Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmission transcript59. DENY REQUEST FROM ARGENTINIAN CONST. GRP., LLC AND ESTATES OF ELVIRA POLLAK TO CLOSE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY AT S.W. 18 ROAD BETWEEN S.W. 1ST AVENUE AND L-95 AND S.W. 2' AVENUE BETWEEN EASTERLY SIDE OF PROPOSED PLAT OF MOLINARI PARK AND INTERSTATE I-95. Vice Chairman Gort: Any other item? Anybody else wants to go home? OK. Yes, ma'am. This item is PZ -- the Roads. The South Miami, Brickell. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ-1? Vice Chairman Gort: PZ-1. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry, you've got to speak in the mike. Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): We're asking which project the Roads people are here about? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: I understand there's two of them, but the -- Ms. Bianchino: PZ-1. Vice Chairman Gort: PZ-1. Let's -- Ms. Bianchino: And the Park Place Project. Vice Chairman Gort: Let's get PZ-1. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Who is in opposition to PZ-1? Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Echemendia. Tucker Gibbs: Thank you, Vicky. Yes, we're the opponents. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I think staff has to present the case. Commissioner Sanchez: Staff? John Jackson (Director, Public Works): PZ-1 is official vacation, closure of the public right-of-way of approximate location of Southwest 18th Road, Southwest 2nd Avenue. They've met all the requirements of the subdivision for a closure of the public right-of-way at this location. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. 191 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo with offices at 2500 First Union Financial Center. I'm accompanied today by my associate, Mr. Andrew Dickman. I also am accompanied by Mr. Bazan (phonetic), who is the architect on the project, as well as Mr. Nestor Rodriguez, who is the surveyor and the representatives of the applicant, actually, their headquarters in North America. The applicant of this project is ADG or ACG Development. They are one of the largest developers in Argentina. And consistent with our efforts to -- by the City of Miami to be the gateway of the Americas, they received information and brochures representing the City, and asking developers to come and look at our fair City, and become part of our dream. And consistent with that, I'd like to pass around a booklet that shows the company's background. It should be put into the record, but I would like the City Commissioners to be able to leaf through it as we are doing this presentation. This company came to Miami. Actually, they came to the United States, established offices in Miami and in California, and placed their headquarters for North America here in Biscayne Boulevard. They directly went on to purchase the Langford Hotel on 1 et Avenue, which is now undergoing renovations, back to its glory of heyday. And they also invested in the property that is subject matter of the road closure that is before you today. Can you put up the survey for Nestor? The road closure that is before you today is a request to close 18`h Road and a portion of 2nd Avenue. And as we go through this process, I will be referring mostly to 18`h Road. And the reason for that is that the actual property that we're talking about for closure on 2nd Avenue, it's a very, very small parcel. And what ended up happening when we undertook to close that portion, because the applicant owns both sides of the street on 2nd Avenue, we found that the City had never requested from the Florida FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) to do turnarounds at the end of these streets that became dead-end by state action when I-95 was created. So even though we are closing a small portion of 2nd Avenue as it dead -ends at I-95, we had to satisfy the requirements of the City Code for a turnaround. And that turnaround could not be accommodated on your public right-of-way. In order to facilitate a turnaround that would serve the entire neighborhood and all of the residents on that street, we actually had to contribute part of our private property, because the "T" has to extend beyond the width of that street. And as such, a dedication from us was required. So what is occurring on 2nd Avenue, it's almost a wash. We are getting -- we are asking for a vacation of a portion of the street, but we are also putting not only a portion of our property to allow for fire engines and larger emergency trucks to be able to have a safe turnaround, but we also have to build that turnaround at our cost. So it's pretty much a benefit to the City. On 18`h Road, we are asking for the closure of all of 18`h Road, which is completely on both sides the property of the applicant. This is, again, a dead-end street. It has no turnaround as it dead -ends on I-95. There are no other property owners on that street. It does not provide access to anywhere. And you will hear a little bit more detail about that from the architect. We submitted the appropriate plat application to the City of Miami. We went to the Plat and Street Committee, which recommended closure. We have a recommendation of approval from that department that is on the record. And interestingly enough, the analysis from that department, which is part of the record as public works analysis for approximately Southwest 18`h Road and Southwest 2nd Avenue paraphrases the requirement of your City Code and states that the closure of these roadways will not adversely affect traffic circulation or access for public service vehicles; that these roadways are not part of a critical pedestrian or vehicular transportation network for the neighborhood; that all the technical requirements contained in the City of Miami Code subdivision regulations have been met, and that a closure of these roadways and development of the property would benefit the general public. It also states that the Plat and Street Committee recommend approval of the closure and vacation request. This is your technical staff, after three meetings of the Plat and Street Committee. We also have to undertake as part of that closure and replat proposed subdivision improvements of over forty-three thousand dollars ($43,000). Now, there's something very interesting about this particular applicant. As I mentioned before, when the applicant came to the City and purchased 192 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 this property for development -- and I'll also pass out a small map that will give you a better showing of what is here -- they thought to become part of the community in which they have moved into and to make an effort to be an active participant. As a result, like I said, they built and purchased -- I'm sorry -- they have purchased the Langford Hotel, and there was an extensive report and media coverage in several different entities which clearly stated what the efforts of this company would be. I'd like to enter into the record articles from Projecto magazine, the magazine of Latin Builder Association, articles in the Miami Herald or El Herald, I should say. And in trying to reach the community, they also contacted the Brickell Post and expressed their intentions, and introduced themselves to the community, and advised of their intent to build this project. This particular street and this developer's involvement in the community is not a surprise to anyone. It's well documented. More interesting is the fact that 18`h Road has been closed to public access for over 30 years. The prior property owner of the properties on that -- that fronted that road and that had access from that road was Mr. Camilo Lopez of Camilo Furniture. Mr. Lopez informed me that he contacted the City of Miami when he was upset over the construction of I-95 back in approximately 1967, and requested permission from the City of Miami to physically close that street off. The City of Miami granted that approval. And I have for you -- I'm going to submit it into the record, and I have copies for you, also -- of an affidavit from Mr. Lopez stating that, in fact, he closed that street over 30 years ago, and has maintained it closed during that entire time, and that to the best of his knowledge, there has never been any -- and this is the original, Mr. Clerk and here is -- and that there's never been any objections or any complaints. Further, attached to that affidavit is three or four different documents granted by the City of Miami giving the permission to physically close that street with a gate, a motorized gate which has been maintained at the entrance to that street until approximately a month and a half ago or two months ago when it was sold to my client, and Mr. Lopez asked if we were going to use it. My client said, "No, you can take it with you." And he physically took it down. But other than that time, that street has been in continuous private use for over 30 years. You will see that the documentation from the City of Miami is dated 1968. I would also like to submit into the record copies of photograph that depict the gate and the fences that were physically placed across that street, and that have been there for over 30 years. We feel that this closure of a street that goes nowhere, that access -- has no access to anywhere, that the abutting owner along the entire street is the applicant, is not only reasonable, but according to your own staff, satisfies all the requirements of the City Code. I know that there are those who are here in opposition tonight, and what I'd like to do at this time is to have the architect express to you as an expert the basis for the closure. Note for the Record: Commissioner Teele entered the Commission Chamber at 6:18 p.m. Adolfo Albaisa: Hello. My name is Adolfo Albaisa, with offices at 14 Northeast 1st Avenue. I'm an architect and a professor at the University of Miami School of Architecture. