Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2006-02-23 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.ci.miami.fl.us Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:00 AM PLANNING AND ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Angel Gonzalez, Chairman Johnny L. Winton, Vice Chairman Joe Sanchez, Commissioner District Three Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Michelle Spence -Jones, Commissioner District Five Joe Arriola, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS MV - MAYORAL VETOES AM - APPROVING MINUTES CA - CONSENT AGENDA M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS RE - RESOLUTIONS BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS PART B PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS The minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting. "[Later..)" refers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued. City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Gonzalez, Vice Chairman Winton, Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Spence -Jones On the 23rd day of February 2006, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Angel Gonzalez at 9:24 a.m., with Commissioner Sanchez and Vice Chairman Winton absent, recessed at 12:31 p.m., reconvened at 2:34 p.m. with Commissioner Regalado and Vice Chairman Winton absent, recessed at 7:03 p.m., reconvened at 7: 18 p.m., with Commissioner Sanchez and Vice Chairman Winton absent, and adjourned at 9:09 p.m. to convene a meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, which meeting adjourned at 9.• 11 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Sanchez entered the meeting at 9:41 a.m. Note for the Record: Vice Chairman Winton entered meeting at 9:44 a.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Regalado entered meeting at 2:42 p.m. Note for the Record: Vice Chairman Winton entered meeting at 9:05 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Joe Arriola, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Chairman Gonzalez: Welcome to the February 23, 2006 meeting of the City of Miami City Commission, in historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Joe Sanchez, Tomas Regalado, Michelle Spence -Jones, Johnny Winton, Vice Chairman, and myself Angel Gonzalez, your Chairman. Also on the dais are Joe Arriola, City Manager and Jorge Fernandez, the City Attorney, and Priscilla Thompson, the City Clerk. The meeting will be opened by a prayer -- with a prayer by Commissioner Regalado and the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Spence -Jones. No? She can't. OK, 1 will do the pledge of allegiance myself. Prayer and pledge of allegiance delivered. ORDER OF THE DAY Chairman Gonzalez: Now we will begin the regular meeting, and the City Attorney will state the procedure to be followed during this meeting. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, members of the public, any person who is a lobbyist must register with the City Clerk before appearing in front of the City Commission. A copy of the Code section about lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's Office. The material in connection with each item appearing on the agenda is available for inspection during business hours at the City Clerk's Office and also on-line. Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. All decisions of the City Commission are final, except that the Mayor may veto certain items approved by the City Commission within ten calendar days of the Commission action. The Commission may override such veto by a four -fifths vote. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim transcript of the item on which the appeal is based. Absolutely no cell phones, beepers, or other audible sound or ringing devices are City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 permitted in the Commission chambers. Please silence those devices now. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes unruly while addressing the Commission, shall be barred from further attending Commission meetings, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a vote of the Commission. No clapping, applauding, heckling, or verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker or Commissioner are allowed. No signs or placards are allowed in the chambers. Persons exiting the Commission chambers shall do so quietly. Persons may address the City Commission on items appearing on the 'public hearings" portion of the agenda and on items where public input is solicited by the Commission. Persons wishing to speak should inform the City Clerk as soon as possible of the desire to speak, giving the Clerk their names. At the time the item is heard, persons who will speak should approach the microphone and wait to be recognized. Any person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notes the City Clerk and she will make provisions. The lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at noon. The meeting will end either at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p.m. or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. The items will be heard in the numbered sequence on the agenda, except for the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, which will begin in their own numbered sequence after 10 p.m. [sic] or soon thereafter, as the agenda is called Items PH.2 through PH.6 will not be heard before 10:30 a.m., and Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PR.1 06-00236 CEREMONIAL ITEM Name of Honoree City of Miami Teresa Cruz Maria V. Fernandez Milady Irizarry Oscar J. Estevez Patricia C. Duncan Tony Lopez Presenter Commissioner Regalado Commissioner Regalado Commissioner Regalado Commissioner Regalado Commissioner Spence -Jones Commissioner Spence -Jones 06-00236 Cover Page.pdf 06-00236 Protocol List.pdf Protocol Item Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Certificate of Appreciation Salute Salute 1. Commissioner Regalado presented Certificates of Appreciation to Teresa Cruz, Oscar Estevez, Maria V. Fernandez (in absentia), Commander Milady Irizarry (in absentia), for their assistance in bringing the area of West Little Havana to prosperity; further recognizing the residents of the area for their active role in meeting with City staff and the City of Miami Police in providing a better quality of life; further stating his appreciation for Commander Milady Irizarry's attendance at every community meeting in the West Little Havana/Flagami area, as well as Dr. Denis Rod for his participation. 2. Commissioner Spence -Jones saluted Patricia C. Duncan, principal of Orchard Villa Elementary School, for her years of valuable service to children and their families across the cultural spectrum in Miami -Dade County; further recognizing her valuable dedication and leadership as principal of Orchard Villa Elementary School, catapulting the institution to the forefront of early childhood development programs in Miami -Dade County, and confirming her advocating for the promising potential of those whose dreams and lives need nurturing; further recognizing Ms. Duncan's dedication in providing a wonderful model to those committed to restoring the strength of our neighborhoods; further recognizing and paying highest tribute to Ms. Duncan's commitment for working in the uplifting of the communities in the City of Miami; further proclaiming Patricia C. Duncan as "Distinguished Public Servant" of the City of Miami. Page 4 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 MAYORAL VETOES 3. Commissioner Spence -Jones saluted Tony Lopez for his accomplishments in the Wynwood area; further recognizing his genuine value to the quality of life in South Florida; his enrichment of the City of Miami throughout the supreme example of actors' excellence, a model of aesthetic achievement resulting in glorious creativity, displayed internationally in celebrated galaries, in homes and businesses and as historical landmarks; further honoring and recognizing the relevance of Tony Lopez' work as exemplified in South Florida public monuments, and his legendary success as son and grandson of master Cuban sculptures; further proclaiming Tony Lopez as "Distinguished Citizen" of the City of Miami. Chairman Gonzalez: We have some presentations. Commissioner Regalado, I believe that you have some -- Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- certificate of appreciation. Presentations made. NO MAYORAL VETOES Chairman Gonzalez: 1 want to recognize at this time, we have not received any mayoral vetoes from any of the last meetings, so we're going to proceed with the consent agenda. APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETING: Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, to APPROVED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton Chairman Gonzalez: We need to approve the Planning & Zoning meeting minutes of -- Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: -- January 26, 2006. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. CONSENT AGENDA CA.1 06-00163 RESOLUTION Department of "INCOMPLETE (CHANGES NECESSARY) - PENDING FINAL REVIEW AND Fire Rescue APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY." A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, CENTER FOR RESEARCH IN MEDICAL EDUCATION ("UMCRME"), A NOT -FOR -PROFIT ORGANIZATION, TO DESIGNATE THE CITY TO ACT AS A SATELLITE TRAINING SITE OF THE UMCRME TO CONDUCT AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION COURSES IN BASIC LIFE SUPPORT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE FEES AND COSTS LISTED IN THE AGREEMENT, SECTION II (K), FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR SUCCESSIVE ONE (1) YEAR TERMS OR UNTIL TERMINATED BY ANY PARTY UPON 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE PUBLIC ACCESS DEFIBRILLATION PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 110137, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 280111.6.722, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. 06-00163 Legislation.pdf 06-00163 Summary Form.pdf 06-00163 Pre Legislation.pdf 06-00163 Agreement.pdf 06-00163 Letter.pdf 06-00163 Insurance Approval Form.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0104 CA.2 06-00164 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Police ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, KENNETH C. JENNE, II, SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, AS A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER, THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND RICHARD D. ROTH, SHERIFF OF MONROE COUNTY, AS A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER, TO ESTABLISH AND SET PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH ALL PARTIES WILL PROVIDE INTEROPERABILITY COMMUNICATION ACCESS AMONG THESE PUBLIC SAFETY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, TO ACCESS THE FEATURE OF THE 800 MHZ TRUNKED RADIO SYSTEM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MUTUAL ASSISTANCE, PLANNING AND EXECUTING ON -SCENE OPERATIONS, AND IDENTIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF USE OF THE PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OPERATIONAL DECISIONS RELATING TO THE USE OF THE COMMON TALK GROUPS, AS STATED HEREIN. 06-00164 Legislation.pdf 06-00164 Exhibit.pdf 06-00164 Summary Form.pdf 06-00164 Summary Fact Sheet.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 R-06-0105 CA.3 06-00165 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AN Police INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO A+ MINI STORAGE, APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 02-140, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 14, 2002, AMENDED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 04-0060, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 12, 2004, FURTHER AMENDED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 05-0062, ADOPTED JANUARY 27, 2005, FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE NEEDS, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $23,000, INCREASING THE TOTAL ANNUAL CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $60,000 TO $83,000, ANNUALLY; ALLOCATING FUNDS, FOR SAID INCREASE, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET ACCOUNT CODE NO. 001000.290201.6.610; AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 05-0062 TO REFLECT SAID INCREASE. 06-00165 Legislation.pdf 06-00165 Summary Form.pdf 06-00165 Second Renewal.pdf 06-00165 Pre Legislation.pdf 06-00165 Text File Report.pdf 06-00165 Text File Report 2.pdf 06-00165 Summary Fact Sheet.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0106 CA.4 06-00166 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID Purchasing OF UNITED BUSINESS CORPORATION A/K/A UNITED MICROGRAPHICS, THE LOWEST AND RESPONSIVE BIDDER, RECEIVED DECEMBER 19, 2005, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO. 04-05-031, FOR DOCUMENT SIMULTANEOUS CONVERSION TO MICROFILM/MICROFICHE AND ELECTRONIC FORMAT (CD/DVD) CITYWIDE, TO BE UTILIZED BY VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS, ON AN AS -NEEDED, WHEN NEEDED, CONTRACT BASIS, FOR AN INITIAL TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS, AT AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS' GENERAL OPERATING BUDGETS, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED. 06-00166 Legislation.pdf 06-00166 Summary Form.pdf 06-00166 Award Recommendation.pdf 06-00166 Award Sheet.pdf 06-00166 Tabulation Sheet.pdf 06-00166 Bid Security List.pdf City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones CA.5 06-00167 Department of Fire -Rescue R-06-0107 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID OF LIQUID 02 TRANSFILLS, INC., THE ONLY RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, RECEIVED NOVEMBER 21, 2005, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 04-05-138, FOR THE PURCHASE OF MEDICAL AND INDUSTRIAL GASES, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE -RESCUE, FOR AN INITIAL TWO YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS, AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000, FOR AN ESTIMATED TOTAL CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006, FROM THE FIRE -RESCUE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 001000.280601.6.714, WITH FUTURE FISCAL YEAR FUNDING SUBJECT ONLY TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. 06-00167 Legislation.pdf 06-00167 Summary Form.pdf 06-00167 Award Recommendation .pdf 06-00167 Tabulation of Bids.pdf 06-00167 Bid Security List.pdf 06-00167 Acc. Inquiries.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones CA.6 06-00168 Department of Parks and Recreation R-06-0108 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID OF GREATER MIAMI CATERERS, INC., THE ONLY RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, RECEIVED NOVEMBER 7, 2005, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 04-05-133, FOR THE PROVISION OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APPROVED SNACKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION'S "OUT OF SCHOOL TIME PROGRAM, " FOR AN INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $114,595, FOR AN ESTIMATED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $343,785; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $114,595, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006, FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 110155.580258.710, WITH FUTURE FISCAL YEAR FUNDING SUBJECT ONLY TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 06-00168 Legislation.pdf 06-00168 Summary Form.pdf 06-00168 Award Recommendation.pdf 06-00168 Tabulation of Bids.pdf 06-00168 Bid Security List.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones CA.7 06-00170 Department of Purchasing R-06-0109 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 04-05-137, THAT THE TOP -RANKED FIRM TO PROVIDE ON -SITE AUCTION SERVICES IS FISHER AUCTION CO., INC. AND THAT THE TOP -RANKED FIRM TO PROVIDE INTERNET AUCTION SERVICES IS LONE STAR AUCTIONEERS, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT(S) ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM(S), WITH SAID FIRMS, ON AN AS -NEEDED BASIS, FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS STATED IN SAID AGREEMENT. 06-00170 Legislation.pdf 06-00170 Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00170 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00170 Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00170 Exhibit 4.pdf 06-00170 Exhibit 5.pdf 06-00170 Exhibit 6.pdf 06-00170 Summary Form.pdf 06-00170 Memo.pdf 06-00170 Evaluation Sheet.pdf 06-00170 Evaluation Summary.pdf 06-00170 Letter.pdf 06-00170 Letter 2.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones CA.8 06-00171 Department of Capital Improvement Programs/Transpor tation R-06-0110 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO THE CONTRACT WITH GANCEDO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FOR ADDITIONAL NECESSARY WORK, FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "CORAL WAY City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 3117/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 BEAUTIFICATION UPLIGHTING, B-6450A," IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $82,003.68, INCREASING THE CONTRACT FROM $673,031 TO $755,034.68; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. B-6450A AND FROM HURRICANE WILMA ACCOUNT NO. 800007.999301.6.860, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 06-00171 Legislation.pdf 06-00171 Exhibit.pdf 06-00171 Summary Form.pdf 06-00171 Text File Report.pdf 06-00171 Master Report.pdf 06-00171 Contract.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0112 Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Sanchez, you're recognized on CA.8. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On CA.8, which is the project of lighting -- Beautification Uplighting on Coral Way, we've had some problems with that project; some were man's fault; others was nature's fault as to the hurricanes, but this is one -- it's one project where a nice idea on paper turns out to be not what we anticipated, and you've heard the complaints about the lighting shining on people's car, and the landscaping being -- not being up to par, and of course, you know, it's very hard to please everyone; we all realize that, but I just want to make sure that, in the future, as we have so many CIP (Capital Improvements Program) projects in line that we try to focus on doing it right the first time because we end up spending more money and aggravation and having to deal with angry constituents, which is perfectly fine; that's part of the role of what we do as a Commission, but I think that CIP, along with whoever you hire as a consultant, and these companies, must be held accountable for the decisions that are made. This is coming back now for additional funds to try to make up for mistakes because of the lighting. Now, I would have liked to have seen smaller lighting, a more appropriate lighting system for those trees, instead of those giant spotlights that are usually used to shine buildings in downtown Miami and skyscrapers, so you know, we want to make sure that we don't repeat these mistakes in the future because it ends up costing taxpayers money, so Madam Director, CIP. Mary Conway: Mary Conway, CIP & Transportation. Commissioner, 1 can concur with your sentiments, and we are working to make sure that all projects are scoped adequately upfront, and that we do have the controls in place so that we do have appropriate designs. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. I'll move. Commissioner Regalado: Chairman, one question. Mary, this is for the visors for the lights only, right? Ms. Conway: It's for the visors for the lights, as well as correcting some of the damage that occurred to some of the light structures. Commissioner Regalado: OK, but the landscaping has a guarantee. I mean -- Ms. Conway: The landscaping has an establishment period for -- if it dies off or there are City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 CA.9 06-00231 Department of Community Development damages, it has an establishment period of six months. Commissioner Regalado: OK, because we are trying to change the landscaping, too, because -- I mean, Commissioner Sanchez also, who represents part of the area, has gotten, I'm sure, many complaints, like I have, regarding the aesthetics of the landscaping, and Alicia mentioned that you will be trying to change some of the landscaping. Is that correct? Ms. Conway.: We have, through a separate -- we have two different contractors on the corridor - Commissioner Regalado: No, I understand. Ms. Conway: -- with the separate contractor that's doing the landscape work. We have already executed a change order with them for them to go out and replant the materials that were damaged by the storm and also to address some of the damage that's occurred to the plants out there. Commissioner Regalado: OK, fine. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. CA.9. Commissioner Sanchez: And on CA.9, 1 just want to get a legal opinion on the City Attorney -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are we going to take a vote on CA.8? Chairman Gonzalez: Pm going to take them both. Can we take a vote on both items? Ms. Thompson: We -- if I'm not mistaken, we should keep them separate because they're -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Thompson: -- two separate items -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so -- Ms. Thompson: -- for your voting purposes. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Let's approve CA.8 first. Do 1 hear a motion? CA.8. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, so move. So move. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say II 11 aye The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-0014, ADOPTED JANUARY 8, 2004, THAT AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("PSA") BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY METROPOLITAN CENTER ("FIU"), FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, BY CLARIFYING THE ORIGINAL TERM OF THE PSA WITH FIU, TO A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR ONE (1) ADDITIONAL FOUR-YEAR PERIOD, IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $165,800, WITH ANNUAL INCREASES NOT TO EXCEED 5% ; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED "POVERTY INITIATIVE" TO SUPPORT ANNUALLY THE CITYWIDE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT CAMPAIGN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, TO BE DISBURSED UNDER THE SECOND PHASE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S POVERTY INITIATIVE CALLED "ACCESS MIAMI." 06-00231 Legislation.pdf 06-00231 Summary Form.pdf 06-00231 Agreement.pdf 06-00231 Tax Credit.pdf 06-00231 Price Sheet.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0113 Chairman Gonzalez: CA.9, Commissioner Rego -- Sanchez, you're recognized. Commissioner Sanchez: And on CA.9, 1 just want a point of clarification from the City Attorney as a legal opinion. This money is going to FIU (Florida International University) and the Center of Dario Moreno, and he did some work for my campaign. I just want to get from you, the City Attorney, is there any conflict of interest, or would 1, you know -- ? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Could you restate again the nature of the work they've done? Commissioner Sanchez: Well, we're awarding $165,000 to FIU and the center -- Mr. Fernandez.: Correct. Commissioner Sanchez: -- the individual who runs the center; fine individual, very bright, one of the best at that. I just want to make sure I'm clear on this, that 1 get a legal opinion, that it's not a conflict of interest for me because he did work for my campaign. Mr. Fernandez: No, because his work with FIU-- our contract is with FIU, not with this individual in particular. This is an organization to organization agreement. We're not contracting with the individual, per se. