Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2004-11-18 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.ci.miami.fl.us Verbatim Minutes Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:00 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 Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Pages 1-132 Present: Vice Chairman Gonzalez, Commissioner Winton, Chairman Sanchez and Commissioner Allen Absent: Commissioner Regalado Note for the Record: The Planning and Zoning Meeting convened at 9:13 a.m. and adjourned at 7:51 p. m. During part of this time, the Regular Commission meeting was also held. PZ.1 04-00573 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 2143 AND 2161 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET AND 2160 SOUTHWEST 5TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00573 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00573 Analysis.PDF 04-00573 Land Use Map.pdf 04-00573 & 04-00573a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00573 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00573 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00573 Legislation.PDF 04-00573 & 04-00573a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00573-submittal-liquor survey.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 2143 and 2161 SW 6th Street and 2160 SW 5th Street APPLICANT(S): Edward D. Pascoe, Owner and Salomon Sutton/Punta Diamante, LLC, 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 6-2. See companion File ID 04-00573a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commercial. Motion by Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Chairman Sanchez: Let's go now to PZ 1. 1 believe the attorney's here. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Chairman Sanchez: Ambassador, we waited for you. Simon Ferro: I apologize. I was in a hearing -- Chairman Sanchez: We understand. Mr. Ferro: -- zoning hearing at the County, so I -- Chairman Sanchez: We understand. It's a -- PZ 1, it's an ordinance on first reading. Commissioner Winton: No, we don't. What's his priorities? Mr. Ferro: Excuse me? Commissioner Winton: What is his priorities? 1 mean, he'd rather be at the County than at the City? Mr. Ferro: No -- Chairman Sanchez: Hey, he's got bills to pay. Mr. Ferro: -- but that one was scheduled first. Normally, you do these at the afternoon -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, I know. Mr. Ferro: -- so you caught me off guard, so I apologize. Ms. Slazyk: PZ 1 and 2 -- Commissioner Winton: Couldn't resist. Ms. Slazyk: -- is a reconsideration of a request for a zoning and land use change for 2143, 2161 Southwest 6th Street, and 2160 Southwest 5th Street. The Commission had denied it on September 27th; reconsidered on October 14th, and it's back before you today on reconsideration. Jorge L. Ferncindez (City Attorney): So this, in essence, is your first reading of this ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, it is. Mr. Ferro: Mr. Chair, members of the board, Simon Ferro, 1221 Brickell. At the reconsideration, we were instructed, and we have done so, but we have not concluded the process of talking to staff. We have gone -- we have met with Lourdes. We have presented a more detailed site plan. We got some comments from Lourdes, then it went to Design Review City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Committee. We have some comments from them. We met with them a couple of days ago, and now we do need to meet with Lourdes and with Ana again in the process. There are a number of issues regarding liner and how far up the liner -- the residential liner should go, and we believe that we're making great progress. We would appreciate it if we could continue meeting with them and -- Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely, and that's in my district, and the reason why I was not very supportive was that we needed to put more details on this. Basically -- Mr. Ferro: And we are doing so. Chairman Sanchez: -- what you're asking for to basically protect not only the interest of the City, but also the residents around, so I'm very content with it. As a matter offact, it was a motion for reconsider, so at this time, I would make a motion to approve, on first reading. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion -- Ms. Slazyk: On first reading, right, and then before second reading in scale and transition, you know, the project is there. It's really down to some treatment -- Chairman Sanchez: They're aware of it. Ms. Slazyk: -- on the last little bit of garage that is not going to be lined and we're still working just a couple little details out, so -- Mr. Ferro: We appreciate it. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. It's a public hearing. Anybody from the public -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Vice Chairman. We did not record a second. I apologize. Commissioner Allen: I'll second I second. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Allen second it. It's a public hearing. Anybody from the public? OK. Public hearing is closed. Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, on first reading. Commissioner Winton: I'd like to make a comment. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: And it's really a question. When you look at the zoning map, what you do now is you take a big slice here that's been medium density multifamily, and it's now going to be restricted commercial, and it doesn't follow any line, and so does that mean that in order to get a straight line, we're going to now move all along here the zoning so that you have restricted commercial that's going --1 don't know what direction that is -- but a greater exposure of restricted commercial zoning now along this whole corridor? I mean -- Ms. Slazyk: Our original recommendation was for denial for that very reason, and the Commission, as you know, denied it. Under reconsideration, what the applicant is trying to do, City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 because this is a medium density multifamily district behind it and not R-1 or 2 -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, all -- Ms. Slazyk: -- through the design, they're using the same sort of scale and transition. It doesn't mean that everybody -- you know, and the next guy who wants to change it and say, "Oh, but it was changed here, " he's going to try to point to this one and say, "Yeah, you changed it for this one," but every case is seen on a case -by -case basis, and you can't say that what happened over there should happen all the way up the street. Mr. Ferro: If I may just say, Commissioner, we don't intend to do commercial uses in the rear. All we're doing is so that we have a standardized, equal density from the front that we do -- where we do have commercial on 22nd Avenue to the rear. We're just doing it for density purposes, and we're going -- the covenant that we're going to give is going to prohibit any commercial use in the property you have before you today. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Allen: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. City Attorney, would you read the ordinance, please? The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City 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. PZ.2 04-00573a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), AMENDING PAGE NO. 34, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-3 " MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2160 SOUTHWEST 5TH STREET AND 2143 AND 2161 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. 04-00573a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00573a Analysis.PDF 04-00573a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00573 & 04-00573a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00573a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00573a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00573a Legislation.PDF 04-00573 & 04-00573a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00573a-submittal-liquor survey.pdf City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-3 Multifamily Medium - Density Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 2160 SW 5th Street and 2143 and 2161 SW 6th Street APPLICANT(S): Edward D. Pascoe, Owner and Salomon Sutton/Punta Diamante, LLC, 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 5-4. See companion File ID 04-00573. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial. Motion by Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Vice Chairman Gonzalez: PZ 2. Chairman Sanchez: It's a companion, so moved. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: It's a companion. Commissioner Winton: Second. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): And this is the one where you would accept the covenant. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We have a -- Chairman Sanchez: With the covenant. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Well, they will be proffered -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- before second and final reading. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, absolutely. Mr. Fernandez: We're still in the process of reviewing. Chairman Sanchez: And this is a perfect example of why we need to find ways to change this method. I am totally uncomfortable with it, because when we get here is -- everything's half - City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 12/17/2009 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 baked and as we go along, we compromise 'til, you know, there's a compromise towards the end. It needs to come to us with everything done so we could either give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. We need to change this process. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I agree. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. PZ.2. We have a motion and we have a second. It's a public hearing. Anybody from the public that want to address the Commission? OK, no one from the public is coming. The public hearing is closed. Mr. City Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City 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, 4/0. Chairman Sanchez: Congratulations. Mr. Ferro: Thank you all very much. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Ferro: Have a great afternoon. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Ferro: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Do a good project out there. PZ.3 04-01128 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 NORTHWEST 22ND STREET AND NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "INDUSTRIAL" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 04-01128 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01128 Analysis.PDF 04-01128 Land Use Map.pdf 04-01128 & 04-01128a Aerial Map.pdf 04-01128 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01128 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-01128 Legislation.PDF 04-01128 & 04-01128a Exhibit A.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Industrial" to "General Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately NW 22nd Street and NW 2nd Avenue APPLICANT(S): Artists Lofts, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 22, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 04-1128a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to General Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Chairman Sanchez: All right. Can we move on to the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items? We properly advertised -- do we -- do you have the PZ items? Well, listen, what we're trying to do here, we're trying to streamline the agenda, and basically what we did is, we're starting now -- there was a redline memo put out to obtain recommendations from all the Commissioners and the City Manager as to how we could streamline the agenda. Some recommendations are out there floating. Each Commissioner's going to get back, through the City Manager, and it's just for a more efficient and more professional, and more decor Commission meetings, and basically, what we've done is, if we could streamline it, that sometimes we're able to have PZ items in the morning that are noncontroversial, that we could just get through, and then in the afternoon, without, you know -- without disallowing anybody the opportunity to address this Commission or show up and make a statement on any of the PZ items that are controversial, well do them after 5 o'clock so they could have an opportunity to get here after work, but some of these PZ items could be done, so if we could just move over to PZ items now, well -- Mr. City Manager -- Mr. City Attorney. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): You may do so, if they have been advertised to be heard -- Chairman Sanchez: After 10 o'clock. Mr. Fernandez.: -- after 10 o'clock. Chairman Sanchez: Exactly. City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: And then that's fine. Chairman Sanchez: And those are PZ. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 6, 7 -- Chairman Sanchez: PZ -- through 8, and let's go ahead and start with PZ.3, because PZ.1 and PZ2, 1 believe that the attorney is stuck in the County, if I'm not mistaken, so we're waiting for him to get here. We'll take it up in the afternoon. Let's go to PZ 3. Are we ready for PZ.3? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yep. Chairman Sanchez: Are we ready? Commissioners, are we ready? Mr. City Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- we're ready? OK. Let's go with PZ.3. It's a noncontroversial, right? Ms. Slazyk: PZ.3 and 4 -- for the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ .3 and 4 are change of land use and zoning for properties Northwest 22nd Street and 2nd Avenue from industrial to general commercial. It's been recommended for approval by Planning and Zoning, approval by the Planning Advisory Board and approval by the Zoning Board. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Lucia Dougherty: Good morning, Mr, Chairman, members of the board -- Chairman Sanchez: Applicant, you're recognized. State your name for the record. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Today with the project representative -- Commissioner Winton: Lucia, hold it up here. There you go. Ms. Dougherty: Like this? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: OK. With the project representative Ron Kahn, and I just want to show you where this project is. It's going to be an artists lofts project. It is immediately to the east of the Dade Foreign Trade Zone, and it's one of those new loft projects. It's in a -- we're asking from industrial to C-2, meaning the same height, which is 120 feet; meaning the same FAR (Floor Area Ratio). All we're doing is allowing residential. Commissioner Winton: OK, and that isn't owned by the Miami Free Trade Zone people? 1 thought that land that was just east of that property was owned by -- Ms. Dougherty: It is not owned by them. Commissioner Winton: Oh, that's good news. Ms. Dougherty.: And -- Commissioner Winton: OK. City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Dougherty: -- again, you see the terminal lofts -- Commissioner Winton: Move -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: -- PZ.3. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion to approve PZ 3. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Motion is made by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonza lez. It is an ordinance on first reading. It requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, and we come back to the Commission for deliberation. Further discussion from the Commission? Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, on first reading. 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 passed on first reading, 4/0. PZ.4 04-01128a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), AMENDING PAGE NO. 21, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "I" INDUSTRIAL TO "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY NORTHWEST 22ND STREET AND NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01128a Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01128a Analysis.PDF 04-01128a Zoning Map.pdf 04-01128 & 04-01128a Aerial Map.pdf 04-01128a ZB Reso.PDF 04-01128a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-01128a Legislation.PDF 04-01128 & 04-01128a Exhibit A.PDF City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from I Industrial to C-2 Liberal Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately NW 22nd Street and NW 2nd Avenue APPLICANT(S): Artists Lofts, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 18, 2004 by a vote of 9-0. See companion File ID 04-01128. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-2 Liberal Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Chairman Sanchez: PZ 4 is an ordinance on first reading. It's a companion item to PZ.3. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is an ordinance requiring a public hearing. At this time, the public hearing is open. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none and hearing none, for the record, the public hearing is closed, and we come back to the Commission for further discussion or deliberation. There's a motion and a second. No further discussion. We send it to the City Attorney to 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 passed on first reading, 4/0. Chairman Sanchez: Congratulations. Wonderful presentation. Lucia Dougherty: Thanks very much. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Have a good day. City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 PZ.5 04-01101 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING 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 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 FR 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. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: I - Commissioner Regalado Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.5 is an ordinance on first reading. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. PZ.5 is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for C-1 district and SD-14, so this would include all the special districts that go to C-1 to increase the footprint limitations for buildings. The 40 percent requirement that's in place today is much more of a suburban requirement, smaller building with lots of parking around it. What we really want to do -- and we've been doing with a lot of the projects you see -- is create liners, and these projects have been having to request footprint variances so they could do the liners that we want them to do, so rather than that continuing, we decided to increase it by Class II Special Permit with a requirement that 65 percent of their street frontages include liners, so if they want to bigger footprint, they have to have liners along their street frontages. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board Chairman Sanchez: Sir, would you like to put anything on the record. Robert Behar: Yes, I do. City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: OK State your name for the record. Mr. Behar: Robert Behar, Behar Font and Partners, 4533 Ponce de Leon. First, 1'd like to start commending the Planning Department for an excellent job they do. We may not always agree, but they, at the end, comes out excellent. 1 think the -- in principle, this ordinance is a very good idea. My only concern is that the ordinance has not been considered in all possible scenarios. For example, narrow properties with multiple streets. I think a combination between a habitable space and an architectural element to hide the parking garages, which is the intent of this ordinance, I think it's a better solution. 1 think that 65 percent of the ground floor is an excellent idea. It works. 1 even think that even a 50 percent up in the second floor, it also works, but when you have a narrow lot and you start going up vertically and if you just starting to put liners on the upper floors, it creates a problem. 171 give you an example. I'm doing a property which is only 90 feet in depth on Southwest 8th Street. When I got to put my parking with a setback, only leaves me 80 feet. That's enough to do the parking, the drive out, all the parking, and a ramp. Well, in a case like that, a liner is not feasible. I did a study. In order for me to put liners, I would have to increase the height of the building additional three stories. That's not the way I think this Commission wants to go. 1 think the idea of incorporating habitable liner is an excellent, but it depends on each different site, specific conditions. We've been talking to Planning Department and they're willing to sit back and relook at this issue. I think again, it's a great idea, but I think it needs to be worked out. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. It's interesting because I essentially wrote the same comment on my notes here, and that is that what I hope we work towards eventually is a two-part system, because the whole idea here is to hide these damn garages. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: But there are sites clearly out there -- we've seen them -- where you can't put a liner on because the site's too narrow, so there has to be some other mechanism that we create that's going to be architectural elements that some way or another we get -- need to get incorporated into our Code so that everybody out there knows you're not going to build these stupid damn parking garages that are exposed in our City anymore, like we've been able to do for a long time, and that's going to dress up these neighborhoods immensely -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- and so my sense is that we ought to pass this on first reading and -- Ms. Slazyk: Revisit the percentage, maybe, yeah. Commissioner Winton: Yeah -- well -- and maybe you add something to the Code about -- Chairman Sanchez: 171 add -- Commissioner Winton: -- the option. Ms. Slazyk: Combination of liner -- Commissioner Winton: Bingo. Ms. Slazyk: -- and treatment, right. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, yeah. City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: OK. I agree. Chairman Sanchez: If I may just add to elaborate a little bit on that, and once again, you know, we go back to the saying that "one shoe doesn't fit all." If you look at the liners --1 mean, for certain areas, liners are fine, but in other areas --1 mean, look at Coral Gables. Coral Gables uses -- doesn't use much liners. They use architectural decoration -- Commissioner Winton: Absolutely. Chairman Sanchez: -- where you look at the building and you don't even know it's a parking lot. It's part of the building. Commissioner Winton: Yep. Chairman Sanchez: So, 1 mean, we need to open up and have a clear vision as to -- in certain areas, basically, we could utilize that, and in certain areas, we could utilize liners. 1 mean, we -- because 1-- when we heard about this -- and, of course, you know, liners keep coming up, and I support liners. I'd rather -- I don't want to see open parking lots. I mean, they're horrible. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Sanchez: But there's other options out there that we need to explore, and we just, you know, need to keep our eyes open as to what -- I'm in full support of passing it on first reading and it coming back, continue to negotiate and see if something could be worked out on certain circumstances. As he stated, the property's too narrow. Ms. Slazyk: 1 agree. 1 think -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- the width of the property has a lot to do with it -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: -- as to whether you could even fit it, and if not, obviously, architectural treatment is the way to go. Commissioner Winton: Right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion and a second on this ordinance. Before we go -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chairman. We don't -- not on our records, we don't have a mover or seconder. I'm sorry. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's -- the notion has been made by Commissioner Winton, and second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: We'll go out to the public. It's a ordinance on first reading and it requires a public hearing, so anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please come forward and identify yourself as you did, Mr. Behar. The public hearing is closed, and at this time, we'll City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 have the City Attorney read the ordinance into the record, and then we'll go to the Clerk for a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Chairman Sanchez: 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. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Thank you so much. Mr. Behar: Thank you very much. PZ.6 04-01179 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS BY AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION 906 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS IN R-4, COMMERCIAL, AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01179 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01179 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01179 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 October 6, 2004 by a vote of 7-1. PURPOSE: This will allow for extensions to home occupations in certain districts to promote live/work. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, Madam Clerk, could you guide me? Where are we at? 1 lost -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 6. City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): PZ.6. Commissioner Winton: PZ.6. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.6? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Correct. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.6. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.6, is it a noncontroversial one? Commissioner Winton: So moved. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Let's try to get as many noncontroversials -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- out of the way. Commissioner Winton: Move PZ.6. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonz alez. 1t is an ordinance on first reading. It is a -- requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this Commission, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed at this time. Coming back for deliberation from the Commission. Hearing no further discussion, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ.6, on -- right? Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- on first reading? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Yes. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Chairman Sanchez: Roll call, ma'am. I'm sorry. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: And I'll -- just for a point of clarification, this is -- it's only a test in District 2, but we might expand it later on to other districts? Ms. Slazyk: It's -- no, but it includes C-2, so in C-2, it's citywide. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: It's not just special districts and -- but if it's something that works, it may be expanded to other special districts. Chairman Sanchez: Right. You're having pockets of -- Ms. Slazyk: 1 understand Midtown is interested. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. It's just a much better live/work type ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: OK. We could always explore that in the future. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, yes. PZ.7 04-01180 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLES 4 AND 9, IN ORDER TO MODIFY CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS AND TO MODIFY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 945, PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SUCH CHANGES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01180 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01180 PAS Reso.PDF 04-01180 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 October 6, 2004 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will eliminate pharmaceutical laboratories from the C-1 Restricted Commercial zoning district. Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): This is eliminating pharmaceutical laboratories from C-1. They will continue to be allowed in GI (Government Institutional), C-2, and Industrial. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Is there a motion? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move PZ 7. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez, second by -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Allen. Before we open it for a discussion, it is an ordinance requiring a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and rec -- be recognized. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Coming back to the Commission for discussion. Hearing no further discussion, we go to the City Attorney to read the ordinance into the record. 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, 4/0. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.8 04-01181 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6 SPECIAL DISTRICTS, MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTIONS 623 AND 625 IN ORDER TO ALLOW EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK AND USE LIMITATIONS CONDITIONALLY; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01181 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01181 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01181 Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 6, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will allow arcades within the Coral Way and SW 8th Street special districts. Motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Chairman Sanchez: Let's go to PH 8 [sic], which is also a ordinance on first reading. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): PZ8. Commissioner Allen: PZ (Planning & Zoning). Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.8. Commissioner Allen: You say PH (Public Hearing). PZ. Ms. Slazyk: This is allowing -- Chairman Sanchez: What did I say? Commissioner Allen: PH. Ms. Slazyk: PH. Chairman Sanchez: PH, OK, all right. PZ 8. Public hearing. Ms. Slazyk: This is for the Coral Way Special District SD-23 and Southwest 8th Street Special District for exceptions to setback and use limitations. This is to primarily allow for arcades and much better ground floor pedestrian uses and frontages on Coral Way and 8th Street. It's been recommended for approval. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move PZ8. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion and a second on PZ H [sic] -- all right. Yeah, I'm stuck today with the public hearings and the PZs. All right. It requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed, and we come back to the Commission for discussion. Hearing none, we ask the City Attorney to read into the record PH -- PZ. H [sic] ordinance on first reading. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: This is on PZ.8. Ms. Thompson: Correct. 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. Chairman Sanchez: All right. That basically takes care of the regular agenda, and it also takes care of PZ.1 through 8. The following items have been properly advertised after 2:30 and will be considered after 2..30. That's the remaining PZ items, and also at 3:30, we have -- I'm sorry, 3 o'clock time certain items, PH. 7 through PH.12. At this time, if there's no further discussion -- Ms. Thompson: Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- the City Commission stands in recess. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Just -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. Ms. Thompson: Because you said the regular agenda had been taken care of You did table CA. 10 to the afternoon. Commissioner Allen: CA.10, that's correct, yes, according to my notes. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Before we go and recess -- I'm sorry, C -- Ms. Thompson: CA.10, Consent Agenda Item 10 you tabled to be -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: CA.10. Ms. Thompson: -- considered this afternoon. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right, so at this time, the City of Miami Commission stands at recess. PZ.9 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 OPUS 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 City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00723 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00723 MUSP Analysis.PDF 04-00723 Zoning Map.pdf 04-00723 Aerial Map.pdf 04-00723 UDRB Reso.pdf 04-00723 School Brd Recomm.PDF 04-00723 Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 04-00723 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00723 MUSP Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00723 Sp Ex Fact Sheet.PDF 04-00723 Sp Ex Analysis.PDF 04-00723 ZB Reso.PDF 04-00723 Sp Ex Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00723 Plans.PDF 04-00723 Plans Re-submittal.PDF 04-00723 Legislation.PDF 04-00723 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00723 Exhibit B.PDF 04-00723 Exhibit C.PDF 04-00723 - submittal - 1.pdf 04-00723 - submittal - 2.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Opus Project 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 AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. URBAN DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on April 21, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. 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 on June 28, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Opus Project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Winton absent, to continue Item PZ.9 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for January 27, 2005. City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Moving on to consent agenda. Consent agenda. Lucia Dougherty:: There's another continuance, Mr. -- Chairman Sanchez: Are you asking for a continuance? Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Chairman Sanchez: On what item, ma'am? Please state your name for the record. Ms. Dougherty.: Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of PZ.9, which is the Opus project. You may recall that this is a project that we had a final hearing before the City Commission for our Major Use Special Permit. We received yesterday a letter from the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) confirming that they actually want to acquire this property. I think the Manager was copied on the letter, and he may have even been instrumental in having it been sent, so we thank him for that. Mr. Manager, this is Opus to be continued, and I think you wanted it to the last meeting in December or January? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Well, we only have one meeting -- Commissioner Winton: January. Mr. Arriola: -- in December, so in January will be fine. Chairman Sanchez: It'll be in January. Ms. Dougherty: January. Commissioner Winton: January. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion to -- Ms. Dougherty: Can I ask a question, though -- yes, go ahead. Chairman Sanchez: Is there a motion to defer the item to the January meeting? Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Gonzcilez: Move to defer. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously. Ms. Dougherty.: Mr. Manager, could we have staff, if there's any zoning issues outstanding between now and zoning -- January, let us know? Mr. Arriola: We're going to take care of that, yes, ma'am. City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Dougherty: Will you do that? Mr. Arriola: Thanks for the cooperation. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead -- yeah, PZ. 9 again, for the record, has been deferred to the second meeting of January, so well go ahead with PZ 10. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, you need to actually vote on that continuance now. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, now? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: OK, so we need a motion to defer the Opus PZ (Planning & Zoning) item to the second meeting of January. Is there a motion? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move it. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Allen. Open for discussion. Mr. Maxwell: And that's PZ.9. Chairman Sanchez: Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Yes, and that is for January the -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 27th. Chairman Sanchez: -- 27th, as stated for the record. PZ.10 03-0188 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY RIVERHOUSE PIER I LIMITED ("APPELLANTS"), AND AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD (" HEPB"), WHICH DESIGNATED EAST COAST FISHERIES LOCATED AT 40 SW NORTH RIVER DRIVE AS A HISTORIC SITE. City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 03-0188 Fact Sheet.pdf 03-0188 Zoning Map.pdf 03-0188 Aerial Map.pdf 03-0188 Appeal Letter.PDF 03-0188 HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0188 Class II Special Permit.PDF 03-0188 Designation Report.pdf 03-0188 Q&A Historic Designation.PDF 03-0188 Legislation a.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit A Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit B HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0188 Legislation b.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit A Fact Sheet.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit B HEPB Reso.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit C Designation Report.PDF 03-0188 Exhibit C.pdf 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-04-0760 Chairman Sanchez: Let's go ahead into PZ 10. Sarah Eaton: Sarah Eaton, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ.10 is an appeal of a decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board to designate the Eastcoast Fisheries as a historic site. The Eastcoast Fisheries is an important historic building located along the Miami River, and it's important not only for its role and its association with the fishing industry, but also as an excellent example of Mediterranean revival -style architecture. It's eligible for designation under criteria 3 and 5, and we recommend that this Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. Chairman Sanchez: Who's here on behalf of the appeal? Who's appealing it? Are they here? Ms. Eaton: I -- Chairman Sanchez: Why don't we -- we could act on it? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: It's just been properly advertised. I mean, I -- Mr. Maxwell: Not only has it been properly advertised, Mr. Chairman, but this item has been before you any number of times, and at the last Commission meeting of -- which it was discussed, they were specifically advised, 1 believe by the Chair, that this would be the last continuance, and you would take it up and they were supposed to come prepared to make their presentation today, so -- I mean, they've been properly noticed. They were advised of the date, so if the Commission wishes, you can act on this today, or it's at your discretion to continue it again, if you so desire. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Well -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Whose district it's in? Johnny? City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: It's Commissioner Winton's district. Let's go ahead and table it for now. Commissioner Regalado: (INAUDIBLE) Chairman Sanchez: Huh? Commissioner Regalado: (INAUDIBLE) Chairman Sanchez: No, it's not. It's his, not mine. It's across the river on the other side. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Chairman Sanchez: It's on the north side of the river. Let's go ahead and table this until he gets here. Mr. Maxwell: I think this is in District 5. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, that's what I thought. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: District 5. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: 1 thought it was -- OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Flagler Street. Chairman Sanchez: It's not Flagler. Mr. Maxwell: No. This is on the river. Eastcoast Fisheries. Chairman Sanchez: It's on the north -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but it's Eastcoast Fisheries. That's on Flagler and Northwest North River Drive. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. I think it's -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: That's Commissioner Winton's. Mr. Maxwell: I think that's -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Mr. Maxwell: No. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No? Commissioner Regalado: Because it's west of the expressway. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, it's west of the expressway. City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Richard Dubin: Southwest North River Drive. Commissioner Regalado: It's west of the expressway. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so is there anyone here -- Commissioner Regalado: It's Commissioner Allen. Chairman Sanchez: Are you speaking on this item? Commissioner Allen: Yeah, this -- Chairman Sanchez: Hold -- whoa, whoa. Mr. Dubin: No, but I'm here for an unrelated matter, but that's my father-in-law. His mother has been sick, so -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: Sir -- Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry, sir, you have to come to the podium -- Mr. Maxwell: You have to speak on the record Commissioner Allen: -- if you would, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Who's got to gavel? I need the gavel. I'm going to need it this afternoon. Mr. Dubin: I just happen -- Chairman Sanchez: I didn't want to use it, but I'm going to have to use it this afternoon, you know. Sir, you need to step up, state -- Mr. Dubin: Sorry. Chairman Sanchez: -- your name and address for the record before you speak. Mr. Dubin: My name is Richard Dubin, 6465 Southwest 116th Street, Miami, Florida. I'm here for an unrelated matter, but the property belongs to my father-in-law and his mother's been sick, so I do not know if he's been here or if he knows that there's a -- this hearing is today. I could try to reach him and call him, but that's all I can tell you. I know his mother's been very sick. His grandmother, she's 99 -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen, what is your -- Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, in light of what the City Attorney has advised us of 1 think that we're willing and ready to go forward. This has been properly advertised. It's been properly noticed, is that correct, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Because this item was continued, I don't think it was re -advertised, but it was continued to a date certain, and the applicant was -- the appellant was here at that meeting, and acknowledged that they -- Commissioner Allen: If I'm not mistaken, that action -- deferral was taken on September the 23 City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 rd. Mr. Maxwell: That sounds correct, sir. Commissioner Allen: If I stand correct, and are you speaking in behalf of the party? Mr. Dubin: No. I'm here for a totally unrelated matter -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Dubin: -- and this was -- I just heard it and I'm just letting you know why possibly he might not be here. Commissioner Allen: OK, but let me also, if I may, Mr. Chairman. In any event, we can move this item in abstention, is that correct, again? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Maxwell: They -- if they don't show up, I mean -- you know -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Well, 1'd like to make a motion to recommend denial of the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion -- Mr. Maxwell: Could I -- Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion -- Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Could you hear the presentation by -- have you finished your presentation? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. She -- Ms. Eaton: Yes, 1 have. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Chairman Sanchez: She conducted her presentation -- Mr. Maxwell: OK, fine. Chairman Sanchez: -- and that's the recommendation of the staff. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: 1 mean, that's my understanding. There's a motion for denial. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second. OK. Open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." Well, the public hearing was opened. There's nobody here, is my understanding, right? Just for City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 the record, is there anyone in the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Hearing none and seeing none, the public hearing is closed for the second time, and this Commission is ready to deliberate, so on the resolution, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." OK. Commissioner Regalado: Wait. Commissioner Allen: Right. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if it's also helpful, or as 1 look at the background on this information, this item was continued on several occasions, the last of which occurred -- a deferral occurred on September the 23rd of this year. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, one question -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- about historic preservation. It's not on this property, but it is on historic preservation. There is a service station on Coral Way and 17th Avenue. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, could I ask, before you discuss another property, Commissioner, can you conclude the vote on this one, and then you ask your questions on that? Commissioner Regalado: We already voted on this one. Chairman Sanchez: We already voted. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Chairman Sanchez: We voted -- Commissioner Regalado: We vote twice. Mr. Maxwell: 1 know it, but 1 think that Commissioner Allen was putting additional information in. Commissioner Regalado: Oh. Mr. Maxwell: So this is not tagging along his, you're saying. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Commissioner Allen: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. What I had simply did was put further competent, substantial evidence on the record, with respect to the background, to satisfy any notice issues, so having said that, it's been voted on. PZ.11 04-00953 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, TO ALLOW A BAR, WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 MUST BE OBTAINED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: 1) THE APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION SHALL RUN WITH THIS OPERATOR ONLY; ANY CHANGES TO A DIFFERENT OPERATOR SHALL REQUIRE A SEPARATE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND 2) THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT GETTING THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS A COMPANION ITEM IN THIS AGENDA, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1252 SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." 04-00953 Exhibit A.PDF 04-00953 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00953 Appeal Letters.PDF 04-00953 Analysis.PDF 04-00953 & 04-00953a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00953 & 04-00953a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00953 ZB Reso.PDF 04-00953 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00953 Plans.PDF 04-00953 Legislation a.PDF 04-00953 Legislation b.PDF 04-00953-submittal 1- map.pdf 04-00953-submittal 2 - analysis.pdf 04-00953-submittal 3 - petition.pdf 04-00953-submittal 4-letter.pdf 04-00953-submittal 5 -complaint tracking module.pdf 04-00953-submittal 6 - photo.pdf 04-00953-Submittal-1. pdf 04-00953-Submittal-2. pdf Motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Regalado and Allen Noes: 1 - Commissioner Sanchez Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-04-0762 Note for the Record: Items PZ.11 and PZ. 12 were consolidated. Chairman Sanchez: PH.11, we're going to wait to have five Commissioners. We're going to pass on the item, and we'll -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: PH. 11 or PZ 11? Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. I'm all -- 1 can't figure out today the PZs (Planning & Zonings) and the PHs (Public Hearings) today. All right. PZ 11, we're going to wait till we have five Commissioners on board. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah, 12 is the companion item to that. Chairman Sanchez: And 12 is also a companion item that we want to have five Commissioners. All right. PZ.11. City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: PZ 11 and 12 are actually companion items. They are appeals on special exception and variances that were -- they were actually granted by the Zoning Board, and the appeals came here before the City Commission. The Commission granted the appeal on September 27, 2004, and reconsidered the item on October 14, 2004, so what's before you today is the reconsidered appeals on special exception and variance. The Planning and Zoning Department recommends approval of the special exception and variances, and denials of the appeal. We basically recommend upholding the decision of the Zoning Board -- Commissioner Allen: Board. Ms. Slazyk: -- with the conditions as specified in your package. Primarily, the condition on the special exception is that it only runs with this operator. If this operator ever leaves and somebody else wants to come in and open a bar at this location, they would have to come back for a new -- Chairman Sanchez: And -- Ms. Slazyk: -- special exception. Chairman Sanchez: -- everybody understands that? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. That was said at the Zoning Board and we said it when it was here before you -- Chairman Sanchez: What do you mean, you don't understand that? Ms. Slazyk: -- last time, so we recommend that you uphold the Zoning Board. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, this is going to be a long one, so let's sit back. This starts from scratch. It's a -- it was a motion to reconsider, so everybody has to give the presentation brand-new, as nothing has happened, starting from scratch, so let's go ahead and start the -- Andrew Dickman: Thank you. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Andrew -- Chairman Sanchez: State your name for the record and your address. Mr. Dickman: Yes, sir. Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9111 Park Drive, in Miami Shores, Florida. I'm here on behalf of the applicants, Gloria Gyori, John Judice, V. H. Garcia, Faye Kmetz, Sonia Gibson and Luis Herrera, who are from the Roads -- Vizcaya/Roads Homeowners' Association. We have been opposing this particular project for a long time now. It was -- as the Planning Director mentioned, it was approved by the Zoning Board on June 14th. We appealed it to you all. 1t came before you on September 27, 2004. You granted the appeal and denied the operation -- the special exception and the variance. It was signed by the Mayor on September 30, '04, and then this body reconsidered it on October 14th, and then here we are before you. I would like to go ahead and put some -- just some legal arguments into the record, if I could, and then I would like for some of the neighbors to come up and make some brief comments to you, and we also are putting into the record some documents that we think are germane to this case. As you all know, special exceptions and variances are controlled by very particular codes in your Zoning Code. Special exceptions are controlled under Article 16, and the granting of variances are controlled under Article 19. This is a application to open a bar in a building that is on Coral Way for 70 patrons, plus employees. The square footage of this project causes it to require a certain number of parking that are not available on site. Special exception Article 1600 and the codes underneath that require that, for special exceptions, that there are studies and documentation and analyses made in order for the Zoning Board and the Commission and City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 staff to make approval. That's why it is a special exception and that is why it isn't as -of -right under the Zoning Code. You all also note that there is a special district overlay on Coral Way, which means that there are special -- this is a special place for the City, like a lot of special places. Coral Way, the commercial area, as well as the surrounding neighborhoods, are special places, and it has been deemed that, in this particular zoning category of SD-23, that a bar can only be opened under a special exception, and again, special exception requires quantifiable impact studies on the impact of this project on the area. This particular application provided no quantifiable, no impact studies on how the parking and how the actual business will operate. The only very brief documentation that is coming from staff is that there is an abundance of parking. It is a conclusion. It does not demonstrate the actual circumstances that are in the area. It does not accurately state the criteria that is required under the special exception requirements. It states that there are parking meters, off-street -- there are on -street parking meters that would suffice this business, but it does not go into any kind of analysis that shows what businesses around it are using those parking meters. These are shared parking meters. These are not designated parking meters. It -- the analysis for the special exception does not go into how many of these metered spaces are being used by the bakery, by the current liquor store, by the Super Pollo Restaurant, and all the other stores that are on this particular hub of area, so it does not go into, sufficiently, the special exception criteria. It also -- the staff report also inaccurately calls this a -- that it was a bar, and it was not a bar. It was a private club, two very different things. This was a private club at one time, which ultimately closed down, and now the applicant is coming forward and asking you to run a bar there. The staff report shows this as saying that this was once a bar, which would lead you to believe that a bar would be OK here, since a bar was once here, but the fact of the matter is, this was a private club, not a bar; two very different things. The survey that was provided to you all does not show the proximity or location on a radius level of where the schools are. This is very important, especially when you're introducing a bar next to a liquor store -- keep in mind that there is a liquor store right next to this -- and then you're introducing a bar, and there was no data or analysis provided showing where the closest schools are, and I'll tell you. Just a stone's throw away is the United Way Early Learning Project, which is right up the street on Coral Way, and we've made that argument to you all before, and we feel that there has not been sufficient evidence or information put out to justify having a bar in close proximity to this use. Additionally, there is an illegal door connecting the current liquor store with this bar. It even shows it on their site plan that they've introduced and, in fact, we're -- put some documents into the record that shows that in order for them to get this bar operational, you're using the license that is attached to the liquor store by opening the door, and your City staff, Code Enforcement and Building Department have said that this doorway has been put in there illegally. It's a firewall, and they put an illegal door connecting the liquor store to the bar. We question the requirement that this approval be attached to the applicant. It is our understanding that this approval for a special exception, under the law, runs with the land. We question whether or not you can actually condition it to this applicant. We're afraid that a new owner, a new operator will come along and say, "No, that's my special exception, " and make changes to it, and before you know it, this is a whole different animal than what they're presenting. Finally, we don't think that there are sufficient reasons that are required under Section 1604, studies, analyses, et cetera, that are sufficient enough for you to grant a special exception. Again, this is a zoning classification. Then you have a special district overlay, and then you have a special exception. There is a lot -- that, in itself tells you that you need to put a -- your staff needs to put a lot of thought into introducing this because it has been designated as a special area, and we don't think that the staff analysis and what the applicant has brought forward is sufficient under the Code for you to grant introducing a bar next to a liquor store in a neighborhood area. Now, let me very quickly go to the variance, which is a little bit more straight forward. Under Article 1900, your criterias [sic] -- 1902.3, the criteria is, A, you have to show that there are special circumstances peculiar to this building, special circumstances peculiar to this building. B, that it is not the result -- that the request for the variance is not the result of the petitioner. C, that a literal interpretation would deny any use of this particular building. D, that it offers that the variance would also be allowed for other buildings in the area. That, in other words, you would be equal -- treat other City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 buildings in the area equally. That this particular applicant, this variance requestor would not be treated in any special way than any other building in the area; that this is the minimum variance necessary in order to grant the use, and again, this is a variance for ten parking spaces. Under this particular project, they are request -- they're required by square footage, required to have 15 on -site parking spaces. They only have four. There's some discussion about one parking space being so-called "grandfathered in, " but still, this is a gigantic variance of ten spaces, and finally, F, it has to be harmonious with the Special District 23 and the neighborhood . These are inclusive. These aren't just -- you have to meet one of these criteria or two of these criteria. You have to meet all of these criteria, and then I also want to put on the record that there is very strong case law -- there is case law coming out of the Third DCA (District Court of Appeals); there is Herrera versus the City of Miami. This is at 600 Southern Second at 561, which specifically addresses variances, granting variances in this City, and it has to be a grant of a variance when there is no other reasonable use of the property and that, without the variance, there would be -- would be virtually unusable, and in this case, there are plenty of other uses for this space, for this building. They happen to want to put a bar there. That is their choice. That doesn't mean that you have to grant a variance. I don't think -- my clients don't think that they meet all of the requirement that are laid out in your Code, and again, it says "and . " It doesn't say "or." It says "and" in 1902.3. They have to meet all of these criteria, and then the case law further defines and says that if they have any other use that they could use this for, that then they don't deserve the variance. You can't just cause the variance. A variance is for very specific circumstances, and then, finally, I want to address some due process issues that are very serious. We don't feel that, for this particular hearing today, there were no notices placed in the neighborhood. We believe that that is a notice violation. We believe that the disclosures - Chairman Sanchez: Let me take notes on all that -- Mr. Dickman: OK Chairman Sanchez: -- so we could address that. You said that there wasn't proper notice? Mr. Dickman: Proper notice in the neighborhood. That means there wasn't a posting of signs in the area on the property that this hearing is going to take place. The advertisement for this hearing today is identical to the hearing that took place before, and it does not reference the fact that this is coming back under a reconsideration. It does not give the neighbors, or any of the adjoining or adjacent properties notice that the reason that this is coming back is because of a reconsideration. We feel that that's in error. We also -- our understanding of the motion for reconsideration, that it has to be done at that meeting. It cannot be done weeks later, days later; it has to be done at that meeting -- Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, can you address that? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. First of all, let me ask Mr. Dickman this: Are your question -- your statement that there was no posting of the property, is that what you're saying? Mr. Dickman: Yes. We are saying that the post -- Mr. Maxwell: First of all, that should be directed to the Hearing Boards Division, and -- Mr. Dickman: OK. Chairman Sanchez: So let's -- Mr. Maxwell: -- that's the first thing, because if he's -- City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Dickman: Well -- Mr. Maxwell: First of all, if he's correct about that -- Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Maxwell: -- then it would have to come back, with no question, but his statement about reconsideration, Chapter 62-2 sets out the requirements and the procedures for reconsideration of a land use issue. This item was brought back in a timely fashion. Upon the motion of reconsider, the Commission addressed it and they agreed to reconsider the item, and pending proper notice, it is properly before you. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Dickman: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Well, let's -- listen, let's wait for the -- to find out -- Mr. Dickman: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- about the notice, because so far, 1 wanted to -- you know, all your concerns that you're bringing forth, they're going to be addressed -- Mr. Dickman: I understand that. Chairman Sanchez: -- so you could state your record. Mr. Dickman: And I ask the Commission to indulge me to allow me to make my record. Chairman Sanchez: Sure. Mr. Dickman: I understand that your attorney has to advise you so you can make proper decisions, but we also feel that we need to put these things on the record for our protection, as well. We also question that the decision -- actually, the resolution that you passed went to -- and it says this in the legislation that you passed already to deny this application, to accept the appeal -- went to the Mayor of this City and he signed it. It went into law. Mr. Maxwell: It's not -- the City Commission has a right to reconsider the item -- Chairman Sanchez: Under 62-2. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. They've reconsidered the item within a timely fashion, and it's properly before them now. Now, if -- and as the Chairman pointed out during the introduction of this item, this is a totally new hearing on the item, and the decision and the discussions of the item during the first reading are not a part of the record for this one. Mr. Dickman: 1 understand the City Attorney's not suggesting that 1 can't put anything on the record. 1 assume that he is just commenting on what 1 am putting into the record. Are you suggesting that I can't put that into the record? Mr. Maxwell: I don't think any discussion about what the City Commission did at the last hearing on this is relevant to this one. This is a new item now. Mr. Dickman: OK. The item that was advertised was Discussion Item 3.2, which did not -- the City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 actual notice -- I'm reading the agenda. It says, "Discussion concerning a motion to reconsider Items PZ 26 and PZ 27 from September 27th. " It -- that's about all it says. There was hardly any notice whatsoever to the community about that reconsideration item. We alleged that, even if you find that it is proper for you to reconsider a quasi-judicial matter, which we question, inherently, the notice that you put out for that reconsideration hearing is also part of the quasi- judicial hearing, and you have, under the rules of due process, fundamental fairness that you need to give proper notice, just as though you would for the hearing before that and the hearing today. This particular hearing, we feel, for the reconsideration, was not properly advertised or noticed. We question the fact that, once the Mayor signs something into law, there is -- on your own Section 1606.4, it requires, before another reconsideration of a special exception on the same property, it requires a one-year wait before that particular application can come back on the same property so, in effect, once the Mayor signed that into law, it is law. Chairman Sanchez: Hold on. Mr. City Attorney. The statement that he's putting on the record, I think, needs to be addressed. Under the law, is he correct? Mr. Maxwell: I don't believe so, and I'll tell you why. Because the law doesn't require an unreasonable act. If our Code specifically says that the Commission has "X" number of days to reconsider, or reconsideration of an item may occur by a certain time, then it's implicit in that that you have that time in which to act. If, in fact, it takes two weeks, or the next regularly scheduled meeting, even though the Mayor signed it, you still had -- you weren't divested of jurisdiction by that action. That would not be a reasonable act, in my opinion. It would not result in a reasonable result. Chairman Sanchez: And, counsel, so far, what you've put on the record, the thing that has caught my attention -- and I want to verify -- is the proper notice. If this meeting was not properly noticed, then we do have a big problem, but other than that, if they come back and they say that this meeting was properly noticed -- Mr. Dickman: Let me -- Chairman Sanchez: -- we continue with it. Mr. Dickman: Let me also point out that inquiring about why this was reconsidered, the discussions that I had or I had heard from staff was that there was a concern in the community, there was an outcry; there was people who wanted this to come forward, and if that were the case -- I mean, I've read the minutes. I wasn't here on October 14th, when you motioned to reconsider it, and I've read the condensed minutes, and I don't really see a justification why this needed to be reconsidered. I don't see any reasoning why any new information, any changed circumstances, why the Commission chose to reconsider this item, as -- a quasi-judicial item that had already gone through the process, and signed by the Mayor. There was really no information put into the record why this needed to be reconsidered, and if there was discussions coming from the community saying that they wanted this to be reconsidered, and that they approached their legislators and asked legislators to bring this forward, those, under the quasi- judicial process, would be considered ex parte contacts, and 1 think that those need to be disclosed if there were any, and so far, we haven't heard of any disclosure of ex parte contacts with the legislators, with the judges. Mr. Maxwell: May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: 1 don't believe a request to reconsider an item is a violation of Jennings. It's a procedural matter; it doesn't go to the substance of the issue, and I understand the position you're taking, but my recommendation, or advice to the Commission could be -- and has been, in City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 fact, that the procedural issues of that kind can be addressed. In fact, if a person wants to reconsider an item, or wants you to consider reconsideration of an item, the absolute only way that that can occur is that you would have to be requested. Chairman Sanchez: And as long as it's done in a timely basis. Mr. Maxwell: That's correct. Chairman Sanchez: That's it. Yeah, that -- we're not going to argue that anymore. Forget it. Mr. Maxwell: OK, and again, as to Mr. Dickman's point about the law, what the Mayor signed into effect was a special permit. It wasn't a change of law; it was a special permit. Chairman Sanchez: Was it properly advertised? Mr. Maxwell: You have a variance -- Chairman Sanchez: Was it properly advertised? Mr. Maxwell: -- which is a form of a permit, and a special exception, which is a form of a permit . Our Code allows the City Commission to revoke permits months, even years in the future, if certain conditions aren't complied with, so a person isn't given some inalienable right by virtue of the Mayor having signed that, so 1 don't think that argument -- Mr. Dickman: That's understood, but again, what new information, what new circumstances, what change that occurred, what new information under the special exception law, or even under the variance law occurred that asked -- that wanted this applicant to come forward? What was it? Mr. Maxwell: I don't think it was necessary. That was a procedural issue. Mr. Dickman: A procedural issue. Mr. Maxwell: Quasi-judicial hearing, which requires and mandates the type evidence that you're talking about now, is to present it -- be presented now, during the public hearing, the quasi-judicial hearing. That was purely a procedural matter of reconsideration. It did not require the things that you're asking about. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, I have put what I needed to in the record I would ask that the neighbors be able to come forward and spend a few moments speaking to you. Once again, we feel that there -- Chairman Sanchez: Have they been sworn in? Mr. Dickman: I believe everyone was here when you -- Chairman Sanchez: Everyone has been sworn in? Mr. Dickman: -- when your Clerk swore them in. Chairman Sanchez: OK Let's -- Mr. Dickman: Yeah, we were here earlier. Chairman Sanchez: -- get their testimony on the record -- City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Dickman: Thank you, sir. Chairman Sanchez: -- so we could give the other side an opportunity. OK. Teri Gyori: Hi there. Teri Gyori. My mother owns the property right across the street from this place. 1t is a duplex. The address is 3465 -- Chairman Sanchez: You have two minutes. Ms. Gyori: -- Southwest 3rd Avenue, and the reason I'm here is because, from day one, we've been dragged out five times -- this is the fifth time. Joe, this is nothing against -- what really upsets me is that we won this thing on the 27th of September. We were not notified that there was going to be a reconsideration. Chairman Sanchez: Well, we -- Ms. Gyori: Not -- Chairman Sanchez: Listen, we're -- Ms. Gyori: This -- Chairman Sanchez: OK, just hold on. Ms. Gyori: It's not even on the agenda -- Chairman Sanchez: Now, I'm going to give you -- Ms. Gyori: -- of the October 14th. It was sneaked in, and I even believe that, Mr. Allen, you didn't know if it was attached or not attached. There's so much confusion in this. This is incredible. This is the verbatim minutes. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Are you going to let me talk? You could afford me the opportunity to talk for just a minute? Ms. Gyori: Come on. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. The concern that we have now is on the proper notice. That's a valid, valid argument. Now, they're checking up on that, and 1 believe they're looking for the affidavit signed to make sure that it was properly advertised. Under the 62-2, which has already been presented, as your attorney stated, motion for reconsider. 1t could happen, and it's in front of this legislative body again, so you need to start from scratch in stating your case, not about, you know, making arguments that are hearsay, or irrelevant because -- you know, use your two minutes wisely. Ms. Gyori: You know, this is like Jason in Halloween; it pops up when you think it's -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Gyori: -- dead, honestly. I've never ever, ever dealt with something like this, and I'll start, and I'll tell you exactly, as much as I can. Chairman Sanchez: Two minutes. Everybody's going to have two minutes, except the attorneys. City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Gyori: When it comes to the license, it very clearly states it's a private club. The owner of the property stated that this property was a bar. He even signed an affidavit. It was under the assumption of the City of Miami that this was a bar/lounge. I've got the documents and 1 provided them to you earlier. Besides that, the only way this can function is if you give them a special exception. They went ahead and did all their extensive renovating, which they were not supposed to because they had a small repair. I've gone ahead and shown you the documents in front of you. What is amazing is that there is a door connected, which the attorney had gone ahead and mentioned -- that door, since day one I've been saying that, it hasn't been closed. It's still open. That is the only way they can acquire that license for a bar. They have a license for a restaurant, or -- and they don't -- even the City of Miami says they can't have a restaurant there. The documents state it clearly. Let me see what else 1 could tell you. They've been in violation on a lot of repairs. You've got that in front of you. When it comes to the difference between a bar and a private club; a private club, they wouldn't have been able to, but let's say that with a special exception, you'll be able to have a bar. You know the amount of cars -- this is not like a private club that's selective. You can just go ahead and have South Beach over there. Since May of 2004, I was complaining about parking, isolated to all this. 1 did not know there was going to be another problem with the parking. 1 went ahead and 1 contacted the NET ( Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Administrator. 1 sent her a letter. No results came out of that. I went ahead and sent a letter to -- in a coincidence, it clearly stated that it had to do with the occupational license. What are these people across the street? I was complaining about a beauty salon, never thinking that -- they had expanded. I didn't know that the corner had expanded. I didn't know they had opened another couple of restaurants, and then, all of a sudden, we had a liquor store pop up, but now, also, a bar? And what I'm trying to mention this to you -- to all of you is that we've worked so hard in trying to show your staff, to show -- and no one calls us back. We've been totally ignored. We felt that we put closure to this because we've done our job, and as I mentioned to you, the excuse that you've seen a bar -- was it 50 years ago, 30 years ago -- they lost their license in 1994. They did -- they had a private club. Then, all of a sudden, in 2001, they closed. There's a lot of other bars that they can't even open on account they can't get their licenses now. What is the difference between -- is it selective enforcing? I mean, they're not supposed to be there, in other words. It's an SD-23 and private clubs are not allowed there, and a bar -- it doesn't make any sense. They wouldn't even be able to qualify with the parking spaces. Chairman Sanchez: OK. You need to wrap it up when you get -- Ms. Gyori: What? Chairman Sanchez: Could you wrap it up? You had two minutes -- Ms. Gyori: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- and you're way beyond that. Ms. Gyori: Mainly, I have all the letters that I've sent to you, and you have it in your folders. I beg to you that you read this, and if you don't understand it, please ask. I'm here now and I can go ahead and express to you the importance of -- I mean, we're paying a lot of taxes. I'm not a slumlord. I'm concerned where my tenants -- if they can -- when they get home tired, they can park. There's not sufficient parking in that area, at all, and there's no studies, whatsoever. The lessees went ahead and sent me a letter, and they said that this was a problem that was having -- that they -- it's the last letter, and it's in the last document right there where you see the letter, and it says this is for families. I wouldn't take a three -year -old to a bar. Bottom line is, this is not an atmosphere for families. Chairman Sanchez: OK. City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Gyori: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Gyori: Please. Chairman Sanchez: Next speaker, please. Luis Herrera: Good evening. My name is Luis Herrera. I live in 1181 Southwest 22nd Terrace. I represent the Vizcaya Homeowner Association. I'm here today -- look at my dress. 1 come from work. I don't have no notice. Nobody sent me a notice that it going to be this meeting here, and somebody in the neighborhood called me and they told me, "Did you see the letter?" I said, "What letter?" "I got one at home. Come to see it," so he give me the letter and I find out we have a hearing today. Chairman Sanchez: Was that a letter by the City? Mr. Herrera: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: So there was proper -- there was notice. Mr. Herrera: But they supposed to send me one, and they never sent it anyway. They don't have no notice in the bar either that they're going to have a hearing today. Chairman Sanchez: Well, we're going to -- they're -- it's the staffs responsibility to show that. They need to show that they properly advertised it. If they don't, then you have a valid argument based on the argument that your counsel has presented to us. Other than that -- well wait for that, so continue -- Mr. Herrera: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- with your testimony. Mr. Herrera: OK. For the record, OK, when they had the Zoning meeting, the gentleman, Mr. Barket, they admitted, OK, that it can have another kind of building in that place, and he said, in his own words, "No. I'm telling these people no, " so they put the bar in there. They tried to put the bar in there. They never asked nobody if we want the bar in the neighborhood; that's number one. Number two, I'm part of the Highway Patrol Against Drunk Drivers, and I'm supporting the people -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry, what did you say? Mr. Herrera: I'm in support of drunk -- I mean, drunk drivers from Highway Patrol, OK. Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Herrera, that's -- Mr. Herrera: This against -- let me finish. Chairman Sanchez: That's irrelevant, that's irrelevant. You need to put stuff on the record as to -- substantial evidence as to why the bar shouldn't be there. Mr. Herrera: Well, the question I'm going to bring it over because these -- they against the drunk drivers, and the bar is the -- get some people in there and get drunk. When they get out of there, it's drunk and they kill anybody. You can see it in the news everyday. A young kid get killed because this lady be drunk, and they smash it up to the tree and the road, 14 years old, so City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 why are we going to have -- open the bar like that when the law, they behind the drivers be drunk Chairman Sanchez: Give him 30 seconds more. I interrupted him. Mr. Herrera: -- and this picture here that I want to show you, that you have it, you know what it is. They don't have no parking lot. They got one, two, three, four or five, more or less. You got a bakery, Carlo's Bakery right here. You got a small restaurant in there. You got a sandwich restaurant in there, then you got the liquor store, and then you got the bar. Across the street, you got Super Pollo, that they park in Coral Way; Carlo's Bakery park on 3rd Avenue, and you give all the opportunity to these people to put the bar in there, or whoever they give you the permit, put it this way, OK. We are taxpayers. We pay you people, OK, to represent us, and we not supposed to have a lawyer hire that it cost a lot of money, and I got to walk all night around the street talking to the people to collect the money to pay the lawyer, and now you coming for consideration again, in front of this Commission again, something that we made already in 27th -- September 27th, and discuss the same problem again. 1 think, and I asking all of these Commissioners, OK, they be in favor of the neighborhood, and this man, if he have another kind of business to put it in there, make him do it. Reasonable for the neighborhood. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. All right. Teresita Fernandez: Teresita Fernandez, Hearing Boards. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Fernandez: I have proof -- Chairman Sanchez: Was it properly advertised? Ms. Fernandez: Yes, it was properly advertised -- Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Ms. Fernandez: -- properly post and proper notices were sent. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Fernandez: I have the proofs here. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Counsel, 1 hope you're satisfied with that response. Yes, sir. State your name and address for the record Eldred Garcia: My name is Eldred Garcia, 1325 Southwest 22nd Terrace. I'll make this brief 1 also did not receive any notification. First of all, I want to applaud the City's effort in trying to preserve the neighborhood I live basically across the street from the subject property, and my neighborhood has been zoned a residential zone. There's signs and everything in order to avoid intrusion of commercial, cars going through there or parking on our street. We had to actually purchase a parking decal, so for that, 1 applaud you. One of the biggest issues that we have is it's a bar; it serves no purpose, from our perspective, in a residential area. The argument that 1 have heard is that there are other liquor licenses out there. There are three other establishments half -- less than half a block away from this establishment, which is Pollo Supremo, the Greek restaurant and the Italian restaurant, they're all restaurants. Chairman Sanchez: They're all beer and wine. They don't sell hard liquor in those places. Beer and wine. City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Garcia: 1 understand that, and this is another argument because this is in a residential area . There is no parking, and one of the reasons they put a residential zone in my area was because of the influx of people parking in our area. Now that not only identified it as a residential zone, now the argument is even stronger why there shouldn't be a variance to waive ten parking spaces . At the last meeting I was in, the Commission strictly told the people, please reach out to the residents. You know, I spoke to them outside. 1-- the Commission told them to reach out to us, to try to come to an understanding, to see if we could come to some agreement to understand what their purpose is with this bar. 1 have not received any notification, any attempt for anybody speaking to me, so I said, OK, maybe they don't know where I live, and they could testes to this. I went into the store. I dropped off my card. I gave them my cell phone. 1 said, very specifically, "You were instructed by the Commission to reach out to us as residents, to understand what your purpose is with this bar. You have done no outreaching. I'm here today to speak to you. There's no one available. I understand that. Here's my card. Here's my cell phone number." To this day, I have not heard anything from them. My question again is, if you're really interested and you have good intentions, why don't you reach out to the residents? There's a legitimate concern with the residents. There's a bar being placed in a residential area. We all have kids. I'm sure that you wouldn't want this bar in your residential area with kids. Please explain to us no attempt, and I've gone -- I'm the one that's a resident. They should be coming to me. I've gone to them. I still have not heard anything from them. That's all I have. Faye Kmetz: My name is Faye Kmetz. I live at 3471 Southwest 3rd Avenue. 1-- probably about the closest neighbor to the bar. I'm right in the back. If I had a baseball, I could probably hit the back door. Luis Herrera and myself went around to the neighborhood to get a feel, how they also felt about having a bar, and 1-- we did not find one person who were for it, and they all gave us checks to help pay for our attorney, so 1 don't think we're the only villains here that, you know, are opposing this. Everybody, the whole neighborhood, and I just feel that the neighbors should be consulted with what's coming in. When I moved into the Roads section, it was a very quiet -- here's everyone that gave checks, as you can see. When I moved in, it was a very quiet neighborhood. We have the beauty salon. We had Nelly's. We had the dry cleaners. We had all these businesses -- Karlo's Bakery -- but it was very nice. It's very quiet. If we bring a bar, I feel, into this neighborhood, we're bringing in noise. All I can tell you is noise. It's getting crowder [sic]. I live on 3rd Avenue. I have a double whammy. There's traffic, no places to park . I was told 1 cannot get residential parking like the rest of the streets because it is a State road, so I had to put up "No Parking," which doesn't help me. If I have friends to come over, where are they going to park? And Teri even has a worse problem because her renters have no place to park, so we didn't put a "No Parking" there because her tenants need to park on the street; they have no place to park. Parking is a big, big problem, and I just don't want to be forced out of the neighborhood. 1 don't know what to do. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Kmetz: It's my home. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Kmetz: Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Yes, sir. Jose Medina: Good afternoon, Honorable Commission. I'm Jose Medina, 6358 Southwest 43rd Street. I represent the Union of Bar, Restaurant, Coffee -- Cafeteria and Coffee Shops of the City of Miami. We're here to oppose, specifically, this bar license because many of our members of our union are being closed by the City of Miami for a reason of putting on hold the occupational license for different reasons. City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Mr. Medina: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: Where did you come from? I'm sorry. What is your argument? Your -- Mr. Medina: OK. We are opposed to -- Chairman Sanchez: Do you live in the area? What's your address again? Mr. Medina: 6358 Southwest 43rd Street. Chairman Sanchez: OK, and you don't support it because -- Mr. Medina: Because our members of our union right now are being closed at the City of Miami for the occupational license. Let me go ahead and keep on so you will know where I'm coming from. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Medina: OK. The reason that we are opposed that our occupational license of our members are being on hold, and many revoked for many reasons. My worry is that our issues are not being addressed for these occupational licenses, and why is a new license is being issued if our business are being closed and not being addressed yet. My suggestion is to put on hold this license until our occupational license been review and address our problem first before issuing any other license. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Thank you. Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- Gonzalez. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Let's correct the record. The Quality of Life Task Force has, in fact, inspected close to 600 establishments that had occupational license issued by the City of Miami as coffee shops, cafeterias, and sandwich shops. Upon our inspection of these premises, we found distribution of alcohol, operating -- selling alcohol after hours. We passed a resolution of this -- an ordinance, this City Commission, that none of these establishments will sell alcohol after 10 p.m. Many of these establishments were inspected three, four and five times, and as a matter offact, we went on a Friday, inspected the place, put the owner on notice, and the next day, we went back to the place and they were doing exactly the same thing. We have found, in many of these establishments, minors consuming alcohol, minors working as barmaids and participating with the customers -- or commingling with the customers. We have found drugs. We have found everything that you can imagine at these establishments. Some of these businesses have had their licenses suspended or on hold. The places that complied with the ordinance on the first time that they were put on notice, they had received their licenses, so it's very important for the people that are watching on TV (television), and for the public that is present here today to know exactly what is going on in reference to these alleged bars. None of these people had bar licenses. The City of Miami do not issue alcohol licenses; it's the State of Florida, and these people have been in violation of the City ordinance, and it has been in violation of City Codes. Many of these illegal bars, they even had illegal constructions. They had people living in the back of these businesses. They have fire violations. They had electrical violations, plumbing violations; all type of violations, and the inspections have been done by different personnel from the City of Miami from every single department, including the Law City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Department. Mr. Medina: May I address the Commission, please? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Medina: OK. We have a lawsuit on the federal -- Chairman Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE) -- Mr. Medina: One minute, OK? Mr. Maxwell: No, no, no. Sir, if you're about to discuss a lawsuit, that's not proper. Mr. Medina: OK. Well -- OK. I'll take that off We're still in litigation with the City and in other places. Referring to this, I know that he said about violation of drugs. So far, no arrest of drugs of my clients have been done. Chairman Sanchez: OK, sir. Mr. Maxwell: No, no, but you're -- now you're -- Chairman Sanchez: That's irrelevant. Mr. Medina: I know it's not -- Chairman Sanchez: We don't need that on the record. Mr. Medina: -- a good place over here at -- Chairman Sanchez: You're against that establishment being there. Mr. Medina: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: You -- OK. Mr. Medina: I'm against it. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Medina: There are matters being resolved on the courts and other places. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Medina: 1 don't think this is appropriate to have no licenses for this until our matter has been attended to in the proper places, which is the law -- the court. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Mr. Medina: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you for being so -- such understanding -- so understanding. Mr. Medina: Thank you, sir. Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Jean Robert Preal: Good afternoon, Commissioners. How are you doing? My name is Jean Preal. I'm the union president of the Cafeterias and Restaurant. Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you need to state your address on the record. Mr. Preal: My name is Jean Robert Preal, 266 Northwest 44th Street. I've been working for the past couple of weeks with the bars, and restaurants, and cafeteria. Yes, I agree, there is a lot of illegal activities going on. I came in -- I was chosen to elect -- to be president of the Cafeteria to clean up the mess, and I'm willing to work with the City of Miami to clean up the mess. Not everybody is proven guilty until they were proven innocent, but I'm here for a reason. A lot of people in the community don't like these type of activities that's going on, but that -- this is a community that sometimes, you don't -- that the community wants to stay in their community and have a couple of beers. Sometimes they don't even want to go too far -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Preal: -- to South Beach, Coconut Grove. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Preal: They like to stay in the community, and they would like to see, not an -- Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, sir. Sir -- Mr. Preal: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: You're -- Mr. Maxwell: I believe you're talking about the bar/Quality of Life issue again, aren't you? Mr. Preal: Yes, correct. That's why -- Mr. Maxwell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Commissioner Gonzalez -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, it's completely irrelevant. Mr. Maxwell: -- simply rebutted the statement that was made. That is not the subject of this particular hearing. Mr. Preal: It's the -- right, 1 understand Mr. Maxwell: No. If you -- what you should do is confine your comments to the applications for either special exception or variance that is before this panel at this time. Mr. Preal: Right, 1 understand. Chairman Sanchez: And those are -- Mr. Maxwell: What you're talking about -- Chairman Sanchez: -- the two issues. Mr. Maxwell: -- is a totally different issue. City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: And only two issues. Mr. Preal: This is a community that's bringing a bar in their community, and there's beer and wine, and there's a 4-COP (Consumption on Premises) license, which serve alcohol beverages. This is what they're talking about. They don't want this type of activity in their community. Mr. Maxwell: All right, fine, sir, but tie it into the application before you. Tie it to that. Show why it -- what your statements -- show how your statements are relevant to the application before the Commission. Mr. Preal: Yes, I understand, but I don't want to go all the way across time -- across town to come and say, hey, there's another problem here. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what we can do? What's going on? 1 don't want to go back and back. We need to move on with the people that needs help in their community that's willing to work with their community, what they want in their community, not just throw it in their face. We need to look at this issue and look at it -- and thank you, Your Honor. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you very much, sir. All right. Counsel, you're going to wrap it up? Mr. Dickman: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Once again, we feel that the applicant and the City had a burden to demonstrate why a special exception should be granted, also why a variance of ten parking spaces should be granted. We have --1 have laid out for you the requirements for that. There has been no quantifiable data, no studies of the impact, no showing of what will -- what schools are near it -- Chairman Sanchez: That's another issue. You said the schools. Mr. Dickman: Schools. Chairman Sanchez: Because I'm going to address every issue that you've -- Mr. Dickman: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- that you brought out, I'm going to address. Mr. Dickman: Thank you very much. This is going to cause a lot of on -- off -site parking on the street. There is a presumption that the patrons of this bar will use the parking meters on the street. There is a lot of competition on the street currently for those parking meters. What is going to happen -- and Commissioner Winton talked about this at the last hearing -- that what will happen is people are going to start parking in the neighborhood That is what's going to happen, and that's going to be a detrimental negative impact on the neighborhood. That was not fully brought out or studied by Planning staff or presented how the applicant will ameliorate those issues. The variance, itself does not meet all of the requirements as established by law. There are other uses that could and should go into this space. It is a small neighborhood little niche there, and there are markets -- there are things that serve the neighborhood, and a bar, in this particular place, a nightclub aside -- directly adjacent to a liquor store, with a door connecting the two, which creates a bigger -- collectively, a bigger use, which arguably, nobody wants you to know about, is going to be very, very detrimental to the neighborhood. Finally, we understand that you -- your attorney has advised you that you do have the reconsideration ability. We have said that we don't -- we question that, but I want to put out for you -- and you've heard my clients talk about that -- and you all know. I represent a lot of neighborhoods. It's something I enjoy, I like doing. They have had a difficult time bringing this forward to you. 1 can't operate for free, and they have demonstrated that they are putting 20, $30 in a hat to bring someone forward to show their case. They are very hurt that the tool of reconsideration, which, presumably, is in place for special situations, when something irreversible happened that you City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 need to reconsider something. 1 really hope that you will stick to your original decision and not tell this neighborhood that you want to use the reconsideration tool just to open a bar in their neighborhood. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. All right. Are you done? Mr. Dickman: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: Does that conclude your presentation? Mr. Dickman: We would like to reserve a little time for rebuttal. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Timothy Barket: Thank you. May it please the Commission. My name is Timothy Barket. 1 live at 1226 Southwest 16th Street, and 1 am the owner of the property in question, and I'd like to talk about a little bit of the background before we get into this because some of the members of the neighborhood came and addressed their concerns, but as you could tell from my address, I live between 12th and 13th Avenue on 16th Street, just a few blocks away from this bar. In addition, I own this in a corporate name with my brother and my sister. My brother lives on I9th Avenue and 18th Court, which is a mile away. He owns a piece of property on 3rd Avenue, 35th Road and 3rd Avenue, which is a stone throw away from this bar. My family owns the property next door to it, which is Karlo Bakery, the Nelly Supply, which is a separate and a distinct building from the one we have in question. We own property on the corner of 30th Road and Coral Way, 20th Road and Coral Way, 20th Road and 4th Avenue, 20th Road and 5th Avenue. We are very, very well -invested and love this neighborhood. People that talked about moving into this neighborhood, I grew up in this neighborhood. I grew up on 20th Road and 4th Avenue when there were train tracks, not Metrorail stations, when Mayor Ferre lived on Brickell Avenue and we used to sneak behind his home to swim in the bay, and my life has been in the City of Miami, so 1 am very concerned about that, but let's talk about the issue in question here. There's several reasons here that we stand here today. It's been well established that this place has always operated as a bar, or a private club, since the '50s, and nobody here has been able or will contest that because it's true. Obviously, this building being there that long creates plenty of issues that the City of Miami is faced with all over the place, which is the size of the lot, building up to the property lines and a shortage of parking. One of our hardships is very simple. Anything we go and put in there -- if we bring a restaurant, it's going to violate the parking requirements, and that's one of our hardships. We would be here -- if we were trying to apply a restaurant, we would have a problem with parking. There is only five spots on the property. The property, since it's always been used as a bar, is built as a bar. It's designated a bar. They say it's simple to just put something else in there, but it's not that simple. This place is configured as a bar. Its electrical structures, its plumbing configurations are that of a bar, which are separate and distinct from most commercial -type establishments. Chairman Sanchez: How many years has it been a bar or private club, or whatever? Mr. T. Barket: I -- nobody knows, but we saw a picture, I believe, in the last meeting from early ' 50s that it was a bar. When we started doing some renovations, the glass was painted in gold leaf that said a shot and a beer was for a quarter, so if that gives anybody -- Chairman Sanchez: That was a long time ago. City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. T. Barket: -- if that gives anybody an idea of -- Chairman Sanchez: That was a long time ago. Mr. T. Barket: -- how long it's been, but it's always and always been used as that, and before Karlo Bakery and everything else was there, it was Deltona Printing Shop, who eventually bought the United Way building and was in the United Way, and that's who sold the property adjacent to us -- or to my father. The bar was always there. The parking authority conducted a study, as NET did, and everybody approves this. Everybody recognizes that there is ample parking, especially in the hours that a bar would open. There are over 50 parking spots within a half a block on 3rd Avenue, on Coral Way and on 13th Avenue, which is around the triangle where our property sits. There are over 50 parking spots. I want to address the liquor survey. We did this liquor survey in compliance with what the laws require. A comment was made that they don't show the schools. Of course, they don't show the schools. They are not within the radius of the law in their liquor survey. The only school operating around there right now is Coral Way Elementary, and we clearly fit within that. What is to happen and will happen in the future -- and there's issues about the United Way -- I don't think are proper for this Commission to consider because those don't exist right now, and we're here today, and our liquor survey is incompliant with what the City and every governmental agency requires, and it does show that we're clearly within the parameters to open up a bar at that location. Other businesses on the special district -- on 30th Avenue, 1 believe there, Bodega del Medio -- has been granted similar parking exemptions and similar variances. Based on the square footage of our bar, 1 think you've heard it's only 70 occupants. This is not a huge amount of occupants when considering five on spite parking -- on -site parking and 50 parking spots. The Planning Department supports this; Zoning supported us; Parking supports us. I'd like to bring out a couple other issues to the City, just for consideration. The City was approached when we planned to put this bar there, and the City approved that. The City issued permits for this property, and we did substantial renovations, and they were inspected and signed off. A Certificate of Use was given to us to operate this bar, and then unilaterally rescinded. The petition was sent to the Zoning Board and approved, and we're asking you here today to deny their petition, and 1 want to keep this short because there's a lot of people that want to speak and have other issues. I'd also like to point out to the City, in recent case law -- and I'm sure City Attorney could confirm this. In the circuit division of our appellate courts here, Case Number 03396 is B & R Supermarket, Inc. versus City of Miami Springs in Florida Development Court. Chairman Sanchez: And how does that case relate to this case? Mr. T. Barket: It's almost scary because it talks -- although it's the City of Miami Springs, it talks very similar to this issue, which is a little bar in a little location, and been there for many, many years, and they had virtually the same issues that we have here. There's another case that cites as Dade County versus Florida Mining and Material Corp., 364 Southern Second 31, and the City of Coral Gables versus Wetman, 418 Southern Second 339; those are both Third District Court of Appeal cases, but since we passed the Bodega del Medio, and it's in our special district, this case law that is both old and new -- the appellate case that I just read was issued July 20th of this year by Judge Izzy Reyes and Maxine Cohen Lando. A denial of us to open our bar would be viewed as arbitrary and capricious by the City because they've already granted other variances in this area. Granting those other variances in this area to Bodega del Medio would be arbitrary and capricious if we were denied in the same situation. They're a couple miles down the road. They did not have prior existing use, as we had prior existing use. We come before the board with clean hands. 1 apologize to whoever tried to speak to us and didn't, but I hold myself out as an attorney. I'm published. I'm downtown. I live in the neighborhood. Nobody's ever contacted me to speak to me regarding these issues -- and I take that back. Mr. Herrera and I spoke one day, and he's a gentleman and he's outside, and although we agreed to disagree, 1 spoke and tried to satisfy some of his concerns, and 1 make myself available for this. With that in mind, I would like to also state that we do have prepared to hand out to you, City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioners, 170 signatures from people in the neighborhood with their names and addresses that approve our bar, and I'd like to remind everybody, when you think about neighbors, that's what I am; that's what my brother is; that's what my sister is; that's what my father are [sic]. We're neighbors and we live right there, as well. We have property on 3rd Avenue next to the people that spoke against us today, and we're right there. With that said, I'd like to save a little time for rebuttal, if necessary. Chairman Sanchez: OK. It's --1'm going to afford each side the equal opportunity that 1 have -- 1 will afford anyone who wishes to speak in favor or in support of this item to please step up, state your name for the record and you, too, shall have two minutes, and in some cases, I gave others two and a half, I'll give you two and a half, too. Mr. T. Barket: That's fine. I'd just like to add one other thing. There's been a distinction made and drawn about a bar and a private club, and I would just submit this to the -- to anybody really considering this issue. A bar is a regulated thing. Anybody could walk in there. Law enforcement officers can walk in there. Anybody could walk in a bar and observe what's happening and enforce laws. Private clubs are a little different. They operate a little more distinct. They operate a little more discrete, and it's just not open towards the regulation, and a bar would be considered, in my own mind, as a better option here because then we're open for regulation. Chairman Sanchez: And -- Mr. T. Barket: Then an undercover police officer can walk in there and enforce the laws. Chairman Sanchez: And let me interrupt you. Under the special overlay district, private bars are not allowed Mr. T. Barket: And private bars are not allowed. Chairman Sanchez: Only if they were grandfathered in, as was the old establishment, the private -- whatever it was called. Mr. T. Barket: Exactly, exactly. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. T. Barket: And I think everybody who lives around there and knows the prior establishment was there knows exactly what I'm saying when we have a bar open to the public that allows enforcement and allows people in there. It's not somebody hiding behind a wood door with a little window to see who's coming in and who's coining out. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you, counsel. Commissioner Allen: All right. Mr. T. Barket: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Madam, state your name and address -- Gretchen Galindo: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- for the record, and you have two and a half minutes. Ms. Galindo: Gretchen Galindo, 2150 Southwest 16th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and 1 was City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 laughing because, yes, I'm going to try to wrap it in two minutes, but you gave other people some more, so -- Chairman Sanchez: You know, I can't please everybody. Ms. Galindo: No, that's OK. Listen, I was more than confident that everyone here, the Commissioners, and everyone here have right now crystal clear that, from the legal point of view, there's nothing to question here. We have complied with every requirements. We have passed every -- and approved every inspections, and from the legal point of view, we are entitled to reopen, no -- to open this place. Now, 1 know that the main concern of the Commissioners -- and I'm glad it is that way because that's why you are Commissioners. Your main concern is the neighbors, and that is good because that's the reason for Commissioners to exist. Now, I want to state for you to be -- not to have concerns about that, and for the people here, you're not going to have any problems with the parkings because there is more than enough spaces along Coral Way, not just the street where we are, along Coral Way, and in Coral Way is where we are going to operate. There are a lot of parking spaces there. We won't bother the neighbors with the problem of the parking, and there's a statement of the Miami -Dade Parking Authorities stating that, but a part of that, since we are also concerned about that and we want the neighbors to welcome our business, we have considered the possibility of a valet parking, where we can take those cars a little farther away and park them; those that cannot be able to park along Coral Way, which I repeat, there's a lot of spaces there, so don't be concerned on that, and I'm very glad that this things of the bar and the licenses being halt came up, and you know why? First, this is not a new license. The bar license and the -- and the liquor license and the bar license is perfectly something legal. Here, the lawyer didn't know about that, but you can have a license for a liquor license and use that same license for the bar, as long as they are together. I guess he didn't know about that, but there's nothing illegal on that, and there are a lot and lot of liquors and bar together because the law permits that with the same license, and this is not a new license; it's an old one, but most importantly, we will never be halted. I mean, our license will never be halt because of problems of any kind of violations because it's not our style. I can assure our neighbors that this is a fine, elegant place where you people can go also, and yes, we did took care -- or tried to take care of our neighbors. This gentleman, which I apologize, because we thought that after you went there and we talked with you, and we -- not me. 1 was not there, but another persons were. Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, with all due respect, you need to wrap it up. Ms. Galindo: Yeah, I'm sorry, but he went there and we thought that that was enough, and we showed him the place, and we told him, "Don't worry. This is a nice place. Your kids won't have any kind of problems," and we thought that was enough, and that's why we didn't come back to you, and we even wrote letters to some neighbors, to some of the neighbors' association. By the way, the Shenandoah -- the president of the Shenandoah association went there and told us that he was supporting us, that he wishes luck to us today; that he wanted this place to be opened and to share it with the neighbors. I think that is basically it. We have a -- some of the few -- Chairman Sanchez: Let -- Ms. Galindo: -- people -- Chairman Sanchez: Let them come up and speak, too -- Ms. Galindo: But it's not necessary. Chairman Sanchez: -- but two minutes. City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Galindo: No, it's not necessary. 1 tell you, it's not necessary. They're going to say, more or less -- Chairman Sanchez: Exactly what you've said. Ms. Galindo: -- what I'm saying. They're going to say that, yes, they want -- as the persons who signed there -- they want a nice place near their home where they don't have to drive far away to spend a good time with their family and friends, and you people can go there. You can go. I cordially invite you. It's a nice place. You're going to like it. You're going to feel great, I swear. Chairman Sanchez: Thank -- Ms. Galindo: Also you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Galindo: Thank you very much, and 1 don't know -- OK, Mike. Michael Barket: Michael Barket, 1928 Southwest 18th Court. I come here wearing many hats. I'm part owner of the building. 1 also own property at 3547 Southwest 3rd Avenue. I want the Commission to know the gentleman that owned this building before we purchased it came to me and we negotiated this contract. When we bought the building, there was 4-COP license on the premises. They chose not to use it and they were just serving beer and wine, but there was an active 4-COP, which allowed the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. 1 still own the property at 3547. I think it's a great selling point for me when I want to rent my units to say, "Hey, look, you know, you got Super Polio. You've got the Italian restaurant. You got the bakery and you have a nice place to go have a drink at night." Obviously, 1 grew up with my brother. We grew up in the Roads. I've lived there all my life. I still live in the Shenandoah area. You know, no matter what we put there, there's going to be traffic. 1 wish Commissioner Winton was here because I know this Commission, especially Commissioner Winton, is concerned about jobs, and guess what? We're going to create jobs in the area. This -- and when we talk about a bar, we're not talking about some South Beach -- we're talking more of a piano bar, a jazz bar. You're going to go there, you're going to sit back, have a martini. You're not going to go there to get drunk, as Mr. Herrera said. You're going to go there to relax with your wife, with your girlfriend, your significant other. It's not going to be a hell -raising kind of place. I did -- I had the survey done the first time. I believe it was by Charles Carr & Associates. The closest place that would maybe bring a problem, which it doesn't because it's out of the area, is Coral Way Elementary. When you do the survey, it's 1,500 pedestrian feet, as an ordinary pedestrian would go, and we are way outside that. They talk about we didn't come to them. 1 own property in the area. The neighborhood association did -- never came to me. Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Mr. M. Barket: I won't take up any more of your time. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Are you done? That's it? Counsel, rebuttal. Mr. Dickman: Real quickly, just on the notice issue, Teresita showed me the photographs of the notice that was posted on the property, and they're part of the record so -- the picture showed that this thing was put on a pole, a light pole, off -center, I guess, over to where the gas station is, and wrapped around it with taped and everything like that, when easily, this notice could have City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 been put on the front window of this property. It was not on the property. I think, that -- Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Mr. Dickman: -- that's not enough notice. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, you know, you can make your record, but I think you need to make arguments on other cases. I think -- Mr. Dickman: Well, I have to put that -- Chairman Sanchez: -- we went through that and properly [sic] notice has been given. Come on. Mr. Dickman: Candidly, sir, that is a notice problem, and I did want to put that on the record. Chairman Sanchez: I know. Mr. Dickman: I won't belabor it -- Chairman Sanchez: No. Mr. Dickman: -- but it's something I do need in the record. Chairman Sanchez: You're entitled to -- Mr. Dickman: Let me -- Chairman Sanchez: -- make your record, but you know -- Mr. Dickman: Once again, this is a matter of law. It's a matter of heart to my neighbors, but this is really a matter of law. To grant a variance, you have to satisfy all of the requirements. Nothing that the applicant has said today has demonstrated that they couldn't use this for something that would require less parking. They are actually asking for something that is requiring a lot more parking, and that -- that's actually causing a ten parking variance. They referred to how well invested they are in the area. They want to sort of merge the idea of bar/ private club, bar or private club, and the reality is, this was a private club at some time, and it was never a bar. There is a distinction. Even Johnny Winton, at the last hearing, went on and on about, you know, private clubs are easier to police because you go to one place and they don't want to be a problem. Look at the transcripts from the last hearing. They -- there is a distinction between a bar, where it's going to attract people from all over the place, versus a private club. They talk about the config -- that this has always been configured as a bar, et cetera, et cetera. No, it was never a bar. Don't let that happen. This has always been a private club. They lost that distinction. What has happened is that the area has grown up around it. You have put in a special district overlay because you have said this area is special, and you can't go back to 1950, when this was once a private club, and say, "Well, it was there once before." This is a different area. It's a neighborhood. A lot of people have moved in here and you cannot reverse that, at all. You could put some other things in this spot that would require fewer parking spaces. Therefore, it does not meet the zoning classification. 1 also want to state that their survey, their radius survey for the school was done before the United Way opened their early learning center, so that is a problem right there. They did that deliberately. They used a survey that was done before. That was done -- Chairman Sanchez: Before the what? Mr. Dickman: -- last year -- City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, before the what? Mr. Dickman: Before the United Way building. We're talking about United Way and there is an early learning center there that is -- that was designated and presented to you in 2003, and that is there, and I will call Harve Mogul tomorrow and ask him how he feels about having a bar -- Chairman Sanchez: And the homeowners didn't like it, either, so -- Mr. Dickman: Yeah, 1 understand that. Seventy tables -- seventy patrons could potentially be seventy drunks in the neighborhood, could potentially. The idea of having a valet outside of this establishment even gives me more fear for the neighborhood, so they're going to -- they're -- basically, what they're admitting to is that they're going to use the liquor license that's in the liquor store and open a door, which has already been demonstrated that has been illegally done, and have this place to be a multiple bigger place than what they are leading you up to. They're going to have a valet parking situation, which is -- have they shown where the stacking is going to be? Where -- how this is going to be done to not impact traffic on Coral Way, which is already very bad? Let me just mention a few other things that I just want to put on the record that it's total hearsay to say that the president of Shenandoah is approving this. The president is not here. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, there's been hearsay on both sides, and that's -- Mr. Dickman: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: -- that -- Mr. Dickman: I just got to put that out there. Piano bar, jazz bar, great. You could still get drunk at a piano bar or jazz bar. Those are all nice ideas, but I don't think that they meet the requirements for special exceptions. They certainly don't meet the requirements for granting a zoning. That, in itself, aside from all the notice and due process problems, will be enough for my clients to take this to court. I hope they don't have to because it's expensive for them. It is a hardship. It's going to be a question between whether or not they take their children on a nice trip on the weekend versus having to protect their neighborhood, so 1'd ask you to think about that. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Does that conclude your rebuttal? Mr. Dickman: That does. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Is there anyone from the public -- we don't want to -- no? OK. The public hearing is closed and it comes for -- counsel, you have -- Mr. T. Barket: I wasn't going to give a rebuttal, but I just want to say -- Chairman Sanchez: You don't rebuttal. You can't. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. The public hearing is closed and we bring it on to the Commission. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: OK. I'm going to say what I said before in the last meeting, and I live in the area. 1 really live in the area, but I've been living in the area for 43 years now, and my recollection is that that place has always been a bar. I lived in Coral Way and 22nd, Coral Way City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 and 28th Road; now in Coral -- near Coral Way and 24th Avenue. To me, that's always been a bar forever, and that's -- I never saw problems in the neighborhood with that establishment, so that's -- that is everything I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Allen: I'd like to say something, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen, you're recognized. Commissioner Allen: As you know, these are always tough decisions. I listened to both the applicant and the appellant, and it seems to me the issue of whether or not this is a private club versus a bar has been satisfied by the appellant, based on their background having lived there and resided there, particularly the fact that the -- pursuant to the purchase of the property, I believe the new owners noticed that there was a 4-COP license, which is in the category of a bar. I think, in my opinion, they fully satisfy that argument. I do understand the applicant's argument with respect to notice -- 1'm tired. I'm sorry. It's a long day. With the issue of notice and, 1 think, successfully, that's been refuted, if you will. I think the Madam -- Chairman Sanchez: Proper notice. Commissioner Allen: -- Hernandez, 1 believe, did -- Mr. Maxwell: The Chief of the Hearing Boards Division -- Commissioner Allen: Yes, they have properly -- Mr. Maxwell: -- answered that question. Commissioner Allen: -- satisfied that argument. The issue of the parking spaces, 1 think, was also satisfied to my satisfaction, as well, so I just want to put on the record I think we have enough competent substantial evidence at this point to -- Chairman Sanchez: To deliberate. Well -- Commissioner Allen: -- deliberate. Make a motion. Chairman Sanchez: And, Commissioner Gonzalez, you -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Well, as Commissioner Regalado -- I remember that back in 19 -- between 1967 and 1975, there was a bar there. That's the -- that's something that I remember because I used to go to that block across the street almost every day because of my work, and I remember that there was a bar at that location. Now, the argument about a bar being next to a liquor store, if I remember correctly, I think it was Big Daddy's that used to have the liquor store and the bar next door. Still, recently, there is a liquor store on Northwest 27th Avenue that had a liquor store and a lounge in the back, so -- and I remember a place right on Southwest 8th Street and 59th Avenue, it was called the Lion Club. It had the liquor store and next -- adjacent to it, it was a bar, and it was communicated by a door. All of these establishments were communicated by a door, so I don't know what the legality is on this. I don't know if it is illegal now. Back then, I can go ten years ago, it wasn't illegal, so that's all 1 can say in reference to this. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, and Mr. Chairman, I just also wanted to add, with respect to the notice, I did also note here, according to my notes, that one of the neighbors -- the adjoining property owners did, in fact, indicate that many of the neighbors received, or should -- he pointed out that one of the neighbors received notice. That's how he was informed, so that tells me that notice was communicated to the neighbors. By virtue of his own testimony, he indicated City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 that a neighbor received a notice in the mail. Thus, it was imputed to the gentleman that came before -- so, again, I am satisfied with the notice argument. 1 was struggling with a couple of these issues here, but at this point, I'm ready to make a motion, if you will. Chairman Sanchez: As the Chair, I always have the opportunity to be last, with all due respect to my colleagues. Counsel Dickman made two statements that really stuck to my mind. One was based on the variance and the special exceptions, and one of the questions that he kept bringing up -- building his record, as the good attorney that he is -- was do we meet the requirements -- or did they meet the requirements for the variance and the special exception, which is basically the foundation behind their argument. I feel that the administration needs to put on the record, as it has before, but put on the record that have they met all the necessary requirements for the variance and the special exception? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. In the professional review of the Planning and Zoning Department, utilizing the criteria for special exceptions and variance, it is our opinion that they have complied with all of the requirements. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen.: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Now, I'm not going to get into the arbitrary, capricious statements that were made. 1 think they're irrelevant in the case, and 1 don't want to open Pandora's boxes on that, but as to the issue of notice, it was stated that proper notice was issued to the residents. As to the parking, the parking is an issue. I'll tell you, it is an issue, and one of the recommendations that might -- that was presented that probably will play an important factor here is, possibly, even having valet services, if there is -- if the votes go your way or they don't. I don't know, but the other thing that 1 want to state, as all the Commissioners have stated here, is that, you know, it's -- whether it was a bar or a piano bar, or a private club, it is a bar/private bar in a commercial, in a commerical business, not in a neighborhood. Now, would it have impact to neighbors? Yes, it may have, if we -- if things aren't done right here, and that's a concern that I think the neighbors have. 1 don't think they're against having a bar there. Some may; you know, they don't want a bar in their neighborhood and it's fine, but I think some of the concern is, what are the effects that might have -- this business might have on their neighbor, and that was -- that, I felt that it was addressed as to the fifty -some parking units, and of course, there's always the ability to valet in an area that's there. This type of business, whatever business you put there is going to attract traffic, but this business, you know, people tend to go after work, like from 5 on, and I can tell you this much -- and 1 drive by there everyday to go to my house -- after 5 o'clock there, all the parking meters are empty, just about. That's just to state on the record. As to the schools, the nearest school, for the record, is Coral Way Elementary, which is way out of the scope of the boundaries. On the early learning center at the United Way, that, 1 don't know if permits are on the way or whatever. 1 have not been briefed on that, but that is also if they looked at -- based on a pedestrian traffic, I think it does not fall within the boundary, either, so based on all those issues that have been presented today, and based on the substantial competent evidence that has been presented, I think we are prepared to deliberate here. I think that, of course, we need a motion and a second for the -- for -- to discuss the items, so, as they say, you know, it's time to go fishing, so either you fish or cut bait, so is there a motion? Commissioner Allen: I make a motion adopting staffs recommendations. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion to adapt [sic] staffs -- Commissioner Allen: Adopt. Chairman Sanchez: -- recommendations. Is there a second? City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: I'll second. I'll second the motion. Chairman Sanchez: Is there a second? 1 guess that we have -- Mr. Maxwell: This would be a motion to deny the appeal -- Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Deny the appeal, and then there's a -- Ms. Slazyk: And uphold the zoning -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Maxwell: -- and grant the special -- Chairman Sanchez: -- there would be another PZ. Mr. Maxwell: -- exception. Deny the -- Commissioner Allen: Well, a motion to recommend approval as -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, there's a companion item. Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: Right, companion. Chairman Sanchez: Isn't there a companion item? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, the -- Mr. Maxwell: Two separate votes. Ms. Slazyk: PZ 11 was a -- yeah, let's take one -- PZ 11 is the special exception -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- and the recommendation is to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Board. Commissioner Allen: The zoning, right. OK, so the motion will be -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. No further discussion on the item. Is it -- it's a resolution, right? Ms. Slazyk: It's a resolution. Chairman Sanchez: It's a resolution. Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Allen? Commissioner Allen: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Sanchez? Chairman Sanchez: No. Ms. Thompson: So the resolution is approved, 3/1. PZ.12 04-00953a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), DENYING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000 , AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BARS, ZONED "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, TO WAIVE TEN (10) OF THE REQUIRED FIFTEEN (15) PARKING SPACES, FOUR (4) SPACES PROVIDED, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1252 SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN " EXHIBIT A." THIS VARIANCE WAS GRANTED PER PLANS ON FILE WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: 1) IF THE STRUCTURE FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED TERMINATES FOR ANY REASON, INCLUDING AN ACT OF GOD, THE VARIANCE SHALL TERMINATE, AND 2) RECORDATION OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 04-00953a Exhibit A.PDF 04-00953a Legislation b.PDF 04-00953a Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00953a Legislation a.PDF 04-00953a Plans.PDF 04-00953a Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00953a ZB Reso.PDF 04-00953a Analysis.PDF 04-00953a Appeal Letters.PDF 04-00953 & 04-00953a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00953 & 04-00953a Zoning Map.pdf 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-04-0763 Note for the Record: Items PZ 11 and PZ 12 were consolidated. Please refer to minutes under City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Item PZ.11. PZ.13 04-01168 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), GRANTING THE APPEAL FILED BY DACRA DESGIN MOORE, LLC ("APPELLANT"), AND MODIFYING A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ("HEPB"), WHICH DESIGNATED THE BUENA VISTA POST OFFICE/MOORE FURNITURE BUILDING LOCATED AT 4000-4040 NORTHEAST 2 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT, BY AMENDING THE DESIGNATION REPORT TO ELIMINATE THE ATRIUM OF THE MOORE FURNITURE BUILDING AS AN INTERIOR SPACE SUBJECT TO REGULATION. 04-01168 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01168 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01168 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01168 Appeal Letter.PDF 04-01168 HEPB Reso.PDF 04-01168 Designation Report.pdf 04-01168 Legislation a.PDF 04-01168 Legislation b.PDF 04 -0116 8-Submittal . p d f 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 R-04-0761 Chairman Sanchez: We'll go to PZ.13, which is a resolution. Sarah Eaton: PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Sarah Eaton, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ. 13 is another appeal of a designation of the Buena Vista Post Office/Moore Furniture building as a historic district. To simplify matters, the appeal relates only to the inclusion of the atrium of the Moore Furniture building as an area subject to review. The appellants are not challenging the designation per se of the historic district and the two buildings that comprise the district. The Historic and Environmental Preservation Board included the atrium of the Moore Furniture building as subject to review because of its exceptional architectural importance, and because it is customarily open to the public. Those feature subject to review were limited to the open atrium itself the skylight, and those elements that provide enclosure to the atrium, including the columns and railings, nothing else on the interior was subject to review. We feel that it is an important interior, and should be included as subject to review, and we recommend that the appeal be denied and the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board be upheld. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Appellant, state your name for the record. Santiago Echemendia: Santiago Echemendia, 1441, on behalf of Dacra. Let me pass out little packet that 1 have. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Echemendia. Commissioner Allen: Counsel, does the City Attorney have a copy? City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: And the City Clerk. Commissioner Allen: And the City Clerk. Mr. Maxwell: And the City Clerk. Mr. Echemendia: Sorry. Let me catch my breath a little bit because I -- they told me you reconvened at 3 and I just kind of rushed over here when I heard that it was -- you were convening at 2: 30. We are very supportive of the exterior designation. In fact, we were -- we had corresponded with Sarah, that is, Dacra had corresponded with Sarah regarding the exterior designation. As you all know, Craig Robbins is very sensitive to aesthetics, architectural design, historic preservation, so much so that they were the ones that restored this building. If you look at what I've handed out, in Tab A, you will see some of the before and afters of this picture, which depicts some dramatic changes to the exterior facades, and again, we are very supportive and are not appealing the exterior designation of this building. What ended up happening is that somewhere through the process, what was supposed to be just the exterior designation of the building ended up much to the surprise of David Holtzman of Dacra, who's here with me, being a designation also of the interior of the building. The reason that 1 say it was a surprise is because we even received correspondence from the Office of Historic Preservation or Sarah's office, which is on Tab C, dated June 4, 2003, wherein it reads in the third paragraph, "There will be no review of interior alterations as long as they do not impact the exterior appearance of the building, "so all along in reliance on the conversations, in reliance on this correspondence that only the exterior was going to be designated, we were supportive and still are supportive of the exterior designation. However, we are appealing the interior designation for a number of reasons, or at least, let me highlight two of them. The first one is that it is very unusual to designate the interior of the building, so much so that at the Historic Preservation Board one of the members asked Sarah if this was done regularly because it seemed as though, typically, only the exterior is designated. The response, as I understand it, was that, in fact, typically, only the exterior is designated, and the examples that were highlighted, one of them was the Gusman Center, which is a public building, so it seems that, generally speaking, when the interior is designated, it only relates to public buildings, not private buildings. There may be some other exceptions, but generally, it's the exterior of the building. The problem that Mr. Robbins has here is that it's a very peculiar space; it's 20,000 square feet; it's quite a bit of retail space. If every time that he tries to bring in a perspective tenant, he has to go through the hurdles of either going before the HEP (Historical and Environmental Preservation) Board or otherwise Sarah approving it administratively because it doesn't deal with the atriums, the columns, the railings, which are the issues that they have limited or at least Sarah articulates that they've limited relative to the interior, it protracts the timeline within which he can bring in a tenant. It is a difficult space, as it is, so from an economic standpoint, it really does become a hardship. I believe that on behalf of Dacra, 1 could state that, you know, he will be -- Dacra will be very sensitive to the interior. They are the ones that restored the building to where it is today. That said, if they are confined by the strictors of the interior -- the Department of Interior Improvement Guidelines, which are really very vague, they think that anything that they do is going to be subject to review, certainly administrative review by Sarah, if not HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) Board review, and in that light, we would respectfully request that you grant our appeal only as it relates to -- and, indeed, I believe that all that Dacra had appealed before they came to us and asked us to handle this appeal for you is the interior designation. We're very happy with the exterior designation, but there will be an economic hardship, a dire economic hardship if we can't, you know, have a little flexibility relative to what happens in the interior with the caveat and the commitment that we will be as respectful as possible to the historic integrity of the interior. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Counsel, can you succinctly characterize your City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 issues, succinctly? Just what, in fact, do you want this Commission to know -- Mr. Echemendia: We would like for you to -- Commissioner Allen: -- relative to staffs recommendation? Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner Allen, we would like for the Commission to approve the appeal as it relates to the interior designation. Indeed, approve the appeal because I believe that the appeal only relates to the interior designation. Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I would make that motion -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I'll second Commissioner Winton: -- to approve -- Commissioner Allen: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Winton: -- the appeal. Chairman Sanchez: The purpose of discussion, to -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah, but I think that you want to respond. Ms. Eaton: If I could just -- if that is your intent, the motion would be to grant the appeal and modem the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board by amending the designation report to eliminate the atrium of the Moore Furniture building as an interior space, subject to regulation. Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't know what that just said, so let me -- Ms. Eaton: That's the legalese. Commissioner Allen: I think it comports with what counsel wants -- Mr. Echemendia: That works. That's correct. Commissioner Allen: -- doesn't it? Mr. Echemendia: Yes, sir. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Because it isn't just the atrium; it's the interior of the building. There's more parts of the interior, and so I think what you want is to have -- to accept an historic designation of the exterior of the building, but no designation of any part of the interior of the building. Commissioner Allen: Correct. That's correct. City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 12/17/2009 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Echemendia. That is correct. Commissioner Winton: Not just the atrium. Commissioner Allen: That's correct. Mr. Echemendia: That is correct. Ms. Eaton: But the only -- if 1 may, Commissioner Winton. The only portion of the interior, subject to regulation in -- pursuant 10 the designation report was the atrium. Commissioner Winton: Oh, I see, OK. Commissioner Allen.: Oh, 1 see. Commissioner Winton: So that solves the problem, OK. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. OK. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right, so there's a motion and a second to grant the appeal, right? Commissioner Allen: Yes. Second. Chairman Sanchez: OK. I just -- there's a motion and a second. 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. Mr. Echemendia: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: OK, and 1 just want to state that many buildings in greater Miami have been saved by architects who have, of course, preserved the exterior and, of course, they've changed the interior for whatever reasons to accommodate, whether it be retail, restaurants, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Commissioner Winton: Well, under Craig's credit, he's done a magnificent job with the Moore building. I mean, it's just absolutely fabulous, and he didn't need any encouragement or help from government. He did it on his own. Chairman Sanchez: And you -- they've also restored -- I mean, when you talk about restoring buildings around Miami, Miami Beach, I mean, that's -- you guys are like the leaders in that, right? Mr. Echemendia: That's correct. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Thank you. Mr. Echemendia: Thank you. PZ.14 04-01207 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL BY THE PALM GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND ANDREW DICKMAN, ESQUIRE, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD, THEREBY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS OR DENYING THE CLASS I1 SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 04-0157 ISSUED ON JULY 15, 2004, TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7460 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." 04-01207 Exhibit A.pdf 04-01207 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01207 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01207 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01207 ZB Appeal Letter.PDF 04-01207 ZB Reso.PDF 04-01207 Class II Appeal Letters.PDF 04-01207 Class II Final Decision.PDF 04-01207 Class 1I Referral.PDF 04-01207 UDRB Reso.PDF 04-01207 Legislation a.PDF 04-01207 Legislation b.PDF 04-01207-Submittal-1. pdf 04-01207-Submittal-2. pdf 04-01207-Submittal-3.pdf 04-01207-Submittal-4. pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Zoning Board Decision of a Class II Special Permit Appeal LOCATION: Approximately 7460 Biscayne Boulevard APPLICANT(S): Biscayne Corridor Development Corp. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Tony Recio, Esquire APPELLANT(S): Palm Grove Neighborhood Association, Eileen Bottari and Abbie Cuellar, Adjacent Property Owners APPELLANT(S) AGENT: Andrew W.J. Dickman, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and uphold the Zoning Board's decision of the director's decision. ZONING BOARD: Denied the Class II Special Permit appeal on October October 4, 2004 by a vote of 6-3. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow the new construction of a mixed -use structure. CONTINUED City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 unanimously, to continue Item PZ. 14 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for December 9, 2004, at a time certain of 5 p.m.; further requesting the developer to meet with the area homeowners association to attempt to compromise on the treatment of the rear of the proposed building. Chairman Sanchez: OK. PZ 14. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 14 is an appeal of a Class II Special Permit and -- Chairman Sanchez: Let's get all the appeals out of the way. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, 14, 15 and 16 are appeals. In the case of a Class II Special Permit appeal, the appellant will go first. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, this is controversial. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, it's controversial, but you know, might as well deal with them. Commissioner Winton: All three of these are -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, we got two out of the way. There's only one -- Andrew Dickman: OK. We'll go forward, Mr. Chair, but 1 was under the impression we were going to take this up around 4 o'clock, along with the other -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, it's not time certain. Mr. Dickman: OK OK. Chairman Sanchez: Are you prepared to go forward now or what? Mr. Dickman: My clients are not here. I'd ask that, if we could -- Chairman Sanchez: Do you want to wait for your clients a little longer? Mr. Dickman: Yeah, if you wouldn't mind. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: But before you do that, I'm just curious, Mr. Chairman. Are you the new mayor? Mr. Dickman: No, I'm not. Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry. You're not the mayor. OK. 1 thought you -- Commissioner Winton: When is the -- City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Unidentified Speaker: We can use our plans. We've got plans here. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. 1 believe that we have pending PZ.14 and 15. Commissioner Winton: And 16. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Is that correct? And 16. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): And 16. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK, so PZ 14. Lourdes, PZ 14. Ms. Slazyk: PZ 14 is an appeal of a Class 11 Special Permit, and in the case of appeals, the appellant goes first, but just real quick for the record, this was a Class 11 Special Permit for a multifamily mixed use structure, 7460 Biscayne Boulevard. It complies with all the requirements of the Class 11, and we recommend denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Director's decision to issue the Class II Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, how are you tonight? Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9111 Park Drive in Miami Shores, Florida. Commissioners, I'm representing Abbie -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me. Has everybody been sworn in that is going to testes -- Mr. Dickman: We do -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- on this? Mr. Dickman: I'm sorry. We do have some neighbors that need to be sworn in. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. OK, Madam City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Anyone who's going to be testifying on PZ.14, 15 or 16, you've not been sworn in, 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: OK. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, 1 represent Abbie Cuellar and Eileen Bottari, and other neighbors who reside in the Palm Grove neighborhood, which is directly adjacent to the applicant's project on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. We are here appealing the Class -- the decision to approve a Class ll project, a permit on the parcel, for a number of reasons. I also have the neighbors who are here. A few neighbors would like to come forward, after I make a brief presentation, and speak to you about their concerns. Very succinctly, our concerns are the following: This is a project that is on a parcel of land that is larger than most parcels of land on the Boulevard As all of you know, we've gone through a very long and arduous discussion and legislative process for the newly adopted Special District Overlay 9. In fact, my clients in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods actively participated on it, and what came out of that was a decision to limit heights, and to also make an attempt to protect the existing single-family neighborhood characters that are -- the characteristics of the single-family neighborhood City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 abutting the boulevard. Palm Grove, specifically the area around this property, is, in fact, single -family homes. The existing character is single-family homes. You can see the graphics that are put before you here. We'11 give you a glimpse of what the context and scale is existing. Our concern is that, even though this particular parcel of property is one of the deeper parcels, and the existing zoning -- the SD-9 zoning, specifically allowed for higher buildings, 120 feet max on this particular property, it also had a distinction of saying to the residents is that we will have a buffering between you and these properties, and the setbacks are supposed to be such that they will buffer the residential properties behind them, and set the buildings at an angle. One of our main problems with this project is that not only are they getting a little bit more density, or development capability on a bigger lot, but they are actually going back into the neighborhood and grabbing the R-2 zoned property right behind it, in order to increase their density -- their building capability. In other words, that angle would be starting at a totally different place, but for the fact that they've purchased or acquired resident -- a residential lot -- an R-2 zoned residential lot behind it. But for that lot, the building would be pushed further forward towards the boulevard, which is the intent of the SD-9; to move it forward to the boulevard, away from the single-family homes, and give a bit of a relief or a break, so what we're very concerned about is not only was this during the whole legislative process for the SD-9, where there was a lot of discussion about protecting existing neighborhoods, and also protecting property rights. Let's be honest. There was a balancing effect going on, and I think, by and large, everyone will say that, you know, it's not perfect, but it is what it is, and we came out with something that is, at least, livable, and what this particular applicant -- and what we have a concern with is that, not only did they get a little bit more property rights -- for lack of a better word -- on a bigger lot, but they also want to go bigger by taking away from the residential neighborhood, so they've acquired a lot to move their property up -- more bulkier by having that residential lot. Yes, they are setting aside that residential lot as a landscape park or what not, but the reality is that it gives them a totally different building if they didn't have that lot, so we have a very big concern with the fact that they're not complying with the SD-9. They have assembled property in addition to their very large lot, in order to get a bigger building. In addition, we feel that this does not comply with 1305.2, which again, to remind you all, is that articulated criteria for a design review, and this is a result of the Omnipoint case, where there were no standards, no guidelines, so the City rightly adopted a list of criteria, a checklist, if you will, by which staff and others have to follow, and you have to review these things by -- that talks about scale, compatibility with the existing use, not the totally built out area, but the existing circumstances in the neighborhood, and you can see by these graphics that what is in the neighborhood is single- family homes, small commercial buildings; the scale is nothing like what they're proposing. Are we saying that they can't build a building here? No, nobody's saying that. My clients aren't saying that, at all. They're just saying that they would like this developer to take more care to follow 1305.2 with more design criteria to match the existing compatibility scale, human/ pedestrian, landscaping, lighting; those are the things that you have to look at, and we feel they are not -- they're not complying with this, and then, lastly, I just want to put into the record that there are numerous policies adopted into your Comprehensive Plan. This is the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, by law, you have to adopt, under the Growth Management Act, which requires that all development orders and all ordinances are compatible with, and we feel that there are a number of policies in the land use element, and also in the housing element, that specifically protects existing neighborhoods. That policy goes forward and says that residential neighborhoods, specifically single-family residential neighborhoods, are a priority in this City; that it is the backbone of your city. If people don't have good, solid neighborhoods to live in, that is going to hurt your neighbor -- hurt your city, and the comp. plan rightly sets out certain policies that says no depletion of residential neighborhoods, no encroaching into the residential neighborhoods, no incompatible uses into the residential neighborhood, so I would be remiss if I didn't put that into the record that we feel that this particular project, the way it is designed, is contrary to what your Comprehensive Plan says, and that -- with that, I would like to ask the neighbors to come forward and give you a little perspective of their experience with this. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Allen, you wanted to -- City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Allen: No. 1 just made a notation. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Allen: No. I just made a notation. You're concerned with the light and the airflow, correct? Mr. Dickman: That's right. We're concerned that this particular project is -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Dickman: -- too large and too close to the single-family homes that are in and around it. Commissioner Allen: Thanks. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I'm going to give each neighbor two minutes for their -- Commissioner Winton: Two minutes. Eileen Bottari: Good evening. My name is Eileen Bottari. 1 reside at 505 Northeast 76th Street. I'm one of the persons that filed the appeal. I live in Palm Grove for 21 years. We decided to show some pictures that are in scale with the residential homes in the neighborhood because I've noticed in the past that the developers will get up with their buildings, and when it's not showing the scale of how overwhelming the building is, then you really can't see what an impact it's having on our neighborhood, and we did not ask a lot of people to come here tonight to speak, so we're not going to be repetitious. I think the pictures speak for themselves -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We appreciate that, ma'am. Ms. Bottari: -- especially on 74th Street. You can see the homes in front of this building. These people are going to walk out of their backyards, and they're going to have eight to ten stories right behind them, so this is a concern. We would like the scale of the building, especially towards the back, reduced and the overall height reduced, and we're willing to work with the developer to accomplish that. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: Thank you, ma'am. Patricia Germeus: Hi. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, good evening. Ms. Germeus: Good evening. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Good evening. Ms. Germeus: My name is Patricia Germeus. I live at 530 Northeast 73rd Street. Our neighbors on 73rd Street to 76th Street have gathered signatures opposing the project at its scale, and I would like to read it in its record -- for the public record. "We, the undersigned, oppose the above -referenced Class II Special Permit allowing an I I -story mixed -use tower at 7460 Biscayne Boulevard. The proposed development will encroach lot into Palm Grove Neighborhood in order to increase the size and scope of the building. The proposed height and bulk of this project is out of scale with the surrounding buildings and homes, as well as the low - density character of the area. The project will f srther congest traffic on the Boulevard and cause additional 'cut through' traffic to Palm Grove residential streets. The noise and light City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 pollution coming froin the tower will lower the quality of life enjoyed by Palm Grove residents. We, therefore, urge the City Commission to deny the applicant's request or continue the matter until the applicant substantially changes its design to be compatible with the surrounding area," and I have here before you 37 signatures for the residents between -- Gil Pastoriza: For the record -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Let the -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- Gil Pastoriza, 2665 -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- let the City Clerk -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- South Bayshore Drive. I just want to object to the admission of those signatures into the record. They have no value, whatsoever. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. City Attorney. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): His objection is noted. They can be accepted, but his objection is noted. Ms. Germeus: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK, so -- Ms. Germeus: I -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: -- give the signatures to the City Clerk. Ms. Germeus: OK. Thank you. I just wanted to add that I also reside at 73rd Street for over 27 years. My family have been there for a very long time, and I love the neighborhood so much that I bought a home there myself and we have a building that's on the corner of our street that's about four stories, and we feel the traffic and the congestion in that scale alone -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Ms. Germeus: -- and I just wanted to note that. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Ulrich Michel: My name is Ulrich Michel. I reside at 70 -- on the -- on 577 Northeast 73rd Street. I'm opposed to the size and scale of this proposed building. I'm especially opposed that the applicant is starting the angle from the next residential lot. The angle should start from the residential lot that they own, since it is residential and not commercial, so the whole project should be moved towards the boulevard, 50 feet. The scale does not fit in our neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Michel: I hope you will respect the low -density character of our neighborhood Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Abbie Cuellar: Good evening. My name is Abbie Cuellar, and I reside at 553 Northeast 75th Street. I reside directly across from -- I believe, the driving -- the driveway of this project. City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Cuellar: Directly --1 reside directly across from that. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Cuellar: I'm here -- I'm not going to repeat what everyone else has said. Clearly, I think it's out of scale, but the -- you know, the -- my -- one of my main concerns, obviously, because my driveway is almost facing their driveway, is the traffic, not just residential, but the commercial traffic that we're going to have coming in and out of that street. The fact that the entrance and the driveway to the garage are both on that street are going to dramatically impact the traffic in our neighbor, and particularly on 75th Street. The Dumpsters that'll have to be coming in and out of that area, because there is commercial development in that property. Those are one of my main concerns. Whether -- regardless of whether 1 lived on that particular block, 1 would be concerned about these issues. I mean, obviously, the height, it is -- it will completely take over the block, and the fact that it is encroaching --1 mean, it is going to be -- their property -- their building is going to be directly across from my home, and directly next to one-story homes, and the tallest building on that side -- 1'm sure you've heard this on numerous occasions -- the tallest building is four stories, from 54th Street to 78th Street, on the west side of the boulevard. This would clearly be almost triple that size, and 1 urge -- we urge you to deny the Class II Permit. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Pastoriza. Mr. Dickman: I think that it's -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Is that -- we have another gentleman. Yes, sir. Donald Wilson: Do 1 need to be sworn in? I just walked in the door. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You just walked in? Yes. 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. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Wilson: My name is Donald Wilson. I reside at 7460 Northeast 5th Avenue. I'm one block west of the project. I'm the president of the Palm Grove Homeowners' Association. We had a meeting about this particular appeal last night with the homeowners' association, and we did come to a unanimous decision of the board of directors, and basically, our decision is this is not the perfect project, this is not the best project, but we did support the SD-9 overlay, and this is within the SD-9 overlay, to my -- best of my knowledge and, therefore, we're not going to go back on our decision and our support that we had for the SD-9 overlay only a few months ago. We would like that the developer interact a little bit more with the homeowners' association; try to curb some of the traffic that will be coming into the neighborhood due to the new building. We also -- in a perfect world, we would prefer for it not to be such a tall building, and we also do want to note that this is not a unanimous decision among every member in our homeowners' City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 association. We have a good portion of our homeowners' association that don't want any buildings to be built over 35 feet. We also have another portion of our homeowners' association that are very glad to see new quality developments coming to our neighborhood. This is going to bring new life. It's going to help improve our image, and it's going to be, ultimately, a good thing for this neighborhood. I do feel sorry for the homes that do abut this property. I think when we were trying to come to a consensus on the SD-9 overlay, any time you come to a consensus, you cannot have a perfect decision and, therefore, someone is always going to be slighted by the ultimate decision that's made, and this is a good example of that. You do have homes on 74th Street that are going to back up to a very tall building right behind them. When we discussed the SD-9 overlay, we worried about the back slope. We didn't take into consideration the fact that there are lots that have much lower zoning that actually come to the side of the property. Basically, the consensus is, we do not support the appeal, but we do want to note that there are many people in the neighborhood who do support the appeal, and we only hope that the developer -- he's been very good at approaching us, but he's not been very good at trying to negotiate with us, if I'm making clear my point. This is going to add a lot of traffic to our neighborhood. It's going to be a very substantial impact on our neighborhood, especially during the construction phase. I would like to see him maybe reaching out more of an olive branch to his adjoining neighbors to try to minimize the impact of the construction during the construction, and 1 do ask that one of the conditions that you put on it is that he is required to come to the homeowners' association so that we can possibly come up with some type of avenue in which to curb the traffic. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK, sir. Mr. Wilson: Thank you so much. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Pastoriza. Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Dickman: If I could just wrap up real quickly, just one second 1 appreciate it -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Dickman: -- Gil. Let me just clarify really quickly that I'm representing just a group of single-family homeowners. I'm not representing the homeowners' association. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Dickman: This is a group of people that came together and were not satisfied with what the association was presenting, and so I'm representing a group of single-family -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Independent group. Mr. Dickman: -- homeowners. Very quickly, everyone participated in the SD-9. Everyone knows that there were extreme visions on both sides. Ultimately, the SD-9 came out with, basically, a line drawn in the sand, if you will, saying that development here, protect neighborhoods here. We're OK with that, but what we're not OK with is this particular project is, I think, going over the line and grabbing some residential areas that we think aren't necessary . They can do a very nice project on the front of this thing on the boulevard, and I would like to reserve a few minutes for rebuttal, if 1 may. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman -- City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Pastoriza. Mr. Pastoriza: -- members of the Commission -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Good evening. Mr. Pastoriza: -- Gil Pastoriza, 2665 South Bayshore Drive. I just want to do a couple of record cleaning matters. First of all, the item was advertised as the appeal from Eileen Bottari and Abbie Cuellar and the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association. You heard the president of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association that its board of directors is supporting this project, so they never appealed the decision of the Zoning Board. In fact, they held a meeting afterwards, and are in support of this project now. The second of all is, I would like to place into the record the tape of the October 4, 2004 hearing that occurred before the Zoning Board, and if 1 could, Madam Clerk. Today, we are before you on an appeal of an appeal. This is the second bite at the apple. The appellants already appealed this once, this administrative permit to the Zoning Board, and they lost. 1 would like, at the outset, to tell you that we're not rezoning any properties here. We're not seeking any variances. We're not seeking any special exceptions. We're not even asking for any of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) or affordable housing bonuses. We're not asking for anything. We're building a project that is an as -of -right project. The reason why we're here is because, on the location of this property, which is 7460 Biscayne Boulevard, you have an SD-9 Overlay District, which requires an administrative permit, and the neighbors have appealed this administrative permit. But for the fact that we're in Biscayne Boulevard, we would not even be here before you today because we would not need a Class 11 Special Permit. 1 would like to briefly describe the project for you because I do think that this project, after many months of working with your staff, really incorporates the type of amenities and design considerations that this Commission has been specifically asking all of these developers, and specifically, Commissioner Winton, which is one of your pet peeves, which is liners and not having any open parking structures. The proposed project, on the Biscayne Boulevard side, has all habitable liners on the parking floors, and on the 75th Street side, it is -- it has architectural techniques that are the same architectural techniques -- I'll use their sign -- their own boards, so there're architectural techniques that incorporate and hide the parking behind it. This project has 67 residential units, where we could have built 108. It has about 4, 000 foot of residential --1 mean, of retail, and that retail is located all along Biscayne Boulevard, with an arcade so that the pedestrian nature of Biscayne Boulevard is going to be greatly enhanced. This project will probably be the only project up and down Biscayne Boulevard that will have the most separation between a R-1 or R-2 lot and the edge of the building. We have 66 feet from the rear of our property to where that building stands. 1 don't think that you will ever find another building, or another project in Biscayne Boulevard that is going to have that kind of separation between the two properties, and we have chosen to leave that 66 feet as open space, as landscaped open space. The chronology -- because it's very important for you to understand what has happened here through one year of efforts with your staff. We started this process about towards the end of last year, and after various plan changes, we submitted a complete Class 11 Special application on April 8, 2004. This submittal occurred over a month and a half before the adoption of the revised SD-9 regulations, which occurred on May 29, 2004. That is very significant because your Code says, "Any property owner or lawful representative who, prior to the effective date of any legislation repealing or modifying regulations which allow the requested activity, has properly filled a complete application for a development permit with the appropriate City department, is hereby authorized to proceed with such application, regardless of the subsequent repeal of regulations relevant to such requested activity, unless the contrary is specifically decreed" That is critical here because this applicant could have said, "Hey, you know, I could travel under the old rules, " and he could have come up with a footprint that is this big, under the old regulation, which they are entitled to because we applied prior to the SD-9 ordinance. This applicant chose not to do that. This applicant chose to go back to your staff. We met in June of 2004 with Lourdes Slazyk, and we said, listen, City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Lourdes, we want to -- we don't want to pig out here. We want to go under the SD-9 regulations. What do we need to do? So we voluntarily went back and downsized our project to comply with the SD-9 regulations, and they have it. Their own exhibit show you that we complied with the height, which is 120 feet, and with the building footprint, or the building envelope, so this is a project that comes before you fully in compliance with SD-9, when we didn't have to comply with the SD-9. There's one point that was continuously made, which is that this is an assemblage of properties. That is not true. That is totally incorrect, and let me point out to you that, when we bought this property -- and we bought this property back in March of 2004 -- this property was owned by one company. The whole property was owned by one company, and we just bought the whole property, and I would like to submit for the record a warranty deed when we acquired the property. The date that we acquired the property is also very important. We acquired the property in March of 2004. The SD-9 regulations makes a specific statement that says that property that was acquired prior -- and I grant you that the SD-9 regulation, one of its purposes was to prevent assemblages, but the ordinance also says that properties that were acquired prior to April 29, 2004 were not to have been deemed assemblages for the purpose of that regulation, and I believe, Commissioner Winton, you struggled with that date, and you struggled because you realized that there were people who owned property already here that were not assembling properties, but that there were certain property rights that needed to be protected. Now, under the SD-9 regulations, we -- yes, we are one of those properties. I think there's only two or three along the boulevard that are deeper, and those properties that are deeper are allowed, under the ordinance, to go to 120 feet. Well, that's what we're doing. We could have gone this high; we're going 120 feet. Listen, we can't help it that we are one of those properties that has the greater depth. We did not assemble it. We owned it before the date on the ordinance, but remember, we didn't even have to comply with the ordinance. With regards to traffic, well, we did a traffic study. We hired a traffic expert. We did a traffic study and that -- it should be part of your record because it was introduced into evidence at the Zoning Board here. Basically, our traffic expert studies various intersections with the development that we had in mind, and his conclusion was, "As can be seen with the available trips, all nearby stations we researched have more than adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development traffic." We told our traffic expert to do something additional to that, which is, listen, we want you to compare and give us figures for a project -- another project that can be built here that is either an office project, or a combination of office/retail, and in all three scenarios, the -- that type of development will generate more traffic than our 67 units, 3,990 square feet of retail. Commissioner Allen: Good. Mr. Pastoriza: And I would like to put this into the record. Finally, much has been said about neighbors that have been living here for 20 years, 27 years, and I appreciate that, and I think that one of the things that my client will probably get out of this is that he needs to do, you know, a better job to sit down with those neighbors and talk to these neighbors, but 1 will tell you that, when all of these neighbors moved into that area, Biscayne Boulevard was zoned C-1, and the bulk of this property was zoned C-1, and at that time, when these neighbors moved into that area, that C-1 zoning had unlimited height, and a bigger building could have been built here. You, the legis -- you were -- you -- this Commission, after sitting down -- and I participated with this Commission on the development side, and there was a realization that unlimited height on Biscayne Boulevard was no good, and the SD-9s were amended for a height of 120 feet. We complied with that height of 120 feet. Now, the lot to the west, or to the southern end of our prop -- to the eastern end of our -- no, western end of our property, remember, that lot is going to be vacant; it's going to be landscape. There's nothing going to be happening on that lot. Finally, I know -- because I don't get a chance -- a second chance to rebut, 1 have Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo here, who is our planning expert, who would like to say just a few words -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Pastoriza: -- on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of this project -- City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Pastoriza.: -- and the -- and how we are consistent and comply with Section 1305. 