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Give them your educational background. Mr. Albaisa: Sure. I have an architecture and urban planning degree from Harvard University, and an undergraduate architecture degree from Rhode Island School of Design. And I also have a special degree from an urban design program in (unintelligible) France. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I would ask that his testimony be taken into the record as an expert. Mr. Gibbs: Could I just ask a quick question in that regard? Are you a professional engineer? 193 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Mr. Albaisa: Hello. I'm an architect, a registered architect. Mr. Gibbs: Are you certified as a professional engineer? Mr. Albaisa: Professional engineer? Why a professional engineer? Mr. Gibbs: In the issue of platting, it's my understanding that professional engineers are considered professionals in the area of platting. That's all I want to know. Mr. Albaisa: Well, I wasn't going to speak to the issues of platting, I guess. I was going to -- Mr. Gibbs: You weren't going to -- The issue here is road closures. Because the Plat and Street Committee has required that. I just wanted to clarify your expertise in this engineering issue. Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: You want to take the surveyor first? Unidentified Speaker: Sure. Mr. Gibbs: I just want to clarify for the record. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Let's do the surveyor, then, first. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Nestor Rodriguez: Good evening. My name is Nestor Rodriguez, with Peninsula Land Surveyors. I'm a professional surveyor and mapper registered with the State of Florida. I am not a registered engineer, but it is surveyor and mappers field of expertise to prepare surveys for tentative plats and final plats to conform with state regulations. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I would like to have his testimony entered as an expert on the record. Mr. Rodriguez: Basically, Vicky gave a pretty thorough explanation of what we're doing, as far as the vacation of the roads. Mr. Jackson mentioned that it did meet all of the City subdivision code requirements. Highlighted in yellow are the two strips of road that will be vacated. If there is -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Do they have access to anywhere? Mr. Rodriguez: No. They are both dead-end streets at Interstate 95. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Is the applicant -- Mr. Rodriguez: I'm sorry? 194 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Is the applicant the only property owners on both sides of those closures, as indicated in the survey? Mr. Rodriguez: That's correct. The developer owns all of the land directly abutting the rights -of -way that are proposed to be vacated. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: As shown in the plat? Mr. Rodriguez: As shown on the plat. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez: If there's any other questions, I'll be available for any technical support, as far as the survey. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chair, we'd like to reserve the opportunity to call him back for some questions if we have them. Vice Chairman Gort: No problem. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Mr. Albaisa: I'm back, as an architect and urban planner. Some of the reasons that we are asking for the road closure is that as an urban planner, I feel that we are able to produce a much better project if we are able to actually incorporate the streets, first issue being that all the cars that are required by code will be housed within the actual body of the project, and they are going to be submerged two stories down. So the parking will not be seen from the street. This is one issue that we are always very concerned with, the idea that you have a podium five stories, four stories of exposed parking, setting 20 feet back from the street. So by closing the street, again, all the parking is contained 15 feet down into the actual property. The other thing that this allows us to do is that the configuration of the building is able to be thinner, and broken up in a way that allows light to pass between several pieces of the project, itself, so we're not producing one large mass that would have much more impact on neighbors. We're producing two slender buildings with a large gap in between them. And we feel that this is a nicer configuration for the neighborhood. And we're also able, by incorporating the two streets, to produce a plaza space, which actually would be along 95, which is an open space. Thank you. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We would like to reserve our time for rebuttal, please. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Now, opposition. Mr. Gibbs: Yes. My name is Tucker Gibbs, and I represent the Miami Road Neighborhood Civic Association, as well as the South Miami Homeowners Association. The issue here is for us, as neighbors and people who have lived here for a long time and who are affected by this project that this proposed road closure begins the effort to change the character of this neighborhood. The closure will allow the construction of a 16, 23-story towers within the Roads neighborhood. What I'd like to do is explain to you how we're going to make our presentation tonight. Mark Alvarez, who is a professional planner, will 195 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 testify as to the planning and traffic aspects of this project and its impact on the neighborhood. And then neighbors who live in the Roads, who have lived in the Roads for many years will also speak. I'll speak at the conclusion of our presentation. And I know that there are other people here who are neighbors and attorneys for neighbors who will also be making presentations regarding the impacts, and the negative impacts of this rather large project, extremely large project on the community. First thing I want to talk about is some of the issues that Vicky brought up. She spoke about an illegal use, illegal road closure, having some kind of precedential value here. I don't think that has any value. If somebody illegally closed a street, they illegally closed a street. That doesn't mean that you legalize it several, many years later by closing it for a developer. She speaks about an article in the Village -- in the Brickell Post, and articles in trade magazines. And while -- if I'm in the development trade, I can understand why I should have notice of this. But I'm not in the development trade. It is -- the Brickell Post is not a newspaper of general circulation in the community, although I have a lot of respect for the editor and publisher of that newspaper, and I occasionally write for it. That doesn't mean that everybody reads it and everybody in the Roads knows what's in it, particularly on an inside page. I don't know what page that was on. And the final comment I had to make on the presentation that was made before we get into our presentation was the quote that this is going to be better for the community, because it's less mass. It's going to be two small, slender buildings. I know that some of the neighbors have better drawings than I have, but I'm going to submit this into evidence. And I only have one copy, but Vicky has seen it, because I -- through her gracious offices, I got a copy of it. This is the two small, slender buildings that they're talking about. This is -- this is in a residential neighborhood. This is, yes, adjacent to the expressway and adjacent to Metrorail, but there are small houses right there now, and this is what's going to be built. And some of these neighbors are understandably concerned. This is, to them, a tower of terror. And I want to submit this into evidence, and I'm going to submit it to Dena, because she's the closest person by. To the issues, to the legal issues, and that's what I'm going to be addressing. There are too many questions that