing. It is our position that this bonus, along with the PUD City ofMiami Page 258 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 bonus, as set out in your Code, does not comport with the law. In conclusion, this is a MUSP application that deserves to be denied. It is a massive, unwarranted increase in density and size. It is not permitted within the Code. Just look at the numbers. It has failed to receive Shoreline Development Review approval. Mr. Dickman is going to talk about that, which is a condition precedent to City consideration. On top of the inaccurate numbers, the project over -relies on bonuses for its square footage. Remember, this was supposed to be a 374-unit project and now it's 1,208, according to the application, and 1,118. The pedestal also -- because of all the reductions -- this is the building. This is the building that's built without bonuses. This is what should be built, maximum, but as we said, our position is, build what the City approved in 1998. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Thank you very much. Third. Mr. Dickman: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9100 Park Drive, in Miami Shores, Florida. I remember the Mark Yacht Club Condominium, directly to the north of the subject property. I'm joined here tonight by many of the residents, many of the 1100 plus residents at this building. I'd ask for those of you from the Mark to just raise your hand so the Commission can see you. Thank you. There are going to be a number of residents from the Mark who would like to come up and say a few brief words to you, but let me just cut right to the chase and tell you what their concerns are as neighbors, as homeowners living in the area. First of all, they're very concerned about the street level design of this project; that it is not pedestrian friendly. They feel that this broadsides the streets that goes from grade to the top of the building, without any type of breaks in the facade. They are concerned that there isn't any guarantee that the commercial and retail spaces dedicated at the lower level will be for neighborhood use only, as opposed to large restaurants or night clubs, which will bring in exfra traffic, but they would like to have some kind of guarantee that the local neighborhood uses will be dedicated for these commercial areas. Again, the design of the street plan is not what they would like. They would like to see a lot more trees and canopies here that hasn't been brought out in the plans. They are very concerned about the very, very large parking pedestal of this building. It is larger than any parking pedestal anywhere around it. It dwarfs everything around it. Again, my clients understand this is a high -density area. They live in a condominium, but at the same time, there are limits in design criteria that they would like to see followed in this pedestal. This parking pedestal is way out of scale with anything around it. They are also very concerned about the number of units versus the size of the units. I think you heard earlier that the average unit size was something like 840 per unit. They would like to see fewer units and bigger units for a number of reasons; that it will bring in fewer cars, probably more types of families that are in the area, professional working instead of multiple, big, small units, lots of big -- small units. Remove the bonuses. They do not want these bonuses. They feel that this contributes to a design that is overembellished, is not workable for the neighborhood. Excuse me. I'm going to go fast because I know that -- I don't want to repeat anything, but I just want to get on the record what their concerns are, what they would like to see this developer do, and then finally, they feel that the design benefits the applicant only to the west. The applicant, we understand, has property to the west of this, and that the view corridor is really designed for that applicant to the detriment of the people that are on the north and south side of this project, which are going to get these very vertical walls instead of a setback pedestal. Finally, and more importantly, we are concerned that this did not go through the required Shoreline Review at the County. It was -- when I inquired about this, it was told to me that, "Well, this is on the same footprint as the prior," but candidly, the Section 33D of the County Code requires that anything on the shore of Biscayne Bay goes through Shoreline Review. I've had numerous conversations with the County about this, and they have told me that this has not gone through Shoreline Review. The reason Shoreline Review is there is to ensure that there is an adequate setback from the bay, and the setback is a function of not only the footprint, but the size of the building, and since the building has changed from the prior MUSP, then it would have to be readjusted according to Shoreline. Regardless, it has to go through Shoreline, and this applicant has not gone back to Shoreline as of just a few days ago, and I think that that's a problem. All City ofMiami Page 259 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 applications that are on the bay are supposed to be transmitted to Shoreline Review so that the staff there can review these for the adequacy in the Code by the County. Very succinctly, we are concerned about the traffic impacts. We're very concerned about the shoreline. We're concerned about the design of this building, and we're concerned about the impacts on the schools. My clients, there are approximately 1,100 people who live in building. These are working individuals. They have families. They want this area to be a good neighborhood to live in, and they believe that article -- Section 1702 and 1305 of the City Code gives that type of design and safeguards that you can put a building like this on a site like that and design it in such a way that it fits with the neighborhood and it works with the City, and more importantly, the Comprehensive Plan, we feel, also guarantees that, and this design does not do that. Finally, I want to address the issue that the applicant's attorney brought up. Number of my clients will come up here and speak to that, but I was retained early in June of 2004, just before this was coming to the first hearing. I did notify the attorney of record of this applicant that I was their attorney, and I can't speak to what had occurred before, but apparently, they felt concerned enough that they hired an attorney; they sought me out, hired me, and I immediately notified the attorney of record, and since that time, we have had no communication with them. They have not sought any kind of communication with us about any of these issues, and we certainly would have been happy to share it with them at any juncture between now and then, and they have not done that, so with that, I would ask a few of the residents to come up and speak to this issue, particularly, the -- one of the board members that were singled out by the applicant's attorney. Commissioner Regalado: OK Listen, so do you want your side of the residents to go on record now or you would rather have the ones in favor, and then we'll come back to you? I mean, it doesn't matter. Mr. Dickman: OK. We'll wait until after the support -- the neighbors that are speaking in support. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Dickman: We'll go after that. Commissioner Regalado: All right. Mr. Dickman: But I -- we'll reserve that. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: We need to take a break, three minutes, so while we have this break, why don't we organize, counsel, Vicky, the persons that will be in support and then, you know, we -- yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: Just -- I don't know if the Chair now ruling has established protocol with regard to time. Commissioner Regalado: Two minutes. Mr. Fernandez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Two minutes and that's it. Two -- for residents, we're going to do two minutes. Mr. Shubin: And I still have about three -- Commissioner Regalado: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. City ofMiami Page 260 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Shubin: OK. Commissioner Regalado: You're different, but -- Mr. Shubin: I'm going to be fast and I'm going to speak fast. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, yeah, you promise. Mr. Shubin: Hopefully, we'll be done. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: You want him to finish their presentation? Commissioner Regalado: Huh? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Do you want them to finish their presentation before we speak? Commissioner Regalado: Whatever you want to do. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yeah, I'd rather they finish and wrap up, and then we let the neighbors -- Commissioner Regalado: No, but he's -- Mr. Shubin, you say that you want rebuttal or you want to do a presentation? Mr. Shubin: No, no, no, no, no. I just did -- I did the cross-examination for the team. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Shubin: I still -- my client has a slightly different position. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: So he -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Ms. Garcia -Toledo: So he -- Commissioner Regalado: So we're going to hear first your presentation, and then we'll hear from the residents. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Regalado: So counsel, you want to just give us your presentation and then we'll move on to the residents, and you can organize your residents and all that. Mr. Shubin: I don't have any residents, but the other lawyers do. Commissioner Regalado: Well, OK. OK. If we can just pay a little attention, we have this Follow-up presentation. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Shubin: Once again, John Shubin, Shubin and Bass, on behalf of Brickell Equities Limited Corp, the owner of the property at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Let's see ifI can make this really simple and also simplify the expert's testimony. One thing that is undisputed, on the original MUSP, there were 375 units maximum that could go on this site; now 1,118 units. Two issues: Toilets and cars. No one can dispute that going from 375 units to 1,118 units is going to bring City ofMiami Page 261 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 more cars, more toilets. Let's talk very quickly about the cross-examination. Cross-examination of the architect. Why did I ask him that question? I asked him that question because when you evaluate the bonus, I wanted you to know what the issues are with respect to this case. He said 800 square foot average. Mr. Cannon said 450,000 to over 800, 000, which would mean, at a minimum $500 a square foot gross with respect to these units, and so when you look at the bonuses and you add up the 300,000 in bonuses, you can figure out what you're giving in units, toilets and cars, and what you're getting in return cash, and what the developer's getting in return, and I don't think Mr. Gibbs will mind me -- will mind ifI correct him. The only analysis - - and I agree with him. Let's say it's 50 million gross -- Commissioner Winton knows, you all know, gross is not net, it's not profit, but even if it's a $12, 000, 000 profit for $2, 000, 000, people will do that all day and all night. That's a good return. Why didl askMr. Cannon about average income? And again, I agree with your City Attorney, but we're here responding. We don't know what may resonate with you so, I just have to focus. We disagree a little with Mr. Gibbs, and you're going to hear Mr. Olmedillo say this, there may be an avenue for which you can give the PUD bonus, but one of the things you need to look at is, what are the housing needs of the community, and I would suggest to you that you can't do that unless you have a study before you or some sort of an analysis that evaluates the housing needs of the community. The housing -- and you can't do that if you don't even know the income level of the prospect buyer, but we do know, and I think Mr. Cannon was able to conclude that the income level of the prospect buyer is significantly higher than the income level of the resident in the City ofMiami, the average resident, and for that, the developer is asking you for 137,000 square feet, tied into my other cross-examination for nothing. Without even coming forward with an argument, without even showing you the need, he's getting dollars, he's getting units, and you can do the math based on the cross-examination. Once again, why is that relevant? Toilets and cars. More units, more toilets, more units, more cars. Let's go to the cars. Traffic engineer. I didn't bring him up. They brought him up. Very limited cross-examination. Wouldn't an average person who's reviewing a project want to know what the impact is on whatever you want to call it, a corridor, a road, a street? I don't know what it is, but wouldn't you want to know what impact 1,118 units -- you're being asked to go from 375 to 1,118 and their traffic engineer can't even tell you what the -- or maybe he can, but he didn't put in his report the effect that that will have on Brickell Bay Drive, where people live. I asked him about 12th Terrace. Why do we care? Why does my client care? They own a building, 1221. Tenants need to get into the building. They need to get out of the building. You've been on 12th Terrace. It's not a four -lane highway. Did they care? Did they ask their traffic engineer to perform an analysis of how it would affect some of their neighbors? The answer is no, because -- and even it was disputed corridors. We're going to look at the big numbers, where the numbers work, and even then, they're telling you that it works with an "E, " and you've heard this a million times. If your kids come home from school with an "E, " it's not a good thing. Let's also talk about the future year analysis. They're assuming that this project is going to come on line 2005. That begs the imagination. Why did they do that? They say the City told them it's almost irrelevant. Who told who what? It's relevant because they know, and our traffic engineer, Mr. Joaquin Vargas from Carter and Burgess, will tell you that if you move that date out, the numbers keep getting worse and worse and worse, and those are just for the corridors. They also get worse for the local roads that they never analyzed, so let's summarize what you're going to hear. We're going to put on two expert witnesses for you. The first is your formal Planning and Zoning Director, Guillermo Olmedillo. He's going to -- and I'm going to summarize his testimony very quickly. He's going to talk to you about the affordable housing bonus. He's going to talk to you about the PUD bonus. He's particularly going to tell you why the PUD bonus is just -- it's a no-brainer. You shouldn't give it, and don't know if your City Attorney or previous City Attorneys have ever opined on this issue, but it's our firm's opinion that these bonuses are exactly what they are. Here's a developer that says, I want something, and I can tell you with respect to the PUD bonus, I cannot believe that your Code is interpreted in such a way that you can just give away -- that you have no discretion whatsoever at the very minimum on the PUD bonus and on the affordable housing bonus. You can exercise your discretion, if you think that the number of units created by the bonus is going to create impacts. I think you have every right, as the legislative City ofMiami Page 262 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 body of this community to say, we're just not going to give away square footage to a developer that will impact our neighbors. Mr. Vargas is going to very succinctly summarize what I said, which is what should have been looked at, what was looked at, and why the traffic report didn't look -- because they didn't want you to know the effect it would have had on some of the residents; whether it's in the Jade, the people that are moving in; whether it's our tenants, who move in and out; whether it's the Mellon Bank tenants, that's what you're going to hear, but at the end of the -- and Mr. Olmedillo will also tell you about sewer capacity. At the end of the day, it's about toilets and cars, 375 to 1,118. I'm going to -- I don't think we need to go through the usual qualification ofMr. Olmedillo as an expert. I assume that he is accepted as an expert. This will save time, ifMr. Olmedillo can summarize his testimony. Commissioner Winton: In high-speed talk. Guillermo Olmedillo: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Guillermo Olmedillo, 330 Greco Avenue, in Coral Gables. As Mr. Shubin pointed out, I'm going to bring three issues to your attention. One is the open space, and that begs a correction. He spoke about the housing bonus, but I'm going to speak about the open space. The open space is defined in our Code and it says, "Open space is any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved by permanent buildings and set aside dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment, or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighbors of such open spaces." The operative language here, the one that restricts where this area is to be located is the part that says, "any parcel or area of land or water." It's either dirt or water. Essentially, unimproved. When you look through the application, the application has the requirements for open space stated, and they have in the -- excuse me -- second -- in the zoning calculations that they have, they have required 24,223 square feet, provided 52, 665 feet. However, on the ground floor, there're only 20,600 square feet. Therefore, there is a shortage of 4, 000 square feet or thereabouts. Therefore, you should have been considering a variance to the open space requirements before this MUSP is approved. Then you have the zoning issue about the PUD bonus. PUD bonus was not designated to be an automatic bonus. That was not the intent of the Code. There, I must disagree with Ms. Garcia -Toledo's statement that Jack Luft was the author of 11000. As I remember, I was put in charge of that project by the then -director Sergio Rodriguez, and I was the one that attended all the public meetings, all the public hearings, and I presented the new Zoning ordinance to the City Commission. The PUD bonus has a very specific language that requires that this Commission considers -- and I'll read -- and I'll quote from the ordinance, Section 500, "It is intended for the Planned Unit Development in residential district that, in addition to other policies and limitations set out in this ordinance and the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan consideration shall be given to general housing needs of the City as a whole, housing needs in the neighborhood in which the development's proposed, and the need of particular types of housing. In such consideration, due weight shall be given to availability of existing housing supply for which there is evident need in view of age and economic characteristics of the population, and to the amount and types of potential new housing under building permits issued and plans for development." I will submit to you that the report that was submitted today or that at least we received today addresses market issues. It doesn't address needs of the City. It doesn't address needs of the neighborhood. It does not address this last paragraph that I read. The last comment that I like to make deals with more a planning issue than a zoning issue. The planning issue essentially is sewers. The sewer system is made up of two components basically, the conveyance system and the treatment plants. All of your old enough to remember that back in '92/'93, there was a moratorium of construction permits because we had a problem with our sewer system. The Brickell area, the downtown area, the Omni area are served by the Central Sewage Plant, which is in Virginia Key. If you were pulling permits at the time, you know that you couldn't pull a permit. There were heroic solutions of package plans and stuff like that that were created, and there was an agreement with DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) and the County. I went to DERM in researching for this particular meeting and I said, is there a report -- is there a study of the capacity of the sewage system for this particular area? The City ofMiami Page 263 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 answer was no, andl said, is there a problem with treatment capacity? The answer is no, andl said, is there a problem with the conveyance capacity? And they said, "Oh, yeah." How bad is the problem? "We don't know." Is it going to hit us around the corner or is it going to wait 20 - - have you made an analysis of what is being permitted onto that line? And the answer was, "There's no report. There's no study." Therefore, any time that you signed a service agreement with Water and Sewer, it says that you are subject to all the conditions of that consent decree of 1992, modified in 1993, so this Commission today does not have the tools to say we're going to issue a development order, which is going to be consistent with the master plan, because you don't have -- you don't know the impacts. The essence of a major use permit is for the Commission to consider all impacts, but if you don't know what the impacts are, you cannot address them adequately. Thank you. If you have any questions -- Commissioner Winton: We ain't about to stop all the development in the city. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Shubin: Next, Joaquin Vargas, traffic engineer from Carter and Burgess. Vicky, would you agree to at least stipulate to his qualifications? We can submit a CV (Curriculum Vitae) to save time, is that OK? We don't have it now. Well go through it. Thirty seconds, state your qualifications, give your conclusions. Commissioner Regalado: I mean -- Joaquin Vargas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Joaquin Vargas, and I am a fraffic engineer with Carter and Burgess. I am a licensed engineer in the State of Florida and also have been certified by the Institute of Transportation Engineer as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer. Very quickly, I just want to focus on two issues, the local impacts and the issue of the future analysis in the year 2005, and Commissioner Winton, I couldn't agree more with you. The roadway that's in front of our development, Brickell Bay Drive, will be the roadway that carries the majority of the frips generated by this project. There's no question about that. Now, we all drive. We know how people drive. The most logical way to get out of this area is through the signalized intersections. Now, obviously, there will be traffic filtering through the unsignalized intersections, but if you want to go south on Brickell, 12th Terrace/13th Street is the way to go. There is a light. The two most direct signals are at 8th Sfreet and Brickell Bay Drive, and 13th Sfreet and Brickell Avenue. The reason I bring the local issue as a concern is because if you look at their analyses on appendixes, yes, the intersection of Brickell Bay Drive and 8th Street is operating acceptably, except the local part of that intersection. If you look at the analysis, that section is reported at level of service F, which is unacceptable. The other intersection, which is Brickell Avenue and 13th Street, that intersection, according to the analysis, is operating at an acceptable level of service, except the local street, 12th Terrace. According to the analysis, it's level of service F. That is why we have concerns about the local street. If those streets are reported at level of service F, we need to do an analysis of those. The last point is the future year, and in their report, page 1, it says the future year analysis is the year 2005. Why do we have a concern about that? If this project is built and occupied after the year 2005, then this analysis is not valid. Now, let me just bring to your attention one issue about that on page 1, table 1, they did an analysis in the year 2003, and again in the year 2005. Both of those analysis do not include this project. It's only two-year difference, looking at existing fraffic plus the Grove. Two intersections, the most critical intersections signalize, which are the closest to this project, they degraded during those two years, from the year 2003 to the year 2005 from D to E, so it's borderline already. That is why we have that second concern, because if this project is built after 2005, once you redo this analysis, those two intersections could be degraded to an unacceptable level of service. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that you have. Commissioner Regalado: OK Any questions? Any questions, Commissioner? No questions. City ofMiami Page 264 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 OK, so now we just go into the residents of the support -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: If you want to go -- let them finish and then we'll proceed. Commissioner Regalado: I think they're done. You want to -- Mr. Shubin, you want your -- or the -- Mr. Dickman, you want -- Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, we'd prefer to follow the -- you know, go ahead and let the support for the applicant -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Dickman: -- go on, and we'll follow that. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Just go ahead, Vicky. This is really a two minutes because it's unfair to the people that are here, have been here many, many times, and members of the Commission and others projects, so I really appreciate if you can just tell us your views in two minutes, and the City Clerk will -- sorry? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Would it be less monotonous if you take one and one from each side? Commissioner Winton: No. Just monotonous. Commissioner Allen: Could you speak up, please, counsel? Mr. Maxwell: Your mike -- Commissioner Allen: What did she just -- Mr. Maxwell: Would you repeat what you just said? Commissioner Allen: What was your request? Commissioner Regalado: What she said -- I think she makes sense -- we can have one on each side and take -- Commissioner Winton: It will go faster. Double up the microphone. Commissioner Regalado: -- one and one. Would you do that in order to expedite? You don't have residents, but -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, they do. Commissioner Regalado: Tucker -- Commissioner Winton: They have one resident. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, Tucker does have resident and Mr. Dickman doesn't. What we're proposing is to do one and one, if that is possible. That way we keep the flow going. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It goes a little faster, I think, if you have one person on each podium going - Mr. Gibbs: Yeah, I was going to say -- City ofMiami Page 265 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: -- I would prefer let them make their case and we can make our case, and I think it makes -- Commissioner Winton: Well, my view is -- Mr. Gibbs: And, quite frankly, we're not going to have that many people -- Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Hold on. Commissioner Regalado: What do you want? Commissioner Winton: Load the microphones. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Commissioner Winton: It goes much faster -- Commissioner Regalado: And that is -- Commissioner Winton: -- with the microphones loaded -- Commissioner Regalado: And -- Commissioner Winton: I don't care how many you have. Unidentified Speaker: We agreed to one to one. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Unidentified Speaker: We agreed to one to one. Commissioner Regalado: And -- Mr. Gibbs: Agreed to one to one? OK. Commissioner Winton: Line them up. Commissioner Regalado: And you know, and this is -- Tucker, this is just to save time because, you know -- Mr. Gibbs: You would have saved time the other way. We were only going to have two people, but know everybody's going to go tit for tat, so OK Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Gibbs: That's your choice. Commissioner Regalado: No problem. Commissioner Winton: Now -- Commissioner Regalado: Remember, we left here at 2 a.m. last time. City ofMiami Page 266 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: And the buzzer, when is the two -minute point on the buzzer? Ms. Thompson: It gives you 30 seconds. Commissioner Regalado: It gives you a warning. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, I know, butt want them to understand it so they're hearing it, so we don't have to inter -- so it gives you a warning at 30 seconds and it buzzes twice, so your time's up. Commissioner Regalado: Hey, only one from me. OK. Donald Crissie: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Crissie: My name is Donald Crissie. I live at -- my address is 247 Manorca Avenue, Coral Gables. For the past seven years, I've been personally responsible for the construction of all of Ted Hollo's projects and, as such, I can attest, not only to his character, his integrity, but his capability as a developer. He demands excellence in his buildings and he gets it, and I would urge you to support this project. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Federico Anselmetti: My name is Federico Anselmetti. I live at 1155 Brickell Bay Drive, the Mark. Unlike the house that you spoke about not being there in 15 years, the Mark will be there well into the next century. We know we live in a high -density area. Please, do not make it any denser. I have my ocean and city view. Please keep zoning for this property as it stands today. Authorizing amazingly tonight I saw the same people that take our tax dollars in a form of grants and bonus, creating a record to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the City to get more of our taxpayers' money. I have everything in my life more creative developer that go to extreme to wrongfully, elaborate information to get what they want. Nobody even thought about my -- where my daughter is going to school. Nobody has done the calculation for elementary schools. I would like my daughter, if we live in a high -density area, to walk to school, not take a bus for half an hour. Originally, we were talking about 374 units. Now, 1,200 units, and that's it for me. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Could I -- Commissioner Regalado: Just for the record -- and I know probably what you're going to say. You know, the issue of the schools is one that concerns this City Commission so much, but that's something that we need to address to the School Board and Miami -Dade County, and actually, we will be discussing that very soon at the City Commission level because there are many, many issues around the schools system, especially the mandate to reduce the number of students in classes and all that. I don't -- Commissioner Winton: Actually, I was going to say something quite different, and that is that this testimony is supposed to be about the project. It isn't about the personality, so on this side, I don't want any attacks on the developer, and on this side, I don't think we need any testimonies about how great the developer is. It is about this project and that's all it's about. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, and this is why it's open. It's a public hearing for the residents. Go ahead, sir. City ofMiami Page 267 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Joseph Madalon: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Joseph Madalon. I have offices at 100 Southeast 2nd Street. I would like to be a resident in this project. When I moved to Miami two years ago to begin my professional career, I believed that this would be an urban environment with a skyline complete that I'd be proud of. When I come back into the bay on a boat, I see one of the most beautiful cities that's incomplete. I believe this project makes a statement, not only for the community ofMiami to be proud of but for the world. When you watch CSI Miami, and they fly over the landscape ofMiami, you're proud to be a resident here. I can't see how a City wouldn't want to put their name on the map. We brought Shaq to Miami. This to me makes me proud to be a part and I'll be proud to be a resident at Villa Magna. Thank you, gentlemen. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Is Shaq relevant here? Mr. Madalon: I'm hoping Shaq will be my neighbor. Commissioner Winton: No. He must be a little relevant. Commissioner Regalado: Hey, well -- OK Go ahead, ma'am. Vera Hochberg: Good evening. My name is Vera Hochberg. I am the president of the Mark and Brickell Association, AKA, the Mark Yacht Club on Brickell, and I -- unfortunately, I don't have a boat, butt walk to work, I take the Metromover, and I live on 1155 Brickell Bay Drive, and I would like to point to you that my unit faces the side of the building, so that's going to be my view, and right now, when I'm coming home from work in the afternoon, I have problems already crossing Brickell Bay Drive because of the traffic. The traffic is horrible. It's going to be even more horrible when we have this monster built across from us. I represent myself. I also represent the Mark on Brickell and several residents, who talk to me and who strongly oppose this building, and I really ask you, when you're ready to vote on this project, to imagine this project built in front of your homes, with thousands of people going in and out, hotels, shops and restaurants. Thank you very much. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Jerome Hollo: Good evening, Commissioners. my name is Jerome Hollo, 100 South Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. Mr. Hollo: Jerome Hollo, 100 South Biscayne Boulevard. The City, rightly so, has sought to create a urban fabric for this area. That urban fabric incorporates both residential and commercial, and really one can't live without the other. You need -- you really need both of them to thrive and really exist, and that's why even your Planning Advisory Board said, if not in this location, then where are you going to do it? You need that density to be able to attract a professional, like the gentleman who just spoke before me, and not price units out of the market so that you have a more second home people and no one really working in your downtown and empty units, so we really need to create that type of density in this area, and this is the right area to do it. In addition, we've gone, as you've heard, the extra mile, to make this a good project. We shared in the costs of changing the FEIVIA maps, which helps everyone in this area. Reduces insurance costs, and allows people to come down to the street level and enjoy retail. We have additionally shared costs in creating a bay walk. No one ever gave us the money for that, but we've done that in order to help the City connect its bay walk area throughout this city, and finally, and I think most importantly for this area, we have taken the back of the house, the mess, the noise, the garbage and we have internalized it in this building so that it won't be right outside of the enfrance of the Mark and it won't be right outside of the enfrance ofMellon Bank, so for City ofMiami Page 268 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 all these reasons, I think that this project is really what this area needs and what this area wants. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Hollo: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Marc Hickeson: Hi. I'm Marc Hickeson. I live at 1155 Brickell Bay Drive, which is the Mark, and I have moved to Miami. I was originally living in Canada, and I wanted to be in a neighborhood where I could actually walk to work or walk to the Metrorail, not having to use a car. Now, what I notice that the traffic is getting increasingly bad, and I don't foresee this getting any better, especially with the Jade, more people moving in, higher occupancy, and other large condos are being built in this area that have already been approved. Now, we have the Villa Magna, like -- although, I welcome and development, I think that this is too big of a project to -- that this infrastructure -- like the streets can accommodate, and I don't think that this will be a very safe place to walk or -- and the traffic's going to be just very horrendous, and I'd like to contribute to make this a better neighborhood, where it is safe for everyone, including pedestrians, and I don't want to be in a situation that children will get run over. That will not reflect very well to our neighborhood. Therefore, I respectfully oppose this project as it is right now, and I would like the zoning to be kept at 374 units. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Thank you, very much. Go ahead, sir. Jay Parker: Good evening, Commissioners. Jay Parker, 1201 Brickell Avenue. When I moved to Miami about ten years ago, I was disappointed by living on Brickell and seeing that the community lacked civilian services. I had to travel great distances, and I couldn't walk anywhere within reason to accommodate the needs that I had on a daily basis. Moving back to Miami after living and having the fortune of living in some very large metropolis throughout the rest of the country, I was quite pleased to find that the downtown community had in fact evolved such that you could walk to grocery stores, malls, shopping centers, restaurants, et cetera. I'm very excited about the prospect of Villa Magna because I think it only enhances the tremendous quality of downtown Miami, and will bring to the rest of the residents and the new residents that move here that incredibly exciting component of City living that this City lacked just ten years ago. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Ma'am. Lucia Lamassonne: My name is Lucia Lamassonne. I live at the Mark, and I strongly oppose the Villa Magna Project because of its size and because my expectations to living in this City were different. They won't be so good if you grant that permission. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, ma'am. Philip Goldin: My name is Philip Goldin, 9941 Southwest 22nd Street. I have many ties to the City ofMiami. I grew up and lived on 50th Sfreet, went to Kenlock Park Junior High, went to Miami Senior High; my wife went to Edison. We recently listened to Mayor Diaz say to the Wall Sfreet community that, as he was extolling the virtues of the City ofMiami, that we are on the point of greatness. One of the reasons that we are on the point of greatness is because of projects like this. We and our friends, who are now not living in the City ofMiami, have looked in other areas, such as Aventura, Miami Beach. We would like to move to projects, such as this. It has everything that we need that we want to have for the rest of our life and we then can again say that we're proud to be citizens and residents of the City ofMiami, and we would urge approval of this project. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 269 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Francisco Moreno: My name is Francisco Moreno. I live at 1155 Brickell Bay Drive, PH-204, and I moved to Miami about seven years ago and especially to the Brickell area, which -- where I've lived for four and a half years in Brickell Bay Drive. I've witnessed traffic get worse. I run bike. My wife runs a bike as well. Everyday it gets worse. I am in favor of development andl think it's going to be a beautiful addition as our neighbors for professionals like me, who have chosen to live and work in Brickell Bay Drive. However, this project is scheduled to have three times more units than it was originally approved for, and it's got commercial and hotel properties, and this is going to degrade the quality of life of those who live there. Therefore, I think it's very important that you, the Commission, consider the needs of the residents. We're looking at a building that has no setback versus a front street. Imagine if you lived in a street where they built over 40 stories with no setback in relation to the walkway across your home. The original project that was there when we moved in was a project that was very livable. This new project is not livable for young professionals like me, who may have to reconsider perhaps leaving the area. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Go ahead, sir. James Beauchamp: My name is James Beauchamp, 3916 Granada Boulevard, Coral Gables. I think the conversation from 374 units to 1,200 or 1,100 units is a function of the square footage size of those units, and I think that Mr. Hollo, having chosen to go with smaller units, is good for the people that work along Brickell Avenue and a lot of those are younger, single people, and I think it's clear that he's made a lot of efforts to create structures that will work well with the neighborhood by having two slim towers that are oriented east/west, rather than the one large building that was oriented north/south, which would detract more from the ability to view the water from Brickell Avenue. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: What's your name again? Mr. Beauchamp: Beauchamp, James Beauchamp. Commissioner Winton: Do you have some professional connection to this project? Mr. Beauchamp: Yes, we do. Commissioner Winton: Which is what? Mr. Beauchamp: I'm with Beauchamp Construction Company, who is building for Mr. Hollo the Brickell Bay Club, which is across the street from this project, and I've watched Mr. Hollo work long and hard to get this project to where it works well for the neighborhood. Commissioner Regalado: But -- I just like to say that, if anybody has a professional connection rather not come because we were trying to listen to the residents of the area. Luis Lamassonne: I'm very short. I'm Luis Lamassonne, the oldest -- Commissioner Winton: I think that's terrible. Mr. Lamassonne: -- resident of the Mark on Brickell. Commissioner Regalado: On the mike. City ofMiami Page 270 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Lamassonne: I'm opposed -- Commissioner Regalado: Luis, on the mike, mike, mike. On the mike. Commissioner Winton: You're not talking to them; you're talking to us. Commissioner Regalado: Mike. Mr. Lamassonne: I'll repeat it. I'm Luis Lamassonne, the oldest resident of the Mark on Brickell. By experience, I oppose the big project of Villa Magna for the two main reasons: Traffic and the schools. Thank you very much. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Xavier Hawley: Hi. My name is Xavier Hawley. I live in 7880 Southwest 129th Terrace. That's Pine Crest. I work in Coral Way on the roads. I drive at least one hour every day to work, and I would really think about moving into a place like Villa Magna. This is the last piece of really high -end developable condominiums. I mean, if I'm going to drive an hour, an hour and a half every day to go to work, I really don't care ifI go out of my condominium and I have to wait ten, even 15 minutes to go across the stoplight. I think I can -- if we don't do this and we don't -- let the City approve these kind of projects on an area that can be high density, I don't think -- I mean, then what's the next best thing to do? To go to Homestead and instead of driving one hour, drive two hours? So the City has to do what the purposes of the City were intended, high density on certain areas, where you have access to public transportation. You can walk to work. You can use a public transportation and avoid using the car, so I really suggest that this project's approve so people like us can move toward the downtown of the City. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Do you have a professional or personal relationship with the developer? Mr. Hawley: I do have a professional relationship, and I don't think -- what does that have anything to do -- because -- Commissioner Winton: It has a lot to do with everything -- Mr. Hawley: Because we are planning to purchase the -- Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. I'm talking. Commissioner Allen: And -- yes. Mr. Hawley: OK. Commissioner Allen: Could you expound on that, what's your relationship, professionally? Mr. Hawley: I'm a real estate broker and I sell properties for Mr. Hollo, OK -- Commissioner Winton: Now -- Mr. Hawley: -- and I buy also a lot from him. Commissioner Winton: -- Mr. City Attorney, I think this is meaningful, and I'm not happy at all, because I don't think this is the second, I think it might be the third or fourth person who has a professional or personal relationship with the developer, and I think it's absolutely inappropriate that they're testifying on behalf of a project. I don't care if they're testifying on behalf of the City ofMiami Page 271 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 developer, if that's the kind of testimony we wanted, but we're talking about the merits of a project that's supposed to be about the neighborhood, pros and cons. Commissioner Regalado: We keep asking, you know, that residents -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- would come to the podium and express their views and, you know -- I mean, the area Commissioner three times has requested that this is the way we run the meeting, and this is the way we're going to do it, so the next time that a person with a professional relationship with either one of the sides comes here, is not a resident, we will cut off the mike. Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Winton: And every -- Mr. City Attorney, is everyone under oath? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Everyone is supposed to have been sworn in, citizens and all, and with regard to Commissioner Winton's comments, I would be hard-pressed to find a difference between a general member of the public and -- Commissioner Winton: OK, fine, I'm with you. I understand what you're going to say, and so here's my requirement. I want to know -- and I'm allowed to know that. Mr. Fernandez: Sure. Commissioner Winton: -- whether or not anyone testifying has a professional or personal relationship with the developer, period? Commissioner Regalado: Just -- Mr. Fernandez: You may ask -- Commissioner Regalado: -- listen to their address. Just listen to their address. Commissioner Winton: There may not be, though, so -- my request is that everybody that's testifying on behalf of the developer is going to be required to announce whether they have a professional or personal relationship with the developer, and you're under oath. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. You're entitled to know that. However, everyone is entitled to speak. Commissioner Winton: I understand what you're saying, and so I agree completely. Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Rene Ynestroza: OK. Good evening. My name is Rene Ynestroza, and I am a resident at 1155 Brickell Bay Drive, the building called the Mark. I think you just cut my speech in half because I was actually going to request that. Commissioner Winton: Good. Mr. Ynestroza: As a Brickell resident, I oppose to the modification of this project. As stated, I don't think there's a need to point out what these individuals, who are in favor, do for a living. I don't see residents of the Brickell area actually favoring this project. What I see is people with special interests. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. City ofMiami Page 272 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Lorne Cantor: Hi. My name is Lorne Cantor. I live at 540 Brickell Key Drive, in Miami, Florida. I have a personal relationship with the developer. His son is my brother-in-law. Notwithstanding that fact, I have lived in the area for over five years. I moved to that area for a specific purpose: to live and be close to work, as well as enjoy a nice, urban, modern area, such as the one I lived in in Boston, and I've also seen my friends live in in New York. This is the kind of project that we need the City ofMiami to approve to make the urban area and their east Brickell corridor attractive to people, to young professionals who are looking for this urban lifestyle that they believe is what citizens in other cities, other major cities are receiving. I respectfully request that you approve the project. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Camilo Leiva: Good evening. My name is Camilo Leiva. I am a resident of the Mark on Brickell. What I would like to say mainly is that, obviously, we're not against the development of a building there. We are again -- we are opposing something that is oversized for that area. Obviously, the wave/trip wall is -- it's a great thing and, you know, we'll greatly take it, but it has nothing to do with what the real damage to our property is going to be, and you also cut my speech in half. If you notice, most of these people are the ones -- most of the people for it either don't live in the area, within two to three blocks at least, or simply stand just to profit for from it, and because of the size of this project, the garbage that they've internalized is only because there's no space on the outside for it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Raul Fernandez: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Raul Fernandez. I live at 4560 Southwest 68th Court Circle. I work for Beauchamp Construction Company and I've been involved with two projects with Mr. Hollo, developer of this one. That being said, before I was involved with Mr. Hollo or Beauchamp Construction, I was born and raised in the City ofMiami, and I don't understand why this project is -- you're putting up a big high-rise building between adjacent big high-rise buildings, and why somebody has a right to live on the water and two adjacent lots that are large lots, same size -- well, not same size, but tall, high-rise buildings, I got to say, I'm all for this project, as a resident ofMiami, for my whole life. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Rodrigo Leiva: Good evening. My name is Rodrigo Leiva. I live at 1155 Brickell Bay Drive. That's the Mark, and I'd like to basically voice my opinion against this project and just repeat the sentiments of some of my neighbors. About four years ago, when I purchased an apartment at the Mark, I brought into a community, into a lifestyle, and I studied and researched the purchase very well, and knew the restrictions of the development in my area. This is obviously not what I bought myself into. This is obviously going to affect my property values, and the traffic, and the general lifestyle of my building so in conclusion, I'd like to second and voice an opinion against this project and I thank you for your time. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Chad Warhaft: My name is Chad Warhaft. I do not work for the developer. I do not work for -- Commissioner Winton: Can't hear you. I can't hear you. City ofMiami Page 273 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Warhaft: My name is Chad Warhaft. I do not work for the developer. I don't have any affiliation with him. My brother actually let me know that this was happening and I am a competing developer. Commissioner Regalado: Can we know your address, sir? Commissioner Allen: Your address. Mr. Warhaft: 3250 Mary Street in Coconut Grove. Commissioner Winton: At least he's close. Mr. Warhaft: OK. All right. What I find interesting about this project, from a developer standpoint is that the project seems to have met all the criteria that was set out before them by the design review boards and by the different people within the City that they've gone to for their approvals. Having experience with the different municipalities, I see this project is visually pleasing as it creates the necessary corridors for the different views, and the reason I mention this is because I've dealt with the City ofMiami Beach, and some of their very serious concerns are corridor views, so that's one thing that I felt is very positive. The other thing I noticed as being positive is that, you know, there are some avenues that they looked at in terms of you know, what they can do to better their project;; yet, at the same time, what they can do to give back to the City, OK, and it appears to me, from what I've heard tonight, is that they're giving 18 units or 18 homes is what the other side had to say that would benefit the community. That's 18 homes for people that probably couldn't afford homes in the first place. I think that's a tremendous benefit. This is a developer who really seems to have a concern for the community and is building correctly and I don't see why this project should be stopped, being that the facts were presented tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Go ahead, ma'am. Carolina Mantilla: My name is Carolina Mantilla and I live at the Mark. I purchased my unit around three years ago, as somebody said before me knowing about the limitations of the development in that area. I strongly oppose the project. I'm a runner. I already have problems running around my neighborhood because of the other developments that are going ahead there. I don't know how horrible it's going to be when such a massive project like this starts building. I understand and I believe that beautifying the skyline can be achieved with a Jade -like structure, like the one that was approved with only 370 units, and that would like to improve the quality of life and not decrease it, as that -- it will happen with a massive building of very small units. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, ma'am. Go ahead, sir. Mark Julias: My name is Mark Julias and I live at the Mark. I do know the developer, but also know several other developers in this area, just being in real estate banking. I do approve this project. I think, with being a real estate investor myself it's only benefiting; it's increasing the overall value, looking at today's condos and what they're selling for, the values are -- they're skyrocketing and they're selling like there's no tomorrow. I would live in the Villa Magna. I'm not afraid of its size. I think it'll only enhance the area that it's in and I support it 110 percent. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead. Patricia Andrade: Hi. My name is Patricia Andrade and I live at the Mark. I ask you to look behind me. We are the people that live next door to this building. We are the community that you represent, and we are the people that are directly affected, and we are the people that are not going to get anything to gain from this building. I just want to stand up here and say that we do not want this construction. We do not want this massive thing growing up next to our City ofMiami Page 274 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 building. We do not want all the troubles that are going to come from this. That's just what I have to say. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Ricardo Dupond: Good evening. My name is Ricardo Dupond. My address is 1111 Brickell Bay Drive. I'm also next door to the project. I'm about 100 feet from the project. I am here to support the Villa Magna project. Commissioner Winton: Do you have a professional or personal relationship with the developer? Mr. Dupond: I work for Mr. Hawley's business, International Realty. I'm a licensed real estate agent. Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Mr. Dupond: I am a licensed real estate agent. I work for Mr. Hawley, which previously was here speaking. Commissioner Winton: That isn't what I asked you, though. The question is, that everyone has to answer, is whether or not you have a personal -- a professional or personal relationship with the developer? We didn't say what you do. Mr. Dupond: I sell new developments. I sell some of Tibor Hollo's developments. I also sell -- Commissioner Winton: Is there a problem with him answering this question, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Dupond: But I'm also a resident in the area. That's why I re -- and I have my free -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Dupond: I can speak. Commissioner Regalado: What is going on? Do we have a Sergeant at arms here? Commissioner Winton: Now. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney, there is a direct question. I can't get an answer. Mr. Fernandez: You -- then the record reflects that you may do with his testimony then as you deem appropriate. You've asked a question. He's answered it. If you don't accept his answer, then you are free to, in fact, disregard his testimony -- Commissioner Winton: Got it. Mr. Fernandez: -- if that's what you believe. Commissioner Winton: Got it. Mr. Dupond: Do I speak? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 275 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Dupond: OK. I'm here to support the Villa Magna project. As you heard from the experts, this beautiful and magnificent project will alleviate not only the future owners of Villa Magna, but its neighbors, and in terms of premium reduction and appreciation in value in the properties. I ask to approve this project of the important changes that we all heard tonight. As a resident of the area, I also work across the street. I run. I do exercise at night. I need also some more night life in the area. If you drive by or walk by at 8, 9 o'clock in the evening, it looks like it's 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, so we need more commercial space in the area. I'm also a young professional, wishing to live in this beautiful project, as the next door neighbor said, I don't have -- I can't afford a one $1, 000, 000 apartment at this time. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Go ahead, ma'am. Flavia Lima: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Flavia Lima. I'm a resident at the Mark, and I just recently moved to the Mark in order to decrease my commute, which is one of my concerns to the City ofMiami, which traffic is horrible at any time of the day, and one of my worries is that with the amount of residents that this project will bring, would only increase the problem in traffic in my area, the Brickell Bay Drive, which before I used to drive an hour and a half to get to the downtown area, and now it will take half an hour just to cross a couple of blocks, which the project will increase traffic, and this will further -- just translate into further disturbances to residents like myself which, right now, we're dealing with many projects, not only in our immediate property across, which we have buildings being built, but in our surroundings, so I'm just against the size and the magnitude of the Villa Magna, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, ma'am. Go ahead, sir. Jeffrey Oshinsky: My name is Jeff Oshinsky. I work at 1001 Brickell Bay Drive. I do not have a professional relationship -- well, I do know Mr. Hollo's son, Jerome. I am -- support this project. I welcome its commercial space. I think it's an important for the area, for young professionals to have places to go to eat, to walk, so on and so forth. I'm also a little confused. I've heard people say that they don't understand or they don't want a project of this magnitude in the area, but down the block from where I work, there's a Four Seasons, which is 74 towers, so I'm a little confused as to why people are now picking on this project to say it doesn't go with the surrounding areas. I'm 100 percent in support of this project. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am. Dinamara Furonato: My name is Dinamara Furonato. I live at the Mark and I am opposed this project. As you are aware, this developer has already built 1,200 units diagonally our building, the Mark. Now, he wants to build about 1,100 new units; totalizing about 2,500 units. Average of two persons per apartment, we will have about 5,000 residents. Our area's not prepared to accommodate such a massive number of residents. If this project is approved, we will live in a chaos, while this developer is going to be making millions of dollars. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. I just want to say something so everybody is aware, Mr. City Attorney. The Commission passed an ordinance, the cutting off time for sessions will be 10 p.m. if -- only if we override that, is that correct? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Winton: What did you say? Commissioner Regalado: What I'm saying is that 10 o'clock is the cut-off time for session, but we would have to override -- City ofMiami Page 276 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: OK, got it. Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, ma'am. Nelly Zamora: Good evening. Nelly Zamora, 1408 Brickell Bay Drive, and I'm here representing the six associations directly south of the proposed development area. We all belong to the Poinciana Association, which has been addressed before. We have approximately in excess of 800 units in that community. I've heard all these issues before. I have participated with each and every developer that has come into our area and understand what their issues are, because I've raised the same issues when their building was being put up, when the Oakland was being put up, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What we have chosen to do, in view of the fact that the City has moved to a high density area for that particular site, 15th and north -- toward downtown, is to work with the developers in order to bring the improvements out into the community and not only to the proposed lot area that they are developing. City does an excellent job -- City staff City boards -- in addressing the same issues that Tucker likes to bring up every meeting, PUD and all those other bonuses issues, so we reserve that issue for them to deal with. What we do is look at what impact it's going to do on the community, and what we can do to make improvements to that impact. For that reason, the Association, on its own accord and with his own financial assets have gone and participated with DOD -- with DDA (Downtown Development Authority), FDOT, and we have commitments for lights on 14th Street to facilitate the flow of traffic. This is not the only development coming up. There are others that you have already approved and will be approving further on. What we do with these developers -- and we have worked, like I said, with many of them -- is get them to invest in the community, make improvements to the community, and create the sense of neighborhood. It's not enough to develop. It's important to maintain the sense of neighborhood, and that's what we're creating. Our association and our members are the oldest members of the Brickell -- Commissioner Regalado: Time is up. Ms. Zamora: Where is the buzzer thing? Commissioner Winton: It's beeping. Ms. Zamora: Make it beep higher. Don'tI get extra time? I'm representing -- Commissioner Winton: No. Ms. Zamora: -- 800 unit owners? Commissioner Regalado: No. Commissioner Winton: No. Ms. Zamora: That's not fair. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Ms. Zamora: OK. In any event, we do favor this project and we support it, and recommend that the City approves it. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am. Commissioner Winton: Now -- excuse me, before we go further. How many of the rest of you are from the Mark? We've heard you. I mean, if you're from the Mark -- City ofMiami Page 277 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: No, we heard some of them. We heard some of them. Commissioner Winton: No, no. No, no, that's not my point. We've heard from the Mark. I don't need to hear the same thing from the people from the Mark 400 more times. Unless you have something that's very unique to offer, please, we've got a lot to do; we still have to deliberate this; we have to make some decisions, so if you have something unique to offer, would you please come forward, but if it's still the same thing, that I live in the Mark" and I don't like it, " blah, blah, blah, I've heard it. Dan Ponce: Good evening. Thank you for the great job you do for this City this late. My name is Danny Ponce with offices at 501 Brickell Key Drive, and I'm here representing the residents of Brickell Key, a total of 2,500 dwellings. I have here with me petitions from those residents, which I'd like to make part of the record, suggesting that although we're not against development, we would certainly like for you all to consider the impact of the number of dwelling and the number of parking spaces as it relates to traffic. We've heard a lot about traffic tonight. We would like you to consider the conversion of a street in order to alleviate some of this traffic problems that we have been having for years, and as you know, when that bridge goes up, traffic gets worse. That's also. I also have with me some 15 letters that have been written by the various properties on Brickell Key opposing to the project as it relates to the amount of parking spaces and the amount of automobiles that they would be putting out on Brickell Bay Drive, Southeast 8th Street, and Coral Way. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. OK Sir. Mark Haskell: Hello. I'm Mark Haskell. I live at 1155 Brickell Bay Drive, the Mark, Penthouse 207. Just -- at the encouragement of our attorney, I wanted to make only my most important point, and that was to draw your attention to an inaccuracy that was represented at the Planning Advisory Board meeting. When I spoke at that -- on that occasion, I asked the chairperson to ask the question as far as the proximity of the buildings, facade to facade. She directed the question to Mr. Llanes by way ofMs. Toledo. He answered -- paraphrasing his answer. I'm sure it's in the transcript -- that it's approximately the same distance as our facade, as to the oak wood, and I understand from Lourdes that in your packet, you have their architectural drawings that they supplied to the office, and I'm referring specifically to A9. If you'll notice, the distance between their buildings, they say is 116feet, tower to tower. They don't give the distance between ours, but it looks approximately the same. The distance of-- or the width rather of our pool deck, our amenities deck -- I measured this afternoon -- came out to 136 feet, and we have a sizable green space, actual lawn -- grass between our garage, our amenities deck and the Oakwood. That was a material misrepresentation. The only other thing, as far as their recreational area, again, speaking of grass, the only grass on their entire project are in the planter areas there on what Mr. Hollo referred to as the promenade area, which essentially is a driveway with continuous paving area between, but literally, the only blade of grass on street level are these eight small squares. Thank you very much. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. You will be the last one? Eddie Michel Fadel: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK With that gentleman, we'll close -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Rebuttal. My rebuttal. Commissioner Winton: Who are you rebutting? Mr. Fadel: Eddie Michell Fadel, 1155 Brickell Bay Drive -- City ofMiami Page 278 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: You're not rebutting the public. Mr. Fadel: -- Miami, 3313 -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. We didn't hear your name, sir. If you would repeat -- Mr. Fadel: Eddie Michel Fadel, 1155 Brickell Bay Drive, Unit 2202, Miami, Florida, 33131. I am for the 374 unit. I am against 1,118 plus -- Commissioner Winton: I've heard that. Mr. Fadel: -- 39. The reason we're all here, because we invested in the neighborhood long before Mr. Hollo or any other person. It happened last weekend, there was a festival at St. Jude Church right on Brickell Bay and where Brickell meet, and we were stuck for hours trying to get out ftom our street. Today, they continue with the festival and I came -- I left my home at 5:20. I arrive here at 6:11. I was stuck at Brickell Bay Drive. I didn't know the festival is not done. Today was the last day. I was stuck there for 36 minutes. Commissioner Winton: So -- Mr. Fadel: Before this project get approved, I'd like to see environmental impact study. I'd like to see an accurate traffic report. I do not frust the expert that were brought in front of us for simple reason: an architect, very intelligent, clever, super, great didn't know the average size of his unit, so I'd like to really see better study before you guys make your decision. I thank you for listening to me. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. For your information, the St. Jude Festival continues tomorrow, and then on Saturday, you're going to have the Dragon Boat Race on Brickell Key, so go east. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Go east, young man. I'm going to try to -- Commissioner Regalado: OK The public part of the public hearing is closed, so we go now for the rebuttal. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes, and I'd like to start out by saying that there's been some comments made about what is open space, but in an urban setting, your very Code states that a plaza is an open space, which may be improved landscape or paved, usually surrounded by buildings or streets, so this project does meet the requirements of the open space consistent with your Code. I also like to say that there's 97 letters of support on the record, and that all of the testimony that you have heard from neighbors are all from one building, with one exception. I think Mr. Zamora certainly represents 800 people in the community, and it's more of the community. In reference to Mr. Gibb, clearly, he doesn't like your Code, but as long as it's not amended and as long as it's enforced, it is the law and we all have to abide by it. As far as his reference to your City Attorney at the last hearing, I think the statement that your City Attorney was, in an over -abundance of caution, please continue so that I can have the time to look at this, and after he did his thorough review, as he has put on the record, he made the appropriate determination, and we agreed with that legal determination. As far as the issue of whether the MUSP expired or not expired, I'd like to say that this is a phase project. As all phase projects in the City of Miami, when one phase of the project obtains a building permit, the remaining phases of the project are vested, and no longer require the renewal, but having said that, even if we give Mr. Gibbs his position, I should tell you that this MUSP requesting this change was filed four months prior to the date that he's saying it expired, so obviously, it doesn't expire, but I think it's City ofMiami Page 279 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 important because this is an issue that goes to actions of staff that your staff address this issue on the record, and I hope they do so. As far as all of the FAR mumbo-jumbo, first of all, I always thoughtHr. Gibbs was an attorney and not an architect, and unless he has an architectural license, I don't think his testimony is considered substantial, competent testimony, but let me say that your staff is or are the professionals for the City and the ones that interpret that Code, and that when he raised those same issues four months ago or three months ago, the staff again, in an overabundance of caution, asked us to come in and do additional drawings for them and do a color -coded drawings and went through all those documents, and other than a slight calculation on one bonus, there was only 25,000 square feet in a design drawing. That is acceptable in a design drawing. These are not construction drawings that are required by your MUSP, so your staff can also certainly respond to that. Shoreline, we do have Shoreline approval. It came with the original MUSP. There's been absolutely no changes to the pedestal, certainly not in the rear, not to the size or anything else, so that Shoreline determination stands. As far as the concern from the neighbors, that Mr. Hollo may be planning nightclubs. I have asked him. He's not planning. Not only that, he commits on the public record that there will be no nightclubs on the site. Additional square footage, in spite of what the esteemed Mr. Shubin tells you, only allows for larger units. It doesn't allow for more units. Your unit -- Commissioner Regalado: Vicky, we're going to have to take a two -minute break. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me again. Excuse me again. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, before you begin, do we need to address that 10 o'clock issue that you brought up earlier? Commissioner Regalado: I was going to right now, Commissioner. Mr. City Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- we need to do some kind of waiver or something here? Mr. Fernandez: No, no, you don't. Let me read to you what it is that you're governed by. "The City Commission meeting shall adjourn at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p.m.," so as long as this item is being considered at 10 p.m., that means the item continues. "Unless a time extended by unanimous agreement of the members of the City Commission then present, at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. This rule does not apply to City Commission meetings for annual budget, " so in other words, to the extent that it's almost 10 o'clock, but you're still continuing to hear the same item that you have -- agenda item that you have in front of you, the 10 o'clock rule doesn't apply. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Fernandez: As soon as this item is over, then, if you want to consider another item, then you must take a vote. Commissioner Regalado: Well, we need to know this now from the members of the Commission because we do have some people here waiting on an item, whether you all want to finish this and defer the other items; whether we want to continue -- Commissioner Winton: How many more items do we have? Commissioner Regalado: We have nine. City ofMiami Page 280 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Are they tough? Commissioner Regalado: No. I hope not. Commissioner Winton: I don't mind finishing, if y'all don't. Commissioner Regalado: I don't mind finishing. I don't -- do you, Commissioner? Commissioner Allen: Fine, we can finish. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Allen: It's just going to be a marathon session. Let's go. Commissioner Winton: Everybody want to stay and share in the party? Commissioner Regalado: OK, counsel. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: To reinstate a question that was regarding Mr. Luft, I'd like the record to show that Mr. Luft, as planner for the City for 28 years, that he wrote the SD-5 Zoning Ordinance that -- zoning district that specifically this property sits on; that he wrote the Brickell Avenue Master Plan for transportation, and I'll let the rest stand on the resume that is on the record. As far as housing needs, maybe some cities need to do housing needs, but we cannot build them fast enough to meet the demand that there is for housing. As far as the tainting of the water with this technical issues about sewer or toilets, as they've been called tonight, you should know that this project, as all your MUSP projects, go through a Large Scale Development Committee. That is encompassed by 25 different governmental agencies and utilities, including WASA (Water and Sewage Authority), and that they get a set of these plans, and they are invited to come to this committee, if they have any problem, any objections, any issues, or to send in their comments, and WASA did not raise any issues whatsoever as to this project. I would also point to you that the issues of improvements to the area go with the project at the time of construction and not at the time of MUSP approval. The opposition said that -- several people said, I walk to work, I ride my bike, " and that is the urban dream. It is interesting that when people move into the area, they say, "Well, now that I can do it, no one else should come in and be able to enjoy those things that I'm enjoying." Having said that, Commissioner Winton, I would respectfully ask that you let -- if you would please, ask the members of the Mark that spoke to show -- by a show of hand, how many of them live on the south side of the Mark? Because I think what you're really going to find is that this opposition is about views, and as you know, views are not protected in the State of Florida. Thank you very much. Commissioner Allen: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Hollo: With your permission -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Hollo. Mr. Hollo: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just make a few remarks as a rebuttal. I will not abuse your time. It will be a few minutes, that's all. I wanted to answer the prime allegations of the three fine attorneys that you have had in front of you. I think that it needs to be answered. First, we were insulted with stating that we are buying for $2, 000, 000 the affordable housing bonus and we are going to make -- and we are going to get $300 a foot, which is $50, 000, 000, so we're going to make $48, 000, 000. That's what the man said. I think it's an insult to you and an insult to us. He's on record saying that. There is a cost of City ofMiami Page 281 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 construction. There is a cost of soft cost, cost of finance cost. You all know what that cost is. He also said that -- I'm talking of the first attorney, Mr. Gibbs. He has also said that we are squeezing every square foot out of this project. Nothing is further from it. We had on their report that they have submitted, and under the rules and regulations, we had the right, in fact, to get bonuses for our underground parking facility. We also had the right to get bonuses for our retail up on the pedestrian walkway. Upon the request and upon the discussion with the Department, we acquiesce to give up those bonuses, amounting to approximately 100, 000 square feet. Then maybe the last item that I'd like to say is, the Planned Unit Development bonus is an encouragement of not only housing in the area, but encouragement to have a comprehensive development. We have done a comprehensive development. We went beyond what is required to do. We have gotten the neighborhood accepted by the FEIVIA as an AE Zone, reducing by that 28 fold the cost of the flood insurance for everybody. We have complied us with the City's request that was never complied with by any developer to create retail -- pedestrian friendly retail on 12th and on Brickell Bay Drive. Because we got that FEMA approval, we were able to comply with it, so we have the retail, we have the FEMA, and we have also residential units. We have a true planned unit development and we are entitled to the bonuses because of that. Then the next item was Mr. Dickman, who has stated that after he came aboard -- we have met at several occasions the fine folks at the Mark, and the objectors were here, all from the Mark, 15 of them, because those are the back units in the Mark and they object to their views, but we met with them and we got a wish list ftom them that cost $4, 000, 000. We had responded to it. At which time, they revoked it. They already had Mr. Dickman on board. I have attempted to contact that gentleman, the bald gentleman, Mr. Federico. I left messages for him myself. I didn't have a return call because I wanted to pick up on it, what -- where we were, and next to Mr. Shubin, he's -- I already told you about the Planned Unit Development that he also has expanded on very brightly so, except it had no value to it, and the last item that he has stated and his expert stated that there's a big difference between 205 and 210 or 207. There is no big difference. This is the last developable project in that entire neighborhood, commencing from the Miami River all the way up to 15th Street, the last developable project. Everything else is being developed in that area currently, so there will be no difference between 205 or 210. Our projects is the last one, and -- Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, could ask, with all due respect to the developer, how many more points you're going to make? Because I believe this is rebuttal. Mr. Hollo: We are -- I am finished. In about -- Commissioner Allen: Just -- with all due respect. I just wanted -- Mr. Hollo: Commissioner, I'm finished in about one minute. We have expanded the public services on Brickell Bay Drive by doing what we have done, and just answering the last item that was brought up byMr. Shubin's expert, who was Mr. Olmedillo. Mr. Olmedillo was the recipient of the large-scale development plan of this project than he was in office and he has approved it. Strange that now, all of a sudden, he's now objecting to it, and I just wanted to state that there was no nobody here to object ftom the Jade those are part-time residents maybe a month out of the year, and I sympathize with the folks, the 15 folks who are here from the Mark. All the other people are not objecting to it. All the other people are not here -- as a matter of fact, you had some people here who has -- who want that project here, so I am respectfully requesting you approve our project, and I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to say this. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Allen: Chairman, could you call the question? City ofMiami Page 282 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Allen: I'm just saying. I'd like to call the question. Defer to Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Regalado: Let me just make sure that we're going to close the public hearing here. Mr. City Attorney, I think -- I guess everything is said and done. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: So we're closing officially the public hearing. Mr. Fernandez: But my -- Mr. Chairman, my suggestion is that while the public hearing is prior to you going into deliberation, that if you have any questions of staff, that you ask it at this time; have staff answer whatever questions you have, but certainly you can declare the public's input portion of the public hearing closed. Commissioner Regalado: We are declaring the public's input portion of the public hearing closed, and if -- Commissioner Winton, Commissioner Allen. I don't have any questions of the staff. Commissioner Winton: You didn't have a question? Commissioner Allen: No. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton, it's your district. You want to -- Commissioner Winton: There's three attorneys. What are the properties again that you all are representing? I want to understand that. Mr. Fernandez: Again, Mr. Chairman, if you have declared closed -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Then I'm going to ask -- Mr. Fernandez: -- the public -- Commissioner Winton: I'm going to ask you the question. Who do these attorneys represent? Mr. Fernandez: They represent the -- their clients, whoever their clients may be. Commissioner Winton: That's what -- that's my question. Who are the clients -- Commissioner Regalado: He wants to know the buildings. Commissioner Winton: -- that are represented here? Commissioner Regalado: Well, go through the Chair. Mr. Fernandez: The Clerk should have on the record. If these gentlemen are attorneys and are making appearances on behalf of someone, the Clerk must have taken their names because they are then registered as, in fact, lobbyists for the City, but I would beg you not to open up the floor to any member of the public, and these gentlemen, though they be attorneys, they're still members of the public. City ofMiami Page 283 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: OK One second, one second, one second, one second. Commissioner Winton: Well, it's just going to take me three times as damn long to get the answer. I mean -- Mr. Fernandez: No. She has it ready. Commissioner Winton: -- I don't get that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Mr. Fernandez: She can read it very quickly for you. Commissioner Regalado: OK City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Mr. Shubin is representing Investment Properties, Brickell Marketplace, and these entities -- Mr. Shubin: Wrong hearing. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Mr. Shubin: That's the wrong hearing. 1221 Brickell. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. OK. Commissioner Regalado: What do you mean, wrong hearing? Oh, OK, OK, because it's -- she's looking at -- Ms. Thompson: Wrong sheet. You're right. Sorry about that. Mr. Shubin is listed Brickell Equities Corporation Limited, is that correct? And that's the opposition to the MUSP, right? Mr. Shubin: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: And Mr. Dickman Mr. Fernandez: City Commission may choose to, for the purpose of this question, reopen the public input portion of the public hearing. Commissioner Winton: And that's all I want to hear. Mr. Fernandez: There you go, so it's so declared and then get the three statements. Commissioner Regalado: OK, OK. Mr. Gibbs: For the sole purpose of saying who my client is, I have a list of 15. I put on the record 15 owners of the Jade and 1111 Brickell Avenue. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Next. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 284 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Dickman: I'm representing Mark Yacht Club Condominium Association. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Next. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: Mr. Shubin, who do you represent? Commissioner Regalado: That's it. Commissioner Winton: 1221 Brickell. Commissioner Regalado: 1221 Brickell. OK That's it. We are going to close again the -- Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: -- public hearing. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I have a number of things to say, one to the folks in opposition, just so you're crystal clear, view corridors are not protected, end of story. They're not protected. I don't care where you are in the greater downtown area, you're always at risk if there's something next to you. I don't care if it's a 10-story or a 20-story building today. If the Code allows 100-story building, 100-story building can come right next to you, so buyer beware. View corridors aren't protected, and so I'm not focused on view corridors, at all. I don't care whose view corridor gets messed up, C'est la vie. That's the way it works, but I think there's some very significant issues here, and I think it relates almost exclusively to Brickell Bay Drive and density, and I am not in support at all of the density of this project. I think taking this thing from the original MUSP that had 375 units to 1,100 is not going to be good for the neighborhood, good for us from a public policy standpoint, and I don't think it fits, and to Mr. Hollo. I bet I've heard 50 -- 75 MUSPs -- I'm not asking you a question. I've heard 50 to 75 MUSPs since I've been elected, and I understand the issue related to people bringing their friends because neighbors bring their friends all the time. You're kidding me. They're always bringing their friends, but I've never sat through a hearing where the developer brought their people who work for them to these hearings, andl know that our City Attorney says that's OK because everybody's allowed to talk, but I could tell you, from my viewpoint, I thought that was not appropriate, and we're going to have -- and I'm going to make one final point on the record because I've heard this now -- I heard it in this presentation and I heard it fi^om Marty Margolis, and that's related to the bay walk and any single project that got public sector financing to build the bay walk, and Commissioner Allen, you haven't -- you weren't here when we did this, but the project One Miami received $4, 000, 000 out of our neighborhood bond proceeds, out of District 2 stuff to build the bay walk that's going to be a spectacular bay walk at the mouth of the river in the core of downtown, and we did that at a time when there hadn't been a building built in the core of Miami since 1986, so we had gone 18 years with not a single building built in the core, and the reason that we provided funding to do the bay walk -- and it's the only project, by the way, that we provided any funding to out of all the developers who are building on the water -- and the whole purpose of that was to stimulate development in the core, which we hadn't had for 18 years, and I've heard a number of people say, "You know, I'm putting in my own bay walk." There's some other people -- not just here, but putting in -- we're putting in the bay -- they're required to put in the bay walk. That's a requirement of development on the water, that the bay walk goes in. It isn't a choice. It's a requirement, and on that one project, we put public funding in to make that happen to stimulate economic development. Last point, and that's just to clarify the record as it relates to that. In these projects where there is significant opposition -- and there is significant opposition here. It isn't just the people from the Mark; it's a whole bunch of folk that are opposed to this project -- I don't have -- personally, I don't care about the height. I don't know ifI particularly care whether the building goes this way or this way or what it is, but City ofMiami Page 285 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 I think density is the major issue here, and we're providing bonuses that aren't provided as right; they're provided as a public policy to generate something, and I think providing those bonuses to create this kind of density in that corner of South Bayshore, which is going to be an absolute mess that we're going to have to deal with -- the calls are going to come to us, not somebody else - - I think makes this project unworkable, and I think we have two choices: One, we could vote tonight -- and we've done this every single time when there's significant opposition. We got two choices: We could vote tonight to make very substantial changes -- and I have some ideas on what I would do -- or, as we've done in the past with 80 percent, 70 percent of the major projects that have come before us, we could continue this. We could put an end to any further public input, public -- the City Attorney hasn't a different term than I'm used to, so I've got to -- I'm talking about the public -- you know, the public, public, not the developing and legal team -- and send them back into the community, negotiate with the community and come back with a better project. That's an option, and we've used it very successfully many times, or the other is, we could make some decisions tonight, and Mr. New City Attorney, what we've done in the past, whether it's right or wrong -- and so you can help me here, and I'm willing to follow your advice - - we've given the developer the option of which one of those two routes we'll go. Yes, and so -- Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. In this case, as per the applicant's attorney's initial argument at the beginning of this application, where she deems that this Commission has already had more hearings than it should have had, notwithstanding the fact that I don't think she's correct, this is however the second and final hearing, and so at this hearing, the only two options you have is to approve, deny -- actually, you have a third option. You have the option, if you choose to approve, approve with modifications of your own, so you have approve, as presented, approve with modifications, as you deem appropriate, or outright deny. You do not have the options of continuing it. If you do -- let me put it this way. Yes, you do have that option also, but if you do, in essence then, what becomes the law, what becomes the applicable function that they can then pull permits on is what is recommended to you by staff. Commissioner Winton: I got confused on that last one. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I got a little confused. Are you saying we have a fourth option, which is continuance -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. You may -- by choosing not to take action tonight, you may in fact -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: No, I didn't understand that last piece. Commissioner Regalado: OK What -- Commissioner Winton: Clarify. Commissioner Regalado: I guess that what the City Attorney -- Mr. City Attorney, would you repeat that for Commissioner Winton? The options, the options that we have. Mr. Fernandez: The options are, you may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or do nothing. If you do nothing -- if you continue it -- and being doing nothing, I mean you continue - - then, in essence, what happens is that the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board and your staff then become final, and that becomes the MUSP. Commissioner Winton: Well, that isn't the option I'm seeking. City ofMiami Page 286 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Fernandez: But it's still your choice. I want to make sure you know that. If there is a motion that has a second that passes -- and by the way, any motion that passes has to be the three of you, so it means that there needs to be unanimity in whatever decision you make, given that you're a three -member Commission tonight. Commissioner Winton: Well, let me ask you this -- let me get at this one more time then, and you can help me here -- and we've done this very, very successfully. Every single time we've sent a developer, where there's been a lot of controversy back to the table -- I don't care what all the attorneys said in round one. They all say the same thing every time, oh, blah, blah, blah, blah. I can't do it, I can't do it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Every single time. Send them back. What gets negotiated is a project that everybody seems to be willing to accept 98 percent of the time. I would rather do that kind of thing than us make the decision about something that's still may not -- where the two parties could have negotiated a better deal than we're going to decide from here. Mr. Fernandez: And -- Commissioner Regalado: And you cannot do that. Commissioner Winton: And you're saying we can't do that? Mr. Fernandez: You cannot do that, sir. Commissioner Winton: And the reason we can't is what? Mr. Fernandez: Because you have -- as part of your ordinance, a section that reads like this: "Upon the transmittal of recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board to the City Commission, the Commission may take such action as is appropriate in the matter, provided if the Commission has not acted after two regular meetings of the Commission have been held. Following receipt of the application for change, the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Building and Zoning shall be deemed to have been approved." Now, in none -- in no other action that you take, be it a rezone, a special exception, any of the other land use items that come in front of you, even a MUSP. When you're considering a MUSP in its initial application, you can do what you're suggesting. However, this is a major -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, oh, a modification. Mr. Fernandez: -- modification to a MUSP that has that limitation, and that -- you need to be governed by this. Commissioner Winton: Then my motion is to -- Mr. Hollo: Could you open the public hearing for one second? Commissioner Winton: I don't -- Mr. City -- I -- Mr. Fernandez: Well, Mr. Chairman, the public portion of the hearing -- Commissioner Regalado: Look, it's closed. Mr. Fernandez: -- has been closed. City ofMiami Page 287 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Look, I don't know what you want to say, but if -- you -- are you going to do -- Commissioner Winton: What may be happening here is the developer may be offering some sort of suggestion -- Commissioner Regalado: Right, and -- Commissioner Winton: -- or solution -- Commissioner Regalado: -- that is why I am -- I'm hesitant not to open the public hearing, so if you want to accept that, I'll reopen the public hearing to hear -- Commissioner Winton: For one comment from one person only. Commissioner Regalado: One comment. Commissioner Winton: Not from --. Commissioner Allen: But, Mr. Chairman, does that require a response? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Or would they be entitled to a response? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, absolutely. I was going to say that. It would require a response, so one comment, one response, we'll close the public hearing again, and Commission will debate. Commissioner Winton: OK, fine. Mr. Hollo: My comment doesn't need a response. Inasmuch as we have gone to all the three attorneys already and sat down to the table, it was futile. I'm asking you, the Commission, what would you like to see? What should I do? What would you see as an acceptable -- Commissioner Winton: OK, fine. Mr. Hollo: Tell us, please. Commissioner Winton: I will. I got it. OK. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Gibbs: Our response to that? Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: Our response is very simple. If you deny it and send it back -- Commissioner Winton: No, no, no. He didn't ask you -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Gibbs: -- we can do that. City ofMiami Page 288 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: He did not ask you a question. Commissioner Regalado: He's asking him -- Commissioner Winton: He's asking me the question -- Commissioner Regalado: I mean, do you want to -- Commissioner Winton: -- not you a question, so -- Commissioner Regalado: Do you want to -- Commissioner Winton: -- if you have some appropriate -- Mr. Gibbs: I thought that was a -- Commissioner Winton: There's some -- he is not asking you a question. I don't want to hear the answer from you. Mr. Gibbs: Oh, OK. Commissioner Regalado: OK Look, close the public hearing again. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: And that's it. Commissioner Winton: Here's my -- my recommendation is to not to deny but to approve, with a significant modification, and the modification is to deny both the affordable housing and the PUD bonuses. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Allen: OK. Commissioner Regalado: We have a motion -- Commissioner Allen: To -- Commissioner Regalado: -- to -- a resolution to approve the Villa Magna project, but without -- it doesn't say anything here. How can we do that? Commissioner Winton: They're all huddling -- Commissioner Allen: IfI may, Mr. Chairman, are you -- Commissioner Winton: They're all huddling over there. Commissioner Allen: I believe the Commissioner's motion was to approve with specific conditions that had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Department. Ms. Slazyk: With the additional condition that -- Commissioner Allen: In addition, so a modification -- City ofMiami Page 289 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Commissioner Allen: -- of these specific conditions that the Planning and Zoning -- Commissioner Winton: That is correct. Commissioner Allen: -- has recommended. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK, so these are not -- Commissioner Winton: That is correct. Commissioner Regalado: See, these are not the recommended approval with conditions. Ms. Slazyk: No. Commissioner Regalado: These are additional conditions. Commissioner Winton: That is correct. Ms. Slazyk: Right. The City Commission has the option to approve as presented -- Commissioner Regalado: OK, OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- deny or modify, and what you're -- Commissioner Winton: And so -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Ms. Slazyk: -- doing is modifying it. Commissioner Allen: Modify, right. Commissioner Regalado: Additional condition. Commissioner Winton: So my motion is to approve with conditions recommended by staff and the two additional conditions, which I'm putting on here, which is to deny both the bonus for PUD and the bonus for affordable housing. Ms. Slazyk: I just need to ask one clarification. Commissioner Regalado: OK One second, one second. Commissioner Allen: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Do we have a second -- Commissioner Allen: Motion --I second. Commissioner Regalado: -- for discussion? Would you second? Commissioner Allen: Second, yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK Discussion. Go ahead. City ofMiami Page 290 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: My one question is obviously, that's going to be significant difference in the design, which -- do you want to include a condition that the design modifications have to come back to this Commission -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: -- or subject to a review and approval by the Planning Director? Commissioner Winton: No, no. They have to -- Ms. Slazyk: Back to this -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: So you're approving with those conditions, which really, in essence, just for the record, is a third condition that you're adding that such modified design come back to the City Commission for -- Mr. Fernandez: May I -- Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, I think we need a clarification from the City Attorney on this issue. Mr. Fernandez: No, nothing can come back to this City Commission, ma'am, so if the conditions that the Commissioner is making as part of his motion, it is your testimony that they're not workable, then you need to tell the Commissioner that his recommendations won't work, and that he doesn't have the option to modify it in that fashion, and then see what he says. Ms. Slazyk: Well, if the modifications don't result in footprint changes, then they are workable, but if they begin to modify footprints of buildings beyond the substantial modification threshold, then they would have to come back, so it all depends how they modify it. There is a way that staff can review the modifications, if it's just reducing height. If it's the same building, just shorter, we can do that. If you want them to completely redesign it, then it's a denial. Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't know the -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: I think -- I would suspect -- they're going to want to redesign it. Commissioner Regalado: OK Ms. Slazyk: We don't know that. Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait. Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't have any idea. Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Commissioner Winton has a motion, second by Commissioner Allen. The motion is clear now. We have a request from the applicant to re -- do you want to respond to the motion? Mr. Hollo: Yes, please. City ofMiami Page 291 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Fernandez: Open the public hearing. Commissioner Allen: Well -- yeah. Commissioner Regalado: And we'll open the public hearing and you will be able to respond, OK. Mr. Hollo: Honorable Commission, all what we have heard here is density, not the size of the building. Commissioner Winton: No, no, no, no. Commissioner Allen: No. It -- Commissioner Winton: Tibor, you either -- you're going -- you have to respond very directly to what I've said. Mr. Hollo: Yes. Commissioner Winton: I don't want to hear a pitch about something else or any of that. It is that works or it doesn't, or something to that effect. Mr. Hollo: It does not work. The density, we are willing to listen to you on the density, which is the objection of everybody. Commissioner Winton: That's correct. Mr. Hollo: Not the square footage, but the densities objection, and I'm willing to pay the $2, 000, 000, and I'll willing to pay all those things. The density was the question, not the square foot. Commissioner Winton: And by the way, that is absolutely my point. It is not square footage; it's density. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: It is -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. -- Commissioner Winton: So you guys can help me with this. My issue is not about square footage. It is about density. Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait. He was asking his staff-- one second, one second, one second. Anybody? Ms. Slazyk: If you're eliminating bonuses, what you're eliminating is FAR, OK, and if what you want is a reduced number of units, then I -- you know, you would have to make that the condition, not to exceed "X" amount of units. Commissioner Winton: Oh, interesting, so I could do that. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. City ofMiami Page 292 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: I guess he gets one shot since he got one shot, is that correct? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Shubin: I think there's another option, which is a denial without prejudice to the applicant coming back with a project, and it can be done on a -- Commissioner Regalado: That wasn't the motion of -- Mr. Shubin: No, no. Commissioner Regalado: -- Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: No, I'm interested in -- this is new territory here. Mr. Shubin: OK. Commissioner Winton: We've never done this. Mr. Shubin: Because -- Commissioner Winton: And I'm interested in figuring out how -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Shubin: There have been some very specific comments and sometimes it's hard, when you have a meat cleaver to separate FAR -- Commissioner Winton: Right, right. Mr. Shubin: -- from density, and that's clearly what the Commissioner is exploring and wants to deal with. You -- the Commission can make its sentiment very clear, deny without prejudice and I'd like to hear whether it's possible, but -- and then the developer can take your words, interpret them, and come back again on a fast track, but with a new modification so you don't implicate the issues that are raised by your City Attorney. Commissioner Winton: And we don't make them go back through -- start over from ground one. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Can't do that. Mr. Shubin: That you need -- Ms. Slazyk: At a minimum, they do have to go back to PAB, but not necessarily the other review boards. Commissioner Allen: Could we have the City Attorney to opine on that? Madam Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- you're -- they've had their response; you've had yours, so let's -- Mr. Chair, could we hear from the City Attorney, please? Commissioner Regalado: OK City ofMiami Page 293 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: If -- denial without prejudice means that whether this Commission has the option of waiving that one-year period that they have to observe after being denied, yes, the Commission can waive that time period, and they can restart the process at whatever way or at whatever juncture staff determines that they need to go through. Commissioner Winton: Well, then that means then, if we deny with prejudice, we get to look at the project again. Mr. Fernandez: Without -- Commissioner Allen: Without -- Mr. Fernandez: -- prejudice for them -- well, but it would require a separate action. It would require for you to deny it -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and then for you also to make a motion to waive the -- Commissioner Winton: Right, which we would be willing to do. Mr. Fernandez: That's right, but then it would be a denial. Commissioner Winton: Huh? Mr. Fernandez: The project will be -- the MUSP -- Commissioner Winton: No, I know. Mr. Fernandez: -- as it is in front of you will be denied. Commissioner Winton: Yes. However, that denial means that we can set a mechanism in place that can fast -track this -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No. Commissioner Winton: -- the re -worked deal -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no fast track. It has to go through the -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. It only has to go to PAB. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No. Commissioner Winton: I just heard that. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No, no. Commissioner Winton: Hello, Lourdes -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No. Commissioner Winton: -- did you not say that the only place this has to go is to PAB? Ms. Slazyk: The Planning Advisory Board is the only mandatory place it has to go. The UDRB City ofMiami Page 294 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 and Large -Scale are referrals from the Planning Director, and if they technically don't change the -- if entrances and exits and locations of certain things don't change, then they don't have to go back through technical review. Commissioner Regalado: Look, look -- that's it, that's it, that's it. Commissioner Winton has a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allen, unless Commissioner Winton wants to change the motion. You guys want to vote on it or you want to explore other -- Commissioner Winton: Listen, this isn't simple and there's a lot of time and a lot of money at risk and on the table here, and I'm trying to -- I'm not trying to kill the developer, but I'm frying to meet a couple of standard, and the standards are going to be related to density. I don't -- number of units. I don't care about square footage. I care about density, because that's the big issue, and however, what scares me about where we're going here -- and you guys will help me with this -- I do care about what the project looks like, and Tibor, with all due respect, you just did a new project in Brickell that's under construction right now. That garage is the most god -awful thing I've ever seen in my life. (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Winton: Hey, hey, hey. Commissioner Regalado: Hey. No, no, no, no, no, no. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me, and I'm not trying to insult you, but that is -- I'm just in shock that we approved it, and so I'm nervous about doing something here where we get another project back and it just flies through and we end up with some things where we have created a standard for every other developer out there over the course of the last six months that's been very, very specific in terms of how you freat the street, the sidewalks and the visual look that's around you, so -- Commissioner Regalado: Johnny, but you have another option -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- which the City Attorney said, you can modify here, right now, the project as it is in terms of density. If it's -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- if it's your concern, you can modify here density, and if you have the three votes, they have to -- Mr. Fernandez: And by density, it means reduce the number of units. Commissioner Regalado: Reduce the number of units. Ms. Slazyk: Reduce the number of units. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: And leave everything else as the same place? Ms. Slazyk: Architecturally -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. City ofMiami Page 295 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: -- that the liners remain, the ground floor retail remain, the FAR -- you know, you just reduce the number of units, and it's basically granting the bonuses, but the density won't be there because height and -- as you said, isn't an issue for you; it's the density, so you could approve with a condition that they eliminate 200 units, you know, whatever you find -- Commissioner Winton: No. If you remove both of those elements, you're going to remove -- you're going to reduce density by like 330 units and that's where I want to be, so that's going to be seven hundred and some units, as opposed to 1,100 units or whatever the math is. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: And that's what I want to do, so that's -- so, I guess -- do I need to modify my motion? Commissioner Allen: I -- Commissioner Regalado: No. You have a motion. The motion -- Commissioner Allen: You have a motion -- I believe your motion was -- Commissioner Winton: To pull the bonuses -- Commissioner Allen: -- currently to approve with the current standards and to modify, correct? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Modifications. Mr. Fernandez: The motion needs to be modified. The motion, as made and seconded, meant to eliminate the bonuses. Ms. Slazyk: Bonus FAR. Mr. Fernandez: And then -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- the -- if you need -- what you're talking about now is to leave the bonus language in, but just directly modify it by reducing the number of units, and then the computation will be made so that the FAR is computed on a different ratio; is that correct, Ms. Slazyk? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but he needs to -- Ms. Slazyk: That's not -- Commissioner Regalado: -- have a number -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, that we need what the approximate number -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Regalado: Because he cannot just say reduce the units because, you know, that -- this is final and he needs to -- City ofMiami Page 296 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. I think what he's frying to do is mathematically figure out how much -- how many units that extra FAR equates to -- Commissioner Winton: I already know that, three -- Commissioner Allen: Is that -- Ms. Slazyk: -- which he -- was 300 -- Commissioner Winton: -- it was 331 units. Ms. Slazyk: 331, so -- Commissioner Winton: I figured that out earlier, so that -- and if you go from 1,118 and reduce it to 331, you've got 787 units. Ms. Slazyk: As the reduction. Mr. Hollo: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Regalado: You wish -- Mr. Hollo: Yes, I wish -- Commissioner Winton: Can I hear a question? Mr. Hollo: I mean, this is -- Commissioner Winton: I mean, this is -- and the only -- Commissioner Allen: The public --I think the City Attorney said the public hearing is closed. Mr. Fernandez: It is, unless the Chair and the City Commissioners -- Commissioner Regalado: Look -- Mr. Fernandez: -- consent to opening. Commissioner Regalado: -- Commissioner Winton, do you want to listen -- look, this is very important, and the area Commissioner needs to -- Commissioner Winton: Very complex. Commissioner Regalado: -- needs to -- Mr. Fernandez: Reopen. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: So I'm reopening the -- Unidentified Speaker: Question. Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait. I'm reopening the public hearing. Mr. Hollo, do you City ofMiami Page 297 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 wish to ask a question to Mr. Hollo? Mr. Hollo: I respectfully ask you to respond to the people what they wanted, reduction of the units, but do not take our FAR away. We need our FAR to make nice -- good, nice -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm confused. Didn't my modified motion say that the square footage stays the same, but I'm reducing it by 331units? Mr. Hollo: That's correct. Commissioner Winton: Isn't that correct? Mr. Hollo: Correct. Commissioner Winton: Isn't that what you just asked me for? Mr. Hollo: Yes. Commissioner Winton: OK, so we're done, so -- Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: -- my motion is -- Commissioner Regalado: Public hearing is closed. Motion to approve with -- Commissioner Winton: With -- Commissioner Regalado: -- condition -- Commissioner Winton: -- conditions of staff -- Commissioner Regalado: -- additional condition. Commissioner Winton: And a reduction in density of 331 units -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- which takes us from 1,118 to 787 -- Commissioner Allen: 87. Commissioner Winton: -- units. Commissioner Regalado: OK We have a motion -- Ms. Slazyk: Got it. Commissioner Regalado: -- and we have a second. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Regalado: This is a resolution. Madam City Clerk, roll call. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman -- City ofMiami Page 298 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, hold one second. Commissioner Allen: --I think the City Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Could you give me one minute, please -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- before you take a vote? Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: So -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Anything you have to say? Mr. Fernandez: No. It's a proper motion and you're ready to call for the vote, if you choose. Commissioner Regalado: OK Roll call. Mr. Hollo: What's the motion? Commissioner Regalado: The motion is your bonus stay but you have to reduce 331 units. Commissioner Allen: Right, to 787 units. Commissioner Regalado: 700 and whatever. Commissioner Allen: 787 units. Commissioner Winton: I put it in my motion, from 1,118 to 787. Commissioner Allen: 87. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Unidentified Speaker: With parking proportional? Commissioner Winton: What? Unidentified Speaker: With parking proportional? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: You guys -- we can't talk about this anymore. Commissioner Regalado: OK Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. The resolution is passed 3/0. City ofMiami Page 299 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Fernandez: That resolution passes. Mr. Hollo: Thank you very much, Commissioners. City ofMiami Page 300 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA DISTRICT 3 CHAIRMAN JOE SANCHEZ SI.1 04-01210 DISCUSSION ITEM District 3- Chair MR. SAEED FATEMIAN, DIRECTOR OF THE IRANIAN FESTIVAL OF Joe Sanchez SOUTH FLORIDA TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION CONCERNING AN EVENT TO BE HELD AT THE BAYFRONT PARK ON NOVEMBER 13, 2004. 04-01210-cover memo.pdf WITHDRAWN Item SI.I was withdrawn by Chairman Sanchez. Commissioner Regalado: The other item, Mr. Chairman, is one placed in the supplemental agenda. It's a discussion concerning a proposal to increase the City ofMiami budget -- I should say the City ofMiami reserves. I spoke about this with the Mayor yesterday, also with the Budget Director and the adminisfration and, of course, the City Attorney, and it's very simple and I'll be brief and I wanted to explain it to you all to see if you think that this is worth considering. Remember, several months ago, that the City Commission approved a motion to support a deal of tarmac with the 1,800 acres in West Dade, lifting the deed resfriction of -- to that land in exchange of $2, 000, 000, plus the lifting of the deed resfriction of the marine stadium. The City Commission did approve that. It went to the County; it was deferred for three consecutive times, and now the manager -- the County Manager has decided to pull that item and kill that deal, and the County has to go to bid in order to -- for the mining of that area. The media reported that several companies were very interested in that, and the amount expressed in the media jumped from $70, 000, 000 to $ 1 79,000,000 in one case. The City Attorney -- Commissioner Winton: From what to what? Commissioner Regalado: From $70, 000, 000 -- Commissioner Winton: 7-0? Commissioner Regalado: 7-0 -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- to $ 1 79,000,000, and on that deal, the $70, 000, 000, the City was going to get $2, 000, 000. The City Attorney researched a question that posed to him, and he has issued this opinion regarding the disposition of interest in real property. My proposal to the administration and to the City Commission to consider -- and this is legal. This is quick; this is fast; this is clean. -- is to put to bid the deed resfriction that the City ofMiami has on the 1,800 acres under the term of disposition of interest in real property. There is no need for a vote here because I cannot speak to you all. I did spoke to the administration and to the Mayor and, of course, several times to the City Attorney, and this can be done. This has been done in the past, and we should say that if the City Commission and the adminisfration decides to put to bid this deed restriction, independently of the bid in the County, we should start with a figure of $25, 000, 000, which is the -- approximately amount that the City may get, or could get maybe more, and that this money will go directly into the reserves so, next year, Johnny won't have to worry about it, and we won't have to worry it, dipping into the reserves, so, Mr. City Attorney, City ofMiami Page 301 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 just briefly, maybe you can explain to our colleagues what we could do on this. Yes, sir. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yeah. Simply, what we looked at was the different ways that the City has of disposing interest in land. For lease or outright disposition of a fee simple interest, the Charter and the Code provides a means to do that. However, the issue that Commissioner Regalado raised deals with the reversionary interest, which is a different type of interest that is contemplated by the other more common, more used portion of our Charter and Code. A reversionary interest is an interest that is not certain, and therefore, the disposition of that, how that gets disposed would be through another process established in the Code. I don't have the copy of the short legal opinion that was prepared so that I could, perhaps, refresh my recollection and read from it but, in essence, that's the tone of it. The disposition of that reversionary interest that we have can be accomplished by going to bids, exactly, which is Chapter 18 of the Code, which is more liberal than those sections contained on 29-B of the Charter, and then, you know, you require the appraisals, and you proceed then to bid them out, pursuant to, of course, the information that you obtain in the appraisal, given the tentative nature of the interest that the City retains on those lands. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, you're recognized. Commissioner Winton: Conceptually, the idea sounds very intriguing because filling up our coffers is a great thing. Here's what I don't understand, Mr. City Attorney. We have lands in the City -- I know there were some on -- I think -- believe on Watson Island. Obviously, there's some on Virginia Key that -- where the County -- there may be some around here, where the County has donated land, deed restricted it; has reversionary clauses in it. Could the County then sell -- if they decided, they could sell the reversionary rights to -- let's say that City Hall sat on such a thing. Could they sell the reversionary rights to the land underneath City Hall in the same way we're thinking about doing this? I don't understand how this works at all. It's a -- Mr. Fernandez: The -- Commissioner Winton: -- mystery to me. Mr. Fernandez: -- reversionary interests are triggered upon a condition certain, and the condition is when these lands no longer are used for the purpose for which the deed was issued. That's what triggers then the reversionary interest, and the value -- that's why it's very speculative -- the value of an interest that doesn't ripen at a given time. When you're given a life estate, for example, that's a different type of interest because -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- life -- you know, the -- Commissioner Winton: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- period of life, and then, therefore, you can predict, upon the death of that person -- Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Mr. Fernandez: -- what will happen, but the use of a piece of land is something different. In direct response to your question, if the County had a reversionary interest over the land in which City Hall sits, they -- and it was originally deeded to the City for purposes of government or a city hall, or that type of thing, as long as it's being used for that purpose, the County has no City ofMiami Page 302 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 value in that reversionary interest. If the City then turns this into a totally different use, at that point in time, the reversionary interest triggers, and then, yes, the answer then is yes. Then they could sell or they could do something with that reversionary interest. Commissioner Winton: OK, so the two real examples would be some of the land on Watson Island and, certainly, the Marine Stadium land; they could do the same thing then to us. They're -- is that correct? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Commissioner -- yeah -- let me explain something to you. Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Manager. Mr. Arriola: The issue here is, if the County decides to take this to bid, which it looks that way, the position of the administration is, let them take it out to bid. They cannot get the mineral -- we have mineral the rights -- reversion of the mineral rights on it. They cannot mine it without our OK on it, so the issue here is, do you want to sell that right? What is that right worth right now? Because somebody can come in, buy that right, and then the bidding process at the County is over. They don't get any money for this thing because you can't go anywhere, so the County -- it doesn't mean anything to the County to sell it, so they don't sell it and, you know, I mean, people are not kind of foolish out there to think that this -- the right process would be: Let the County go through the bidding process. Let them get, I hope, $1, 000, 000, 000. They can't do anything with that money without coming and sharing it with us. Commissioner Winton: Because we own the mineral rights. Mr. Arriola: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Arriola: So the best process is, let them go through the process. We're going to sit in the background, and then, when they finish the process, we'll sit here and we'll say, what's in it for us, and you guys could decide what our share of the pot is. By going in the reverse way, I don't think we'll get that kind of money, number one, and number two, we are really preventing the County from maximizing that asset. The best way is, let them maximize that asset. Let them get as much as they can for it, and then, whether it's the guy that bought it or the County, or whatever, they can't do it without us. You know, we're kind of -- we're like the lock of the house so, you know, let them go through the process, and let us sit down then with them and negotiate the best deal we can. Commissioner Winton: Then following Commissioner Regalado's train of thought here, that seems to make some sense if we're sure the County is going to go through a legitimate bidding process that's going to then -- Arriola: They have to now. Commissioner Winton: -- get the highest bidder, then that fits more in tune -- Mr. Arriola: Yeah, and you know -- Commissioner Winton: -- with what Commissioner Regalado -- Mr. Arriola: -- and I am excited, by the way, that Commissioner Regalado is suggesting that we put this in the reserve. I love you for that because we really need to put that money in the reserves, and I think that that's great. City ofMiami Page 303 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager -- Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: The County already has said that they would have to go to bid. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: They already said -- in fact, they already passed a resolution suspending the public hearing -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- on mining as the first step to the bidding process. The reason that they have to go to bid is because the County Attorney said, look, you know, you cannot give it to one company because there was another company that said, hey, we will propose $179, 000, 000, and another one said, hey, we will propose so much money -- some -- half a dollar for a ton of mining material. The reason I am proposing this is just to warn Dade County and the companies that the City has the last word on this. In fact, the County has still -- and I researched that -- has still some -- a lot of say on whether that area is a mine or not because they have the WASA (Water and Sewer Authority) facilities there. My fear on this is that the County goes to bid. The County will tell our City Manager, when he goes to discuss this, well, we need $70, 000, 000 to enhance the facilities of the Water and Sewer Department. That was the purpose of the first deal; that was the main purpose, $70, 000, 000 to enhance the facility of Water and Sewer, so let's take $70, 000, 000, and after that, we will discuss the rest. My fear is that, in the real world -- in the ideal world, you know what, the City should share half of everything because we have the key. Without the City ofMiami, there is nothing that they can do, other than keep that area for WASA purposes, nothing else. Not even extending the construction boundaries; they can't do anything with those 1,800 acres, so, you know, we negotiate with Mr. Sofer $25, 000, 000, great deal in the arena. We went to bid and we got $28, 000, 000, so the bid process is, for me, the best way to go. I just wanted to -- I'm not asking for anything, a vote or anything. I just want to pass that on to you. I will say to you that I received a phone call from a firm, an attorney that represent one of the companies, just because he heard me talking about -- on the media, and they will say that they would be willing to talk to the City ofMiami to buy that deed restriction for a lot of money, and still, even if we have a bid, the County will have to go to bid in that, but you know what? I am willing to wait. I think that we just need to ask the Manager to consider letting them know that we have a minimum, a minimum amount of $25, 000, 000 that we need for that deed restriction and, you know, even the County could have bid on this deal because if they-- if the County bid and buys the deed, they can do the whole deal by themselves, but my understanding is that this will go to the committee in November in -- to the County Commission, and probably be on the bid proposal in the December meeting of the County Commission, so I just -- I will wait, but I will tell you that the County should know that we could bid this. They should know that we could bid this, and that we could get a lot of money. Would they be upset? I'm sure that they will, but we're looking here for the interest of the City ofMiami. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner, is there -- Arriola: The worst thing you could do, by the way, is scare people off. That's why we kept this under wrap. They know that we have it. They know, everybody knows. The less we talk about this, the better off we are. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Manager, please. Mr. Arriola: No, you do whatever you want -- City ofMiami Page 304 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Please, please, please. Mr. Arriola: -- but I'm telling you, the more you talk about this thing -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager, Mr. Manager. Mr. Arriola: -- the more you scare people off the worse they are because they could move to some place else. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager. Mr. Manager, Mr. Manager. Chairman Sanchez: Let's have some -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager, please. Chairman Sanchez: -- order here, folks. Commissioner Regalado: This is government in the sunshine. There's no backroom deals here. What's going on here? I mean, you can get upset but, I mean, listen, the people have the right to know. They own this land. Joe, come on. Mr. Arriola: Of course, of course, but all I'm -- Commissioner Regalado: Come on. This is government in sunshine. Chairman Sanchez: Both of you are right. Mr. Arriola: All I'm saying is, we know what we're doing. Commissioner Regalado: I mean -- Chairman Sanchez: Listen, listen. Commissioner Regalado: -- ifI -- let me say this. Chairman Sanchez: You're out of order. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, ifI cannot talk about something what -- just let me know. Let me know about what can I talk in this government. Let me know about what proposal I can bring to this Commission. Let me know about what offer I can do to the people ofMiami. Do not tell me not to talk about because I will talk about everything because government have to be in the sunshine. Mr. Arriola: And that's what -- Commissioner Regalado: We owe this to the people ofMiami. They pay my salary. Chairman Sanchez: Could we -- Commissioner Regalado: And I'm not going to be silent. You know, the Mayor talked to me about one of the items here yesterday, and I decided to pull because he was right on some of the things that we discussed. However, I think, you know, that if you want to be -- if you want me to be informed, you should inform me, and you know, don't say don't talk about this because I will City ofMiami Page 305 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 be talking about anything that has to do with the City ofMiami. Neither you, neither anybody is going to keep my mouth shut. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Arriola: And I'm not asking you to keep your mouth shut, sir. All I'm asking is let's don't put a threat out there to the County, and my concern -- you could talk about this all you want. You have every right to, but the one message I don't want to send to the County, or to anybody, is let you know that we're going to be waiting. They know it; we know it. You know, carry a big stick and, you know, you'll get all the results you want. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Arriola: But let's don't go out there and threaten the County right now because it's not in our best interest, or the best interest of the County, or the best interest of this deal. The more we threaten, the least likely this deal will happen. Let's just -- you have every right -- you're going to have every right in the world to get as much money you want. I'm not going to decide that. You guys are going to decide that, but let's just wait until this thing happens, and then you can carry your big stick, hit them over the head and get as much as you want, but right now, I don't want this to be -- to scare people off on this deal. That's all I'm asking. Commissioner Regalado: Joe. Mr. Arriola: I'm not saying not to talk about it. I said let's don't threaten about it because it's only going to get worse. Commissioner Regalado: One final thing. Joe, we didn't talk about when we discussed this for the first time and we were only getting $2, 000, 000 for something that companies were going to make billions mining that land that belonged to the City ofMiami. $2, 000, 000 and we didn't talk about it, so I think that if we talk about it, maybe they would recognize that we could get more than $2, 000, 000, and -- Arriola: We don't own the land, sir. We own the mineral rights to it, OK? Commissioner Regalado: So without -- Mr. Arriola: I keep telling you. Commissioner Regalado: Without us, there's nothing they can do. Mr. Arriola: Absolutely. Commissioner Regalado: You know that. Mr. Arriola: But we own the mineral rights, and they were going to give us Key Biscayne, but -- Imean-- Commissioner Regalado: Well, but you know that's -- Mr. Arriola: -- the Marine Marina. Commissioner Regalado: -- dead. That's dead. Mr. Arriola: Yes. City ofMiami Page 306 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Listen -- Mr. Arriola: Well, that's dead because I killed it. Chairman Sanchez: Hello, hello, listen. I'm going to yield to Commissioner Allen, and then I'm going to address this legislative body as the Chairman because this is getting out of order, and I'm going to yield to Commissioner Allen, and then I'm asking each of my colleagues, including the City Manager, to allow me three minutes to exercise my right as the Chair on this Commission. Commissioner Allen, you're recognized, sir. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, my comment is only to try to make sure thatl concur with my fellow Commissioner, as well as City Manager and City Attorney. All in all, we're in a great equity position in this deal in which you're discussing, and the upside is astronomical, in my opinion, so I think what we should do at this juncture is sort of put this to rest at the moment -- for the moment, because we will all agree that we do have a great equity position, and that's what's most important, and that position will anew to the -- inure to the City, and that's the way we should view this entire matter. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Let me just say something as the Chair. This will never happen again in this Commission, as long as I'm the Chair here. This outburst is totally inappropriate and unnecessary. It sets a message of the old wacko, crazy days of the City when we disagreed and argued openly in public. There is no reason to have one Commissioner arguing with the City Manager on any item because there's always the avenue to meet and discuss, and agree and disagree, OK? We live in a democracy where we must learn to disagree and respect each other. Commissioner Regalado, you have every right to bring any item you want to this Commission and discuss it, but sir, the argument and the display here by both the City Manager and yourself is inappropriate and, as the Chairman, with all due respect, this will be the last time this will happen. If this item needs to be further discussed, you have the right to sit with the City Manager and his staff and ask all the questions that you may want to ask, and it is his responsibility to provide you with all the information. These types of discussions and these outbursts should never happen in this public forum, and I will ask each and every one of you, with respect, to respect me, as the Chair, and the public, which you serve, to never do this again. Because if it does happen again, I will request to have mute buttons on all of you so I could shut each and every one of you up. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, you're recognized. Commissioner Regalado: You did read the book of rules, right? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, I did, and you were out of order, so was the City Manager. Commissioner Regalado: OK Your mission is to represent the City Commission. The only thing I did was to bring an item. I cannot discuss it with you, nor with Angel, not with Jeffery, not with Johnny. I can only discuss it with the Mayor -- he doesn't vote -- with the administration, and with the City Attorney. I did that andl brought it to the table. Didl raise my voice? Yes, I did, but the reason I did that is because I don't think that no one can tell me not to talk about something, and that was the only issue, the only issue, so you let me know when I would be able to bring some items and discuss, and you let me know the time that have; you let me know the number that have to talk whenever is possible, and that would be the end of it. I really think that I just don't need to apologize because I think that government is government in the sunshine, and people have the right to know anything and everything that goes on in government. The moment that we don't talk about this, we don't talk about that, we don't talk about the other thing, and we do these backroom deals, that is when government gets in trouble, City ofMiami Page 307 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 so I am sorry if you feel like that, but that's the way I have been. I have not changed since day one. I will not change. I will continue sitting here until God gives me the strength, and until the residents of Disfrict 4 wants me to be here. I will not change -- Commissioner Winton: I think you have a term limit, though. Commissioner Regalado: 2011, so you're going to have to deal with me -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner -- Commissioner Winton: 'Til 2011. Commissioner Regalado: -- until 2011. Commissioner Winton: OK, so now let's go. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Another -- Commissioner Winton: Moving on. Commissioner Regalado: -- so we're talking about three more lunar eclipse. Commissioner Winton: Three more lunar eclipse. I'm all in favor. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado -- Mr. Arriola: Mr. -- Chairman Sanchez: -- do you have any directives towards the City administration -- Commissioner Winton: Then Mr. Manager. Chairman Sanchez: -- on this item? Commissioner Regalado: I -- no. I would accept -- Chairman Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Regalado: No. I would accept the Manager's idea -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- wait for the bid process. I was just frying to tell you guys -- I have talked to County Commissioners. Commissioner Winton: Next subject, please. Commissioner Regalado: I was -- I have -- I did my homework on this, that can say. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, you did. Commissioner Winton: We agree with you. City ofMiami Page 308 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: And -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, you did. Commissioner Regalado: And -- Commissioner Winton: And your idea was a great idea and -- Mr. Arriola: I think -- Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Winton: -- I'm personally very happy -- excuse me, Mr. Manager. Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no. We're moving on to the next item. Commissioner Winton: You're out of order. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. Mr. Arriola: No. I just wanted to apologize for my outburst. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: But, Commissioner Regalado, I think what you did was appropriate. It made me think about some things. I liked your concept; I liked the way you were thinking, so thank you for doing that, and let's go to the next subject. Commissioner Regalado: Good. Chairman Sanchez: Let's always display professionalism on this dais. OK. DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO SI.2 04-01211 DISCUSSION ITEM District 4- DISCUSSION CONCERNING A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE CITY OF Commissioner MIAMI BUDGET RESERVES. Tomas Regalado 04-01211-cover memo.pdf DISCUSSED Commissioner Regalado: The other item, Mr. Chairman, is one placed in the supplemental agenda. It's a discussion concerning a proposal to increase the City ofMiami budget -- I should say the City ofMiami reserves. I spoke about this with the Mayor yesterday, also with the Budget Director and the administration and, of course, the City Attorney, and it's very simple and I'll be brief and I wanted to explain it to you all to see if you think that this is worth considering. Remember, several months ago, that the City Commission approved a motion to support a deal of tarmac with the 1,800 acres in West Dade, lifting the deed resfriction of -- to that land in exchange of $2, 000, 000, plus the lifting of the deed resfriction of the marine stadium. The City Commission did approve that. It went to the County; it was deferred for three consecutive times, and now the manager -- the County Manager has decided to pull that item and kill that deal, and the County has to go to bid in order to -- for the mining of that area. The City ofMiami Page 309 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 media reported that several companies were very interested in that, and the amount expressed in the media jumped from $70, 000, 000 to $179, 000, 000 in one case. The City Attorney -- Commissioner Winton: From what to what? Commissioner Regalado: From $70, 000, 000 -- Commissioner Winton: 7-0? Commissioner Regalado: 7-0 -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- to $179, 000, 000, and on that deal, the $70, 000, 000, the City was going to get $2, 000, 000. The City Attorney researched a question that I posed to him, and he has issued this opinion regarding the disposition of interest in real property. My proposal to the administration and to the City Commission to consider -- and this is legal. This is quick; this is fast; this is clean. -- is to put to bid the deed restriction that the City ofMiami has on the 1,800 acres under the term of disposition of interest in real property. There is no need for a vote here because I cannot speak to you all. I did spoke to the administration and to the Mayor and, of course, several times to the City Attorney, and this can be done. This has been done in the past, and we should say that if the City Commission and the administration decides to put to bid this deed restriction, independently of the bid in the County, we should start with a figure of $25, 000, 000, which is the -- approximately amount that the City may get, or could get maybe more, and that this money will go directly into the reserves so, next year, Johnny won't have to worry about it, and we won't have to worry it, dipping into the reserves, so, Mr. City Attorney, just briefly, maybe you can explain to our colleagues what we could do on this. Yes, sir. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yeah. Simply, what we looked at was the different ways that the City has of disposing interest in land. For lease or outright disposition of a fee simple interest, the Charter and the Code provides a means to do that. However, the issue that Commissioner Regalado raised deals with the reversionary interest, which is a different type of interest that is contemplated by the other more common, more used portion of our Charter and Code. A reversionary interest is an interest that is not certain, and therefore, the disposition of that, how that gets disposed would be through another process established in the Code. I don't have the copy of the short legal opinion that was prepared so that I could, perhaps, refresh my recollection and read from it but, in essence, that's the tone of it. The disposition of that reversionary interest that we have can be accomplished by going to bids, exactly, which is Chapter 18 of the Code, which is more liberal than those sections contained on 29-B of the Charter, and then, you know, you require the appraisals, and you proceed then to bid them out, pursuant to, of course, the information that you obtain in the appraisal, given the tentative nature of the interest that the City retains on those lands. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, you're recognized. Commissioner Winton: Conceptually, the idea sounds very intriguing because filling up our coffers is a great thing. Here's what I don't understand, Mr. City Attorney. We have lands in the City -- I know there were some on -- I think -- believe on Watson Island. Obviously, there's some on Virginia Key that -- where the County -- there may be some around here, where the County has donated land, deed restricted it; has reversionary clauses in it. Could the County then sell -- if they decided, they could sell the reversionary rights to -- let's say that City Hall sat on such a thing. Could they sell the reversionary rights to the land underneath City Hall in the same way we're thinking about doing this? I don't understand how this works at all. It's a -- City ofMiami Page 310 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: The -- Commissioner Winton: -- mystery to me. Mr. Fernandez: -- reversionary interests are triggered upon a condition certain, and the condition is when these lands no longer are used for the purpose for which the deed was issued. That's what triggers then the reversionary interest, and the value -- that's why it's very speculative -- the value of an interest that doesn't ripen at a given time. When you're given a life estate, for example, that's a different type of interest because -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- life -- you know, the -- Commissioner Winton: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- period of life, and then, therefore, you can predict, upon the death of that person -- Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Mr. Fernandez: -- what will happen, but the use of a piece of land is something different. In direct response to your question, if the County had a reversionary interest over the land in which City Hall sits, they -- and it was originally deeded to the City for purposes of government or a city hall, or that type of thing, as long as it's being used for that purpose, the County has no value in that reversionary interest. If the City then turns this into a totally different use, at that point in time, the reversionary interest triggers, and then, yes, the answer then is yes. Then they could sell or they could do something with that reversionary interest. Commissioner Winton: OK, so the two real examples would be some of the land on Watson Island and, certainly, the Marine Stadium land; they could do the same thing then to us. They're -- is that correct? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Commissioner -- yeah -- let me explain something to you. Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Manager. Mr. Arriola: The issue here is, if the County decides to take this to bid, which it looks that way, the position of the administration is, let them take it out to bid. They cannot get the mineral -- we have mineral the rights -- reversion of the mineral rights on it. They cannot mine it without our OK on it, so the issue here is, do you want to sell that right? What is that right worth right now? Because somebody can come in, buy that right, and then the bidding process at the County is over. They don't get any money for this thing because you can't go anywhere, so the County -- it doesn't mean anything to the County to sell it, so they don't sell it and, you know, I mean, people are not kind of foolish out there to think that this -- the right process would be: Let the County go through the bidding process. Let them get, I hope, $1, 000, 000, 000. They can't do anything with that money without coming and sharing it with us. Commissioner Winton: Because we own the mineral rights. Mr. Arriola: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: OK. City ofMiami Page 311 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Arriola: So the best process is, let them go through the process. We're going to sit in the background, and then, when they finish the process, we'll sit here and we'll say, what's in it for us, and you guys could decide what our share of the pot is. By going in the reverse way, I don't think we'll get that kind of money, number one, and number two, we are really preventing the County from maximizing that asset. The best way is, let them maximize that asset. Let them get as much as they can for it, and then, whether it's the guy that bought it or the County, or whatever, they can't do it without us. You know, we're kind of -- we're like the lock of the house so, you know, let them go through the process, and let us sit down then with them and negotiate the best deal we can. Commissioner Winton: Then following Commissioner Regalado's train of thought here, that seems to make some sense if we're sure the County is going to go through a legitimate bidding process that's going to then -- Mr. Arriola: They have to now. Commissioner Winton: -- get the highest bidder, then that fits more in tune -- Mr. Arriola: Yeah, and you know -- Commissioner Winton: -- with what Commissioner Regalado -- Mr. Arriola: -- and I am excited, by the way, that Commissioner Regalado is suggesting that we put this in the reserve. I love you for that because we really need to put that money in the reserves, and I think that that's great. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager -- Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: The County already has said that they would have to go to bid. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: They already said -- in fact, they already passed a resolution suspending the public hearing -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- on mining as the first step to the bidding process. The reason that they have to go to bid is because the County Attorney said, look, you know, you cannot give it to one company because there was another company that said, hey, we will propose $179, 000, 000, and another one said, hey, we will propose so much money -- some -- half a dollar for a ton of mining material. The reason I am proposing this is just to warn Dade County and the companies that the City has the last word on this. In fact, the County has still -- and I researched that -- has still some -- a lot of say on whether that area is a mine or not because they have the WASA (Water and Sewer Authority) facilities there. My fear on this is that the County goes to bid. The County will tell our City Manager, when he goes to discuss this, well, we need $70, 000, 000 to enhance the facilities of the Water and Sewer Department. That was the purpose of the first deal; that was the main purpose, $70, 000, 000 to enhance the facility of Water and Sewer, so let's take $70, 000, 000, and after that, we will discuss the rest. My fear is that, in the real world -- in the ideal world, you know what, the City should share half of everything because we have the key. Without the City ofMiami, there is nothing that they can do, other than keep that area for WASA purposes, nothing else. Not even extending the construction boundaries; they can't do anything with those 1,800 acres, so, you know, we negotiate with Mr. Sofer $25, 000, 000, great City ofMiami Page 312 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 deal in the arena. We went to bid and we got $28, 000, 000, so the bid process is, for me, the best way to go. I just wanted to -- I'm not asking for anything, a vote or anything. I just want to pass that on to you. I will say to you that received a phone call from a firm, an attorney that represent one of the companies, just because he heard me talking about -- on the media, and they will say that they would be willing to talk to the City ofMiami to buy that deed restriction for a lot of money, and still, even if we have a bid, the County will have to go to bid in that, but you know what? I am willing to wait. I think that we just need to ask the Manager to consider letting them know that we have a minimum, a minimum amount of $25, 000, 000 that we need for that deed restriction and, you know, even the County could have bid on this deal because if they-- if the County bid and buys the deed, they can do the whole deal by themselves, but my understanding is that this will go to the committee in November in -- to the County Commission, and probably be on the bid proposal in the December meeting of the County Commission, so I just -- I will wait, but will tell you that the County should know that we could bid this. They should know that we could bid this, and that we could get a lot of money. Would they be upset? I'm sure that they will, but we're looking here for the interest of the City ofMiami. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner, is there -- Arriola: The worst thing you could do, by the way, is scare people off. That's why we kept this under wrap. They know that we have it. They know, everybody knows. The less we talk about this, the better off we are. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Manager, please. Mr. Arriola: No, you do whatever you want -- Commissioner Regalado: Please, please, please. Mr. Arriola: -- but I'm telling you, the more you talk about this thing -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager, Mr. Manager. Mr. Arriola: -- the more you scare people off the worse they are because they could move to some place else. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager. Mr. Manager, Mr. Manager. Chairman Sanchez: Let's have some -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager, please. Chairman Sanchez: -- order here, folks. Commissioner Regalado: This is government in the sunshine. There's no backroom deals here. What's going on here? I mean, you can get upset but, I mean, listen, the people have the right to know. They own this land. Joe, come on. Mr. Arriola: Of course, of course, but all I'm -- Commissioner Regalado: Come on. This is government in sunshine. Chairman Sanchez: Both of you are right. City ofMiami Page 313 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Mr. Arriola: All I'm saying is, we know what we're doing. Commissioner Regalado: I mean -- Chairman Sanchez: Listen, listen. Commissioner Regalado: -- ifI -- let me say this. Chairman Sanchez: You're out of order. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, ifI cannot talk about something what -- just let me know. Let me know about what can I talk in this government. Let me know about what proposal I can bring to this Commission. Let me know about what offer I can do to the people ofMiami. Do not tell me not to talk about because I will talk about everything because government have to be in the sunshine. Mr. Arriola: And that's what -- Commissioner Regalado: We owe this to the people ofMiami. They pay my salary. Chairman Sanchez: Could we -- Commissioner Regalado: And I'm not going to be silent. You know, the Mayor talked to me about one of the items here yesterday, and I decided to pull because he was right on some of the things that we discussed. However, I think, you know, that if you want to be -- if you want me to be informed, you should inform me, and you know, don't say don't talk about this because I will be talking about anything that has to do with the City ofMiami. Neither you, neither anybody is going to keep my mouth shut. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Arriola: And I'm not asking you to keep your mouth shut, sir. All I'm asking is let's don't put a threat out there to the County, and my concern -- you could talk about this all you want. You have every right to, but the one message I don't want to send to the County, or to anybody, is let you know that we're going to be waiting. They know it; we know it. You know, carry a big stick and, you know, you'll get all the results you want. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Arriola: But let's don't go out there and threaten the County right now because it's not in our best interest, or the best interest of the County, or the best interest of this deal. The more we threaten, the least likely this deal will happen. Let's just -- you have every right -- you're going to have every right in the world to get as much money you want. I'm not going to decide that. You guys are going to decide that, but let's just wait until this thing happens, and then you can carry your big stick, hit them over the head and get as much as you want, but right now, I don't want this to be -- to scare people off on this deal. That's all I'm asking. Commissioner Regalado: Joe. Mr. Arriola: I'm not saying not to talk about it. I said let's don't threaten about it because it's only going to get worse. Commissioner Regalado: One final thing. Joe, we didn't talk about when we discussed this for the first time and we were only getting $2, 000, 000 for something that companies were going to make billions mining that land that belonged to the City ofMiami. $2, 000, 000 and we didn't talk City ofMiami Page 314 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 about it, so I think that if we talk about it, maybe they would recognize that we could get more than $2, 000, 000, and -- Mr. Arriola: We don't own the land, sir. We own the mineral rights to it, OK? Commissioner Regalado: So without -- Mr. Arriola: I keep telling you. Commissioner Regalado: Without us, there's nothing they can do. Mr. Arriola: Absolutely. Commissioner Regalado: You know that. Mr. Arriola: But we own the mineral rights, and they were going to give us Key Biscayne, but -- Imean-- Commissioner Regalado: Well, but you know that's -- Mr. Arriola: -- the Marine Marina. Commissioner Regalado: -- dead. That's dead. Mr. Arriola: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Listen -- Mr. Arriola: Well, that's dead because I killed it. Chairman Sanchez: Hello, hello, listen. I'm going to yield to Commissioner Allen, and then I'm going to address this legislative body as the Chairman because this is getting out of order, and I'm going to yield to Commissioner Allen, and then I'm asking each of my colleagues, including the City Manager, to allow me three minutes to exercise my right as the Chair on this Commission. Commissioner Allen, you're recognized, sir. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, my comment is only to try to make sure thatl concur with my fellow Commissioner, as well as City Manager and City Attorney. All in all, we're in a great equity position in this deal in which you're discussing, and the upside is astronomical, in my opinion, so I think what we should do at this juncture is sort of put this to rest at the moment -- for the moment, because we will all agree that we do have a great equity position, and that's what's most important, and that position will anew to the -- inure to the City, and that's the way we should view this entire matter. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Let me just say something as the Chair. This will never happen again in this Commission, as long as I'm the Chair here. This outburst is totally inappropriate and unnecessary. It sets a message of the old wacko, crazy days of the City when we disagreed and argued openly in public. There is no reason to have one Commissioner arguing with the City Manager on any item because there's always the avenue to meet and discuss, and agree and disagree, OK? We live in a democracy where we must learn to disagree and respect each other. Commissioner Regalado, you have every right to bring any item you want to this Commission and discuss it, but sir, the argument and the display here by both the City Manager and yourself is inappropriate and, as the Chairman, with all due respect, this will be the last time this will happen. If this item needs to be further discussed, you have the right to sit with the City Manager and his staff and ask all the questions that you may want to ask, and it is his City ofMiami Page 315 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 responsibility to provide you with all the information. These types of discussions and these outbursts should never happen in this public forum, and I will ask each and every one of you, with respect, to respect me, as the Chair, and the public, which you serve, to never do this again. Because if it does happen again, I will request to have mute buttons on all of you so I could shut each and every one of you up. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, you're recognized. Commissioner Regalado: You did read the book of rules, right? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, I did, and you were out of order, so was the City Manager. Commissioner Regalado: OK Your mission is to represent the City Commission. The only thing I did was to bring an item. I cannot discuss it with you, nor with Angel, not with Jeffery, not with Johnny. I can only discuss it with the Mayor -- he doesn't vote -- with the administration, and with the City Attorney. I did that andl brought it to the table. Didl raise my voice? Yes, I did, but the reason I did that is because I don't think that no one can tell me not to talk about something, and that was the only issue, the only issue, so you let me know when I would be able to bring some items and discuss, and you let me know the time that have; you let me know the number that have to talk whenever is possible, and that would be the end of it. I really think that I just don't need to apologize because I think that government is government in the sunshine, and people have the right to know anything and everything that goes on in government. The moment that we don't talk about this, we don't talk about that, we don't talk about the other thing, and we do these backroom deals, that is when government gets in trouble, so I am sorry if you feel like that, but that's the way I have been. I have not changed since day one. I will not change. I will continue sitting here until God gives me the strength, and until the residents of Disfrict 4 wants me to be here. I will not change -- Commissioner Winton: I think you have a term limit, though. Commissioner Regalado: 2011, so you're going to have to deal with me -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner -- Commissioner Winton: 'Til 2011. Commissioner Regalado: -- until 2011. Commissioner Winton: OK, so now let's go. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Another -- Commissioner Winton: Moving on. Commissioner Regalado: -- so we're talking about three more lunar eclipse. Commissioner Winton: Three more lunar eclipse. I'm all in favor. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado -- Mr. Arriola: Mr. -- City ofMiami Page 316 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- do you have any directives towards the City administration -- Commissioner Winton: Then Mr. Manager. Chairman Sanchez: -- on this item? Commissioner Regalado: I -- no. I would accept -- Chairman Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Regalado: No. I would accept the Manager's idea -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- wait for the bid process. I was just frying to tell you guys -- I have talked to County Commissioners. Commissioner Winton: Next subject, please. Commissioner Regalado: I was -- I have -- I did my homework on this, that can say. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, you did. Commissioner Winton: We agree with you. Commissioner Regalado: And -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, you did. Commissioner Regalado: And -- Commissioner Winton: And your idea was a great idea and -- Mr. Arriola: I think -- Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Winton: -- I'm personally very happy -- excuse me, Mr. Manager. Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no. We're moving on to the next item. Commissioner Winton: You're out of order. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. Mr. Arriola: No. I just wanted to apologize for my outburst. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: But, Commissioner Regalado, I think what you did was appropriate. It made me think about some things. I liked your concept; I liked the way you were thinking, so thank you for doing that, and let's go to the next subject. Commissioner Regalado: Good. City ofMiami Page 317 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Let's always display professionalism on this dais. OK. RESOLUTIONS SI.3 04-01082 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW Fire -Rescue SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "FEMA/USAR GRANT AWARD, FISCAL YEAR 2004-2006 FUND" AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $938,035, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ("FEMA"), TO BE USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE -RESCUE TO PROCURE EQUIPMENT, PROVIDE TRAINING, MANAGEMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE ("USAR") PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT AWARD AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 04-01082-cover memo.pdf 04-01082-budgetary impact.pdf 04-01082-fema letters.pdf 04-01082-continuation.pdf 04-01082-agreement articles.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0703 Chairman Sanchez: OK. We move on to Supplement Agenda 3, which is a grant; money for Fire -Rescue. Is anyone from Fire -Rescue here? Well -- OK, we'll get back to them. Let's -- you know, I'm doing everything I can to get out of here early. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Was it Supplemental 3? Commissioner Winton: You're doing extremely well, fabulously. Chairman Sanchez: Just in case there's any questions, they need to be here. Just out of professionalism, they need to be here. OK I know that it's a resolution. It's a grant accepting -- I mean, what are the odds of not having support from the Commission on this, and we're always accepting money, so is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: Which item? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I move SI.3. Commissioner Allen: I move. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: It's Supplement Agenda 3. Sir, how are you? State your name for the record -- City ofMiami Page 318 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Hi. Chairman Sanchez: -- and just give us a brief-- on the resolution, a brief -- Deputy ChiefMaurice Kemp: Deputy ChiefMaurice Kemp, Fire -Rescue. This is operational grant for the Urban Search and Rescue Team. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Is there a motion? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move it. Commissioner Allen: I move it. Chairman Sanchez: Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Second by -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion. It's a resolution. Hearing no discussion, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" Motion carries. Thank you. Deputy Chief Kemp: Thank you. NON -AGENDA ITEMS NA.1 04-01230 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW Police SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "GANG RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING (G.R.E.A.T)" PROGRAM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATING THE YOUTH OF OUR COMMUNITY ON THE DANGERS OF GANG INVOLVEMENT, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT ACCEPTANCE OF SAID GRANT. City ofMiami Page 319 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 04-01230-ACH Financial Info..pdf 04-01230-Applicant Letter.pdf 04-01230-Assurances & Certificates.pdf 04-01230-Budget & Program Attachments.pdf 04-01230-Budget Categories.pdf 04-01230-Budget Narartive Figures.pdf 04-01230-Certification Form.pdf 04-01230-Cover Memo.pdf 04-01230-EEOP Letter.pdf 04-01230-Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01230-Funding Application.pdf 04-01230-Grant Award Documents.pdf 04-01230-Grant Coordinator Memo.pdf 04-01230-Grants Coordinator Memo -Financial Forms.pdf 04-01230-GREAT Grant Overview.pdf 04-01230-Great Grant Project Info..pdf 04-01230-GREATGrant Applicant Info..pdf 04-01230-Letter To Office Of Justice Prgms..pdf 04-01230-Mirabile Memo.pdf 04-01230-Mirable Memo -Financial Form.pdf 04-01230-Program Narrative.pdf 04-01230-Timoney Memo.pdf 04-01230-USDJ Letter.pdf 04-01230-Categorical Exclusion.pdf 04-01230-Applications.pdf Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0711 Chairman Sanchez: So, Commissioner Allen, you're recognized. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IfI could have the City ofMiami Police Department to come forward, please. This is a resolution of the Miami City Commission establishing a special revenue fund entitled "Gang Resistance Education and Training Program," acronym GREAT, for the purpose of educating the youth of our community on dangers of gang involvement, consisting of a grant from the United States Department ofJustice, Office ofJustice Programs, in the amount of $85, 000; authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to implement acceptance of said grant. Good seeing it again today. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There is a motion on the floor. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Is there a second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I second. Chairman Sanchez: Assistant Chief could you please put your name on the record? Commissioner Allen: Just for the record. City ofMiami Page 320 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Deputy Chief Frank Fernandez: Absolutely, sir. Frank Fernandez, Deputy Chief Miami Police. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen: Thankyou. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. Open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay" Motion carries. Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Thankyou. Deputy Chief Fernandez: Thank you, sir. NA.2 04-01245 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "EPA BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT GRANTS PROJECT" AND APPROPRIATING GRANT AWARDS FROM THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000, OF WHICH $200,000, WILL BE USED TO ASSESS POTENTIAL PETROLEUM -CONTAMINATED SITES AND $200,000, WILL BE USED TO ASSESS POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONTAMINATION OR HAZARDOUS/PETROLEUM-MIXED CONTAMINATED SITES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT ACCEPTANCE OF SAID GRANTS. Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-04-0712 Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen, you're recognized -- Commissioner Allen: And then -- Chairman Sanchez: -- for your next pocket item. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Lastly, Mr. Chairman -- can I have Mr. Carswell come forward? This is a resolution of the Miami City Commissioner -- Miami City Commission establishing a new special revenue fund entitled "EPA Brownfields Assessment Grants Project," and appropriating grant awards from the United States Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of $400, 000, of which $200, 000 will be used to assess potential petroleum -contaminated sites, and $200, 000 will be used to assess potential hazardous substance contamination or hazardous/petroleum-mixed contaminated sites; authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to implement acceptance of said grants. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. City ofMiami Page 321 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion and a second. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so the Commission meeting is in recess. We'll be back at 2:30 to try to get out of the way as many PZ (Planning & Zoning) items as possible, and hopefully, hopefully, we could be out of here by 7:30. Thank you. NA.3 04-01254 DISCUSSION ITEM Direction to the Administration by Commissioner Regalado to determine if the non -for -profit agencies located at Manuel Artime that are having problems paying the rent could be provided with capital improvement dollars in lieu of social service dollars. DISCUSSED Commissioner Regalado: But I do have a question? Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Commissioner Regalado: I'm looking at PH.9, and since it talk about Catholic -- Barbara Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH.9 or 8? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, yeah. Ms. Rodriguez: Oh, 9. Chairman Sanchez: But we haven't gone to PH.9, yet. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. PH (Public Hearing) -- Ms. Rodriguez: 8. Commissioner Regalado: -- PH.9, but we haven't done that. Ms. Rodriguez: Oh, OK Commissioner Regalado: But looking at that, before we go into that, on October 1st, we ended the cycle of helping non -for -profit groups in the Artime Theater. Remember, we pay -- Ms. Rodriguez: I remember -- Commissioner Regalado: -- the rent. Ms. Rodriguez: -- that Asset Management -- that was the building -- right. Commissioner Regalado: Now we're back to the same situation. There is some children's programs, Catholic Charities, a kidney foundation, a lot of people that have this problem with City ofMiami Page 322 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 the rent, and so what -- do you have any idea? Ms. Rodriguez: On there, Commissioner, I cannot help those agencies because, remember, on June loth -- Commissioner Winton: I do. Ms. Rodriguez: -- we funded to our maximum capacity of public service. Commissioner Regalado: No, I understand that. No, I understand that, but -- Commissioner Winton: I have a great idea: pay rent. Commissioner Regalado: -- we used imagination last year, funding capital improvement -- Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- in lieu of -- Ms. Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- social services, and the question is: Do they need some kind of capital improvement this year? Ms. Rodriguez: I would have to get back to you and talk to the people that handle Manuel Artime's building. We can come back and give you that information. Commissioner Regalado: If you would, because -- I mean, the thing is that we keep cutting because the federal government keeps cutting -- Ms. Rodriguez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- and the need is greater because there is more need, and we'll always have this cycle of anguish. Ms. Rodriguez: OK. We will meet with the Asset Management Department and deal with ManuelArtime's building. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: OK NA.4 04-01253 DISCUSSION ITEM A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Sanchez and Vice Chairman Gonzalez absent, to waive the provision contained in Ordinance 12586, as it relates to today's Commission Meeting adjourning at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10:00 p.m. MOTION Commissioner Regalado: Mr. City Attorney, we need to deal with the 10 o'clock cut-off time. We have PZ.14 and its companion, PZ.15. What do we need to do, just motion to waive -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Motion -- City ofMiami Page 323 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: -- the 10 o'clock cut-off time. Mr. Fernandez: Correct, that's what you need to do. Commissioner Regalado: OK Do we have a motion? Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Moved and second. Commissioner Allen: I'll make a motion to waive the 10 o'clock -- Commissioner Regalado: All in favor? The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Regalado: OK Commissioner Winton: Should we take five minutes while they're getting out? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Five-minute break, then we'll come back. Five-minute break. NA.5 04-01255 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ANY AND ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY OR PERMITTED, INCLUDING THE ENGAGEMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL, AGAINST COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, A PARENT COMPANY TO AT&T COMCAST CORPORATION ("COMCAST"), TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY ACTION AUTHORIZED BY LAW OR IN EQUITY TO OBTAIN ANY RELIEF OR TO REMEDY ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE CITY RELATED TO COMCAST'S PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CSR NO. 6409-E. 04-01255-City Attorney Memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez R-04-0718 Commissioner Regalado: OK Before we leave, the City Attorney has a pocket item. Commissioner Allen, you have a pocket item? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. Very quickly, Commissioners, I think we have briefed all of you on the fact that Comcast is seeking to go to FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and get their terms and conditions of our interlocal agreement changed. I'm City ofMiami Page 324 Printed on 1/7/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes October 28, 2004 requesting authorization to take any and all legal actions necessary to protect, preserve, and defend the interest of the City ofMiami. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Regalado: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Regalado: Anybody else with a -- you have a pocket item? Oh, I thought that -- somebody told me that you were going to bring a pocket item. Maybe it was in the morning. I don't know. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK, so we have a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Allen: Yes, I make a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: And second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 325 Printed on 1/7/2008