1 would tell you that your staff has already made that determination when it issued the permit, but I just want Mr. Guillermo to kind of reinforce that determination from your staff and Mr. Olmedillo, if you could please -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. Pastoriza: -- just say a few words about that. Commissioner Allen: But before he does, Counsel, just one quick question. On your own volition, you said you downsized. Was that largely to handle the issues of air and light flow to the neighboring -- Mr. Pastoriza: Well -- Commissioner Allen: -- properties? Mr. Pastoriza: We realized two things: Number one, that to the extent that we could be better neighbors by doing a smaller product, we did it. OK. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: We could have done a bigger product here. We chose to do a lesser product. We chose to be as far away from our neighbors as possible. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Pastoriza: That's why we have the 66 -- Commissioner Allen: But -- right. Mr. Pastoriza: -- feet separation. Commissioner Allen: But let me ask you -- but does that address the light and airflow issues -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- the reason why you downsized, or are you qualified -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- to answer that? Mr. Pastoriza: It would be less of a shade -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. That's (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Pastoriza: -- if you downsize. For example, you can imagine, you know, what the shadows would be on a project this size -- Commissioner Allen: Exactly, right. City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 12/17/2D04 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Pastoriza: -- as compared to a project this size. Commissioner Allen: And the airflow, as well. Mr. Pastoriza: Uh-huh. We did -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: -- one thing that we did -- and I don't think that 1 brought it with me -- but we had done -- for the first appeal, we did a shadow analysis, and it was very -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: -- minimal. Mr. Olmedillo. Guillermo Olmedillo: Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Guillermo Olmedillo, for the record, 330 Greco Avenue, in Coral Gables. First of all, the issue under the Comprehensive Plan of protection of residential neighborhoods. The majority of this building is residential, so there's no incompatibility between a residential building and residential houses. The fact that it looks different, in itself the use is fundamentally residential, so the use is not different. This would be neighbors in the neighborhood, the same as the people who live in houses; they simply live in an apartment. They don't have to be derent just because they live in a different dwelling type. The master plan relies heavily on the Zoning Ordinance in order to provide compatibility of the building envelope and separation from the d fferent uses that can be incompatible. Your staff has pointed out to you, one, that it meets all the conditions of 1305; that it meets all the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance, and it is -- and that's why they found that it was appropriate to issue the Class II permit, taking into consideration all the impacts that the building would have -- the proposed project would have. Now when you have a residential site with a lesser density in the rear of the property, the opportunity that this developer has is to use that as a buffer that will be substantially better than if you had that building being occupied by another property owner because then, at that point, that person will be much more affected. The separation is over 60 feet, and then you have the light planes that are prescribed in the ordinance, which was a product of a common agreement as to what the light plane should be. The building meets all the light planes, all the separations, all the setbacks. As 1 said, the residential character, still residential, primarily -- As you know, your master plan reads that this is a mixed use district and it has components that are not residential, but primarily, it's a residential building, and the fact that it's a different density doesn't detract from the fact that they are both residential, the single-family houses in the rear, inside the neighborhood and this. The edges of districts were always very sensitive when the rewrite of the Zoning Code from 9500 to 11000 happened. Commissioner Allen: 1 see. Mr. Olmedillo: What had happened before was that those areas that were at the edge of more intensive districts had something that was called the 9500, the transitional use. By right, the transitional use allowed people who owned property fronting on the main thoroughfares to have parking in the rear, and in the case that you have a corner situation, you could do an office building in the rear, by right. That was traded, after many meetings with the neighborhoods -- and I'm talking when we prepared 11000. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: With many -- after many meetings with the neighborhoods, that was traded to take the use, as a matter of right, away from those property owners, and instead, replacing that by light planes and setbacks, and this is what, at the end, you did when you rewrote SD-9 to City. of Miami Page 71 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 provide those spacing requirements and the setbacks, and the light plane requirements. Commissioner Allen: Excuse me. Mr. Olmedillo: If you have anything else -- Commissioner Allen: Could I quickly chime in? Would it make a difference if this property is moved 50 feet more towards the boulevard? I'm just curious. Mr. Olmedillo: Well, it'll be another -- a different project. You cannot have the same footprint because, remember -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: -- you're reducing the footprint of the building. Commissioner Allen: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Any questions -- Mr. Olmedillo: But the architect is here -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- from the Commission? Mr. Olmedillo: -- to answer those questions. Mr. Pastoriza: In summary, you need substantial -- the burden is on the appellant. The appellant has a very big burden. The appellant must show not only that your director did something wrong in the issuance of the permit, but also that the Zoning Board, when they denied the appeal, that they did something wrong, and they need to do that through substantial competent evidence. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Pastoriza: 1 did not hear any experts here testify on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, I would urge you to follow your department's recommendations and deny this appeal. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Counsel. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Mr. Dickman: Thank you very -- thank you. I'm going to read something to you. The building mass is out of scale with the existing context of single-family and duplex homes to the west of the site. The City is in the process of developing a new height regulation for this part of the Biscayne Boulevard, arising out of neighborhood input in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor Study charrette. These new regulations are in the process of being adopted. The building's height should be compatible with the future height requirements, which specify an eight -story City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 limit and 95 height limit. This is the Design Review comments during the process. I mean, they - - I mean, it's notable to say that we voluntarily did this, but 1 think everybody from Washington, D.C. to Key West knew that there was a lot of talk on Biscayne Boulevard about what to do. I mean, there was a lot of energy, a lot of talk. Staff got the picture, the Commission, everybody, and it was very clear; notice was out there to, generally, everybody in the world that if you come forward with a project that was really just trying to slide in under all these regulations, you were going to have a very hard time. There's a legal doctrine called "zoning in progress" that is -- has been upheld numerous times in courts that says that the City can, in fact, hold applicants to those requirements while they're being developed. The fact is that this developer did the right thing. They actually listened to staff and said, we're -- you know, why do we want to bang our head against the wall? Let's bring a project in that's going to fit the new ordinance, but the only thing that they did wrong, 1 think, is that they said, we got to get a bigger building. How do we do it? There's an R-2 behind us. Let's see if we can dress this up into a passive park or something and make it feel good to everybody, so -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Dickman: I mean, we're almost there folks, really, honestly. This is -- we're not saying no development on this property. We're just saying push it forward a little bit. We've all worked hard on the SD-9, you know. We want that to work in everybody's favor, the residents and the commercial interest. Are they assembling it? Maybe not. Maybe they purchased all this land, but the reality is that they are taking a residential zoned property and putting it under the approval of this big project, and it will never again be residential because it'll be tied to this approval. It cannot be part of the residential area anymore. It's a de facto rezoning, basically. Even though it's still going to be called R-2, it's going to be tied to this development approval, and it can't become part of the R-2 -- the neighborhood behind it. The -- I would also like you to keep in mind that there is another big lot directly to the north of this. It will be developed at some point. I mean, the economy on the boulevard -- everyone's aware of that. That is -- Chairman Sanchez: Is that the only issue? Mr. Dickman: The only issue? Chairman Sanchez: Is that --1 said, you're almost -- you said you're almost -- Mr. Dickman: Yeah, we --1 mean, we -- Chairman Sanchez: You're almost there, but what's -- is that the only issue -- Mr. Dickman: That is our primary -- Chairman Sanchez: -- that property, the R-1? Mr. Dickman: -- issue. Certainly, if we had -- in the best of all possible worlds, from the standpoint of my clients, they would like a smaller building, but they understand that this has to be -- they're just asking for fairness here at this point. That R-2 lot behind it is giving this developer a lot more of a building than they really deserve under the SD-9, and that's what we're talking about here. We're not saying put it down to three stories or two stories and put a Starbucks there or something like that. We understand. This is a big lot that was carved out of the S -- during the SD-9 project. We talked about the mega block and this lot, and the lot to the north, and there is going to be another big building, at some point in time, right across the street from this. Chairman Sanchez: So your only concern is the R-2 that gives it more FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and -- City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Dickman: That's our primary -- Chairman Sanchez: -- gives it more -- Mr. Dickman: -- concern. I'm not going to negate all the other issues that I put on the record, to preserve our rights, but 1'll tell you, candidly, that's our biggest concern, is the fact that they have -- basically, take this parcel of land behind it and sort of supped up their project a little bit more, and 1 think, Commissioner Allen, you stated it perfectly. Can you move this forward 66 feet? I think you said 50, but the lot is really 66 feet, which is what they're getting, and the answer, I think, is yes, they can. They just don't want to. That's it. They want to tell you that my neighbors have moved in here knowing that there was a C-1 zoning there, and knowing that all of this list of horrible things could have happened there, but the reality -- a lot of the people that moved in here moved in when the boulevard was a quiet, sleepy little place, and they never would have thought to look well, is there C-1 here, and will there be 150 -- unlimited height here . No, they didn't, but what they are asking you to do is follow the Code. 1305.2 does have strict requirements about looking at the existing context, looking at scale and compatibility, looking at traffic impacts flowing into the area, not to mention the traffic snarls on Biscayne Boulevard, but flowing back into the neighbors. The Dumpsters are back there; they will be emptied daily, probably. There's loading back there near the neighbors. In addition to that, sure, could you look at this as residential? Yeah. It's the same use; residential use is the same behind us, but the reality is, this is a much different density than what is behind it, and the density creates cars, people, toilet flushes, all kinds of things, and you really do have to look at that type of impact, and the fact that you have a single-family neighborhood right next to it, and creating this medium to high -density project. We're not saying no; we're just saying help us out here. You know, don't allow the encroachment into the residential area. The Comp. Plan says don't do that, and we're asking you to do that. We have submitted these exhibits. We've put things into the record. Neighbors have testified. That is competent substantial evidence. No, they haven't brought an expert here. You know why? Because they're neighbors. They -- these are working people. They don't have the money to hire these professional planners to come before you and to defend their interest because they are hoping that you will understand that they worked hard. They compromised on the SD-9 process, and that's all they're asking for here is fairness. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. Meeting -- the public hearing is closed. Commissioners. Commissioner Allen: Madam Lourdes. Yes. OK. I'm just concerned -- let me ask you, Lourdes, if you will, the issues of the light and airflow, has that been met to your satisfaction? Ms. Slazyk: Yes -- Commissioner Allen: And -- Ms. Slazyk: I guess, maybe to expand on what was put in the record, the -- Mr. Pastoriza stated how long we were in the process with the Planning and Zoning Department issuing the design review and the design review comments that resulted in this, and through that process, he's correct, they filed this application before the rules were changed, but through the Class II process and design review, we pushed all of them, and we made sure that the height limits and the setbacks and the light planes were all in place. Commissioner Allen: Great. City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: Mr. Dickman did read something into the record from our design review comments, but because this process was in design review for a while, since we had adoption hearings going on for SD-9 during that time, those comments were based on earlier plans that did have a taller building, and through the design review process and through those comments and the issuance of a Class 11, the building did change during that time, and we feel that all of the criteria in 1305 was met. Commissioner Allen: Met. Let me ask you, Lourdes, has any consideration been giving to potentially moving it 50 feet more to the boulevard in your many discussions? Ms. Slazyk: Let me tell you -- Commissioner Allen: I'm just curious. Ms. Slazyk: -- why we were satisfied with the duplex lot that was incorporated into this project that was left as open space. When we talk about residential use, it's not just the unit and the lobby, and the mailroom, and the maybe swimming pool and other amenities. There's open space that needs to be considered as part of residential development. The ability to provide this amount of open space doesn't happen often. You're not going to see a lot of projects having, on the ground floor, a great little open space, or almost little park for their residents, and we believe that the provision of this served as an excellent buffer -- Commissioner Allen: I see. Ms. Slazyk: -- and if that allowed them to -- you know, to take the point from where they took their height limit to provide the light planes -- if it allowed them to move it back a little bit, they still provided the open space, and that's just as valid a residential accessory use as a swimming pool, and a lobby, and a mailroom, and all those other things. Commissioner Allen: 1 see. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I'm probably not seeing this quite the same as Lourdes. The battle along Biscayne Boulevard's been arduous. You know, these whole -- this whole corridor issue is a big deal, and the future of our City, along these corridors, is clearly at stake, and as far as I'm concerned, our job is to take maximum precaution, not minimal, but maximum, and so, what I'm going to do is move to continue this item to the December meeting and require the developer to go back and meet with the homeowners' association, and I want to hear some more dialogue about that -- the treatment of the back of that building, and I'm not as excited about the idea that the little pocket park is there as Lourdes is. I'm much more excited about making sure -- this is the first one. This is the first one, and I want to set the standard as tough as we can set the standard, so that we don't end up up here in battles over and over. It doesn't do the developers any good, either. It doesn't do anyone any good to end up in battles over and over and over again, so this is the first one and 1 want the standard to be set as tough as we can set the standard, and move down and around the boulevard from as tough a standard as we can get, and I think that this issue, relative to the incorporation of an R-2 lot into the design plan, from my view, is questionable, so 1 think that the developer does need to go back to the neighbors. I'm not going to move to uphold the appeal at this point, and 1 was thinking seriously about that, so - - but I am going to move to continue it to December and require the developer to meet with the neighbors and see if they can't come up with a little better compromise, understanding that the neighborhood is not -- some people are going to be opposed to anything. I'm not dealing with the people that are opposed to everything. I'm dealing with the people that are trying to be rational about this, and end up protecting their neighborhood as best as they can, and so, want City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 to see everybody come back here in December. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so we have a motion to -- Commissioner Winton: That's my motion. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- defer. Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Winton: Continue, right? Ms. Slazyk: Continue. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): To continue to a time certain. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Continue. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry. All right. We have a motion -- Mr. Fernandez: Which would be 2:30. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second to continue to December 9th, right? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, December 9th. Commissioner Winton: Is that what it is, December 9th? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: December 9th. All right. All in favor -- Mr. Pastoriza: Commissioners, could we have -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- say "aye." Mr. Pastoriza: -- like a time certain? Commissioner Winton: Yeah, let's -- can we pick a time? Mr. Fernandez: 2:30 or soon thereafter, or you may have a time certain. Commissioner Winton: Probably 5-ish because 1 don't think the neighborhood -- the -- you know, the neighbors can't get here, so I would suggest a 5 o'clock time certain. Ms. Slazyk: OK. December 9th, 5 p.m. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: December 9th, 5 p.m. Chairman Sanchez: So -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All in favor, say "aye." Chairman Sanchez: So -- City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All opposed have the same right. Chairman Sanchez: Is 15 a companion item or -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No. Commissioner Winton: No. Chairman Sanchez: No? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: There's no companion item. Commissioner Allen: There is a companion -- Chairman Sanchez: You're going to defer this one, too? Commissioner Allen.: No? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No. Commissioner Winton: We got to hear it. Chairman Sanchez: Well, not really. Ms. Slazyk: No, 15 and 16 are two different appeals. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Are two different -- Commissioner Winton: They're all different. Chairman Sanchez: Oh. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- zoning. Commissioner Winton: Three different projects. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: Yeah. PZ.15 04-01208 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), GRANTING THE APPEAL BY THE MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. AND ROD ALONSO, RON STEBBINS, SCOTT CRAWFORD AND ELVIS CRUZ, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD, AND THEREBY DENYING CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 03-0309 , ISSUED ON JULY 21, 2004, TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5101 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 04-01208 Exhibit A.PDF 04-01208 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01208 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01208 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01208 ZB Appeal Letter.PDF 04-01208 ZB Reso.PDF 04-01208 Class II Appeal Letter.PDF 04-01208 Class II Final Decision.PDF 04-01208 Class II Referral.PDF 04-01208 UDRB Reso.PDF 04-01208 Legislation a.PDF 04-01208 Legislation b.PDF 04-01208-S ubm ittai-1. pdf 04-01208-Submittal-2. p df 04-01208-Submittal-3. pdf 04-01208-Submittal-4. pdf 04-01208-Submittal-Marcus-5. pdf 04-01208-Submittal-6. pdf 04-01208-S u b mittal-7. pdf VIDEO_TS.IFO Motion by Commissioner Winton, 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-04-0764 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.15 is also an appeal of a Class II Special Permit. This is for a project at 5101 Biscayne Boulevard, and again, the appellant goes first. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is the appellant present? Brickman -- it's -- no, it's Dickman, not Brickman. All right. Whenever you're ready. Andrew Dickman: OK. Mr. Chair, Andrew Dickman, for the record, law offices at 9111 Park Drive, in Miami Shores, Florida. I'm here representing the Morningside Civic Association, which is the neighborhood directly east of this particular property. With me today are a number of the neighbors, Elvis Cruz. We do have an expert here, and I just wanted to let you know that they will be coming up. They have a presentation, and we will have an expert put some information in the record. Chairman Sanchez: All right. How much -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, could -- that reminds me of something, as it relates to at least the notice in our book that I'm a bit confused about. On PZ 14, it said the appellant is Andrew Dickman, Esquire, on behalf of Rod Alonso, Ron Stebbins, Scott Crawford, Elvis Cruz, adjacent property owners. Now, Elvis Cruz is not an adjacent property owner to PZ 14. He lives in Morningside, and then the address is 911 -- oh, is that your address, Andrew? Miami -- Mr. Dickman: 9111 is my -- Commissioner Winton: -- no, you're not in Miami Shores. Mr. Dickman: -- law office. City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK, fine, but -- and then the -- it says under request appeal, by the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association and blah, blah, blah, so do we have all the facts right here? I mean, is that important to the outcome? I mean, is that important to the record? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. They have to have standing to be an appellant, and then they have to be individuals, not only homeowners' association, but he also has to have individuals that would have standing. Commissioner Winton: I just want to make sure that this is all accurate. I'll let you deal with that -- Chairman Sanchez: How much time are you going to need? Commissioner Winton: -- later. Mr. Dickman: Pardon me? Chairman Sanchez: Dickman, how much time are you going to need? Mr. Dickman: How much -- I'm only going to make a brief presentation because 1 want the -- I want Elvis to be able to make his presentation, and 1 want our expert to come forward, so that will -- I will just outline our arguments, and then allow them to speak, so -- Chairman Sanchez: Then you're going to reserve time for rebuttal. Mr. Dickman: And then I will reserve time for rebuttal. Also with us today is another attorney representing an individual plaintiff -- or an individual in Morningside. He would also like to make a presentation. Michael Sastre: I've come in for Rod -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you need -- Mr. Sastre: -- Alonso -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you need to state your name for record. Mr. Sastre: Yes, my name is Michael Sastre. 1 reside at 602 Northeast 59th Street. I'm an attorney here in Miami, Florida, and I've come in for purposes of handling this appeal for Mr. Alonso. Mr. Dickman represents Morningside Civic Association, Elvis Cruz, et cetera. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Dickman: And just for the record, we've organized this so that we're not going to duplicate things. This is -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Dickman: We understand that you guys got to move this along, so that's why we're doing it this way. Very succinctly, again, you know, a lot of the same arguments as the last appeal, that we're living under the new SD-9 Zoning Ordinance, which requires 25 feet maximum height at the rear of the property, and again, and it sets -- it defines what the rear of the property now is because there was a lot of question about, if it's on a side street, is that the rear, or is that the side. The ordinance, thank God, does bring clarity to that issue. 1t makes Biscayne Boulevard City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 12/17/2009 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 the front, which it ought to be, and it establishes that a 25-foot height limit at the rear of the property, where it's abutting R-2 -- R-1, R-2, the residential districts, and then goes from there to a 45-degree angle. We feel that this project does not comply with that. We feel that, again, you know, this is a zoning ordinance that was long in the making. Nobody was -- this was not in the dark. 1t was not a clandestine thing. This was about as public, as open a process as any process could possibly be, and this developer knew about that, and we want them to comply with that ordinance. We also, again, feel that 1305.2, which is the design review criteria, is not being met here simply because these are small lots. They're cramming big buildings on small lots, right next to single-family homes. This is a premiere neighborhood. It's not an exclusive neighborhood necessarily, but there are a lot of middle-class, hard-working people living in Morningside that want their investments protected, and they are an asset to the City, and we feel that 1305.2, with that laundry list of design review criteria, that specifically talks about compatibility, scale, et cetera, gives them security to live under, and finally, the same arguments that I made under the comp. plan; whereas, encroaching into residential neighborhoods, meaning that this is a particular development that is coming right next to a residential neighborhood. Yes, this has a residential component to it, but its scale, its design, its massing is going to be incompatible use next to single-family homes, so with that, I will ask Elvis Cruz to go ahead and begin his presentation, and the other neighbors, and the expert will come forward and speak to you. Elvis Cruz: Hello. My name is Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, Miami. I put this together in conjunction with Al (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and Rachel Parsons, 463 Northeast 55 Terrace, 670 Northeast 59th Street, and we've pooled our time. It'll be about four minutes, Commissioner. Gentlemen, FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is a maximum, not an entitlement. Proposed buildings must also comply with Section 1305 of the Zoning Code. Here's the design review criteria set forth in Section 1305: Respond to the physical contextual -- Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Mr. Cruz: Sir. Commissioner Regalado: We're having trouble getting -- Mr. Cruz: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- our screen. Mr. Cruz: Your monitors, OK. Commissioner Regalado: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: Perhaps, the gentleman in the back, if he's hearing, can patch that in. Commissioner Regalado: OK, now, now. OK. Mr. Cruz: OK. Thank you, sir. Respond to the physical contextual environment, taking into consideration urban form. Respond to the neighborhood context. Create a transition in bulk and scale. The proposed buildings fail to meet these criteria from three aspects: First aspect is the width of the street. Biscayne is only 100 feet wide at this point, relatively narrow for a commercial street. This is because Biscayne was never designed to be a commercial street, but was pieced together in the late 1920s by connecting a series of streets through residential, single -family neighborhoods. This is why Biscayne curves and doglegs. Accordingly, the lots along Biscayne were originally platted for single-family homes and are, therefore, very shallow. This is why there are still 15 of the original single-family homes still standing on Biscayne Boulevard, and why the lots in question are only 135 to 127 feet deep. What is the proper scale for 100-foot City of Miami Page 80 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 wide commercial street like Biscayne? Here is the Miami -Dade County Planning and Zoning Department's Urban Design Manual. On page 14, it shows the preferred scale as having three- story buildings. I quote, "In this preferred example, the ratio is slightly less than 1 to 3. Human scale is achieved by a tight section, including landscape, three-story buildings, and an aracade and awnings which result in a comfortable space." Here are some illustrations from the same manual. They show two- and three-story buildings as example of proper scale on a commercial corridor. The second aspect is the physical contextual environmental taking into consideration the urban form of Biscayne. This is Biscayne's context: From 48th Street, where the wide median ends, northward to the city limits at 87th Street, is a distance of 2.48 miles; in that distance, there are only 14 buildings higher than two stories, and over 95 percent of the properties are two stories or less. There are only two buildings in that 2.48-mile stretch that will be as tall as the proposed buildings. One of them is the immigration building at 79th Street, the other, at 5701, was built illegally in 1973, in that it did not have enough land area, which was discovered after it was built, and so the developer had to buy the house behind it in order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, this building is not a valid example of existing scale, but it does show what will result if these buildings are allowed. The white wall on the right side of the picture is 95 feet high, similar to the heights proposed. Look at how out of scale the building is to the house behind it. Here is the City of Miami Planning Department's publication for the Biscayne Boulevard Charrette. Commissioner Winton outlined the City's goals: "The plan will establish standards that emphasize a human -scaled pedestrian friendly Boulevard that promotes compatible development Overtown respond to the context of the Boulevard and its immediate surrounding neighborhoods." This publication has seven photographs and drawings of examples of good urban design and proper human scale for Biscayne Boulevard. All seven exhibits depict two- and three-story buildings as examples of good design and proper scale. Here's the City of Miami Planning Department's Upper Eastside Master Plan, a three-year effort which began on March 28, 1996, and which recommends a height limit of only 30 feet on parts of Biscayne. The third aspect deals with responding to the neighborhood context. The neighborhood abutting the proposed site, Morningside, is zoned R-1, and has been there for over 60 years and is a thriving, integral component of Miami's history and economy. Because the submitted plans did not show the neighborhood context, here are scale drawings of the buildings with adjacent single -story, single-family homes. You can see the design is not only out of scale, there is no transition in bulk and scale whatsoever, in direct violation of the design review criteria. Also, as proven by Florida case law, 35 feet is an accepted proper scale for buildings adjacent to single-family homes. From the Fifth DCA ( District Court of Appeals), Battaglia Properties versus Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, "The 35 foot height requirement appears to be reasonably related to the stated policies of both Orange County and Maitland, to preserve the residential nature of the area." Lastly, this continuing pattern of high-rise development upon Biscayne will have an adverse effect on the area. Biscayne is already beyond capacity. Here is the Florida DOT's (Department of Transportation) map showing the Biscayne corridor. The red color coding you see means it has a grade of F, just like on a school report card. In summary, please note that none of these arguments are our opinions. They are objective, impartial standards set by neutral third parties. This substantial competent evidence shows 35 feet to be the proper scale for buildings at this location, but even if you don't accept this definition of proper scale, there is also your own definition of proper scale; the amended SD-9, which sets scale at 85 to 95 feet, with a 45-degree sloping setback above 25 feet. While these applicants will argue that they should be grandfathered from the SD-9 amendments, they are not grandfathered from complying with 1305 . Your own determination of proper scale can be applied as an interpretation of 1305 because FAR is a maximum, not an entitlement. Rachel Parsons is now showing you the four buildings that are proposed at 51, 52, 53 and 55 Streets. We are appealing all four buildings; two tonight, two later. This will be a virtual wall, completely out of scale with the existing boulevard and with the neighborhood behind. Gentlemen, today is the 17th time that the Upper East Side neighbors have come to City Hall to fight high-rises. At this time, I ask those who are here in support of our appeal to please stand and be recognized. Thank you. Please approve our appeal. Thank you. City of Miami Page 81 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Dickman: Before the expert comes up, I'd ask any of the other neighbors who want to testify to please come forward, and then we'll close with the expert presenting to you all. Chairman Sanchez: OK. We'll limit two minutes to both sides. Sir, state your name for the record. Madam Clerk, two minutes, please. Sir. Dr. William Hopper: Good evening, Honorable Commissioners. I'm Dr. William Hopper, Director of the Center of Urban Environmental Studies and president of the Morningside Civic Association. I reside at 527 Northeast 56th Street. I'm here today to make you aware the City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department overlooked the design review criteria set forth in the ordinance when they approved the Class 11 permits at 5101 and 5225 Biscayne Boulevard. The proposed buildings fail to respond to the physical context of surrounding urban form and the natural green areas that characterize that portion of Biscayne Boulevard. Furthermore, the proposed buildings show a complete disregard for the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) Biscayne Boulevard reconstruction project, which has been underway for at least five years. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of man-hours have been expended by the neighbors in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor and City and FDOT staff to make sure that the proposed Biscayne Boulevard reconstruction is sensitive to the urban scale in the sense of place to distinguish such an important traffic corridor. FDOT plans are very detailed with respect to curb cuts, median strips, road closures, greenways, and physical transitions from the boulevard itself to surrounding streets. The site plans for these two projects demonstrate a complete disregard for all the cooperative efforts that have occurred between FDOT and the surrounding neighbors, and furthermore, they are insensitive to the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. The exterior elevations of these two projects also fail to comply with the design review criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Department overlooked that the proposed buildings' facades fail to relate and conform to the existing structures in the neighborhood. There's a total lack of balance in the articulation of vertical and horizontal elements within these protect -- proposed elevations. These two projects possess no evident or identifiable architectural style or are missing the articulation of the details that so clearly distinguishes the surrounding streetscapes. Architectural elements, such as roof lines and fenestration patterns, as well as the lack of proportion and a very weak design composition fail to respond to the neighborhood context. The appearance of these two proposed projects do not derive from the urban environment that characterizes the surrounding streetscapes, as required in the Code. The building elevations do not conform to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity, which are all single -story homes or two-story commercial structures with a narrow perpendicular elevation fronting Biscayne Boulevard. One more paragraph. Furthermore, the site plans indicate that a large green area is being taken over by hard asphalt, and will serve to negate the pedestrian interaction between the surrounding neighborhoods and Biscayne Boulevard. Projects fail to respond to the scale of pedestrian by denying a sense of proportional entrances and inviting elevations on all four sides. They result in a design -- in design facades that respond only to the automobile. They're along expanses of blank walls with no design element, which are totally opposite from exterior walls characterizing the surrounding area -- neighborhood. The proposed projects have heights much above the roof level height indicated in the plans. They're deceptive in the instance of 225; the actual parapet rises yet another full story above the indicated roof level, and also, the balconies overhang more than what is shown in the site plans. Review of the loading berths show that the maneuvering that will be required of any truck driver will result in hazardous conditions on Biscayne Boulevard, between 51 and 52. The ground floor shows that even the circulation pattern of the truck going over the planter wall that defines the street closure. By comparing the two ground floor plans, you will see that the south sides of both these projects are nothing more than fields of asphalt. Contrary to the design criteria requiring screening, the two ground floor plans fail to screen elements, such as Dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas from the street and adjacent properties. The levels of the parking garage are not articulated in any fashion. They do not take into account the trellises, landscaping or other City of Miami Page 82 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 suitable design elements and design review. On behalf of the civic association and the surrounding neighbors, we implore you to deny the Class II Permits and send it back to Planning and Zoning so they can incorporate these elements -- Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Dr. Hopper: -- in their plan. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask him two questions? Chairman Sanchez: This is -- Ms. Dougherty: He's an expert witness. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, yes, he is. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Sir -- is he -- are you -- he's not -- is he the expert -- your expert witness? Mr. Dickman: President -- no, I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: He's not. Mr. Dickman: President of the -- our expert hasn't come up. Chairman Sanchez: No, he's not an expert witness. Dr. Hopper: I'm not the expert witness. Mr. Dickman: He's the president of the homeowners' association. Ms. Dougherty: Oh, OK. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, OK. That's why. Dr. Hopper: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you, sir. OK. Listen, let's try to limit to two minutes, if possible, please. Dr. Scott Crawford: For the record, I'm Dr. Scott Crawford. 1 live at 430 Northeast 52nd Street . Good evening. Commissioner Winton, last spring, when I first brought your attention to these developments at 5101 and 5225, you went on record stating that you would oppose these projects if they -- if the developer had not yet purchased the properties. As of that time, I believe that grandfathering two more projects now, in addition to Kubik, would simply serve to further undermine the will of the people across Miami who want reasonable development that harmonizes with the current neighborhoods and the context. It would also negate the hard work of your Planning and Zoning Department, who helped develop such a good ordinance in the SD- 9 ordinance. Thank you. City of Miami Page 83 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Jennyfer Simpson: Jennyfer Simpson, 530 Northeast 59th Street. I have a letter here that 1 will give to the Clerk and to Ms. Dougherty, with some support from Miami Neighborhoods United. The following member organizations of Miami Neighborhoods United have sent these letters of support to Morningside Civic Association in their efforts to not allow high-rises next to single- family homes: Golden Pines, Miami Shenandoah, Friends of Sewell Park, Oakland Grove, Coconut Grove Park, Lemon City Taxpayers Association, Bay Point, Buena Vista East and Cocoanut Grove Village Council. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Mary Foehrenbach: I'm Mary Foehrenbach. I live at 655 Northeast 55th Terrace, and again, my issue is the quality of life. You know, the developers will tell you that we will not see these large buildings because of our tree canopy. I personally was one of the people over the last 40 years who have planted many of those trees. Some of them came down in Andrew; we put them in again. We put them in every year. They do not hide these buildings. You are changing our quality of life in Morningside, if you allow these to come in. We're a historic area and I thank Commissioner Allen, 1 knew he was concerned about light and air on the previous one. I think we all should be concerned about this. Thank you very much for your consideration. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker. Robert Stebbins: Good evening, Commissioner, Chairmens [sic] and staff. My name is Robert Stebbins. I live at 410 Northeast 52 Terrace. I'm noticed in this petition, and I'm not Ron Stebbins; I'm Robert Stebbins. I am within the 500 feet of the properties in question, and it's my understanding, Commissioner Winton, that these grandfather would only be considered if the property was purchased before the SD-9 ordinance was passed, and it's my understanding that this development has not purchased the land; they've just entered into a contract with the motel owner that, if it is approved, then they will purchase the land, and now, my understanding is that that's against what we discussed in the previous several meetings that we've been in attendance to. The other thing is, is with the SD-9, we did make the agreement to scooch in a little closer to the property line, so this building can now be five feet closer to my property line than 1 am tall, than -- but they didn't come down in the height. They took the spread of the building footprint, but they did not lower the size of the building, and I ask you to, you know, please approve our appeal. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Counsel. Mr. Dickman: I'll now ask our expert to come forward and test, please. Mr. Marcus, Arthur Marcus. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Dickman: And please put your credentials on the record. Arthur Marcus: Thank you. Arthur Marcus, 1450 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach. Commissioners, as a professional architect for over 30 years with a far-ranging practice in architecture and urban design, encompassing all types of building, I am supporting the appeal of the Morningside Civic Association of the City of Miami's decision to permit the two condominium projects proposed to be constructed at 5101 and 5225 Biscayne Boulevard. I've worked diligently for many years as an architect in Miami Beach, but not only as an architect, but also as a citizen activist and as a member and the chairman of the Miami Beach Design Review and Historic Preservation Boards, dealing repeatedly with the issue of ensuring that new buildings in historic neighborhoods fit into the existing architectural context, and I was also part of the team behind the "Save Miami Beach" movement, educating the public about rational development in South Beach. Through my involvement with these numerous city committees and boards, we've learned City of Miami Page 84 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 in Miami Beach that critical issues, such as building height, building massing, open space between buildings, contextual scale and the ability to see the sky, matter deeply to all of our residents and can have long ranging effect upon the quality of life in our neighborhoods. The existing predominantly one- and two-story scale of this charming residential neighborhood, currently zoned as R-1, will be irrevocably altered by the abrupt intrusion of this approximately 100-foot tall buildings along its periphery. New construction, especially in such a low -scale neighborhood, should always respect and take cues from the existing surrounding urban context. Through the use of a series of stepped building blocks, the transition from one- and two-story residential neighborhoods to high-rise structures lining a commercial corridor should indeed form a gradual transition, and not such a virtual wall of building. These proposed projects totally fail to respond to the architectural context of the Morningside neighborhood, and also totally fail in creating an urban design transition of building mass and scale which respects the existing surrounding streetscape. This urban design principle of transitioning building mass and scale is supported not only by commonly accepted contemporary urban design practices, it is also supported by your own governmental advocacy. The Miami -Dade County Planning Department's Urban Design Manual has already illustrated examples of the proper scale for the juncture of such residential and commercial corridors. The new City of Miami SD-9 Overlay District regulations also clearly illustrates this transition as a 45-degree angle line of stepped development, and Florida case law has supported, in the past, height limitations in order to preserve and protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods adjacent to similar large-scale development. It is truly unfortunate that the City of Miami has, thus far, overlooked its very own criteria with respect to relative building scale. Thus, I recommend that you not only listen to the arguments of your own residents and constituents, listen to your own governmental zoning experts, in limiting the maximum building height to 35 feet as the appropriate height for buildings proposed to be sited adjacent to these historic single-family residential neighborhoods, and I strongly recommend that you return both of these projects to Planning and Zoning, so that they may be properly -- they may properly apply the design review criteria outlined in Section 1305.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, before 1 close, I do want to -- I have -- the position that we have is that we believe SD-9 was the right thing. A lot of -- again, just for the record -- I know I talked a lot about this in the former one. A lot of energy, a lot of discussion, dialogue went a long time and a long way, and what finally came out of that was a -- what my clients feel is something that will protect the neighborhoods, and the development industry feels like it at least gave them something on the boulevard. At this juncture, we feel that the SD-9 that's in place needs to be applied. It needs to be applied, otherwise, what's going to come down the pike is going to be, " Well, what about them? You gave it to them, " and it's going to be going down a slippery slope, where it's going to be a long, messy road. At some point, you have say, "This is our ordinance. We're going to live with this horse, and we're going to ride it through thick or thin, " and 1 hope that you will do that. I do have a Memorandum of Law that I'd like to put into the record, which has a fuller dialogue and a lot of this argument about using the ordinance. I don't want to belabor you with that, but just for the record, I'd like to have that put into -- with -- just go ahead and put that into the record but, essentially, what it says is that the SD-9 needs to be applied; the current SD-9, not the former SD-9, in that 1305.2 needs to be used aggressively in this case in order to achieve the results of not only the underlying zoning, but the comp. plan, in that, in order to protect neighborhoods and, candidly, to protect the economy of the boulevard, that there needs to be a plan in place. There is a plan in place, and that it needs to be adhered to, so with that, I want to reserve a little time for argument. Oh, one other thing. 1 do also want to just put on the record that we tried to make a number of different arguments in line with the SD-9 and 1305 and the comp. plan, and the Zoning Board flat-out denied us the ability to make those arguments, and 1 believe that's going to come up in some of -- the memorandum that you're going to see in the dialogue after me, but I just want to put on the record that we felt that we had the ability and we're allowed to make those arguments. They're strictly arguments on the law City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 that should have been applied, and we were confined only to dialogue -- to discuss the 1305.2. We're not allowed to talk about the SD-9, and we feel that that was a violation of our due process, so with that, 1 want to reserve a little bit of time to rebut, and then I think Mike Sastre, representing Rod Alonso, wants to make a brief presentation to you. Thank you. Mr. Sastre: Good evening, Commissioners. Michael Sastre, 602 Northeast 59th Street. I'm here tonight representing Rod Alonso and his interest in this matter. He's directly appealed -- he's indicated on the notices and so forth. 1 have prepared, and I'll pass out at the end of this and provide a copy to counsel for developer, a petition and the motion to vacate and remand the underlying decision that we're appealing from tonight. I'm not going to belabor you with the extent of all the law cited in there or the facts contained in there, and that memorandum -- that petition also adopts the exhibits that we just moved into evidence, which reflect the history of the zoning on these two projects, and builds a nice timeline between what was going on at the Planning and Zoning level in these two developments and what was going on at the City Commission level, the community level, in terms of getting passage of the SD-9 Ordinance, and I'm going to try to make a couple of real simple points of why 1 think this needs to be remanded and vacated for further proceedings to Planning and Zoning. When Mr. Dickman, who was representing my client and the others at the proceeding below, sought to introduce and argue the applicability of the SD-9 ordinances, both the one from April 29th that passed, and the subsequent one that passed with the 25-foot/45-degree angle, he was precluded from making that argument. He was precluded from presenting evidence of that, and we're contending that was a due process violation, as well as an error in law, which I'll explain in a moment. Similarly, I think he just mentioned he was also precluded from arguing the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and 907.3.2, which, I believe, dealt with the setbacks for these properties. What 1 want to argue with regard to SD-9 deals with this concept of "zoning in progress," and you've heard and there were arguments below, and there was, in fact, an exchange on the record between Ms. Hernandez, who I believe was the chair of the Appeals Board below, about what ordinance do they apply, and here's what the colloquy was from Ms. Hernandez. "In consideration for this, are we supposed to be using SD-9 and 907.3.2 as it was when this was approved, or as it is now? " Counsel for the board, Mr. Wysong, said, "You would have to look at what was approved at the time." Ms. Hernandez, "What was in place when it was approved and not what it is now?" Mr. Wysong, "When it was approved, what the law was at the time, " and my point is that that is not an accurate statement of the law because there is something you are very -- or you will become very familiar with. It's called "zoning in progress," and in fact, zoning in progress -- this concept of zoning in progress was applied below and it was utilized by the developer below, and let me illustrate exactly what I mean by that because, as you all will recall, the 85/95 was passed second reading on April 29th. Also, on April 29th, there was a lot of discussion and debate going back about what is going to be the height on the rear lot line of these abutting properties; 25 feet, 40 feet, 60-degree angle, 45-degree angle. Well, on April 29th, the Planning and Zoning came down and they made their final recommendation, and they said, 25 feet, 45- degree angle, and in fact, they used the language that it should be an immediate amendment -- this is on April 29th -- they're saying immediate amendment, push this through, OK, and what was going on at the same time, simultaneously, with these projects was that they were going back and forth with Planning and Zoning. The process below started in November of 2003, with height limits of 135. The review came back and they said -- Planning and Zoning said, "You're too big. You're out of scale. Your bulk is too much. You got to crunch these buildings." They were applying "zoning in progress." They knew what was coming down the pike. On March 25 th, there was another preliminary predesign meeting, and comments from Planning and Zoning on that day -- and I want to read them exactly verbatim in the record for you all. Commissioner Winton: What's the relevance -- Mr. Sastre: The -- Commissioner Winton: -- of us hearing -- City of Miami Page 86 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Sastre: The comment was on March 25th to the developers. Quote from Ms. Gelabert, "It is found that the building's mass is out of scale with the existing context of single-family homes to the east. Also, the building's height should be compatible with the new regulations that are in the process of being adopted for this part of Biscayne Boulevard, which specify a height limit of eight stories and 95 feet maximum height, " and again, the maximum -- that is not an entitlement. That is not -- codes are not designed that you build absolutely to the maximum that is allowed. They are -- and as you've heard today through expert testimony, the provisions are a maximum. They're not an entitlement, and this is on March 25th, so zoning in progress -- even though they weren't enacted, even though they weren't passed already, but Planning and Zoning was trying to apply zoning in progress as of late March of 2004, and this continued throughout the process in this project. Ultimately, the decision that was appealed from was one that was entered on July 21, 2004, which was after the April 29th memo mandating and giving direct -- expressed directive for an immediate amendment. That was their language, not mine -- not -- that was their language for the 25-foot/45-degree angle. Now, why zoning in progress was applied to part of this project and not the entirety, 1 can't tell you, but what I can tell you is that it is legal. It is permissible, and the case law that's cited in the memo will support that and will demonstrate that, and my client would not be happy with the building, even at the height of 85 or 95 feet, with the 45-degree angle setback. He's not happy with that, and I'm not sure he could live with that, but I think, at the very least, it should go back for those considerations. They considered zoning in progress most of the way through this project, and for whatever reason, they didn't apply it for that standard which provides the additional setback and provides the 45-degree angle. As it is now, these project go right up to the property line and go straight up; it's a vertical wall. They are also, 1 should add, 85 and 97 feet, respectively, is what we're talking about, and I thank you all for your time, and I'm going to go ahead and provide you with a copy of the petition 1 filed. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Counsel, does that conclude -- Mr. Dickman: I just have a few minutes for rebuttal, if you don't mind? Chairman Sanchez: No, sir. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Not at all. Madam Counsel, you're recognized. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today representing Larry Eisenberg and Jerry Cohen, who have this project under contract for the last 18 months, long before there was a charrette contemplated for the site, and one of the five properties, as I told you, that would be grandfathered under the SD-9 Ordinance. Now, it's interesting because lots of things have changed since they bought this property; lots of amendments were made. First, there was an amendment to the SD (Special District) -- I mean, first, there was an amendment to the 1305.2 regulations, which does not apply to us. Because if you read by that language, it says all development in existence or anyone who has a complete application for development prior -- filed prior to January 1, 2004 is exempt from these ordinances. In other words, this doesn't apply to us; what applies to us is the old 1305.1, and I'm going to read you what the criteria is. You have to have a review for ingress and egress, off-street parking and loading, refuse and service areas, utilities, drainage, preservation of natural features, and where potentially adverse effects are found, consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case, including screening, buffering, landscaping, control of hours of operation, alteration of proposed design or construction of buildings, relocation of proposed open space, alteration of the use of the space or other measures which are required to assure potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the extent reasonably feasible City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 -- and here's the point -- and that the use and occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of property, so what have we done to comply with this? This is a very modest building. It's located on the east side of US-1. Currently, there are two motels there; one of them is Bayside Motel, at 5101, and with the permission of both counsel -- Mr. Dickman. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Ms. Dougherty: -- can we combine these two appeals? Basically, it's the same one, so we don't have to have the same testimony. Mr. Sastre: I think so. Yeah, I think that's fair. Commissioner Winton: Hallelujah. Chairman Sanchez: Stipulate to that, counsel? Mr. Dickman: 1 stipulate to it. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: So one is Bayside Motel and the other one is the Best Value Motel. Now, those three-story buildings that Mr. Cruz showed you, they're all very cute buildings, but they all have retail. Retail's not permitted on US-1 at this location. The only thing that is permitted is office or residential, not retail, so even your motels that are currently there are not permitted any longer, so the only thing that is viable at all, as a reasonable use of this property, is residential. Now, I say modest because we applied when this was unlimited height. We've reduced it. We've reduced -- let me just -- What did the Planning Department make us do to minimize the adverse effects? Well, they made us reduce this one from 85,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. They made us reduce from 11 stories to eight stories. They made us reduce from 89 units to 63 units. They made us reduce, Commissioner Winton, on 5101, 87 feet, not 95 feet. On the second building, they made us reduce the FAR from 80,000 to 61,000; from 11 floors to eight and a half floors; from the number of units from 90 units to 67, and from the height from 117 feet to 97.4 feet, so even though we're allowed, just like Mr. Pastoriza showed you before -- even though zoning in progress in the City of Miami says that if you have a pending application, you go by the law that exists at the time of the pending application. That's what zoning in progress law says in the City of Miami. Notwithstanding that, the Urban Development Review Board, the Planning staff and my clients, who wanted to be sensitive to our neighbors, actually voluntarily reduced by at least 20 percent, not only the FAR, the number of units and also the height. The issue about the view -- I mean, excuse me, the setback in the rear or the site line in the rear, again, that has been reduced not once, but twice since we've been having this application. The 25-foot rule with the setback actually went into effect about two months ago. We've actually applied over a year ago. This is, again, a Class II application, which is an administrative process that should take two months, and in fact, if we weren't on Biscayne Boulevard, we wouldn't even have to have a Class II Permit for this size building. We're not asking for a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). We're not asking you for a rezoning. We're not asking for variances. We're not asking for anything other than to build under what the current law allows, so we haven't asked for anything, but at the same time, this Class II Permit has taken a year. We applied in November of '03; one year for a Class II Permit. It's unheard of in the City of Miami, and that's because my client and the Zoning Department and the Planning Department all required us to reduce it to address the context of this neighborhood. Now, I have several witnesses; one of them is Vince Pastore, he will test. He is -- specializes in property in this area. He has sold over $50, 000, 000 worth of property between 39th Street and 71 st Street. He owns property in the neighborhood and he's also a developer in the neighborhood. He is not being paid for his testimony here today, nor was he the broker on any of these sites, so he is doing this not as -- not being remunerated, and first, I'd like him to come and testify as to whether or not this development will have any detrimental effect on the properties adjoining City of Miami Page 88 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 them, and whether or not, if you had a three-story building, this could be a viable residential use. Vincent Pastore: OK. My name is Vincent Pastore. My offices are at 6443 Biscayne Boulevard and 530 Ocean Drive. My company is Vincent Pastore & Associates, real estate broker. I've been a broker for 25 years, specifically, specializing in this area, as she said, from 69th Street to 71st Street. I've looked at both of these plans, reviewed the plans and looked at the use of the building, and submit to you that the price per square foot that will be obtained for these particular units will exceed the price per square foot that were obtained currently in any of the houses in Morningside. Research is clear on that, and that the use of this building as a residential use, with families that are paying taxes, will far exceed the use, as it currently stands now as a motel, which has --1 can tell you firsthand from owning property on Biscayne Boulevard, the demand from the Police Department for the responses and the disturbances for the transient use there, and the amount of dollars that those people put into the neighborhood would not even come close to the amount of dollars that the new residents would come into the neighborhood, so I dare say that it'd be hard to argue that this building would be a detriment to the neighborhood, and certainly, in the residential fashion, would have people on Biscayne Boulevard, strolling the boulevard, which is -- humans are what we needed. In South Beach, in 1980, one of the problems in South Beach -- and I was very important there -- was that there were no people. There were empty buildings, and it was dangerous. Now, at 2 o'clock in the morning, South Beach is the safest place in town because there're people, and so, 1 submit to you that this value -- I was called here to testi& as to whether I felt this value would be detrimental to the value of the neighborhoods, specifically, to the houses at the rear. My opinion is it'll actually be contrary. It'll drive the values up and make the neighborhood actually more desirable. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Do you want to -- Mr. Sastre: If I may ask a couple questions of the witness? Chairman Sanchez: Want to do it now or -- Mr. Sastre: That's probably -- Chairman Sanchez: -- do you want to wait until -- Mr. Sastre: -- the most effective way. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Go ahead. Mr. Sastre: And if he's done with his initial -- Chairman Sanchez: You could rebuttal. Mr. Sastre: OK. Mr. Pastore: I'm finished. Mr. Sastre: You stated that the price per square foot of the units, as currently addressed, will -- I don't know if you said far exceed. 1 know you said exceed the Morningside square footages. At what point does the return to the investor, the return to the developer drop below what would be the current price of square footage property in Morningside? Mr. Pastore: Well, I'll give you an example. The price per square foot that will have to be obtained for these units will approach $300 per square foot, and the price per square foot for residential property in Morningside is hard-pressed to exceed $200 a square foot. City of Miami Page 89 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Sastre: It's -- I believe it's well over. Have you studied the Morningside -- Mr. Pastore: Yes, I have. Mr. Sastre: -- have you studied any within -- Mr. Pastore: I'm not talking about -- Mr. Sastre: -- the past two months? Mr. Pastore: Yes, I have. Mr. Sastre: OK. Well, my understanding is -- Mr. Pastore: And -- Mr. Sastre: -- it's over 300 a square foot. Mr. Pastore: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's not get argument -- let's just -- Mr. Sastre: OK. Well, tell me -- Mr. Pastore: You can find examples of all types of cases, especially the ones that are close to Biscayne Boulevard. Let's talk about comparables. Mr. Sastre: Yeah. What was the last comp in Morningside anywhere, the lowest last comp you saw in Morningside? Mr. Pastore: When you say the lowest last comp, it was about 220, and I had one at 174. They range at all different types. Mr. Sastre: I'm asking what the lowest last comp was that you saw in Morningside; the lowest, the bottom line that you saw, and when was it? Mr. Pastore: $174. Mr. Sastre: $174, and when was that? Mr. Pastore: I'll give you the exact address. Mr. Sastre: I'm asking when, do you know when that was? Mr. Pastore: I don't exactly remember when it was; it was less than two years ago. Mr. Sastre: OK. Do you know what the price was on the sale of that property? Mr. Pastore: I don't have those specifics. 1 didn't come prepared with specifics, but I can certainly obtain them. Mr. Sastre: OK. Are you aware of any recent sales within the past, let's just say, three months in Morningside? What was achieved per square footage there? City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Pastore: No. I was doing my research during the last three years when I was functioning on Biscayne Boulevard primarily. Mr. Sastre: OK. Mr. Pastore: But 1 was also looking at -- I have sold residential homes in Morningside, but that's not my specialty. My specialty is Biscayne Boulevard and that's what I was called here to testify -- Mr. Sastre: You don't have any knowledge, at least, within the past three months as to what the sales have been there? Mr. Pastore: Sales of residential homes. Chairman Sanchez: Within three months. Mr. Sastre: Yeah, within the past three months. Mr. Pastore: Not on -- not residential homes. These are condominiums. Mr. Sastre: OK. No. 1 under -- no. I'm just asking because the comparison is -- and the point I'm trying to make is your testimony that the price per square footage, as currently stands, will far exceed what Morningside is getting -- Mr. Pastore: Exaclty. Mr. Sastre: -- per square footage. Mr. Pastore: Banyan Bay -- Mr. Sastre: OK. Mr. Pastore: -- which is now called Nirvana -- Mr. Sastre: OK. Mr. Pastore: -- those prices are (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Those are mid -rise condominiums -- conversions and they're in the 200 to $250 a square foot range and up. That is a large comparable. There's 400 units there. That's current. That's not in Morningside. That's not even a comparable, but it's probably more comparable than a house in Morningside. Mr. Sastre: OK. At what point does a developer suffer economically? If they're making far more than what can be achieved in Morningside per square footage, at what point is an economic hardship put on? If this building is reduced, let's -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney, could 1 interrupt? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. Unidentified Speaker: That's not the point. Commissioner Winton: Could I ask the relevance of this whole line of questioning? Mr. Sastre: Well, I just want to -- City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: I'm asking the City Attorney, please. Mr. Maxwell: He can only cross-examine. That means he's supposed to ask questions related to the testimony; solicit the responses to that, not go into new argument. Mr. Sastre: And the testimony is in reference to the value of this property and how would it affect the neighbors. Commissioner Winton: Not to mention the fact they're both wrong. Mr. Maxwell: And you -- if you've answered the -- counselor, 1 think he answered your questions, but now you're going beyond the scope. Mr. Sastre: Well, he was drawing a comparison between the prices of this property, as currently proposed, as exceeding what is in Morningside. Commissioner Winton: But he was never -- Mr. Sastre: And -- Commissioner Winton: -- talking about return on investment or any of those things. Mr. Sastre: OK. Commissioner Winton: And I don't think it's relevant anyway. Mr. Sastre: You mentioned a lot about South Beach and your work in South Beach. Do you know what the height limits are on Ocean Drive? Mr. Pastore: In different locations, yeah; 75 feet in some locations, 50 feet in other locations. Mr. Sastre: OK, and what is the lowest height limitation on Ocean Drive, for example? Mr. Pastore: It's a historical district and it's -- if it's a historical building and it's about one or two stories, it's permitted to have a fourth floor, but generally, if it's a vacant lot, it's 55 feet -- Mr. Sastre: OK. Mr. Pastore: -- depending on the zoning, and in some cases, 75 feet. Mr. Sastre: OK. All right. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pastore: OK. Ms. Dougherty: I'd like Suria Yaffar, who is an architect with Zyscovich & Associates, to come forward and show you the project. Suria Yaffar: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We have -- as Lucia mentioned, we started this process a little bit more than a year ago. We initially submitted to the Urban Design Review Board a -- two buildings that were of 135 feet of height. On 5225, this was our submittal, and after a discussion with the Board, we came back with a reduction on the building. We reduced it back to 117 feet. At which point, we also began to articulate the building and the garage with a similar residential feeling, that of balconies and screening of the City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 garages, and very, very dense landscape all around the building, and we worked it out, and we actually got it approved by the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) on March of this year . We -- after that, we met with staff, with Ana and Lourdes and the Internal Design Review Board, and we further refined the characteristics of the building, the design qualities of the building by adding more landscape, more buffer, and we reduced the buildings down to 97 feet and, in this case, to 87 feet high. We have -- we showed different material types, colors, screening of all of the garage, vertical articulation that continues the residential qualities of the building into the garage of the projects, with very generous landscape buffers all the way around the building, more so than the current SD-9. We have 10 feet setbacks on the rear, 15 to 20 on the sides, and 20 feet setback in landscape buffers on Biscayne Boulevard on both buildings. We are working with derent materials, glass, metals, louvers, screening, so that we can then have a nice and a very -- we believe, a very interesting horizontal and vertical integration of the building with beautiful materials and a palate of modern and very distinct design elements. We have here a montage of the buildings, what they will look like when they're completed on Biscayne Boulevard, and you can see that they are indeed modest in scale, in that they're very compatible with the scale of Biscayne Boulevard. There would be a 1/1 ratio, which normally, you will find in cities. These boulevards are that of 1/1 ratio, not of the 3/1 that was mentioned before, which is more predominant in residential traditional neighborhoods. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: I think one of the things that 1 misled you -- I said that it was reduced from 117 feet down to 97 and 9 -- 87. It's not. It was -- we started out with 135 feet. It went down to 117 feet, and then down to 95 and 97 -- 87, excuse me, so when the staff made us do that, what they were doing is they were responding to their Code, which required them to tell -- to ask us to do design measures which assure that the potential adverse effects, if any, were mitigated, so we've done our job. The City has done its job, and we urge you to deny this appeal and to support your Planning staff. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, will you be -- Mr. Dickman: Could 1-- Chairman Sanchez: -- this expert witness -- rebuttaling [sic] this -- Ms. Dougherty: Before I do that, let me just put in the record, four adjoining and catty -corner property owners who supported the project. Chairman Sanchez: OK, counsel, rebuttal. Mr. Dickman: If I could ask the architect a quick question, I'd like to. Chairman Sanchez: You're just going to limit it on the reduction? What are you going to limit your -- Mr. Dickman: Suria -- I'm just going to rebut. It'll just take me a few minutes. I just -- but I want to ask -- Suria, is that what it is? I'm sorry. I lost your last name. Ms. Yaffar: Yaffar. Mr. Dickman: Real quickly, you're -- you said that the final result ended up -- the two buildings, 87 and 97; what is that measured from, the 87 -- what is -- how is that measured from? Ms. Yaffar: From grade, from the sidewalk -- City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Dickman: To what? Ms. Yaffar: -- height. Mr. Dickman: To what? Ms. Yaffar: To the roofline. Mr. Dickman: To the roofline. Ms Yaffar: Correct. Mr. Dickman: There -- is there anything above the roofline? Ms. Yaffar: There are -- actually, we do have parapet walls. Mr. Dickman: And how tall are they? Ms. Yaffar: They vary. In order to articulate the roofline that we wanted to achieve here on 5101, they vary so that we, in this case, are emphasizing the corner, the entrance into the building. Mr. Dickman: So above the height that you're saying -- let's say, take one, 87 feet, then you have a parapet, and then do you also have mechanical on top? Ms. Yaffar: It's -- the parapet allows to cover the mechanical units up above. Mr. Dickman: And then -- Ms. Yaffar: That's why the -- in reality, you are allowed. You measure the building height to the roof of the building. Mr. Dickman: So if we wanted to know what the total height was -- because what I'm getting at is, if you're a neighbor next door, you're not going to be just saying, oh, I'm going to stop here at the top of that roofline. I want to see the total height. What is the total height to the top of the parapet? Ms. Yaffar: It would vary. In some instances, it may be -- Mr. Dickman: What's the highest? Ms. Yaffar: Maybe 105, 110. Mr. Dickman: On -- that's the highest on both buildings? Ms. Yaffar: Yes. You have electrical shafts, which really will -- I mean, elevator shafts would -- they don't have to be limited to the building height. Mr. Dickman: OK, so we're really -- Ms. Yaffar: They can be -- Mr. Dickman: -- talking about 100 -- Ms. Yaffar: -- extended over the height of the roof -- City of Miami Page 94 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Dickman: I understand. Ms. Yaffar: -- if need be. Mr. Dickman: So the legal height in the Zoning Code is 87/97, but the reality height is really 105/110. Ms. Yaffar: But that is the definition of height under the -- Mr. Dickman: I understand that. I understand, but the definition's not going to occur to somebody when they're sitting in their backyard. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Dickman: Let me ask one other question. In the back abutting the property -- Ms. Yaffar: Well, you would rather see the parapet than the mechanical units on a building. Mr. Dickman: On the back of the property -- one other question -- in the back of the property, what is the height on the back part of the property, the height of the building at the back rear of the property, abutting the single-family neighborhood? Ms. Yaffar: 95 feet. Mr. Dickman: 95 feet? Ms. Yaffar: 97 feet and 87 feet. Mr. Dickman: Could you approximate, how tall is this room? How tall do you think this room is? Ms. Yaffar: It's about 50 to 60 feet tall. Mr. Dickman: You think this is 50, 60 feet. OK, so if you're in the back of your yard, you're going to be looking at something -- Commissioner Winton: This isn't 50 -- Mr. Dickman: -- higher than this. Commissioner Winton: -- or 60 feet, not even close. Chairman Sanchez: Not even close, counsel. Mr. Dickman: Not even close. Commissioner Winton: Maybe 30. Mr. Dickman: OK. Thank you. Very quickly, in rebuttal -- OK. The property's been under contract 18 months, great. This has been a -- the discuss -- Ms. Yaffar: Let me just correct something. Mr. Dickman: Go ahead. City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Yaffar: It's only a portion of the building on the rear that goes up to 97 and 87 feet. You have a pool deck that is at 35 feet -- Mr. Dickman: OK, 35 feet. Ms. Yaffar: -- which is -- most of the rear of the property is occupied by a pool deck. Mr. Dickman: OK, and you're saying -- would you say that this is about 35 feet? Ms. Yaffar: No, this is taller than 35 feet. Mr. Dickman: OK, so we'll be looking -- they'll be looking at something like this -- Ms. Yaffar: Lower. Mr. Dickman: -- minimum, at least. Ms. Yaffar: Lower than this. Mr. Dickman: OK. They say that it's been under contract for 18 months. That's -- I don't know what relevance that is, other than the fact that they're going to bring an argument about grandfathering. The fact of the matter is that the Upper Eastside Master Plan begun a conversation on the Boulevard, both sides, the dialogue begun, at least officially, 1996 to 1999, when the master plan was created. That was open and obvious to everybody on the Boulevard. There was a charrette in 2003. The Memorandum of Law that we've put in the record clearly talks about zoning in progress; that you need to adhere to your zoning ordinances. I believe that our argument is going to be that you don't want to go ahead and let some projects, some horses out of the barn. This isn't a citywide zoning. If this were citywide, it probably wouldn't be a big deal to have a few things go in, but the reality is, this is a small section, a special section of the City that you've set aside under a special district called Biscayne Boulevard. If you let this -- these two projects go forward, how are you going to defend yourself when the next project comes up and says, well, we were talking to staff at about that time and we had this in there. The point is, you need to make a decision now. We have a ordinance in place. We have legal doctrine that we can rely on that says that we've put a lot of energy into -- the note -- people were notified of what was happening, and now is the time to hold fast to that. If you let that through, in other words, you are not going to be able to sustain that plan that you've put in place. The experts also mentioned that the safest place in Dade County, 1 think it was, something like that, is in South Beach because there's all kinds of people. 1 don't think that that's the vision for Biscayne Boulevard. South Beach is a totally different animal. It's not a good idea to be putting that kind of density right here next to single-family homes and to say that that makes it safer. The reality is that we need to have the plan upheld, the Zoning Ordinance upheld, and this is where the rubber meets the road. If you let this one through, you're going to have a heck of a hard time getting those horses back in the barn. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, you have any other witnesses you want to bring forth? Ms. Dougherty: No. I'd just like to say how misleading that argument is. There's a deadline for applying for an -- Mr. Dickman: I'm sorry. Ms. Dougherty: -- application. Mr. Dickman: I had rebuttal and now you're allowing for additional comments? City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no. Ms. Dougherty: I mean, there is a deadline. You apply for an application. If you haven't applied, then the old rules don't apply to you; the new rules do, and so, for him to say that, oh, you're going to open the door for everything, that's kind of ridiculous. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, I'm entitled to make my -- Chairman Sanchez: She's answering your question. Mr. Dickman: And I'm -- I have -- can I rebut that? Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, you could rebut it. Mr. Dickman: OK. Commissioner Winton: But we don't want -- you know, it's -- Mr. Dickman: OK. Commissioner Winton: Get on with this. Mr. Dickman: And as a courtesy to the Commission, I'll let that go, but I -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Are we done? Are you done? Unidentified Speaker: We're done. Chairman Sanchez: So you're -- OK, so you're closed. Mr. Dickman: We rest. Chairman Sanchez: You rest. OK, so comes to the Commission. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: We only have one chance to get this right. There's been a big battle on Biscayne Boulevard. There's been a big battle on Douglas Road; a big battle on Coral Way, and the horse isn't out of the barn, and the project isn't developed. Once it gets developed, it's done. That's our last shot, and I think and feel strongly that any development on Biscayne Boulevard, any development from yesterday and day before yesterday, and today and tomorrow on, any of it, has to meet our new SD-9 Code, period. Any of it, and so, my motion is going to be to uphold the appeal and send this back wherever it needs to go, and these projects need to be redesigned so that the back step, 25, 40-degree angle, whatever the rules are, applies to these projects. That's my motion. Chairman Sanchez: 60 -- it's 60-degree angle. Commissioner Winton: Well, whatever it is. Chairman Sanchez: 60-degree angle, right? Unidentified Speaker: It's 45 -- it's 25 feet and 45 degrees from that. City of Miami Page 97 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: What you did was you approved the SD-9 in two parts; the second part said, when you're up against R-1 and R-2, it's 25 with a 45-degree angle, right. Commissioner Winton: OK. Well, that's -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: As I said earlier, we need to apply the strictest standards. There was a lot of compromise that went on to get where we got, and I think that by the very nature of the compromise, I feel strongly that the strictest standard ought to apply along these corridors. These single-family -- I don't -- you know, Lucia would not, in a million years, live in the house behind the wall. Ms. Dougherty: I lived in high-rises. Commissioner Winton: And nobody else -- Ms. Dougherty: What are you talking about? Commissioner Winton: You live in a condo. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion to deny the appeal. Is there a second? Mr. Dickman: To affirm -- no. Commissioner Winton: Is that to -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry? Commissioner Allen: Grant. Commissioner Winton: To uphold the appeal. Commissioner Allen: To uphold the appeal. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, 1 apologize. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Apologize. Ms. Slazyk: The motion was to grant -- Chairman Sanchez: I -- you know -- Ms. Slazyk: -- the appeal. Chairman Sanchez: -- Dickman was about to jump up on -- Commissioner Allen: Wait, wait. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion. Commissioner Allen: Wait. I -- City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: 1 made the motion. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen: You made a motion to uphold the appeal, correct? Chairman Sanchez: To uphold the appeal. Commissioner Winton: To uphold the appeal. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion to uphold the appeal. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second. The motion is made by Commissioner Winton, second by Commissioner Allen. 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, say "nay." Motion carries. Commissioner Winton: And that's both -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Maxwell: PZ 16 -- Commissioner Winton: -- PZ 15 and 16. Chairman Sanchez: No. Wait, wait. We still have -- Commissioner Allen: For clarification purposes -- Chairman Sanchez: No. We got to do them separately. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: Yes. PZ.16 04-01209 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), GRANTING THE APPEAL BY THE MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. AND ROD ALONSO, RON STEBBINS, SCOTT CRAWFORD AND ELVIS CRUZ, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD, AND DENYING CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 03-0308 ISSUED ON JULY 21, 2004, TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5225 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." City of Miami Page 99 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 04-01209 Exhibit A.pdf 04-01209 Legislation b.PDF 04-01209 Legislation a.PDF 04-01209 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01209 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01209 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01209 Class II Referral.PDF 04-01209 UDRB Reso.PDF 04-01209 ZB Reso.PDF 04-01209 Class II Final Decision.PDF 04-01209 Class 11 Appeal Letter.PDF 04-01209 ZB Appeal Letter.PDF Motion by Commissioner Winton, 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-04-0765 Chairman Sanchez: Now we go to 16. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, 16. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.16 is a separate item. 1 know we heard them together, but it's also an appeal of a Class II Special Permit. Commissioner Winton: Right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton -- Commissioner Winton: Same -- Chairman Sanchez: -- make the motion. Commissioner Winton: Same motion. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, again, all parties have agreed -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Maxwell.: -- that the records will be consolidated for these two items. Lucia Dougherty: And 1'd like to make sure that the record of the Zoning Board is incorporated in this. Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Right. So moved Chairman Sanchez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- City of Miami Page 100 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Andrew Dickman: It is. It's a part of the -- the exhibit contained both records from below. Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Seconded by Commissioner Allen, motion is made by Commissioner Winton Commissioner Winton: To -- Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk. Commissioner Winton: -- uphold the appeal. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm just asking for the clear language to be on the -- Chairman Sanchez: Uphold the appeal. Ms. Thompson: -- to grant the appeal. Commissioner Winton: No. Chairman Sanchez: No. Commissioner Winton: To uphold -- Chairman Sanchez: To uphold the appeal. Commissioner Winton: Well, to grant or uphold. Ms. Thompson: I'm just reading from the legislation. Commissioner Winton: Same thing. Ms. Thompson: That's all. That's why --1 wanted -- Commissioner Winton: Well -- Ms. Thompson: -- to make sure. Commissioner Winton: -- don't read from the legislation. We got to make sure we got -- Mr. Maxwell: You're upholding the appeal. Commissioner Winton: -- this right. Ms. Thompson: OK. Chairman Sanchez: You're upholding the appeal. OK. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: The motion is to uphold the appeal. City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: You got it? Ms. Thompson: Umm-hmm. Chairman Sanchez: OK. No further discussion. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously. Have a good one. Commissioner Winton: Are we done? Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Dickman, have a good one. Are you out of here -- Mr. Dickman: Morningside thanks you. Chairman Sanchez: -- or you still got more? Mr. Dickman: Morningside thanks you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. See, you win some, you lose some. All right. Commissioner Allen: I think that's it. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, what do we have left, 17? Commissioner Allen: No. Ms. Thompson: No, we're finished, sir. Commissioner Allen: We're done. Chairman Sanchez: Well, we're not finished Commissioner Allen: I make a motion to adjourn. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no, no. Ms. Thompson: No, no. Chairman Sanchez: We still have pocket items. Ms. Thompson: The regular agenda -- Commissioner Allen: Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Thompson: You're through with the regular agenda. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry? City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Thompson: We're finished with the regular agenda we have here. Chairman Sanchez: We're finished with the regular agenda. We're also finished with all the PZ (Planning and Zoning) items, correct? All right. PZ.17 04-00671 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 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-Submittal-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 City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 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 12617 Chairman Sanchez: We'll go to PZ 17. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.17 and 18 are companion items. It is a second reading land use and zoning change for the properties at 201 through 261 Southwest 6th Street. The Commission approved it on first reading October 28th. Chairman Sanchez: Alrighty then. OK. This is a ordinance on second reading. You're recognized. Gloria Velazquez: Good afternoon. Gloria Velazquez, law office at 1221, here on behalf of the applicant. As 1 understand, you have approved this at first reading and we urge your approval at the second reading. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there any opposition on this item? Please step forward and be recognized. Ma'am, please come on up. State your name for the record. Dr. Jane Theede: My name is -- Chairman Sanchez: And just for the record, this is a change, once again, from industrial to restricted commercial. It's a change of future land use. Dr. Theede: My name is Dr. Jane Theede. I live at 150 Southwest 7th Street, which is directly across the street from the project. I'm not here so much to object to the zoning because it needs to be done, but I'm here to put on record a very serious problem that is occurring because of Neo Vertica and Latitude. These are two buildings, each 34 stories high, 445 units, 1,000 parking places for each unit. There will be 2,000 automobiles dumping onto Southwest 7th Street every morning and returning every afternoon. The street cannot handle this kind of traffic, both physically and carcinogenically [sic]. In 1989, I fought Barnett Bank because they wanted to put a drive-in teller next to my property, and I was to bring -- I was able to bring in documentation showing that automobiles that idle at five miles per hour are still produce very toxic carcinogens, and when you get a group of 20, then it goes above and beyond the DERM ( Department of Environmental Resources Management) limit. I've already talked with the people at Neo Vertica. I've told them what 1 was going to do. We need to go through the process of reopening 6th Street, which was, from what I understanding, was -- when the Nolton subdivision was re -divided, it was called South River Drive, and it was obliterated at that time. 1 will be perfectly honest with you. 1 will not tolerate this type of carcinogen. I've had to have my right breast removed. I've had to have precancerous conditions removed from my intestine, and I've had to have my uterus removed because of precancerous conditions. I will not live in this sort of situation. I have no desire to leave; I've been there for 31 years. I know that we need the tax base that these places are going to provide. I know that this will improve the neighborhood, but I also know that we're going to end up with some very serious suits if we do not reopen that area, and 1 propose that we start reopening it, and these people have planned a river walk. We should consider giving them -- I'm sorry. Old age got me. Chairman Sanchez: It gets me all the time. Dr. Theede: Well, I'm 75. I've got a good excuse. Chairman Sanchez: And I'm 25. City of Miami Page 104 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Dr. Theede: Them were the good days. Air rights is what I was trying to think of. If we open that street and those parking lots empty onto that street next to the river, and we give them air rights, they can come up above whatever trucks would have to go under it. It would retain -- the noise would be contained in that area. They could have their river walk, and the main thing -- I'm going to be honest about it. We still have an area that is not safe to walk in after 10 o'clock at night. If you're going to bring traffic in, you, in some way, need to control these people that come onto the property, so that you just don't have anyone coming in, and if you elevate the river walk one story, or one and a half stories, or whatever you need to do, then you provide security for these people at the cafe tables to be able to walk around their property on the outside, and you contain the noise, but the main thing is, as they come down -- if that's a two-way street, they can go eastward to 6th and 5th; they can go westward to 6th to get on the interstate, or when they go eastward, the Miami -- they'll have to go under Miami Avenue, but they can go to Brickell, go north or south on Brickell, so I'm here simply to put this on record so that the Commissioners know that we've got to open that street, or else it's going to be a disaster. Now, when 1 was talking with someone in -- at 444 building, that I can't remember his name, he said, you know, we're going to end up with a lot of suits. I said, "We're going to end up with a lot more suits if you dump 2,000 automobiles on that one block because DERM will close that block up," and I'll see to it that they do it because I'm not afraid to go to the correct people. I'm not afraid to go above you, but 1 don't want to. We can work much better together. Tomas, 1 think you remember me, right? You know I'm a fighter. Commissioner Regalado: I know. Dr. Theede: 1 don't fight dirty. I'm honest and above the board. I see a problem and I think it's the Commission's responsibility to take care of this problem, to advise these people. 1 have -- as I said, I've already talked with Neo Vertica. They said that they would be happy to have me in any discussion that goes on, but this is a survival problem for everybody around, and 1 thank you very much for listening to me. Chairman Sanchez: And just for point of clarification, your biggest concern is the opening of that street, which -- Commissioner Winton: Which street, though? Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: 6 -- Dr. Theede: The street -- Commissioner Regalado: She's right, you know. Dr. Theede: -- has not existed since a hundred and -- maybe 10 years ago. It was originally North River Drive. Chairman Sanchez: Right. Dr. Theede: When the -- what is it, the R.L. Nolton Subdivision was platted, that was platted out of the street. Do you have -- Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, show me that, please. Unidentified Speaker: OK. Dr. Theede: I left it in the car, but basically, I'm -- City of Miami Page 105 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Yeah, you have to talk into the mike. Dr. Theede: OK. Basically --1 think this will be better. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sure we're not using Duracell. Dr. Theede: 7 -- this is where my property is right here. This line goes across, and the property that's before the Commission is from here to here. Ms. Velazquez: No, no. Our property's over here. Dr. Theede: You're east or west? Ms. Velazquez: We're over -- up here, in that corner right there. Dr. Theede: Oh, you're the old shipyards. Ms. Velazquez: We're here, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Right. Dr. Theede: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Where's your property at? Dr. Theede: I'm here. My apologies. I thought that, from what 1 was reading -- Chairman Sanchez: No. Dr. Theede: -- that it's this. Chairman Sanchez: No. Commissioner Winton: No. Chairman Sanchez: That's why you had -- Dr. Theede: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- me all confused. Commissioner Winton: Me, too. Dr. Theede: Because this what I -- what I'm saying is that we need to reopen this street to bring it in this way, so -- Commissioner Winton: Well -- Dr. Theede: Because when they built the second -- Commissioner Winton: -- you're way too late. Those projects have already been approved. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. City of Miami Page 106 Printed on 1 2/1 7/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: They've already broken ground. Dr. Theede: I know they have, but the thing of it is, if you don't get that street reopened, it's -- Commissioner Winton: I'm telling you, those projects have been approved and -- Dr. Theede: Fine. Commissioner Winton: -- they've broken ground -- Dr. Theede: But when they dump -- Commissioner Winton: -- so there's no way. Dr. Theede: -- 2,000 automobiles on that street, I will see to it that DERM closes the street, and then what is the City of Miami going to do when those people can't come and go from their apartment? Commissioner Winton: You can do whatever you want to do. I'm telling you, the projects have been approved; they're permitted; they've broken ground. End of story, so whatever -- Dr. Theede: At 6 o'clock in the morning -- Commissioner Winton: -- you need to do -- Dr. Theede: -- also. Commissioner Winton: Huh? Well, whatever, but I would be -- Dr. Theede: We've got an ordinance that says 7. Commissioner Winton: -- remiss if 1 sat here and told you -- suggested to you that maybe there's something we can do. There isn't anything. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Those sites are approved. Chairman Sanchez: And -- Commissioner Winton: And there's no road in them. Chairman Sanchez: You know, we hate to be the skunk at the family picnic, but every now and then, we are, you know. Dr. Theede: I know, but who fell asleep at the job on this? Commissioner Winton: Well, apparently, you because you didn't come and testify. Dr. Theede: 1 didn't get any notices -- Commissioner Winton: Oh. Dr. Theede: -- except that they were going to change the zoning. City of Miami Page 107 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Those -- Dr. Theede: 1 was not told how many stories -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Dr. Theede: -- or I'd have been down here. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Now, ma'am -- Dr. Theede: My apologies. Chairman Sanchez: No. Always -- Dr. Theede: I thank you for listening -- Chairman Sanchez: -- always a pleasure -- Dr. Theede: -- but -- Chairman Sanchez: -- having you here at City Hall. Dr. Theede: --1 will do my best to get something started because we've got to condemn that area, otherwise, it's going to be a disaster. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. All right. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed and we'll bring it on to the Commission for deliberation. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: So move. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion and a second, and the request is to amend the -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chair. Chairman Sanchez: -- from industrial to -- yes, Madam -- Ms. Thompson: I heard the mover, but 1 didn't hear a second. I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: This -- it was seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, who may not have had the mike on. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: That's what it was. Chairman Sanchez: That's what it was. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right, so we have the maker of the motion and a second. It's open for discussion. It is a ordinance on second reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance and then we'll go to roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Chairman Sanchez: Roll call. Commissioner Winton: 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.18 04-00671a ORDINANCE Second 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 04-00671a-Submittal Letter.pdf 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 FINDINGS: City of Miami Page 109 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 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 ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12618 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Why don't we just start -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): P -- wait. PZ.18 is -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ 18. Ms. Slazyk: -- the companion. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Allen: Companion. Chairman Sanchez: PZ 18, yes. Commissioner Winton: So move. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonz alez. It is an ordinance on second reading. Open to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to address this Commission, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We bring it back to the Commission for a final discussion. Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance to the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 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. Gloria Velazquez: Thank you. PZ.19 04-00565 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 City of Miami Page 110 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 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. 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 Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12619 Chairman Sanchez: OK. Listen, are there any more PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- noncontroversial PZ that we could get out of the way? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Well, 19 and 20 are second reading. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Let's get them out of the way, and then we'll -- there's a few that are City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 going to be long, so we want to give people -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- time to get here and -- Ms. Slazyk: PZ -- Chairman Sanchez: -- time to prepare their arguments. Ms. Slazyk: OK. PZ 19 and 20 are second reading, and this is for land use and zoning change from duplex residential to restricted commercial for 3525, 3541 and 3545 Southwest 22nd Terrace. It was passed on first reading October 28th. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Applicant, you're recognized. Inez Marrero: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, for the record, my name is Inez Marrero, attorney with offices at 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue, here on behalf of the applicants. As you may recall, this is a rezoning application for three lots on Southwest 22nd Terrace. The item had been deferred on first reading so we could meet with neighbors. We came back to the Commission. We proffered a covenant whereby we have agreed to add additional landscaping. We have also given the neighbors comfort by agreeing to a clause, whereby any changes would have to come and obtain 100 percent approval of all the property owners within 500 feet and, you know, with that, we urge your support. The architect is not here, but -- Ms. Slazyk: Right, and just so you know, the zoning change -- the companion zoning change item to C-1 does have the SD-23 overlay, so again, a Class 11 would be required. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there any opposition on this item? Seeing none, hearing none - Commissioner Regalado: I'll move -- Chairman Sanchez: -- we bring it to the Commission. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move the item. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, it is a ordinance on second reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance for the record. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. An ordinance of the Miami City Commission, with attachments; amending page number 36 of the Zoning Atlas of Ordinance Number 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, Article IV, Section 401, schedule of district regulations, by changing the zoning classification from SD-4 -- I'm sorry. I should be reading PZ 19. I just didn't turn it to the right page quickly. I'm -- I apologize. Chairman Sanchez: Don't worry. It happens to the best of us. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 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.20 04-00565a 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 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 Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 12620 Chairman Sanchez: PZ 20 is an ordinance on second reading. It's a companion of PZ.19. Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is open to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Coming back to the Commission for discussion. Hearing no further discussion, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes, with the covenants as proffered and approved, this is a reading -- a second and final reading of this ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 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.21 04-01163 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 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. 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 City of Miami Page 114 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 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 Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12621 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any other -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah -- Chairman Sanchez: -- PZ (Planning & Zoning) that's noncontroversial? 21? Commissioner Winton: 21 is a second -- Ms. Slazyk: 21 is second reading on the arena comp. plan amendment. We recommend approval. It was passed on first reading October 28th. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion and a second. It is an ordinance that requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. Mr. Chair -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: -- who was your second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Clerk -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: -- the motion was moved by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. We open it up to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, for the record. We bring it back to the Commission for further discussion. Hearing no discussion, we City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 pass it on to the City Attorney to read the ordinance into the record. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ2I, second and final hearing. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Chairman Sanchez: All right. 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 04-00984b 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. 04-00984b Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00984b 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: Language in 04-00984b incorporates language passed on First Reading on September 23, 2004 and October 28, 2004 from 04-00984 and language proposed on October 28, 2004 from 04-00984a. CONTINUED A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, to continue Item PZ.22 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for December 9, 2004. Chairman Sanchez: PZ 22 has been deferred month -to -month 'til -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): We're going to be con -- yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: It's been -- City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Ms. Slazyk: We need to -- I guess -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: -- a motion to continue it to December 9th. Commissioner Allen: December 9th. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move to continue to December 9th. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion to continue the item to December 9th. There's a motion by Commission -- by the Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Regalado or Allen, both -- you know. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. PZ.23 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 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 City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 APPLICANT(S): Napoleon & Eumelia Alvarez, David & Irene Mermelstein and Ignacio and Odilia Rios, Owners and Strategic Properties Group, Inc., Contract 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. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, 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. What item is this, PZ (Planning & Zoning) what? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): This is 23 -- Adrienne Pardo: 23, next one. Commissioner Allen: This is 23. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.23 and 24 are companion land use and zoning change items from duplex residential to restricted commercial. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning & Zoning Department; denial by the Planning Advisory Board, and approval by the Zoning Board. This is for the properties at 3686 through 88 Southwest 15th Street and 3685 to 87 Southwest 16 th Street. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is anyone in opposition? Seeing none -- OK. Madam Applicant, go ahead. Ms. Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of Strategic Properties, with me, as well, are the principals of Strategic Properties, Henry Pino and Vivian Bonet. We have before you an application for a amendment to the zoning atlas for two lots, which are behind the subject property. It's right off of Douglas, between 15th and 16th, and these two lots we're requesting a rezoning from R-2 to C-1. We also have a Comprehensive Plan amendment that goes along with that. We feel that this is in keeping with the Douglas Avenue. You can see that the property immediately to the south is also designated C-1, and it has the same classification; it would be keeping the same line. We've met with the neighborhood. 1-- we have a letter of support from the property owner directly adjacent to the property on the south side. We have a letter from his attorney, which I'd like to put into the record, and it -- basically, just to paraphrase it, it says that he is in support of the project. He feels that it would increase the values of the property, and the letter states that currently existing at the proposed location is a deplorable shopping center, which only creates an eyesore and lowers the value of the surrounding property, and that Mr. Gonzalez has spoken to the developers regarding his concerns of the project, and he is in support, and I'd like to put this into the record. Before you next month, we have a companion Major Use Special Permit, City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 which will be before you next month, but the way they're placed on the agendas right now, we have to go for first reading with this. The density, with regards to --1 don't know if you want me to go through the Major Use Special Permit -- Commissioner Regalado: Let me -- Ms. Pardo: -- at that time just to -- Commissioner Regalado: -- ask you this, Adrienne. The alley in the back -- Ms. Pardo: There's no alley. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, there is. Behind the shopping center, there is. Ms. Pardo: No, that's probably part of their -- oh, it's part of the shopping center; it's not an alley. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Ms. Pardo: It's part of their property. There's no designated alley. Commissioner Regalado: OK, but the property will eliminate that alley? Ms. Pardo: Yes -- Commissioner Regalado: Because -- Ms. Pardo: -- because it's part of the property. Commissioner Regalado: -- that alley has been a headache for years and years. 1 mean, people would go in and trade drugs and all that, and the other question is, are the same business coming back? Ms. Pardo: Yes. Actually, Gilbert's Bakery, which is located there now, will be coming back. They've lined the ground floor with retail, as well as some lofts coming down on the sides, and the bakery is planning to come back and go into the new space, so they're very excited about that, as well. There's approximately 6,000 square feet of retail that will be on the ground floor, and 100 residential units. They're allowed to have approximately 114 units. They're not seeking the maximum there -- Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Chairman -- Ms. Pardo: -- and that's included in the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Commissioner Regalado: --1'll move to approve. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Clerk, did we -- yeah, we did open up for the public and - Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- closed it. OK. There's a motion to approve the ordinance on first reading by Commissioner Regalado, second by Commissioner Allen. OK. It's under -- the item is under discussion. Commissioner Winton, you're recognized for discussion. City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Adrienne, when you come back for a second reading, I'm going to be real interested to understand how you're treating the back of the property. Ms. Pardo: Yes. Commissioner Winton: This is going to be the side that's going to be exposed to the single- family or duplexes back behind, and you know that's been my issue for a long time, so if that treatment is good and appropriate -- Ms. Pardo: I think you'll be happy with it. Commissioner Winton: -- then I'm going to be happy. Otherwise, I won't be. Ms. Pardo: Yes, I think you'll be pleased with it. Commissioner Winton: Great. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 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.24 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. 04-00927b Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00927b Analysis.PDF 04-00927b Zoning Map.pdf 04-00927a & 04-00927b Aerial Map.pdf 04-00927b ZB Reso.PDF 04-00927b Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-00927b Legislation.PDF 04-00927a & 04-00927b Exhibit A.PDF REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 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 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. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, 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. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 24 is -- Chairman Sanchez: PZ.24, it's an ordinance on first reading. It's a companion item to PZ23. Need a motion. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Before we (UNINTELLIGIBLE), need to open it up to the public. It's a public hearing . Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We bring it back to the Commission for any further discussion. Hearing none, we pass it to the City Attorney to 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 passed on first reading, 5/0. Ms. Pardo: Thank you very much. PZ.25 04-01131 ORDINANCE First Reading City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 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 517, 555 AND 603 NORTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, 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. 04-01131 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01131 Analysis.PDF 04-01131 Land Use Map.pdf 04-01131 & 04-01131a Aerial Map.pdf 04-01131 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01131 Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 04-01131 Legislation.PDF 04-01131 & 04-01131a Exhibit A.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 517, 555 and 603 NW S River Drive APPLICANT(S): MSJ Holdings, Inc. and 5 Street Terminal, Inc., Owners and Shear Construction Development, Inc., Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Pending November 1, 2004 report to City Commission. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on September 22, 2004 by a vote of 3-5. This is a denial of a motion to approve, which fialed to obtain the required five favorable votes. See companion File ID 04-01131a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, 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 go back to PZ (Planning & Zoning) items and -- Commissioner Winton: A CDC (Community Development Corporation) that went out of business. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry? Commissioner Winton: A CDC that went out of business. City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. All right. Unidentified Speaker: You want to do -- Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, let's get them all -- I'm sure they want to be home. They don't want to be here too long. What item is that one? Lucia Dougherty: 25 and 26. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's hear 25 and 26, and then we'll go back. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.25 and 26 is a land use and zoning change for properties at approximately 517, 555, and 603 Northwest South River Drive. The request is from industrial to restricted commercial. It was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Department, denial by the Planning Advisory Board, and approval by the Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning recommendation of denial was based on the fact that the designation to restricted commercial would constitute an intrusion of commercial activities, being that the property is adjacent to medium density multifamily residential area. It's going from zero units per acre to 150 units per acre. The 65 units per acre is what's allowed in the adjacent R-3. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Applicant, you're recognized. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant. The applicant, Gary Shear is with us this afternoon. He is primarily a home builder in Coral Gables and in Miami Beach. This is his first project in the City of Miami, and this project is located on the river, and he is building actual -- almost homes on the river. In other words, these are going to be three- and four -bedroom units on the Miami River, and let me just orient you real quickly. Chairman Sanchez: That's your district. Ms. Dougherty: This is the -- Commissioner Winton: I don't know. Is it? Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me, sir? Commissioner Winton: We're trying to figure out where they are. 1 don't know -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. I'm going to show you. Chairman Sanchez: 25 and 26. Ms. Dougherty: This is -- Commissioner Winton: It's in my district? Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: This is the site right here. It's a very narrow site on the river. It is immediately adjacent to the old Miami news building that you rezoned recently to C-1 for the Royal Atlantic site. City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: That's not in my district. That's yours. Ms. Dougherty: This is in your district, Commissioner, so the Royal Atlantic site is here. It is zoned C-1. We are asking for the exact same designation, and it's also the same designation that is encompassing or surrounding all of the R-3 right here, so it makes a natural buffer from the R-3 to the river. Now, currently, I just want to -- we are asking for actually a down zoning and a down planning. Currently, it is zoned waterfront industrial, and remember -- let me tell you about the uses that are permitted in waterfront industrial. They're designated generally as activities that otherwise would generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, elimination, traffic, hazardous waste, and negative visual impact, unless properly controlled. Stockyards, rendering works, smelting plants, refinery plants, and similar activities are allowed in the waterfront industrial. This is not consistent with what you have planned for the middle river, which is basically low-rise residential, and I'd like Gloria, if you don't mind, helping me with -- showing the existing condition there. These are paragraphs of the existing condition, so the folks in Spring Garden across the river are looking at this on a daily basis. You've got mattresses, you've got bicycles, you've got -- and then again, this is what it looks like from the air, and what's interesting about this site, it is a very narrow site on the river right here, so nothing really large can be built here, and I'm going to show you what we're proposing, but when you drive down the river --1 mean, the street immediately abutting it, all you see are walls. You never see the river, so this is an opportunity actually have the public see the river, and also the folks who are here today in support of it are folks who are supportive of residential, as opposed to the industrial. We have had support from the Miami River Commission. We have support from the Zoning Board, and we -- but the Planning Advisory Board did not vote in favor of this, and their reasoning was that they didn't want to take away waterfront industrial. They were concerned about jobs. Richard Dubin is here today. He's the current owner of the property, and he's going to testify as to where he intends to locate it. He cannot make a go of it at this location. He needs a larger location. He's going to relocate his business upriver, and he's going to testify today as to why this is not a commercially viable place for that. He's got six employees. He intends to increase that amount of employees, but this is just simply not the location. I know that many of you, particularly you, Mr. Chairman, are struggling, where is the line? Where is the line from the industrial or the residential? And all I'm telling you is, this is not the line, so the PAB ( Planning Advisory Board) was concerned about the loss of waterfront industrial, but the staff is concerned about, "Oh, we don't know what the project is going to be." That's their concern, and that's -- they've told us that on the record, and here we are with the issue that the City Attorney's struggling with, and that is, we have a project that doesn't require anything but a Class II permit. We cannot apply for a Class II permit until we have the zoning in place. The staff is saying, " Well, we don't want to approve the zoning because we don't know what the project is," so I know that the City Attorney is thinking about a methodology of solving this problem, but until that happens, let me show you what the project is, and Julio Diaz is the architect for the project, and this is what it looks like in site plan. It's a very narrow site. There are two -- excuse me, sir? There are two basins currently. The project is located on this site so far. In the event we are ever able to close this basin, which is a big "if, " that might be another future project, which we would require a Major Use Special Permit. Chairman Sanchez: Right. Ms. Dougherty: But currently, what we're proposing -- and I'm going to let Julio describe it. Julio Diaz: It's basically a residential building, a small residential building with about 180 units . The garage is completely lined with residential units, so you don't see the garage. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry, how many units? Mr. Diaz: 180. City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: 180 units. Mr. Diaz: Right. Commissioner Winton: He said a small residential project, only 180 units. Ms. Dougherty: But 600 are permitted (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Winton: (INAUDIBLE) 600. Ms. Dougherty: Your Comprehensive Plan shows this area, by the way, for 200 units an acre, so 600 are actually permitted on this site, although that's not what we're proposing because we're proposing luxury units, three- and four -bedroom. Chairman Sanchez: And that's the scary part, that 600 units are permitted Commissioner Winton: Which makes no sense. Mr. Diaz: And it's all residential, even though the zoning that we're asking for is C-1, the use is going to be residential. It's very simple, plain residential building and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to -- Chairman Sanchez: What's the density? Mr. Diaz: The density, we have 180 -- we have three acres, so -- Chairman Sanchez: How high are you going? Mr. Diaz: 16 stories. Commissioner Allen: Are you about 150 units per acre or did you say 200 units per acre? Ms. Dougherty: The zoning permits -- Commissioner Allen: Right, permits 200. Ms. Dougherty: -- 200 units per acre. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Dougherty: We are proposing less than 100 units per acre. In other words, we're allowed to have 600, I think, and we are proposing a maximum -- no, maximum -- if allowed to do the maximum -- in other words, fill in that -- we would have no more than 300, but we're only proposing 180 at this point. Chairman Sanchez: At this point. Ms. Dougherty: That's what 1 showed before. Let me just show you this site plan, what we have right now. This is the only thing that we can actually build right now, which is this project here, what you saw, and that's 180 units. Commissioner Allen: Right, and that puts it tantamount to a C-1. Ms. Dougherty: That's right. City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: Now, if you wanted to -- let me just say this to you. C-1 is what's all around here, and that's the reason we asked for C-1, but if you had concern about commercial uses, we would agree to an R-4, which you're allowed to reduce the zoning to an R-4, if that's something you felt more comfortable with having less commercial. Frankly, it really doesn't matter because there is commercial literally surrounding the whole place, and that would allow us to have the marina be a public marina, but we would accept an R-4, if that's something that the Commission wanted to -- Commissioner Winton: You made a -- when you were showing the current use photographs and you talked about that wall that's there, so you can't see the water. Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Winton: And I thought, all right. Well, I'm going to see something here, so you guys are going to design a project so we can see the water? Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Let me show you where that is. Commissioner Winton: I'm just seeing a larger wall. Ms. Dougherty: I'm going to let Julio say this. Commissioner Winton: A 14-story wall. Mr. Diaz: Actually, we're implementing a number of things to be able to do that. First of all, we're going to have an access -- public access on both sides of the property. We're going to have a river walk all through the property. We're going to enhance the street, and we're going to leave an opening on the property so you can see the river. Ms. Dougherty: Currently, this is actually a public street right now, which we are willing to enhance and beautify if that's the Commission's desire, as well, so right now, we're asking for this on first reading. 1 know that the City Attorney has a problem with proffering covenants. We are willing to proffer a covenant to tie ourselves to this set of plans, if that's what the Commission's desire is. We have with us today -- I'd like Richard Dubin to come and testi, as well as Gus Abalo, who is our community outreach person, who has gone to literally door-to- door on our neighbors and have gotten support from many, many people, so I'd like first Richard Dubin to testify and then Gus Abalo. Commissioner Allen: Counsel, before you do, did 1 hear you say, Madam counsel, that you're willing to make the proffer, with respect to first reading? Ms. Dougherty: This is first reading. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Dougherty: Before second reading, I would make that -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Dougherty: I would prepare the covenant and have the City Attorney review it, if that's what your desire is. City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Review it and approve it. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Richard Dubin: Thank you. My name is Richard Dubin. 1 already gave you my address before, and I'm the property owner and I run a shipping terminal here. 1've been there since 1996, and I presently -- when I first brought it, there were smaller ships that were used there, and as boats get bigger and they start dredging it, the boats don't really fit in that narrow piece of property. There's numerous cut-outs that don't allow me to load boats in a proper circumstances, and under the new TSA (Transportation Security Administration) regulations, there's more requirements for security, quite drastic. The same thing that the Port of Miami does, all the shipping terminals in the river have to do, so I have plans to move with another competitor and we will --1 will operate my business out of their place, which is a larger facility on the west of 27 th Avenue. Commissioner Allen: So, in effect, you feel this is best used for this piece of property? Mr. Dubin: Well, when 1 actually bought it years ago, I knew 1 was running a terminal in a residential area, and I've -- over the years, 1've had numerous complaints from the people in Spring Gardens. We work sometimes until 12 o'clock at night. 1 have trucks coming in and out. Drive down River Drive and see how many trucks are sitting outside. It's a very difficult situation that, thank God, the neighbors are cooperated over the years with. Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, are you done with your presentation? Ms. Dougherty: 1 have Gus Abalo, who is our Community Outreach Coordinator. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Agustin Abalo: Hi. Good afternoon. Gus Abalo, 1700 Northwest North River Drive. Hive about seven blocks from the project, and I literally -- as Mr. Dougherty mentioned, 1 went door- to-door to all the neighbors of the subject property. There is and overwhelming support for this land use change from marine industrial to restricted commercial or residential. Innocuous smells at night, noises at all hours of the night, and it's just not consistent anymore with the neighborhoods; consistently more residential make-up. I have with me tonight close to 40 residents of East Little Havana and lower Allapattah, all in favor of it. They've all seen the property. It's all been explained to them. As well as amongst them, Ms. Campos, Ms. Cantreras. They're the president and vice president of the Robert King High Association. 1 have Ms. Gloria Silva. Where's Ms. Silva? She is the president of the condo association for Jubilee Villas, and 1 have close to 70 petitions signed in favor of the project. Chairman Sanchez: Could you give that to the Clerk, please? Mr. Dubin: Yes, definitely. I like to read into the record quickly, a letter from Jubilee Villaa Condo Association. "On behalf of Jubilee Villa Condo Association, located at address which is across the street from the subject property, 517, 603 Northwest South River Drive, we would like to make it known that we strongly support Gary Shear's Nautica on the River project. The site's current use to marine industrial is no longer congruent with the neighborhood, and it would propel this area's develop -- redevelopment. Our condominium association represents 30 tax- paying homeowner, and we want our neighborhood to improve. We therefore respectfully request your approval of this project." It's signed by all the property owners, and the president of the association is present today. Chairman Sanchez: All right. You need to turn that in -- City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Dubin: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: -- to the City Clerk for the record. Madam counsel. Ms. Dougherty: So, in conclusion, right now, nobody benefits from this residential site to the river. After this gets done and after the project is proposed, folks all along here will be able to have access to the river, have beautified landscaping, and be able to access it in both areas, so we would -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: -- urge your support. Chairman Sanchez: Are you done? Is there anyone in opposition on this item? Anyone wishing to speak against the item? Hearing none, seeing none, OK, the public -- yes. Commissioner Winton: Bret, you're going to put a comment on the record? Chairman Sanchez: I think the Miami River is in support, right? Bret Bibeau: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: You want to state it on the record? Mr. Bibeau: If I could. Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. Go ahead. Mr. Bibeau: Thank you so much. Honorable City Commission, I'll be brief. Bret Bibeau, Managing Director of the Miami River Commission, with offices located at 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway. This serves as the Miami River Commission's official statement to all City Commissioners requested in City Resolution 00-320 regarding November -- or today's PZ items, PZ.25 and PZ.26, which impact the Miami River. On November 1, 2004, Ms. Gloria Velazquez, Greenberg Traurig, and Mr. Richard Dubin presented a proposed residential project, which requires amendments to land use and zoning at 517, 555, and 603 Northwest South River Drive from marine industrial to commercial. The Miami River Commission recognize the mixed use nature of this middle river area, and by a vote of 10 to 3 found the proposal to be in the best interest of the narrow subject property and the Miami River Corridor. In addition, the Miami River Commission found the proposed project to be consistent with the Miami River Greenway Action Plan in providing a publicly accessible river walk and an on -road greenway, funded and constructed by the proposed developer within City of Miami -owned public right-of-way along Northwest South River Drive. Thank you very much for your time. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you. At this time, the public hearing is closed, and we bring it in for the Commission. I'll pass the gavel, being that it's in my district. I'm prepared to make a motion to meet the request, which is to change the future land use from industrial to restricted commercial, is it? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: OK. On first reading, of course, coming back on second reading with the City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 attached proffers or covenants that'll be attached to it at this time. So moved. Commissioner Regalado: We have a motion -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Discussion. Commissioner Allen: Second. Commissioner Regalado: And a second. Discussion. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, I think that what we really want to pay careful attention to, by second reading, is understanding how these view corridors that have been proffered really work, whether it's truly incorporated in; the public spaces, whether it's truly incorporated in; the public access to the waterway, whether it's truly incorporated in because I think those are very important issues that the developer has proffered, which we're quite interested in accepting. Ms. Slazyk: OK, and just for the record, with the zoning change; just so you know that regardless of whether it's approved or not, because it is on the river, it's waterfront, a Class II Special Permit would be required for anything they do anyway, so what they did is, in anticipation, they've actually begun to show us some of their drawings for it, for the Class 11 process, so we'll continue that process and give them our design comments. Commissioner Winton: Great. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so we have a motion and a second. It's an ordinance. PZ25. Mr. City Attorney, would you read the ordinance, please? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, on first reading. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: 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. Ms. Dougherty: Thanks very much. PZ.26 04-01131a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S ), AMENDING PAGE NO. 35, 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 TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 517, 555 AND 603 NORTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE , MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-01131 & 04-01131a ExhibitA.PDF 04-01131a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01131a Analysis.PDF 04-01131a Zoning Map.pdf 04-01131 & 04-01131 a Aerial Map.pdf 04-01131a ZB Reso.PDF 04-01131a Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 04-01131a Legislation.PDF 04-01131-Submittal-1.pdf 04-01131-Submittal-2.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from SD-4 Waterfront Industrial District to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 517, 555 and 603 NW S River Drive APPLICANT(S): MSJ Holdings, Inc. and 5 Street Terminal, Inc., Owners and Shear Construction Development, Inc., Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Pending November 1, 2004 report to City Commission. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 18, 2004 by a vote of 5-4. See companion File ID 04-01131. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial. Motion by Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): And 26 is the companion. Commissioner Regalado: PZ.26 is a companion. Chairman Sanchez: So moved, with conditions. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Regalado: OK. This is a public hearing. Do we have anybody from the public on this matter? This is companion item of PZ25. Public hearing is closed. The item has been moved by Chairman Sanchez, second by Commissioner Winton. It's an ordinance. Please, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 12/17/2009 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes, and it's understood that, of course, the proffers that will be made before second and final reading will be submitted, and this is a reading -- first reading on this ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: OK. 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. Commissioner Regalado: OK. The Chairman regains the chair. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you. PZ.27 04-00674 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW ARTICLE NO. 8.1 ENTITLED TREE PROTECTION; CONTAINING INTENT, DEFINITIONS AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW, FEES, AND CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL; PROVIDING FOR TREE MITIGATION AND PROTECTION, APPEALS, ENFORCEMENT, PENALTIES AND REMEDIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABLITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00674 Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00674 PAB Reso.PDF 04-00674 PAB Reso - 11-03-04.PDF 04-00674 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 June 2, 2004 by a vote of 8-0. Also recommended approval to City Commission on November 3, 2004 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 04-00674a. PURPOSE: This will create a new article to the Zoning Ordinance entitled, " Tree Protection." Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Regalado and Allen Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sanchez A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed unanimously, to pass Item PZ.27 on first reading. A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to reconsider item PZ27. Note for the Record: Item PZ27 subsequently passed on first reading with modifications. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Sarah Eaton (Preservation Officer): 27. Chairman Sanchez: 27, is that going to be a controversial one? Ms. Eaton: I understand it is not. Chairman Sanchez: I don't think so, right? Ms. Eaton: I don't believe so. Chairman Sanchez: OK. PH.27 is the Tree Protection Ordinance, if I'm not mistaken? Ms. Eaton: That's correct. Chairman Sanchez: All right. You're recognized. Ms. Eaton: Sarah Eaton, Planning and Zoning. This is the revised tree ordinance, which 1 described to you -- Commissioner Winton: Hallelujah. Ms. Eaton: -- as a discussion item at the last meeting. It contains the enhancements that have been requested by the community, the increased penalties, the requirement for mitigation, and we recommend your approval. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Question. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Do -- we're sure that we eliminate from this ordinance the appeal fee, right? Ms. Eaton: That's -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Ms. Eaton: There is no appeal for adjacent property owners, for homeowners' associations who have a member within a certain distance of the subject property, or for organizations like the Treeman Trust, or other environmental -- City of Miami Page 132 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Wait a minute. Ms. Eaton: -- groups. Commissioner Regalado: Who have a member -- does that mean a paying member or -- Ms. Eaton: A member. Commissioner Regalado: -- a person that they could represent as the homeowners' association? Ms. Eaton: It's -- an appeal can be filed by a homeowners' association "which has one member who owns property within 500 feet of the property for which the tree removal permit is sought." Commissioner Regalado: OK, but what's a member? That's my question because, you know, if it's a non-paying member, could they represent him? Ms. Eaton: Not sure I have -- Commissioner Winton: Well -- Ms. Eaton: -- the answer to that question. Commissioner Winton: -- I thought -- Ms. Eaton: It would be --1 guess it's however a homeowners' association defines its membership, but again -- Commissioner Regalado: Because, you know, the thing is, we had had homeowners' association here representing residents that are not paying members of the association, and that's my point, and the other question is, we're -- we are sure that this ordinance will provide for the City to deny permits for construction until -- if there is a violation. Ms. Eaton: Yes. The City can withhold the issuance of new permits. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): But what the City cannot do is take away a permit -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. Deny permit until -- Mr. Fernandez: OK. Deny it before issue, yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- the compliance and the mitigation and all that. Mr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Chairman Sanchez: Any further discussion on -- it's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. Commissioner Regalado: I'll second. City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. It's a resolution, right? Commissioner Regalado: No, it's an ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: No, it's an ordinance. Mr. Fernandez: It's an ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. It's an ordinance. Ms. Eaton: It's an ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, we're closing the public hearing. There's a motion and a second. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: No further discussion on the item. Mr. City Attorney, please read the ordinance -- Mr. Fernandez.: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: 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. Commissioner Winton: Tucker, did you want to -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: -- put something on the record on this? Tucker Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, I just had one quick question. I know that there's language in there about the CO (Certificate of Occupancy) -- withholding of the CO. I'm sorry I got here late . 1 was going to ask that you all may amend it to say TCO (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) , as well as CO because -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, 1 meant to ask about that myself. Yeah, Mr. City Attorney -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. We would need to make a motion to reconsider. Commissioner Winton: Well, maybe we don't have -- let -- maybe he could -- Commissioner Regalado: The second reading. Commissioner Winton: -- just answer the question -- City of Miami Page 13.1 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: On the second reading. Commissioner Winton: -- first and then -- Mr. Gibbs: It may be a change, though -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: -- you go back to first. Chairman Sanchez: Well, that's a major change and it brings it back to first, right? Mr. Gibbs: I would -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: Well, the way it reads presently is CO. There is no reference to a TCO. It's final CO that we're making reference to in this ordinance. Commissioner Winton: There's some interesting rationale to making it the TCO, as opposed to the CO because that comes first, and you get to whack the bad guy earlier, and the earlier you can whack him, the better. Mr. Fernandez.: You would need to get staff -- if you would like to reconsider that, you would need to reconsider and get testimony on the record; reopen the public hearing so that you get staff to address the issue -- Commissioner Winton: Why don't we just have them bring it -- Mr. Fernandez: In second -- Commissioner Winton: We've passed it now. Is this first reading or second? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, it is first reading. Commissioner Winton: So could we -- can we make this amendment on second reading? Chairman Sanchez: It'll go back to first reading. It's a major amendment. Mr. Fernandez.: Well, my -- our concern -- and we're contemplating this -- is whether that would, in fact, constitute such a significant change of inserting this requirement that it would, in fact, come back to you as another first reading, rather than second and final. Commissioner Winton: Which I really don't want to have happen, so -- Mr. Gibbs: Can I ask you a question, just a clarification question to the Chair? Chairman Sanchez: As -- yeah, through the Chair. Mr. Gibbs: My only -- and I just want to make a point -- my only pre -- my only concern about the TCO, it may not necessarily be a major change. Just my own personal position would be that because a TCO is a temporary CO, it's a lesser -- it's lesser than a permanent Certificate of Occupancy, you would consider that maybe not a substantial change because a TCO is for only a certain period of time. I -- City of Miami Page 135 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Fernandez: No. Mr. Gibbs: OK. I just thought I'd -- Mr. Fernandez: No. Mr. Gibbs: -- throw that out there. Mr. Fernandez: No, no. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Commissioner Winton: So -- Mr. Fernandez: There are some a TCOs that are known to last a long, long time. Mr. Gibbs: And that's the problem. That's why it needs to be in this ordinance because people will get aTCO -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: -- and they'll stay with it. Commissioner Winton: And they could stay a long time. Mr. Gibbs: And they'll -- Chairman Sanchez: Well, I'll tell -- Mr. Gibbs: -- thumb their nose to the City. Chairman Sanchez: -- you this for the -- for this -- Mr. Fernandez: Then again, you should not listen to your attorney testi. You should get staff to explain to you the difference between a final CO and a TCO, and in our opinion, it will either come back to you next time as another first reading -- Commissioner Winton: And I don't want that. Mr. Fernandez: You don't want that? Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Winton: No, because -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- I move to reconsider. Mr. Fernandez: So then you need to reopen now and reconsider that -- Commissioner Winton: OK. 1 would move to reconsider PZ.27, right? Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion to reconsider -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. City of Miami Page 136 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: -- PZ.27. There is a second Open for discussion. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, Chair. It's PZ28. Commissioner Allen: 28. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry, 28. Commissioner Winton: Is it 28 or -- Mr. Fernandez: No, no. That's the creation of the Trust; it's not the one that we're talking about . We're talking about PZ27. Commissioner Winton is correct. Commissioner Winton: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, let's -- Mr. Fernandez: Have you taken action on PZ.28? Ms. Thompson: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, so now what's being moved to be reconsidered is PZ27. Ms. Thompson: OK. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: So we're -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Chairman Sanchez: -- so, listen, so we're all on the same sheet of music, 28 is fine. 27 is the one that we need the motion to reconsider and bring it back -- Commissioner Winton: Which I moved. Chairman Sanchez: -- and amend it, so there's a motion to reconsider PZ27 by Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez to reconsider it. 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" Therefore, the item has been reconsidered. Now, we revisit the item and we need a motion to amend it with the amendment as to the -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: -- Certificate of Use. Mr. Fernandez: But before you do so, you need to have competent substantial evidence on the record. City of Miami Page 137 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: Have evidence. Chairman Sanchez: And that competent substantial -- Mr. Fernandez: And you need -- Chairman Sanchez: -- evidence will be provided to us by our staff. Commissioner Allen: Correct. Staff is -- Ms. Eaton: Is this on -- Chairman Sanchez: You need to put something on the record as to the amendment that the Commissioner wants to make as to the license, the occupational license. Ms. Eaton: 1 believe it was the temporary -- Commissioner Allen: There's a distinction. Ms. Eaton: -- Certificate of -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Eaton: -- Occupancy. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Winton: So who's -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: -- going to put that testimony on the record -- Ms. Eaton: I don't know if the -- Commissioner Winton: -- Mr. City Attorney? Ms. Eaton: -- if anyone from Building -- Commissioner Allen: Building. Ms. Eaton: -- is here. Mr. Fernandez: Staff is looking for someone from the Building Department to come to City of Miami Page 138 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 appropriately address that, or expertly address that. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: That's the only way we can get the competent substantial evidence on the record. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Winton: Where are they looking? Mr. Fernandez: -- we have been informed that there is no one presently in house to address that. Perhaps, you can defer taking this item up -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- again until later -- Commissioner Winton: Great. Mr. Fernandez.: -- today -- Commissioner Winton: Perfect. Mr. Fernandez: -- and then -- Commissioner Winton: And they can get somebody over here. Mr. Fernandez: -- you can continue with your agenda. Commissioner Winton: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go ahead and -- not -- let's table the item. It'll be brought back some time later on in the evening, so let's go to -- let's get 11 out of the way. 1 believe I was giving everybody time to get here. Commissioner Winton: Now -- Chairman Sanchez: That -- Commissioner Winton: As -- Mr. Chairman, as you know, there's three items that I'm going to have to deal with that I'm assuming are going to be relatively controversial. My little son, who is six years old, is playing -- has a football game in five minutes, and it's the last game of the season, and he really wants me to be there, and I'm going to be there. Commissioner Allen: You've got to be there. Commissioner Winton: That's going to take about 45 minutes out of my time, so -- Chairman Sanchez: We'll wait -- those three items, we'll wait for you to get back. Commissioner Winton: And my apologies to those of you from -- on Biscayne Boulevard, but he's getting first shot. Sorry. Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right. Let's get the Tree Ordinance out of the way. City of Miami Page 139 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Unidentified Speaker: We know they're going to pass it today. Chairman Sanchez: Huh? Unidentified Speaker: We know they're going to pass it today. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Tree Ordinance. Ms. Eaton: Sarah -- Chairman Sanchez: You know, Tucker, why is it that you always walk in a room and, somehow, the winds change -- Commissioner Winton: And everybody leaves. Chairman Sanchez: -- the pattern? Commissioner Allen: This -- Unidentified Speaker: The winds cease. Chairman Sanchez: You know. Commissioner Allen: We're -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen: So we're back -- Chairman Sanchez: Have we come to a mutual compromise? Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: The beauty of democracy. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. -- Chairman Sanchez: You know, Tucker and I have a love/hate relation. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, and Mr. Chairman, this is -- Ms. Eaton: As do he and I. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. Maxwell: Take up the item, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: I love him some days; some days I hate him. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman -- City of Miami Page 140 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- this is PZ27, right? Mr. Maxwell: -- for the record, you need to take this item back up. 1t is Item -- Commissioner Allen: PZ.27. Mr. Maxwell: -- 27. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Correct, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.27. PZ.27 is the Tree Ordinance -- Ms. Eaton: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- and it has been amended. Could you put the amendment on the record? Ms. Eaton: Yes, Sarah Eaton, Planning and Zoning Department. The new language for Section 8.1.10.5 will now read, "The Department" -- meaning Department of Code Enforcement -- " shall not approve the zoning inspection required for a temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy until all violations of this article have been corrected, including the payment of all fines and the planting of all trees" -- Commissioner Winton: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Good. Commissioner Winton: All right. Ms. Eaton: -- "required as mitigation" -- Commissioner Regalado: That's good. Ms. Eaton: -- `pursuant to this section." Commissioner Allen: OK. Commissioner Regalado: That's clear. Commissioner Allen: That's good. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Wait, wait, wait. 1 had some -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- questions on that. Does this create stronger requirements? Ms. Eaton: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: By how much --1 mean, a big difference, right? City of Miami Page 141 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Winton: Huge. Ms. Eaton: Yes. Unidentified Speaker: A lot. Chairman Sanchez: Good. Commissioner Winton: This ought to -- Chairman Sanchez: Because before, it was cheaper to knock down the tree. Commissioner Winton: Absolutely, and this ought to put a stop to these yahoos that are literally spitting in our face. Chairman Sanchez: Hey, be careful with the yahoos, OK? All right. We'll scratch that language off the record. Commissioner Winton: That's a New Mexico term. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a -- it's an ordinance. There's a motion and a -- Commissioner Allen: Second Chairman Sanchez: It's a public -- wait, hold on. It's a public hearing. We got to open up the public hearing. I knew there was somebody always wanted to speak on this. Mr. Maxwell: OK Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: I believe one of the reasons that you had tabled this item was that you wanted to hear from the Building official regarding the temporary versus -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, and look at him. He's over there hiding. Commissioner Allen: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: He makes about -- well, we're not going to say how much he makes. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Building Official. Chairman Sanchez: Come on. Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Hector, go -- you got -- sir, before you do that, he needs to put something on the record. Hector Lima: Hector Lima, Director of Building. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Before we get into this, he's not been sworn in. City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: Who, Hector? Ms. Thompson: Right. Mr. Maxwell: He's the Building official. Chairman Sanchez: He doesn't need to be sworn in. Ms. Thompson: But do we -- do we have anyone else from the public that's going to be speaking again on this that wasn't sworn in? Commissioner Winton: Well -- Ms. Thompson: OK. Commissioner Winton: -- we don't swear in staff. Mr. Maxwell: No, no, no. You -- they -- she's speaking of -- Mr. Lima -- Chairman Sanchez: We don't swear in staff. Mr. Maxwell: -- speaking of members of the public. She's asking about members -- Chairman Sanchez: They won't speak. Ms. Thompson: You -- Commissioner Winton: Well, but she interrupted him and -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Commissioner Winton: -- it's staff that was speaking. Ms. Thompson: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and there was someone -- Chairman Sanchez: If we start swearing in staff they won't speak. Ms. Thompson: -- else that got up, as well. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, but he (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Thompson: Do you want me to go ahead, sir? Mr. Maxwell: I think you had closed -- Mr. Chairman, had you not closed the public hearing when this item came up? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, I had closed the public hearing -- Mr. Maxwell: Public hearing -- but you had -- Chairman Sanchez: -- but, listen, I'm not going to deny anybody the opportunity. I'm going to open it for this gentleman. He -- how many miles did you drive to get here, sir? Elvis Cruz: Drove from Morningside, sir. City of Miami Page 143 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: From Morningside, and you feel obligated to address this Commission? Mr. Cruz: Very brief comment. Chairman Sanchez: That's your duty. Mr. Cruz: I'd just like to make the Commission aware that this Tree Ordinance defers to Metro - Dade County's Prohibited Tree Species List. On that list is Ficus altissimus and Ficus bengalensis, which we know as the banyan trees in the middle of Coral Way and along Main Highway. Those would become prohibited species under this ordinance, and would be required to be removed in certain situations. I'm sure you can all imagine the public outcry that would take place -- Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Mr. Cruz: Sir. Commissioner Regalado: Can 1 say -- DOT, Florida Department of Transportation, owns Coral Way. When they were ready to do the repavement [sic] of Coral Way, the Florida Department of Transportation hired an arborist, and he declared, on the record, that these banyan trees cannot be removed because they're considered historic within the Coral Way Corridor, so -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, before you say another word, could you put your name on the record and address? Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: So I'm just telling you that these trees will not be removed, the ones in Coral Way. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, name is Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, and continuing with my thought, yes, they're also on Main Highway in Coconut Grove, and in many, many City of Miami parks, and these are beloved trees. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Cruz: And 1 won't go into the nuts and bolts of the botany of why these trees should be off that prohibited species list, but Commissioner Winton, 1 would love to get together with you. I've had -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm going to ask staff this question, as soon as you -- Mr. Cruz: OK. Commissioner Winton: -- step away from the microphone because -- Mr. Cruz: Sure. Commissioner Winton: -- I didn't realize that. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: I mean, the banyans are -- people go crazy we start taking banyans down. City of Miami Page 144 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Mr. Cruz: That's probably the most beloved trees -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Cruz: -- in Miami. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Absolutely, so is Elvis' comments -- are Elvis' comments correct? Ms. Eaton: Not entirely. Commissioner Winton: OK, so let's -- Ms. Eaton: The -- as Commissioner Regalado stated, the banyans on Coral Way are protected because Coral Way is a scenic transporation corridor -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, I got that part -- Ms. Eaton: -- and a state historic highway. Commissioner Winton: -- but how about the rest of the banyans? Ms. Eaton: We are bound by the County's Tree Ordinance. Commissioner Winton: We what? Ms. Eaton: We are bound by the County's Tree Ordinance, which does state that those -- that banyan trees are a prohibited species. However, our -- the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board has routinely denied the removal of banyan trees in environmental preservation districts. Code inspectors routinely deny the removal of banyan trees throughout the City. Commissioner Winton: Including in Coconut Grove? Ms. Eaton: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Where are we? Commissioner Winton: Did 1-- Commissioner Allen: 1 guess we're about to -- Commissioner Regalado: We need -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: No. We need to get Hector Lima's comments on the record. Commissioner Allen: Staff on the record, right. Mr. Lima: Hector Lima, Director of Building. My understanding is that there was a question regarding TCOs and COs, and the issue is that, once a CO is issued, the occupancy allowance is up until the building becomes demolished, or a change of occupancy occurs. On a TCO, it's only a temporary use of the occupancy, limited to the areas that are approved by the Building official. City of Miami Page 1.15 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 The TCO has a lifespan of 90 days, and it could be -- administratively be extended one time for an additional 90 days, at the purview of the Building official. Commissioner Winton: But in the new -- in the revised ordinance here, we're including TCO and CO, right? So we've covered -- Mr. Lima: What -- Commissioner Winton: -- all the bases. Mr. Lima: What's happening with the revised wording is that not only is Zoning now involved in the inspection prior to a CO, it's also involved in the inspection prior to a TCO. Commissioner Winton: Great. OK. Wonderful, so do we need another motion? Did we make -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I think we do because we made a motion to reconsider this item -- Ms. Thompson: Well, actually -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- right? Ms. Thompson: -- you do have a motion on the floor. Mr. Maxwell: You have a motion -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. That was -- Mr. Maxwell: You have a motion to approve, as amended. Ms. Thompson: That's correct. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: OK, great. Commissioner Allen: So I'll make a motion to amend, as approved. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion. Commissioner Winton: We have that -- you said -- Ms. Thompson: 1 already have it. Commissioner Winton: The motion's -- Commissioner Allen: Oh. Commissioner Winton: -- already on the floor. OK. Commissioner Regalado: It's an ordinance. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And we have a second? Ms. Thompson: Yes, we do. City of Miami Page 146 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Winton: Do we have a second? Ms. Thompson: Yes, we do. Commissioner Winton: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: An ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending Chapter 62, Zoning and Planning, of the Code of the City of Miami, as -- oops. Commissioner Allen: Wait, wait. No, 27. 1t would be 27. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Commissioner Allen: Ordinance 20 -- Mr. Maxwell: That's the trust fund I just read. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Maxwell: 1 apologize. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: 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, as modified, 4/0, on first reading. PZ.28 04-00674a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 62, "ZONING AND PLANNING" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY CREATING ARTICLE XII ENTITLED, "TREE TRUST FUND;" ADDING AN INTENT STATEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR TRUST FUND PAYMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 8.1.6.6 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00674a Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00674a Legislation.PDF REQUEST: To Amend the Code of the City of Miami APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator City of Miami Page 147 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 04-00674. PURPOSE: This will amend the Miami City Code by creating a new article entitled, "Tree Trust Fund." Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: All right. Sarah Eaton (Preservation Officer): PZ.28 is the companion Tree Trust Fund Ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Is there a motion on that? Commissioner Winton: So move. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second. Before we open it for discussion, it's a public hearing. Commissioner Allen: Discussion. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Allen, you're recognized. Commissioner Allen: Just for clarification purposes, if you will, this is a Tree Trust that's going to be created, correct? Ms. Eaton: That's correct. Commissioner Allen: And there is a mechanism to create an oversight -- an over -- the trustee -- a trustor of the Trust? 1 mean, you're going to appoint a board to administer the -- Ms. Eaton: 1 don't believe a board is anticipated. The City Manager will be -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Eaton: -- responsible for that, and any expenditure of funds in excess of $50, 000 would require approval by the City Commission. Commissioner Allen: Right, and the funds will be used largely for -- Ms. Eaton: To replace the tree canopy. Commissioner Allen: Trees, right, right. OK. OK, thank you. City of Miami Page 148 Printed on 12/17/2004 City Commission Verbatim Minutes November 18, 2004 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. City Attorney, read the -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- ordinance into the record. Mr. Fernandez: Certainly. 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 passed on first reading, 5/0. City of Miami Page 149 Printed on 12/17/2004