surround this site. The standard for a right-of-way closure in this community is set forth in the City Code. It must be a public purpose. A public purpose. These are public roads, dead-end or not, they belong to the people. What is the public purpose here? How do we know what will be built here? Will it be a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit)? Will it be this attractive drawing? Will it be an office? Will it be residential? Will it need variances? Will it need special exceptions? We don't know, because, quite frankly, Commissioners, we are here for a road closure. As counsel for the other side has reminded me, this is a road closure issue. And so what we want to talk to you about is promises. We've been promised by the architect and promised by the attorney that this building that is being hopefully passed around to the Commission is what will be built here. There is no assurances that once this builder assembles these parcels that he will sell this property tomorrow to another developer who will want to put in a major use special permit. You, as Commissioners, have the authority to determine what is a public purpose. Is a public purpose served where a road closure gives the public right-of-way to a property owner for its use, increases that owner's land area, and therefore, increases the allowed density? We've all seen the site plan there. We've seen the two dead-end streets. What do those two dead-end streets represent? They represent 12,000 square feet of public land. I don't know what the going price of a 12,000 square foot lot would be in the Roads, but I don't think you're getting it. I know who is getting it, and that is the developer. The developer is getting the free use of 12,000 square feet. But that isn't all. If it was just that, maybe that wouldn't be a problem. This property lies along the expressway. But right now, it's two parcels. With the road closure, it becomes one parcel. And I spoke to Juan Gonzalez, and I'm not the expert, and I know that Mr. Alvarez here will speak to this in probably much more detail. But the fact is that -- the fact is that allowing this property to include these rights -of -way in the property will allow it to increase its density incredibly. Why? Because of the access, because of the -- not access -- because of the 196 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 proximity to the highway. That means they can now measure their gross -- and Mark, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- their gross FAR (floor/area ratio) all the way -- their gross lot area -- all the way out into the expressway and Metrorail. Those are open spaces that are not buildable. So what we're talking about here is not just what's allowed under the Zoning, which is a 1.72 FAR. And for those of us who live in Coconut Grove, that's the Ritz Carlton -- OK? -- Just to give you an idea about what FAR is. Is the public purpose served where the public has open space, public open space, which is the right-of-way, is replaced by two tall towers? Is the public purpose served where a road closure allows a large project within a well - established residential neighborhood? You are being asked to start a development process by these road closures without knowing its finish. What we ask you to do is wait. Wait until you see the whole picture, not just the picture that I've showed you. Wait till you see a commitment from this developer as to what it's going to do and what its impact is going to be. Other people live on 1st Avenue. They can talk about what adding these units are going to do to 1st Avenue. Once you look at the whole picture, then decide if this road closure and the development is going to allow -- the development it will allow -- is going to be in the public interest. You have that power when you decide, according to section 54.5-16H, which is the part about public purpose, if this right-of-way closure is in the public purpose. Let me bring something to your attention that I know the City Attorney is aware of, and that Ms. Garcia -Toledo is aware of, and some of you who watch the Zoning Board is aware of Road closure cases are problematic. Could I see that for a second? This is the original plat for this property. Usually, a plat's a map. But one of the issues that's very important -- and I will defer to my betters in the legal end of things, such as George Barket, who is the chairman of the Zoning Board, and he is also a title attorney of 35 years as a member of the Title Insurance Fund. He knows his business. Mr. Barket, as Ms. Garcia -Toledo and any other attorney who's in here who does zoning knows votes against every road closure, including this one, for a reason, and I'm going to explain this reason to you, because it's important. This plat granting to the City of Miami the tract of land being subdivided into blocks and lots that the said real estate is shown, marked, designated under said plat shall be known hereafter as Holloman Park, that all streets, avenues, roads, courts and terraces as shown, marked and designated thereon are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the public, reserving, however, to the said C.J. Holloman Company its -- its -- successors and assigns all reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders when said streets, avenues, roads and terraces and courts cease to be used as public highways, or are closed or vacated according to law. In English, what that means is the guy who subdivided this land, his company, his company said, I'm going to sell all these parcels, and I'm going to give the roads to the people, meaning the City of Miami, as public roadways. But if the City of Miami wants to give up the 12,000 square feet of 18th and 2nd that I know is worth a lot of money, and someone had mentioned something -- I forget what that cost -- maybe three hundred thousand, maybe two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), who knows -- that it doesn't go to -- doesn't go to the City. It goes back to the successors and assigns of the Holloman Company. Now, those heirs, in my opinion, have a right to the property, in Mr. Barket's opinion, has a right to the property. Your City Attorney is going to tell you something, and he's well versed in this, because it comes up at every single Zoning Board meeting where there is a road closure. That the state law has taken away the heirs of Mr. Holloman's rights, something that they were given in 1922. The state decided to take away in 1922 -- in 1972. However, it is our position that the state has no power to create a law in 1972 that takes away a property right that was given in 1922. This opinion is shared by others, Mr. Barket in particular. And I use Mr. Barket's name, because he is well known in the legal profession as a title attorney. And he has been doing this for 35 years. What's interesting that Mr. -- I talked to Mr. Barket about this issue after the Zoning Board made its determination, and in preparation for this. And Mr. Barket explained to me, well, you know, the City of Miami, because of all the complaints I've been making, they require an attorney's opinion of title. And sure enough, in your package, Public Works analysis says the property owner must 197 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 provide a specific attorney's opinion addressing the reversionary rights of these roadways as part of the application process. So I said to Mr. Barket, I said, "Mr. Barket, isn't that -- doesn't that protect the City, if an attorney says it's OK?" He laughed. He said, "It would, maybe several years ago, when attorneys' opinions were bonded." So if the attorney gave the opinion, and Mr. Holloman's heirs came, sued and got title to the property after the City allowed a multimillion dollar development on it, then Mr. Holloman's heirs would have to have action against that attorney and his bond. The Attorneys' Title Fund doesn't bond those opinions anymore. So what you have here and what they will provide you is an attorney's opinion that has no financial background, nothing backing it financially. So you all will be rolling the dice. And that's our opinion. We present it to you in that regard. I can defer to Mr. Maxwell, who I'm sure would like to speak to you on it. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Maxwell. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Gibbs said, the City Attorney's Office obviously would have a different opinion, and we do. We believe that under Florida law, title to that property vests in the City of Miami. Reverter rights also are in the City of Miami. We are very familiar with Mr. Barket's argument. He's made it maybe hundreds of times to us, and we have disagreed almost every time, every time with him. So the reversionary rights are in the City of Miami, in our opinion. Mr. Gibbs: And just to respond to that, the case law out there -- because I've read the two cases and two Attorney General opinions on this issue -- is sparse. But each of the cases talks about "may" and "might." They are not certain about this. United States Constitution says there shall be no ex -post -facto laws made. And that means you can't undo. You can prospectively say "from now on." And that's our position, Mr. Barket's, as well. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, until declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, Florida law says that those rights are in the City of Miami. Mr. Gibbs: I'd hate to be the City of Miami if one of those heirs comes up. And I'm just going to leave it at that. I'll leave it at that. Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, I know attorneys can argue all day long. We have quite a few people here. Please, let's try to expedite it. (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Mr. Gibbs: Absolutely. I know. OK. I'll leave that issue, and I -- but I wanted to put that on the record, so that you all would understand that. At the end of the day, the City Commission and the neighbors affected by this proposed development urge you to reject the road closure, as it does not serve a public purpose. The only purpose this road closure serves is to allow this developer to get City land to allow him to build a much bigger project than he otherwise would be able to build. Therefore, we urge you to object, to reject it. And if you can't bring yourselves to object it, we ask you to defer this matter, require them to prepare a site plan, work with the neighborhood to develop something that the neighborhood can live with. Thank you. And I'll leave it to Mr. Alvarez. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Next. 198 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Mark Alvarez: My name is Marl Alvarez. 25 -- sony -- 2520 Coral Way, Miami. I am a professional planner. I have practiced in the State of Florida for eight years. I am AICP. I have a master's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in planning, and I am a certified planner. And I will be speaking strictly to planning issues tonight. Just a very quick background, and I think it bears stating. Back in 1985, this neighborhood, this little triangular neighborhood, being considered somewhat of a marginal part of the Roads was rezoned. It was rezoned to office from residential. At that time, that was sound planning practice. Metrorail had just been installed, and the idea was to intensify the uses, and hopefully, the market would respond. Well, as in other areas of the Roads, the market did not respond. And, in fact, the single-family residential use is still predominate, and they have become quite stable in that neighborhood. And I think that bears a lot of thinking as we go forward with this. The request that we have tonight is to vacate two parcels of roadway. And the basic effect of that is -- I'll just -- 18`h Road is 11,059.75 square feet, or exactly about a quarter of an acre -- sorry -- about a quarter of an acre. Southwest 2nd Avenue is 1,892.25 feet, which is .42 acres. Basically, we're vacating and transferring the rights of almost .3 acres of land. The purpose that's in the fact sheet, it very simply says to allow for a unified site development. And Mr. Gibbs went over this, but again, what is unified site development? How does that fulfill a public purpose? That's the only purpose that's mentioned. What it actually is, is it's a code word for intensification to the site, building more on that site than could be built if it was in actually three separate parcels, which would have -- it would otherwise be. Just to give an example, you know, and I know we haven't spoken about "What is a valid public purpose?" But I found in the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Policy TR1.1.11 talks about relocating or extending streets that do not fit the developed grid system. Those are the kinds of things that a valid public purpose is, if you're moving the street to vacate it and put it somewhere else. It serves something for the public. It doesn't serve something for a private developer. The effect of this .297 acres being conveyed as a public asset to a private developer is to actually -- One, it increases the developer's parcel from .93 acres to 1.23 acres, which is about a gain of 32 percent, which is fairly substantial. It also allows -- I want to go to another point first. It also conveys to that developer real, real estate type rights. If we were to look at those 12,952 feet and price them, based on the property assessor's assessed land values for the properties that were purchased around it, the Dade County Property Assessor is using about thirteen dollars ($13) a square foot. That property would be worth a hundred and sixty-eight thousand, three hundred and seventy-six dollars ($168,376). If we looked at it based on the market value of what this developer paid for those parcels, what they paid for all of the seven -- I'm sorry -- eight parcels of land, that property would be worth four hundred and fifty-five thousand, two hundred and sixty-three dollars ($455,263). That's what we would be conveying in value from a public asset to a private developer. It also allows a very -- it allows a substantial gain in floor/area ratio, and I know this is a very confusing point. We're near -- we're within 600 feet of Metrorail on this site. That allows us a ten percent gain over the 1.72 FAR. We are also, because it's a triangular site -- when it's unified, that is -- it becomes one unified triangular site. We can now, for the whole site go 70 feet into I-95 to calculate the gross land area, gross land area and 70 feet into the right-of-way of the Metrorail. Whereas normally, that would apply to different pieces of the triangle, now we can apply it to the whole triangle, and gain floor/area ratio. Not only is the floor/area ratio increased, but when we take these three little parcels and put them together into one big triangle, what we have is a very, very significant difference in the bulk that can be there. And when I speak of bulk now, I'm going to speak of sort of an imaginary envelope, if you will, that's based on the setbacks of what could be there in the two situations. And it will actually be limited by FAR, but this is sort of an envelope of development. If we were to look along Northwest 1 et Avenue in the existing situation, we would have two buildings separated by about 70 feet on 18`h Road. They'd be ten feet back 199 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 from 1" Avenue. One building would be 100 feet wide, about the size of two houses. The other building would be about 80 feet wide, sort of a large house, I guess. They could go up 120 feet before setting back, and after that, they have to set back ten feet. Because of the practical limits of the size of the property and the setbacks they would have, one building could go to 16 floors, and the other to 25. OK. That sounds like a lot already. If we unify the property, look along the same street, and what you'll see is a 250-foot long envelope that you could build in. It could go up 25 stories, because now the -- by unifying the property, that setback limitation as it goes up becomes less of a limiting factor, because you have more space to work with. And, of course, you don't have the setbacks that would occur on 18th Road. In effect -- and try to follow this again. I mean, if you were to look at the volume of that space that would be in the two cases, in one case, there would be about 5,000,251 cubic feet. I know these numbers are a lot. And the other envelope would be about 7,378,000 feet, which is a 40 percent larger envelope. So it's 32 percent more land, increases in FAR, and a 40 percent larger bulk envelope. That's the effect of what we would be doing by conveying the -- doing the road closure and conveying that property to the adjacent properties. The impact to the neighborhood. Again, I mentioned as a premise to this that this is still a single-family residential neighborhood. And although it's not easy to find in the Zoning Code, if we look in any neighborhood master -- any neighborhood plan that's been done in the City of Miami -- and I am very familiar with Coconut Grove Design District, Omni, I worked on a lot of them. And I remember in all of those, we defined something that's very important to a neighborhood, and that's the scale. If you have a neighborhood that has single-family homes and you put something that's enormous next to it, it just doesn't work, and it devalues the neighborhood. And by allowing this, we would devalue this neighborhood, and reduce the enjoyment to these people, to the people who live in this small neighborhood, by allowing this kind of bulk. And finally, well -- OK, I'll read. There are several goals and policies that relate to this. And I expected Mr. Gibbs to read them, but I remember that he didn't now. Mr. Gibbs: They don't want to hear from me. Mr. Alvarez: OK. And I appreciate that, and I should read these. The goals -- all the things that I've spoken about