Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2005-12-01 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.ci.miami.fl.us Meeting Minutes Thursday, December 1, 2005 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 Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Present: Vice Chairman Gonzalez, Commissioner Winton, Chairman Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Allen The minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting. "(Later.. j" refers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued. ORDER OF DAY A motion was made by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, and was unanimously, to recess this meeting at 10:06 a.m. in order to convene a meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of the Omni District and the Southeast Overtown/Park West District. Note for the Record: This meeting reconvened at 10:07 a.m. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone else? Commissioner Regalado: What's left? Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: That's Good. OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before we get into the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, we have one order -- Commissioner Allen: Of business. Chairman Sanchez: -- to take care of and that is, of course, the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), and that is just basically to change the date. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Chairman, I -- Chairman Sanchez: Oh, Commissioner -- Commissioner Allen: You're here. Commissioner Winton, you're here. Chairman Sanchez: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Commissioner Allen: Well, I was -- Commissioner Winton: Go ahead (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Allen: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton, at this time, I'll -- Commissioner Allen: You're here. Chairman Sanchez: -- pass the gavel to you, as the CRA -- Commissioner Allen: Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- Chairman. City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): And we'll let the record reflect that the City Commission meeting is recessing. Commissioner Allen: Oh, yes. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, yes. Commissioner Allen: 1 make a motion that we recess -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a -- Commissioner Allen: -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- motion to recess the City Commission meeting -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second Chairman Sanchez: -- PZ item meeting. There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say "aye. .11 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, and now we turn the gavel over to the CRA Chairman. [Later..] Chairman Sanchez: All right, so the City of Miami Commission meeting is back in order. All right. PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda starts now, so for the record, let me read something that we always do for planning and zoning. Any person who acts as a lobbyist, pursuant to City of Miami Ordinance 11469, must register with the City Clerk prior to engaging in lobbying activities before City staff, board, and committees, and the City Commission. Any person making slanderous remarks, or who become boisterous while addressing the Commission, shall be barred from further audience before the Commission. Anyone wishing to obtain a printed agenda can do so five days before the Commission at the City Clerk's Office. Any person who seeks to address the City Commission on any of the items today, all they need to do is just come up, state their name and address for the record, and check in with the City Clerk. Now, everyone who is here to testes on any of the PZ items, please stand up to be sworn in. Madam Clerk. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. PZ.1 05-01088 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, ENTITLED "SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENTAL FEE," BY MODIFYING PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI), INCLUDING CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN UPDATED FEE TABLE AND ADDING A CONSUMER PRICE INDEX; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01088 Legislation.PDF 05-01088 FR Fact Sheet 10-27-05.pdf 05-01088 FR Fact Sheet 11-03-05.pdf 05-01088 SR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-01088 SR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend the Miami City Code APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, City Manager FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will modify provisions related to the Southeast Overtown/Park West DRI, including clarification of certain definitions. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Allen 12745 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Time certain. We promised some time certains. PZ.1, which was CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) -- no. PZ 1 is a CRA item, and we're going to get them out of here as quickly as possible, so we could limit the hourly fee of the CRA -- that they're paying their consultants, so Mr. Rollason, always a pleasure to see you, sir. You want to get yours out of the way quick? You know, I'm always trying to save you money. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): (INAUDIBLE) taxpayers' money. Chairman Sanchez: That's right, and we are the true guardians of the taxpayers' money. Melissa Tapanes Llaues: Good morning, Chairman, Commission. My name is Melissa Tapanes Llaues, with the law firm of Bercow & Radell, offices located at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 850, Miami. We're here representing the City of Miami CRA, and this is second reading, so Lourdes -- Lourdes Slazyk: Yeah. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning Department. This is an amendment to Chapter 13 of the City Code in order to modify the Southeast Overtown/Park West DRI (Development of Regional Impact) fee schedule, and we've been working with the CRA and their consultants to develop this table, and it was passed on first reading already, and we recommend approval for second reading. Chairman Sanchez: All right. This is on second reading. It's an ordinance. We need -- All right. We need a motion and a second. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: There's an ordinance by Commissioner Winton -- Commissioner Regalado: Second Chairman Sanchez: -- second by Commissioner Regalado. Before we open it up for discussion, City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. It is a public hearing. Seeing no one, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission for further discussion. Hearing no discussion from the Commission, it's an ordinance on second reading. Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant 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 adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ 18, which was the Coconut Grove Playhouse, has been deferred, so we'll go to PZ.2. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- just one second. I see some residents of the neighborhood of 37th Avenue, 36th Avenue. I don't know if you're here for the restaurant, Leo. Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: You are? It's been deferred. It's been deferred to January, so you know and you don't have to be here. Commissioner Winton: What item is that? Commissioner Regalado: It's item -- let's see -- Commissioner Winton: 19? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.9 -- Commissioner Regalado: Oh, let me see. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: -- and PZ 10, 1 think. Chairman Sanchez: No, it's 13 and 14. Commissioner Regalado: 13 and 14. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: 13 and 14. Commissioner Regalado: PZ.13 and 14. The attorneys asked for a deferral to January -- Ms. Slazyk: January 26. Commissioner Regalado: -- January 26, so you don't have to wait here. City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Unidentified Speaker: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: You're welcome. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: Just for the record, the dates were January 26, and February will be the 23rd. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Could you let them know the date so they know? Sir. Commissioner Regalado: Twenty -- they already did. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, I -- Chairman Sanchez: They already know? Ms. Slazyk: -- just gave it to them. Chairman Sanchez: OK. PZ.2 05-01093 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 616 SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN PARK -WEST COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS RELATED TO GROUND FLOOR RETAIL USES IN THE SD-16 DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO EXEMPT GROUND FLOOR RETAIL USES FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS BY SPECIAL PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR CRITERIA, PROVIDING FOR AN APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01093 Legislation.PDF 05-01093 PAB Reso.pdf 05-01093 FR Fact Sheet 10-27-05.pdf 05-01093 FR Fact Sheet 11-03-05.pdf 05-01093 SR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-01093 SR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, City Manager FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 21, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will modify regulations related to ground floor retail uses in the SD-16 Southeast Overtown Park -West Commercial -Residential Districts. City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 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 12746 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go to PZ2. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ2 is a second reading ordinance. This is an amendment to the zoning ordinance related to SD-I6, which is the Southeast Overtown/Park West special districts, and this is in order to exempt ground floor retail uses from the FAR (floor/area ratio) requirements by special permit, and what this is is in order to encourage the use of the ground floor for retail and restaurant without penalizing the buildings - - it's not going to count against them for their FAR -- in order to try to create a real walkable community. It's been recommended for approval by PAB (Planning Advisory Board), and passed by this Commission first reading in October. Commissioner Winton: So move. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ 2 is an ordinance on second reading. There is a motion -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Before we open it up for discussion, it is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this Commission, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed for the record, coming back to the Commission for further discussion. Hearing no discussion on the item, Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record on second reading, followed by a roll call. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant 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.3 05-00221a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 8, SECTION 803, NCD-3 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT; IN ORDER TO MODIFY SECTION 803.6 AND RELATED SUBSECTIONS TO ADD AN INTENT STATEMENT FOR THE UNDERLYING C-1, SD-2 AND SD-13 DISTRICTS AND TO ADD PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM RETAIL SQUARE -FOOTAGE IN C-1 DISTRICTS WITHIN NCD-3; ALLOWING LARGE SCALE RETAILING AS DEFINED HEREIN BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION ONLY; ESTABLISHING APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR SAID USE, INCLUDING CERTAIN SITE REQUIREMENTS, PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS; AND PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF "LARGE SCALE RETAILING"; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00221a Legislation.pdf 05-00221a Map.pdf 05-00221a PAB Reso.pdf 05-00221a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00221a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00221a SR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf 05-00221a Submittal.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, City Manager FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 6, 2005 by a vote of 5-0. PURPOSE: This will modify sub -sections in the NCD-3 Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen 12747 Chairman Sanchez: All right, so we'll go to PZ.3. PZ 3, the attorney was here. Where is -- ? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): For the record, PZ 3 is a second reading ordinance amending NCD-3, allowing -- with limitations for large-scale retailing, and this was passed on first reading in September. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: So move. Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Ben Fernandez: Good morning. I have something to say on that. Commissioners, Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. We'd like to just reiterate some of our concerns that we expressed on first reading. We're not opposed to this ordinance. However, we believe that it should have the effect of guiding future development. It shouldn't have the effect of prohibiting existing buildings and development that has been previously permitted from being redeveloped in the event of an act of God or a natural disaster. The purpose of this ordinance is to guide future development, and we're in agreement with that entirely. However, it doesn't make sense to prohibit a recently permitted structure or an existing structure that happens to be inconsistent with this particular provision from being rebuilt in the event a very likely potentially act of God, given our current climatic situation in this city, and so we would simply like to proffer a friendly amendment to the ordinance that would essentially grandfather previously permitted development, and I've provided the City Attorney's Office with a copy of the amendment. I could read it for the record 1 could hand it out to you all, as well, but what it basically does is protect previously submitted and completed applications that have received final site plan approval through Major Use Special Permit, Class II Special Permit, or had submitted complete City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 applications for building permit prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and it would provide further that building permits to rebuild these types of uses would have to be obtained within one year from the disaster date, which is a reasonable period of time, and that's all we'd like to say. Otherwise, we're in support of this ordinance. Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: Ben, could you provide a copy to the City Clerk, and also provide the Commission a copy? All right, Tucker. Always a pleasure to see you. Tucker Gibbs: I'm going to be very brief and just reiterate our -- Chairman Sanchez: That is rare. Mr. Gibbs: I know. I'm going to try to go for a record here. We support the City's position, the City's ordinance. We think it's fine the way it's written. We reiterate our positions as presented at the last several meetings of the Commission and the Planning Advisory Board Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. I thought we would have more participants here today on this item, but -- Unidentified Speaker: Pm here. I'm just not speaking. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, but you don't want to speak? Unidentified Speaker: No, no reason. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right. That shows that, you know, when we work together, we could accomplish a lot of things. All right. The public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. We don't have a motion or a second. Could we have a motion and a second for the purpose of discussion? Commissioner Winton: I would move the item as presented by staff, without any modifications. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion by Commissioner Winton to accept the ordinance as proffered to this legislative body. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: I'll second. Chairman Sanchez: There is a second, for the record, by Commissioner Regalado. The item is under discussion. Who wishes to discuss this item? No discussion? All right. Commissioner Winton: It's been said a hundred times. Chairman Sanchez: It's no discussion. It's an ordinance. Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record, second reading. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you. PZ.4 05-00296a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTION 627 MIDTOWN MIAMI SPECIAL DISTRICT, MORE PARTICULARLY THE SD-27.1 MIDTOWN MIAMI EAST SPECIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 627.1.6 IN ORDER TO MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO UPPER LEVEL BALCONY ENCROACHMENTS INTO SETBACK AND BUILD -TO AREAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00296a Legislation.pdf 05-00296a Attachment to Analysis.pdf 05-00296a PAB Reso.pdf 05-00296a FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00296a FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, City Manager FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 12, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will modify provisions related to upper level balcony encoachments into setback and build -to areas within the Midtown Miami East Special District. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: We move on to PZ 4. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 4 is an amendment to the SD-27 Midtown Miami East Special District. This is to correct a scrivener's error regarding the extension of balconies, the allowable extension over setbacks from three feet to seven feet. The last amendment we did, this was intended to be in there, and because it wasn't shown as stricken language to change the three from seven, we have to do an ordinance to clean it up, so it's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and by the Planning Department. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ. 4 is an ordinance on first reading. Let's have a motion and a second. Commissioner Winton: So moved. City of Miami Page l 0 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Before we open it up for discussion, it is a public hearing ordinance on first reading. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, for the record, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. Hearing no further discussion from the Commission, Madam Attorney, read the ordinance. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant 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. PZ.5 05-01222 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION 917.14 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY MODIFYING REGULATIONS RELATED TO PARKING LIFTS IN ORDER TO AMEND THE TITLE OF THE SECTION FROM "PARKING LIFTS" TO "AUTOMATED PARKING"; ADDING PROVISIONS FOR ROBOTIC AND OTHER MECHANICAL MECHANISMS TO PROVIDE PARKING BY SPECIAL PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR CRITERIA, PROVIDING FOR AN APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01222 Legislation.pdf 05-01222 PAB Reso.pdf 05-01222 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-01222 FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, City Manager FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 12, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will amend the title of Section 917.14 from "Parking Lifts" to "Automated Parking", and add certain provisions for robotic and other mechanical mechanisms. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to modem the proposed ordinance to exclude the entire section of the ordinance related to 24-hour attendants in the parking facility. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ. 5 is also an ordinance on first reading. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 5 is an ordinance amending the parking section of the Code to allow automated parking to be used as required parking, with require -- with criteria that they have to have a mandatory valet operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's for robotic and mechanical systems. We hope that this will reduce the sizes of some of the parking pedestals when they're used, and we're introducing it with the requirement of having an operator actually move the vehicles until people learn how to move their own vehicles in these sorts of operations, which 1 understand in other parts of the world, you know, they're in place and they're working, but this is the way we want to introduce it. We already have parking lifts in the ordinance, so this just extends it to other forms of mechanical parking. It's been recommended for approval by the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), and approval by the Planning Department. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's have a motion and a second Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move PZ5. Commissioner Winton: Second for discussion. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion, for the record, by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Winton, but Commissioner Winton, before we open it up for discussion -- it is an ordinance on first reading -- let's listen to the public. 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 on PZ 5, coming back to the Commission. Commissioner Winton, you're recognized for the purpose of discussion. Commissioner Winton: 1 think I'm thrilled to see this ordinance coming forward. I think it's the right move. I'm concerned about government interference again. We always are -- to/ to figure out ways we stick our nose into people's business, and here we are, we've got a system that seems to work all -- in many other parts of the world. They're not required to have 24-hour valet service. They're not required to have a babysitter to park their car, but the City of Miami's decided we're going to have a babysitter there to change the diaper when we're putting the car in the lift -- Ms. Slazyk: It depends -- Commissioner Winton: -- so I'm -- Ms. Slazyk: -- what kind of system it is because if two people who don't share the same unit are using the same lift, then you're dependent on somebody else to move a car for you to be able to get your own car out. Commissioner Winton.: And isn't that the liability associated with the building owner, and not government's problem? Ms. Slazyk: Well, I think that if there are problems in its operation, it could affect the surrounding area because cars will be queuing back up into the street, and I think that if -- once it's up and running, if it works, it could always be amended to remove this provision, but this is City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 one of those -- Commissioner Winton: Pm going to withdraw -- Ms. Slazyk: -- better be safe than sorry. Commissioner Winton: -- my second -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: -- and -- Commissioner Allen: Well, I have a quick question. I -- Commissioner Winton: I'm -- well, I'm just telling you, I'm withdrawing my second. I heard the answer, so -- Chairman Sanchez: But, Commissioner Winton, before you withdraw your second, with all intention and all right that you have, I believe there -- they want to have more discussion on the item. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, I -- but I'm going to withdraw my second. I'm prepared to -- when the discussion's finished -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Winton: -- make an alternate -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: -- motion. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado and then Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Sure. Commissioner Regalado: Just to add, if you go to Tokyo, that's the only way that they use for parking, but they do not have any babysitter or any employees handling the cars. It's -- you know, it's their business that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- for instance, you cannot ask a building to have 24-hour service if the building only works until 5 p.m., because -- well, suppose that somebody wants to work late on the building in Brickell, and -- so they have to have employees for this person that wants to work late? I think it's -- you know, this is parallel. Somebody called my office and said that they wanted to build a pool, and they called somebody and said, where do you live? They said, oh, no. In the City of Miami, we don't build pools because we don't want all these regulations and situation. I mean, what we're doing here is we're interfering with private business at the highest level, because how can we force 24-hour service probably if the building doesn't work 24-hour service? I mean, to me, it doesn't make sense. If you want to say that they -- for the first 30 days, that the people need to be trained, well, that's -- but, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because someone new will park there in that building, so I agree with Commissioner Winton, and you know, this is a good thing because it saves a lot of space. I've seen it work. In New York, you've seen it, but in Tokyo, if you've seen it, everything is automated. City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. I think the concern was because it's a new thing here in Miami and people won't know when they pull into their garage. Remember, this is their required parking. This isn't excess spaces; it's required parking, and if you're a user of a building, or you're a visitor and you've never used this automated system, how do you know where to put your car and how to use it and how to operate it, and our concern is that it's going to make it more difficult for some people. Until they get used to it, until they learn how to do it, that there should be some operational assistance. Commissioner Winton: Let's see, I've got a new visitor, so I got a visitor that just came from Kansas. He barely knows how to get in a parking structure anyhow, never mind elevated, so -- but that happens two years from now. You haven't stopped the same thing, and on that particular night, there's three visitors from Kansas. You know, I just -- I think that this is a private matter. They will pay the penalty if they can't get people in and out of their building. Whether it's a residential building or a commercial building, they will pay their own penalty for being stupid about it, and I think government needs to stay out of the business of trying to make people smarter. Commissioner Allen: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a question. This is somewhat problematic, and just to share what Commissioner Winton is saying, I guess, can it be justified as being a health/safety welfare issue from the government's perspective as to why we would need this? Commissioner Winton: Well, if you stretched it far enough, I'm sure you could. Commissioner Allen: I mean, could you make a poignant argument, if you could, Lourdes? Ms. Slazyk: Well, I don't -- I have to say I don't think I know enough about how it works operationally to know whether it would fall into health/safety welfare. It was more a matter of will the parking really be used and really be efficient, or will people be looking to park on the street if they can't get in and out of these things, and how to really make sure that they're used properly. That was the intent of that part of the ordinance. Commissioner Allen: I see. All right. Commissioner Winton: Could -- I'd like to give you an interesting analogy. Wachovia financial tower downtown, if you've been in their parking garage, you know you go in that tight spire. When they first built that parking garage, if you go in that parking garage today, you will see big numbers on the wall that says one -quarter, one-half, three-quarter, because when it first got built, people got on those spires and they stopped. They couldn't figure out where they are -- were; didn't know if they needed to go further. 1 don't know why they got confused, but they stopped. They got out of their car and walked down to the bottom. Now, I'm sure there were some people parking on the street, but we didn't say, geez, you guys need to have a 24-hour attendant sitting there in your -- in the entrance to your parking garage to make sure that you can deal with these people that can't figure out up from down. I don't know what the deal is, but they finally figured it out. They painted numbers on the wall so people knew where they were relative to the beginning and the end, and the same thing's going to happen with this. If there's problems, the private sector's going to figure out what they need to do to make the product work. Commissioner Allen: So, what you're asking for this will be mandatory, as opposed to optional, the way it's drafted? Ms. Slazyk: Right, so 1 guess the -- well, Commissioner Winton hasn't proposed his amendment yet, but it would go to the second half of the ordinance that talks about the requirements to remove that requirement, which is Section 917.14.1, subsection 3, the requirement that it provide a mandatory valet service required to be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Allen: Well, one upside to it is that it'll create jobs, I guess. I don't know if that's enough of a justification, but -- well, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Are you prepared to withdraw your second? Commissioner Winton: I already withdrew my second, so -- OK, I'll re -withdraw my second. Chairman Sanchez: Withdraw it now because if you withdrew it -- Commissioner Winton: OK, yes, I'm withdrawing my -- Chairman Sanchez: -- then there is no discussion. Commissioner Winton: -- second -- Chairman Sanchez: OK -- Commissioner Winton: -- sir. Chairman Sanchez: -- so there is -- there's no second on this ordinance on first reading. It is on first reading. What my suggestion, as the Chair, is that we find a way to bring it back -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm going to make a mo -- I'm going to make another motion. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, you are? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, OK. Commissioner Winton: No, no. We don't -- I'm going to move that we pass this ordinance on first reading with -- excluding -- by excluding the entire section on attendant and 24-hour attendant on the facility. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I'll second that. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. -- Chairman Sanchez: -- to delete the portion of the 24 hours and attendant to provide assistance in these parking facilities -- not parking facilities, but -- Commissioner Winton: Mechanical park -- Chairman Sanchez: -- the robotic -- Commissioner Winton: -- yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- automatic lift parking spaces. All right. The item is -- City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: -- under discussion. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Commissioner Regalado: But don't we already approve mechanical parking? Ms. Slazyk: We have -- Commissioner Regalado: So, the only thing new is the requirement that Commissioner Winton is withdrawing. Ms. Slazyk: The difference is that today's ordinance does not allow you to do all 100 percent of your required parking in an automated fashion. This ordinance will allow all of your required parking to be provided in this mechanism, and the amendment suggested by Commissioner Winton is to exclude the 24-hour attendant. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: The attendant -- Chairman Sanchez: Discussion on the item? If not, I will -- as the Chair, automated parking, robotic, whatever you're going to call it, it is the future of this city, as it is the future of many great cities throughout the world. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: It is a very complicated process. I've been to New York To park in those facilities, you couldn't drive in there yourself, very expensive, too, but I could see the argument made here that government should not have a say in the private business, as pertaining to this industry, which is a very lucrative and expensive industry, parking. Heads up is, in the future, expect to pay more for your parking in these types of facilities. All right. Having said that, it's an ordinance on first reading. It's been modified. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I need a vote on the motion for the modification, please. Commissioner Allen: I'll second Chairman Sanchez: All right. Well -- Ms. Thompson: The vote. Commissioner Allen: Wait. Oh, the vote. I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: The vote for the modification? Ms. Thompson: Yes. Unidentified Speaker: You didn't have a -- Chairman Sanchez: There was a motion made by Commissioner Winton, second by Commissioner Gonzalez on the modification. Ms. Thompson: Right. Chairman Sanchez: Now, we're going to vote on it. City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Thompson: Because he made a motion to modem. When you make the motion to modem your original motion on your ordinance -- Commissioner Winton: No. I made a motion to approve with the exception of the paragraph. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, because you withdrew your second, so -- Chairman Sanchez: He withdrew his second. It dies -- Ms. Slazyk: -- the first motion went away, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- Madam Clerk, so now he's got a new motion on the table. There's a first and a second; it's been discussed so far. Commissioner Regalado: It's the same. Chairman Sanchez: We're OK. Commissioner Regalado: It's the same. Chairman Sanchez: Of course, I don't want to disagree with you. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Only because there was an introduction of another motion, not saying that we were mod0,ing the -- I know he withdrew the second. Chairman Sanchez: Right -- Ms. Thompson: I understand that. Chairman Sanchez: -- so it dies. There's nothing on the table. Ms. Thompson: That's correct, but then when he made the motion, it was to make that amendment. Under the rules, when you make an amendment to an existing motion that was out there, OK, or this thing that's there, you need to approve that one first, and then go on with your next one. Chairman Sanchez: You know, you get technical and technical as we -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: -- go along. Commissioner Allen: That's the Mason rules, huh? Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. All right. Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't think we've ever done that before, but -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Just make the motion. Ms. Thompson: He did; I just need a vote. Chairman Sanchez: A vote, OK. City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: I know, but we've never done this before. I've been here for six years, and we've modified ordinances from the floor a million times and never voted on the change before we voted on the ordinance. Chairman Sanchez: Well, Johnny -- Commissioner Winton: That's all I'm saying. Chairman Sanchez: -- rule number one in Mason's book is you don't argue with the City Clerk. Commissioner Winton: 1 know, but -- Commissioner Allen: That's correct. Commissioner Winton: --1 don't -- I'm trying not to get the meetings to be longer. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: We're here -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion -- Commissioner Winton: -- long enough as it is. Chairman Sanchez: -- and a second. It is an ordinance. It -- all in -- I mean, it's a motion to amend it, so all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, and now we have to vote on the ordinance, as amended. All right. Make a motion as to the ordinance, as amended, Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: So moved by Commissioner Winton -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is an ordinance. Before we discuss it, anyone from the public wishing to address this item, as amended? Hearing none, seeing none, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. No further discussion. Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. 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, as amended -- Chairman Sanchez: As amended -- Ms. Thompson: -- 5/0. City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: -- so it'll come back to second reading. PZ.6 05-01224 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, IN ORDER TO ADD NEW PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE STATION USES WITHIN SUCH ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR SUCH USES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01224 Legislation.PDF 05-01224 PAB Reso.pdf 05-01224 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-01224 FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, City Manager FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 12, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will add new parking requirements for fire station uses within certain zoning districts. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.6. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.6 is an amendment in order to modem the parking requirements for fire station uses in the office and C-1 districts, from 1 to 300 to 1 to 600. A fire station does not operate the same as a retail establishment, where there's lots of coming and going, so the parking requirements should be modified. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and the Planning Department. Chairman Sanchez: All right. This is an ordinance on first reading. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion by Commissioner Winton. Need a second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Before we open it up for discussion, it's an ordinance on first reading, requiring public input. 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. No further discussion on the ordinance. City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Madam Attorney, read the ordinance for the record. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant 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. PZ.7 04-01438 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 244 AND 252 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. 04-01438 Legislation.PDF 04-01438 Exhibit A.PDF 04-01438 Analysis.PDF 04-01438 Land Use Map.pdf 04-01438 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01438 PAB Reso.PDF 04-01438 Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 04-01438 FR Fact Sheet 02-24-05.pdf 04-01438 FR Fact Sheet 04-28-05.pdf 04-01438 FR Fact Sheet 06-23-05.pdf 04-01438-Submittal . p df 04-01438 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 04-01438 FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.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 244 and 252 SW 6th Street APPLICANT(S): Neo Holdings, Inc.; Legacy Asset Holders, Inc.; Tavmar Investments, LC; Mahlberg Investment Holdings, Inc. and Ibiza Properties, Owners APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 1, 2004 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File ID City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 04-01438a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.7 is a land use change. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.7 and 8 are companion land use and zoning change for the property at 244 and 252 Southwest 6th Street. The land use change request is from industrial to restricted commercial, and the zoning change request is from C-1 to SD-7. The Planning Department had recommended denial on the application. It had been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and the Zoning Board also recommended approval. Our denial had to do with the fact that the SD-7, the companion zoning change request, was a very high FAR (floor/area ratio), and within this district, it would have been a little bit too high for the West Brickell area. 1 believe that the applicant is going to proffer a covenant with the companion zoning change to reduce that FAR to a number that's much smaller, so I'll let the -- but our recommendation is -- still stands for denial, and this was continued from City Commission meetings February, April, and June. Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ. 7 is an ordinance on first reading. The applicant ready? Adrienne Pardo: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Counsel, state your name and address. Ms. Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the property owner of the subject property. As Ms. Slazyk had stated, we're requesting a rezoning and a comp. plan amendment from C-1 and industrial to SD-7. We had -- we've gone before the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, and they've both recommended approval. We think that this is a change that's needed for the area. If you've been down this street, particularly, Southwest 6th Street, it dead -ends where the tinder is at the bridge. It's between Southwest 2nd and Southwest 3rd. It's not a very viable street. Nothing has happened on this street for quite a long time, and we believe that this amendment will really improve the area. There was an amendment last year directly across the street. That was the diagram I gave you so that you could see the surrounding area. This is the property here with the X's; right across the street is SD-7, and then directly on the other side of 2nd, it was rezoned to SD-7, and this is where you actually have Neo Vertika and Latitude that are building -- that are being built, and I believe it was because of these amendments to the SD-7 that really spurred development and got these properties moving. There was also a Class II that's been approved directly across the street called Reflections on the River, and I have a board here, and we'll -- Javier will show it to you closer. Here's a picture of Reflections on the River. This will be directly across the street. This has -- the SD-7 has an 8.0 FAR, but when we met with staff to find out what exactly were their concerns with regards to recommending approval, staff had said we believe the FAR is just way too high on the SD-7, so we had discussed a 4.25, and I did submit a covenant to staff and 1 submitted it to the City Attorney's Office -- I have another copy here -- which limits it to a 4.25 maximum, and that does not allow bonuses, just so you know, in addition to that. The SD-7 has the 8.0, and you can get some of the bonuses, but this doesn't allow any bonuses, and the only addition in density that you have here is normally -- just so you're familiar, normally, the SD-7 allows 500 units an acre. Actually, the SD-5 along Brickell Avenue allows 500 units an acre and so does the majority of the SD-7 district, but this particular area within the SD-7 district does not allow 500 units an acre. It's only at 200 units an acre. We're currently -- they're at 150 units an acre, so you don't have a huge increase. The total City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 increase in units would only be 61; it's not a huge increase. We also had met with an architect, and we asked him to take the parameters and design a building with regards to what could be built there with regards to having retail on the ground floor because this is what the owner's envisioning, to have retail on the ground floor with residential above it; obviously, having the garages lined because that's essentially a requirement, and we also -- a big improvement with the SD-7, why it is very beneficial for this particular property is right now you have the C-1 and the industrial zoning. Those don't require any approval. Somebody could come right in, build whatever they want, as long as it meets Code, and as long as they're not exceeding a threshold of a Major Use Special Permit, such as 200 units an acre, but if they were building less than that, such as that storage facility, which is right on the corner there that I think everybody's familiar with -- and when it was built, a lot of people were upset over the design of that building. It has a C-1 that does not require any Class II, which is what the property has now, a portion of it, and I think, you know, had it had something else, you would have had your staffs input, and it probably would not have looked like that. The only new development on the street actually is a adult entertainment facility, which is right next door, and we believe that rezoning it to the SD-7 is going to bring in development that you want in this area. This street is not industrial anymore, it's not. You have a new Publix in that neighborhood right down the block, adjacent to 3rd, so there's a new Publix. You have all of that. You have a car wash right on 7th. You have restaurants. There are drug stores. I mean, it's just really -- it's really right for that type of development, and we feel, with the covenant, that it would lower the FAR, and so we're requesting your approval on this. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Pardo: We've had no opposition, just so you know. Chairman Sanchez: All -- Ms. Pardo: Oh, I forgot -- very importantly. I have five letters of support, which I'll put into the record, from adjacent business owners that believe that this would enhance the neighborhood. I have copies, if youV also -- Commissioner Winton: And increase the value of their property. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Pardo: Do you want cop -- do you want to see copies, as well, of the letters? Commissioner Winton: No. Ms. Pardo: I have extra -- Chairman Sanchez: Just please present them to the City Clerk. Ms. Pardo: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Chairman Sanchez: Are you done? Ms. Pardo: Yes, just maybe if you bring up something new, if I could just have the opportunity to be able to address it, if I haven't already. City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. All right. This is an ordinance on first reading. Let's -- Is there anyone in opposition to this item? She stated no, but you never do know. All right. There is no one here. The public meeting is open; public hearing is open. No one from the public -- is there anyone from the public wishing to address this item? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. We need a motion and a second for the purpose of discussion. Commissioner Allen: I'll make a motion. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion. Is there a second -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Winton: What's your motion? Chairman Sanchez: -- for the purpose of discussion? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Winton: What's your motion? Commissioner Allen: Well, actually, the motion -- well, that's a good point -- Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Allen: -- Commissioner Winton. Sometimes we do these things so perfunctory. Ms. Slazyk: Well -- Commissioner Allen: Let me make a suggestion. I'll make a motion for discussion purposes relative to -- Chairman Sanchez: To approve or deny? Commissioner Allen: Well, to support the -- Chairman Sanchez: The staff. Commissioner Allen: -- Planning Department's denying. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, no. 1-- Commissioner Winton: I'll second. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Now, Johnny seconds it. All right, Commissioner. There's a motion to accept the staffs recommendation. The motion is made by Commissioner Allen, second by Commissioner Winton. The item is under discussion. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Commissioner Allen: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No, no. City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Oh, OK. Commissioner Allen: Just a quick observation. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Right. You said earlier, Madam Lourdes, that if, in fact, a covenant is presented that will reduce the FAR, then that's suitable -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. We have -- we'd -- Commissioner Allen: -- so -- Ms. Slazyk: -- with the -- if the covenant is accepted with the companion zoning change, which is PZ.8, then we have no further objections because the Class II is a desirable thing, and the SD-7 would ensure that. It was the large, out of context FAR that we had concerns with. Commissioner Allen: OK, having said that, barring any other further comment from any other Commissioner, I'd like to proffer a motion, if I could. Chairman Sanchez: You already have -- Commissioner Winton: Well -- Chairman Sanchez: -- you have a motion on the table already -- Commissioner Allen: Right, but in a -- Chairman Sanchez: -- to accept the staffs recommendation. Commissioner Winton: You need a modification. Commissioner Allen: -- yeah, but what I'd like to do is do a modification -- Commissioner Winton: Modify. Commissioner Allen: -- to that. Chairman Sanchez: You want to amend it. Commissioner Allen: Amend that particular -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: -- motion, yes. Chairman Sanchez: State it for the record, and then we need a motion and a second. Commissioner Allen: OK, yes, I'd like to amend the current motion on the floor, excluding, if you will -- no, 1 should -- not excluding, but adding the covenant by the proffer by the applicant. Ms. Slazyk: The covenant would be attached to the next item, which is PZ 8. PZ.7 is just a land use change. Commissioner Allen: Oh, yes, that's right. City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: You're going from -- Commissioner Allen: That's the land use. Ms. Slazyk: -- industrial to restricted commercial, no covenants, and that one we don't have a problem with. It's the second one where the zoning change was being requested for SD-7 that you would attach the covenant. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: So, actually, you don't have a problem with PZ 7. Ms. Slazyk: No. Commissioner Allen: 7, right, so actually, the issue is the -- PZ.8. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, exactly. Chairman Sanchez: The problem here is the SD-7. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: The reason we had to recommend denial on the change from industrial to restricted commercial was because the underlying zoning doesn't allow residential, and if we change the land use to restricted commercial without changing the zoning, you'd have an incompatible land use and zoning -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- but the real issue was always the zoning. Commissioner Allen: Well, could 1 make a suggestion? Based on the colloquy, could staff proffer to the Commission that, pursuant to the proffer of the covenant, that you will now withdraw your denial and recommend, and that way we could couch it in a proper motion? Ms. Slazyk: Right. Well -- Commissioner Winton: No. Ms. Slazyk: -- the way we -- the recommendation is that, with the -- if the City Commission were to so accept the proffered covenant -- 'cause staff can't accept the covenant -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- only you can -- Commissioner Allen: Precisely. Ms. Slazyk: -- so our recommendation is, if you were to accept that covenant on the companion item of PZ 8, we have no further objections on the application. Commissioner Allen: OK, so I make a motion that the Commission accepts -- Chairman Sanchez: There's a -- City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen, you have a motion already on the table. Ms. Slazyk: You have to withdraw. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I'm sorry, right. Chairman Sanchez: You have a motion already -- Commissioner Winton: 1 would -- Commissioner Allen: I -- Commissioner Winton: I will withdraw my -- Commissioner Allen: Respectfully, I'd like to amend the motion -- Commissioner Winton: I will with -- hold on. Let me withdraw my second -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah, go ahead. Chairman Sanchez: So, there's -- Commissioner Winton: -- so you can withdraw your first. Chairman Sanchez: -- nothing on the table now. Commissioner Winton: You can make a new motion. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, having -- Commissioner Winton just withdrew his particular -- it's your motion or your second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me. Before we continue, because maybe we have to come back again, Madam City Clerk, do we have -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I'm -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- to vote on -- Commissioner Allen: -- confused now. Commissioner Winton: I'm withdrawing my second -- Chairman Sanchez: No. Commissioner Winton: -- to the motion -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- withdrawing the second? Commissioner Allen: OK. Commissioner Winton: -- so there is no motion -- City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We do have to? Commissioner Winton: -- on the table. Chairman Sanchez: No, we do not. If he withdraws his second, there is no vote -- Commissioner Allen: There's no motion. Ms. Slazyk: So, now you need a new motion. Chairman Sanchez: -- so -- Commissioner Allen: I can proffer a new motion now at this point. Chairman Sanchez: There is nothing on the floor right now. Listen to your Chair, please. Commissioner Allen: Correct. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Allen: OK, so at this point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to proffer a new motion. That motion will couch the adoption of the covenant, as proffered by the applicant. Ms. Slazyk: I don't think you need to do that. Commissioner Winton: We can't. Ms. Slazyk: For PZ 7, it's just approval or denial. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: There's no -- Commissioner Allen: Oh, OK, then. Ms. Slazyk: It's 8 that you're going to accept the covenant -- Commissioner Allen: OK, fine, fine, so -- Ms. Slazyk: -- 7 is just approval. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's nothing on the floor, folks. Commissioner Allen: There's nothing on the floor. Commissioner Winton: Move to accept staff -- move to accept the zoning -- the -- Commissioner Allen: Wait, because -- Ms. Slazyk: Planning Advisory Board -- Commissioner Winton: Planning Advisory Board -- City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: -- did recommend -- Chairman Sanchez: Planning Advisory Board recommendation. Commissioner Winton: -- recommendation on -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah -- Commissioner Winton: -- PZ 7. Commissioner Allen: -- that's what we could do -- we have to do. We have to accept that -- Chairman Sanchez: Oh, my -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. Commissioner Allen: -- as opposed to the Planning Department. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: I've made that motion. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton. Is there a second to accept the - Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- staffs recommendation? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. The item is under discussion. Ms. Pardo: To deny. Chairman Sanchez: Hearing no discussion, the public hearing was opened and closed. It is an ordinance on first reading. Madam Clerk, read -- I mean -- I'm sorry. Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. Mario 1 Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): In response to the motion to approve the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Chairman Sanchez: Very well, Madam Attorney. Roll call, City Clerk. 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, 5/0. City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: All right. I just have a question on this item. Do they have a plan? Have they presented a plan? Ms. Slazyk: They have not come in yet with the plan for the property. They will have to. This is the part -- Chairman Sanchez: No, no, but whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Ms. Slazyk: -- about the SD-7. Chairman Sanchez: Let me ask you -- that's why I'm asking. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Have they presented a plan to you? Ms. Slazyk: 1 have not seen a plan yet. Chairman Sanchez: Then -- Ms. Pardo: Well, we can't. Ms. Slazyk: The SD-7 is when they'll have to bring it in. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk.' Yeah. PZ.8 04-01438a ORDINANCE 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 "I" INDUSTRIAL AND "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO "SD-7" CENTRAL BRICKELL RAPID TRANSIT COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 244 AND 252 SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET; 219, 233, 243, 253 AND 257-259 SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. First Reading City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 04-01438a Legislation.PDF 04-01438a Exhibit A.PDF 04-01438a Analysis.PDF 04-01438a Zoning Map.pdf 04-01438a Aerial Map.pdf 04-01438a ZB Reso.PDF 04-01438a Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 04-01438a FR Fact Sheet 02-24-05.pdf 04-01438a FR Fact Sheet 04-28-05.pdf 04-01438a FR Fact Sheet 06-23-05.pdf 04-01438a FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 04-01438a FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf 04-01438a Submittal.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from I Industrial and C-1 Restricted Commercial to SD-7 Central Brickell Rapid Transit Commercial -Residential District to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 244 and 252 SW 6th Street; 219, 233, 243, 253 and 257-259 SW 7th Street APPLICANT(S): Neo Holdings, Inc.; Legacy Asset Holders, Inc.; Tavmar Investments, LC; Mahlberg Investment Holdings, Inc. and Ibiza Properties, Owners APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 10, 2005 by a vote of 7-2. See companion File ID 04-01438. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to SD-7 Central Brickell Rapid Transit Commercial -Residential District. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Allen Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.8. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ8 -- Chairman Sanchez: PZ.8 is an ordinance on first reading. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Sanchez: It's a companion item. What do you want to do? Adrienne Pardo: OK, we have the covenant, which I will give to the City Clerk, and we'll also work with the Law Department to make sure that they're comfortable with it prior to second reading. We would give them a final -- actually, I have an executed version, but I don't have a City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 copy of it, so I would have a fully executed version at second reading. We -- my client had hired an architect -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. No, no, no. Listen, just -- if you could present that -- and it's going to come back to us on second reading -- Ms. Pardo: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- we'll address that in second reading. Do you feel comfortable -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes -- Chairman Sanchez: -- with that? Ms. Slazyk: -- with -- if the Commission accepts the covenant, then yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: I would move PZ8 -- Chairman Sanchez: With the covenant. Commissioner Winton: -- with acceptance of the covenant that ultimately will be approved by staff and -- Ms. Slazyk: The Law Department. Commissioner Winton: -- by the Law Department. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second Chairman Sanchez: -- motion by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. It is an ordinance on first reading. Before we open it up for discussion, is there 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. Any discussion on this item? If not, as proffered, Madam Attorney, read the ordinance on first reading for the record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant 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, 4/0. Ms. Pardo: Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: All right. OK. We -- PZ.9 and 10 have been deferred for six months. Ms. Slazyk: Right. PZ.9 05-00079 ORDINANCE First Reading City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 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 2200 SOUTHWEST 21ST TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL' TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00079 Legislation.PDF 05-00079 & 05-00079a Exhibit A.PDF 05-00079 Analysis.PDF 05-00079 Land Use Map.pdf 05-00079 & 05-00079a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00079 School Board Comments.PDF 05-00079 PAB Reso.PDF 05-00079 Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 05-00079 FR Fact Sheet 04-28-05.pdf 05-00079 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00079 FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544 from "Single Family Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 2200 SW 21st Terrace APPLICANT(S): Carlos R. Caso, Owner APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on January 19, 2005 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 05-00079a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial. DEFERRED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Winton absent, to defer Item PZ.9 for 6 months. Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right. That takes care of both of those items. Now, before we go to PZ (Planning & Zoning) items that were scheduled and properly advertised for 10, are there any PZ items that will be requested to be deferred? Joe Arriola (City Manager): PZ.9 and 10, and PZ 13 and 14. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Hold on, hold on. Hold on, because I just want to defer the PZ items, then we have to get into the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), because all we City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 have to do is just change the dates for the CRA, but let me just get the PZ items that are going to be deferred. Could someone please step up to the mike and state your items to be deferred for the record? Name, address, and your item to be deferred. Ines Marrero: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Ines Marrero, attorney with offices at 701 Brickell Avenue. 1 am here on behalf of the applicants for PZ.9 and PZ 10. These are -- it's a rezoning of one single-family lot. We have been talking to the neighbors. We have requested a previous continuance, and we would like to defer this item, if possible, for another six months. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: I move the deferral. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Allen: I second. Chairman Sanchez: Second both by Commissioner Allen and Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Any further discussion on the item? If not, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." The item has been deferred for six months. Ms. Marrero: Thank you. Happy holidays. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Happy holidays to you. PZ.10 05-00079a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 39, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2200 SOUTHWEST 21ST TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00079a Legislation.PDF 05-00079 & 05-00079a Exhibit A.PDF 05-00079a Analysis.PDF 05-00079a Zoning Map.pdf 05-00079 & 05-00079a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00079a ZB Reso.PDF 05-00079a Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 05-00079a FR Fact Sheet 04-28-05.pdf 05-00079a FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00079a FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-1 Single -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 2200 SW 21 st Terrace APPLICANT(S): Carlos R. Caso, Owner APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on February 28, 2005 by a vote of 4-4. See companion File ID 05-00079. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District. DEFERRED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Winton absent, to defer Item PZ.10 for 6 months. [The minutes of PZ.10 are located under PZ 9.] PZ.11 05-00517 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), 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 2460 SOUTHWEST 16TH COURT AND A PORTION OF 2465 SOUTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "OFFICE" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00517 Legislation.pdf 05-00517 & 05-00517a Exhibit A.pdf 05-00517 Analysis.pdf 05-00517 Land Use Map.pdf 05-00517 & 05-00517a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00517 School Impact Analysis.pdf 05-00517 PAB Reso.pdf 05-00517 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00517 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00517 FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf 05-00517 Submittal-1.pdf 05-00517 Submittal-2.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Office" to "Restricted City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 2460 SW 16th Court and a Portion of 2465 SW 17th Avenue APPLICANT(S): Richard Fonseca and Fonseca & Associates, Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Melissa Tapanes Llahues, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor to City Commission on May 18, 2005 by a vote of 2-3. See companion File ID 05-00517a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Chairman Sanchez, 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: PZ.11. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 11 and 12 are companion items for a change of land use and zoning. PZ.11 is the land use change. The request is from office to restricted commercial, and PZ 12 is the zoning change from 0 to C-1. The Department has recommended approval on both of these items. The Planning Advisory Board's recommendation resulted in a denial because they failed to obtain the five required affirmative votes for a comp. plan amendment, and the Zoning Board recommendation was also for denial. This property is located at 2460 Southwest 16th Court and a portion of 2465 Southwest 17th Avenue. The property is located right along the rapid transit line in a district that's got restricted commercial right next door. The change in -- from office to restricted commercial does not increase the height or the density of residential units. The purpose of this request to change is to introduce a restaurant into the existing building that's there. With the designation of 0, they can't do that. They'd have to tear down the building, and they could build a high-rise. We feel that the restricted commercial category allows for more flexibility in the use of this property, and doesn't push it to a require -- you know, to -- push the applicant to a point of having to tear it down and build a high-rise. We believe the introduction of retail uses is appropriate at this location, given that it's right next door to restricted commercial, so we recommend approval. Commissioner Winton: Now, 1 understand. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Chairman, you're recognized. Chairman Sanchez: Well, we should listen to the appellant. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Chairman Sanchez: The applicant, I'm sorry, the applicant. Melissa Tapanes Llahues: Yes, not a problem. Again, Melissa Tapanes Llahues, with the law firm of Bercow & Radell, located at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. We represent the City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 property owners, Richard Fonseca and Fonseca & Associates, and joining me this evening is the owner of the properties, Richard Fonseca. Our request, as staff mentioned, is to redesignate the property from office to restricted commercial, and rezone the property from office and SD-12 to C-1. We have a favorable staff recommendation, and we would strongly urge your approval under -- pursuant to the staffs recommendation. As you can see by the top exhibit, the property is approximately 10,700 square feet, and it's located along Southwest 1st Avenue and 17th Avenue. It's directly across from the Metrorail (UNINTELLIGIBLE) station, and basically fronts US 1. This property is an enclave in this neighborhood. It's completely surrounded by commercial uses. To the west of the property is the owner's Citgo gas station, which is a very favorite in the Coconut Grove area; to the east is the FPL (Florida Power & Light) substation, and to the north is the Casola's parking lot, that also -- that is zoned office, but serves the abutting Casola's. As you can see that the facade in the bottom to your left, the owner intends to renovate the building in order to start -- to begin an Anacapri Restaurant. It's a very famed restaurant with locations in Pinecrest and Coral Gables. Staff has four major reasons to recommend approval, and we strongly urge your approval under -- pursuant to the staff recommendation. Commissioner Winton: Move PZ 11. Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion -- Chairman Sanchez: -- and I'll second it for the purpose of discussion. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. Chairman Sanchez: Now, the pub -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Before -- is there anybody in opposition to this item that wants to address the Commission? Please come forward -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: We have letters in support of our application to enter into the record. Barbara Samet: How do you do? My name is Barbara Samet. I live at 3645 Southwest 1st Avenue. First thing I need to tell you, she said she's had all approvals. The Planning Board and the Zoning Board have turned this down; the Zoning Board, by a majority. That neighborhood is heavily congested. There's only business from US 1, maybe down a couple of doors, and there's a church almost down to Coral Way and a restaurant. Everything else in that area is residential. The street that she's talking about was platted in 1925; it's never been widened. The water line is only for a business; everything has to be torn up. They can't use Metrorail. There's no station within blocks of there, at 32nd Road and 37th Avenue, so you know, her argument that she was using before was that they can use the Metrorail. They can't make a left turn out of there because if they get on 1st Avenue, it's a dead-end, and they're going to be in our front yard, and if you went around there at noon and looked at the traffic congestion, fire trucks in the middle of the street going to Casola's, people parked all over everywhere; Public Works, Florida Power & Light, and all the utility people use the parking space underneath the Metrorail. There's absolutely no place to park around there. If you went there, you would see it, and it's -- the neighborhood is going through a renaissance. My neighbor spent a quarter of a million dollars redoing his home, and it would be a disaster if this restaurant comes in there. The gas station is busy morning, noon, and night, with people going in and out of there. You know, it's ridiculous to put that restaurant in there. There's no place -- the laundry and the card store, the children's store, and Quizno's share one parking lot with 15 spaces. Do you know what happens City of Miami Page 36 Printed on /2/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 when people are getting ready to go into Quizno's and go to the laundry? They're stacked up on top of each other, and it really will be a disgrace if you allow this to happen to our neighborhood -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Samet: -- and we're going to do something to stop it, if it's going to court. It's not going to happen. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Judith Sandoval: Gentlemen, Judith Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace, Silver Bluff This is also my neighborhood. I think there's been a misunderstanding. The lawyer who has been advising the neighborhood met with you or an attorney who's working on this last week, and understood that you would request a deferral of this item. That is why more of the neighborhood is not here present, and we've just -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: That is completely false. I have an e-mail (electronic mail) from the attorney. We've never met. Actually, I contact her from hearing from the Parking Authority that they had retained an attorney. I contacted her, and I have an e-mail saying that we will not defer this item. We've deferred this item for two months at the Zoning Board process in order to continue to meet with the neighbors, and they have been unwilling to meet -- these particular neighbors. We do have the support of other neighbors in the area, and I have that e-mail for the record. Ms. Sandoval: May I see it? Chairman Sanchez: Well, City Clerk, and then you can look at it. All right. Ma'am. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK, yes, ma'am. Ms. Sandoval: 1 would like to see it. Commissioner Winton: Well -- but, you -- you'll get to see it, but finish your comment so we can get the -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Finish your presentation, and then you'll -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, you've -- Judy, you've got to -- Ms. Sandoval: Well, I can only speak -- Commissioner Winton: -- you've just got to -- Ms. Sandoval: -- for many of the neighbors who are not here -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Sandoval: -- and they are very much against -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: 1 object to this testimony. She has no resolution from any neighborhood association to make any representations. Ms. Sandoval: I'm a neighbor. City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: Well, but she -- Commissioner Allen: Counsel. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Wait, wait, wait -- Ms. Sandoval: I live in Silver Bluff. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- wait, wait, wait, wait -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, she's a -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- wait, wait, wait, wait. Commissioner Winton: She's allowed to comment. Commissioner Allen: She has standing. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: The lady is doing her presentation. Once she finish, you have time for your rebuttal. Then we'll bring it for discussion, and the Commissioners will have a chance to address the item. Let's keep the order here. Yes, ma'am, continue. Ms. Sandoval: And the neighbors who live on the street that's affected, I6th Court, one of whom has just spoken, have come to meetings here. It was turned down by the Planning Board and the Zoning Board because of their objections, and one of the points is that they can restore this restaurant, which is a historic building -- this apartment -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: That is false. Ms. Sandoval: -- and turn it into a restaurant without the zoning change, and there's really -- what we feel is really intended is that Mr. Fonseca owns a gas station next door, as well, and there's other commercial property that they -- the real intention to make such a fuss about this corner is to join these commercial properties and create an enormous building. It's not even a Metro stop there; it's just -- and the neighbors object. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We got your message. Anybody else? All right. Anybody wants to speak in favor of the project? All right. At this point, I'm closing the public hearing. It comes back -- you have a chance for your rebuttal now, ma'am. Ms. Tapanes Llahues: The owner of the property would like to speak in favor of the application. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead, sir. Ms. Tapanes Llahues: -- prior to my rebuttal. Richard Fonseca: Good morning. My name is Richard Fonseca. I been a neighbor here and doing business here for close to 25 years now, and so I'd like to think that by now my vices are known to everybody as well as my good points after being in business so long, and I know that most of you have visited me at one point or another, 'cause I know most of these neighbors that are even in opposition to me visit me very often. She brought up something that I want to, once again -- and we went through this at the Zoning Board hearings. She is under the understanding City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 that I could build a restaurant without the proper zoning, and obviously, I hope you guys are well attuned of the fact that that's not so; that the only reason I went through rezoning is precisely because only through rezoning can I build my restaurant there. Actually, the right to put up this large building that she was afraid of was something that was rather clearly explained to them by both the Zoning Board and the City Attorney at that point. I have the right -- Ms. Slazyk: To build -- yeah. Mr. Fonseca: -- to put up 150 units per acre, with no height limitations, without coming to zoning change. If all 1 wanted to do was put up a big building, I wouldn't have to be here. I wouldn't have to waste your time or their time, or certainly, my money, so it's my intent -- actually, I thought I was doing something that was positive for the neighborhood. I thought that rather than talking to the developers, which actually, by now I have to confess that I have because the neighbors have forced me into talking to developers because the neighbors have -- out there repeatedly said there is no negotiating, not that there is room -- not that there's very little room, but that there is no negotiating, and so, at that point, I -- you know, we -- I have gone forth, obviously, with my application, but please, I want to make sure that we all understand the right to put up a large building, I already have it. I didn't come here to get that. In effect, ironically, I came here to get the right to put up a small building, to keep a small building, which I felt, originally, actually was an asset to the City. This is a building that was built in 1924, and this is not quite the way the building looks. The building looks -- it's a little bit more rundown than that by now. This is an artist's rendering of what I could do with the building. As far as parking, while I don't want to get into a debate about parking outside on my own property, the fact is that I have enough -- I have more than enough parking on my own. I do not need off-street parking, and also -- and this is something that I -- we try to convey to the neighbors -- my access and ingress for my parking is not into the neighborhood They're talking about 1st Avenue being a dead-end. It's not a dead-end at either end. It's a very small street. It's only two blocks long, but it's not a dead-end at either end, so -- in fact, if it was, I wouldn't have as much business as I do. That's one of my through main places -- my accesses, but I do have my own off-street parking. My property has its own parking; it's already there. It's already zoned as parking, so I'm not -- there shouldn't be a discussion that I'm adding at least to the parking situation, and again, a two -- 2,500 square foot restaurant, we're not looking here at 60 cars. I couldn't fit that many people in there if I wanted to, so we are talking about around -- Commissioner Winton: How many seat restaurant? Mr. Fonseca: The restaurant would have to wait 'til the architects finishes -- if we go ahead with the presentation to the City. I don't know how many seats we could get in there, but I would suspect it's about -- around 60 seats, something like that. Commissioner Allen: OK. If I may, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. You done? Mr. Fonseca: I'm done. I thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You have a question for the gentleman? Commissioner Allen: No. I thought you were done. I'm sorry. Mr. Fonseca: I'm done. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You done, sir? Mr. Fonseca: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, Commissioner Allen. City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Allen: OK, Mr. Chairman, I just need, for clarification purposes -- Lourdes, I just spoke with you. Clearly, legally, at this juncture, he has the right to build a structure, an office building without coming before the full Commission. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, absolutely. Commissioner Allen: Right, and what he looks -- seeks to do now is just simply build a restaurant, which will have, effectively, less parking issues, correct? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. It depends what -- if he were to unite both his properties and build a big tower, which he has the right to do, a residential tower, but the restaurant, again, it depends on the square footage and number of seats, yeah. Commissioner Allen: Right, because if I understand correctly, the homeowner that spoke, her concern was largely dealing with the congestion of traffic, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Allen. -- if I captured it correctly. OK, so that's the only issue, correct? All right. Thanks. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so let me understand this. If he wants now, he can just build a condominium tower where he has -- Commissioner Winton: Or an office building. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- or an office -- Ms. Slazyk: Or an office building, correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- building, but he's seeking permission to build a smaller structure -- Commissioner Winton: Rehab. Ms. Slazyk: Actually, to keep one that's already there. Commissioner Regalado: To keep -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- or rehab -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- what it is there, which is the old apartment building, but if that is the case, why your denial? Ms. Slazyk: We're recommending approval. The boards recommended denial. Commissioner Regalado: OK, could you explain the boards' criteria? City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: I believe it had to go with -- you know, it had to do with the comments by some of the neighbors; that they felt that the introduction of a C-1 in restricted commercial, that that sort of use was going to add to the traffic congestion. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Although, a high-rise is going to be about the same. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, I -- Commissioner Regalado: But -- Ms. Slazyk: -- yeah. A high-rise could be the same amount of traffic, if not more. Commissioner Regalado: OK. My understanding also is that Miami Parking Authority is planning to build a parking -- a surface parking under the Metrorail on 17th and US 1. That's what I -- I'm sorry? I don't -- I can't hear, but -- Ms. Slazyk: She says that she was told no, they don't have any. Commissioner Regalado: I was told by Parking Authority that they do because we are working with Parking Authority to build one on District 4, which is 24th Avenue, on the area of the Metrorail, but I was told that they do have plan for the 17th Avenue and the 24th Avenue, but that's just something that -- Ms. Slazyk: Right, 1 hadn't seen any plans yet -- Commissioner Regalado: -- I mention -- Ms. Slazyk: -- for that. Commissioner Regalado: -- so the question is traffic. What would -- what, according to the Planning Department -- well, the Planning Department criteria is for approval -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- and it is about traffic and density, right? That you'd rather see this than the condo or office tower. Ms. Slazyk: Right. If they get this land use and zoning change, they could still tear this building down tomorrow and do a tower -- Commissioner Regalado: Absolutely. Ms. Slazyk: -- but they could do it without this land use and zoning change, so what the change from office to restricted commercial does for this particular piece of property is it increases the flexibility for the use of the property. Under the office designation, all they'd be able to really do here is office and residential. With the restricted commercial, they could add retail and restaurant, and when you look at the pattern of the existing land use change here, this is already all restricted commercial. It creates a node there that works, and it's not adding any density or any height because both are permissible right now. It's increasing f exibility for use of the property. City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Regalado: OK Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have -- yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: It's my district. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: Can we have -- ? How many residents that are here on this? Could you please come up, please, to the podium? There's only -- there's three. All right. Unidentified Speaker: We had many last time. Unidentified Speaker: We thought it was going to be deferred, sir. Chairman Sanchez: You had many -- Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- and I've been on top of this because this is my district, and I've been -- Unidentified Speaker: I live one block from there. It's terrible. Unidentified Speaker: He made a mistake because 1st Avenue is blocked off. I live on it. Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, let me try to explain this. I think that it was explained by the Administration that the site itself right now, the owner, by law, tomorrow can tear down the little building and build -- Lourdes, walk me through this so we can give them, based on the laws, because we live in a nation of laws -- that's less than an acre. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: How many units could they build, as right? They don't even have to come to this Commission. Ms. Slazyk: I have it right here. Chairman Sanchez: How many units could they build there? Ms. Samet: 1 worked in a public works department; I'm well aware. Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, you need to understand this because -- Ms. Samet: 1 understand. Chairman Sanchez: -- you know, we have to go by law. Ms. Samet: 1 understand well. Ms. Slazyk.' This property is .25 acres. They're allowed to do 150 units per acre, so they could City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 do a total of 38 units there by right. Chairman Sanchez: By right -- Ms. Slazyk: By right. Chairman Sanchez: -- so that means they don't even have to come here. Ms. Slazyk: They could just go get a permit, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: They could tear down the place, and seven months or eight months down the line, you have those units right there. Ms. Samet: Could I ask you a question, sir? Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. Ms. Samet: Would you allow them to come in and put that building up on that property with -- Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am. Ms. Samet: -- the infrastructure for residential and no parking? Would you allow that? Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, there's nothing we could do. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We don't have to allow it. Ms. Samet: Obviously, the Zoning Board was on our side. Chairman Sanchez: There is nothing we could do. Ms. Samet: Well, then why did -- Chairman Sanchez: They have -- Ms. Samet: -- they turn it down before. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: The right. Chairman Sanchez: Could I please try to explain it to you? Because I make decisions everyday here that, you know, I can't please everybody, but I could tell you that -- Ms. Samet: I understand what you're saying, Commissioner. Chairman Sanchez: -- but by law, 1 could see the arguments that were made by that young lady, which I'm going to address, and that is the concern that they have they may want to parcel out the whole property, and later on in the future, want to build a big project out there, and that's where we could come in and protect the neighbors as to that matter, but let me explain to you -- because I'm going to give you democracy at its best form. I'm going to let you decide. I'm going to let three of you decide what you want today. Do you want the little restaurant or do you want Ms. Slazyk: Thirty-eight units. Chairman Sanchez: -- the 38 units? City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Samet: I'll tell you what, you -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: May I -- can 1 add something ? Ms. Samet: We wanted -- Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Ms. Samet: All right, let me tell you what I want. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Samet: 1 want them not to come in there, but if you're going to ask me do I have a choice -- Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am. Ms. Samet: -- I know what you're doing. You're getting ready -- Chairman Sanchez: There's nothing I could do. Ms. Samet: -- to substantiate an approval. That's why you're asking me all these questions. You know what the Zoning Board said; you know what the Planning Board said You heard what we said. If we have to choose, we don't want to choose. We don't want a 200-seat restaurant in a place where there's -- Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am. Ms. Samet: -- nobody can park -- Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am. Ms. Samet: -- and let me say one more thing. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Samet: She said that building was dilapidated. It's the only house in the neighborhood that didn't suffer any damage during the hurricane. Ms. Tapanes Llahues: That's not true. Ms. Samet: It is exactly perfect, like it was. Ms. Tapanes Llahues: That's not true. Ms. Samet: I'm not going to argue with you, Commissioner -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Ma'am, you need to speak on the mike. Ms. Samet: -- you have the power. You have the power. Chairman Sanchez: No, 1 have the power within the law. Ms. Samet: You are -- I know what you're saying -- City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Within the law. Ms. Samet: -- but you also understand, if you care about our neighborhood -- Chairman Sanchez: I understand about your neighborhood, and that's why, if I had to make a decision here, which I have to make, 1 would have to go with the most reasonable decision, based under the law, and protect -- Ms. Samet: Let me say -- Chairman Sanchez: -- the character of your neighborhood as much as I can -- Ms. Samet: Let me say this to you, Commissioner. Chairman Sanchez: -- although, some of your residents don't think I do that. Ms. Samet: I worked at the City of Miami Beach for 30 years -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Samet: -- in politics. We're wasting conversation because this is a prelude to a "yes" vote, so there's nothing else we can say. Chairman Sanchez: Well, but -- Ms. Samet: There's nothing else -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Well, that's -- Ms. Samet: -- I understand -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- the attitude -- Ms. Samet: -- we all understand what you can do. Chairman Sanchez: Well, ma'am, at least I'm trying to explain it to you, and you should know, by law, that whether I make the -- Ms. Samet: I know what the law is, but I also know what -- Chairman Sanchez: -- decision or not, by law -- Ms. Samet: -- politics -- Chairman Sanchez: -- they have the right to build the units there. Ms. Samet: I know the law -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Samet: -- and I know politics. You can do anything you want if you want to do it. Chairman Sanchez: No. Ms. Samet: You have to want to do it, Commissioner. City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: No, ma'am. No, because if we -- Ms. Samet: Oh, yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- vote it down, they'll go to court, and we'll lose, and that's happened -- Ms. Samet: He's smiling -- Chairman Sanchez: -- before -- Ms. Samet: -- because he knows I'm telling the truth. Chairman Sanchez: -- but listen, I'm going to let you decide. Do you want the restaurant? Ms. Samet: I want neither. Chairman Sanchez: Well, you can't have -- Ms. Samet: You got to make the decision. Chairman Sanchez: -- it. Ms. Samet: You make the decision -- Chairman Sanchez: You can't have that. Ms. Samet: -- Chairman Sanchez. Chairman Sanchez: 1 will. I will make it for you, and as a matter of fact -- Ms. Samet: Because you know something? I knew this was a prelude to vote yes because all of these questions. The Zoning Board and the Planning Board, who are men of substance and intelligence, agree with us. Chairman Sanchez: Oh, so we're not substance -- Ms. Samet: Y'all are disagreeing. Chairman Sanchez: -- of intelligence. Ms. Samet: There's nothing we can do. We have no power. Chairman Sanchez: OK, ma'am. Elaine Jepeway: You've ruined the city as it is -- Ms. Samet: We have nothing -- Ms. Jepeway: -- so keep building. Ms. Samet: -- we have no power. You've got the power, Chairman Sanchez. Chairman Sanchez: All right, ma'am. City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Jepeway: 1 was born here. It's a disgrace to the city. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Sandoval: Mr. Sanchez, may I speak? Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. Ms. Sandoval: I just wanted to speak about the e-mail, which the attorney for the plaintiff submitted, and I spoke with the attorney last week and we all understood that there would be a deferment and a discussion of the item. The e-mail from Melissa was sent yesterday morning to the attorney who's been advising us, who works in Broward County everyday, and they -- she suggests that the attorney and the neighbors all get together with them to discuss a covenant between -- that would have been yesterday. It was some time yesterday, and it's simply impossible for these people to get together to do that, so we understood that this was going to be deferred, and -- since it was impossible to meet these -- Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, this is -- Ms. Sandoval: --1 would like to ask for a deferral. Chairman Sanchez: -- first reading. It'll have to come back on second reading -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Chairman Sanchez: -- and you could come back and we'll hear it again. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Sandoval: OK. Chairman Sanchez: We have to follow the process here, OK. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: All right. Chairman Sanchez: Based on your concern, your concern was that the individual will put the property all together and, in the future, build something big. That's a concern. Have you addressed putting something together as to not doing that in the future? Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Well, currently, the property owner owns both the Citgo and the property next door. It almost equals 34,000 square feet in size. The Citgo gas station is a very successful gas station, and Mr. Fonseca is here to -- he's willing to answer any questions, but he has no intentions to get rid of the Citgo gas station or to build some monstrosity. Chairman Sanchez: But that's a valid concern, and that -- it's a valid concern that, in the future, you're taking two property changes, and with -- you change zonings, and then you put them together -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- and you build a big -- Ms. Slazyk: He can do it now. City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Tapanes Llahues: The thing to note is that right now, with one property as restricted commercial and the other property as office, we can still build together. We can still build the 35,000 square feet lot area as 150 units per acre -- Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: -- with unlimited height, and not only that, there are bonuses that would allow us to even use up to -- for the gross lot area, to include up to the centerline of US 1 because of that Metrorail path, so the gross lot area isn't the 33,400 square feet; it's much larger than that. This owner specifically is coming through this process because he's a restaurateur. He wants to own -- he wants to open an Anacapri restaurant at that property. We have spoken to the neighbors since prior to them filing this application. The attor -- I find out about the attorney being retained from the Miami Parking Authority last Wednesday. I had several e-mails with her and telephone conferences because we're willing to resolve the issues. However, as of this point, the neighbors have been very clear on the record that they are not willing to speak to us. They're -- and now they've hired attorneys, and 1 have no capabilities to speak to them directly. That e-mail says specifically that we are -- we're not planning on deferring today. Chairman Sanchez: I am acting as the mediator on this, based on the concerns that have been brought out by the residents. Now, as to the restaurant, 1 know that you don't have plans now, but what are the future seatings for the restaurant? What are you looking at seat -wise? Mr. Fonseca: Could you repeat the question, please? Chairman Sanchez: As to the restaurant, what do you anticipate on seating capacity? Mr. Fonseca: Again, certainly as much as the law would allow. What would the law allow in a 22 or 2,400 square foot building? I don't know what it is. The architect has to put it together because it also has to include storage. I mean, the property is extremely small, so you also have to have stair -- a stairwell, handicap ramps and handicap lifts for the second floor, as I understand. Now, new regulations that they're going to hit me with is that each restroom is going to have to be handicap equipped, which means I can't use the existing restrooms that are in the building. Now, I got to go with bigger ones, and so, I couldn't possibly answer that, but 1 assure you that 2,400 square feet do not come out to 200 seats. Chairman Sanchez: Well, I'll tell you what, the very low density use of the property is what I'm in favor of here, having the other option, which you do have by right, to build those units. The decision that I have to make, as a Commissioner, here is based on the law. That's our decision that we have to make, and being that I am the Commissioner of the district, I am prepared -- there's already a motion to support -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We already have a motion, and we already have a second Chairman Sanchez: -- the recommendation of the Planning Department. Commissioner Allen: Of the Planning Department. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This is -- we have a motion and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Mr. -- Madam City Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: It's first reading. City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: If I may. You are talking of a covenant -- you said that -- you mentioned that you'll be working on the covenant to discuss or bring it under second reading about like building -- or rehab this building. Is that something that would be part of the second reading? Ms. Tapanes Llahues: We are willing to negotiate with the neighbors. In that e-mail, I asked the attorney that was retained to provide us with some proposed terms. As of right now, we have no proposed terms, so although we're willing to negotiate in good faith, I'm not sure what they're going to want from us, and I'm not sure if that's going to be possible. However, I will put on the record that we are willing, as we have been, to negotiate in good faith to resolve these issues. Commissioner Regalado: Well, one thing is Chairman Sanchez is saying something that the neighbors do have to decide; it's either a small restaurant or a big tower. If they want to build a big tower, there's nothing we can do here -- Ms. Slazyk: No. Commissioner Regalado: -- about it. It's just that this is the story of the Home Depot in Coconut Grove, so 1 was thinking of a covenant that it would make the residents, you know, safer because 1 guess that what they want -- what they don't want is like a 300-seat restaurant, which to me is impossible because of all the regulations and all that, but -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: You may note that we're not asking for a parking variance here. That means that we're willing to go by code and do everything as of right, develop this restaurant as of right. Chairman Sanchez: Call the question. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Allen: First reading. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Attorney, please read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Thank you very -- Ms. Thompson: -- passed on first reading, 5/0. PZ.12 05-00517a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 44, 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 City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "0" OFFICE TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2460 SOUTHWEST 16TH COURT AND A PORTION OF 2465 SOUTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00517a Legislation.pdf 05-00517 & 05-00517a Exhibit A.pdf 05-00517a Analysis.pdf 05-00517a Zoning Map.pdf 05-00517 & 05-00517a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00517a ZB Reso.pdf 05-00517a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00517a FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00517a FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from 0 Office to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 2460 SW 16th Court and a Portion of 2465 SW 17th Avenue APPLICANT(S): Richard Fonseca and Fonseca & Associates, Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Melissa Tapanes Llahues, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on October 17, 2005 by a vote of 7-1. See companion File ID 05-00517. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial. Motion by Chairman Sanchez, 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 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ.12. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 12 is the companion zoning change from O to C-1. Chairman Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Allen: Second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishes to address the Commission on this item, please come forward. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, comes back to the Commission. This is an ordinance. Madam City Attorney. City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Melissa Tapanes Llahues: Thank you very much. PZ.13 05-00652 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3690 SOUTHWEST 23RD 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. 05-00652 Legislation.pdf 05-00652 Analysis.pdf 05-00652 Land Use Map.pdf 05-00652 & 05-00652a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00652 School Impact Analysis.pdf 05-00652 PAB Reso.pdf 05-00652 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00652 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00652 FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.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 3690 SW 23rd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Cinco M's Corporation and Rincon Argentino, Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Santiago D. Echemendia, Esquire and Patricia M. Baloyra, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on June 29, 2005 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File ID 05-00652a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial. City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to continue Item PZ.13 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for January 26, 2006. Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, good morning. Happy holidays to you, sir. Suzanne Besu: Good morning. Suzanne Besu, attorney, with offices of Tew Cardenas, 1441 Brickell Avenue. We're seeking deferral for planning and zoning Items 13 and 14, on behalf of Rincon Argentino. Chairman Sanchez: 13 and 14. Ms. Besu: Yeah. They're the same, so -- Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Besu: We're still putting together sketches. We want to talk to Planning beforehand. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion for deferral on -- Commissioner Regalado: I'll move the -- Chairman Sanchez: -- PZ 13 and 14. Commissioner Regalado: -- deferral. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): To when? Chairman Sanchez: How much time? 'Til when? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Ms. Besu: To -- we were thinking January. Ms. Slazyk: January PZ (Planning & Zoning)? Ms. Besu: Um -hum. Commissioner Allen: Time certain. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. The item is under discussion. Hearing no discussion on the item, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, and Item PZ.13 and 14, for the record, have been deferred to January's PZ agenda. PZ.14 05-00652a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3690 SOUTHWEST 23RD TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00652a Legislation.pdf 05-00652a Exhibit A.PDF 05-00652a Analysis.pdf 05-00652a Zoning Map.pdf 05-00652 & 05-00652a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00652a ZB Reso.pdf 05-00652a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00652a FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00652a FR Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 3690 SW 23rd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Cinco M's Corporation and Rincon Argentino, Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Santiago D. Echemendia, Esquire and Patricia M. Baloyra, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on July 25, 2005 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 05-00652. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to continue Item PZ 14 to the City Commission meeting currently scheduled for January 26, 2006. [The minutes of PZ 14 are located under PZ.13.] PZ.15 05-00769 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT AND AN "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, INCREASING THE F.A.R. TO 2.9, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3622 SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET AND 3605-3625 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. 05-00769 Legislation.pdf 05-00769 Exhibit A.pdf 05-00769 Analysis.pdf 05-00769 Zoning Map.pdf 05-00769 Aerial Map.pdf 05-00769 ZB Reso.pdf 05-00769 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00769 FR Fact Sheet 09-22-05.pdf 05-00769 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District and an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, Increasing the F.A.R. to 2.9, to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 3622 SW 22nd Street and 3605-3625 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): M Three Corporation, Owner and Key Real Estate Development Corp., Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 25, 2005 by a vote of 6-1. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District and an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, increasing the F.A.R. to 2.9, for the proposed Mile Major Use Special Permit project. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Vice Chairman Gonzalez: PZ 15. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.15 is an ordinance on first reading. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.15 is an -- a zoning amendment in order to add an SD-19 overlay to the property at 3622 Southwest 22nd Street and 3605 to 3625 City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Southwest 22nd Terrace. The Department has recommended denial. The Zoning Board has recommended approval. This was continued from the City Commission meeting of September 22, 2005, in order for the applicant to go back and try to redesign the project with less FAR (floor/area ratio) than a 2.9, which is the requested FAR. Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Slazyk: This property is also the subject of a Major Use Special Permit that's in process for a project called The Mile. We have received the submitted -- the resubmitted plans for The Mile with the lower FAR. It is still larger than the context of this area, and we would still recommend denial of the SD-19 overlay on this property. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Applicant, you're recognized. Lucia Dougherty: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty, and I'm an attorney with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. With me today is Eddie Avila, who is the principal of the project. The project is located directly across the street from the Sears, in the Miracle Center on Coral Way and 37th Avenue -- approximately 37th Avenue. Directly next door is a Boston Market, and directly across the street is, on 22nd Terrace, our duplex residential structures. One of the things that makes this property unique and one of the reasons that we thought that this property deserved an SD-19 overlay is because unlike the rest of the properties on Coral Way, this one has a one foot residential zoning classification in the rear. In other words, unlike The Blue and unlike Gables Marquis, there is this strip of C-2 -- I mean, excuse me, residential, which doesn't allow us to go to the middle line of the street, like the other properties, and it doesn't allow us to do -- and it also has a height angle that the other properties on Coral Way do not have. Now, at the last meeting, what you all asked us to do -- and this is also accompanying with a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), so the -- next week, you will see a Major Use Special Permit that accompanies this application. Both the Planning Advisory Board, and the staff and the Zoning Board recommended approval of the MUSP. The Planning staff, unlike the Planning -- the Zoning Board, did not recommend approval of this overlay, which we think is appropriate, given its juxtaposition across the street from the Sears, and also the fact that we have this one foot strip of residential. The staff said we think this is a problem because it's a precedent. It is not out of scale because it is exactly the same FAR as The Blue and the Marquis, which were allowed to go to the centerline of the road and had the increased FAR because of the bonuses, so Chairman Sanchez said we're not supersizing buildings anymore. We heard you loud and clear, so this is what we're proposing. We -- and the staff said, hey, this is a bad precedent because of the SD-19. Well, in fact, SD-19 is going to go away, probably FAR, as a limitation, is going to go away in Miami 21, and if you had a precedent that only those properties that have this condition of the R-2 behind it, that's not a very bad precedent 'cause that's the only time, but anyway, what we've done is we've reduced the building from 131 units to 119 units. We've reduced the height from 201 feet to 139 feet. We've reduced the FAR from 178,000 to 122, 000, which is roughly one-third of the building that we've taken off. It's roughly the same FAR, again, that you would be allowed if you didn't have this one strip, and let me just show you in plan how that works out. In other words, this was the old building, and remember, because of this one strip, we have this angle that nobody else on Coral Way has. The new building is reduced down to this height, so in other words, basically all of this FAR and height has been taken away. This is the elevation from Coral Way as it used to be. This is now the elevation on Coral Way. When we went to the Planning Advisory Board the chairman, Arva Moore Parks, said this is the most sensitive project that she has seen on Coral Way because what it does is it has -- could you have the elevation from the 22nd Avenue side? Because you see these town houses on 22nd Avenue that are facing -- 22nd Terrace, excuse me. These are town houses that are on 22nd Terrace. All of the loading is internalized. There is no parking that is seen anywhere on the site, so she actually thought, from a design standpoint -- these are actually stick -- City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Regalado: Let me -- Lucia, let me ask -- Ms. Dougherty: Certainly. Commissioner Regalado: -- what is the height of the Marquis and the one on -- Chairman Sanchez: Blue. Commissioner Regalado: -- 36 Avenue? Do you know, Lourdes? The condo just finished on 36 Avenue, right across Boston Market and Sears, next to that project -- I mean, crossing 36 will be the site for that project. Do we know the height of that one? Ms. Slazyk: Let me -- I don't know -- Commissioner Regalado: And the height -- Ms. Slazyk: -- it off the top of my head. Commissioner Regalado: -- of the Gables Marquis, which is two blocks on 33rd? Ms. Slazyk: No, I don't have that information right now. Commissioner Regalado: Do we know the height of the one approved on 37th Avenue and 22nd Terrace, where Rex Art is now? Ms. Dougherty: 1 have the answer for you. Gables Marquis is 186 feet, and this is, again, 139 feet. Commissioner Regalado: A hundred and eighty -- Ms. Dougherty: Six feet. Commissioner Regalado: That's the Marquis? Unidentified Speaker: That's the Gable Marquis. Ms. Dougherty: Gables Marquis. Commissioner Regalado: Right, and this is a hundred -- Ms. Dougherty: And 39 feet -- excuse me, 136 feet. Commissioner Regalado: And the -- does anybody know the one on 37th and 22nd Terrace, the height of the building that will be -- that was approved where Rex Art is now? As you know, they're moving to Coral Way. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, that's the Douglas Gardens. Commissioner Regalado: The Douglas Garden, yes. Ms. Slazyk: I don't know. 1 don't know the heights. 1 don't have the -- that information here for all those projects. 1 could get it, but we don't have it right now. Commissioner Regalado: So, the -- Lourdes, the issue here is one foot residential? Is this an issue? City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: Well, because they have that one foot that's zoned residential, that little strip between them and 22nd Terrace, they can't go to the centerline of 22nd Terrace to calculate their gross lot area, which is normally how a property owner calculates their gross lot area, so by being precluded from doing that, that's why they're trying to make up for what they lost on that by asking for the SD-19, but the SD-19, as a precedent on Coral Way, is a concern because an SD-19, a developer gets to ask for whatever FAR they want, which is evidenced in their original application of 2.9. It's a very dangerous precedent for Coral Way. Commissioner Regalado: But is there an easier to deal with a one foot residential? Ms. Slazyk: They could ask for a rezoning to rezone that one foot back to commercial, and then they could use the centerline of the street -- Commissioner Regalado: But I mean -- Commissioner Allen: That's -- Ms. Slazyk: -- and they asked for an SD-19 instead. Commissioner Allen: -- the suggestion that I was thinking. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: But you know what? Commissioner Regalado: But let me ask you, Lucia, is it -- Ms. Dougherty: I actually -- Commissioner Regalado: -- easier to ask -- Ms. Dougherty: No, it's not easier. At this point, it's not easier because, truthfully, I thought that you all would rather have the SD-19 than the one foot change. You know why? Because you have this angle that is now still required because you have a residential right next to you, and I thought, hey, changing residential to commercial would be a worse position than having an overlay that you get to specifically say exactly what you -- what -- how big and how much, and this is, again, not going to be a precedent because you don't have this condition on Coral Way anywhere else. This is the only one that has this precedent, and let me just read to you what SD-19 says. Specific areas in the City, including the Civic Center area, on the south side of US 1, and the area south of Coral Way on the east side of Douglas; that's specifically where your Zoning Code says an SD-19 ought to be placed. Let me just show you this. Commissioner Allen: Wait. Repeat that again, Madam Lourdes. Ms. Dougherty: It says here, specific areas in the City, including -- this is under SD-19 -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- the Civic Center area, and on the south side of US 1, west of 17th, and then it has the area south of Coral Way on the east side of Douglas (37th Avenue), and the area bounded by Northeast 4th Avenue extended, and Biscayne -- it has other places, but specifically, in your code, it -- they speck this area would be a good place for -- Commissioner Regalado: But -- City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: That was 30 -- that was intended -- the 37th Avenue frontage has SD-19 for the entire -- and this is not on 37th Avenue, so that's a little -- Commissioner Regalado: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- misleading. Commissioner Regalado: Right, let -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- me ask you this. Last time that they were here, it is in District 4, so I voted in favor of the Administration and the Planning Department recommendation, and they wanted to come back, so we didn't approve it. They went back and reduced dozens of apartments and dozens offeet. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Is this not enough, regarding the height of the other building in that same block? Ms. Slazyk: It's lower than some, but it's still taller than most of the buildings in that immediate area. You know, our recommendation of denial still stands because we still think it's a dangerous precedent for Coral Way, but you know, as the Commissioner, if you believe that what they have reduced is sufficient, you know -- Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean, I wish they could reduce more, but we send it back, and - Ms. Slazyk: Right. You still -- you'd still have the MUSP, OK. Yeah, the MUSP is still going to come to you. Commissioner Allen: Right. That -- Commissioner Regalado: And -- Ms. Dougherty: And they've made a recommendation of approval in the MUSP. Commissioner Allen: -- that's the other option, yeah, the MUSP. Ms. Slazyk: Because from a site planning standpoint and how they lined with their units, all of that was done well. Our recommendation of denial of the overlay was because it was just too much. It was too big. Commissioner Allen: And you're -- Commissioner Regalado: But what I see here -- oh, excuse me. Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: What 1 see here is that it is important, the message that the City Commission send several weeks ago; that you have to go back and reduce. Well, they have -- now, I am troubled because you said that it's smaller -- City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- than the other buildings, and so we did made a lot of mistakes in the past, if that is the case, and still, it's out of context. It's -- the question that we go back is, what happen if we reject this? Ms. Slazyk: The -- Commissioner Regalado: What can they do? Ms. Slazyk: Right. The applicant would be able to go back and file their Major Use Special Permit. Instead of being based on a base FAR of 1 believe, 2.2 is what you came down to? Unidentified Speaker: No, 2.0. Ms. Dougherty: No, it's 2.0. Ms. Slazyk: At that point -- Ms. Dougherty: Which, we could be a 1.99 -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- and the FAR, by the way, in this area is 1.72, so we've gone -- we're asking for an FAR of 1.99, not for the more build -- not for more units, but to have bigger units. We have an average of 1,200 square foot units, and let me just show you. This is only eight stories tall on top of a garage. It's not a major building anymore; it's very modest, in fact, given what you have on Coral Way. Commissioner Regalado: But now she says that you can build whatever you want. Ms. Slazyk: Well, the base -- they would go back to a base of 1.72 and add the bonuses to that, which would reduce just a little bit more the building. If the overlay's denied, they go back to their current base, which is what they have today, which is 1.72, instead of raising it to the 1.99. Ms. Dougherty: And we think that that is unfair given the fact that we have this angle that we have to provide that nobody else has to provide because of this one foot, this angle here. In other words, everybody else can go straight up here on Coral Way, and also the fact that we don't get the FAR bonuses by going to the centerline of the street, so we've been in this process, and we've gone through all of the hoops. We have recommendations of approval from the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board), and we would only request that you would, given the fact that we've done everything that you've asked us to do -- and it does everything that Miami 21 says that they want done. We have liner units. We have no exposed garage, and we have internal loading, so I -- Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Ms. Dougherty: -- would ask that you would approve it. Commissioner Regalado: -- you know, I will tell you what that -- I would -- what I really like is the angle, that it moves away from 22nd Terrace. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, that -- Commissioner Regalado: You would agree -- City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: -- that's a positive. Commissioner Regalado: -- that that's a very positive because what we have now in Coral Way, and we have to stop, is, you know, the mountain of concrete on 22nd Terrace, so Mr. Chairman, I'll move to approve the recommendation of the Zoning Board. Ms. Slazyk: OK, but you want to modify the request from 2.9 to -- Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. That will be a condition, to 2.0. Ms. Slazyk: -- 2.0, as the -- Commissioner Regalado: Absolutely. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a -- Commissioner Allen: I'll second. Chairman Sanchez: -- motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Allen: I'll second that. Is that an amendment, correct? Chairman Sanchez: All right, second. The item is under discussion. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Before we open it up for discussion, it is an ordinance on first reading. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. For the record, there's no opposition. Hearing -- public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission for discussion. Hearing no discussion -- Commissioner Allen: Just quickly, one clarification. Was this an amendment? Ms. Slazyk: This is an amendment to the zoning atlas to add the SD-19 overlay, and pursuant to the modification on the floor, it's going to be with an FAR of 2.0. Commissioner Allen: 2.0, correct? Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record on first reading. Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): An ordinance of the Miami City Commission, with attachments, amending page number 42 of the Zoning Atlas of Ordinance number 11000, as amended -- Commissioner Allen: 15. City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Chiaro: -- the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida -- Commissioner Allen: 15. Chairman Sanchez: 15. Ms. Chiaro: -- Article IV, Section 401 -- excuse me. Commissioner Regalado: PZ.15. Chairman Sanchez: This is PZ 15. Ms. Chiaro: Thank you. I'll start again. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Commissioner Regalado: Did you read amendment? Ms. Chiaro: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, she -- Ms. Chiaro: Yeah, 1 amended it. Ms. Slazyk: -- did. Chairman Sanchez: As amended on the record, 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, as amended. PZ.16 05-00766 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE 600 BISCAYNE PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 600 AND 666 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD; AND 215 NORTHEAST 6TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 650-FOOT, 62-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 685 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 6,500 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT SPACE; A MUSEUM OF APPROXIMATELY 12,000 SQUARE FEET; AND APPROXIMATELY 835 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 05-00766 Outside Cover.PDF 05-00766 Inside Cover.PDF 05-00766 Table of Contents.PDF 05-00766 Article I - Project Information.PDF 05-00766 Letter of Intent.PDF 05-00766 Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF 05-00766 Zoning Write-Up.PDF 05-00766 Zoning Atlas.PDF 05-00766 Project Data Sheet.PDF 05-00766 Computer Tax Printout - Deed.PDF 05-00766 Ownership List.PDF 05-00766 State of Florida Documents.PDF 05-00766 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 05-00766 Article II - Project Description.PDF 05-00766 Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 05-00766 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 05-00766 Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 05-00766 Site Utility Study.PDF 05-00766 Economic Impact Analysis.PDF 05-00766 Survey of Property.PDF 05-00766 Drawings Submitted.PDF 05-00766 Legislation.pdf 05-00766 Exhibit A.pdf 05-00766 Exhibit B.pdf 05-00766 Analysis.pdf 05-00766 Zoning Map.pdf 05-00766 Aerial Map.pdf 05-00766 Pre -Application Design Review.pdf 05-00766 Miami -Dade Aviation Comments.pdf 05-00766 School Board Comments.pdf 05-00766 PAB Reso.pdf 05-00766 Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00766 Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf 05-00766 Submittal-1pdf 05-00766 Submittal-2.pdf 05-00766 Submittal-3.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the 600 Biscayne Project LOCATION: Approximately 600 and 666 Biscayne Boulevard; and 215 NE 6th Street APPLICANT(S): 600 Biscayne, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial of a motion to approve, which failed, constituting a recommendation of denial to City Commission on July 20, 2005 by a vote of 3-3. City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the 600 Biscayne project. Motion by Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Allen Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-05-0708 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before we go to PZ.3, for the record, all those that are here on PZ 16, which is the Freedom Tower, that item will be heard at 2 o'clock this afternoon. It'll be the first item to be introduced when we get back from lunch, so if you're here or there anyone with the cameras, the media, you need to be back here at 2 o'clock that way time is precious for all of us. [Later.] Chairman Sanchez: City of Miami Commission meeting, a special meeting on planning and zoning, is being called to order, while we wait for one Commissioner, two. Can we have the Sergeant at Arms see if they're in their office so we could start? We'll go ahead and -- all those that'll be testing, please stand up so you could be sworn in. Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 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 (said oath was translated into Spanish and Creole). Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let me just read something into the record. Any person who acts as a lobbyist, pursuant to the City of Miami Ordinance 11469, must register with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activity before City staff, boards, and committee, and the City Commission. Any person who becomes slanderous -- who makes slanderous remarks or becomes boisterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred from further audience before the Commission. Anyone wishing to obtain an agenda five days prior to the Commission meeting, all you need to do is contact the City Clerk's office to get one. Also, all those that'll be coming up to testify on the public hearing portion of the planning and zoning hearing, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record, so I really want all the Commissioners to be here for this item, so if you would bear with me, let's just go ahead and wait five minutes, and then we'll go ahead and start the meeting. Now, once again, how many will be speaking on this item? Please raise your hand. OK. Now, would you feel two minutes is enough, or three minutes? Not the attorneys who are making the presentation, of course; those that'll be speaking, you think three minutes is enough? Do we agree on three minutes? Commissioner Winton: You're the decision maker. Chairman Sanchez: 1 am -- I'm trying to be as -- Commissioner Allen: As democratic -- Chairman Sanchez: -- democratic as possible here. Commissioner Allen: -- as possible. City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Because, you know, I don't want anyone to leave and say, you know, the Chairman didn't allow me to speak, you know, so we want to -- so, three minutes is enough, OK. I'll let you go over three minutes just a little bit. If not, Commissioner Winton will stop you. All right. We're -- Commissioner Winton: Well, 1 don't -- Chairman Sanchez: -- waiting for one Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: -- I'm not -- you know, you're the Chairman, but I've been here six years. We've had many contentious things -- items up here, and two minutes has always been the rule, so you're the Chairman, though. I'm just saying what the rule has always been for the six years - Chairman Sanchez: Exactly. Commissioner Winton: -- I've been here, and we've had -- Chairman Sanchez: Exactly. With all due respect -- Commissioner Winton: -- plenty of battles. Chairman Sanchez: -- I'm the Chair. Commissioner Winton: I know. Chairman Sanchez: I'm only kidding. I'm only kidding, Johnny. Commissioner Winton: I know you are. He's -- Chairman Sanchez: So, well go three minutes. We are waiting for one more Commissioner, Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Could we see if he's here? He's not here yet? OK. Well, let me take the opportunity to invite you to our Christmas lighting ceremony at 7:30 today. Please bring your family and enjoy our lighting of the Christmas tree. Commissioner Allen: That's terrific. Chairman Sanchez: We do have two more items -- Commissioner Allen: Is there -- Chairman Sanchez: -- PZ (Planning and Zoning) -- Commissioner Allen: -- anything else we could take up quickly? Chairman Sanchez: -- 16, and then we do have -- the alley closure is yours, Commissioner Winton. Which item is that, PZ what? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 17. Chairman Sanchez: 17. 16 and 17. All right. Commissioner Allen: You don't want to take this out of order, huh? Chairman Sanchez: I really don't want to take it up with not having the Commission -- unless -- City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Allen: No, no. I'm saying the other -- would you want to take up the other PZ items -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton -- Commissioner Allen: -- out of order? Chairman Sanchez: -- do you want to take the alleyway first? That should -- Commissioner Allen: Alleyway out of order. Chairman Sanchez: -- should that be controversial? Commissioner Winton: Yes, it will be. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: All right. Unidentified Speaker: Two minutes. Commissioner Winton: It will not be two minutes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Unidentified Speaker: It's not as controversial as (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Winton: No, I don't think it will be as controversial; it will just be controversial. Chairman Sanchez: Does anybody have any good jokes? No, I'm only kidding. Now is not the time for jokes. Commissioner Allen: No. Chairman Sanchez: It's for this item? No, Commissioner Winton wants to wait. Commissioner Winton -- Commissioner Winton: What -- I'm sorry? Chairman Sanchez: -- do you want to wait for PZ.17? Commissioner Winton: I don't know if the -- if every -- you know, 1 can't tell from the crowd who's -- Chairman Sanchez: You know what, no, because we -- I told them 3 o'clock -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, that's right, you did. Chairman Sanchez: -- and I don't want to -- if I told them 3 o'clock, we'll -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- start at 3 o'clock. Can we bring up a pocket item, at least? City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Why can't we start with this item? Commissioner Allen: No. Chairman Sanchez: 'Cause -- Commissioner Allen: We can't do that, right? Commissioner Winton: Then we're going to be here for three hours on this item. Chairman Sanchez: There are no pocket items. Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: You know, how about a little sense of humor here, you know? I'm only kidding, Jesus. Where's George anyway? Oh, God. Commissioner Winton: Could you give your seat back to Otto? Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Hey, Otto, do me a favor. Sit there. Commissioner Winton: Call the media. Joe Arriola (City Manager): Be nice. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: How long are we waiting for Angel? Is he even here? Unidentified Speaker: He's on his way. Commissioner Winton: Like I said, Joe, this is going to be a three-hour event. Chairman Sanchez: I doubt it. We don't have that many speakers. Commissioner Winton: Three minutes each. Let's see -- Chairman Sanchez: 1 mean, listen, you know -- Commissioner Winton: -- 100 people -- Chairman Sanchez: -- it's our decision. Do you want to go ahead and start? Commissioner Winton: -- 300 minutes. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Sure, I'm ready. Chairman Sanchez: You ready to start? Commissioner Winton: Sure. City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado, ready to start? Commissioner Winton: Start your engines. Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen? Commissioner Allen: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's rock and roll. Ms. Slazyk: OK P -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.16 is the first item in the afternoon. Madam Director, you're recognized. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. PZ.16 is a Major Use Special Permit for the 600 Biscayne project. It's located at approximately 600 and 666 Biscayne Boulevard, and 215 Northeast 6th Street. The project consists of a 62-story mixed -use structure to be comprised of approximately 685 multifamily residential units, with recreational amenities, approximately 6,500 square feet of restaurant space, approximately 2 -- 12,000 square feet of museum space, and approximately 835 parking spaces. The project is being recommended for approval, with conditions, by the Planning Department. It was recommended for approval by the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board), and approval by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board for the archeological management plan. The project was also recommended for denial by the Planning Advisory Board. It was a tie vote, 3/3, which constitutes a recommendation of denial. The Planning Department's conditions had to do with some of the design -related issues related to the treatment of the parking along Northeast 2nd Avenue and Northeast 6th Street, in order to keep working with the applicant to create an exceptional level of design treatment for that parking structure. Other than that, it was recommended for approval. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Applicant. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Because I'm losing my voice today, you'll be very happy to know I'm going to be very brief. With me this afternoon is Pedro Martin, who is a principal of the project that we are very proud to present today because it is -- it contains that very unique architectural historic landmark, the Freedom Tower. The Martins purchased this property in February of this last year. Since then -- since he purchased the property, he's prepared this application, met with countless civic, cultural, and governmental agencies, as well as educational institutions, in an attempt to reach a consensus as what is the best disposition of the Freedom Tower, what's the appropriate disposition for this historic resource. Today, you will learn from Pedro Martin, as well as Dr. Eduardo Padron, of the charitable donation the Martins will make to the Miami -Dade Community College that will forever ensure the viability and the restoration of this great public facility. The application proposes 685 residential condominium units. Because it is in the central business district, 1,509 are allowed. It also proposes 6,500 retail -- square feet of retail and restaurant. No variances, special exceptions, rezonings are requested. Throughout this application process, there is criticism of the project because we were not preserving the very last part of the building in the rear. In other words, we were taking -- removing a last portion, or vestige, if you will, of the Freedom Tower, and at that time, it was our feeling that it was a -- it was better to have a greater separation and also a separate entrance for the Freedom Tower in the rear, a plaza, so to speak. Since that period of time, we have heard criticism about that particular screen -- not pre -- scheme, not preserving the entire Freedom Tower, so today, we will present a plan, and well show it to you today, that preserves the entire Freedom Tower, and if it is your desire that we preserve the entire Freedom Tower, we will accept that as a condition of the City City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commission, and about now, I'm going to ask that the architects actually pass out to you this revised scheme. Another criticism that we had was that the condo building behind the Freedom Tower was too busy, and it didn't have a good framework for the Freedom Tower itself so today, we will also be passing out new plans that will show a much simpler design for the behind -- for the facade behind the Freedom Tower. Again, if you like this scheme better than the one that was proposed, we will accept this as a condition of approval to mod these plans. Lastly, at the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), there was criticism that the Freedom Tower would somehow become a recreational building for the condominium. That was never the case. It was always going to be a foundation, but nevertheless, the agreement that we have proposed with the college and the Martins will ensure not only the restoration, the ongoing maintenance, the public use of this facility that is so meaningful to the exile and immigrant community of Miami, so today, what we're going to do is we're going to present first the architectural schemes, both the one that we had applied for and the one that we would propose as a condition, if that's what you would desire, and Luis Revuelta and his colleagues are going to present that. After that, we're going to have Steve Lefton, who's our urban planner, speak. Ellen Uguccioni, who is our historic -- a renowned architectural historian, will be speaking about the appropriateness of the treatment of the Freedom Tower, and lastly, Pedro Martin will describe his agreement with the Miami -Dade Community College and introduce Eduardo Padr6n. With that, I'd like Luis Revuelta to present the project, and I'd like to also reserve time for rebuttal. Chairman Sanchez: Lucia, 1 have a question. This is an amendment to the applicant? Ms. Dougherty: It is not an amendment. We have not amended the application. What we're showing you -- Chairman Sanchez: So, what's in front of us is the original MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) application? Ms. Dougherty: It is. However, what we're also presenting to you today, two things, a revised elevation and a revised Freedom Tower, so if you want to propose a condition of approval that we save the entire Freedom Tower and we make these changes to the facade, we will accept those as conditions of this approval. Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Dougherty: Luis. Luis Revuelta: Good afternoon. My name is Luis Revuelta, with Revuelta Vega Leon Architects, with offices at 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. I feel extremely fortunate today to have been selected as the architect for the Terra Group, not only as an architect because I feel that Biscayne Boulevard is going to be the most elegant and pleasant boulevard in the south of the United States, if not the east coast of the United States, but because of the architectural importance that this building has as the Schultze and Weaver building from 1926, that it was the home for the Miami Daily News for many years, and also last, but not least, as a Cuban American, because of the social, the cultural, and the emotional issues that are related with this building called the Freedom Tower. I also honestly believe, before I start my presentation, that there is no better combination today to bring this project forward for a request for approval than the group of Terra and Pedro Martin and his family. He's -- him and his group are one (UNINTELLIGIBLE) most prominent local residential developer in Miami -Dade County, but also as a very highly regarded member of the Cuban -American community. Like Lucia said, I'm going to briefly go over the original presentation that we made for the MUSP, and then I'll go quickly into the revised compromise that we're proposing also here today. The proposal that you have in your book today -- Commissioner Winton: You need a mike. City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Mr. Revuelta: -- briefly shows the existing historical building, which we were proposing to create a courtyard of about 75 feet in width, with the new building proposed in the back and towering on top of the FEC (Florida East Corridor) and coming on the north side. The building is a building that I feel very strongly that the statement that it makes with its simplicity of the round shape going all the way down to the ground, and with the curvilinear shape the building has, basically creating a backdrop to what we have always felt is the actor in this stage. Biscayne Boulevard, as you drive north or south, bends almost exactly at the point where the Freedom Tower site is. Actually, if you are inside the Freedom Tower, in any of the floors, looking north, you almost feel that you are in the middle of Biscayne Boulevard. I have always felt that a building that created a backdrop -- the new building that created a backdrop for this building would showcase and enhance this historical building. Just -- when you buy a diamond ring, when you buy an expensive watch, you want to showcase it. You want to -- in a stage, the main actor sits on a stage and has a backdrop. We feel that what we're creating here is a backdrop for the main actor or actress on this stage, which is the Freedom Tower. This building wraps around with a very simple curvilinear form in the back, and then it comes down to the ground, and it comes down to the ground in such a way that if you look at pictures that well show you, coming south on Biscayne Boulevard, the tower is framed completely, and you -- this building absolutely does not obstruct the view of the Freedom Tower. Going back to the original scheme, what you're looking at here is a proposed entrance and a ramp that was driving up through the parking levels, and then another entrance on this site, and then a retail area, or a restaurant, on the north side of the building on Biscayne Boulevard. Essentially, after that, you have typical levels of parking, a level of amenities on the 13th level that's open by three stories; it's like a window to the bay from the amenity deck, and from there, you have the residential floors. What you see here is the original context study showing the Miami Arena, which is almost the same -- of the same height and of much greater magnitude than the Freedom Tower, and then you have the buildings that are proposed to the north of this building. That, in essence, is the proposal that you have in front of you today. The main issue with this proposal was that we were removing -- proposing to remove the rear 75 feet off the back of the building. To me, and to many of us, the historic building is composed of different elements. You have the tower itself and its base, which is extremely well designed and was designed by Schultze and Weaver, like 1 said, the same architects that designed the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, and the -- I think, the Breakers on Palm Beach -- and then it has a rear portion that has a very important colonnade and variables, and then the back of that is what used to be the printing presses. What we were proposing in this original scheme was to actually remove that part of the printing presses to create that courtyard. Of course, as you all know, that became an issue. We've been working for months in trying to achieve a compromise, and to try to achieve the -- a design that was able to retain completely that back part. I will go into that explanation right now, before 1 introduce my colleague, Ellen Uguccioni. If we can look at the new site plan now, this is the handout that we just provided you with. This is the Freedom Tower. That is what is staying. We've been working with our team and an architect by the name of Antonio Citterio, with international acclaim, in trying to create, between the rear of a new building and the rear of the existing building, a monumental loggia, which originally in our scheme was about 20, 25 feet in height. Right now, this is seven stories in height. This will allow the visibility and the architectural breathing between the base of the very small lobby on this side for pedes -- only for pedestrian use to be able to expose the rear of the printing presses and the building. What happens in here is, very simply, a small lobby, some areas that we need for services of the building. The ramp that used to be here got deleted. By deleting the ramp, we were able to achieve the monumental loggia in the back of the building, which we feel is very important. We've also have adjusted the footprint of the building by nine feet, creating an even greater view of the Freedom Tower, as you're walking or driving south. We also have redesigned the pedestal of the building that is immediately behind the Freedom Tower, and we'll show you that now because -- and this is a design that has been worked with the architect Antonio Citterio, and it's a design that just enhances, in a very simple form, the vertical qualities of the tower, but becomes, as he calls it, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). (UNINTELLIGIBLE) means that it's a -- almost a City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 nothingness, something very simple that has vertical glass fins that will be illuminated at night. In the daytime, they will practically disappear, but will give a slight reflections, but very simple in form. In the original design, we were proposing the same horizontal lines of the balconies that the building had, and we've taken that out and redesigned this back part with this treatment which we feel is going to be very effective. The first levels here that used to be parking are now office, so those are going to have glass. It's going to be very simple in nature, just like an office building, and then on the top, you're going to have a combination of metal and glass. The building itself, the way the coloration of the balconies, we used to have a very light gray and a light blue. We now have all in one color, which is a light blue color, which will simples the facade of the building. That's another change that we made from the previous -- or from the submittal that you're reviewing, so in essence, we feel that, architecturally, we have addressed, in my opinion, most of the concerns that were expressed at the Planning Advisory Board. The building got simplified in its architecture. The building got simplified in the pedestal. There -- we've retained the 75 feet that were proposed being removed, and I feel that with these changes, this building, when built, will be an excellent backdrop to enhance this tower, which is important to all of us, including me, and I feel very strongly that this will showcase the tower rather than take away from the tower. With that -- if you want to put up this elevation here -- this is the architectural elevation that is a part of your package, and if you look at the elevation before in the MUSP package that you have from the original presentation, the difference in color, difference in the pedestal, the retention of the back of the tower, all those things we feel are the key of making this the project that we feel it will be, which is a showcase for the Freedom Tower. With that, I would like to introduce Ellen Uguccioni, our architectural historian expert, and we'll be open for any questions further. Ellen Uguccioni: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Ellen Uguccioni. I'm an historic preservation planner with Janus Research, offices at 301 Almeria in Coral Gables, Florida. I wanted to just briefly describe my experience in this work, and it has been my life's work for some 25 years, and I've had the good fortune of working with some fabulous people, including my mentor, Arva Moore Parks, who is sitting here in the office - - the auditorium. I have been, most recently, the director of the Coral Gables Historic Preservation Office. 1 was there for some 16 years; before that, Kansas City, Missouri. I've sat on the National Register Review Board for the state of Florida for some ten years, in which we evaluate buildings for their historic significance and also take into account changes that have occurred over the course of time. I presently serve as a member of the Florida Historical Commission, appointed by the Governor. I've taught at the University of Miami on historic preservation for some ten years, and I've authored some -- four books and published innumerable articles, so it's my life's work, and I was asked to participate in this project, and it was a project that I believed in from the beginning, and the first iteration that you saw is one that I supported. I would like to just briefly discuss the issue that we have here, and almost, if I could, frame the controversy, and that is that we're looking at an historic preserva -- I'm sorry -- an historic building within the context of a major metropolitan city with high-rises all around it. That struggle to save historic buildings in this kind of context is one that every city and every -- in the nation, and certainly in the world has confronted. History is not static. The juxtaposition of the old and the new is what makes a city exciting. We brought some examples of some projects around the country and in the world and would briefly like to show them to you. These are solutions that are not meant to be one-on-one comparisons. They're solutions that have had their own special context, and this project has been developed in its own special context, the City of Miami, our architectural history, our style. The first one we have up is, of course, Tallahassee, and you may remember the controversy in the '70s about keeping the old capital building and building necessarily office buildings, and a place where we could address all of the requirements we had in Florida, and this was the Everdrill (phonetic) Stone Tower that was built behind it. There's a plaza between them. The next one we brought was in Boston, Trinity Church, very close to the John Hock -- John Hancock Tower, which is approximately 60 stories tall and around 790 feet, and again, this is just to show you an example of how people dealt with that urban conflict of historic building, and the needs of contemporary owners and the people City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 who live in that city. In New York City -- 1'm sorry, in Boston -- we have one more in Boston -- the Old State House, it's within Boston's financial district, and again, you see this colonial building in the midst of high-rises around it, high -density environment, and it still pops out because it is its own special character. We go to New York City, and a familiar example, St. Pat's Cathedral; frontage on 5th Avenue, and Rockefeller Center to the west, and numerous high-rises to the north and south. This example, 1 think, is a particularly interesting one, and it, in a way, reminds me of the whole Performing Arts Center project. This is a water tower in Chicago on North Michigan Avenue. You can see, this kind of castle device, a 19th Century device, and behind it is another John Hancock tower, a hundred stories in height, some 1,100 feet high, and this building, because of its special character, because it is unique, I believe stands out even more so because of its environment. Next one we have is from San Francisco, and I just have one more after that. This is the Sentinel building, and the angle -- the perspective here is somewhat misleading because the Transamerica Pyramid is some 853 feet in height. That's with the spire on there; it's 48 stories, but again, in this case, you see the wonderful proportions that are kind of maintained in the pyramid, and lastly, we take you to Vienna, and this is a 14th through 16th century cathedral within the city center; again, surrounded by buildings that are very contemporary in nature. The goal in the last iteration and the goal in this one is to sensitively and respectfully treat the most important building in the city and give it a new use, and most importantly, 1 think, public access. I've always stressed to my students that an historic building won't survive very long if it doesn't have a use, if it doesn't have a purpose. As the author of the National Historic Landmark Nomination, I had the privilege of spending hours researching the early history of the building when it was the Miami News building, and then becoming involved and enriched as I studied and read about the Cuban exile experience. I believe that this project has given the Freedom Tower that purpose and a new use that will enable its preservation for the long term. The Freedom Tower, an icon with national importance, will not only be preserved, but, in my opinion, enhanced by the new project behind it. In my opinion, visually, the new building serves as a foil, and the exquisite design of the Freedom Tower pops out because it is its own distinctive element and I believe will remain for the long term in a very useful and beautiful project for the City of Miami. Thank you. I'd like to invite -- Commissioner Allen: Before you -- Mr. Chairman, before you depart -- Ms. Uguccioni: Yes, ma'am -- sir. Commissioner Allen: -- just to wrap up your single point. Ms. Uguccioni: Um -hum. Commissioner Allen: Your -- the objective of these pictures that you presented -- Ms. Uguccioni: Um -hum. Commissioner Allen: -- are to demonstrate what, that the surrounding -- the new edifices brings up the significance of an historic building; that's your point? Ms. Uguccioni: My point -- yes, sir, and also, I would say that the point is that major cities have to deal with old and new, and they don't -- you know, they -- those buildings are integrated in the environment. Steve Lefton is our urban designer. Steve Lefton: Thank you. For the record, my name is Steve Lefton. I'm an urban planner and landscape architect with Urban Research Group. We're a division of Kimley-Horn. I'm locate -- with offices located at 1691 Michigan Avenue in Miami Beach. Little bit about myself. I've been doing this for quite some time, and you're familiar with much of the work that my firm has done. In fact, we've won several awards for our assignments for the City of Miami, including work at -- City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 on our Coral Way project, work along the Miami River Corridor and the Miami River Greenway, as well as, most recently and most notable, our landscape architecture and planning efforts with Midtown Miami. With that being said, I want to talk to you about, I think, what's really important in our role, which is the pedestrian realm, and what this project does, what we have attempted to do to bring out the prominence of the Freedom Tower for the pedestrian user. We know what's going on with the OT (phonetic) right now, with the Burle-Marx plan in the reconstruction of Biscayne Boulevard,• it truly will be, as Luis has said, the world -class boulevard on the east coast, and we truly believe that. Part of making it that world -class boulevard is the pedestrian experience, and that's what we've been spending a lot of time on. What you see here is a revised site plan, as we've talked about the context. The FEC Corridor comes right through. We have looked at this as an opportunity to create this foreground as you come down the Boulevard for the Freedom Tower. Right now, the foreground is a wasteland of the FEC rail, of weeds, of garbage. What we're proposing is the new foreground of these waves of very low water feature, of very low waving grasses, so as you come, this creates this extremely low subtle foreground that sets the Freedom Tower in the context it needs to be. The trees you see all around here are in concert with what's planned for the Burle-Marx improvements shown on Biscayne Boulevard, as well as the City's renewed initiative to have street trees along its major boulevards. I've asked to have these two up as we talk about this, because we believe that this is probably one of the better analogies. When we're talking about the urbanism and the importance of the tower on Biscayne Boulevard, we're talking about it in context, now -- having spent a lot of time in Chicago, I think this is a great example, and I think that's something that we can have a dialogue about. The water tower is something on their major boulevard, Michigan Boulevard. When you go to Chicago, you think of the Hancock Tower, you think of the Water Tower, but never together. They're two unique experiences, despite the fact that they're right there together, and I think that's what we're trying to show you, is that we've tried to create an urbanism about the site, about the area, about Biscayne Boulevard; it addresses the Freedom Tower, so with that, 1 want to show you some of the details, if I may, so you fully understand what we're trying to achieve at the ground level. This section is looking from Biscayne Boulevard, the historic Freedom Tower, new building, really focusing on that open swath that's the FEC. The idea that you'd see trees in the background along 2nd Ave. (Avenue); we would have these very low basins of water at grade, and very low grasses, as the wind comes across the bay, that sort of wave at a two foot height. We've also shown it as your -- this is cut through the site, through the FEC Corridor, this very low effect. Do nothing other than emphasizing the Freedom Tower. The nature of the site and of the historic tower is such that at the southern edge, it's very, very tight. There's existing royal palms there we think are important in context, as they wave along the edge of the Freedom Tower, but we also are searching for something to bind the whole site together. There's something extremely exciting happening just to the north of this at the Performing Art Center, which is the addition of a major lighting program that's going to tie the whole PAC (Performing Art Center) area together. Well, that was, in a way, an afterthought. It's just being done now. We want to be proactive about that and create this very light and open sculptural lighting that will be for the whole block to really identify this as the Freedom Tower district, if you will, the same way the PAC has taken on sort of a district area, so we have been thinking, most importantly, from an urban design standpoint about the Freedom Tower, but we've been thinking broader about its context within the City along Biscayne Boulevard and in the entire block. That's what I wanted to share with you. Ms. Dougherty: At this time, Pedro Martin will speak about the agreement that he's entered into with Miami -Dade Community College and introduce Eduardo Padron. Pedro Martin: All right. Gentlemen of the Commission, I'm Pedro Martin. I'm CEO (Chief Executive Officer) and president of Terra Group, with offices at 1200 Brickell Avenue, 18th Floor, Miami, Florida. I wanted to let you know that what we did yesterday was a culmination of many, many months of talks with several institutions, including Miami -Dade College. At the end, we felt that Miami -Dade College was the right institution to help the City and us preserve this building, open it to the public, have the right museum and exhibition center, and move City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 forward with that. We will be helping them, from our foundation standpoint, and I think it will be a great success. We have entered into an agreement, in principle, and I'm sure that we have - - we will come through and they will come through for us also, so I just wanted to let you know that we have done that, and I thank you very much for listening to our presentation, and Dr. Padron wants to say a few words also. Eduardo Padron: Good afternoon. Thank you, Pedro, for the opportunity. 1 asked Mr. Pedro Martin to give me the opportunity to say a few words this afternoon, and again, I'm not here to lobby for anything. I'm not here to gain anything, except that I feel a moral obligation to be here to share a few thoughts with you. Commissioner Winton: Dr. Padron, we need your name and address on the record, please. Mr. Padron: Eduardo Padron, 2004 Southwest 7th Avenue, the great City of Miami. During this process, I've heard and read innuendos, insinuations about the integrity, the ethics, and even the motivations of Mr. Pedro Martin in reference to the Freedom Tower. I'd like to take a couple of minutes to just share my experience with you. I have known of Pedro Martin for many years as an avid lawyer and businessman. I met him, for the first time, shortly after the announcement that he had bought the Freedom Tower. It was at that time when Mr. Pedro Martin expressed to me his great interest in making sure that the Freedom Tower will be preserved and be placed in the public domain for the enjoyment of present generations and future generations. In that regard, he stated to me that he was going to research and discuss with various organizations and institutions in our City about their interest and their ability to accomplish that purpose. He never promised that Miami -Dade College would be the one. He made it very clear that it was his intent to try to find the best possible institution to be able to be entrusted with the Tower. The rest is history. You know the announcement yesterday. Through several meetings, Pedro Martin and Terra Group came to the conclusion that Miami -Dade College was best suited to undertake this project, and I'm here to publicly thank you, on behalf of the College and our Board of Trustees, for the opportunity and for entrusting the college with a very important mission of preserving, enhancing, and programming the Freedom Tower for the enjoyment of present generations and future generations, and to the justice to the history of this City, which is very much tied to the Tower, so with that, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today, and again, thank Pedro Martin and his family for this great honor. Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Before you depart, I just want to personally tell you, and I think my fellow Commissioners will share with me that you've done a terrific job there with the Miami Dade Community College here nationwide, and we all applaud you in that effort. We wanted to make sure you continue doing that. In fact, I've hired some of your -- as a -- some of the legal interns at my office, I've hired through the Community College Legal Studies program, so you've done a great job, and I personally want to tell you that. Mr. Padron: Well, I thank you, Commissioner. Thank you very much. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Mr. Padron: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Sanchez: 1 hate to be the skunk at the family picnic, but we can't do that here, folks. All right. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, we now rest our case, and would like to take -- preserve time for rebuttal. City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: OK, so at this time, we'll open it up to the public, and we'll go down with the list. We do have a lot of speakers. Let's go ahead and start with Richard Heisenbottle. Richard Heisenbottle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Heisenbottle, with a residence at 620 San Servando Avenue, in Coral Gables, and I'm here today as president of Dade Heritage Trust. As some of you may know, since July, Dade Heritage Trust has been negotiating with the Terra Group, designed revisions to the Freedom Tower project, and simultaneously, we've been pressing to place the Tower in public hands. I was personally authorized by the board of Dade Heritage Trust on July 12, 2005, to conduct those negotiations. These negotiations have been fruitful, and Terra has been very cooperative in making design changes that allowed the Freedom Tower to take center stage in the development without demolishing any portion of the building. The project has come a long way since it was introduced and its approval denied before the Planning Advisory Board meeting. The revised design drawings presented today illustrate that Terra has incorporated all of DHT's (Dade Heritage Trust's) suggestions. The new design does not require demolition of any portion of the Freedom Tower. It sets the new condominium further back from the Boulevard, allowing an unobstructed vista of the historic building as one approaches from both the north and the south, and it opens the rear of the building with a seven story tall loggia, so that the facade can also be seen and appreciated. The facade of the condominium, itself,' has been redesigned to make it a better backdrop for the Freedom Tower when viewed from the east. Yesterday's announcement by the Terra Group of its donation of the Freedom Tower to Miami -Dade College is welcome news to Dade Heritage Trust, who has strongly encouraged public ownership of the Tower. Dade Heritage Trust is pleased to see Miami -Dade College assuming an active role in preserving this national landmark on behalf of the public. We feel that it is appropriate for this civic -minded institution, which has been the means of upward mobility for so many of this City's leaders, to be the building's new steward. Further, we were extremely pleased that Dade Heritage Trust was instrumental in initiating these discussions. Dade Heritage Trust considers the Freedom Tower to be of such historic significance that it strongly supports public ownership of the entire property, and has steadfastly opposed demolition of any portion of the building. We welcome the participation of the College in the Tower's future. Ideally, the Freedom Tower would be a museum surrounded by a public green space and the centerpiece of a vibrant downtown Miami, but unfortunately, that does not seem to be a practical vision at this time. Dade Heritage Trust board is still concerned about the scale of the adjoining 62-story condominium, and since it has not yet seen the plans in detail, it certainly cannot endorse the project today. However, DHT does acknowledge the good faith efforts of the developer in responding to the preservation community's concern by offering to make the design changes and by making the donation of the Freedom Tower to Miami -Dade College. Speaking personally, 1 have no objection to the project, provided that the design changes and the donation of the Tower to Miami -Dade College are made a condition of the MUSP approval. As in previous years, DHT has been at the forefront of supporting various proposals for the Tower's preservations in ensuring the public's access, and we remain committed to working with the developer and the City of Miami in preserving this unique national landmark. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Richard. Rafael, you speaking? Rafael Penalver: Thank you so much. My name is Rafael Penalver. I live at 800 South Greenway Drive in Coral Gables, and have my office -- I'm an attorney. I have my offices in Brickell Avenue. I serve as the chairman of the Dade Heritage Trust Freedom Tower Committee, and we are here to oppose the plan presented to you. First of all, a legal point. I don't think this plan is properly presented before you today. The plan that was presented and not approved by the Planning Board cannot just be changed without calling it an amendment, and then proposed, and give you a full presentation on a different plan with a different base, different look, and then say, if you so wish, we will incorporate those as a condition. 1 don't think that's the way the ordinance was intended. I think this is not properly presented before the Commission today. Number two, we're talking about the most important building in South City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Florida, from a historical point of view, a building that was the base of the Miami News and the home of the Cuban Assistance Program for refugees. I came through that building when I came to this country. My practice -- my father practiced medicine there. It's a building that embodies the ideals and aspirations of so many of us; the warmth and open arms of this country, the fact -- the opportunities we receive here, and the dream that remains of a free Cuba. It's a building that should be treated with special care, and I don't think it deserves to be presented plans that we, the public, have not yet seen. Two minutes before this session began, you were shown those plans. I have not seen them. Nobody has seen them. I don't think that this is the proper way to bring a plan that will decide the future of the most important building in South Florida. We always dreamed of the Freedom Tower being the centerpiece of the new downtown in Biscayne Boulevard, a green area surrounding this historic building, a place of openness where -- that can show the beauty of the architecture and the ideals that that building embodies. When the building was given to the College yesterday -- and we all applaud that -- but I don't think the condominium behind it enhances that or enhances the College's use of that building; on the contrary. I think, if you deferred this plan, we could use the fact that Miami Dade owns now that building as a catalyst to try to bring federal, state, and local government together to acquire that property and preserve it in its full glory. After all, the taxpayers are going to be paying for the maintenance of that building, and in the newspaper article this morning, it said at least a million dollars a year for the maintenance of the building; yet, the cost of acquisition of the property is minimal in comparison to the cost of maintaining that property over the next 50 to 100 years, so if we, the taxpayers, are going to maintain that building, we should maintain the property in its full glory, not as an ornament to a 62-story condominium development that completely dwarfs this historic tower. People beat symbols, and the Freedom Tower is a very, very important symbol. The Freedom Tower speaks as who we are, what we value. Is it the right message to send to future generations that we took the Freedom Tower and turned it into the ornamental hood of a 62-story condominium for profit that will be owned by foreign millionaires, for the most part? Is that the message that the Freedom Tower sends? I don't think so. I think the Freedom Tower speaks about integrity, about freedom, about aspirations, and therefore, I ask you to please defer this plan that is not properly presented to you today, and give us the time, with a flick of a finger -- if we all put our efforts together at the state, national, and local governments, we can have that property acquired and made a national historic landmark. Please, don't throw that opportunity to leave that legacy to future generations. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Counsel, if I may -- Mr. Penalver.: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: -- before you step away. Mr. Penalver: Yes. Commissioner Allen: Your position -- the point you made about this was not properly presented to us as a plan, can you point to a specific ordinance or some legal provision -- Chairman Sanchez: Why don't we ask -- ? Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Commissioner Allen: -- that couches your argument? Chairman Sanchez: That's a question that should be referred to our attorney. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, but -- so, I can write it down; I'm taking notes. I need to -- City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: Well -- Mr. Penalver: Commissioner -- the whole idea -- Commissioner Allen: He's making the argument, so 1 need him to -- Mr. Penalver: -- of the public hearing -- Commissioner Allen: -- cite it. Mr. Penalver: -- and the public process in bringing a project before the Commission is to give the public a chance to view the plans, to air the plans, to discuss them openly. What has happened here today, I am just shocked that in the opening the meeting is to give each of you a set of plans that we have not yet seen. You will be voting on a set of plans that have been modified, the base has been modified; there is a new entrance to the building on the sides. Honestly, I don't know what the building that you have been asked to vote upon, what the full details are, and this -- we're talking about the most important building in South Florida. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Penalver: Please defer and let's -- Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Penalver: -- put our efforts together -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen, do you have a question for our City Attorney? Commissioner Allen: What -- since counselor's making the argument, I thought he was making reference to a specific article or provision. Is there any provision that couches his argument, from a legal perspective? Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, these are questions to our City Attorney. Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: Is this properly presented to this legislative body? Maria 1 Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): The plan that is before you is the same plan that was reviewed at the lower boards. My understanding of that, which was distributed, is possible conditions for the City Commission to consider, if the City Commission wished to impose conditions on the plan that had been previously submitted, so there has not been an amendment. You are not considering an amendment -- an amended plan today. You're considering the same plan that was -- Commissioner Allen: Same plan. Ms. Chiaro: -- submitted previously. Commissioner Allen: Got you. Ms. Chiaro: Your options today are either to approve the plan that was submitted previously, deny it, or -- City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Or amend it. Ms. Chiaro: -- you have an option of approving it with modifications. You can include some of the items or all of the items that were distributed to you as modifications to the plan. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. OK. The next -- Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: -- speaker, Andres Asion. I'm going to go down the list. All those that checked in with the City Clerk, I will go down the list. Andres Asion: Good afternoon. Andres Asion, 1000 South Pointe Drive -- Chairman Sanchez: Three minutes. Mr. Asion: -- Miami Beach, Florida. Born and raised here in Miami, Florida, and in speaking to several people about this project, 1 think the biggest misconception was that many people thought that the Terra Group was going to come in and basically demolish the building and build a building, and I don't think many people had the thought process of how much thought and care the development team put into trying to make sure that the building stayed intact and kept the integrity of the building for what it is. I do think that the structure behind it is going to frame the building in its glory. If you don't the structure behind it, then I guess you could start saying, well, what are you going to build behind -- one block behind it, or two blocks behind it, or three blocks behind it? Because, visually, whenever you're standing in the park, or on the breezeway, or on the walkway, it's going to impair whatever is behind the tower, in that case. I think that you have a beautiful structure behind it. You have a symbolic building, which is the Freedom Tower, and I think that the design was done with the full integrity of the Freedom Tower in the whole entire planning of the building, so I definitely am for the project, and I think that it's going to be -- it's going to keep the landmark for what it is, and I think people are going to be able to enjoy it, and I think that even people who have a very strong feeling about the Tower are going to be able to one day, if they would like, even own in the building and say, I own and I could sit, and feel, and see the Freedom Tower in front of me and have people enjoy it, and I think it's going to add to the City and to our community. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Manuel Alonso. Manuel Alonso-Poch: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Manuel Alonso-Poch, 3520 Rockerman Road in Coconut Grove. I'm a resident of the City of Miami, and I also chair the governing board of the Arts & Minds High School in Coconut Grove, and I'm here to urge you to pass and approve this application, and there are a number of reasons why you should approve the project. If we look at the City's history, it can be said that we are now moving from adolescents to becoming a mature metropolis. We're not there yet, but we are certainly making all the moves, and the metamorphosis has begun. The City's underway to develop the Miami 21 project, and this project is a perfect example of what the City is trying to achieve by the Miami 21. Developers, like Pedro Martin, are willing to take the business risks that are required to build projects like this, and at the same time, they're willing to take the steps to preserve icons like the Freedom Tower and pass them to the public trust for present generations and future generations to enjoy. This type of project certainly strengthens the City's tax base, and the project also enhances the City's beautiful skyline. Finally, this project truly moves our community one step further towards urban maturity, and for these reasons, I urge you to approve the project. Thanks. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Next speaker will be Juan Espinosa. No? Do not want to speak, OK. Somebody -- Albio. Albio -- I'll tell you what, 1'll give you your last four of your City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 telephone number, because I could hardly read your handwriting, 9515. Wow. Alicia Cervera. Alicia Cervera: Alicia Cervera, 1236 Anastasia, Coral Gables. Commissioner Winton: Pull the microphone down. Ms. Cervera: Like that? Can you hear me now? Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Cervera: As a young woman, doctor of a diplomat, I went all around the world and 1 was always impressed by the beauty of an old building next to a new building. I see my -- right now, with the presentation of the lady, I have seen again how beauty -- how beautiful can be St. Patricio -- St. Patrick next to the other buildings. 1 think that we could -- should move forward and not have this beautiful building neglected. For the last three decades, 1 have seen it deteriorating sometimes; other times, somebody from, I think, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Arabian or something bought the building, was trying to do offices; it didn't work, so 1 think that Mr. Martin has achieved a great result with -- and have create a balance by donating this building to the university, and by making it a wonderful, beautiful building by a very renowned architect behind it. Please, I will beg of you not to defer anymore this thing, because as a person that likes Miami, my children have grow up in this city, I am still working on my English, I think that it will enhance the city, and I don't see any wrong if some millionaires want to come to this city either. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Thank you. Carolyn Fetscher. All right, don't start the clock yet. Ma'am, it's all right, but please take in mind, you have about three minutes. Carolyn Fetscher: Thank you very much. My name is Carolyn Fetscher. I live at 11724 Northeast 6 Avenue. I'm the co -president of two foundations, Walking the High Road Foundation and Seeding God's Garden. Walking the High Road Foundation, both of them have been in operation for a number of years, and our focus on that one is to work for the common good of the whole community in the -- with the highest moral values. Our second one, Seeding God's Garden is to look at how our community is seeding itself and is it producing healthy children, healthy families, and healthy community? In the last five years, I have been a --1 left my job, and I've been a community volunteer with these two foundations, and I have gone the length and breadth of this community. I've been in mental health facilities, in the jail, the detox unit, Jackson, et cetera, so my focus here today in speaking to you is I would like us all to consider not just the impact studies on the City of Miami, but what is the impact to the whole community at large? One of the --1 have about -- I brought eight children here, eight students four months ago, and I had them show some of these posters, and we were telling the Zoning Board that the original moment of this building was when the City of -- when our newspaper, the Miami News, said that they had purchased a special light to put on the top of the building, and they said, "We want to be a beacon of truth in this city, " so this building became -- was started in the greatest moral sense in trying to make a real great impact on the city to enhance it, so I would like to ask some of the questions that have not been asked so far. So far, on listening to everybody, I have heard about how the pedestrian experience will be wonderful; how there's going to be low-lying trees; how the environment of the two buildings will look next to each other, but I haven't' heard anything about -- what about the traffic congestion of 62-story building in downtown? How does that impact everybody on I-95 driving by? I would like to know, what is the impact of Biscayne Bay that is right there on an environmental basis? Has anybody spent time on that question? I'd like to find out about how our waste management company says that we have a huge percentage of -- we are the -- one of the top cities in having too much garbage. We are way, way high up there in how we handle waste management. What about all waste management for this building; has that been investigated? I'd like to ask the question about -- this is the biggest one -- the spiking of the houses that are going up so high that City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 the average individual in Miami or Dade County can no longer afford a house. I'm house shopping now. In my immediate neighborhood, two years ago, my -- nearby house sold for 190; now it's selling for 390 in two years, because the condos are selling for 400, 500, $600, 000, and they're driving up the prices so that the average individual cannot afford the houses, and when we get these luxury condos in -- Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am. Ms. Fetscher: Is it over? Chairman Sanchez: No, no. Ms. Fetscher: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Just wrap it up when you can. Ms. Fetscher: OK. 1 also would like to -- Chairman Sanchez: Did you have questions? You want to ask the questions? You can -- you also read your -- the things you put out here. Ms. Fetscher: Yes. I wanted to ask you -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Commissioner Winton: Joe, come on. Chairman Sanchez: All right. I believe we've read them. All the Commissioners have read them. Thank you. Ms. Fetscher: Well, let me just finish up with one last thing. I have in my possession 125 signatures from children. They -- this is the petition: "We, as children of Miami, would like a voice in our future by petitioning the Commissioners to choose the Freedom Tower to shine in our Miami skyline rather than another tall, high-rise condo, so that our City's number one historic building may be saved for all future generations to enjoy as a symbol of liberty and hope for all." I'd like us to really focus on that beginning building, that light that said it was going to be a beacon of light for all. Are we doing that today, and are we asking all the questions? So, my final statement is, 1 would like to defer -- ask you to consider deferring. The citizens of Dade County, City of Miami need time to know what is the impact to the whole community on this project, and -- Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Fetscher: -- I thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez.' Thank you so much. Nina West. Nina. Nina West: Good afternoon. I'm Nina West, 3690 Avocado Avenue, in Coconut Grove, and I'm just here to ask one question, and the question is of the City Attorney, and were you saying that the Commission was not -- Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, the Chair has -- Ms. West: -- able to defer this? Chairman Sanchez: The question has to go through the Chair. City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. West: Will you ask the City Attorney, Mr. Chairman, that -- was she saying that the Commission is unable to defer this; that they must consider this today? Commissioner Winton: No. Chairman Sanchez: No, I don't believe she stated that. Could you elaborate on that -- Ms. West: Can you -- ? Chairman Sanchez: -- decision? Ms. West: What I'm asking is -- Chairman Sanchez: Was the -- was -- Ms. West: -- can you defer this? Is it in your power, if you wish to? Commissioner Winton: Yes, we can. Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. Ms. West: OK. That's my only question. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Fernando Gonzalez. Fernando Gonzalez: Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Name and -- Mr. Gonzalez: My name is Fernando -- Chairman Sanchez: -- address for the record. Mr. Gonzalez: -- Gonzalez, 128 Northwest 18 Avenue. Before I have to say something, 1 want to let the -- to let know that I am here by my own. We belong to a community organization in Little Havana. I am an activist for almost 14 years in that area, and we came here for our own decision, so means that nobody tell us to come over here to say anything. We are no act like that. In many years before, I went to support many constructions in our neighborhood and even in Miami, and new buildings, like Jose Marti Park, I was making a little part also in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) clinic, and the Tower Theater. I met many different places. The -- we are here -- at the last time we came with a lot of neighbors over here. We studied the facts of this problem, and we find out that if anybody go around the Tower right now, the people who really love the Tower going to see the Tower filthy, a lot of homeless around the towers on certain place, and too many problems around over there. The construction of the new building, I don't believe that going to give any damage to the Tower. It's going to bring an enhancement to the Tower, and to the downtown, and the whole Miami. We are from Little Havana, but we concern about whole Miami, the nine neighborhood of our City, and we believe that -- I don't know even the name -- I know it's Pedro Martin, but 1 don't know by personal any owner of that project, so 1 went to the people because 1 heard something not so nice, you know, about my people when came last time here. Nobody tell us, or nobody pay us, or nobody give any favor to bring us here to talk about the -- any project in our area, so Commissioner, please, approve that project. Miami has to grow, and new building have to be grow in Miami. We need a beautiful city. We need a beautiful neighborhoods. Any project in the future that going to be in our area, for the benefit and the prosperity of our neighbors and our city are going to be here (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my people or somebody from my organization. Thank you so much. City of Miami Page 80 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. We finally figured out. It took three Commissioners to figure this one out. Albio Castillo. I figured it was you. Albio Castillo: How did you figure that one, sir? Chairman Sanchez: Don't you know your last four numbers of your telephone number? I called Mr. Castillo: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: -- it out, 9515. Mr. Castillo: Yes, sir. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Castillo: My name is Albio Castillo. I live in 2386 Southwest 5th Street. As a long-time resident of the City of Miami and coming in here for many years, I'd like to ask this question. There's too many buildings that are going to be built there. It's just white elephants being built without Fire Department. How is the City going to handle that entire area without Fire and municipal service? There's three fire stations we need; two in that particular area and one in between 3 and 4 district. I'd like to know is, what is the City going to do about that problem? And the attorneys that are here that maybe could negotiate. Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Manager. Commissioner Winton: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We're not -- part of the deal is that well sit here an answer all the questions; that you hear the testimony -- Mr. Castillo: That is my -- Commissioner Winton: -- and then you can answer the questions. Chairman Sanchez: Well, he's got a valid concern. With our growth in the City and all this development -- I mean, we do have a plan; that we're going to have to hire additional services, and -- Mr. Castillo: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: -- we're taking that into consideration as -- Commissioner Winton: You didn't answer the other lady's question about garbage service and all those other things. Chairman Sanchez: You should have answered it for her. Mr. Castillo: Remember, it only takes me two minutes to answer and ask a question. Chairman Sanchez: Miami 21. Commissioner Winton: Unless -- Mr. Castillo: Thank you. City of Miami Page 81 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: Have the Fire Chief come up and answer the question. Mr. Castillo: Or somebody, or in administration. Commissioner Winton: I wouldn't answer any of the (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Castillo: As part of the budgetary. Mr. Arriola: Let's don't get carried away. All plans are reviewed by our Fire Department. All plans are approved by the Fire Department. This was reviewed and approved by Fire Department. That's all we have to say. Commissioner Winton: And no building can get approved without review of the Fire Department -- Mr. Arriola: Of course not. Commissioner Winton: -- in making sure that they can provide service. Mr. Castillo: But if you continue -- Mr. Arriola: Of course not. Mr. Castillo: -- to grow, you need two fire stations, and how you're going to handle that? Mr. Arriola: And we will handle it like we've handled everything else. Mr. Castillo: I hope it doesn't -- the building burn down before you react to it. Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no. Mr. Castillo: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. All right, let's go. Next speaker. Judith Sandoval. Judith. Judith Sandoval: Sandoval? Ms. Thompson: Yes. Commissioner Winton: That's you. Ms. Sandoval: Judith Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace, Miami. I am an architectural historian and critic. I have done this internationally for 50 years. 1 don't want to bore you, but my work has been done for Harvard, Yale, the National Gallery of Art, Tulane University, the University of Wyoming, and many other places. I'm here as a neutral. I'm not being paid by anybody, but it's very hard for me to hear people who know very little about my profession to stand up and talk about the beauties of this building and the combination of buildings, and that's really basic. This building was not designed by I.M. (Ieoh Ming) Pei, or Frank Lloyd Wright, or Mies Vanderow, one of whom we could use here to do a big building because it's going from bad to worse. This building is oversized, structurally, in its decorative qualities; it has nothing to do as a complement to the Freedom Tower. The Freedom Tower looks like a matchstick standing next to this huge thing. It looks like, if it fell over on it, it wouldn't be anymore. Now, the Freedom Tower -- many people have spoken about the sentiments of the community. I'm not a Cuban Sandoval; I'm a Mexican Sandoval, so I'm neutral there, too, but I appreciate that this has been mentioned and it's important, but 1 only want to talk about the aesthetics. Now, the City of Miami Page 82 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Freedom Tower is a descendant of two great towers in Spain, the Giraldo Tower in Seville, and the great Clock Tower on the back of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, which is the most important religious shrine. Both of these towers are beautifully lit up from the bottom. The lighting that has been proposed, these kind of matchstick things sticking up with little lights hanging off them, have nothing to do with the Tower either, and they're certainly not going to enhance it. I think that -- and the other buildings that were shown by Ms. Uguccioni in other cities, such as New York, such as Chicago, the Water Tower and so on. I am familiar, firsthand, with many of these buildings, and there's more space around them. They're in cities where this urban setting has already been established for many years; they work. This doesn't work, and you should reject it on those grounds, as well as some of the others. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Ramiro Ortiz. Ramior Ortiz: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson, Commissioners. I'm here today as a board member of the Freedom Square Foundation. Commissioner Winton: Ramiro, you need to put your name and address on the record. Mr. Ortiz: Ramiro Ortiz, 7250 Southwest 99 Street, city of Pinecrest. The Freedom Square Foundation was a board that was put together by Pedro Martin, group of civic leaders, to make sure that while the Terra Group was in the process of putting together their plans, all of the integrity regarding Freedom Tower would be maintained I can assure this Commission that we took our mission very, very seriously. By way of background, I'm president and chief operating officer of Bank United, the largest bank headquartered in the state of Florida, and let me clarify that we have not financed any of Pedro Martin's condominium buildings, nor do we have any financial interest in this building, nor do we have plans to finance any other condo high-rises for Mr. Martin. That's just not our line of business and not what we specialize in. I'm here from a civic standpoint. From a civic standpoint, I am the past chairman of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the United Way, almost 15 years Orange Bowl Committee member. I'm currently on the FIU (Florida International University) Board of Trustees, and many, many other activities, so 1 care about the City of Miami. Our board looked at three different components in terms of this project. One was a historical context, and 1 can assure you, Rafael, whom 1 consider a good friend, and Arva, who I consider a good friend, that we did not take that lightly, and took into consideration all of your well thought out comments during the last few months, and we struggled during the last few months on how did we cause all of these things to happen. There was an educational component and we approved, unanimously, when it was presented to our board, the Miami -Dade Community College idea. We thought that was an excellent idea, to continue the educational component of the Freedom Tower or actually create one because it really wasn't there, but then I have to put my banker's hat on and talk about economic viability. All of these great intentions are great, but don't happen without economic viability, not only for Freedom Tower itself but for the immediate area. One of the gentlemen talked about, when you walk through there today, yeah, you see some students, but you also have some unpleasant experiences with homelessness and so forth. The only way to develop all of that out of the area is through development, and that's what this project represents. I want to conclude by saying that a couple of other buildings have been mentioned earlier. I just got back from New York City, and walking down Fifth Avenue caused me to think about this when I saw St. Patrick's Cathedral with all the very big, huge buildings that are right next to it. In the city of New York, Commissioners, they figured out how to coexist the beauty of the architect of St. Patrick's Cathedral, along with the practicality and the economic viability of the new buildings that make Fifth Avenue what it is today. 1 strongly urge you to continue the success of the City of Miami and vote for this project. Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Arva Moore Parks. Arva Moore Parks: Good afternoon. I'd like to make two different kinds of comments. The first City of Miami Page 83 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 comment -- Chairman Sanchez: Your name and address, for the record. Ms. Parks: I'm sorry. Arva Moore Parks, at 1601 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. I'd like to make one very brief comment as chairman of your Planning Advisory Board, and I must say, I am a little disappointed that this big a change in a project did not return first to the Planning Board, where there would be time for more citizen input. Now, I will cut off that hat and put on my private citizen's hat. 1 come before you today with very mixed emotions. 1 would not be true to my preservation principles, or my love of the City of Miami, if I did not say that I'm sorry, as a community, that we are not committed to saving the entire site. 1 grieve that the Tower will be dwarfed by new development, and will no longer stand alone as a beacon to freedom. It needs no enhancement. 1 worry that if the project goes forward, the Freedom Tower may never qualify as a national landmark, an honor it well deserves. With that said, I want to thank Pedro Martin and the Terra Group for going back to the drawing board and coming back with a much better plan. By not demolishing the rear portion of the historic building, the Tower will now have the necessary square feet to house an appropriate museum. The first plan, it was 12,000 square feet, which, if you can know, is about the size of a lot of people's houses these days. They also have improved the visional connection between the condo and the Tower. Finally, and most importantly, they have announced that they are giving the Tower to Miami -Dade College. I particularly applaud that decision. It is the right thing to do, and Pedro Martin and the Terra Group should be honored for their commitment. I have great confidence that Miami -Dade College will provide appropriate stewardship of this psychotic manifestation of our community soul, but I hope today, before you grant Terra Group's development rights, that you ask a key question: When will Miami -Dade receive title to the Freedom Tower? For almost 30 years, I have heard a series of promises to preserve the Freedom Tower. I have attended at least four celebrations of its preservation. 1 have supported several different plans; none of them has ever come to fruition. Our community must not again be given false hopes. In addition to the two offered conditions, not having any demolition at the historic tower and changing the facade of the condominium, please add a condition for granting development rights to the Terra Group; that the title to the Tower either be transferred immediately to Miami -Dade College, or that an airtight signed legal agreement -- that I'm sure our lawyers can come up with -- will assure, no matter what the future may bring, that the Freedom Tower, once and for all, goes into public ownership. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next. Applause. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No -- Commissioner Winton: No. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- no applauding, please. Thank you. Ms. Judy Pruitt. Judy Pruitt: Hello, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Judy Pruitt, and I live at 837 Navarra Avenue, in Coral Gables. I would like to also applaud the Terra Group for keeping the tower in public hands and not demolishing any part of the tower. I'm here to represent the villagers, who are the -- Miami's oldest preservation group that was started in 1966 because a developer was planning to tear down the Douglas entrance in Coral Gables and build a supermarket and parking lot. I -- while I applaud the Terra Group for their working with preservationists, I am still concerned about the 62-story tower -- condo tower which will totally overshadow and dwarf the Freedom Tower, and I would like to echo what Arva Parks said previously, that was published in the newspaper. She said that while a beautiful condo can go anywhere in the City of Miami, the Freedom Tower is our soul and should not be dwarfed by City of Miami Page 84 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 such a condo, so 1 urge you to vote against the Terra Group's developing this 62-story condo. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. John Shubin -- Shubin, I'm sorry. Commissioner Allen: Shubin. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: He's not here? John Shubin: I'm here, but I don't need to speak. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you, sir. Juan Loumiet. Juan Loumiet. Juan Loumiet: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Juan Loumiet. 1 reside at 1033 Anastasia Avenue, Coral Gables, and I have offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, in Miami. The Terra Group asked me to make a couple of brief comments because 1 was intricately involved in the negotiations of the -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Just go ahead, go ahead. Mr. Loumiet: -- transaction with Miami -Dade College, and let me point out a couple of things. Somebody said to me yesterday, after they heard about this, what a beautiful idea, that the Freedom Tower will become a tower of learning, and that was a very poetic thought, so I thought I would repeat it. In arriving at the decision, it involved a great deal of discussion with the college, not only about preserving the building, but one of the commitments that the college has made is the establishment of an academic center, a multidisciplinary center, which will be called the Freedom Center, which will both preserve the history of the Cuban exile insofar as that building is concerned, but also other immigrant communities into Miami -Dade County. We all know that over the last number of years, Miami -Dade College has been the beacon for cultural enhancement in downtown Miami. I'm involved with the Performing Arts Center; have been for 12 years, and I applaud the gesture from the Terra Group, and I want to assure you that having made a public announcement of the intent that the Terra Group and Miami -Dade College are going to move very promptly to finalize the necessary arrangements to complete that. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Becky Roper. Commissioner Winton: Becky, that's you. Chairman Sanchez: Becky -- Commissioner Winton: 1 can tell. Chairman Sanchez: -- Roper. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Roper. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Becky Roper Matkov: Hello. I'm Becky Roper Matkov, executive director of Dade Heritage Trust, and first, we absolutely do agree and congratulate the Terra Group and Mr. Pedro Martin for his generosity in donating the Freedom Tower to Miami -Dade College. This is something the college has long sought to acquire. It's adjacent to the campus and it's most appropriate that this civic -minded and nationally respected institution be the steward of this Freedom Tower. That -- having said that, it underscores the importance of very judiciously moving forward here, City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 because not only now is the Freedom Tower a symbol of our history, a symbol of freedom; it's a symbol of hope for the future, of learning, as the previous gentleman just said, so whatever we put around it is even more important because we're looking ahead. We are looking to what we want as our beacon, as our -- as the silhouette against a Miami skyline that would define our community. For this reason, we're delighted they are making some changes or they haven't made changes. They're asking you to mandate the changes. We have not seen them until this past hour, and I would hope that a decision of this magnitude that will affect Miami forever will be very carefully made and that you will not vote on this today when you've had five minutes and we have had five minutes to see these. We think that Mr. Martin's intentions are all very honorable, and we think the designers have done a good job, but we don't know. We would like to really see this and have time for the public to comment on it, so we do ask you to really consider, do you want to vote on something this important right this minute? Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Matkov: Oh, incidentally, 1 have in front of you a picture of the Freedom Tower. 1 gave each of you the magazine, as it was in the 1930s, surrounded by flowers and green space, and I also gave to you a copy of the letter from Richard Moe, the president of the National Trust, in which he says, "The Freedom Tower is a landmark in the truest sense. To obscure it with a hulking mass of new construction, which would dominate and literally overshadow it, would be a travesty." Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. OK. I think that concludes the public hearing. Anybody else from the public that wish to address the Commission? All right, seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed -- Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- and it comes back -- Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- to the -- Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal, rebuttal. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK, rebuttal. Ms. Dougherty: Very briefly. One of the things that we've lost track of when we were talking about the Freedom Tower site is that, in fact, the Freedom Tower site is only this site. This site here was owned by the Cejas family, so Mr. Martin actually put two different sites together, so let's assume, for example, the Freedom Tower site were to go into public domain, or if something -- somebody acquired it, some federal or state agency actually acquired it, what we're talking about is right here. This is the only part that wouldn't be built. This is still owned by the Martins. This would still own -- this was the property that was owned by the Cejas family, so -- in fact, what you have is a CBD (Commercial Business District) -- this is the highest, most intense zoning classification in the entire city. You have right next to it 900 Biscayne, Marquis, Paramount, the Tent Museum, and it goes all the way up the street, and behind it -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- high density residential CBD zoning, so directly behind here, you're going to have the same condition, so -- Commissioner Allen: So, that goes to the issue of not being out of scale. City of Miami Page 86 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Dougherty: That's right, but more importantly, it goes to Commissioner Regalado's comments in the newspaper today; yes, it'd be great to have an Ellis Island; it'd be great to have a Statue of Liberty with nothing else around it, but that would never be the case in this downtown CBD setting because you're going to have all the high-rises to the north, all the high-rises to the west, and all high-rises to the south, so that condition will never exist, and the other -- Commissioner Regalado: Lucia, can I ask you? Ms. Dougherty: Certainly. Commissioner Regalado: If it's a totally separate parcel -- Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- why are we discussing this parcel? Ms. Dougherty: Because we joined them together. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so it's part of the project. Ms. Dougherty: Well, it is now because -- Commissioner Regalado: It is. Ms. Dougherty: -- we joined it together, but if somebody were to go acquire the Freedom Tower site, they would have been -- acquired just this site, and just because the federal government purchases this site to preserve it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be happy with it, and I just point to the Circle as an example of a federal government owning a piece of property that we wouldn't be very proud (INAUDIBLE), so with that, I'd -- Commissioner Allen: Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: -- urge your approval of this project. Commissioner Allen: Right. Before you do that, just two outstanding issues, since you're on rebuttal, one of the questions of the concerns of the individuals was traffic congestion. Would you address that? You just addressed the outer scale issue, so could you address the traffic congestion issue? Ms. Dougherty: Yeah. We do have our traffic engineer here. He's going to come up and speak, but I want you to know, just like as every single Major Use Special Permit, we are required to submit a traffic plan that is reviewed and approved by your traffic planner, for which we have to pay $4, 500 for their review, so -- Commissioner Allen: Right. That's it. Ms. Dougherty: -- with that, I'm going to let our traffic planner address your issue. Commissioner Allen: Oh, no, 1 don't -- Commissioner Winton: No. Commissioner Allen: -- I didn't ask -- City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: No. Commissioner Allen: -- to hear. I just wanted to hear your argument, and you've rebutted it. That's all -- Ms. Dougherty: Oh, OK. Commissioner Allen: -- I wanted to hear. Yes, thanks. Ms. Dougherty: Was there something else? OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All right. The public hearing is closed, and now it comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Allen: For discussion. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the years that I have been in city government, in the years that I have been as a journalist reporter covering governments, 1 have found the profound respect that different governments have for history. To me, the issue of how big is the condo tower, or how much traffic it's going to generate, or how much garbage it's going to generate, is not an issue. It's not an issue, also, the fact that Mr. Martin has donated the tower to the Miami -Dade Community College. I think he made the right decision, because one of the brilliant minds that we have here in South Florida, in our community, is Dr. Eduardo Padron, and he has found the ways to support and to enhance and to have the college grow throughout South Florida. This is not the issue. The issue here is respect for history. I remember the debate about the Miami Circle, and Lucia mentioned it, when some Tequesta remains were found, there was a plan that came before this Commission, and this body decided for history, and Miami -Dade County came to the rescue, and the State of Florida came to the rescue, and the federal government came to the rescue, and there was no compromise; it's either history or progress, because there is no compromise between history and progress. It's either one or the other. When this Commission was faced, I remember, with a crisis, like Miami have never seen before in 1996 and '97, and there was some discussion about developing Virginia Beach and the area that now is part of the Virginia Beach Museum, there was no compromise. The Afro-American community came to this body and requested that we respect that area because it was part of the history, because it was part of the heritage of the Afro-American community in South Florida. Granted we, the Cubans, are not as important, historically, as the Tequesta, but we're more than the Tequesta, and when the Circle debate began, no one even dare to suggest that it will be great to have --1 don't know -- I don't remember the name of the developer -- build a condo, and then save a little for the Circle. The Miami -Dade County government just came and outright bought the property, which was the fair thing to do because the developer didn't know that the Tequesta circle was there, and he was not going to lose the money. To be fair, Mr. Martin is not to blame for the situation we are in. I think that the blame should go to us, the community, and to the governments that were not proactive in trying to rescue the tower before all these plans were drawn; to the past owners of the tower, who withdrew the application, and Congress to declare the tower a national landmark. We would have had another national landmark in the state of Florida, and the National Parks Department would have taken over. It is very unfortunate that we have come to this moment, because Mr. Martin has spent his money and he wants to go on -- move on with his project. We don't know too much about the role of Miami -Dade Community College. We trust President Padron, but frankly, even if another condo building is built next to the tower, that is not the -- also the issue. It's about having respect for the communities, and if we respected the Tequestas, if we respected City of Miami Page 88 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 the Afro-American community, I think that the Cuban -American community should be respected, and something that is an icon for the exiles -- you know, it has been mentioned here that it is where the Cuban Refugee Center was located. Yes, it's true, but there's more to it, there's more to it, because this was established in 1961 as the only reception center for the Cuban community, and then it became a medical dispensary, and as Mr. Martin mentioned, I think, in the media also, where the Cubans got the food from the agriculture department; the excess cheese, and powder milk, and corn meal, and the things that Cubans got besides the check. Then, when the freedom flights started in 1966 by President Lyndon Johnson, 257,000 persons had to go through the Freedom Tower, but you know, back in 1962, when the missile Cuban crisis, it was on the Freedom Tower where the Cubans registered to go to the Army in the United States, and it is there where -- what we now remember as the Cuban Units of Fort Jackson were created. Of those that went through the Tower, 5,000 -- almost 6,000 Cubans that went voluntary to the Army and were trained by the United States Armed Forces. More than 300 died later in Vietnam, and many became officers, and even generals in the U.S. Army, so it is part of the history. I wish that we could say, as a government, hey, you know what? We have the money, and Mr. Martin does not need to lose money because he's not in the business of losing money. I mean, he is a successful developer, and he just thought that was a good project. I wish that governments will step forward and say to him, well, you know what? We are going to pay you what you pay for this, like we did with the Circle, but maybe it's not going to happen. Maybe this project will go through and, hopefully, some day we will have a museum. I can just tell you that I am disappointed at all the governments because of the time that we spent doing nothing to save the Tower, and 1 am just, like I said -- and I said before, and when I say something that I'm going to do in public or in private, I'll do it in the City Commission. I said, I will voting no, but not because it has 62 stories, or because it's going to generate traffic; it's because I really do believe that there is no compromise between history and progress, so I wish good luck to Mr. Martin and his project, and I hope that we some day can learn that we need to fight for history; that if we pay billons and billons of dollars for transportation, if we spend $400 million in the Performing Arts Center that only two percent of the population is going to use, then we should learn from this issue and be prepared to put our money where our mouth is and get for the people what the people need to remember. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I do believe progress and historic preservation can coexist, and today you've seen some great examples of coexistence; the St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, Trinity's Church in Boston, Water Tower in Chicago, just to mention a few. We don't want to stop progress, but we do want to protect our heritage. The Freedom Tower is one of the last few remaining structure or vintage that really, truly is the icon of hope and freedom in our community, and I truly believe that this is a win -win situation for everybody, and let me share why. One, I'm glad to see that the Freedom Tower is preserved for the next generations to come; it's not going to be destroyed, and I tell you one thing that we do have in common. If the Freedom Tower would have been demolished, I guarantee you, each and every one of us here today would have been tied up to a pillar stopping it from happen; that, I could agree with all of you, and you would agree with me, as I sit here today making a very tough decision in our community. I'm glad to see that the Freedom Tower is going to end up in the public hands, clearly safe for the next generation, and what better hands besides Allstate than Miami -Dade Community College? Even education wins on this one. Now, the beauty of this is that we have come to a compromise, 1 believe, and I do have a motion that I do want to put on the table. I think we should have put a motion first, before we debated it, and 1 want to present this motion. Maybe it gets a second or not, but 1 do think it's going to be a compromise between both parties here today whether you're in favor or against, and the motion is as follows: Motion to accept the MUSP with the following conditions: One, retain entire Freedom building, the entire Freedom building will be saved; second, modem the building elevation behind the Freedom Tower to simplify it. Prior to the issuance of a BP (building permit), provide the City application has entered into a contract obligation to convey the Freedom Tower to Miami -Dade City of Miami Page 89 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Community College, which is something that really stuck to my heart, because that is a big concern that I think both sides agree that we want to do that. We want to make sure that the property is transferred to Miami -Dade Community College as quickly as possible, and continue to work with Planning and Zoning staff on landscaping and plans for the final building elevation details. I think that those are the biggest concerns that we have here, but once again, let's get to the -- to something that 1 think that, at the end of the day, we're going to all be very proud of One -- Commissioner Winton: Is that your motion? Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, that's my motion. Commissioner Winton: I'll second the -- Chairman Sanchez: You second for -- Commissioner Winton: -- motion for discussion. Chairman Sanchez: -- it for the purpose of discussion, and I'll -- Commissioner Allen: For the purpose of discussion. Chairman Sanchez: -- go ahead and yield because I'm sure Commissioner -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right, Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and a second. Discussion, Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: First of all, to the motion, I want to -- and I think the attorneys have to help here, this issue which Arva brought up relative to a guarantee of the transfer. Here's what we don't want to have happen, and it's happened a million times in the 25 years I've been in Miami, and that is that -- and we always hope and pray nothing happens, the economy stays good, everything's hunky-dory, but it doesn't happen all the time. If the economy takes a tank, the building -- the new building isn't built, the bank comes to the table, new owner comes to the table says, "Oh, well, what do we -- Miami -Dade College, I forgot all about them." We can't have that happen, so -- and I'm understanding that the developer is going to proffer something here, but the proffer, in order for us to accept it -- and this is first reading, so well have -- is this first reading or second? Commissioner Regalado: No, it's a MUSP. Commissioner Winton: Oh, it's a MUSP. I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: It's a MUSP. Commissioner Winton: Well, then, you've got to help me with that also. We cannot end up in a situation where we approve a MUSP today and something happens down the road, and the transfer of this asset to Miami -Dade Community College could be voided because the building didn't get built, and that isn't going to be acceptable. I don't think it's acceptable to a lot of people out there, and I think Arva hit on the key point to once and for all -- and I've been here since 1980. I've watched all the debates about the Freedom Tower. I feel as strongly as City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 anybody else about saving the Tower, except, as you guys remember, 1 disagreed over whether we chop off part of the back of it, and I told you that that didn't bother me so much, but y'all finally convinced me, but no question how important that Tower is to us, but also no question that we've had 30 years to solve the problem and haven't solved it in 30 years. It's been vacant 30 years. We don't want it to be -- we do not want it to go through another iteration of trying to figure out whether it gets saved for an appropriate use, so Madam Attorney, I'm looking to you all, in order to get my support for this MUSP today -- and I'm -- I want to support the MUSP today, but we have to have something that guarantees that if the -- that the bad thing happens, that the Freedom Tower doesn't end up again in this same iteration -- Commissioner Allen: That's -- Commissioner Winton: -- and that's my -- I don't want to debate all the rest of the stuff. That is my big issue here. Ms. Chiaro: The developer has proffered that the transfer would be made. Of course, you can't make your approval a condition on the deed being transferred. Commissioner Winton: Until I get the appropriate proffer -- Ms. Chiaro: How -- Commissioner Winton: -- is that correct? Ms. Chiaro: -- however, the developer has agreed that prior to the issuance of a building permit Chairman Sanchez: Permit. Ms. Chiaro: -- that the developer will provide proof to the City -- Chairman Sanchez: To the City. Ms. Chiaro: -- that the applicant has entered into an agreement to convey the Freedom Tower to Miami -Dade -- to Miami -- Chairman Sanchez: That's fine. Ms. Chiaro: -- College, and further, that title will be conveyed prior to the issuance of a CO (Certificate of Occupancy). I believe the developer will agree -- Ms. Dougherty: We agree to those conditions. Ms. Chiaro: -- on the record to those condition -- to that. Chairman Sanchez: Could you put it on the record? Commissioner Winton: But to what CO? To only this CO? Listen to me -- Ms. Dougherty: I understand what you're saying. Commissioner Winton: The economy goes to hell in a hand basket -- Ms. Dougherty: I understand. City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: -- bank takes over. Bank says, "Oh, what are you guys talking about?" Banks, they void agreements all -- Ms. Dougherty: Anybody who gets this MUSP has to agree to the same conditions, so if we -- if the bank takes over, the MUSP still runs with the land; they'd have the same condition. If somebody purchases the property from Mr. Martin, it has the same condition as this MUSP. Commissioner Winton: What if they -- Commissioner Allen: So, it'll be a covenant running with the land? Commissioner Winton: -- throw this MUSP out and start over? Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty: Then you have the same situation that you can impose, this is a condition in any future projects. Commissioner Allen: Right, a covenant running with the land. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. I didn't -- I think 1-- Ms. Dougherty: Well, this is -- actually is a covenant running because this gets filed of record -- Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Allen -- Ms. Dougherty: -- and this -- sorry. Commissioner Allen: I'm sorry. Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Winton has the floor. Ms. Dougherty: Sorry. This becomes a -- Commissioner Winton: I think y'all need to huddle. This has to be stronger than -- we don't want to be back here again with the same issue that could be a worse issue or a better issue, so -- and I don't think we -- you know, we can take five minutes, or ten minutes, or whatever, but -- or fifteen minutes or one month. Mr. Martin: Let me say -- this is Pedro Martin, speaking for the developer. What we will be willing to do is to keep the tower lien free; there'd be no mortgages, no bank, et cetera, who would have anything or any power over the tower, and we will make it a condition, and we will make it a covenant that the building would be conveyed to Miami -Dade College, you know, by the time that any building permit or any CO is issued on that site, and private covenants go even over government regulations in this particular case for any future owner. I think that should seal the -- Commissioner Winton: Madam Attorney. Ms. Chiaro: That's pretty good protection. Commissioner Allen: Yeah (INAUDIBLE) -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. I had the floor, and I yield to Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton, could I have it back? Commissioner Winton: Yes. City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: All right. That was the only condition, out of the four conditions that were put on the floor that just needed to be clearly understood. Now, I just want to finish and say that I want to praise the developer. I want to praise everyone who worked very hard to try to find a compromise agreement on this issue. It is a tough issue. I think both sides have merits in the argument, but at the end of the day, it is us, the policy makers, who make the decision, and 1 am very happy with the decision I've made, and very happy with the motion that I have presented. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Allen. Commissioner Allen: Well, I think both my Commissioners have pretty much couched what I was going to ask. My concern was to proffer those sort of conditions. I think I'm satisfied with what I've heard. I think we've made a -- pretty much a decent findings of fact as we sit here as a full body, Commissioner body, and just lastly, if I could just ask one question, and this is on the basis of those who are opposing the issue from the -- being out of scale or out of character. I'd just like to pose my own personal observation. I mean, I'm not an architect or anything, but what was presented to me, which is the -- if you will, it would appear to be the dwarfing of the Freedom Tower. From my vantage point, this, frankly, enhances the tower itself. It makes you really direct your attention to the tower. That's a -- oh, that's a pretty good edifice there. That's my own personal observation, in light of the other testimony that was put on the record, in terms of this being out of scale, out of character. I think I'm pretty much satisfied. Sufficient testimony has been presented before me, both by way of laymen testimony, expert testimony, and I believe the Planning Department, and again, my fellow Commissioners have already addressed the issues that I was going to bring up in terms of condition, so at that juncture, 1 would continue seconding the motion that was proffered by the Chairman, Commissioner Sanchez. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Now is my time to make my comments. At the beginning, when there was being considered to demolish part of this tower, I had it in my mind that I will never vote to approve such a product. Today, there are two things that motivate me to vote in favor of this, but before saying why I'm going to vote on this, I have to be frank, and I'm known to be very frank, and let me tell you. To me, it's very disappointing when people wrap around the Cuban flag for any other purpose other than fight for the freedom of Cuba. I feel very, very much for my native country, and that really make me feel bad, very bad, and it's not only in this instance. Even on political campaigns you hear Cuban Americans running on the basis that they are Cubans, and every time I hear that, I say, you know what, Castro is also a Cuban, all right. I came to this country when 1 was only 14 years old, in November of 1960, and I was one of those Cubans, and I wasn't part of the Peter Pan; I came alone, and I was claimed by an uncle, and 1 was one of those Cubans that went by the refugee center -- and that's what it was, it was the refugee center, OK, and they were not giving checks. They were giving buttermilk, which we should all appreciate because no other country did that for us. It was powdered eggs, it was milk, and it was cheese, and they would also give you a plane ticket, a plane ticket to any other state where you could find a job. At the time, I had to work and I had to study, and there was no work -- no job opportunities in the City of Miami, so I went -- I choose to take a plane and go to New York with some friends, and go to school at night -- during the daytime and work at night. That was the Cuban Refugee Center, but I also remember the sad part of this history, because we're going to talk about history, and this is going to sound kind of little negative, but I also remembered the remarks of "You Cubans, go back to Cuba. " many, many times I was reminded that 1 was a Cuban, and that 1 should go back to my country, so please, don't use the Cuban cause and the suffering of the Cuban people for any issues that doesn't have anything to do with municipal government. Having said that, based on the fact that the building is going to be preserved on its entirety, because definitely, it might be a historic building for us, for the Cubans, and it might not be, but it is for the natives of this country, for the Anglos, and that is something that we need to respect, not only because the Cuban Refugee Center was at that building; for other issues more important than that, OK, so based on the fact that this building is City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 going to remain on its entirety, and second, that the building has been donated to Miami -Dade Community College, of which I'm very proud to be a graduate of I am going to be voting in favor of this, and Madam Clerk, I would like you to call the roll, please. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Before you do, let me read the covenant that I was going to propose. Commissioner Allen: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Right. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Prior to the issuance of a building -- this is a covenant that would be recorded with the property -- prior to the issuance of a building permit, we will provide proof to the City that the applicant has entered into a contract obligating the conveyance of the Freedom Tower to the Miami -Dade Community College, and prior to the final CO, a -- the conveyance, in accordance with the contract, shall -- Ms. Chiaro: Be made. Ms. Dougherty: -- be -- Ms. Chiaro: Made. Ms. Dougherty: -- shall be perfected, and f furthermore, that no encumbrance will be made on that portion of the property for a construction loan, and that will be our proposed covenant running with the land. Commissioner Allen: Terrific. Commissioner Winton: Protection that I'm asking for? Ms. Chiaro: I'm sorry? Commissioner Winton: Does that provide the protection that I'm asking for? Ms. Chiaro: That provides the protection that you're asking for, as close as we can get it. Commissioner Winton: Great. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, Madam City Clerk. I know it's a resolution; we don't need to have a roll call, but please, I would like you -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Allen? Commissioner Allen: Aye. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Yes. City of Miami Page 94 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Thompson: Chairman Sanchez? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Gonzalez? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The resolution is adopted, 4/1. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Applause. Chairman Sanchez: We can't have that. Save it for the Heat game. All right. Recess five minutes, give us -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- a chance to -- and then well come back. PZ.17 05-01227 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED NORTH OF NORTHEAST 39TH STREET AND EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." 05-01227 Legislation.pdf 05-01227 Exhibit A.pdf 05-01227 Planning Analysis.pdf 05-01227 Zoning Map.pdf 05-01227 Aerial Map.pdf 05-01227 Class II Special Permit Final Decision.pdf 05-01227 Public Works Analysis.pdf 05-01227 Public Works Letter.pdf 05-01227 ZB Reso.pdf 05-01227 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01227 Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-01227 Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf 05-01227 Submittal-1.pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of an Alley LOCATION: Approximately North of NE 39th Street Between East of Biscayne Boulevard APPLICANT(S): 39th Street Investors Group, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Patricia M. Baloyra, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 conditions*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on April 7, 2005 by a vote of 6-1. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on October 17, 2005 by a vote of 6-2. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified residential property. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Sanchez and Commissioner Allen absent, to continue Item PZ 17 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for January 26, 2006. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Do we have the City Attorney present? Maria," Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Yes. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, we do. We have the City Clerk, we have three Commissioners on the dais. OK, we're going to call PZ 17. Whoever is going to be speaking on PZ 17, please make sure that you speak on the phone so we can all hear. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Commissioner, we may need to do another swearing in because some people may have come in late. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Whomever is going to speak on this item that haven't been sworn in, please stand up to be sworn in. Madam City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: I need you to raise your right hand, please. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 17 is a request for an official vacation and closure of an alley. It's located north of 39th Street and east of Biscayne Boulevard. The request has been recommended for approval, with conditions, by the Planning Department, approval by the Public Works Department, and approval by the Plat and Street Committee. It was also recommended for approval with a condition by the Zoning Board. The requirements, all the technical requirements have been met on the proposed vacation and closure. The Planning and Zoning Department's conditions were -- this was part of a Class II Special Permit for the Tivoli project. The Class II Special Permit included conditions which were the conditions that the Zoning Board and Planning Department recommended be incorporated into this approval. Other than that, it's been recommended for approval. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, ma'am. Patricia Baloyra: Good afternoon. Patty Baloyra from Tew Cardenas, offices at 1441 Brickell, on behalf of 39th Street Investors Limited, LLC, who is the entity. I have Tom Fawer and City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Stephanie Herman, who are principals in the entity, and the project developers for Tivoli. We're seeking today, specifically, the issue before you is the vacation and closure of the alley that run - - the north/south alley that runs right in the middle of the property. As Lourdes said, the Class 11 was approved with conditions on August 8, 2005, and again, this property is on Biscayne Boulevard, and the developers went for a Class II. They could have gone for a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). They could have gone for height on Biscayne Boulevard; they did none of those things. They stayed within the confines of what the Code allows; didn't seek extra, and went for a Class II and was approved for that. The alley closure has been recommended for approval by the Plat Committee, by the Planning Department. The T-plat has been approved by the County. The Fire Department doesn't need the alley that runs in the middle of the property, and in fact, we're providing access through a different route in the property, and Fire likes that access better. The alley is private and there's no public access to the alley. We are the owners of the property on either side of the alley. The general public isn't using the alley and never has used the alley. Public benefit to the closure of the alley is the facilitation of this project, the Tivoli development, and the developers had provided green area improvements, including shade trees, sidewalks and benches. The Bay Point homeowners properties -- sorry, Bay Point Property Owners Association filed an appeal of a Class II, and I bring this up because there are some individual members of the, you know, homeowners within Bay Point who are here, and also people from Magnolia Park, which is across the street, who are also here, and we heard them at Zoning Board and we can anticipate what their arguments will be, and they are directed toward the Class II, not to this alley closure, which is the issue before you. Bay Point Property Owners Association filed an appeal of that Class 11, a timely appeal, then they hired Tucker Gibbs, and then they dismissed the appeal. They also have filed a letter supporting -- the homeowners association has filed a letter supporting this specific application. There are some individual members who are still opposed to the development, and they're seeking this public hearing to inject their objections to the Class II, but that issue is closed. They don't have any standing on that issue, and nor do they have any standing on this issue. When we were here before the Zoning Board, they presented a plat from 1916, the second amended plat of Magnolia Park. Now, that plat includes only Magnolia Park, so it doesn't benefit anyone at Bay Point; that doesn't provide them any entry into this issue, and also, the plat was issued in 1916, and as properties continue to be developed and subdivided, some of these plats gave general rights to people within the entire plat, and this is one of those types of plats. There were problems with that type of platting, as you can see now. They're trying to inject themselves in an alley that doesn't really affect them, and therefore, the Florida Legislature, in 1972, passed what is now Section 177.085, relating to platted streets and reversionary clauses, and basically, what the legislature did in 1972 is they said, we have this weird issue with these plats. We're going to give anyone who has a right, stemming from one of these types of plats, one year to file a claim. Otherwise, those claims are extinguished, so even if they had rights under that prior plat, it's gone because the legislature abolished those types of rights under the plat, so the vacation and closure of this private alley serves a public purpose. The people who are here to speak against it tonight don't really have standing to speak to this issue. Again, they're going to talk to you about the Class II, which is a settled issue, and we urge your approval of the alley. This issue will come back before the City when the final plat is coming for approval, and I'd just like to reserve time for rebuttal. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All right. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission in reference to this item, please come forward. Yes, ma'am. Kay Hancock-Apfel: Members of the Commission, my name is Kay Hancock-Apfel. I reside at 550 Saba! Palm Road, Bay Point. I've been requested by 20 property owners, many of whom are present today, to make this collective presentation. Unfortunately, our counsel and fellow property owner, Mark Raymond was to make it. He is the managing partner of Broad and Cassel, and he was unable to because he's in trial. I want to bring to your attention that Section 5515 of the City of Miami Zoning Code, there are four distinct elements, all of which must be satisfied in order to grant the vacating of a public right-of-way. The developer cannot satisfy City of Miami Page 97 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 any of these elements. The first element is whether or not the closure of this public right-of-way is in public interest, or would the general public benefit from the vacating of the right-of-way? The answer is an unequivocal no. The project is not a benefit to the neighborhood. It degrades the neighborhood, as it removes mature trees. The developer seeks to build a structure inappropriate for an R-3 designated property. This project can only be built if the public right-of-way is given to the developer, and result in a large building deep into a neighborhood, which, of course, is designated R-3, adjacent to one of Miami's most beautiful R-1 properties, Bay Point, and one of Miami's most historic neighborhoods, Magnolia Park. Just visualize taking the Blue condominium on 36th Street and 1-95, turn it sideways, and add 200 feet; that is the massiveness of this structure the developer intends to build. There are no set of facts that the developer can present to suggest that there would be any public benefit from closing the public right-of-way. Ask yourself, how does a neighborhood, rich with history and mature trees, benefit from the loss of those trees and a large structure, which does not have sufficient access, if this public right-of-way is vacated? There is none. There is a network of alleys and streets throughout Miami, and in this neighborhood, on 39th Street, east of Biscayne Boulevard, the secondary access is utilized by City garbage trucks, Police, Fire, emergency vehicles will be infringing upon the vacating this public right-of-way. Moreover, there is no secondary access that will be available with this closure. Further, and what is essential to the Commission appreciating and understanding is that it will result in the clogging of a narrow street, and Arlys is going to pass out some pictures of that. The issue is best to be addressed by Mr. Pittman, who lives on 39th Street, but what we do know is that with any new structure on the property in question, there will be a need for public right-of-way. That need is greater with a new structure with more tenants, and instead of providing the necessary general public use, the developer is seeking to eliminate that access. Therefore, there's an adverse affect on Florida Power and Light, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, as well as delivery vehicles, the neighborhood and its residents. As I said a moment ago, Northeast 39th Street is a narrow street, as you can see from the pictures. Vehicles traveling in opposite directions require one vehicle to pullover and stop to allow the vehicle in the other direction to pass. Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, trash pickup, or any other service vehicle, moving vans, bring traffic to a complete stop. In addition, these 90 units are going to be added, proposed by the developer, to 39th Street will increase the need for public right-of-way. Additionally, because of the enormous amount of traffic that's now coming from Miami Beach, there is a large back up on 38th Street, and more and more drivers are learning to cut over to 39th Street, so we're getting heavier traffic on 39, not less traffic. Now, we have a developer that is proposing that instead of finding ways to reduce traffic burdens, his request will increase the traffic burden. We believe that this vacation should be granted -- should not be granted, I'm sorry. A traffic study is required, we believe, for the Commission before considering it. Would the vacation or closure of the right-of-way have a beneficial effort -- effect on pedestrians and vehicular traffic in the area? The answer, once again, is no, so we have four elements, none of which can be satisfied by this developer. What more do we know? The staff approved this structure, we believe was a mistake, because it s the City's Code on the turning radius of trucks; does not fit within the site plan, which is a condition obtaining Class II Special Permit. The loading zone must be 35 feet from the base building line, the property line, and here it's approximately 15 feet. Additionally, a vehicle must be able to turn around in the delivery area, and the Urban Development Review Board knows that if an overlay was put on the structure, it could not and would not be able to permit such turning around. This proposed closure of the public right-of-way is directly counter to what Commissioner Winton said on June 10, 2004, where he stated, and I quote, "I want to send a loud and clear message to the development community that we do not want you to assemblage along these corridors that allow you to build bigger buildings. I don't care if half the neighborhood is in favor." This group of neighbors is not in favor of taking this public property for private use. The vacation of this property -- of this subject's right-of-way is not appropriate, does not satisfy any of the requirements of Section 5515, and for all these reasons, we ask that you, who have the power in the City Commission, to not grant this vacation of this public right-of-way. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next. Yes, ma'am. City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Arlys Raymond: Good afternoon. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Ms. Raymond: My name is Arlys Raymond. I live 545 Sabal Palm Road. My husband was here earlier this morning, but was unable to stay. I am speaking on behalf of both of us. I would like to stress the point that this project is comprised of two C-1 parcels and not merely an assemblage of single zoned parcels. Permitting the closure of this public right-of-way would allow mass assemblage of six lots with different zoning to be constructed in my front yard 150 feet away. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK. I think that we need to -- you're addressing the building, you're not addressing the closure of the alley, right? You're talking about the building now. You're not talking about the closure of the alley. What we're discussing here is the closure of the alley, and I think that whatever statement you want to make should be in reference of the opposition of the alley closure. Ms. Raymond: Yes, sir, I understand, and the closure is of absolutely no benefit to us in any way, shape, or form. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: OK, very good. Ms. Raymond: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.' Thank you. Next. Geoffrey Bash: Good afternoon. My name is Geoffrey Bash. I live at 448 Northeast 39th Street, and directly across the street from the proposed project. I would like to mostly talk to you about unintended consequences that I believe are important to you when you're considering the closure of this public right-of-way, and I'm going to talk to you first about the loading zone design; trucks need to maneuver within the property, according to Class II Permit requirement. The present configuration does not allow this, and forces our service vehicles to either back onto 39th Street, which is not allow -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Once again, we're talking -- you're talking about the Class II Permit. Mr. Bash: It directly relates to closing the alley because the alley is centrally located on this property. It's ideally located for service vehicles, so if 1 may continue. The -- so this allows the service vehicles to back onto 39th Street, which is not allowed in the Class II, or to use the fire lane as an exit way to 39th Street, which the developer has promised in the settlement to Bay Point so that he would remove -- so that they would remove their appeal to the Class II; that they will not use this fire lane as a service road. When confronted by Magnolia Park residents with this dilemma, the developer said that he would deal with the City. We don't know what that means. The developer has been advised of this as early as December 15, 2004, as set forth in the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) conditions: "Think about how the services get into the building and how they come out of the building. Some of the services will not work as it is." Condition number six of the Class II Special Permit, "All truck maneuvering shall be limited to on -site movements, backing up with trucks into the public right-of-way shall be prohibited" This project is proposing a loading zone at the west end of the complex. It's illogical to assume that any delivery person would walk more than 500 feet with a refrigerator, TV (television), groceries, et cetera, to get from the loading zone to a condo unit. From a functional standpoint, the present public right-of-way location is ideal, coupled with a loading zone as it is centrally located in the project. Service alleys comprise an independent network of streets and traditional City planning. Removing one will have unintended consequences, including but not limited to City of Miami Page 99 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 the delivery of -- the delivery truck, which will be forced to share streets with automobile traffic. The narrow width of 39th Street would clog up traffic to our home when service vehicles need to stop there. The property has been vacant since the beginning of this year. However, when 3915 Biscayne Boulevard was occupied, this public right-of-way was frequently used by tenants and service vehicles. The Magnolia Park subdivision's presently zoned R-3, allowing 75 dwellings per acre. That kind of density demands alleys as service areas, and eliminating any of them will have an unintended consequence of deteriorating the quality of life for those who choose to live in this area. Eliminating the alley will rearrange the traffic pattern in Magnolia Park; therefore, we would like a traffic study performed by a neutral party. Also, this assemblage of six lots straddles two zoning districts. The Building Department has consistently overlooked the City's own Zoning Code in Section 903.1, a section of the code that limits development of adjoining properties with different zoning districts to the requirements of the less intense district. If blending district regulations was allowed, then the entire project could have a maximum height of 95 feet instead of 50 -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: If you forgive me, you're going into density, you're going into assemble of lots, you're going into traffic -- Mr. Bash: Yes, and when you allow this public right -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- you're staying away from the alley closure issue, which is what is being considered here and what is being discussed here, the alley issue. What are the reasons why you oppose to the alley closure? Mr. Bash: Because when you -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: It doesn't have to -- Pardon me? Mr. Bash: May I continue? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I would appreciate it -- Mr. Bash: Because the alley -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- if you concentrate -- Mr. Bash: When you vacate the alley -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- yourself on the alley issues, not on the structure that is supposed to be built there, not on the assemble of the lots, not on the density; on the alley issue. Mr. Bash: You're going to see it. It becomes very clear, OK. Please have patience with me. If the building's regulation -- if the build district regulations was allowed, then the whole project could have a maximum height of 95 feet instead of 50 feet in the R-3 portion, and the setbacks would be zero instead of 20 feet. What the developer has done is cherry picked the harmless portions of the ordinance, FAR (floor/area ratio), to blend while observing the more objectional requirements, height and setbacks in your respective districts. Following the letter, the intent of 903.1, the entire project would be designated as R-3. This would make for an FAR of .75 for the entire side rather than the proposed blend, and disallows the additional 38,500 square feet of space the developer's proposing for Tivoli. Nowhere does the City of Miami Zoning Code allow for combining zoning districts. Blended zoning certainly does not exist. Even though no one could find a blended C-1/R-3 district, there is no doubt the transferring FAR across a public right-of-way is even more aggressive idea, this one without precedent. The closing of the public right-of-way allows the developer to blend his FAR even closer to Biscayne Bay. The FAR, as calculated, does not even include the elevator lobbies and some corridors for this number to be City of Miami Page 100 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 computed properly. Propose the building would exceed the maximum allowable area, even if a blended zoning district, by approximately 8,000 square feet. This is the equivalent of approximately eight units the developer is attempting to build without seeking a variance. The Building Department is concerned about enforcing 903.1, because having overlooked it in the past, it may be easier for them to use a previous (UNINTELLIGIBLE) precedent, rather than admitting fault. New projects along major corridors, Coral Way, LeJeune, Douglas, are evidence that 903.1 was written to ensure compatibility between new and existing construction, and to prevent land assemblage to the detriment of lower scaled neighborhoods. Another unintended consequence, the gifting of this public right-of-way, and we have perhaps, the economy tanks, and we've gifted the public right-of-way to developer, who then is able to turn around and sale it for a profit. We're outraged by this. The petitioner has another set of plans on file with the Hearing Office for a lot coverage variance with an indefinite deferral. What unintended consequence may arise by the vacation of the alley with regards to this other set of plans? I ask you to vote no on Item 17 today to preserve the existing separate network of service alleys and vehicular streets. The closure of this service alley will have the unintended consequence of turning 39th Street, where 1 live, into a replacement service alley. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next. Steven Ruggieri: Good afternoon. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: Good afternoon. Mr. Ruggieri: My name is Steven Ruggieri. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: I'm going to ask you to please focus yourself on the alley closure because, you know, if you start talking about other things that doesn't have anything to do with the alley, strictly the alley closure, you know, that's what we need to concentrate on. That's what we need to hear, what you have to say in reference to that, so we can make the appropriate decision on that matter. Mr. Ruggieri: 1 understand. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Ruggieri: My name is Steven Ruggieri. My address is 507 Northeast 38th Street in Magnolia Park. The reason 1 want to speak about the alley closure and the problems that it will bring is that the developer's goal, the reason for the alley closure is to allow a unified parcel, a unified parcel of six assembled lots, six lots that are not contiguous. The developer bought the lots knowing that the alley existed, and is now seeking to close it. The -- by closing the alley, we will have created a mega parcel in our neighborhood where all of the other parcels are considerably smaller. The alley closure -- the developer has given as a reason for the alley closure and a benefit of the alley closure, the development of the Tivoli project. That reason, on its face, is a degradation to our neighborhood, not a benefit. The reason I believe that it is not -- no benefit and a degradation to our neighborhood is that in allowing these six parcels to now be completely contiguous by closing the alley, the allowable building that could have been done -- and let me put up another board here. This is the lot as it -- this is the current configuration of the six lots. This -- the first two are C-1, the remaining four are R-3. The -- you will see that the new building -- and this is from the Class II Permit. This is from the Class II Permit paperwork. The C-1 is here, the first two lots, the R-3 are here. By allowing this alley closure, you allow the developer to take the FAR that could be built on this C-1 and build it here. If you do not allow the alley closure, then you will at least stop the transfer of FAR at the alley rather than allow it to be built further into the C-1 district. This is from the developer's boards on how the FAR is calculated for the district; the C-1 and the R-3. By the calculations -- by the developer's calculations, they will be building on the R-3 lots 1.8 -- 1.08 will be the FAR built on the R-3 City of Miami Page 10/ Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 lots. The allowed FAR is .75. That's a 45 percent increase, so by denying this alley closure, you will save our neighborhood this overbuilding, and you will keep the developer from enjoying a benefit that we in the neighborhood do not allow -- do not have. I cannot build more than .75 on my property, and it just doesn't seem right that someone should be able to. This happens all over the City, but in this case, it is our neighborhood in jeopardy. I thank you for your time. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Have you been sworn in? Ken Pittman: Yes. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You have. Mr. Pittman: My name is Ken Pittman. 1 reside at 452 Northeast 39th Street. I'm the cross -hatched property immediately across from the Tivoli. I've never been in this alley. I've never walked across the street into this alley, but I own the alley, and so do each of you, and so does everybody who lives in the City of Miami. The other role that you have is that you're stewards of our public land. You have to make a decision what to do with the public land, and you have a fiduciary interest to do with what belongs to all of us the right thing, and make sure there's a benefit to what you do with our land. There is a nuance, apparently, in your own Zoning Code that I've heard all of you talk about that allows the developer to spread FAR down the street from C-1 into R-3 zones. It apparently is lawful. That's what your own Planning and Zoning Board says to you. 1 moved into my old house across the street, from what 1 knew was an R-3 zoned piece of property, and there was an apartment building there, and I had every reasonable expectation that if that apartment didn't remain, a new and slicker one would replace it. What 1 didn't have the reasonable expectation of was that a new slicker apartment that exceeded the R-3 limitations would be built, your Planning and Zoning Department tell you guys that's perfectly OK, but now it's derent because the only way you can make it perfectly OK is to give something that belongs to me away to somebody else. You need to think very carefully about giving away public land to private developers that enable him to do something, which you have expressed you're opposed to, and that is exceeding your own Zoning Code, the limitations of your own Zoning Code, so it isn't your Zoning Code that's allowing this; it's a public alley giveaway that, in fact, is allowing this increased FAR that you've heard about. Give it away, what the gentleman's going to do is perfectly right and lawful within your Zoning Code, but I say don't give it away because it belongs to me, it belongs to you. It's not going to benefit me to have a bigger building across the street than otherwise would be allowed. 1 don't have a problem with him putting an R-3 proper building on an R-3 lot. I have a problem with a bigger building than would otherwise be allowed on an R-3 lot, and I have a real problem with you giving something that belongs to me away that enables him to do that, so I've tried to confine my comments to alley closure. It's got nothing to do with Class II Special Permit. It's got to do with reminding you that this alley belongs to all of us, and you guys are the stewards and have the right to do with it the proper thing. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? OK. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Rebuttal. Ms. Baloyra: If I may, thank you. Let me try to claribi something. You keep hearing public trust, public alley, giving away my alley. This is a private alley, owned by these developers. They have the reversionary rights in this alley. You are closing a private alley. It's not a public alley. You have to show some public benefit, even if you're closing a private alley, but it's a private alley. It's not a public alley. It's not a street and it's not a public alley. It's a private alley, so the elements that were addressed as far as these, you know, Section 55 -- or Chapter 55, they're not at stake here. The issue is do we meet the level that we need to show you for this private alley to be closed? Number two, they keep saying that the alley is what lets us bind the properties together to form one site. The alley could stay where it is and we could still bind the properties together and do what we're doing with FAR and with units and whatnot. Whether the City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 alley is closed or not, the properties are bound by a covenant in lieu of a unity of title. That can go across an alley and bind properties together. FAR can shift with that covenant in lieu of a unity of title, and you can ask Lourdes or Orlando to clarify that for you. Let me address -- I know that we're on an alley issue, but I want to address some of the Class II issues because they were before you. Number one, this is not Blue turned sideways. I mean, look at the model. This is not Blue. As for the truck backing up and whatnot, the -- your Planning Department and your Zoning Department have reviewed this, and it's been approved in a Class H. This is not a MUSP. We didn't go overboard. With the amount of acreage we have on these properties, we could have put in 255 units. We're building 90 units, so that property could have taken a lot more development, and we've not been greedy about it. We've kept it down. You know, there was a statement about elevator lobbies not counting toward FAR. You know, again, your Planning Department and your Zoning Department have reviewed this; it's been approved, and the elevator lobbies are open-air, and the configuration, if I -- the configuration of this -- the reason why it's short on Biscayne Boulevard and moves back sort of -- it undulates a little, but it's only four stories on Biscayne Boulevard, where we could have gone eight, is through negotiations with staff and with the neighbors. You know, we could have either put a tower on the boulevard and these would have been shorter, but staff didn't want that and neither did the neighbors, so we came up with this and now the other half of the neighbors don't want it because they don't like the configuration this way. This is what staff approved. This is a gorgeous project. It's going to bring a much benefit to the neighborhood, and we, you know -- those are issues that deal with the Class II, but I wanted to address them because they were brought up. We meet the elements of a vacation of a private alley. We've gotten recommendations for approval from anybody that we need to get them from. We've already got the T-plat approved by the County. We're here to ask for you to allow us to close the alley so that we can move to final plat on the property, and the gentleman earlier said he's never been in the alley. It's because it's been closed for 80 years. It's never been used by the public. There's a fence there. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Did that conclude your rebuttal? Ms. Baloyra: If you have any questions, I'll answer them, but I think that's it. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: 1 need to understand the legal part of this alley, because I've been sitting here all along focused intensely on the public benefit to closing the alley, and legal counsel said directly that the public benefit is building the development and that's not a public benefit, and so explain the difference in this private alley versus public alley, and Madam City Attorney, you may have to chime in here as well. Let me -- just so you understand where I'm going. If we're closing a public alley and there absolutely has to be a public benefit, we measure the public benefit -- and a development is not a public benefit. I mean, it hasn't been a public benefit since I got here, and I suspect that it's not going to be today or tomorrow or the next day, and closing alleys -- we have actually denied a host of alley closures because it did, in fact, create an opportunity to do -- create a bigger footprint, create a bigger project that couldn't be done practically if you had a smaller site, and 1 didn't even -- so that's the visual I had. I didn't understand what the building is. Kay Apfel, who's a close friend, I might add, was talking about Blue, but I didn't know she was talking about Blue sideways, and so I'm picturing Blue there and I'm saying, we're not having Blue there. That's not going to work, but -- so that's where I'm coming from. That's where I was coming from, but I need to understand this legal differential between public and private alleyway. Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): I don't know that I can explain it to you because I'm not quite sure what it is -- what the difference is, so I don't want to do that without knowing -- Commissioner Winton: Is there a difference then, or is there no difference? City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: The only difference that I've been able to ascertain -- and this is just over years of hearing it -- is that in a public alley, it is a public right-of-way, and we have all the rights on it, just like any other public right-of-way; a private alley, we do not. They are allowed to fence it, and it is not in the public domain. They need it -- you know, in their plat, it's shown on their plat, and they need to remove it from their plat in order to develop, but it isn't a public right-of-way that we are the custodians of like other public right-of-ways. That's the difference, as far as 1 know. 1 still think that the criteria does apply to it, and in the review at the Plat and Street Committee, it was determined that it complied with the criteria, including the public benefit, and I think it's -- you know, where the developer may say, yeah, the benefit is we get to develop. At the Plat and Street Committee, that's not what they looked at. The Fire Department couldn't use this private alley as it exist today, and moving the easement for the Fire Department and making it something that's usable for circulation for Fire was seen as a benefit. They also included street trees and furniture and some other things above and beyond the minimum requirements by code, and those are the things that were looked at and deemed to be in the public interest. You know, especially in fact that -- you know, given the fact that this was a private alley, not a public right-of-way. Commissioner Winton: Also, in our book in the aerial, I'm looking at the private alleyway as being a straight line coming off of 39th and dead -ending at the boundary line of Bay Point, someone's house at Bay Point. This shows, to me it looks like it's an alleyway that goes from 39th north, and then goes back west to Biscayne Boulevard or -- it's going to have to be Biscayne Boulevard. Which is it? Ms. Baloyra: You want to answer -- Ms. Slazyk: The applicant should be able to answer that. Ms. Baloyra: OK. Commissioner Winton: Could -- Ms. Baloyra: The alley that we are seeking to close is this. It's the one that runs in the middle of the property. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Baloyra: North/south through the middle of the property. You have the property description in your packet. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Baloyra: 1t is this piece -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Well -- Ms. Baloyra: -- right here. It is not this. It is not the one that runs east/west next to the Bay Point wall. Commissioner Winton: Who drew the east -- ? Ms. Baloyra: It is just this one here. Commissioner Winton: OK, so who drew the east/west segment? Ms. Baloyra: They -- that's their (UNINTELLIGIBLE). City of Miami Page 104 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: Oh, but is -- does it exist? Thomas Fawer: Yes. Ms. Baloyra: That alley exists. Commissioner Winton: OK, and that doesn't go away. Ms. Baloyra: That alley does not go away. Commissioner Winton: OK, so it's only the one that goes north/south that's proposed to be closed? Ms. Baloyra: Correct. Commissioner Winton: OK, and Mr. Chairman, forgive me. I know that this is about alley closure, not development. However, they always seem to get intertwined here, and -- Is the model that I'm looking at right there, is that the development? Ms. Baloyra: Yes. Commissioner Winton: That's the proposed development? Ms. Baloyra: That is. Commissioner Winton: OK. Let me ask directly -- let me ask the applicant directly. Is this the proposed development? Is this the total of the proposed development? Mr. Fawer: This is the total of the proposed development along 39th Street. Ms. Thompson: And I -- Mr. Fawer: There is a mirror -- Unidentified Speaker: No. Mr. Fawer: -- section of this -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. You have to put your name and address on the record. Mr. Fawer: I'm sorry. My name is Thomas Fawer, 11111 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. Commissioner Winton: OK, and I'm sorry, so you're -- and this is what now? You were saying - Mr. Fawer: This is the portion of the development that is along 39th Street. This whole section is mirrored along the north side of the property on that wall along Bis -- along Bay Point. It's development with a huge green space of two acres in the middle. Commissioner Winton: So -- and so, what you're saying, so I'm clear, is that that's half; there's a mirror to that -- Mr. Fawer: Correct. City of Miami Page 105 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: -- that goes on the backside that backs up against Bay Point -- Mr. Fawer: Correct, and -- Commissioner Winton: -- is that correct? Mr. Fawer: -- in addition, we're taking the existing building at 3915 Biscayne Boulevard, and we're retaining that in its current 48-foot height. When we first acquired the property, we were allowed to put -- Commissioner Winton: Well, let him come close to the mike. Yeah, come closer. Mr. Fawer: -- a building up there, and our first position was to have a 28-story building there. The staff turned that down. We voluntarily said we'll go to a lower level. When the City reduced the zoning height to 95 feet, we had a plan for that, too, but in deference to the City staff and as well as a number of the neighbors -- nobody is in unison on this -- we were asked to leave the Hamilton building at its 48-foot height, and not raise it to the 95-foot height along Biscayne Boulevard, so we changed our plans exceeded to that and redistributed that FAR without asking for a MUSP, at all from anybody, and the alley, which was right here, is not built on. That's a common walkway for us. It's -- as I think our counsel alluded, it's been walled, fenced with impenetrable bushes on it, and it's never been used in checking with the prior owners for 80 years. Commissioner Winton: Now, this question I'm going to ask of staff, one of the big challenges we've had in the City of Miami as a result of our hundred year old code is what can be built by right? That's where we've had all of our battlegrounds, is the by right ability to build. This site has essentially, in my mind, three component parts. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: It has the C-1 zoning that fronts on Biscayne Boulevard -- Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- and if you didn't allow for the vacation of the alleyway, you would have an R-3 site here. I don't know, these look to be about roughly equal size. I don't -- so, you've got about a third C-1, a third R-3, don't close the alleyway, a third R-3. My question -- Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: What, by right -- Class II Permit, no MUSP, no variances, don't have to come see us -- what can they put on each of those three sites in terms of height and density? And I know you don't have -- because I've been asking you this -- an (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because nobody's done any calculations, but I just want to understand, as best we can, what they can do by right, as best as you can put it on the record, on each of those three, if they were done independent of each other. Ms. Slazyk: OK. On the Boulevard property that's C-1, because of the SD-9 overlay, the only thing they could really do by right is conversion interior stuff to the building. If they wanted to do any exterior remodeling, they'd need a Class II for the exterior work, but to -- Commissioner Winton: No, but what if they -- Ms. Slazyk: -- change the use -- City of Miami Page 106 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: -- bulldo -- Ms. Slazyk: -- they could do by right. Commissioner Winton: -- bulldoze the building? Ms. Slazyk: Then they need a Class II because -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, but -- Ms. Slazyk: -- of the SD-9, but it would be allowed to be 150 units per acre, which would be approximately 114 units would fit there, and if they went again with the SD-9, you know, the limits, it would be a 95-foot building with approximately 114 units -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- and the FAR, 1.72. Commissioner Winton: And -- well, how about the R-3? Ms. Slazyk: OK, the R-3 -- the next two R-3s, by right, because there's an alley between that and the water, they could just go get a building permit for a five -story apartment building up to a maximum of 71 units. However, with the lower FAR, they probably couldn't get a full 71 units there, but you know, they could max it out at five stories with a building permit, blank walls on the street; you know, we wouldn't have any say in the design. Commissioner Winton: And the next (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Ms. Slazyk: The next one, they could do -- those are two more R-3 lots, another approximately 71, 72 units, but that one would require a Class II because it's between the alley and the first and the water, which anything between the first right-of-way and the water requires a Class II Special Permit. Even though it's a private alley, it would still require a Class li, so they would be able to do approximately 70 units, five -story building, but they'd have to come get the Class II, which is the process they're in now, so total would be approximately two hundred and fifty -some units. Commissioner Winton: OK, and if they were going through a Class II process, and they went the route that I just described -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: -- they go after the Class II, everybody objects, we turn them down, what's their next step? Ms. Slazyk: Probably court. I mean, I don't -- Commissioner Winton: OK, and then it goes before a judge -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- and then a judge is going to decide whether -- Ms. Slazyk: Because -- Commissioner Winton: -- we've -- whether -- OK, so -- City of Miami Page 107 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Ms. Slazyk: Right, because through the Class 11, what you're supposed to do is try to say, OK, this property is zoned either commercial or residential. You know, you can't deny them any use of their property, so through the Class II process, even if the appeals go all the way on to Commission and court, they're going to get the use of it for something -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- and what it's going to come down to is the size, and the bulk, and the scale -- Commissioner Winton: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- and all of that. Commissioner Winton: And on some of this well have say, and some of it we won't have say -- Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- and here's to -- and by the way, the neighbors, I know -- in fact, Kay and I have been friends for probably 20 years. I'm not friends with the developer. I don't know the developer. I've met the developer, but I don't know the developer, so the easy thing for me to do is jump on the side of the neighbors, but I'm going to tell the neighbors, I'm not sure I understand what you guys really don't want here. I haven't seen the model before. I didn't know what the plan was, but I'm looking at the plan right now. I also just asked a series of questions about what they could do, if that plan went out the window, and I didn't like the options that he could, in fact, do by right without coming back here. I don't like those options. I didn't like the option of building a tall building right on Biscayne Boulevard, and 1 didn't like the option of being able to build 70 units, or 60 units, or 77 units on that middle piece, and doesn't have to see anybody. By right, he could do it, and he could build the ugliest thing in the world, granted five stories, only five stories, but it could still be ugly, so -- and we do this all the time, and my memory is -- I know that because -- has this been before us -- ? Why -- ? Ms. Slazyk: No. This was a Class 11 Special Permit. It was appealed onto the Zoning Board. There was a settlement on that appeal. The appeal was withdrawn, so you're not going to see the Class II Commissioner Winton: OK, so -- Ms. Slazyk: That's why they're using this as the method to get into the Class II. Commissioner Winton: -- but here's what I want to say and do. I'm going to ask for a 30-day continuance, and I know it's a pain in the rear end for everyone, but I want to tell the neighbors - - and I know that your association, because it was put on record, the -- at least the Bay Point Association is in favor; some of my friends aren't in favor, but I'm not driving -- I never come to the table driving the bus for my friends, whether they're the neighbors or the developers. I'm driving the bus that I think is right, and long-term, what can end up in the best interest of our city and our neighborhoods, and I'm looking at this and don't get the objections, particularly considering the alternatives, and I'm willing to move for a continuance of 30 days to get you all back together one more time and figure out if we can't get something resolved here, because what I don't want to have -- what I won't support -- because there's going to be a bunch of other people that are also my friends that I know that are going to come and lynch me, if we allow for a 20-story building to pop up on Biscayne Boulevard, and that isn't right, either. 1 mean, I like that, I'm sorry. I mean, I think the architecture of that project is among the coolest that I've seen brought before us since I've been here. 1 wish 1 didn't like it; it'd be easier. I'd say blah, blah, blah, but I do, I'm sorry, guys, so I'm going to move for a 30-day continuance, and get you all City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 back together -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Winton: -- and I want you all to think about the real options that could come our way that we don't necessarily want. Ms. Slazyk: January 26. Commissioner Winton: January 26, right. Is that the next -- ? Ms. Thompson: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: That's the next PZ (planning and zoning) meeting. Commissioner Winton: Oh, I'm sorry -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- so it's more than 30 -- Ms. Slazyk: Little more than 30 -- Commissioner Winton: -- but it's -- that's our next -- Ms. Slazyk: -- but it's the January PZ. Ms. Baloyra: If I may, for a moment? Is that all right? Commissioner Winton: I'll let -- I guess -- Ms. Baloyra: Anyone wants to recognize me? Commissioner Winton: -- each of you one comment. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Ms. Baloyra: OK. We've been working at this for a long time. We have had endless meetings with -- even the, you know, specific people here, and they're not budging. Commissioner Winton: Well -- but you haven't been before us before, and you haven't had somebody sitting here that has the ultimate say, one way or another, make a decision -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- and so, I know it's been -- I'm sure they feel as frustrated as you all feel, and I'm saying, I know how frustrated everybody is, but y'all are going to meet one more time, and if we're still at an impasse after that one more meet, we're going to make a decision here. I'm going to make a recommendation of some sort for or against, and my colleagues are either going to vote with me or against me, but on the 26th of January, we're making a decision, and -- yes, sir, Jeff. Mr. Bash: With all due respect, sir, while Mr. Pittman was here at the podium, Ms. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was there speaking with you, and the point that -- main point that he came here today to make was our objection is very clear and it always has been. We bought our City of Miami Page 109 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 homes across the street from R-3 property, and you -- and this Commission, if they vacate this public right-of-way, are allowing this developer to build R-3 times two across the street from our home. Commissioner Winton: But that's not accurate. I just asked the question. It was put on the -- Jeff, you -- this isn't going to be an argument. You can meet with staff. They'll do the calculations. You sit with them and do the calculations, but your statement is wrong. Mr. Bash: I beg your pardon. Commissioner Winton: It's wrong. Mr. Bash: It's not -- the FAR is more than doubled on the R-3 lots for what is allowed by R-3 limitations as to -- relative to FAR. Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, would you come back and put that back on the record again for me, please? Ms. Slazyk: The -- what this developer did was, through a covenant in lieu of unity of title, they joined their C-1 property and their R-3. Commissioner Winton: Right, and 1 understand the part about that opposition, and what you guys are missing coming from me, I understand that point, and generally speaking -- in fact, in the City before, 1 don't think we allow this kind of blending to go on, OK, and let's say we didn't allow the blending to go on. Take the blending away. Ms. Slazyk: They could still do -- Commissioner Winton: Bifurcate them -- Ms. Slazyk: -- yeah, the 70 units, yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- into three components parts, which is what I was saying, three component parts; C-1 at the front, R-3 behind it before the alley, R-3 behind that after the alley. By right, what could they build? And what they could build -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, and the center piece was -- Commissioner Winton: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), would you put that back on the record -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- please? Ms. Slazyk: OK. The -- first, the C-1 piece, 114 units. The first R-3 piece -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, but how tall could they -- bulldoze the building. Ms. Slazyk: That would have been 95 feet. The two -- all the R-3s at 50 feet, and the R-3s would have been another 140 units or so, so a total of -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: 280. Ms. Slazyk: -- 250, yeah. City of Miami Page 110 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Winton: And the first one on Biscayne Boulevard, they would have to have a Class II -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- but -- our Code's in place already. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: We've had all the battles over it; 95 feet, that's -- Ms. Slazyk: 95 feet. Commissioner Winton: -- what it is; that's what we allow. Ms. Slazyk: With 114 units. Commissioner Winton: On the second -- on the first R-3 coming off of Biscayne Boulevard -- Ms. Slazyk: By right -- Commissioner Winton: -- they could build -- Ms. Slazyk: -- no special permits. Commissioner Winton: -- five stories by right; don't have to come to us, no architecture review, no nothing. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: Five stories. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: The second piece sold behind, they'd have to get a Class II -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. There would -- Commissioner Winton: -- which is the reason I was asking -- Ms. Slazyk: -- also be another five stories. Commissioner Winton: -- the part about the legal process here; what happens; we all end up in court, and maybe that one gets developed last, but it's going to get developed because the court isn't going to say you guys can't have any development back there -- Ms. Slazyk: Right, and -- Commissioner Winton: -- and so that's the only point I'm trying to get at -- Ms. Slazyk: The -- Commissioner Winton: -- is if we blow this up, what could we potentially end up with? And so, I'm saying I'm going to make the developer take 45 more days, meet with you guys, understanding what the real rules are and what we're going to have to deal with, and then come City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 back here again, and I hope we have something, but in -- on the 26th, there's going to be a motion in some fashion or another, on the 26th, and a decision's going to be made, period. Ms. Hancock-Apfel: May I ask a question? Commissioner Winton: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Hancock- Apfel: The developer is to meet with the City? Commissioner Winton: No, the developer's to meet with you guys. Ms. Hancock- Apfel: Oh, to us, OK. Commissioner Winton: You all -- Ms. Hancock- Apfel: And in the meanwhile -- Commissioner Winton: -- and -- Ms. Hancock- Apfel: -- we will deal with -- Commissioner Winton: -- what 1 would -- Ms. Hancock- Apfel: -- my issue is alley. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Hancock- Apfel: OK. My issue is not the others, OK, so they'll -- Commissioner Winton: And the public purpose on the alley, and the thing that's been missed in all of this -- I heard Lourdes kind of say it, but I'd like her to put it back on the record again much more clearly, and that is to define the public purpose, and if the definition of public purpose doesn't meet our -- if we don't happen to agree with it, then we could potentially strengthen that -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes, more landscape, whatever. Commissioner Winton: -- and that's where we have our greatest amount of leverage, but I'm trying to make you all say, if we blow this up, then the alternative could be much worse, and that's what I'm saying to you all. Mr. Fawer: Mr. Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fawer: -- may I say one thing? Commissioner Winton: Well, I -- Commissioner Regalado: 1 second the motion. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, he second the motion. I guess one more time and one more -- and then that's it; each of you can say one thing. Yes, sir. Mr. Fawer: We've met with them faithfully for two years. We have a written agreement that said City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 all we had to do was enhance landscaping and they would accept this plan. I had a revocation of that agreement in the e-mail (electronic mail) and in writing two days ago. They are on public record of having their design of -- to delay me until "I go broke, " and that's recorded in the paper -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Fawer: -- so, I will do this, but 1 want everybody here to understand what their public position's been, and I was willing to meet their agreement to put in whatever landscaping they want, and that was revoked two days ago, so I will do it again because you asked -- Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Mr. Fawer: -- but I want this to be understood, the framework under which I'm operating, and this month and a half will cost me. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: 45 days, sorry. OK. One -- Mr. Ruggieri: We have been -- Commissioner Winton: -- more comment and then we're done. Mr. Ruggieri: -- dealing with the developer. He did offer to provide a landscape plan. We're showing you the landscape plan now. It is three trees in front of one property. Commissioner Winton: Well -- but -- excuse me. Hey, hey, hey. Mr. Fawer: No, that's not true. Ms. Hancock-Apfel: That's not true. Commissioner Winton: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Mr. Ruggieri: I want -- there is the plan. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We -- Mr. Fawer: That's not true. Commissioner Winton: Listen, listen, listen. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Both sides, no more comments; we're done. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Ruggieri: One thing -- Commissioner Winton: No, no. Mr. Ruggieri: -- to put -- Commissioner Winton: No. Mr. Ruggieri: -- on the record. Commissioner Winton: No, no. City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Vice Chairman Gonzalez:: No, because we -- Commissioner Winton: No, no, no. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We're going to -- Commissioner Winton: I'm telling you guys, get together, figure out what's right. You can come back to the next meeting, complain about what you want to complain about, and a decision's going to get made, one way or another -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Winton: -- and I'm hoping that you all are listening to each other, listening to each other. A decision is going to get made. It's either going to be "no" or it's going to be "yes." I don't -- and -- Mr. Ruggieri: We've gotten no give from the developer, no give. Commissioner Winton: Well -- Mr. Fawer: That's ridiculous. Commissioner Winton: -- and the -- but the public purpose piece, Lourdes, at the next meeting, I want it clear on the record, and we have leverage, public purpose, so -- Ms. Slazyk: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Motion -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: -- to defer -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: Meeting adjourned. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, and happy holidays. PZ.18 05-01229 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING OR DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY MICHAEL B. CHAVIES, ESQUIRE AND GABRIEL E. NIETO, ESQUIRE, ON BEHALF OF THE COCONUT GROVE, LLC ("APPELLANT"), AND REVERSING OR AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ("HEPB"), WHICH DESIGNATED THE COCONUT GROVE PLAYHOUSE LOCATED AT 3500 MAIN HIGHWAY AS A HISTORIC SITE. 05-01229 Legislation (Version 2).pdf 05-01229 Exhibit A.pdf 05-01229 Legislation (Version 3).pdf 05-01229 Exhibit A.pdf 05-01229 Appeal Letter.pdf 05-01229 Zoning Map.pdf 05-01229 Aerial Map.pdf 05-01229 HEPB Reso.pdf 05-01229 10-05-05 HEPB Transcripts.pdf 05-01229 Designation Report.pdf 05-01229 Compilation of Materials by Playhouse.pdf 05-01229 City's Notification Letter.pdf 05-01229 Qs&As on Historic Designations.pdf 05-01229 Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-01229 Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Historic and Environmental Preservation Board Decision of a Historic Designation LOCATION: Approximately 3500 Main Highway APPLICANT(S): Planning Department APPELLANT(S): Coconut Grove, LLC APPELLANT(S) AGENT: Michael B. Chavies, Esquire and Gabriel E. Nieto, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. HISTORIC & ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Approved the designation on October 5, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not result in the historic designation of the above property. CONTINUED A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Winton absent, to continue Item PZ.18 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 23, 2006. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Anyone else? Michael Chaves: Mr. Chairman, good morning, and Commissioners, good morning, as well, and Mr. Manager, good morning to you. I'm Michael Chaves, formerly Judge Chaves. I'm now with the law firm ofAkerman Senterfitt. I see some faces here I haven't seen in a long time. It's good to see all of you -- City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Allen: It's good, Judge. Mr. Chaves: -- and I'm here on behalf of the Coconut Grove Playhouse requesting a deferment of Item PZ 18, and we're requesting 60 days. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: So move. Chairman Sanchez: There's a deferral of 60 days on PZ 18. There has been a motion by Vice Chairman Gonzalez. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a second by Commissioner Regalado. The item is under discussion. Madam Director. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Could we just say for the record, the PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting of February? Commissioner Allen: PZ of February. Chairman Sanchez: It's fine. Ms. Slazyk: February PZ, which is the fourth Thursday. Commissioner Allen: So, it's time certain. There's no need for advertisement. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Chaves: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the item? If not, all in favor, say "aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, and PZ 18 has been deferred for 60 days, which will be scheduled at the February PZ item Commission meeting. Thank you, Judge. Good to see you. Mr. Chaves: Thank you very much. Chairman Sanchez: Happy holidays -- Mr. Chaves: Good to see all of you. Chairman Sanchez: -- to you and your family. Mr. Chaves: Same to you. City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Commissioner Allen: Pleasure, Judge. PZ.19 05-00014 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL BY ANDREW W.J. DICKMAN, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC., ROD ALONSO, RON STEBBINS, SCOTT CRAWFORD AND ELVIS CRUZ, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD, THEREBY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS OR DENYING THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 04-0198, TO ALLOW FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5301-5501 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." 05-00014 Legislation a (Version 2).PDF 05-00014 Legislation b (Version 3).PDF 05-00014 Exhibit A.PDF 05-00014 Zoning Map.pdf 05-00014 Aerial Map.pdf 05-00014 ZB Appeal Letter.PDF 05-00014 ZB Reso.PDF 05-00014 Class II Appeal Letter.PDF 05-00014 Class II Final Decision.PDF 05-00014 Class II Referral.PDF 05-00014 Drawings.PDF 05-00014 Fact Sheet 03-10-05.PDF 53&55 COMCC 10MAR05.ppt 53&55 PPT for COMCC.doc 05-00014-Submittal 1.pdf 05-00014-Submittal 2.pdf 05-00014-Submittal 3.pdf 05-00014-Submittal 4.pdf 05-00014-Appeal 5.pdf 05-00014-Submittal 6.pdf 05-00014 CC Reso R-05-0155.pdf 05-00014 October 18, 2005 Circuit Court Order.pdf 05-00014 Sec 1305.pdf 05-00014 December 13, 2004 Zoning Board Transcript.PDF 05-00014 Legislation (Version 4).pdf 05-00014 Legislation (Version 5).pdf 05-00014 Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00014 Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Zoning Board Decision of a Class II Special Permit Appeal LOCATION: Approximately 5301-5501 Biscayne Boulevard APPLICANT(S): Morningside Development, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Doug Halsey, Esquire City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 APPELLANT(S): Morningside Civic Association, Inc., Rod Alonso, Ron Stebbins, Scott Crawford and Elvis Cruz, Adjacent Property Owners APPELLANT(S) AGENT: JoNel Newman, Esquire and Donald J. Hayden, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING 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 December 13, 2004 by a vote of 7-1. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow the new construction of a mixed -use structure. NOTE: On October 18, 2005, the Circuit Court ruled to quash the City Commission's decision and remanded this case for proceedings. CONTINUED R-05-0155 A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Winton absent, to continue Item PZ.19 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for January 26, 2006. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Next. Douglas Halsey: Good morning. Douglas Halsey of the law firm of White & Case, on behalf of Morningside Development. It's PZ 19. This matter has been requested for postponement to the next scheduled PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting, and the appellant, Morningside Civic Association, joins in this request for a continuance. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): I think it's January. Chairman Sanchez: All right. We need to claribl' -- Mr. Halsey: It'd be January. Chairman Sanchez: -- for the point of clarification, sir -- or counsel, January is when you're asking to be deferred? Mr. Halsey: That's correct. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion to defer PZ 19 to January? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Move PZ -- move deferral. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion to defer by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Regalado. The item is under discussion. Hearing no discussion on the item, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, and this item, which is Item PZ. 19, has been deferred to January's PZ item. Mr. Halsey: Thank you. PZ.20 04-01287a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ADOPTING THE REVISED 2005 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES AND CHAPTER 9J-5 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. 04-01287a Legislation.pdf 04-01287a Exhibit A.pdf 04-01287a Analysis.pdf 04-01287a December 1, 2005 PAB Reso.pdf 04-01287a CC Reso R-04-0806.pdf 04-01287a April 28, 2005 Sufficiency Letter.pdf 04-01287a October 19, 2005 PAB Reso.pdf 04-01287a Revised 2005 EAR.pdf 04-01287a Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01287a Submittal-1pdf 04-01287a Submittal-2.pdf 04-01287a Submittal-3.pdf 04-01287a Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 04-01287a Fact Sheet 12-01-05.pdf REQUEST: To Adopt the Revised 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on October 19, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will adopt the Revised 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. 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-05-0707 Chairman Sanchez: Before we go to recess, let's go ahead and do PZ.20, and then we'll do -- Ciry of Miami Page 119 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 PZ 16 will be the first item at 2:30, when we come back from our recess. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: What about 17? Chairman Sanchez: And -- no, 17 will be the first item coming back from our recess, which is after 3 o'clock. It was requested after 3 o'clock. Apparently, you want to give some homeowners an opportunity to get here? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: OK, so we'll do it after 3 o'clock. We'11 do it after the Freedom Tower. All right. Let's go ahead and do PZ 20. 1 told you that we were going to do it this afternoon. What'd you stick around for? Oh, OK. All right. Let's do PZ.20. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): OK. For PZ.20, I'd like to introduce one of our planners, Harold Rouck. This is the evaluation and appraisal report of our comprehensive plan, as amended, based on comments from DCA (Department of Community Affairs), and Hal will present it. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, let me ask you something. How long is this going to take? Harold Ruck: It can be as short as you wish. I mean, if there's any public discussion -- Chairman Sanchez: Well -- all right. Let me look and see if this was an item that they requested this afternoon. No? Very short? OK. OK, you want to do it now? All right. We'll go ahead and do it now. Sir, you're recognized for PZ.20. Mr. Ruck: OK. Thank you. This is evaluation appraisal report that is required by State. We have -- we presented this document December 9 of last year. It was approved by the City Commission at that time. We are required, at that point, to submit the document to the Department of Community Affairs, which we did, to -- for them to review and to submit to us a letter of sufficiency or insufficiency. On April 28, we received a letter that indicated that we had some insufficiencies, and they documented the information that they would like to -- for us to complement the document. We, during the time period of working with DCA, our consultants, Corradino Group, worked with them diligently, and provided information to the Department of Community Affairs, which in the letter that they submitted to the City indicated that with the information we provided, they would probably find us sufficient, and so with that, we proceeded, put the information together. We are submitting it to you, at this particular point. In point, we need to be diligent as far as getting approvals to submit it back to the Department of Community Affairs. We have a year from our proposed adoption date, which was March 2005, and so we have till March 2006, which we need to get it to DCA, and to get their sufficiency. If we are not able to meet that timetable, then there are some issues with amendments to the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) after that date. Another point is that this is an evaluation of our comprehensive plan. It does not change the comprehensive plan in any fashion. After we get sufficiency from DCA, we will embark on an EAR (Evaluation Appraisal Report) based amendment process. At that time, we will look to the community and staff. We will put together amendments that are based on the Evaluation Appraisal Report, and entertain community involvement at that time. We have a period that DCA has allowed of 18 months in order to adopt our EAR based amendments, so we are on a -- sort of a fast track, but at this point, we would recommend approval of this document so that we can proceed on -- move along with our amendments to the comprehensive plan. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Public participation, please step forward. State your name and address for the record Good morning, sir. City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Charles Elsesser: Good morning, Mr. Chairperson and the members of the Commission. My name is Charles Elsesser. I'm an attorney with Florida Legal Services at 3000 Biscayne, Suite 450. I'm here to address the housing element of the evaluation and appraisal report, the evaluation of the housing element. The purpose of this evaluation and appraisal report, as set out by DCA, is to look at the housing element and how the City has been progressing, whether they're -- in quantifiable ways, whether the City has been achieving what it set out to do, and what policies are working, what policies are not, and to make -- to set out the basis for a midcourse correction if there are things that are not working. This doesn't -- this EAR doesn't do that. This -- with respect to the housing element, particularly with respect to the one central policy, which is to increase the amount of affordable housing by ten percent, this does not evaluate the achievement -- whether or not that was achieved, and in fact, says it can evaluate that. There's no attempt to set out any quantifiable analysis to that, and then secondarily, which is even more important, it doesn't look at what's working and what isn't working, so that when that discussion happens in terms of amending the comprehensive plan, there's an analysis and a basis for making that. That was what DCA asked for, was to quantify it to give quantifiable analysis with respect to that. This doesn't do that, and it's my -- it's our feeling that this does not meet what DCA asked for, and also doesn't provide the basis for looking -- for making the kinds of midcourse corrections that need to be made after this is approved by DCA. I've got a copy of my comments that I'd like to submit to the Clerk. Chairman Sanchez: Please do so. Mr. Elsesser: Thank you. Chairman Sanchez: Unless you have a question for him, Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: Yes, I do have a question for him. Chairman Sanchez: Sir, could you please come back to the podium? Commissioner Winton: And I'm going to ask some more ques -- I'm going to ask questions of the staff specifically related to his comments that seem rational to me, after the rest of the public comment, but the question to you is, each municipal government in Miami -Dade County is required to do the same thing we're doing -- Mr. Elsesser: Right, yes. Commissioner Winton: -- and have you reviewed the updated ERAs [sic_ from Coral Gables, from Key Biscayne, from Aventura, from all the other very wealthy cities in Miami -Dade County to determine whether or not they've done the same thing? Mr. Elsesser: That's a very good question. I'm trying to do that, and I just got involved in this at the tail end of this evaluation report. We're trying to get the other municipalities -- and the County is also involved in this for the exact same reasons. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, because we can't -- we're not in this battle alone; we can't do it alone. Mr. Elsesser: I absolutely agree with you. Commissioner Winton: OK, thank you, and I'll let the public comments continue, and then come back to you guys. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Hadley Williams: Hadley Williams at 2441 Trapp Avenue, in Miami, also representing Miami Neighborhoods United. At this moment, we'd like to basically do an update report. You may recall that, on December 9 of last year, we made comments on the original EAR report. At the end of that meeting, the Commission had directed the Planning Department to continue communications with us and discussion, open discussion. After the original EAR came back from Tallahassee, we requested quite a few times that we had meetings to discuss the revisions and process. We were not accorded any meetings. When the issue came under -- the revised draft came to the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), we reported this fact to the PAB, and the PAB did request that the Planning Department meet with us. We did, and we presented to them a rather large document consisting of many, many man days of work, several hundred man days of work, by various teams in Miami Neighborhood United, and basically, our concern, similar to the prior speaker, is that the Comprehensive Plan itself no longer satisfies what the City of Miami should have as an operating document that is both a strategic plan, and in effect, a business plan for the operation of the City, so we're concerned about public comment and input during the amendment process, and we have spoken with Otto Boudet and Alicia Cuervo Schreiber requesting that instead of looking at a piecemeal set of amendments, that we look at a total revision of the Comprehensive Plan, working together with Duany Plater-Zyberk and the other consultants from Miami 21. Many things that the City has been working on, in terms of measurable objectives by department, et cetera, we believe can be discussed and used in the Comprehensive Plan itself, so today, we do not object to the EAR going forward, but we make the request that the Commission please support engaging the community in a complete revision of the Comprehensive Plan, as part of the amendment cycle -- the EAR amendment cycle. Let's almost start from scratch. Now, I would like to hand out to you today the work that we presented to the Planning Department because there are a lot of our ideas of how the Comprehensive Plan could be modified, should be modified. There's a section on affordable housing. There's a section on the transit exception. There are a lot of things here that a lot of people have put some energy into already. It is no means final, but we hope you and your staff can look at this and work with us in doing amendments. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm going to get off the beaten path for one moment, and it's about Miami Neighborhoods United. I think the presentation that was just made -- Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Winton: -- was outstanding, and I've got interviewed by the media recently and it was about Miami Neighborhood United specifically, and I've put on the record multiple times that, as far as I'm concerned, I don't give two hoots about Miami Neighborhoods United because the attitude has been God -awful, and most of the spokespersons that have come before us, until the last couple of meetings, have been attack dogs that were much more interested in -- Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. What was that? Commissioner Winton: -- rhetoric than in -- Chairman Sanchez: What was that? Attack what? Commissioner Winton: Attack dogs -- than in really partnering with the City, but I also said, in the last interview that 1 did with one of the media people, is that the concept behind Miami Neighborhoods United is outstanding. If we could get all the neighborhoods and the leadership united and working hand -in -hand with the City, we could get an awful lot done because there's a lot of really bright people out there with really good ideas, and we have no lock on good ideas in this building or in that other building, and I want to thank you again for the hard work that City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 you've put into this whole effort, and I hope that there's some structural change going on within Miami Neighborhoods United, and we end up with folks like you coming before us all the time so that we can have a constructive dialogue back and forth. We can agree to disagree, and we can agree to agree, and we can do it professionally and end up with a heck of a lot better product, so that's the off the beaten path thing, so thank you again. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Winton: To staff, I think that the comments from the attorney from Legal Services Mr. Williams: Florida Legal Services. Chairman Sanchez: Florida Legal Services. Commissioner Winton: -- Florida Legal Services and Miami Neighborhoods United are -- seem right on. I think you ought to respond. Our -- we ought to have very definable goals and objectives that are measurable so that you can measure performance so that we know in fact actually what's working and what isn't working, so that we can talk about whether we're good, or average, or bad. We ought to know that, and so -- and I'm going to ask you guys one more question because I want to make sure I'm clear on this. I think we have to go back -- if we're deficient in the areas that were described, I want us to go back and revisit all of that very carefully, and end up with a comprehensive plan that would be a strategic plan, as he's described, that can guide us as we go forward, and everybody can read it. It can be posted anywhere you want to post it; everybody knows what our goals, objectives, what we want to accomplish, what they are, and we should be able to measure performance on a routine basis, just like we do in our businesses, and I think that's an outstanding idea and hope that we will move it forward. What I'm cur -- what I want to make sure that I understand, though, is whether or not you guys are recommending that, at this juncture, we move this forward with the proviso, though, that we begin to -- repeat the proviso. I want to understand what you're recommending we do as we move forward. Mr. Williams: We have recommended that we work together with the Planning Department, with other community groups, and definitely, with Duany Plater-Zyberk and the other consultants, and our recommendation was specifically -- is to first try to group the amendments that should be tied together into action plan groups because there is so much cross-reference throughout the plan, so agree on what grouping should be made, what priorities within the groupings, and the priorities of the different groups, so that everyone is on board to work through a disciplined process with community input, with the consultants' input, with the Planning Department input, and do it within the time frames of a year or so. 1 think that's quite doable. Commissioner Winton: Do y'all have a problem with this? Mr. Ruck: I think we have to understand that this particular report is an evaluation of our current comprehensive plan, and that is what we are looking at right now. Then, when -- after the sufficiency, after we get DCA's approval, then we will start looking at EAR based amendments and the process that Mr. Williams is talking about because the current document, the report, doesn't change anything, but the comprehensive plan will be the strategic document, and that's what we want to work towards. Commissioner Winton.: Well, the report would change something if you haven't done a good job of trying to measure past performance. Mr. Ruck: It'll identib, the shortcomings, which we will then move in to correct. City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Otto Boudet-Murias (Chief Planning & Economic Development) : Commissioner, if I may add - Commissioner Winton: Yes, Otto. Mr. Boudet-Murias: -- as part of Miami 21, we're addressing a lot of the very issues, including the Comprehensive Plan, and the transportation elements, the affordable housing elements. There are -- Miami 21 is addressing a lot of those issues, and we'll have a policy decision from the Commission at the end of this process that will then incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan. Because of the timetable of the EAR, we have to submit this document now. It would have been preferable to have been further advanced in Miami 21 before completing this process, and obviously, before completing all of the amendments to the comp. plan, but the reality is that the approval today submits this document to DCA to -- for sufficiency. The amendments to the comp. plan will then begin after that's been approved, which will then dovetail with Miami 21. It will allow us to incorporate a lot of the elements into the comp. plan, and as far as the -- having measurable goals, that is something we are striving for. We want to incorporate that into the document. In the meetings I've had with Mr. Williams, that's one of the things we've discussed, and that we are in favor of having measurable goals built into the document. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, good. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. I move PZ20, by the way. Commissioner Allen: I second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Commissioner Allen: Great presentation. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All opposed have the same right. Motion has been adopted. We're going to have a recess for lunch. Commissioner Allen: I move that we recess, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Slazyk: OK. It was also PZ 17. Commissioner Winton: Hold on. We got -- Chairman Sanchez: We still -- we might have one, PZ. 7? Ms. Slazyk: There's one more that's not Freedom -- Fran Bohnsack: This is 20, Item 20, the EAR. Commissioner Winton: Oh, oops. Chairman Sanchez: We've already -- Ms. Bohnsack: And there's someone behind me, too, I'm sorry. City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Well, let her put her comment on the record. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. You can put your comments on the record. Ms. Bohnsack: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You're recognized. Ms. Bohnsack: Thank you. My name is Fran Bohnsack. I'm with the Miami River Marine Group, which is an association of the cargo carriers and the marine industry on the Miami River. Mr. Chair, I want to tell you that I have heard you and appreciated your comments in the past, as you have voiced support for the Miami River's marine industry at dredging press conferences and events of that kind, and because of that, I'm asking you to please look particularly well at the sub -element dealing with the Port of Miami river that's in the EAR today. I would suggest to you that it really represents an entire abandonment of any effort on the City's part to maintain the marine industry on the Miami River, and it's clearly a wide reach and a blatant disregard of the current comprehensive plan and all of the planning and the years of support that have gone before it, and I'd like to make some specific comments about how that section is written because I do think it's insufficient, and I think, eventually, DCA will find it insufficient, as well. There is a revision of Objective PA-3.1, which offers extensive background information about the Miami River, yet it offers absolutely no information about the river's economics. Later in the section, the port element, it suggests that's because a study is being done by the City in order to determine what the economic value of the Miami River is, and it suggests that there is no conclusion because the study is not finished. In fact, the study was finished -- completed in 2004. Staff and policy persons, perhaps yourselves, chose to reject that study, but that doesn't mean that there isn't information still available about the economics of the river, and I can easily understand that you might want to find it from a source that is perceived to be more objective than I, and so, 1 would point you to the South Florida Water Management District's report that was issued in 2004, conducted by a firm from Fort Lauderdale, Hazen and Sawyer, which attributes Miami River shipping activities -- just the shipping activities alone -- as generating $842 million in output, 427 million in income, 7, 500 jobs, and 45 million in tax revenues. That's clearly significant, and it clearly belongs in Objective PA-3.1, while judgments are being made about the future of the Miami River. There's also kind of some unprofessional commentary there that you don't find elsewhere in other sub -elements. For example, it says -- these are designed, I think, to create a negative impression of the river and its industry. 1t says crime along the river, in terms of illegal trade and drug trafficking, is a serious concern. If it had said that it had historically been a serious concern, I would not be objecting to that statement, but the fact of the matter is that we, the Miami River port users, have been working with the Transportation Security Information -- Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security for a couple of years now. We've invested in a million dollar surveillance system, a wireless camera system that goes the whole length of the Miami River. Since that system has been put in place, according to the chief of customs here in our local jurisdiction, there has not been a single drug bust on the Miami River. That's in over a year and a half. Neither the Port of Miami nor the airport can make such a statement, and yet, you don't find those kinds of disparaging comments in those sub -elements. I also want to point out that there is a great deal of discussion that comes from the 90 -- 1992 Miami River master plan. That was a plan that the City actually did adopt. I know you did not adopt the Urban Infill Plan, but you did adopt the master plan, and the statement I'm objecting to reads as this: "The 1992 Miami River master plan and other subsequent plans realized that the downtown area or lower river" -- that would be east of Northwest 7th Avenue -- "would more wisely be utilized for residential and entertainment and cultural uses." That's what the EAR says, "more wisely be used. " In other words, better to have entertainment than some of the marine/industrial businesses that exist there City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 now. However, that's kind of creating a misimpression. It's not what the plan from 1992 actually says. It says the amenity of the river should be used as a catalyst for revitalization of the Lummus Park and East Little Havana neighborhoods, blending the existing working waterfront with restaurants, outdoor cafes, seafood and vegetable markets, so that's a kind of peaceful coexistence, if you will. It doesn't sacrifice the marine industry in favor of some other use. It urges a blending, and that is from your own plan. There is discussion also about the boundary, and this discussion is disingenuous, at best. The City, in the EAR, defines Northwest 27th Avenue as the boundary that determines the upper river. I know you're well aware that north of -- west of Northwest 27th Avenue is almost entirely in Miami -Dade County, so to claim, as the EAR claims, that you're providing for the retention of water dependent uses by preserving the land west of 27th Avenue, really is simply taking all responsibility off the City and putting it on the County. It also ignores that the 1992 plan developed a different boundary. The 1992 plan picks the boundary for west river as 17th Avenue. When we were working on the Urban Infill Plan with the Miami River Commission, we compromised in order to make the stakeholders, the City included, be happy with the balance of all interests on the river, so we agreed that we -- that that boundary could be 22nd Avenue for the Urban Infill Plan. As it turns out, that plan was not accepted, and now the EAR has, in fact, made that boundary just right outside the City altogether. We think that that's a terrible precedent. We don't think it's going to fly with the Department of Community Affairs, and we also think it's a -- not right in terms of the interlocal agreements and the intention that went along with dredging the Miami River, which is being dredged, as you know, for commercial maritime use, and I hope that you will reconsider this and at least allow what currently exists to remain because there really is not much left of it, enough to keep us sustainable, but if you take us out of your comprehensive plan, then we are gone, and 1 think if that is your intention, if you want us gone, it would be fair for you to say so. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Does that conclude your presentation? Ms. Bohnsack: Yes. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Meeting is adjourned. We will -- Commissioner Winton: I think there's one -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- come back -- Chairman Sanchez: I think there's one more. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: One more? Go ahead. Ashley Chase: Ashley Chase, Miami River Commission, with offices at -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Ma'am, your name and address, for the record. Ms. Chase: Ashley Chase, Miami River Commission, with offices at 1407 Northwest 7th Street. I would like to read a letter into the record on behalf of our chair, Ms. Irela Bague. On December 6, 2004, Mr. Kevin Provance, City of Miami Planning Department, presented the draft City of Miami's EAR to the Miami River Commission. The Miami River Commission unanimously recommended approval of the EAR -- of the draft EAR, subject to the following conditions: Recommendation PA-1, the MRC (Miami River Commission) concurs with U.S. Coast Guard Captain James Watson's attached letter, recommending deletion of the Comprehensive Plan "Port of Miami" River sub -element's inaccurate footnote; Recommendation PA-6, the MRC recommends no amendments to Comprehensive Plan Policy PA-3.1.1. The draft recommended amendment would eliminate the existing opportunity to encourage water -related and water -dependent uses in the lower and middle river, such as water taxis, recreational boat dockage along the river walk, et cetera; and finally, PR-22, insert "including a fisherman's City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 12/22/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 1, 2005 wharf " in order to be consistent with EAR Recommendation PR-23, which states "Fisherman's Wharf District in Lummus Park." Thanks so much. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anybody else that wishes to address the Commission? All right. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, just real quickly, because -- and because I know you, I know that your goal is not to eliminate the marine industry in the City of Miami. I know that very clearly -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Winton: -- and it certainly isn't the goal of any of the rest of us, and I'm just curious about -- in y'all's reading of the ERA [sic], if we have in fact kind of wiped out -- there's a -- there's plenty of room for debate about what those water -dependent uses are, exactly where they go and don't go. There's plenty of room for debate there. I don't think there's much room for debate about whether or not we want marine -related uses in the City of Miami's part of the river. We want them, and so, if we have, by design or in error, essentially, eliminated marine -related uses on the Miami River in our EAR, we need to correct that. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We have not, as far as I know. Have we? Mr. Ruck: As part of the last -- in December 9 last year, the City Commission, when the Miami River Commission came up and discussed their issues, agreed to certain conditions, and they are part of your packet. They were read into the official records at the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), and they're part of your packet. One of them, condition 14, which we were going to -- was to change recommendation PA-6 to encourage water-related/water-dependent uses along the upper river, and to also encourage water taxi and water pleasure craft uses along the entire river, while not precluding residential uses without such activities. We addressed all of the concerns as we understood them from the Miami River Commission at that time, and they're included in the packet, and they are part of the Evaluation Appraisal Report. Commissioner Winton: OK, and I'm sorry, but 1 got a noon meeting, so I'm -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: That's it? Commissioner Winton: -- late. Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Meeting is adjourned. We will come back at 2 -- Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Recess, recess -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Recess. Chairman Sanchez: -- recess. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry, recess. We will come back at 2:30 this afternoon. Thank you. City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 12/22/2005