relate to goals and policies in the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan. Goal Number 1 -- and it's good that it's Goal Number 1 -- it says maintain a land use pattern that protects and enhances the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods, fosters redevelopment and revitalization -- oh -- I don't need blight and planning areas and so on. But the emphasis of it is in the first clause. It says protects and enhances the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. That's sort of that bundle of rights that homeowners are entitled to by owning that property. Objective 1.1 says ensure that the land use regulations and development policies are consistent with fostering a high quality of life in residential areas. Policy 1.1.3: Residential neighborhoods shall be protected from the encroachment of incompatible land uses, from the adverse impacts of future land uses and adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade public health and safety. This is important because not only have we spoken about how this land use was proposed as incompatible, but when I spoke about the increases in density, the increase in that envelope of bulk, if, let's say, this development didn't occur and those roads are closed, all of that could happen to a larger extent than even this proposal. And this particular policy speaks about guarding against the adverse impacts of future land uses. And there is another one, historic preservation. I think I have it. Do you have it? Mr. Gibbs: No. Mr. Alvarez: Well, we'll reserve that one for later. I can't find it. Thank you very much. 200 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Linda Koenigsberg: Gentlemen, this issue is basically the Roads versus the towers of terror. Mr. Gibbs: Identify yourself Ms. Koenigsberg: My name is Linda Koenigsberg. I live at 144 Southwest 19th Road. Although I'm an attorney, I'm not a zoning attorney, which is why we're hiring Mr. Tucker Gibbs. We, the neighborhood of the historic and pioneer area known as the Roads -- and our board of directors is here, also -- urge you not to close the roads, as requested by this developer, and not to put up the type of project that they have brought before you. The Roads was part of the property acquired by Miami pioneers William and Mary Brickell in 1869. It was mostly undeveloped before the '20s. And our beautiful trees, serene neighborhood, neighborhood of lovely homes and wide boulevards was the brainchild of Mary Brickell. She wanted a showplace, and she got it. We're very proud of our neighborhood and our association's attempts to lower crime, maintain the beauty of the area and building, keeping the building in the area consistent with the character and charm of the neighborhood. This does not cut it. We are bombarded now by developers wanting a piece of the Roads. They obviously believe the title of that little play that's been playing for years in Coral Gables, "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change." We don't want that type of change in the Roads. We do not -- we did not agree to the rezoning of this to office space. Our association wasn't even around in 1985 or whenever that was done. This should have been maintained as R-1, just like the other portions of the Roads. Simply because it has already been voted on, you should look at its appropriateness in this area. And there is no permitting yet here for this project, and we would urge you to downzone. Many neighbors are here tonight to discuss the issues, and their feelings and beliefs, and I will address some of these and the other neighbors will address others. The property owned by my husband and I is about 200 feet, as the crow flies from this project. We will be coming out of our door and facing this project. And I want to tell you; I'm going to be looking straight up at it every day. We are outside people. We don't live inside our homes. We are always outside in our neighborhood, greeting neighbors, walking our dogs and being outside. We object to the road closure and the building of any inappropriate structure such as the enormously massive and tall project that has been proposed. And we don't even know if that's been proposed, because when we -- when the developer and the architect first came to us, they showed us this same picture and said, "Well, we don't really know if we're going to build this." So this is a mystery, gentlemen. Did we speak to the developers? Yes. As I have just told you, we did. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me interrupt you for a minute. Ms. Koenigsberg: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: How many people are going to speak on this item? We have three more. OK. I'm going to have to put it to two minutes each, because of not, we have three items in here. Your attorneys took about a half an hour, more or less, or 20 minutes, and we have three other items here. All of you, I guess, are going to speak. So I'm going to time it. Ms. Koenigsberg: Several of our items we believe have been stipulated to. 201 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Vice Chairman Gort: Well, just in case. Thank you. Ms. Koenigsberg: Does that need to be changed? Vice Chairman Gort: We'll start now. Two minutes. Go ahead. You get the benefits. Ms. Koenigsberg: OK. Notice is a problem. When this property was first noticed for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the notice was put on a tree in the cul-de-sac, 50 feet from the busy street of I-95. It was hidden behind a tree, totally inappropriate. That's the first picture. It had no information on it. The other side of the Roads, in the back triangle, still, even today -- I went back there with my husband -- there is no red sign at all. I will give this to you. This is the area that -- this is looking at it from my house. I will not be able to see the sun rise. I will not be able to see the moon rise. Maybe about 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock, I'll be able to see the sun. I think my tomato plants will all suffer. We have submitted -- we will be submitting to you our petition opposing the road closure, which has over 61 signatures. We are submitting to you approximately 80 letters signed by members of the associations opposing this. The type of notice that I'm talking about, gentlemen is repugnant. It is not notice. I believe it's unconstitutional. It's the same type of thing I got when I wrote to the City of Miami Manager and the Attorney, and I objected. And they wrote me back a letter on October 27`h, October 27`h, telling me I could appear at a hearing on October 26`h. And I got the letter postmarked November 3rd. I got it on November 7`h. Typical notice. This building will not be a good neighbor. These people said this develop is a dream, a developer's dream. I submit to you it is. But it is a neighborhood's nightmare. We will not benefit in the least. You should re-evaluate the bad decision that was made. This road reverted to Holloman and his successors and heirs. This road was not closed to the public as they indicate. It was open for kids, and skates, and bikes and dogs. So, please, say no. The developer doesn't care about us, but you should. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Hold it. We have a long agenda still to go, so, please, let's keep the applause down. None at all. Thank you. Yes, sir. Daniel Leibow: My name is Daniel Leibow, resident homeowner at 3041 Southwest 2nd Avenue. I'm also here this evening as president, representing the Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. We ask you to be aware and poised in a proactive stance in league with all of our neighbors who are now, more than ever, under siege from all corners and points in between by massive development projects proposed and already underway. Now, rather than only registering with you our complaints and concerns over this project, we'd like also to provide a list of improvements which can significantly reduce the many negative impacts which would severely compromise the long-time established, unique character, charm and safety of this precious section of our Roads neighborhood. And that's not to say that all sections of our neighborhood are not precious. They are. We ask you to consider the matter of transition on this project. A building project of this nature, design, size and density, as proposed, proves to be grossly inappropriate for placement smack dab in the middle of a quiet, residential area, despite it's "office" zoning designation. Please consider, for example, the ever increasing burden suffered by our local schools, such as South Side Elementary, Fire Department, and overwhelmed, understaffed Department of Law Enforcement. In view of our concerns over this project, which fails on all fronts to provide a smooth, 202 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 functional and aesthetic transition into a leisurely paced, low density area of the Roads, we submit to you the absolute need to require that a project of this type be -- if it must be at all -- much smaller in scale; lower in height and density; more generous with in-house parking; lighting on and about the premises, in keeping with existing illumination of the surrounding area, which is comfortably mild; a full canopy of large, low maintenance shade trees fronting the project on all sides, and extending all along 1st Avenue. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Could you close, please? Mr. Leibow: -- turn restrictive controls to local and non -local area of vehicular traffic, and a building architectural style worthy and befitting of a wholehearted welcome into our home, the Miami Roads neighborhood. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next. Joe Wilkins: Thank you. Joe Wilkins, 228 Southwest 23rd Road. I'm also a director of the Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. I understand that it's sometimes difficult to discern what the public purpose is on an issue like that, and we're here to be helpful. We brought the public with us, so that you can hear and see the amount of concern that we have in our neighborhood. And I want to thank everybody for coming out. This is a fraction of the concerned people who have given up their working time, their dinner time to come here on this issue. I won't repeat the points that have already been made. I will try to make a couple of few others that I have. It was interesting to hear Mr. Camilo Lopez' name being mentioned, because we received a call from him a few weeks ago applauding our efforts to preserve our neighborhood and to protect us from this type of development. One issue that hasn't been mentioned is that this project sits directly across 1st Avenue, which, by the way, if you look at 1st Avenue, it's about as wide as this podium. Thank about it. This sits right across that narrow street, across Metrorail from Simpson Park, which is a very significant environmental area. It's a protected area. Big buildings cast long shadows. Now, we have dealt with this on some of the other projects. We're still in the process of evaluating the impact of these developments. We have a lot of zoning in our neighborhood that permits projects like these, but it's old zoning. It was put in before the impact could really be established, and we want to look at that. We're looking at the long-term impacts of these projects, also. But that's one thing we have to consider. There may be environmental regulations, because Simpson Park is a protected area. We again urge you to consider if public purpose is the criterion, the public is here. Please consider that. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Debbie Swain: Hi. I'm Debbie Swain, 228 Southwest 22nd Road. I am here on behalf of the Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. I'm also a director and the president elect of the association. There's a couple issues I wanted to bring up, and I'm going to talk real fast so I can get everything in, in two minutes. The first is traffic. Certainly, the traffic flow is going to be up and down 1st Avenue and into the Roads area to get in and out of that project. It's a neighborhood that in the past few years has finally become stable with respect to traffic. And I finally feel safe to have my kids out in the streets without concern about the severe nature of the traffic there. The second issue I wanted to bring up is the fact that the parking garage is going to be submerged. I haven't had an opportunity to have anybody take a look at it yet, but we're very worried about how that's going to be done. We have problems in the area already with just the Metrorail going so close to some of the neighbors that there's vibrations. And to dig two 203 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 stories down into the area is certainly going to have some impact on surrounding houses. There are single-family homes right along that property. The next is something I was hoping Linda would bring up but -- because she and I had discussed it -- and that is she did mention to you about downzoning. And certainly, we are realistic and we realize that you all may not want to correct the errors of past actions by doing a downzoning, but not make it worse, please. Do not make it worse by allowing this road closure. Let the density be as little as it can be, and don't give them an opportunity to open it up with higher density. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Luis Herrera: My name is Luis Herrera. I live in 1181 Southwest 22nd Terrace. I'm representing the Miami -- Vizcaya Homeowners Association. I'm a member there. And I'd like to remind you a little bit. In 1979, Vizcatran Corporation, they tried to make some kind of building like this one in the neighborhood. It's close to it. And we go into the court, we go into the Supreme Court, and it cost a lot of money to the neighborhood. Finally, Mr. Steve Clark did reverse everything for our neighborhood. And I ask you, and remember that, all the Commissioners over here before, we fight for the -- keeping the Roads like residential, and the -- intruding something big like that, when the people, they love the Roads, and we want to keep it that way. I'm asking you people to helping us to keep it like a residential, and not let them do it again, like in 1979. For ten years, we fight for that, Vizcatran Corporation. I don't know if you remember it or not, Wifredo. So we -- please, we'd like to keep it like it is. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next. Edith Ysada: My name is Edith Ysada. I am a property owner, and I reside at 1751 Southwest 2nd Avenue, one house down from the proposed street closure. I am very worried. I am not well versed. I am going to speak to you from the heart, as a homeowner who has worked very hard to have what little I have. And please help us protect the value of our house. Something like this would be a monstrosity. Our streets cannot handle the traffic. Up to today, I didn't even know that it was going to be two stories down. I don't know what's going to happen to my house with that. Please help. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Which direction are you from the proposed development? Ms. Ysada: I am on 2nd Avenue. See, the property that they say they own right across from me on both sides, it's just a little driveway. OK. I am on -- you want me to point it to you? Commissioner Winton: OK. But you're in this section here on the -- Vice Chairman Gort: On the triangle. Commissioner Winton: -- on the south side, between the -- you're between the tracks and I-95? Ms. Ysada: It's -- I'm in 2nd Avenue that dead -ends, the avenue. Commissioner Winton: Right. Ms. Ysada: It dead -ends in I-95. 204 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Commissioner Winton: OK. Thank you. Ms. Ysada: 17th Road. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Ms. Ysada: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next. Louise Jewell: My name is Louise Jewell. I live at 1535 Southwest 2nd Avenue. And I also own another property on the block, 1611 Southwest 2nd Avenue. And I'd like to echo my neighbors concerns. We are worried about property values. Not just mine, but the whole surrounding area, by having an inappropriate building in a residential neighborhood, in addition to the traffic that's going to be generated on 2nd Avenue, which will mean a lot of moving vans, and trash trucks. I think the way the property -- the building will be situated that 2nd Avenue will be the exit or the -- you know, for the major trucks coming in and out. That's what I'd like to say. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Maria Castellanos: Maria C. Castellanos. 54 Southwest 14th Street. I'm a professional board -certified interior designer by the State of Florida, and I'm coming here to talk to you about the architecture, which to us is very important in the Roads. We have a scale of the neighborhood, one, two-story homes. I wanted you to see what the difference in scale is between what our homes are what these projects would be. (Inaudible comment.) Vice Chairman Gort: You've got to go to the mike. Ms. Castellanos: OK. That's all right. We'll use this one. This is the scale of our homes. If the property that we are talking about was only 15 stories high -- and these are not the elevations of the building. These are just height of building, would be the first elevation. What they're proposing is possible of 23 stories, which is the higher of the three buildings. I think that this is a giant among our neighborhood. I don't think that any Commissioner or any person should be submitted to the echo, the factor that the sound resonance from I-95 against these buildings is going to intensify the noise in all the neighborhood. You're also going to get people that can actually see you. If you're in your swimming pool, if you're someplace in the privacy of your home, you're now totally visible and exposed to everybody else. I think that this should be a concern. And we want our homes and our privacies protected by you. Thank you. Tory Jacobs: Good evening. Tory Jacobs. 145 Southeast 25th Road. I'm here as president of the Brickell Homeowners Association. And we'd like you to know that our board of directors has voted to support our neighbors. We -- our neighbors of the Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Organization and the newly formed South Miami Avenue Homeowners Association. We share their concerns over encroaching over- development in the area, and we ask that you try to see that developers scale their new projects to be more in keeping with the existing neighborhood. Thank you. 205 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Eva Nagymihaly: My name is Eva Nagymihaly, and I reside at 3110 South Miami Avenue. Even though I am not near that, all my friends are there. I go to Publix, I use First Avenue, and even now, when I go down there, I have to be very careful of oncoming traffic. It is a very narrow road. We have lots of developments. We are going to be discussing two more issues of development on Miami Avenue, on the Roads, on 18th Road. And all of this affects the neighborhoods. So we want you to remember that we are a neighborhood, and we're all together, and hopefully, you will help us through this by not allowing monstrosities, and towers, and huge, dense properties in our small neighborhoods. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Anyone else? Santiago Echemendia: Santiago Echemendia. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard. We'll be very quick, because I think the record evidence is compelling. I would like to incorporate all of the comments that have been made by reference, especially the one of the professionals. I'm representing Brickell View West, whose main principal is Nelson Rodriguez. He's an adjoining property owner. I would like for Nelson to briefly articulate his reasons for being opposed to the vacation and closure. It's not so much the development of the project, but it is the scale and massing of the project that would be enabled vis-a-vis the vacation and closure that you would be granting today. And then I'd like our architect to make a few brief comments for the record, and then I'll wrap up very quickly. Nelson Rodriguez: My name is Nelson Rodriguez, a resident at 919 Firefighter Drive, Coral Gables, and real estate developer. And I'm breaking today Rule 101, testifying against another developer. I'm doing this out of my heart, because for the last four or five weeks, I've been trying to reach them to scale down this development. I've been building in the Roads for the past 15 years on 1 et Avenue. I have two apartment buildings. Even though that I could have built these buildings with much bigger density, I always have the sensitivity and the caring for these people that are in this neighborhood. I own more land in this same block that they have. And I was talking to the architect outside and telling them why we feel that this project should be scaled down. And I told him that even though that I could build 24-story apartment building without even coming here to this Commission, I don't have to ask permission from anybody, I have instructed my architect in doing the plans not to go over a 12-story apartment building. And I still feel that I may reduce that density a little bit. I ask from them the same thing. I ask them to be sensitive to this neighborhood and do the same for them. Scale down the project, come back and maybe we can support their application. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next. Albert Cordoves: Albert Cordoves, president of (unintelligible) Architects with offices at 999 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida. We have reviewed the preliminary drawings, conceptual drawings that we have gathered of the proposed project, and it is our professional opinion that this is totally out of context and scale with the surrounding neighborhood, as predominating single-family residences all around. Yes, you do have some four-story and six -story apartment buildings, but nothing in the sense of 23 stories in height. As Nelson alluded to, we have been working on projects very close to the area, and he has instructed me not to take advantage of the full FAR, not to take advantage of the full height restrictions, keeping the buildings within the scale of the neighborhood. Thank you. 206 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Mr. Echemendia: We believe the record evidence reflects that there is no public interest being furthered. In fact, it is to the detriment of the general public if you allow the vacation and closure, because you allow the massing of this development in allowing additional height. They will tell you that if you don't allow the vacation and closure, they could still get 24 stories. As a practical matter, they can't. They would have to have a six -story parking pedestal, as was admitted by their architect earlier. So it just -- it wouldn't work. We think that what is more compatible with the area, at least from our perspective, would be something along the lines of 12 stories. That's what we were trying to negotiate with them. Unfortunately, they were unwilling to agree. So we think again, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support this. I haven't heard any in the record. Incidentally, at the Zoning Board, where you didn't have any of these folks present, the vote was five to four. It was very, very close. The argument that was made earlier, the argument that somehow, the fact that it was illegally closed in the past, somehow, it justifies the vacation, I think that's ill advised to make an argument like that. And it does not justify in this instance the standard that you have, which is whether this is in furtherance of the public welfare, which clearly, it is not. And there is no record evidence to confirm the same. Two minor comments. There is a case that says -- it's Fogg versus the City of South Miami -- that says the public welfare is the welfare of the whole community. A benefit or anticipated benefit to a special group within the City is not enough. I think the whole community are all of the folks with the yellow signs are at least the community within this area, and not the developer that's going to get a special benefit. There is another case, Boulder versus Ocaloosa, which is a First District Court of Appeals case where the court actually held that under the statute, there must be a finding in the record that it is in furtherance of the public interest. Your code says that if you find that it is not, you can deny. I think the burden is actually a little more than that under the case law, which is there has to be record evidence that it, in fact, is in furtherance of the public interest. And what you have here is quite the contrary. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? OK. You get a few minutes of rebuttal. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. You have heard some very compelling testimony here today. And the basis of that compelling testimony has been incorrect assumption that this is a residential neighborhood. This area of the Roads, which is north and east of I-95, is, in fact, zoned for office use. It is permeated throughout the area with offices. Actually, the single-family homes of the past have been converted into office use. Number two, the public purpose use of the original dedication in the plat for 18th Road ended when the City of Miami -- not illegally, because this was prior to 1972 and the laws that require the plat process that we're in now -- but in a very open manner agreed and gave permission to the property owner to close the street to public use. So the basic purpose of the original dedication which was for public use ended when the City, in 1968, said to the private property owner, close the street, put a gate up and put fences up. And it was entirely controlled by a private individual. And it has been in that continuous control, and not used for public purpose, which is required by Florida Statute when you have a dedication of a public right-of-way. I would also like to say that a public purpose now is to stop a nuisance. Those of you who have taken the time to drive out to the end, the dead end of Southwest 2nd Avenue, I'm sure, like I did various times will find that the end of that street, that dead end up against I-95 ends up becoming a dumping ground. Same kind of problems existed back in 1968. If you look at those documents that I have asked to be admitted into the record, you will see that back then, it was turning into a, quote/unquote, "lovers lane." And more recently, just last week, we had two dogs that were tortured and killed right 207 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 outside of this property, and a third dog that seems to have been spun from 1" Avenue over the railing into I-95. The dead animal was there for several days. So clearly, you have a public purpose, because this dead-end street does become a problem. Let me also say that you heard on the record that we don't care, and that we have done nothing. I would like to enter into the record correspondence that I personally extended to several members of the community, the neighborhood, to give me an opportunity to meet with them and hear what their concerns were. I can also tell you that we had a meeting, a couple of hours meeting with the executive members of the Roads Homeowners Association. I've also been in communication with Tucker. And my -- Mr. Gibbs -- and I offered to Mr. Gibbs on behalf of my client that we were willing to tie ourselves to the project that we had presented to the Homeowners Association - - could you put up the boards? -- That we were willing, by covenant to tie ourselves to that project; that we were willing, by covenant, to be responsible for beautifying 1st Avenue and that we wanted to work with them. Apparently, there is a kiddy tot lot that has been in the works for this area for quite some time, and we said, as good neighbors, we would also be willing to work with them on that. So we have tried to be sensitive. We have tried to communicate. I was told that there was no communication. You also heard - - and I just need to get some things on the record very quickly -- requests for downzoning. This is not a zoning hearing. This is street closure. But claims of down -zoning or rolling back the "office" zoning that this City placed on that property could be the basis for condemnation by the City, eminent domain, or violations of the Byrd -Harris Act. We need to be very careful when we start treading into violating property rights of individuals. I also want to repeat that your professional staff has stated in their analysis that the closure of these roadways would benefit the general public. So the basis for the public purpose has been established by your code and your staff analysis. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. We'll now close the public hearing and -- Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, may I -- Mr. Chairman, I really feel that -- Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker, Tucker, Tucker, this is Item Number 1. The Commissioner in that area is ready to make a recommendation. OK? Thank you. Commissioner. It's his district. Commissioner Winton: I'll start. I'm not a planner, but I can tell you, and I've spent a lot of time. Neighborhood redevelopment has been a primary focus of my stay on this Commission, and it was a primary focus of my campaign. And there is no question, zero question, when you build high-rise office buildings with no buffer between single-family homes, you destroy the value of the homes that are adjacent to those high-rise properties. And there is no buffer between this and single-family residences in this neighborhood. And I think the fact that the City made, as far as I'm concerned, a huge error in 1985 in zoning this "office" doesn't mean that we should be compounding the problem by encouraging the development community to build this kind of high-rise, which is totally out of character for that particular location in that particular neighborhood. We do have an opportunity yet, as far as I'm concerned -- and I'll back up a step. I think that apart from my standpoint as a Commissioner, I'm going to always work as hard as I can at not only -- at not only the redevelopment of our single-family residential neighborhoods, but in preserving all the single-family residential properties that we can preserve throughout the City of Miami, not just this small neighborhood. Single-family residences create the kind of safety and street level activity that we're looking for in our City. And I'm not opposed to -- you know, we want high-rise residential development in the City, and there is an appropriate place for high-rise residential development in our City. But I think we've identified the lion's share of those places throughout the City of Miami. And I'll give you, my fellow Commissioners, a classic example of where this kind of development 208 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 destroys property values. If you go onto Douglas Road, in the Douglas Park area, across the street from Coral Gables Hospital, the City allowed some years ago, many years ago the development of an office building right there on Douglas Road, and it's a high-rise office building. They built a wall immediately behind that office building, and there's a single-family house right behind it. The value of that single- family house has been relatively zero since the day that got built. And that kind of process creates the kind of cancer that we've all talked about in the neighborhoods that you simply can't allow. If you're going to have high-rise development, there has to be appropriate buffers. And if there aren't appropriate buffers, you're going to -- and in this particular case, when you bring this property literally up into the corner of this particular property, we just wrote that triangle of land off, period, and it will have no choice but to go high-rise development over some long period of time. So my view is this is an inappropriate use for that site, and I will not vote to close the road. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Gort: Hello, please, please. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Commissioner representing the area, let me just start by what we do here. And we're like judges. We listen to both sides; we listen to both arguments. Of course, we look at the legality of the project, itself I look at the project and I could find at least one concern that I have that gives me what I consider to be the right to deny it, and that is the road closure. Once again, we are elected by you to protect your assets, the public assets. And that road belongs to the public. This project becomes such a mammoth project if we allow for them to close that road. Then they fall under the right to build such a structure, because they fall under the laws of the zoning for the City of Miami. So that's the concern that I have, that I have to protect that road, because it belongs to you. Second of all, it's very simple. You're the ones that are being affected. You're the ones that are going to walk out of your house, and you're going to be living in a fish bowl, because the guy on the 25`h floor is going to see your back yard. And, of course, I don't want Linda's tomatoes to go bad, either. Linda, you said something about your tomatoes. But those are the concerns that I have when you see this. The other thing is, you know, I always make the argument that the City needs revenue. Yes, we do. We don't need it that bad, but the City needs revenue, because the biggest concern that we get is, hey, you know, my taxes are too high. And that's a concern that I always bring out. But based on the idea that I can't support it, it's a give-away of the land that belongs to us, the taxpayers in the City of Miami, and being that it's so close to the single-family residents, it's right bordered, I mean, it's a great concern that I have. This project is just too much of a mammoth project to be placed there. And in the long run -- you know, I have so much love for that neighborhood, which I live in -- I live in the Roads -- that in the long run, it's just not going to be good for that area. And I cannot be a part of anything that will deform what I consider to be one of the most -- prettiest neighborhoods in the City of Miami. So based on you being here, and the arguments based on both sides, whenever my colleagues are done I am prepared -- Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: -- to make a motion, and that motion is to deny the road closure. Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion to deny the road closure. Commissioner Winton: Second. 209 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004 Vice Chairman Gort: It's been -- a motion to deny and seconded. Any further discussion? Commissioner Regalado: Ca11 the roll. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you all something. When I first came and was elected, I was elected November of '93. My first year was in November 1994, and I think that's when I met you all with the Vizcatran. And you did a great job on that. You preserved a real good neighborhood, which needs to be maintained. Roll call. Every -- oh, there's no roll call. All in favor state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 00-1030 A MOTION TO DENY REQUEST FROM ARGENTINIAN CONST. GRP., LLC AND ESTATES OF ELVIRA POLLAK TO CLOSE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY AT S.W. l8TH ROAD BETWEEN S.W. 1sT AVENUE AND I-95 AND S.W. 2ND AVENUE BETWEEN EASTERLY SIDE OF PROPOSED PLAT OF MOLINARI PARK AND INTERSTATE I-95. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton None None 210 11/16/00 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ.4 ON 1-22-2004