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, Mr. City Attorney, as I always stated, we have three different branches here. 1 don't like to impede in legal matters because I'm not an attorney; I'm a policymaker. As my legal representation on this dais, I'm asking you if there's a conflict of interest for you to state on the record so I could feel comfortable voting on this issue, so it's not on the front page of the Herald tomorrow. What is your opinion? Mr. Fernandez: You know, this is the first time I hear about it. The individual -- and I don't City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 know where you want fully vetting this on the record. This individual that would be the primary person handling the contract for FJU worked in your campaign. Was he a paid worker? Was he a voluntary -- ? You know, we would need to look and analyze all the facts related to the issues that you have raised, and at this point, I'm not able to categorically give you an answer. I can generally tell you that this agreement is not with a particular individual; this agreement is with the organization, with FIU as an institution. FIU may hire whomever they deem appropriate, and it really is no concern to the City who does that work, so just looking at this agreement, I would opine that there is no conflict. Any number of people attending FIU, working for FIU in some other capacity may work, may have worked in your campaign or in any other Commissioner's campaign, but that is of no consequence. Commissioner Sanchez: All right, so your opinion would be that there's no conflict of interest -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes, with the -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- on my behalf? Mr. Fernandez: -- facts as you've given them to me, that would be my opinion. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second on CA. 9. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Those opposed have the same right. CA.10 06-00151 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Purchasing ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE QUALIFICATION COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 04-05-132, THAT THE PROPOSER MOST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE MAYOR'S MENTORING INITIATIVE IS AIMEE MIR; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH AIMEE MIR FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE ADDITION OF QUALIFIED FIRMS OR INDIVIDUALS TO THE CONTRACT WHEN DEEMED IN THE CITY OF MIAMI'S BEST INTEREST; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN AN INITIAL ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,000, PER INDIVIDUAL AND/OR FIRM, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $450,000, PER INDIVIDUAL AND/OR FIRM, FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. 110166.200107.6.270, FOR SAID PURPOSE. City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 06-00151 Legislation.pdf 06-00151 Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00151 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00151 Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00151 Summary Form.pdf 06-00151 Bid Security List.pdf 06-00151 Memo.pdf 06-00151 Qualification Forms.pdf 06-00151 RFQ.pdf 06-00151 Purchasing & Contracts.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0111 Adopted the Consent Agenda Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, including all the preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Consent Minutes Chairman Gonzalez: Do any of the Commissioners wish to remove items from the consent agenda? OK What about the Administration? Mr. City Manager -- Joe Arriola (City Manager): No. Chairman Gonzalez: -- is there any item that you wish to remove? All right, so we move to the consent agenda. We need a motion to approve. Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. Do 1 hear a second? Commissioner Sanchez: There's two items 1 want to just pull for discussion on this. I believe it's CA.8 and CA. 9, and please bear with me. I'm recuperating from eye surgery, and -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: -- I -- you know, I have to wear these stylish glasses, but just bear with me today, and 1 apologize for being a little late. Chairman Gonzalez.: All right. Then we need a motion to approve the balance of the consent agenda. We have a motion. Do I hear a second? Vice Chairman Winton: Which ones did you pull? Commissioner Sanchez: I wanted -- Chairman Gonzalez: CA (consent agenda) -- City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: -- to pull CA.8 and CA.9. Chairman Gonzalez: 9. Vice Chairman Winton: And so we need a second on the balance. Chairman Gonzalez: On the balance. Vice Chairman Winton: I move -- second the balance. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR MANUEL A. DIAZ DISTRICT 1 CHAIRMAN ANGEL GONZALEZ DISTRICT 2 VICE CHAIRMAN JOHNNY L. WINTON D2.1 06-00237 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ON PENDING LITIGATION. 06-00237 Email.pdf Direction to the City Attorney by Commissioner Spence -Jones to provide her with a historical record on the cases won and lost by the City within the last two years by the end of March. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I don't have any items. Vice Chairman Winton, do you have any items on your blue pages? Vice Chairman Winton: Yes. I wanted to have a brief discussion. 1 have had this discussion with the City Attorney, but there's the current fire fee case that was handled by Charles Mays. There's another case that I've had great interest in since the day I got elected, which was the Free Trade Zone; should have been a simple foreclosure. It's a real estate transaction. It's been in the courts -- Chairman Gonzalez: Forever. Vice Chairman Winton: -- forever; still there. Charles Mays handled that one, too, and what 1 wanted to figure out is how many other cases like that might we have out there, and I thought that we, as the Commission -- and I think the City Attorney's done a real good job at helping us understand what's out there, but I just wanted an opportunity to look at what kind of cases we have, what our potential liability may be, and encourage our City Attorney to look carefully at particularly the cases that could cost us a lot of money, and make sure that we have absolutely the best counsel on each of those individual cases. Whether that counsel is internal or external, I just want to make sure that he understands, at least from my point of view, that I'm going to encourage him to get the absolute best expert to represent us, whether they're internal or external, and to not hesitate to find the absolute best to represent our needs so that we don't have these kind of cases as we move forward, and so it's really that simple. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Message heard, and that's precisely what we're all about. We will continue to give you reports on a periodic basis, and we will be in short order, perhaps in the next three or four weeks, reporting to you on some of these major cases, as I give you a short version of my annual report. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Vice Chairman Winton: Great. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just have -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick question on that. If there's any way also -- I think -- Commissioner Winton, 1'm glad that you asked that, because a lot of times I think that we are somewhat blindsided by a lot of these things that come up, and we really don't have all the information and data a lot of the times, but one of the things I would like to ask, Mr. City Attorney is, if 1 can get, at least over the last three years, what's kind of been our record on these type of cases, like the number of cases we've won, we've lost? I'd like to at least have that data. I don't have to have it now, but if you could -- Mr. Fernandez: Certainly. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- provide that for me by the -- maybe at the -- Mr. Fernandez: We will -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- let's say the end of March, that would be fine. 1 just would want to have a sense of over the last three years, how many cases have we won or lost. Mr. Fernandez-: All right. I would be very happy to provide you the best that we can. As you know, Commissioner, I've only been in place for a little bit over a year, and I have -- perhaps, if I look further and deeper, there would be records that were kept in the office. It's only been very recent that we were able to institute a computer program that helps us track and report on all of those cases. Frankly, I don't know that I'll be able to give you three years historical data, but 1 would certainly try to give you year and a half, two years. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Two years will be fine. Just so that we have a sense -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- of you know, what -- Mr. Fernandez: And we -- part of my annual report to you would be showing that, so that you will have an ability to understand the progress we're making benchmarking. We're going to -- I'm very, very much into metrics [sic], where we really look at the amount of time, and at the results that we obtain for the time that we spend on every legal matter, and this is something that we will be producing to you in very short order. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. 1 just want to make sure -- and that's fine for you to include it in the overall report. I just would like this as a separate item. Mr. Fernandez: Certainly. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. If there's any way you could provide us with that information, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez, do you have anything on your blue pages? I don't think so, but -- Commissioner Sanchez: No, sir, I do not, Mr. Chairman. City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 DISTRICT 3 COMMISSIONER JOE SANCHEZ DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO D4.1 06-00226 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ABOUT A PROPOSED STREET CODESIGNATION OF SOUTHWEST 36TH AVENUE FROM SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET TO SOUTHWEST 11 STREET IN HONOR OF SPECIAL AGENT OCTAVIO GONZALEZ, A FORMER CITY OF MIAMI POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY ON DECEMBER 13, 1976, WHILE SERVING AS A SPECIAL AGENT WITH THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION. 06-00226 Cover Memo.pdf A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, and was passed unanimously, to refer to the Miami Street Codesignation Committee, with positive recommendation, the codesignation of Southwest 8th Street to 11 th Street and 37th Avenue in honor of Special Agent Octavio Gonzalez. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several former special agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and current agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration met with me because this year is the 30th anniversary of the death of Octavio Gonzalez. Octavio Gonzalez was a City of Miami police officer, then he went into the academy; became one of the first Cuban -American special agents of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration). He was -- he used to live in Little Havana, and then he was sent to the Bogota station of the DEA on an undercover operation; he was killed. He is the first Cuban -American special agent of the DEA to be killed in the line of duty. As we approach the 30th anniversary, these people want to remember him, and this is why they chose a street and an avenue that he used to patrol when he was a City of Miami police officer; 36th Avenue, from Southwest 8th Street to Southwest 11 th Street, so my motion will be to propose the street codesignation of Southwest 8th Street to Southwest 11 th Street on 36th Avenue in honor of Special Agent Octavio Gonzalez. So move. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. DISTRICT 5 COMMISSIONER MICHELLE SPENCE-JONES City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 D5.1 06-00234 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING EFFORTS NECESSARY TO PROHIBIT ILLEGAL SIGNAGE POSTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY SEEKING TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE. 06-00234 Email.pdf Direction to the Manager by Vice Chairman Winton to direct Code Enforcement to place special emphasis on fining individuals for the illegal posting of signs. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Spence -Jones, D5.1. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I guess I just need clarity, really, on this particular item. 1 guess it'll come from the City Manager or the City Attorney. I'm not really sure whether or not this happens in any of your areas throughout the City of Miami, but I know that in Little Haiti, in Overtown, and Liberty City there's countless number of signs that have been posted in these neighborhoods targeting low-income residents, targeting seniors, either for "1 buy, we buy, or well give you cash, we'll give you loan," and a lot of times people really don't understand, you know, what that all means, and 1, myself along with my Sergeant at arms, just one day just, you know, in riding -- I mean, I just couldn't take it anymore, because they're posted everywhere in my neighborhood, and throughout the whole -- throughout my whole district, so I just began pulling them down, and most of those numbers are 954 numbers, and what happens is, you know, it's elders or folks from the community call because they're in a cash crunch and not really realizing, and they end up losing their homes or they end up selling their homes, and guess what? When they sell their homes, they have nowhere else to go before you can't afford to buy really anything, so my question really was -- Mr. City Attorney, 1 think we might have talked about it and vetted it out, but 1 really want to have a clear understanding. I think the Manager and I talked before about getting Code Enforcement involved, which I think is great, to help pull some of those signs down, but what are the limitations, you know, as far as legal/illegal sign posting of these type of signs that are targeting these communities? I mean, do you guys have this in your communities, too, my other colleagues? Vice Chairman Winton: Not as much as you do. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Not as much as I do. Vice Chairman Winton: Not as much -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, it's horrible in my community. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. I've seen them. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean, four corners you have them. Commissioner Regalado: Could you yield? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Seven month ago we discussed that here and we call it bandit signs, and it's all over Coral Way. They even nail the signs on the trees in Coral Way, which people know that this is so -- it's double illegal because those trees are historic, and it was an open discussion here about those bandit signs, and the only thing we ask is just to call those numbers and say, "Where are you?" and send them a fine, you know, and -- but they're still there, they're still there. We -- I would just hope that we do this citywide, because if you go by Coral Way, City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 you'll see signs in every intersection. 1 mean, from "garage sale" to "we sell homes and condos" and insurance, and you know, "we grow hair, "you know, whatever. Everything, everything, and the people really complain about it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm really concerned about the real estate part of it because we're talking about people's livelihood. You know, we're talking about you're in a cash crunch; you call, and you know, folks say they're going to give you a loan on this, and the next thing you know, you're losing your home, so I don't know, Mr. City Attorney. What ground do we have on this anyway, and what can we do? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. You have raised two issues. The first issue sounds in Code Enforcement, and we do have the ordinances in place and we have the mechanisms in place. However effective or successful is something else, but we have everything that we need to have in order to prosecute these individuals when they do illegal posting and use illegal signs and the like. The second issue, which is a little bit more difficult, which is really at the core of what you're saying, is regulating commerce. These individuals who are out there taking advantage of the poor, less educated, you know, that segment in our community that needs our protection, I'm afraid that we, in this Commission, do not have the ability to put them out of business. Perhaps, at the state legislature or if the federal government, if they were to pass legislation controlling that, but the presumption is that in the marketplace, the economics drive the train, and issues of morality, issues as to the nature of the practice, unless they are doing something that breaks the law, they can take advantage of the innocent because that in itself is not breaking the law. If there is a person who is in desperate dire need of money and somebody's offering them -- you know, as long as the offer is made, you know, with the proper documentation and the like, as long as it doesn't break the law, then it's a legitimate business. If they break the law, it's then up to the state attorney or to other law enforcement agencies to prosecute them for either mail fraud or any number of other violations of the law, but simply in the commerce world, in the marketplace out there where people sell services and the like, 1 don't know that -- I know that this Commission has no jurisdiction to regulate that industry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: What -- Mr. City Attorney -- and 1 think we did talk about this, and 1 agree with you to a certain extent, but on part of this, though, 1 think that, you know, just as we come down on, you know, other issues that are affecting communities, I think that we need -- if we can take some kind of united effort -- you know, maybe it's through Code Enforcement that, you know, we just come down on these people, and they feel, you know, that this is a big issue that's affecting the residents of our overall city, and that this kind of behavior won't be accepted, I think that things could change. Right now they're not feeling any heat. Right now they're posting the signs on trees and light poles, and you know, improper places, on people's property and they're not even asking, and it's terr --1 want to take you for a drive in my district. Mr. Fernandez: No. I've seen it, Commissioner. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So all 1 want to know is -- and I understand that we have to take it in front of the state leg -- you know, get their support and all of that, but I just want to know -- and maybe Mr. City Manager can assist us with that -- if we can just, you know, create some type of energy around or some kind -- something to force these folks to stop, and they may not stop, but they'll at least will think about it before they do it. Right now they're just putting them everywhere. Mr. Fernandez: When they post signs in the public right-of-way illegally and the like, we can take care of that; prosecute them, but here is an example: If they go and they buy space in a lawfully placed billboard -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: -- which are allowed, and on the billboard, larger -than -life they display their message, "We will buy your house, " that type of thing -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm fine with that. They paid for it, OK. Mr. Fernandez: That's right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But they paid to do that, but they're using public right-of-way to do it. Mr. Fernandez: No, and that they cannot -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Come on now. Mr. Fernandez: -- do, and that's the subject of enforcement. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So -- Vice Chairman Winton: Michelle. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: Let me help here. I think this is relatively simple, and I think that what you're asking is the Manager to put a special emphasis, through Code Enforcement, on fining these people that have their illegal signs up. That will have the impact -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Some impact. Vice Chairman Winton: -- that you're looking for because the signs won't be nearly as prevalent out there, and so that will help get the message away also. If they want to buy advertisement, they can buy advertisement -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 can't stop them from doing that. Vice Chairman Winton: -- but we need to clamp down on the illegal posting and that's a Code Enforcement issue, and I think what you're asking the Manager to do is whether it's to put together a special task force on this issue and Code Enforcement and attack it very, very strongly, or just get all Code Enforcement focused on it, but one or the other so that we can really start hammering these people that are posting signs illegally. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: There are several factors in this. One, it's a quality of life issue -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: -- and the other one is the concept of whether it's legal or not. There's a lot of fraud involved, and 1 think that's where your concerns come. When people find themselves in financial situations where they can't pay their credit cards, they really get desperate and that's when they come in and they hit you with these high rates, and at the end of the day, they end up taking your property in a foreclosure, so those are things that State regulate. The power that we have, or the policy that we have -- and we're policymakers -- the ordinance that we have is through Code Enforcement. If we had -- and we go out there and we have the Chicken Busters -- City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: -- we could have the Bandit Sign Busters, where they could be removed, and you know why it could be effective? One, those signs cost money, and they go out there and they have these signs printed or they have it made, and then they post it illegally throughout the City, but what it takes is going to be exactly a task force to go out there and remove these signs, and once you do that three or four times, they're not going to put those signs back out there, so it really is -- should be a -- directed through the City Manager, through the Administration to have Code Enforcement take the appropriate steps to remove these signs. We have had in this City for many, many year a very lax sign ordinance, and every time we'll go out there, when we aggressively fight these sign ordinance -- and 1 have been in favor at times, and at times I have not been in favor because of the approach we've taken --1 think we were able to approach businesses and say, "Hey, we're willing to help you with a facade program where you don't have to have 50 signs in front of your business and you could have one," because they have this philosophy that if you have a thousand signs outside your store, you're going to sell more, and that is not true at all, so these are the things that, by education and Code Enforcement, within the powers that we have as a legislative body, we could address, and I think it's paramount that we start doing that because it is a quality of life and -- throughout the entire City, so let me praise you, Commissioner, for taking the initiative to focus on that, and now the burden falls on the City Administration and Code Enforcement to go out there and do their job. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anything else? Commissioner Sanchez: No, thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Just want to know that we're going to -- we're moving to do that, right? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes. As a matter of fact, a former City attorney, Lucia Dougherty, just brought up that there's a -- that Miami Beach has in their books a law that you could actually go after the people that's profiteering from the advertisers, and she's going to send me copies of this, and I'll work with Jorge on it, because that seems to be the better thing; that you go to the persons that are making a profit of it, and I look forward for her help, and I'll bring it to you. That sound like something with teeth, because we can pick up all the signs you want, and we do, you know. 1 drive around. Commissioner, I've been with you and you and you and you, and I stop and get the sign, but they come back, and unless we have something there that we could go after them and fine them -- I have the same problem in Coconut Grove with the flyers over the weekend, so you know, they drive me cra_y. They're all over the street afterwards, so we need to get some teeth in something and go after the people that are benefiting from this thing, so with their help, I'll have that, and I'!l work with Jorge on it, and I'!1 bring it back to you guys. Chairman Gonzalez: Very good. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you. City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PH.1 06-00172 Department of Public Facilities PUBLIC HEARINGS RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT OF EASEMENT AND A BILL OF SALE, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM(S), ON CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER, OF A TWELVE (12) FOOT- WIDE STRIP UTILITY EASEMENT, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, FOR A PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITH THE RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT, IMPROVE, CHANGE AND REMOVE SUCH FACILITIES WITHIN THE EASEMENT, WITH FULL RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. 06-00172 Legislation.pdf 06-00172 Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00172 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00172 Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00172 Exhibit 4.pdf 06-00172 Exhibit 5.pdf 06-00172 Summary Form.pdf 06-00172 Public Hearing Memo.pdf 06-00172 Public Hearing Ad.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzaalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0114 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Let's go to public hearings, PH.1. Laura Billberry: Good morning. Lori Billberry, Public Facilities. Chairman Gonzalez: Good morning. Ms. Billberry: This item is a resolution to authorize the City Manager to grant an easement to Miami -Dade Water and Sewer and to also execute a bill of sale for water facilities. This will be for a 12 foot strip through the Grove Harbour project. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: It's a public hearing, I'm sorry. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please come forward. OK, Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, and we had a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. The motion carries. Ms. Billberry: Thank you. 10:30 A.M. rA skin interpreter translated discussion of items PH.2 through PH.61 PH.2 06-00195 Department of Community Development RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS ("HOPWA") FUNDS, AS SPECIFIED IN "ATTACHMENT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $50,000; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS, TO SUNSHINE FOR ALL, INC., TO PROVIDE HOME DELIVERED MEALS TO HOMEBOUND PERSONS ENROLLED IN THE HOPWA LONG TERM RENTAL ASSISTANCE ("LTRA") PROGRAM, THEREBY INCREASING THE CURRENT NUMBER OF LTRA PARTICIPANTS RECEIVING HOMEBOUND MEALS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH SUNSHINE FOR ALL, INC., FOR SAID PURPOSE. 06-00195 Legislation.pdf 06-00195Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00195Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00195Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00195Exhibit 4.pdf 06-00195 Summary Form.pdf 06-00195 Public Hearing Ad.pdf 06-00195 Text File Report.pdf 06-00195 HOWA Funding Allocation.pdf 06-00195 Agreement.pdf 06-00195 Corporate Reso.pdf 06-00195 Work Program.pdf 06-00195 Compensation.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0122 Chairman Gonzalez: Now, we need to go back to public hearings. PH.2. Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez: PH.2. Barbara Gomez Rodriguez, director of Department of Community Development. PH.2, we are requesting the transfer of $50, 000 and amending Sunshine For All, Inc, to continue to provide home -delivered meals to homebound persons enrolled in HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS). These are persons that City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PH.3 06-00199 Department of Community Development have AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), and we're requesting that the dollars come from the Department of Community Development are HOPWA program. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please come forward. All right, seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed It comes back to the Commission. 1 believe we have a motion -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yes -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: -- there's a notion and a second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S HOUSING PROGRAM POLICIES FOR RENTAL PROJECTS, FOR THE 31ST YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, AS ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED . 06-00199 Legislation.pdf 06-00199 Exhibit.pdf 06-00199 Summary Form.pdf 06-00199 Text File Report.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0123 Chairman Gonzalez: PH.3. Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH.3, we are requesting to have an amendment to our rental policies, and basically, there's a couple of highlights that 1 would like to bring to your attention. Number one, we are changing the repayment requirements. We are going -- what we're recommending at this time is that it will be zero percent to three percent for for profit developers; that they will be paid; it will be a loan, or it could be a defer of the principal and interest at the end of the affordability. The affordability will be 30 years. For those nonprofit that are currently having rental projects, we're saying that we will not force the payment of the loan, but it will be part of the debt of the building until the affordability period is over. We also have default penalties, one of them being that full payment will be enforced, if the construction is not completed. If they decide to leave the project and do not complete the development, the company and the principals will not be able to apply for City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 additional dollars through Community Development for five years, and third, in the event that we do buy the land for the nonprofits' agencies and they decide to flip the property, any money that they make will considered program income and it will come back to the City. On reference to ratios, what we're basically saying is that it will be determined on a project by project basis. On reference to rent, it will be whatever is approved at that time by US HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development), and in reference to people to rent these units, the maximum will be 80 percent of medium income, and they must pass housing quality inspection on a yearly basis, so those are some of the changes that we are requesting that you give us permission for all of our rental projects coming through Community Development. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission on this item, please come forward. All right, seeing none and hearing none, the public hearing is closed. It comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, you're recognized. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Barbara, I just want -- maybe you can expound just a little on with us making the changes on this particular policy for rental projects. What -- and just in a few words or less, because I know that everyone's big on this whole affordable housing, getting folks to, you know, buy homes, and there's a real reality in my district, that everyone's not going to be able to afford -- will not afford -- be able to afford a house. By us amending this policy, what does this really do for us throughout the City in your own words? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: First of all, one of the things that we're trying to accomplish is, is to avoid people asking us for money and not complete projects, that's number one, and number two, we're also trying to avoid people that we have lend money to buy land and they're flipping it, and they're just paying the City whatever it is and making a substantial amount of money, so I think that this policy, number one, will prevent us from having people that are just not interested. We buy the land and they come year after year asking us for money. Now they're going to be debarred from asking for money for five years, if they do that. Number two, they don't complete, there's going to be higher penalties so that we can attract really good developers, people that really going to do the project and don't waste our time or even our resources -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- so I think that that is something that will help us on the long run. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: So it's all focused on productivity. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez. Right. Commissioner Sanchez: You're focusing on productivity. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: And staying in the project. Commissioner Sanchez: If you don't produce -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Staying in the project; that if we -- if you come to us and ask us for the dollars and we're committed to help you, don't come two years from now or twelve months from now and say, "You know what? I've decided to sell the property, or I've decided not to make it affordable," so that is one of the issues that we've been facing with. City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: Well, let me tell you how -- and I know, at times, I'm like the skunk at the family picnic when I say these things, but there are good organizations and there are those that just survive to pay salaries on administrative expenses or salaries. What I'd like to see, and have always think that we focused on, has been based on productivity, because once they ask for the money and they don't use it, it comes back to us, but they tie that money up, and they don't allow the companies that are out there working on affordable housing and rental to provide to the residents, so once that money is tied up, they can't use it, so if this basically tells me that the companies that weren't able to produce are not going to get funded and you're going to take that money and you're going to give to "X" companies that are producing, then 1 could support this. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yes, we are definitely doing that. We're also going to make it a policy that they're totally debarred from applying for money in the future -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's even better. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- for five years, and also one of the policy that is here is that if you decide to sell this property, we will not take the restricted covenant away for 30 years, so whoever's buying that property or that land, they're going to be stuck with that restricted covenant. Vice Chairman Winton: And Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzcilez: You're recognized. Vice Chairman Winton: As far as I'm concerned, that's the most important statement of all -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yes. Vice Chairman Winton: -- because that assures -- at least provides a mechanism for long-term affordability. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez. Right. Vice Chairman Winton: The big challenge we're going to have in this whole affordable housing issue as we go forward -- let's say, for sake of conversation, that all of a sudden the federal government got enlightened and gave us a billion dollars to do affordable housing in the City of Miami, and we did it in ten years, but with prices going up -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- and I'm talking about for sale housing, not rental. On the for sale side, as these values go up -- I just got a house that was heavily subsidized by the feds in the City of Miami so that I could afford a house, but the values have gone up so much in five years, I can sell that house -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- into the market, make a huge profit -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yep. Vice Chairman Winton: -- and that house is no longer affordable. It's market housing, and so as we continue to work on a master plan for affordable housing -- and one of the things that I've been maintaining all along is that if there are subsidies that go into that -- to create that City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 affordable house for a family, that we can't stop the market from pushing values up, but we can get our money back so if the family decides they want to sell their home -- and that's OK. You know, I'm going to move somewhere, or 1 don't want to do something else -- the subsidy that went into it needs to be treated like a mortgage -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: -- and it gets -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: -- paid back to the City so that if -- and if you do that over and over and over and over again, and you put $50 million a year into affordable housing, over a 20-year period, you will get hundreds of millions of dollars back into a revolving fund so that you can build more and more and more. We can't stop values from going up -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- but we can build a higher and higher and higher pool of dollars to help create the subsidy that makes it affordable over a long haul, but if we make it a grant, that money goes out; the market drives the value up; in five years the house is sold, and you're back to zero again -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yep. Chairman Gonzalez: That's right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- and that doesn't -- that's a -- Commissioner Sanchez: It doesn't make sense. Vice Chairman Winton: -- never-ending nightmare, and so I've been -- I like a lot this idea that - - and this is on the rental side -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: And Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Winton: -- but these are -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- in reference to home ownership, we are already collecting -- Vice Chairman Winton: Good. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- so it is our policy. We will be coming back to the City Commission in March with some changes to our home ownership policies, but on reference to collecting, it is a second mortgage and we do collect. Vice Chairman Winton: And you think about -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: -- the fact that, you know, Manny's idea to force the Tax Assessor's Office to treat affordable housing as that un -- from an assessment standpoint -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PH.4 06-00200 Department of Community Development Vice Chairman Winton: -- so that if -- I don't care whether it's rental or for sale -- that if it fits in the category of affordable, then the Tax Assessor's Office cannot assess that -- and this applies more on the rental side -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Rent. Vice Chairman Winton: -- because if you've got a homestead exemption, you're not hit so hard -- Chairman Gonzalez.: Right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- but if you sell it, you can get hit -- Chairman Gonzalez: You can get hit. Vice Chairman Winton: -- so as long as it stays in affordable, if the tax assessor can't drive my taxes through the roof I can afford to keep i1 affordable, and so if we turn all of these little knobs at the same time, I think there's a way that you can build a lot of resources and help keep costs down so that we can end up, long-term, with a much, much bigger pool of affordable housing, but we have to hit on all these little points -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: -- and get them into place. Chairman Gonzalez: Close the loops. All right, we have a motion and we have a second, right? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): No, we don't, not yet. Chairman Gonzalez: No, we don't. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT CLOSE OUT FUNDS, AS SPECIFIED IN "ATTACHMENT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $156,538.93; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000, TO HAITIAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER SANT LA, INC., TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL LITERACY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND SERVICES TO CITY OF MIAMI RESIDENTS AND THE AMOUNT OF $131,538.93, TO ALLAPATTAH WYNWOOD COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., TO COVER ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT COSTS NEEDED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE CHILD CARE FACILITY City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 LOCATED AT 1500 NORTHWEST 16 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM(S), WITH SAID AGENCIES FOR SAID PURPOSE. 06-00200 Legislation.pdf 06-00200 Exhibit 1 .pdf 06-00200 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00200 Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00200 Exhibit 4.pdf 06-00200 Exhibit 5.pdf 06-00200 Summary Form.pdf 06-00200 Public Hearing Ad.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0124 Chairman Gonzalez: PH.4. Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH.4, we are requesting approval to transfer from close out funds, and we are closing out 29th Year Community Development administration, 49,925.72; Amazing Minds Academy, 88,410; Allapattah Business Development Authority, 18,203.21; for a total of 156,538.93, and to request approval to fund the Haitian Neighborhood Center Sant La, Inc. for $25, 000, and to fund additional amending the contract of Allapattah/Wynwood Community and Development Center, 131,538.93. 1 do want to say on the record that this week we had a meeting with the Wynwood -- Allapattah/Wynwood community. This is a day care that we've been involved with for like a year and a half. It's 95 percent completed. Due to the cost of construction -- this is like change order -- they're still short $30, 000, so we will be coming back, hopefully, in the first Commission in March or the second to make sure that the day care is complete. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please come forward. All right, seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed It comes back to the Commission. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. I just have -- Chairman Gonzalez: We have -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- a question. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: What -- City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PH.5 06-00214 Department of Community Development Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. Discussion. You're recognized, Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: No, it's not a discussion. 1 think these organizations are great organizations, but it -- financial literacy, is that considered a social service? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: This one is. We've been working with this agency and Commissioner Winton's office like for a year, and we -- as you know, as part of the Mayor's initiative, it's -- what -- that's one of our priority this year, to do financial literacy, especially -- Commissioner Sanchez: Is it just going to -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- in the Haitian -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- be this year? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Well, this one ends September 30, so this is something that we're trying out with this agency, and Commissioner Winton's office have been very involved in it, and we'll see what happens. Commissioner Sanchez: So it's a pilot program? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We had a motion and we had a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF OFF- STREET PARKING TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED AT 1630 NORTHWEST 58 TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA AND 1620 NORTHWEST 58 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONVEY, WITH PARCEL REVERTER PROVISIONS, SAID PARCELS OF LAND TO PALMETTO HOMES OF MIAMI, INC., FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME PERSONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, FOR SAID PURPOSES. 06-00214 Legislation.pdf 06-00214 Exhibit.pdf 06-00214 Summary Form.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0125 Chairman Gonzalez: PH.5. Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH.5 is that we are requesting -- Off -Street Parking is the current owner of these two parcels of land, 1630 Northwest 58th Terrace and 1620 Northwest 58th Street. They have agreed to release those properties to the City, and we are requesting your approval to transfer these properties to Palmetto Homes for the development of affordable housing. Palmetto Homes will have 18 months from the date of land conveyance to complete construction. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 just have -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This is a public hearing. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: Mariano -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I have a question. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you're recognized. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 have a question. Chairman Gonzalez: You move it? Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: He's moving it. 1 just have a question. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. You have a question? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and you're going to second it, right? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: And we have -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- a second. It's a public hearing. Mariano, you're recognized. Mariano Cruz: Yeah, OK Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street, and you know, when I see any of these affordable housing, I like it, especially when it's owned by Palmetto Home and Ariel of because 1 just tell people to go by 1743 Northwest 41 Street and look what they have build there. All the groups -- I don't know. I check because I belong on the Capital Improvement Programs board and all that, and I check. Whenever 1 vote on something, 1 go and visit the neighborhood, and I see many people getting -- a vacant lot still there. Over a year ago, more over a year, and the lots are still there. When you see Palmetto Homes, he comes -- he City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 come here, he see the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), he sees anybody and he gets the house built, and that's something that we need there. People like Ariel to do that, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I see Palmetto, oh, that's good. I support it. Thank you. Chairman Gonzblez: Thank you, Mariano. Anyone else from the public? All right, seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Just real quick one. First of all, 1 definitely agree with you on Ariel and the wonderful houses that are happening in Model City now, and I think that now we're taking these existing two lots and actually putting houses there, which I think is really, really important. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: My question, though, Barbara, is some of the business in the area are going to still need parking, and I think that from the last Model City Trust meeting, for some reason there was -- the City Parking Authority had transferred the additional lots that they had to the Trust. Do you know -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: There is nothing -- the Parking Authority has not transferred them -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- to the Trust. There's still three additional parcels of land that the Model City requested the City to transfer to Off -Street Parking -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- so they are owned by Off -Street Parking. We will be meeting with Off -Street Parking and your office -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- March 1 to discuss the parking along 17th Avenue -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- so we will address that need We are aware that there is parking needed -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- and I'm sure that after the March 1 meeting, we'll come back to the City Commission and make some adjustment -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: But we -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- but as of now, they own the property. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Let me be clear. We do need parking -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- but we don't need all of the parking that's -- City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission PH.6 06-00233 Department of Community Development Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- identified there because we don't have enough businesses for all the parking that's there. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to make sure that once we lose these two lots, which I'm happy about, that we're going to be able to put houses there, that for the businesses that are in that area -- there's, I think, Ebony Drugs, and there's a little cafe, a little flower shop; those folks are struggling because they don't have any parking over in that area. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Off -Street Parking owns three additional parcels of land. We will be meeting with you to discuss the whole parking issue in 17th Avenue. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and then I also want to say, well done. I'm very excited that we are able -- my office, your office, and now the new formed Trust were able to work together to get some solid things done. The City Manager and I, we're out there probably about every other week, and houses are actually getting built, so 1 just want to commend you and your staff Danny, for doing an outstanding job, and I look forward to working with you on other lots in my district. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY") CONSOLIDATED PLAN ("PLAN"), FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004-2009, PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 04-0374, APPROVED JUNE 10, 2004, TO INCLUDE MULTI -FAMILY RE -FINANCING GUIDELINES, UNDER THE HOUSING STRATEGY SECTION, AS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE CITY'S AMENDED PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004-2009, TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 06-00233 Legislation.pdf 06-00233 Exhibit.pdf 06-00233 Summary Form.pdf 06-00233 File Summary Report.pdf 06-00233 Memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 R-06-0126 Chairman Gonzalez: PH.6. Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): PH. 6, we are requesting that you approve us to amend our consolidated plan with US HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) to include multifamily refinancing guidelines. Up to now the City of Miami have never had a policy to help buildings refinance their property. As part of the affordable housing crisis comes to be, one of the challenge is trying to preserve what we have, so this policy is going to give us the flexibility that if there is anyone out there that does have a rental project, and they need to have some refinancing to make -- to still preserve them as affordable, we will be able to do it, and that's what we're requesting from you today. Chairman Gonzalez:. All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please come forward. All right, seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. It comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Commissioner Sanchez: Is there a second? I'd like to discuss the item. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion and we have a second. Discussion. You're recognized, Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: So these are individuals that had debt and they can't get financing from banks. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: This is not target to any individual. This is a policy that anyone that has an affordable housing project right now -- Commissioner Sanchez: Right. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- and they're having problem paying the first mortgage because they don't want to increase the rent. They can come to the City and negotiate new terms for that building, so it gives us the flexibility that if we decide to refinance your first mortgage, we can do SO. Commissioner Sanchez: But don't you think that we might be digging the grave even bigger for them, if they can't pay the first debt, and we're going to -- they're going to come in and, you know, whatever is worked out between you and them, and -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: But it's not a first debt with us. Commissioner Sanchez: Exactly. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: It could be a first debt with a bank -- City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: Exactly. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- where they might have a very large interest rate, and just to give you an example. We've been in contact with the Commissioner Spence -Jones in her district. There is a tax -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Edison Tower. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- credit deal -- Commissioner Sanchez: I don't want to get into company's names. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: No, no, no -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- and I'm not going to get to that. It's just that they need to rehab the building. Nobody will give them the rehab dollars unless they address the first mortgage. We feel that if we restructure the debt that they have, they will be able to pay us and be able to tap into County dollars to rehab the building. Commissioner Sanchez: Now, let me ask you another question. What happens if they don't pay the debt they owe and they owe us money? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: We will -- Commissioner Sanchez: Who's going to assume that debt? Is the City going to assume that debt? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: We are going to -- Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- assume the debt -- Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, the City's going to assume it? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- and we become in a first position as a mortgage to the property. Commissioner Sanchez: That's horrible policy. Why would we want to do that? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Because if you don't do that, the other thing is that they will sell it to a private developer -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And lose the property. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- and we lose the affordable units, so in this case, we would use 140 affordable units. Commissioner Sanchez: So we have a -- so you basically have a specific project -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right now we're -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- that you think is worthy? City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- looking at the one. Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Well, my concern is not having any company who may come to the City because they can't pay debt, like what's going to prevent anybody here who owes bank money, and they're going to come to the City and you're basically going to say, well, OK, we'll waive it or whatever, and we'll help you. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: We're not saying we're waiving. We're saying we're willing to give you the loan, number one -- Commissioner Sanchez: You're assuming all the responsibility. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- and we become your first mortgage. That's what we do with all the rental properties. Commissioner Sanchez: That's -- I just think that's bad policy. That's me. 1 think -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: -- it's horrible policy. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: You're recognized, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: I think that the principle is intelligent because it saves affordable housing, which is what everybody want. My question is if bad thing happen to these people, so we take the first position -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- so anything -- if the company go bankrupt or something, we take over -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: We take over the property. Commissioner Regalado: We take over -- and we could convert that building to City of Miami Section 8 and keep the same tenants with the low payments in term of rentals. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: If we have -- if the event comes that they cannot pay the debt, we will foreclose on the property; we will take over the building, and we will maintain the same tenants, if that's what we decide to do. We can give it to a nonprofit. ABDA (Allapattah Business Development Association) currently runs one, so there is a lot of things that we can do at that time, but you're correct, we could keep the building. We could keep the tenants. We could become their landlord, yes. Commissioner Regalado: Well, it's not that we could keep the tenant; it's that we should keep the tenants, because these people don't have a place to go -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- and -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Well, we'll definitely not kick the tenants out. City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- and you know, everyday we hear more and more complaints about public housing in Miami -Dade County run by the County, and I'll tell you something. I have a weekly program that -- with tenants of those buildings, and it's getting worse and worse and worse. It's about time that we start figuring out to do our own public housing unit and prepare for the worst, because there are places that even they are letting -- run it down so they can get rid of it and sell the land; case specifically, Claude Pepper. I mean -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- I am telling you that we need to be more aggressive, because at the end of the day, those people out in the streets are going to be our residents and our responsibility, so ! think it's intelligent what you're doing, but we need to be prepared to take over the buildings and become the administration for those building. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzblez.: You're welcome. Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Just -- if I may, look, Barbara, it's a tough pill to swallow - Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: -- for me, but let me tell you. I'm a big promoter of affordable housing. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: You are. Commissioner Sanchez: 1 just can't sweep the rug from underneath people that are out there saving their pennies to accomplish the American Dream, but I want the assurance that we minimize the risk towards the City, and it is your responsibility to make sure that these companies -- and I don't like to mention companies because -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: -- then all of a sudden -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yep. Commissioner Sanchez: -- you know, it becomes -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yeah, and we're not. Commissioner Sanchez: A bull fight. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: I don't want to get into that. 1 just want to be -- have the assurance that you're going to work with these companies to make sure that they're -- whatever is worked out, that we minimize the risk to the City that, at the end of the day, the taxpayers don't get, you know, caught up having to not only assume the debt, but now we're either having to run the facility or turn it over to a nonprofit organization to run the facility, OK. I just want to say that. I wasn't going to support this item, but if I have the assurance -- and I've heard the Commissioner of the district and yourself saying that, you know, you're going to work with this company to make sure City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 that -- you're going to hold their hand, but you're not going to continue to dig the grave even bigger so they fall in, they can't get out -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: I can assure you. Commissioner Sanchez: -- because that's one of the things we do in the past, and I've seen it happen in many occasions. We fund people for them -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: To fail. Commissioner Sanchez: -- to fail -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: That's correct. Commissioner Sanchez: -- because when you give an organization $20, 000, what are you doing with $20, 000 when they're providing service to maybe 60, 100 people? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: No. Commissioner Sanchez: You're -- I'd rather not give them anything, because once you give them 20,000, then next year they come and they want 90,000 and 50,000, and -- as long as they're providing a good quality service and they are performance -based -- performance are good, 1 don't mind supporting good companies, but my statement, my stance has always been one, we shouldn't be throwing bad money into worse money, or throwing money away, as we've done in the past, for some of these things because we end up paying for it at the end. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: 1 can assure you that we will not approve any refinancing that they do not have the capability to pay us back, number one; and number two, that the building is not brought up to Code and to the standards that we want them to be, so I can assure you that, and 1 can also assure you that the Housing and Loan Committee will not approve it, so 1 can guarantee that it's not that we're going to just assume anybody's debt and later on nobody's going to pay us. That will not be the case. Commissioner Sanchez: As long as that list doesn't grow. All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We had a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Thank you. City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 RESOLUTIONS RE.1 06-00173 RESOLUTION Bayfront Park A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Management Trust ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST'S ("TRUST'S") EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS FOR THE REPAIR OF THE BAYFRONT PARK NORTH AND SOUTH END DOCKS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $59, 714.92, PAYABLE TO MARIN & MARIN CONSTRUCTION, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE TRUST'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID SERVICES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET. 06-00173 Legislation.pdf 06-00173 Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00173 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00173 Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00173 Cover Memo.pdf 06-00173 Bayfront Reso.pdf 06-00173 Memo.pdf 06-00173 Memo 2.pdf 06-00173 Letter.pdf 06-00173 Purchase Order.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0115 Chairman Gonzalez: PH.2 -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Those are -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- Community Development. Ms. Thompson: -- scheduled for 10:30. Commissioner Sanchez: 10:30. Chairman Gonzalez: 10:30, all right. Then we're going to have to go to RI [sic]. Commissioner Sanchez: RE.1. Chairman Gonzalez. I'm sorry, RE. 1, that's correct. Commissioner Sanchez: So move -- Chairman Gonzalez: RE.1. City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: -- RE.1, but I would like the executive director to step up and say a few words. This is the Bayfront Park. This is hurricane damage, and this is just basically that it was taken care of and they're asking for a ratification. Timothey Schmand: Timothy Schmand, Bayfront Park Management Trust, 301 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. There's two ratification items before you today. One is the docks at Bayfront Park in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Wilma. The City's unsafe structures department came by to see us and said, "You need to fix the docks." We fixed the docks. It was $59, 714.92. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. It's a four -fifths vote. Chairman Gonzalez: It's a four -fifths vote. We have a motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Roll call on the resolution? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, because it's a four -fifth, and I want to make sure it's on the record. Ms. Thompson: Very good. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The resolution has been adopted, 4/0. RE.2 06-00174 RESOLUTION Bayfront Park A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR -FIFTHS Management Trust (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS FOR THE REPAIR OF TWO (2) 50 FOOT LIGHT TOWERS LOCATED AT THE BAYFRONT PARK AMPHITHEATER, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $65,896, PAYABLE TO GANCEDO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET. 06-00174 Summary Form.pdf 06-00174 PSA.pdf 06-00174 Corporate Reso.pdf 06-00174 Proposal.pdf 06-00174 Bayfront Park Reso.pdf 06-00174 Memo.pdf 06-00174 Memo 2.pdf 06-00174 Proposal 2.pdf 06-00174 Legislation.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 RE.3 06-00175 Department of Capital Improvement Programs/Transpor tation R-06-0116 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. RE.2. Timothy Schmand: And the second item is the repair to the 50-foot towers in the Bayfront Park Amphitheater. They had deteriorated over time, and presented an unsafe operation for the public, so we repaired them as quickly as possible, and the amount was $65,896. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second Chairman Gonzalez:: All right. Is this also an emergency? Commissioner Sanchez: Four -fifths. Chairman Gonzalez-. Yes, it is, four -fifths. All right. We have a motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. Roll call again, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The resolution has been adopted, 4/0. Mr. Schmand: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez:: Thank you, Tim. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH SPILLIS CANDELA PARTNERS, INC., D/B/A SPILLIS CANDELLA DMJM, THE HIGHEST -RANKED FIRM, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 04-05-112, TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES, FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "COLLEGE OF POLICING, B-72910," IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,400,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. B-72910, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 06-00175 Legislation.pdf 06-00175 Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00175 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00175 Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00175 Exhibit 4.pdf 06-00175 Summary Form.pdf 06-00175 Text File Report.pdf 06-00175 Master Report.pdf City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0117 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. RE.3. Mary Conway: Mary Conway, CIP (Capital Improvements Program) & Transportation. RE.3 is a resolution awarding the professional services agreement to Spillis Candela DMJMfor the design of the police college, in an amount of not to exceed $1.4 million. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. 1 have -- I had a question when I saw this item, and the question was, do we already have the land? Because I know the Police Department have been looking for land all over the City to place this facility, and -- Ms. Conway: The concept is to use the site that is immediately south of the existing site, so between the charter school and the existing small parking lot, adjacent to the existing police station. Chairman Gonzalez: And do they have enough land there to build whatever they want to build? Ms. Conway: Yes. I mean, it will be a multistory building, but yes, there's enough space there. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, because what I'm concerned is that we're going to spend $1.4 million on plans and then they may not like the site, and then the plans will be no good because they choose another piece of land to do their training facility or whatever you want to call it. Ms. Conway: No. We've had extensive coordination meetings with the Police Department and they're very satisfied with the site and with the concept that's being proposed for this facility. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I just -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: ask also, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: -- I put it on the record, so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to ask one quick question. The funding for the overall City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 RE.4 06-00177 Department of Capital Improvement Programs/Transpor Cation project, we have anyway, right? Ms. Conway: The funding is in the Homeland Defense bond. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, so the money's already been set aside to do this -- Ms. Conway.: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- project. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A FUNDING COMMITMENT OF $1,013,380.26, FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("FDOT") AND TO EXECUTE A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH FDOT, FOR PROJECT NO. B-40666A, PROGRAMMED UNDER FINANCIAL PROJECT NO. 412473-1-52-01, FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS TO BRICKELL AVENUE (STATE ROAD 5/U.S.-1), FROM SOUTH OF SOUTHEAST 25 ROAD TO SOUTHEAST 4 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 06-00177 Legislation.pdf 06-00177 Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00177 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00177 Summary Form.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0118 Chairman Gonzalez: RE.4. Mary Conway (Capital Improvements Program & Transportation): RE.4 is an interlocal agreement between the City and the Department of Transportation, whereby DOT (Department of Transportation) will be giving the City $1,013,380.26, so that the City, as part of our Brickell Streetscape project, will be able to put in the street lighting for along Brickell Avenue, so it's accepting that -- those dollars from DOT. Chairman Gonzalez. All right. It's a resolution. Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 RE.5 06-00178 Department of Capital Improvement Programs/Transpor tation Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. I like this one. This -- Commissioner Sanchez: But I'm -- I'm sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: -- one is accepting money. Commissioner Sanchez: Is that going to be the lighting for Brickell or is that for Coral Way? Ms. Conway: No. This is for -- Commissioner Sanchez: From Brickell to 25th. Ms. Conway: -- Brickell Avenue from the Rickenbacker entrance to the Brickell Bridge. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Is it underground, the cable system? Ms. Conway: Yes. The lighting for the system will be underground, as is pretty customary on street lighting on the state highway system. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 05-0459, ADOPTED JULY 28, 2005, RELATING TO THE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI STREETCAR, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. B-71215, FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND PROGRAM/PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY," TO CORRECT THE CONTRIBUTION OF STATE FUNDS FROM AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,790,000 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,700,000. 06-00178 Legislation.pdf 06-00178 Summary Form.pdf 06-00178 Master Report.pdf 06-00178 Public Transportation JPA.pdf 06-00178 Emails.pdf 06-00178 Project Description.pdf 06-00178 Project Budget.pdf 06-00178 General Safety Requirements.pdf 06-00178 Audit Requirements.pdf 06-00178 Project Studies.pdf 06-00178 Map.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0119 City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 RE.6 06-00176 Department of Capital Improvement Programs/Transpor Cation Chairman Gonzalez: All right. RE.5. Mary Conway (Capital Improvements Program & Transportation): RE.5 is an amendment to a previous resolution where the City is accepting funding from the Department of Transportation. It was brought to you previously for the Miami Streetcar project in an amount of 2.79 million. This is amending it to the full amount of DOT (Department of Transportation) dollars that are available, 3.7 million. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. It's a resolution. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez.: We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING CAPITAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 05-0689, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 17, 2005, TO REVISE CURRENT APPROPRIATIONS, INCLUDING HOMELAND DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BONDS, AMONG APPROVED PROJECTS, AND APPROPRIATE NEW FUNDING. 06-00176 Legislation.pdf 06-00176 Exhibit.pdf 06-00176 Summary Form.pdf 06-00176 Master ReporLpdf 06-00176 Master Report 2.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0120 Chairman Gonzalez. RE.6. Mary Conway (Capital Improvements Program & Transportation): RE.6 is a resolution that's amending the CIP (Capital Improvements Program) appropriations that's including Homeland Defense bond swaps. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Mary, could you do me a favor? Could you go -- lead us through this brief so we could grasp all the trade outs and switches -- Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: -- from the funding sources? City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Conway: Yes. In the backup materials that you have for this, you'll see a spreadsheet that runs through the new appropriations in the transfer of existing funds. If you go to about three quarters of the way down on the first sheet, under "expenses," you'll see $700,000 with a notation that the monies are being reallocated from a citywide building maintenance fund;; you'll see a contribution from prior year general fund, $49,100 that is going toward Building Department remodeling; an additional 375,900 also for Building Department remodeling that's coming from miscellaneous revenue. On the next page you'll see a new appropriation. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Did you go through the full sheet here? You went through expenses and revenues, 1 of 5? Maybe I'm looking at -- what are you looking -- ? Ms. Conway: At the top, you see, at a summary level, revenues that are showing new appropriations and then transfer of existing funds. The first line item is the 5,855,390 -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Conway: -- that is -- those are the swap dollars there. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Conway:: The other allocations deal with either new appropriations. The second line item is a new appropriation for additional interest on the Homeland Defense bonds. The next item is a transfer of funds in the amount of $700, 000 from 2006 general fund;; then there's 49,100 that's from prior year general fund;; there's a transfer of a million dollars in impact fee parks monies. The next three items are associated with several of the items that you voted on just now. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Conway: One point six five million from DOT (Department of Transportation) that's for street improvements on Biscayne Boulevard between 14th and 15th Street. That was before you previously. The 3.7 million for the streetcar that was just voted on, and the 1,013,381 for the Brickell Avenue lighting that was just voted on. In addition, below that there are three miscellaneous revenue sources where there are transfers; the first in the amount of 780,500; the second, 1.65 million; the last, 5 million, and then there is a new appropriation of $8, 000 that is a contribution from -- that the City's receiving from the Center for Haitian Studies that was being used to fund the Little Haiti Freedom Garden, part of it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, good. Just so that I'm clear -- and we've already had discussion, so you and 1 are on the same page, but just so my residents are very clear, the transfer of the 5 million for Little Park to Grapeland, work is going to continue in Little Haiti Park. Nothing's changing; it's all still moving, so people can -- Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- feel comfortable in knowing that, right? Ms. Conway: Yes. What's happening is that $5 million that was in the -- the remaining balance of 5 million that was in the second series for Little Haiti is being swapped in -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Ms. Conway: -- so that it can be used now to finish the Little Haiti project. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Conway: Now -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So they'll still see people out there working. Ms. Conway: The -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: They don't have to worry about it. Ms. Conway: Yes, correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: And one final last question. Do we have a clear time frame for completion as to projected -- ? I know that we may face some -- Ms. Conway: For completion of -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- unexpected -- Ms. Conway: -- the Little Haiti project? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Conway: Right now the soccer complex that's under construction, we anticipate for that to be substantially completed by the end of this calendar year. The building that will be on that site is on a slightly different track; that will be the early to middle part of next year, and then for the cultural complex, we'll be coming before the Commission in another 30 to 60 days to accept the County GOB (General Obligation Bond) dollars with an interlocal agreement with the County, and we would expect that by mid to fall of '07, we should be on-line with the cultural buildings. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 just -- you have some more questions? Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just have two more questions (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mary, on the quality of life improvements for Lemon City Park playground and park equipment -- and 1 see we're moving --it's only 26,000 that we're moving out of there, correct? Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But we'll pick it back up in -- Ms. Conway: The monies will be in the second series to purchase that equipment. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, no problem, and then last but not least, Spring Garden. Ms. Conway: Yes. With Spring Garden there was $300, 000 of historic preservation initiatives that were identified in the first series. The project right now has an estimated construction's cost City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 that is substantially higher than that, possibly a minimum of five times higher. The monies are being swapped out to the second series because they can't be spent now until we resolve the larger issue of the overall funding that's needed, not only for the building restoration, but also for some seawall restoration. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, I just want to tell you thank you on that, and 1 just want to make sure that the Park staff and you guys just reach out to the Spring Gardens folks over there, because I know Ernie Martin has been working very hard to have something happen over there - Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and I'm glad that at least we're identfying that there's a potential problem before we get so deep into it and then we see that really it's not enough money to do what we need to do -- Ms. Conway: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so I just would want to make sure that they are aware of why the change is happening -- Ms. Conway: Their -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and that they will -- we will figure out another way to assist them with what they want to do, but right now we don't the full -- all the resources necessary to do what we need to do. Ms. Conway: Correct, and the Parks Department has already been speaking with them. We've been doing the engineering and cost estimating, and we'll be meeting with them within the next several weeks to talk about the details. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And 1 just have one more question on the budget. The soccer complex development that's happening at Athalie Range Park football field -- football complex is one point -- like almost $1.7 million is being removed now? Ms. Conway.: Yes. That project is under design -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Conway: -- and it's at the early stage of design. We will not be ready to spend those monies for the actual construction until -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Conway: -- the second series proceeds are available, so it's being swapped out. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, no problem. Thank you, Mary. Well done on it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Vice Chairman Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: Mary, this grand total amount here, now obviously -- we can't tell the City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 difference between what's been spent to date and what has yet to be spent from this, can we? Ms. Conway: No, not from this. I would have to bring you a separate report on that. Vice Chairman Winton:: Because what's significant here -- and it doesn't show in this report either — there isn't a grand total. You've got each individual segment totaled, but there isn't a grand total. This is exactly the kind of information that some way or another needs to get posted on our Web site and maybe run on Net-9 in some fashion or another. There's I don't know how many hundred millions worth of projects here that are hard projects, that are -- that the public can see, many of which -- some of what have been completed; all of them are ongoing in some process or another, and this is unprecedented in the history of Miami, and we need to figure out better ways to keep this information in front of the public. We're not just sitting up here twiddling our thumbs, falling asleep at the wheel. We're doing an awful lot of work out there in neighborhoods, and there's a lot of our constituents who do recognize it and are thankful about this; it's what we're supposed to be doing, but it's what commissioners before us were supposed to be doing; mayors before us were supposed to be doing, and they didn't and we are, and we've got to do a better job of showing the public how many real dollars are going into neighborhoods and improving neighborhoods, and this report's outstanding, but it doesn't really tell the right picture -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- so, Mr. Manager, would y'all think about that? Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And 1 just wanted to know when the second series begins? Does anybody know? Joe Arriola (City Manager): As soon as we get down the -- the problem is that all the money has been allocated, because of some unfortunate incidents that we've had that's been delayed. I need to spend more of -- even though it's been all allocated -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Arriola: -- all -- I need to spend -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Arriola: -- some of it, so 1 imagine that, as the expenses comes in the next three or four months, then we can go back and revisit when we're going to go back to the marketplace. I imagine in September some time we'll be going back to the market, but we just literally need to pay out the money. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: And how much do we have left? Is it a hundred million? Mr. Arriola: It's about a hundred million. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, OK. That's a lot. Commissioner Sanchez: That's the second series. Chairman Gonzalez: That's a lot of money. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 RE.7 06-00179 Department of Capital Improvement Programs/Transpor Cation Mr. Arriola: You got to remember, too, Commissioner, that we were able to get money from the Countyfrom the -- their own bond issue, so it's more than a hundred. There's a lot more than -- Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Mr. Arriola: -- we're being -- Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Mr. Arriola: -- kind of multiplying there. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Did we vote on RE.6? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): No. Chairman Gonzalez: OK We need a motion and a second. Vice Chairman Winton: So move. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO THE AGREEMENT WITH RECREATIONAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., DATED JUNE 13, 2005, FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "GRAPELAND HEIGHTS PARK BALLFIELD COMPLEX, B-60496," FOR NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL SITE REMEDIATION WORK, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,800,000, INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT FROM $10,779,063 TO $14,579,063; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. B-60496, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 06-00179 Legislation.pdf 06-00179 Exhibit 1.pdf 06-00179 Exhibit 2.pdf 06-00179 Exhibit 3.pdf 06-00179 Summary Form.pdf 06-00179 Pre Legislation.pdf 06-00179 Contract Change Order.pdf 06-00179 Amendment.pdf Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones R-06-0121 Direction to the Administration by Commissioner Sanchez to continually provide updates on major projects on the City's channel, Miami TV, in order to keep residents informed. Chairman Gonzalez: RE.7. Mary Conway (Capital Improvements Program): RE.7 is a resolution to the contract between the City and Recreational Design and Construction for the Grapeland hearts -- Grapeland Heights project. It's being brought for an additional $3.8 million on top of the previous request for $4.8 million for a contamination remediation for the removal of the incinerator ash material from the site, and this will be the final amount that we anticipate to bring before the Commission associated with the contamination remediation on this site. Commissioner Sanchez: So -- Chairman Gonzalez: Mary, 1 would appreciate it if you expound a little bit on what we thought at the beginning that we were going to find at this park and what did actually happen when they start investigating, because the -- what I'm reading here, it says 42,400 tons, and what I understand is that it went up to 85,000 tons -- Ms. Conway: That's correct. Vice Chairman Winton: Wow. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so, you know, I would like you to expound a little bit and put something, you know -- Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- more (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Conway: On the record, certainly. The City has been working on the contamination remediation and the environmental work associated with this park for well over a year with DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management). When we initially started doing standard soil borings on the site and geotechnical and chemical laboratory testing of the material first with the borings, we observed the quality of the material and could tell that we had waste material; that we were not dealing with natural soil. Through the laboratory testing, we found that we had lead and arsenic that exceeded the thresholds that are acceptable by DERM. It's not uncommon. It was a very common practice in the '40s and the 'S0s for incinerator ash material to be used as fill material on sites. This particular site, in the '40s, had strawberry fields. There was a decision made in the '40s to redevelop the site, and to put in ball fields and use it as a recreational site, and incinerator ash material is what was brought onto the site to fill the site and raise it several feet, so in our testing, we immediately found that we had incinerator ash material, and we also had lead and arsenic and some other chemicals that exceeded thresholds. Initially, what we did is on a grid pattern, our environmental engineering firm did additional sampling and tests to try to delineate the physical boundary of the ash material. That was the basis for the item that was brought before you previously that estimated that there would be no more than 40 or 50,000 tons of material that would need to be removed from the site at an approximate depth somewhere between two to four feet. Once that item was approved and we actually got out on the site physically several months ago and started removing the material, we realized that the extent of the material went beyond what we originally anticipated. To date, we City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 have, as you mentioned, removed close to 85,000 tons of material from the site. We are awaiting permission from DERM to go back and bring in clean fill. There are a few steps and hurdles that we have yet to resolve with them, and there will also be, in conjunction with the removal of the incinerator ash, some continued monitoring and testing at the site to make sure that we're fully in compliance with DERM's regulations. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just have a -- I'm glad, Chairman, that you at least asked for them to expound on it, because when you look at the numbers in the beginning and then you see where we are now, and then I'm sure that there's going to be more money that's needed for the project, correct? Ms. Conway:: There are additional dollars associated with the County GOB (General Obligation Bond) and other sources that will be used to build the water theme park and the community center that has not yet been brought before this body, that's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: The only thing that 1 would like to at least -- because 1 think definitely, you know, Grapeland Park deserves to have, you know, a wonderful park there. They're serving a lot of great kids with their baseball program there. I just want to make sure that as we go and we create projects or do -- develop projects -- support projects; that we kind of do this on the front end, and I know that you and I talked about this. We don't want to get in the middle of a project to see that, you know, there's -- we're on fire -- Ms. Conway: I agree. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so what kind of assurances will we have, Mary, the next time -- because I know that you -- that's one of your concerns, too; monies allocated towards projects and then it's -- once you get in it, you realise it's a lot more. That's why you -- you're stopping the Seybold thing, which I appreciate, but what kind of assurances can we have in the future, you know, so that we don't have a $5 million project turn into a $20 million project? Joe Arriola (City Manager): The problem, Commissioner -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) jump in -- when you run into a contamination, there's nothing you could do, and it is a surprise box, and in here, we did every testing, and you know, Commissioner Gonzalez lived through the -- all the testing and all the grids. We did everything by the book, and then the deeper we got, the worse -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: The worse it got. Mr. Arriola: -- it was -- Vice Chairman Winton: The deeper we got. Mr. Arriola: -- and we went from two feet to some places that we're digging -- Chairman Gonzalez: Six feet -- Mr. Arriola: -- six feet -- Chairman Gonzalez: And seven feet. Mr. Arriola: -- and if you go to the site -- Vice Chairman Winton: Wow. Mr. Arriola: -- you're shock, and you see the different coloration in the fill -- City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez.: In the layers of soil. Mr. Arriola: -- so you know, 1'd love to tell you, but when it's a contamination problem -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Arriola: -- there's nothing -- I mean, once you open that ground -- and this is history of 1950 -- there's nothing you could do. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Arriola: I mean, surprise, surprise, surprise, and 1 will tell you, we've found more in a couple other parks that we built -- that we're building right now, when we started digging, we went, surprise, surprise, surprise, and the further you go, 1 would say, south and west, the worse it is because a lot of that stuff was filled, and obviously, nobody cared back then, and they actually used ash and sand, and a lot of the roads you see today in the City of Miami where they're bumpy and they're -- you know, they're kind of uneven, as we dug into -- and it happened in a couple of the districts -- you dug in; instead of using regular fill, they use sand, so when that thing settle -- that's why a lot of our roads are -- go up and down and now we have to go back and redo that, so we'd love to tell you it's not going to happen, but with the situation we have with the contamination in the ground and the way that this is in the City of Miami years ago, 1-- I'm not going to sit here and tell you it won't happen again because it probably will happen again because of the issue how they -- you know, these are our forefathers that didn't care much about your city for a long time. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well -- and 1 appreciate it. I know that you and 1-- Mary and I had -- actually had a conversation about it, and if there's any way that we can at least, you know, consider doing some of that, because there's grant monies that can be used for things like this, and I know that we're doing that on MLK (Martin Luther King) Boulevard. We had some great Brownfield grants that we didn't have to tap into those type of monies if we knew that it was there, so by all means, I support it. I move -- did somebody move it yet? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): No. Chairman Gonzalez: No, I don't think so. Ms. Thompson: No. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: I'll second it, if you move it. Vice Chairman Winton.' So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 move. Commissioner Sanchez: Look -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Commissioner Sanchez: -- we have to pay the piper on this to complete this project. 1 mean, this is one of many, many signature projects in our community, and 1 think that it boils down to what Commissioner Winton stated, that at times, it's not informing people because -- I get stopped on City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 the street now by people asking me, "when is the park going to be completed? What's going on in the park," and it's not even in my district, and 1 could tell you this much, most of those gray hairs that are on Commissioner Gonzalez has been on that project -- Mr. Arriola: And here. Commissioner Sanchez: -- because, you know, you're required by law to have "X" amount of public meetings, and you really go to those public meetings, then it breaks your heart when you have ten people show up to those public meetings, and then they're not informed, and I think at times, although we try to do the best that we can to provide the proper input and information to the constituents, they're misled by a lot of people that are out there that are just devious and they're full of poison, and it's really to a point where we have to constantly be informing them, and that's why 1 think the Commissioner brought forth -- that he said, "look, what's going on," because people are asking when is the project going to be completed? You know, I want to bring my kids back to the baseball academy. When is it going to be completed, and there's a lot of questions that we don't have the proper answer now, but we are committed to this project for the long haul, whatever it may be, and you know, back then they were under certain rules and regulations that required all -- the land filling and stuff. You couldn't do it now, and now we're faced with having to go in there and make sure that it is completely clean for the future, but we will continue to provide the best possible project when it's completed, and they're going to have To bear with us, so my recommendation is to make sure that maybe the Administration takes the leadership, and on Net-9 we're able to continually provide updates on major projects, major projects, because we all have major projects in our district, and 1 think people do watch Net-9. People do watch these meetings, and when you go up there and say, well, you know, move resolution such and such to clean, and it went from "X" to "Z, " and they don't get a clear explanation, that leaves doubts in people's mind, and what we need to do now is avoid those doubts to make sure that we are committed for the long haul, to make sure that once these projects are all completed, they're going to be world -class, first-class projects for the public to enjoy, so I want to praise the Commissioner of the district, and 1 know the Administration and the City staff, who's worked very hard to try to clean that out. Chairman Gonzalez.: Thank you, Commissioner. Ms. Conway: Chairman, if I may, I'd like to just put one more thing on the record in association Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Conway: -- with this item. There's been much discussion previously, of which we're all aware, regarding the procurement for the City's contract with RDC (Recreational Design and Construction). When the issue of contamination remediation cut came up, because we knew that there could potentially be substantial dollars associated with that, even though the contract that's before you is with RDC, the bulk of the work that's being done associated with the contamination remediation is being done by an environmental remediation contractor, a subcontractor to RDC. The City assisted RDC by sending out a notice to 12 firms, contractors who are qualified to perform this type of work: We received inquiries back from approximately five of those firms, and we received bids from two of the firms. Based on those bids, we were able to negotiate with RDC to make sure that we were getting a cost-effective price for this work, and I just think it's important that that be stated for the record. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. 1 appreciate that, and you know, what happened is that, unfortunately, there is a lot of bad faith out there, because I've been asked why was this an emergency? Well, let me tell you -- and you know it better than any of us -- when it was declared that there was contamination at that site, we had an order to close down the park -- City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Conway: That's correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- right? We had to close down the park, and those people that questioned why was such an emergency should go back and tell the neighbors that it shouldn't be an emergency; that we should have taken our sweet time and prevent their kids from playing ball, and prevent them from going and walking in the park, and prevent them from use the park, you know. That's why it was an emergency, because we were ordered to close down the park and start remediation as soon as possible, and that's why it was an emergency, and 1 have told the people that unfortunately, there is a lot of bad faith out there and we have to live with that. I Mean, we can't change people that have bad faith; people that don't look at progress and good things. We have to let them live their life and cook themself [sic] in their own oil, as 1-- you know, that's what 1 tell them. Let him cook himself in his own oil. Commissioner Sanchez: Damned if we do. Damned if we don't. Chairman Gonzalez: Right, exactly, so 1 really appreciate, you know, the work that Administration is doing. I know that you're working expeditiously on this, but it's out of the City control. It is under the control of DERM, and until we have a clearance, there's nothing we can do. 1 wish -- let me tell you, if it would have been because of my wish, we would have had the park built already, and it would have been -- be opened long time ago, but unfortunately, it's out of our hands, and all 1 can tell you is, like I told you, that the meeting that we had that I appreciate that you move this as fast as you can, according to the law and the regulations, but we need to have this project concluded because it's going to be a signature park, and it's not going to be a neighborhood park. This is going to be a County park, a state park. It's going to be a beautiful park; people that have the chance to look at the drawings; they can realize that it's going to be a tremendous attraction to the City of Miami, and it's going to be a signature project. It's not going to be a park that was built by the initiative of Commissioner Gonzalez, but it was a park that was built by the initiative and the support of this entire City Commission, the Mayor, the Administration, and the people that supported the bond money, so 1 really appreciate it. With that, we have a motion and we have a second. You have -- yes, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. One thing that I don't understand very well is the contract is with the original firm, right? Ms. Conway: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: But the City chose one for the environmental remedy. Ms. Conway: No, no, Commissioner, the City did not make that choice. What we did was on behalf of RDC, the contractor, we solicited bids from 12 different companies; we put out -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, you said that. Ms. Conway: -- a solicitation; we received responses back from two companies. Based on those responses, we provided that information to RDC and used that information to negotiate the best price for the City. Commissioner Regalado: Right, but it's an entirely different operation, what RDC was doing and the remedy mandated by DERM, like you said, so is RDC getting money, administration, or part of this, or just it's going -- everything is going for the remedy, the environmental remedy? Ms. Conway: No. They most definitely have some fees as part of what's -- as part of the item that's before you for administration, as is typical on any contract. They're the ones who have the ultimate responsibility to the City to make sure that all this work is being performed, so they have administrative fees that are associated with this at a nominal customary amount. They also have City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 fees associated with the backfilling of the material. The environmental contractor is the one that removed the material and took it to the certified landfill. RDC has a portion of the change order to bring back in the clean fill and to level the site, and then proceed with their original scope of work. Commissioner Regalado: So there's been a delay, so RDC is the only responsible -- is responsible to the City because of the delay of the remedy. Can they come back and say, well, construction costs are going up or have gone up, and then it happens again? Could it be possible, if they have the sole responsibility? Ms. Conway: I'm not sure I understand your question. Commissioner Regalado: The question is, what if -- because of the delay and because of the new findings of ashes, and because of the need of more work and more work, six feet to eight feet, the project has been delayed, as originally planned, right? So what -- it could happen, they say, well, you know, things have changed,• construction have gone up -- Ms. Conway: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- you know, and so what if -- you just said here this is the last minute and this is the public perception, you know. What i ? Ms. Conway: We negotiated into the terms of this contract that they cannot come back for a change order associated with this remediation work. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Thank you, Mr. -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 BOARDS AND COMMITTEES BC.1 06-00196 RESOLUTION Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. APPOINTEES: NOMINATED BY: Carlos Martell Chairman Angel Gonzalez Miguel A. Gabela Chairman Angel Gonzalez Charles Garavaglia Commissioner Tomas Regalado 06-00196 memo.pdf 06-00196 members.pdf Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sanchez R-06-0136 A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, and was passed unanimously, with Vice Chairman Winton and Commissioner Sanchez absent, to appoint Charles Garvaglia as a member of the Zoning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Sanchez absent, to appoint Carlos Martell and Miguel A. Gabela, as members of the Zoning Board. Note for the Record: Commissioner Spence -Jones deferred her two (2) appointments to the Commission Meeting of March 9, 2006. Note for the Record: The waivers required for Ileana Hernadez-Acosta and Angel Urquiola were discussed but no final action was taken. Chairman Gonzalez: Now we go to BC. I. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, could 1 be recognized on BC (Boards and Committees) - - that's a board appointment, Madam Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, it is. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Clerk, 1-- on, 1 believe it's Planning and Zoning. Ms. Thompson: This is on zoning. City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, it's Planning and Zoning --1 mean, Zoning Board. I apologize. Chairman Gonzalez: Zoning Board. Commissioner Sanchez.: I had already appoint Ileana Hernandez, but I was note -- Ileana Hernandez -Acosta. I was notified that she needs a waiver. Ms. Thompson.' That is correct. Commissioner Sanchez: So let me proffer that waiver now as a motion. Ms. Thompson: OK, and that's -- but the problem is, that's a term limit waiver. We -- Commissioner Sanchez: It's a four -fifth? Ms. Thompson: -- need five, five out of five. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, we need five. Is Johnny anywhere around? I'll tell you what, I'll bring it back this afternoon, if he's not -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner -- Chair, I'm sorry. On that same BC.1, we do have another waiver that we need for Commissioner Regalado's appointment, Angel Urquiola that needs a four -fifth absentee waiver. When the appointment was made, we did not take a vote on the waiver. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Why don't -- Commissioner Regalado: So we'll bring it at the same time, but I do have an appointment. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. We'll bring it this afternoon. Chairman Gonzalez: Why don't we bring this back in the afternoon and then -- ? Commissioner Regalado: 1 can make the appointment now, which doesn't need a waiver. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: Charles Garavalia. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Charles Gara -- which is, by the way, a reappointment. Ms. Thompson: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We need a second on -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- the appointment. City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: You second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. 1 should -- Ms. Thompson: DI (discussion item) -- Chairman Gonzalez: 1 want to proffer the reappointment of Carlos Martell and Miguel R. Gabela. Commissioner Regalado: Second. 1'!! move it for the Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- Vice Chairman Winton: Second Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm -- Chairman Gonzalez: You have two appointments, right? Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, sir? Commissioner Regalado: Zoning Board. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Regalado: Zoning Board. Ms. Thompson: Yes, you have two of them; Charles Flowers is your current individual -- Chairman Gonzalez: Charles Flowers. Ms. Thompson: -- and then Charles -- and then a vacancy. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. I was told that -- so I could make the appointment today? City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Thompson: If the person has applied. If the person you want to appoint has made application, you can make the appointment, but if they have not -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 do have another appointment for Charles Flowers, but if you're saying that I cannot do that until they apply for the -- until they fill the application -- Ms. Thompson: Charles Flowers is an incumbent. Incumbents do not have to reapply, so if -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, no, no. I'm saying I have a reappointment for the Charles Flowers -- Joe Arriola (City Manager): No, you have an appointment for Charles (INAUDIBLE). Ms. Thompson: As it stands, Commissioner -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. 1 have an appointment, but I can't give you the name because they need to do the application first, is that what you're saying? Ms. Thompson: If the individual is a new individual and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Thompson: -- not an incumbent, they must make application first. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Thompson: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So I'll have to wait. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Thompson: But you do have one other vacancy, when the time comes, so you actually have two seats on there that you would be able to appoint someone to. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. OK, no problem. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Is that it? Ms. Thompson: That's it. City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 DISCUSSION ITEMS DI.1 06-00111 DISCUSSION ITEM Department of DISCUSSION CONCERNING A FINANCIAL UPDATE AND BUDGET Finance OUTLOOK. 06-00111 Summary Form.pdf DEFERRED Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I think we have a supplemental agenda, before going into the -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair, I'm sorry. You do have a discussion item on your regular agenda, DI.1. Chairman Gonzalez.: DI.1. Vice Chairman Winton: Financial update. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, right, financial update. Is Mr. Larry Spring around? Joe Arriola (City Manager): Oh, I'm sorry. We need to defer this item. Charles -- I mean -- Charles -- Larry -- Chairman Gonzalez: No, not Charles Mays. Mr. Arriola: -- has hurt -- I'm sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: I hope not. Mr. Arriola: No. Larry had surgery and he was expecting to be here today, but he can't make it. He's still at home in bed, so if you don't mind, we'll defer this -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Arriola: -- item. Chairman Gonzalez: We'll defer this for the next meeting? Mr. Arriola: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PART B Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We're going to move into the Planning and Zoning agenda. The City Attorney will state the procedures to be followed during this portion of the meeting. You're recognized -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: -- Commissioners, members of the public, P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items shall proceed as follows: Please take note, Madam Clerk, Items PZ 17, PZ.25, PZ26 are being deferred and continued to a time certain on the March 23 agenda. Item number 27, PZ.27 is being continued for 90 days to the May 25 agenda, time certain when PZ items are taken up, so those are the changes in your PZ items. Item 17, 25, 26, and 27 are being continued to time certain as announced. Before the P&Z agenda is heard, all those wishing to speak will be sworn in by the City Clerk. Also, you need to know that any person who is a lobbyist must register with the City Clerk before appearing in front of the City Commission. Staff will then briefly describe the request, whether it's an appeal, a special exception, a vacation, a text amendment, zoning change, land use change or MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Staff will briefly present the item; introduce you to it; give you the history of that item as it travels to you. After staff finishes, then the appellant or the petitioner, according to what the item is, will make a presentation, which would be, of course, time limited. If it's an appeal, then the appellee will present its position. If it's not an appeal, if it's a regular land use application, then members of the public will be permitted to speak and speakers would be allowed also to ask questions of each other and of staff through the Chair. All of these speakers will be time limited, as per the Chair's directive. Appellant or petitioner, as the case may be, will be permitted to make final comments or rebuttal. At that point in time, the City Commission will ask any questions they have of the appellant, or of the appellee, or of applicants, or staff. When they conclude with their questioning, the portion of the public hearing, the input portion, will be closed; Commissioners will take the item to themselves. They will debate it, deliberate, and then decide. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. All right. PZ. I -- I'm sorry, we need to swear in all the people that are going to test fy in this hearing. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): If you are here and you will be testifying on any of the PZ items, will you please stand and raise your right hand? The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. PZ.1 05-01515c ORDINANCE Second 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 7951 NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "OFFICE" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-01515c Legislation.pdf 05-01515 & 05-01515c Exhibit A.pdf 05-01515c Analysis.pdf 05-01515c Land Use Map.pdf 05-01515 & 05-01515c Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515c PAB Reso.pdf 05-01515c Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01515c FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515c SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Office" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 7951 NE Bayshore Court APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avif o, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 21, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 05-01515 and related File IDs 05-01515a, 05-01515b, 05-01515d, 05-01515e, 05-01515f and 05-01515g. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12765 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Good morning. Lourdes Sla_yk: Good morning. For the record!, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning Department. PZs 1 through 8 are companion items, part of the Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. I'll go through them in their pairs of two for the land use and zoning change; then there is a street closure, and the actual MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) is PZ8. PZ 1 and 2 is the -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Excuse me. May 'just ask to make sure we're clear on the record, and through the City Attorney, the whole discussion that we're going to have is going to be 1 through 8, and then we'll vote separately, is that what we're going to be doing? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Clerk): Correct. The City Commission has the option to vote on each item individually, or if the mind of the Commission is to take one vote and to direct the Clerk to reflect individual votes, because it's all a consistent vote, then the record would reflect that. City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. I think some of these are ordinances and some are resolutions -- Ms. Thompson: Correct. Mr. Fernandez: Correct -- Ms. Slazyk: -- so they have to be separate. Mr. Fernandez: -- so to that extent, then on ordinances, you need to vote separately and individually. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: The first two items are PZ.1 and 2. They are for companion land use and zoning change. This is for the portion of the project located at 7951 Northeast Bayshore Court. The request is from office to restricted commercial. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and PZ2, which is the zoning change to C-1, was recommended for approval by the Zoning Board and approved by the City Commission at first reading. PZs 3 and 4 are the companion land use and zoning change for the portion of the property at 7921 North Bayshore Drive and 7950 Northeast Bayshore Court. This request is from medium density multifamily residential to restricted commercial, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and PZ 4, its companion, is to C-1 zoning. It was also recommended for approval by the Zoning Board PZs 5 and 6 are for the land use and zoning change for the portion of the property at 1165, 1169, 1173, 1177, and 1199 Northeast 79th Street. This request was from restricted commercial to high -density multifamily residential. Also recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and passed on first reading by the City Commission. Its companion item, PZ6, is the zoning change to R-4, multifamily high -density residential; was recommended for approval by the Zoning Board. PZ. 7 is a request for an official vacation and closure of a portion of Northeast Bayshore Court between Northeast 79th Street and Northeast 80th Street. This was recommended for approval by the Planning Department, Public Works, the Plat and Street Committee, and the Zoning Board. The public benefit that was proffered as part of this request includes conveying land. There's additional land on the south side of the subject properties for a city park or afire station. Al the time they started this application, there was need for a fire station in the area. 1 believe it is since they've satisfied that need and this is probably going to be a park as a substantial piece of property on the south of 79th Street, and PZ.8 is the Major Use Special Permit. This is for all of the properties described in the previous applications. This is to construct two approximately 200 and foot [sic] 20-story high mixed -use structures of approximately 467 multifamily residential units with amenities. It will also include 4,200 square feet of retail space, and approximately 719 parking spaces. It was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and approval by the Planning Department. The conditions associated with this one -- there were no design conditions. It's the standard conditions of the Major Use Special Permit. No, wait. I'm sorry, there are design conditions. There were some design conditions regarding the context and urban design, providing greater articulation for the rear of the towers; landscaping conditions, to provide continuous canopy of shade trees, and bringing that final landscape plan to the Planning Department for final review and approval; and on the garage, providing details for the garage facades and door along 80th Street, and consider providing half of underground parking level in order to kind of bring the building down in size, so with those conditions, we recommend approval. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today with Eric Gordon from The Related Companies of Florida. You had at your last meeting a full presentation of this City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 matter, so I'm not going to go through them -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- individually, but 1 wanted to remind you that from the very beginning of this process, we met with the Shorecrest Homeowners' Association and got their input before we put anything on paper, and I wanted to remind you that all of these requests actually are as a response to the kind of design that the neighbors wanted, as opposed to what the zoning would allow, so the zoning would have allowed a 40-story building right here on the water. That's not something that the neighbors wanted, so we basically have arranged all of this zoning so as to fit the project into the zoning, as opposed to the zoning into the project, so again, the kinds of public benefits that we have proposed and what the neighbors -- we actually have a written agreement with our neighbors, the Shorecrest Homeowners' Association, that provides for a public access bay walk, public restaurant, donation of land to the City for a community park, and planting -- clearing of the Baycrest home -- south and north canals, rebuilding the retaining wall on 81st Street, tree planting and maintenance, in addition to work with them on some other issues of their concern. One of the issues, though, Lourdes -- Lourdes, one of the conditions that you have on your Major Use Special Permit, C -- under 12-C says, provide a pedestrian access along Old Bayshore Court access and bay walk concerning 79th Street and 80th Street, and refer to the bay walk river design standards. We don't know exactly what you -- what the design folks meant by that, and so I'd like to change that to work with you to provide access. I think what you meant was provide access from 79th Street to 8lst Street, which we don't have a problem doing, except that if you do it right here, you're on a retaining wall that's 20 feet tall, so Ms. Sla_yk: Right. We'd agree to that. That was the intent. We just wanted to make sure it met the certain size standards so it was a comfortable pedestrian walk, so yeah, I think that's fine to change that condition. Ms. Dougherty: OK. With that, I'd like to reserve some time for rebuttal, if we have opposition. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission in opposition or in favor of this project, please come forward. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Ginger Vela: Good morning. Chairman Gonzalez. We need your name and address for the record. Ms. Vela: Right. Good morning. My name is Ginger Vela. I live at 920 Northeast 86th Street, in Miami, in Shorecrest, and I'm also a member of the Upper Eastside Preservation Coalition, which was an organization that's a nonprofit that was formed several years ago to address issues such as this in our neighborhood. First of all, 1 would like to say that, once again, I'm sorry to have to say this, but I know our homeowner association did deal directly with the developer, but we never had a meeting about this until all the zoning changes had been made and everything, and then they were kind enough to come and make a very nice presentation, but it was a total surprise to us up until that time, maybe up until Thanksgiving, and a few weeks later, it went to Zoning and all the zoning changes were made. What I would like to do is mention some of these -- you know, I know what happens is, in the beginning, a developer comes and sees the land and says, "I love this land. I want to build on it, and well, it doesn't quite have the zoning that I need, so we'll just go and we'll have the zoning changed" and that -- that's exactly what happened City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 here. I mean, to say they would have put a 40-story is pretty preposterous because I don't think anyone would have considered that. The buildings across 79th Street, the largest one is only eight stories, the condos that are directly across 79th Street, so we have an issue here with the scale and with the appropriateness of this development for our neighborhood. I want to ask everyone here for one thing. Does anybody know of a condominium, a high-rise condominium development in the Upper Eastside, Aventura, Unincorporated Dade, where people who live there have to go directly through the neighborhood streets to get wherever they want to go? I mean, 1 could think of Nirvana, Jockey Club, Quayside, the Cricket Club, you name it, they've got their own entrances and exits, and the way this is designed is one of the major things that we have concerns with. It's not that it's not a nice project. It's just for us who are afraid of the traffic implications and the density that it may be in the wrong place. First of all, the Comprehensive Plan is what's being thrown out the window in order to make -- and that's what's supposed to protect us, our Commissioners and our Comprehensive Plan, but it's being totally changed in order to accommodate this, and 1 was -- I'm thinking that, truthfully, it would be better if people said, "Well, you could build wherever you want," rather than say, "Well, we have a comprehensive plan that's going to protect us." I have a question here. There are six ordinances, as Ms. Slazyk already told us, but they're related to zoning changes. The first six -- it's interesting, the first four deal with land use change, and the future land use designation of Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan from office to restricted commercial, from R-3 multifamily medium -density to C-1 restricted commercial, and they're all recommended for approval. When I was reading the agenda, I happened to notice that number 5 and 6, the final two ordinances deal with height of the two 20-story towers and the density of approximately 474 units, and in the agenda, at least, unless it's a mistake, it says that Planning recommends denial for both 5 and 6, so I would like to ask Ms. Slazyk or someone from Planning, through Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to ask that they address that. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. If you recall at first reading, on items -- your items that are 5 and 6, this was a request from the restricted commercial to the high -density multifamily residential category, and the land use and zoning change for that, we had recommended denial, and this Commission -- the lower boards recommended approval, and this Commission approved it on first reading. Our recommendation of denial had to do with the fact that when you're going from C-1 to R-4 there, the principal purpose of that, as the applicant stated, was to get additional height. R-4 actually allows more height than C-1 in this particular location because the width of that right-of-way is wider. Based on their work with the neighborhood, they chose to do it that way to get all of the height on 79th Street away from the neighborhood. We had recommended denial because even though it's not -- you know, it's not spot zoning because it meets the size limitations, it's an isolated island of R-4 in the middle of a C-1 district, and it's one of those where, you know, precedent -wise, it doesn't make sense to do it. You know, they had their reasons, and the Commission approved it on first reading, but they really changed it more than anything to throw the additional height on 79th Street. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. I'm going to allow you to conclude your presentation, but 1 want to state -- and 1 didn't do this at the beginning of the meeting. I'm going to allow everyone two minutes to present their statements in favor or in opposition of the projects, but keep in mind that I'm going to allow you two minutes. I don't want to cut you off -- Ms. Vela: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- because I don't think that's right, so please try to work within your two minutes of presentation. Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am. Ms. Vela: Oh, OK Thank you. I would just like to read the two policies that I did it at the other meeting, as well, but I would just like to remind everyone here that the Comprehensive Plan items HO-1.2.7, the City will continue to enforce, and where necessary, to strengthen those sections of the Zoning Ordinance that are intended to preserve and enhance the general City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 appearance and character of the City's neighborhoods, and going on, the NR-3.2.2 support those elements of Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan that encourage the use of Metrorail and Metromover; directing new development and redevelopment first to the areas nearest the Metrorail and the Metro station, and also regarding resolution number 8, Section 1305, MUSP requirements apply to design, character, and scale, and also apply to protect the public interest generally, adjacent properties, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. Now, I feel that some of the concessions that are made by the builder are very nice, but people living on the canals are the ones benefiting the most. I don't blame them for wanting to benefit, but that is a nice thing to offer, but I don't think, in my mind, it doesn't make up for the tremendous height and the scale, and just the total out of character look, and not to mention that the traffic is a major consideration for us because of the way that they can get in and out of there. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Maggie Steber: Hi. Chairman Gonzalez: Hi. Ms. Steber: My name is Maggie Steber. 1 live at 930 Northeast 81st Street. Mr. Chairman, it's the first time I've ever spoken before the Commission, and 1 would ask if I could have three minutes, because I prepared for that? Chairman Gonzalez: Three minutes. Ms. Steber: So -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Ms. Steber: -- I think you're going to find what 1 have to say interesting. 1 hope so. Commissioner Sanchez: I hope it's not the last (UNINTELLIGIBLE), OK? Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Steber: OK, I'll be here every time. Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, not every time. Ms. Steber: OK. I do have something that I wanted to pass around. Those are just Xerox copies of Oasis on the Bay that are on the Oasis on the Bay Web site, and just to show a different point of view of the project. OK. No American city has changed as swiftly as this mirage on a sandbar that we call Miami. Daily events move us forward in a city that is still becoming itself and like so many things in the Tropics, life and all its possibilities seem to flourish here at the edge of the continent. Miami is a city where people come to end their lives and begin them. New immigrants come to make afresh start. Young entrepreneurs looking for new frontiers find them in this gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean capital. This is a crossroads of cultures that ebbs and flows; the destination of the glamorous and the desperate. It is the new American city, and that's why it's special. Our communities are woven into a wonderful fabric, and how we develop our city will have a lot to do with whether we end up with silk or polyester, and you, panel of distinguished Commissioners, are the weavers. Once it's out of our hands, the voters, it's in yours. We want you to be inspired leaders. We want to know which legacy you're going to leave. In Shorecrest we have old Tudor homes and little bungalows sitting along shady streets, except for Northeast 82nd Street, which has so much traffic, the residents can't drive out of their driveways at peak rush hours. On my street, 81 st, there are Haitians, a man from India, a City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 woman from France, some folks from New York, families from Latin America. I love hearing the singsong of the Creole language, and the beauty of Spanish echoing from my neighbors, and the last enclave of its kind, in the Upper Eastside. Many of these people are working class people or retirees living on a fixed income; others are professionals and young families. It's a real mixture that gets right to the heart of America, as corny as that sounds. It used to be affordable, but now you'll pay a lot to move in. I don't think any of us present today are against development, but we do support thoughtful development. How we develop our unique city can make the difference between a well thought out pattern, a well thought out plan that includes how a project fits into the neighborhood, traffic patterns, flood controls, ecological safeguards, evacuation plans, and quality of life or a disaster. We're entering this predicted decade of really tough storms. Maybe they won't come, but if they do, do we want scenes like we saw in Houston during Katrina; miles of cars unable to move, out of gas. People died on that highway going out of Houston from heat exhaustion, and with the five -for -all construction that's all along Biscayne Boulevard and even some of our causeways, which are major evacuation routes, we're building ourselves right into no way out. Who will live in these buildings? The proposed condo project for our neighborhood, Oasis on the Bay, bills itself as affordable, but the prices, according to the developers, start at above $200,000. Affordable to whom? Professionals, like teachers, and nurses, young lawyers, desperately -needed contributors to the infrastructure of our city, can't afford to move to Miami. You've heard this on the news and -- Chairman Gonzalez: Three and a half. Ms. Steber: -- read it and everything. Shorecrest residents have questions we feel need to be addressed before the construction of Oasis on the Bay continues. The developers have assured us of many things, but saying it is one thing and doing it is another. We want to know what assurances we have; that they will work with us and the city to lessen the impact of such a large project in our neighborhood? Will the City and County address the traffic issues in a timely manner? Will environmental inspection center require the developers to meet the ecological standards spelled out in their plan review? How we develop affects our image, something we, as a city, are ambitious about. Overdevelopment in a city like this, that can stretch no further without destruction to the Everglades, our natural flood plane, can destroy our image as a great place to do business, raise afamily, enjoy life. Chairman Gonzalez: Ma'am, you have four minutes. Ms. Steber: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Four. Not three, four -- Ms. Steber: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so I need you to conclude. Ms. Steber: Thank you. I would love to wish success to The Related Group with their project, if they would consider rethinking it once again, and consider something -- building something really unique in Shorecrest, something that blends into the neighborhood and becomes a centerpiece of the community, something that really adds to it, something that will win you development awards. If you -- Chairman Gonzalez: Ma'am, 1 need you -- Ms. Steber: -- do that, neighborhoods will be inviting you in. I'm almost through. Once the first project is up, it opens the doors for others, and how it's done becomes critical if we are to enjoy enlightened and progressive development, and that's why we're being cautious. We ask our Commissioners to postpone further work at this site until these issues can be resolved by all the City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 parties. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Steber: Thank you so much. Vice Chairman Winton: Could -- Chairman Gonzalez: You know, and this is exactly what I'm referring to, you know. We have here a five-minute speech to conclude in one sentence: We want to ask the Commission to defer this item to whatever, you know. Vice Chairman Winton: Ma'am. Chairman Gonzalez: It could have been a lot shorter, and that's why -- you know, we cannot -- we have a tremendous agenda here today. I mean, if we don't try to use the time appropriately, we'll be here until tomorrow, or we will have to -- because I'm not going to be here -- I'm telling you this now, I'm not going to be here until 10 p.m. tonight. If I see that we cannot conclude this meeting today by an appropriate time, at 7 p.m., I will defer the items -- the balance of the items to the next meeting either tomorrow or next week or next month, but I'm not going to be here until 10 p.m., no way. I'm not going to do that, so thank you. Vice Chairman Winton: Could -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: Ma'am, you had a list of requests; you read them into the record. There were four or five things that you wanted answers to. Could I -- could you give me a copy of that so I can look at those? Ms. Steber: Yes, sir, I will, and I also have a hand-written letter from a resident, a homebound resident on Northeast 82nd addressed to you, which she asked me to hand -deliver it -- Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Steber: -- to you, so -- Vice Chairman Winton: You can just come right up here and hand it to me. Thank you, and you can continue on. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, next. Yes, sir. Peter Padowitz: I'll be -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Padowitz: -- very brief sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. 1 appreciate it. Mr. Padowitz: My name is Padowitz, Peter Padowitz. I live at 7899 Northeast Bayshore Court, directly south of 79th Street from the proposed project. I've lived there for 30 years. 1 served the City in the past in several capacities, as its chief plumbing inspector, and first energy conservation official, and in 1982, 1 was appointed to the Charter Code Enforcement Board by Mayor Ferrer; served for six years. There's no question that this project is out of scope and City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 character with the area, but that, 1 believe, is a very good thing. 1 admit I had my doubts and skepticism at the first -- mostly about traffic, but their plan to close a section of Northeast Bayshore Court is going to be a great help to traffic incidents that happen on the bridge multiple times each day, and I've observed this over a 30 year period. The corridor, the 79th Street corridor will be improved by the project in closing of Bayshore Court, and I think their plan to include a restaurant at the site is a tribute to Mike Gordon, who was a proprietor there for many years with his seafood restaurant. I've observed the construction that's taken place so far, the demolition of all the old structures, starting around the 21st of October, and the workmanship that I've seen, it was exemplary. If they continue the rest of the project as they have now with the construction of their sales facility in this manner, 1 would have no doubts about the conduct of the work. I think the tradeoff of an improvement in traffic, as opposed to accepting a project that's out of scale and upscaled for the area, is beneficial to the City and the residents in the area, and I heartily recommend that you approve this project. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Good morning. Richard Hughs: My name is Richard E. Hughs. I live at 722 Northeast 81st Street. I'd like to read something, and then have it put into the record, OK? This was -- Chairman Gonzalez: You have two minutes. Mr. Hughs: -- written by my partner. Yes. It says that -- it was written by my partner Jack Spirk It says I will not attend -- I will not be able to attend the meeting, but I would like to voice my opposition to The Related Group's Oasis project planned for 79th Street in the bay. The president of the Shorecrest Homeowners' Association has gone on record claiming that we are in favor of this project. Originally, she assured us that this project will never pass the traffic study. Please be aware that less than five percent of the homeowners belong to our association. Probably less than that percentage are informed, and there was never a vote taken from the membership on the issue. Anyone who has spoken out against the project has been labeled troublemakers, and we have been told we have no choice as this is a done deal and the developer can do whatever he wants. First and foremost, the neighborhood cannot handle the excess traffic. I don't know who completed the traffic study, but this will create a very unsafe situation. You will not be able to enter the project directly from 79th Street, either going eastbound or westbound. The only way to enter will be from 81 st Street or zigzag from 8l st to IOth Avenue and down 80th Street. The swing -around traffic lanes coming off the bridge heading westbound will make it next to impossible and extremely dangerous for any vehicle trying to cross the project. Eighty-first Street is already overburdened by nonlocal traffic shortcutting to 79th Street via 10th Avenue. You can barely fit two cars on the street now. There is just no easy configuration once you eliminate Bayshore Court. Secondly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the project is totally out of scale. They deleted the existing condos and single-family homes from the renderings as it showed just how out -of -scale the project is. We are a neighborhood of and for the most part, single-family, single -story homes. The multifamily buildings on the south side of 79th Street are no higher than eight stories. Oasis is composed of two large-scale 20-story buildings. This will set a precedent whereby other developers will expect to build the same height and density all along the water and up and down 79th Street. Please stop the developer from raping and pillaging our community. 1 urge you to vote no on the Oasis project. Respectfully yours, John -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Padowitz: -- T. Spirk. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Padowitz: Can I give this to you, then? City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Vice Chairman Winton: Sure. Give it to the Clerk sir, and she'll get it to us. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Morning. Justin Cardoza: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Justin Cardona, at 1080 Northeast 81st Street. 1 don't know a whole lot about the project. I'm not either for or against it necessarily yet. I came here really to information -gather, but 1 do have a big concern, and it's being repeated over and over again with traffic. I live right there at the second to last house before 81st Street. It's north shore Drive and goes over. 1 don't know -- and 1 hope the Commission -- the Board addresses this, whether -- if that's going to be a road used to -- for traffic to get to this project or not, or if it's going to be closed off. Myself I have two children in that house and on my block itself, just between 10th Avenue and Bayshore, there's easily six, seven, eight kids that live on that block small children, and as the one gentleman just said, that street is overused by people who shortcutting 10th Avenue and 79th Street already. I mean, UPS (United Parcel Service) trucks, FedEx, et cetera. It's not a very big street. I ask that that is addressed in your future meetings or however the proceedings go, but 1 do have big concerns with the traffic issues with this project. Besides that, I don't know much else about it in terms of the scale and all that. If those things are addressed, I would like to hear about it. Also, I would like to piggyback with the Shorecrest homeowner's development. 1 didn't even know there was one, and I've been living there for two years, so I wouldn't take too much weight into that. I will look into it myself. That might be some -- but I didn't even know there was one, nor did I know about any meetings that pertain to this project with the Shorecrest Homeowners' Association. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Cardona: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sure that the developer will address your concerns. Mr. Cardona: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Allyson Warren: Good morning. Chairman Gonzalez: Good morning. Ms. Warren: Allyson Warren, 650 Northeast 82nd Terrace in Miami. I am the president of the homeowners' association. The board did meet with the developers on several occasions. Unfortunately, timing being what it is, we've been accused of keeping this from the neighborhood. Our association meets every other month. The people within the 500-yard required radius were notified of every single hearing and they did appear, and for the most part, they're the ones who initially approved this. They weren't thrilled with the height, and neither am I, but the bottom line is it cleaned up that part of the neighborhood within minutes of demolition. The traffic issues are humongous. You all know that. You know the fight that we've had with DOT (Department of Transportation) over the years; it's ongoing. Commissioner Winton is helping us with that, and as many large hammers as we can muster. The neighbors on 81st Street have a terrible problem. The City has finally been able to yank from the County approvals to put speed humps in, and -- that will be the big ones that make you go airborne -- and one of the things that came out of our homeowners' meeting in January was exactly the possibility that this gentleman just spoke about, and that is closing off that half -closure on 81st Street right at the curve; also closing off the north side of Bayshore. That would be where the apartment buildings are and across the street from the project, because 81st Street is a racetrack. Commissioner Winton can tell you how long we've been complaining about that. It's City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 never going to completely go away. The problems there go back to the '90s, '80s, since 82nd Street was turned into a racetrack to get to the racetrack. I think that a majority of the people who came to the homeowners meeting in January that finally got to look at everything and talk to the developers, talk to the traffic people came away approving of but having issues about traffic and height, and as Ms. Dougherty will tell you, that was the first thing that came out of my mouth at our first meeting. I think it's going to do a lot of good to spur growth along 79th Street. I'm hoping that Miami 21 is going to deal with the C-1 unrestricted height limitations. We're not protected there as we are with an overlay on Biscayne Boulevard. There's no protection whatsoever, which is why negotiating the developer down from the original plans on file was a coup. We like them to have gone shorter. It is what it is. They're not going to develop town houses on a site where they don't have to. I did ask for town houses, and part of the liner on the parking garage will be town house flats, or -- unless that's a mutually exclusive term, I'm not sure. We also asked them to include some workforce level housing, which is why their lower -cost units are starting around 230. We specifically asked them to set that aside for people who do need transportation. Basically, we are always going to have people who don't approve of things; never going to make everybody happy. We have tried to talk to as many of the immediately affected people as we can. My vice president lives on 10th Avenue, a couple of blocks from there. One of my board members walks out his front door and it's right there in his face. They took their cad -- computer pictures from his driveway. People had come for several presentations in that part of the neighborhood. That's how we all found out about when the board hearings were, but the bottom line is, we need the project. We're getting -- the City's getting a very nice park out of it, which the developer has agreed to plant. The public access bay walk is something that a lady that I believe is Mike Gordon's daughter had approached us about, and she approves of the project as well. She thought it was really great to be able to keep a seafood restaurant there. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Warren: So overall, we think it's going to be a good thing for the neighborhood and for the corridor overall. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Lee Turcotte: My name is Lee Turcotte. I live at 753 Northeast 81st Street. I've heard "I will, 1 shall, I think, 1 can, maybe." It all boils down to -- and by the way, I am not in favor of this building at all, but it all boils down to traffic. When you come off that bridge, it's suicide. 1 walk by there every morning. I've done it for many years. I've lived in the area since 1947. This place needs a traffic study, and not a brick should be turned until the traffic is dealt with. Forget everything else. Walks, overpasses, closing streets, traffic study, traffic study, traffic study. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Lucia, time for rebuttal. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We do have our traffic engineer here, Richard Eichinger, who has done a traffic study, and as you know, the procedure is, for us to prepare the traffic study very early in the process, give that to the City, and the City hires an independent traffic study. We have to pay for them at $4,500 per traffic study for them to review our traffic study. They are satisfied that the traffic impacts are actually going to -- while there is more trips -- there's 91 more trips during peak hour as a result of this project, but there will be traffic improvements in the area, not the least of which is the closing of South Bayshore Drive by 79th Street Causeway improvements anyway. There are several other improvements at 79th Street FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) is proposing. They are -- they haven't decided which ones they're going to actually implement, but we are working with the neighborhood, as well as FDOT, to try to get these improvements to assist in the traffic condition there, and we do have our traffic engineer here, if you'd like to hear from him. City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: So there has been a -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: -- traffic study done? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Then how come they're saying there's no traffic study done? Vice Chairman Winton: Lourdes -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- could you put on the record what the City has done relative to reviewing the traffic study that the developer had done? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. The applicant -- at the -- as you know, in a Major Use Special Permit, they're required to do a traffic study. This is turned in at the -- at very initial stages of the Major Use Special Permit. It's reviewed by the Large -Scale Development Committee. The City has hired URS (United Research Services) to be our own independent traffic study reviewer, so they prepared theirs; they turned it in; it goes into URS and URS reviews it, and they found this one sufficient, which means they addressed all of the mitigation that was required for the impact of this project, and so it was recommended for approval to us by them. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. That concludes your rebuttal? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. The public hearing is closed. It comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: I'd like to make a number of comments, and I'm sorry that I've forgotten the lady's name that I borrowed this piece from, but she asked a number of questions that I think we do need to get additional answers on the record, because -- and her first statement "The developers assured many things, but saying it is one thing and doing it is another," and that's an issue we talk about all the time in all of these kind of developments. "What assurances do we have that the developers will work with us and the City to lessen the impact of such a large project in the neighborhood, "and goes on to talk about traffic. I don't understand the part about the environmental inspection center ecological standards. I don't know what that is, but the commitments that the developer is making relative to traffic and the commitments that the developer's making relative to public sector improvements, and the trade-offs for -- isn't there an alley closure in this thing? Ms. Slazyk: There's a street closure. Vice Chairman Winton: Street closure. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Vice Chairman Winton: Can we put those -- ? Well, first of all, the lady's asking how can we assure that the commitments are actually followed through on once these commitments are made, and would you answer that question, please? City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Slazyk: OK. The only ones that 1 can speak to are the ones that are conditions of their MUSP. When the City Commission approves a MUSP, the developer is tied to these plans on file and to the conditions of their MUSP. In this MUSP there is the conditions from the Public Works Department that go to the replatting of the land, the pavement restoration for all water and sewer extensions have to be done, existing damage pavement and pavement damage during construction as determined by the City inspector shall include milling and resurfacing of the full pavement with curb to curb along the entire length of the excavation and/or damaged pavement area. They also have to, along Northeast 80th Street, replace all damaged and broken sidewalks, curbs, and gutters on both sides of the street adjacent to the project site; mill and resurface the entire width curb to curb between Northeast Bayshore Drive and Bayshore Court, and along 79th and Bayshore Drive. They have to coordinate all the improvements with the Florida Department of Transportation, so everything that has to do with the public improvements was reviewed by Public Works. This is the list that they included for the MUSP, and they must comply with this because this gets recorded against their property. Whatever other things that the applicant proffered to the neighbors by way of private agreements, are not part of the MUSP. They have to do whatever private agreements they have with the neighbors for that. With respect to the traffic, their traffic study listed whatever mitigation they were going to do, and that's part of their MUSP book, and they have to do whatever was in that traffic study as reviewed and determined by URS, so -- Ms. Dougherty: But some of the things that we've done also are a part of the plans. For example -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- the public access bay walk; that's part of the plans; it's a condition of the MUSP, so -- Ms. Slazyk: They have to do it. Ms. Dougherty: -- if we violate it, it becomes a zoning violation. The public restaurant, that's part of our plans, and so -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, that -- Ms. Dougherty: -- we can't change it without coming back to you. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Ms. Dougherty: The donation of the land is part of our street closure, which I think is item number 7, so -- Ms. Slazyk. Yes. Ms. Dougherty: -- that's a proffer we've that we've made in connection with that. Now, this is also a separate contract with the neighborhood association so they have a right to sue us, as well as you enforcing it as well. The last one is -- I mean, the last two. Cleaning of the Baycrest, north and south canals. That's not part of the conditions -- Ms. Slazyk: No. Ms. Dougherty: -- but we're happy to put it in, if you want it. Vice Chairman Winton: I think proffering that is not a bad thing. City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: We're happy to put that in as a condition. Rebuilding and retaining wall on 81st Street and tree planting and maintenance, we'd be happy to put that as a condition as well. Vice Chairman Winton: I think we'd be happy to accept it, too. OK, and that answers the question. The big issue here is about the traffic, and the big issue on 79th and 81st has been about traffic. Both the Mayor and I have had numerous meetings with Florida Department of Transportation because we all know that whether this project is built, whether this project isn't built, traffic is a huge issue. It is -- and 1 bet I have been in half a dozen meetings with FDOT personally on what their plans are, and 1 could also tell you that I don't think I've ever left meetings more brain damaged than 1 do every time I go in a meeting with FDOT on 79th and 81st, and the reason is because this is not a simple deal; fixing traffic on 79th and 81st -- you don't know how many headaches I've gotten trying to piece all the pieces together because it's a very unique street. You've got businesses along 79th Street that are legitimate businesses, and I'm not talking about this part. I'm really talking more from Biscayne Boulevard west, but it is from Biscayne Boulevard west you have to consider how -- you know, whether you have two lanes going each way, or whether you have one lane. 1 mean, all these dffierent issues, and parking becomes an issue. If you have more lanes, then you've got to take away the parking. Well, the businesses along there don't want you to take away the parking because they're going to go out of business, and so we're trying to figure out how we can buy land and create parking lots along there that could help solve that problem. 1 will tell you, the neighbors, this, we do recognize traffic is the issue, clearly the issue, traffic, and we're -- the Mayor is involved, I'm involved; we're going to stay involved. We're going to -- we haven't accepted FDOT's plan yet. We keep working on tweaking it trying to get the best product we can get at the end of the day out of a road where 30 or 40 years ago, we probably should have done some radically different back then, but we can't back up, so we can only deal with this thing going forward, so our commitment is we're going to figure out as many ways as we can to solve the traffic problem on 79th and 81st, and 1 don't know the answer yet because we haven't agreed with FDOT at all in terms of all of their plans for that. 1 will also commit to you that as we get further along and we get more options for solutions, we're going to get back in the neighborhood. I hope you all give us your names, phone numbers, addresses so that we can make contact with you all individually. You've taken the time to come here. You've expressed your whole point about traffic. We would like to get you involved. We would like to get your opinions. We value that opinion, and so as we develop more plans, I want FDOT and our Planning Department to meet with y'all. I'm not talking about this project, OK. I'm talking about the whole issue of traffic on 79th, and we would love to get you involved, and so if you make sure we have your name, address, phone number, we will get you involved so that you can have direct input onto the whole grand solution for 79th and 81st. Back to this project, when I first ran for office, I got elected a little over six years ago and I was running for office seven years ago, and I said over and over again, not ever -- having ever been in public office, not thought about it before, but 1 said, you know, one of the key elements to us being effective is whether we like it or not, the most -- the best Democratic way we have to make decisions about neighborhoods is to go through neighborhood associations, and not everybody agrees ever with whatever the association is doing, and this is one of those cases where there's -- you all here who are opposed to this project don't agree with the decision of your neighborhood association, but 1 will -- if I were to look back at my record, I will bet you that 99 percent of the time on votes that I've taken, I've sided with the association, because it's the best vehicle, not perfect, we have for communicating with a bigger group and getting the closest we can to any kind of consensus, and what I've encouraged people in neighborhoods to do over and over again is if you don't like the association, do the same thing with them that you can do with me: Throw them out of office. Run for office yourself. Join the association. Be a member, and 1 think that -- I would encourage you all to do that. I would also like to say to each and every one of you that 1 think you all did very good presentations here, and I'm happy that you came. You're not going to be happy with what I'm going to do here, but I am happy that you have come today, and I would encourage you to get involved with your association, if you want that association to go in a dffierent direction. The reason -- I'm going to vote and move -- make a motion to accept this proposal, as 1 did a month ago, and the reason for that is because I said City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 before any development was starting -- and some of you may have read it in the newspaper because I was quoted in the newspaper -- and 1 said, whoever the developer is here needs to go meet with the Shorecrest Homeowners' Association and figure it out with them, end of story. That was in the paper, and that's what everybody did, and whether you all agree with that, whether I even agreed with all of it or not, that is the process that I started a long time ago, and it's a process I did with this project before anything ever got into the City, and everybody followed that process, and I'm sorry that everybody doesn't agree, but not everybody agrees on anything anyhow, so again, thank you all for coming. Get involved in the association. I do want you to get involved on the traffic stuff relative to 79th and 81st, and with that, I'm going to move -- did we decide we're doing each of these one at a time? Chairman Gonzalez: I think -- Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- we were going to do it independently, yes. Mr. Fernandez: You should do them individually. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. I'm going to move -- Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.1. Vice Chairman Winton: -- PZ 1, with whatever conditions are applicable. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.1 doesn't have any conditions. This is a land use change. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez.: We -- it's a motion and a second It's an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ.2. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.2 is a companion zoning change. Vice Chairman Winton: Move, but 1 want to make a comment. City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: Second for the purpose of discussion. Vice Chairman Winton: I forgot one thing. I don't know where in here the appropriate item is in this group of five or six or whatever it is. I do want the developer, with their traffic engineer, to go back and meet with the folks, any of the -- you know, including this group, because I'm not sure that the people in that immediate area that are concerned about traffic of this on those streets, and how we've closed some, and what we've done there. I'm not sure they understand the impact of each of those moves, and so 1 want you to go back and meet with them so that -- and bring your engineers so that you can talk about the technical parts of how traffic's going to flow or not flow with the changes that have been made so that they have a clear understanding, and if there's additional tweaking that you can do that makes sense to do, then 1 want that tweaking done. Ms. Slazyk: OK. What 1 would recommend is you add that as a condition to PZ.8, which is the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Vice Chairman Winton: Great. Ms. Slazyk It's related, and you tell them they have to do it prior to getting a building permit -- Vice Chairman Winton: Perfect. Ms. Slazyk: -- and demonstrate it to the City. Vice Chairman Winton: OK, great. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 just want to add, too, Commissioner Winton earlier -- if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: No. Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I totally agree with what you were -- you stated earlier about how important it is to work along with neighborhood associations, and like you said, Commissioner Winton, there are going to be times when everyone's not agree -- will not agree to the decisions that are made, but I want to commend you on at least, you know, really trying to make the necessary adjustments to accommodate the existing neighborhood association, because that's important, and everything that you guys did in order to make that happen, 1 think is wonderful. I'm glad to see that Allyson is -- you know, we do have some new people that came out today that, you know, probably would have never come here, you know, but just was concerned about what was going on in their neighborhoods, so I'm glad to see that Allyson is reaching out to those folks that are there, and hopefully, you will -- the rest that are here, too, will reach out to her to become involved, because at the end of the day, you're right, it's really important for us to do what neighbors or the folks from those communities want to see happen in their neighborhoods. 1 want to commend you for going above and beyond the call of duty to really make sure that you presented something that the neighbors were happy with. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much, but I -- the credit really needs to be given to our client, who did all of their outreach. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well done. Chairman Gonzalez: You have a comment? City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no. 1 was just (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Gonzalez: All right. It's an ordinance, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: PZ2. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, I have a question. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: We opened a public hearing. This was presented -- the eight items were presented together, and we opened the public hearing. Mr. Fernandez: For comments on all of them. Chairman Gonzalez: Now, the public hearing was opened for all eight items, correct? Mr. Fernandez.: Correct, and comments that were made were applicable to all eight items -- Chairman Gonzalez: To all eight items. Mr. Fernandez: -- as an integral project was presented to you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: For the record. Chairman Gonzalez: 1 wanted to make sure that, you know -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- the record is clear in that; that the public hearing has been opened for the eight items. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ 3. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. It's also an ordinance. City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Yes. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.4. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Sorry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. It's also an ordinance. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ 5. Vice Chairman Winton: So move. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. I believe it's also an ordinance, right? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, it is. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ 6. City of Miami Page 80 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. It's also an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.7. Ms. Slazyk: PZ. 7 -- Mr. Fernandez: Thank God, it's a resolution. Ms. Thompson: That's a resolution. Ms. Slazyk: Right. This is actually -- this is the vacation and closure of the street. This is the one where we recommend approval with the condition that the voluntary -- they comply with the condition on the voluntary proffer of the land south of the subject properties for a city park. Vice Chairman Winton: So move. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion and we have a second. Ms. Thompson: Chair, if I could, please. Chairman Gonzalez: It's a resolution, right? Ms. Thompson: If 1 could, I just want to make sure. Does that condition now modem the resolution? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, it does. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: For the point of -- Chairman Gonzalez: As amended. Ms. Slazyk: It's in -- it's -- well -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- clarification -- Ms. Dougherty: It's already there. City of Miami Page 81 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Is it there? Commissioner Sanchez: -- would you put those conditions into the record? Ms. Slazyk: Put the conditions -- all right. The condition, as it went to Zoning Board, the applicant must comply with the condition from Public Works Department and voluntarily proffer of the applicant as part of a Major Use Special Permit of conveying additional land to the south of the subject properties for a city park or a fire station, and I'm not sure if it -- Commissioner Sanchez: We just want to make sure that all conditions have been put on the record -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: -- to protect the residents, to make sure later on, "Well, we didn't proffer that." You know, we want to make sure that it's on the record. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: And that conditions attaches to number -- PZ. 7 or should it also attach to PZ.8? Ms. Slazyk: I would say both -- Mr. Fernandez: Both. Ms. Slazyk: -- because it references the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) -- Ms. Thompson: Both of them. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Ms. Slazyk: -- and you're right, it isn't in there. It needs to -- Mr. Fernandez: It isn't -- Ms. Slazyk: -- needs to be -- Mr. Fernandez: -- in PZ 7, so it should be included, as read, and then when we get to PZ.8, it should be restated as one of five new conditions -- Ms. Slazyk. Correct. Mr. Fernandez: -- on PZ.8. Ms. Slazyk: Because it's a proffer, the Commission had to accept it before we could put it in the reso. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: So -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- so moved with -- City of Miami Page 82 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Conditions. Vice Chairman Winton: -- conditions and modifications. Commissioner Sanchez: Second, as amended. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.8. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ8, this is the actual Major Use Special Permit. Let me see if 1 can recap for the record. We're going to be moding condition 12-C to read that the applicant shall provide a pedestrian access along the Old Bayshore Court access and a bay walk connecting 79th Street to 80th Street, and refer to the City's bay walk/river walk design standards for typical surface changes, plantings, et cetera, as determined by the Planning Department. Lucia Dougherty: Could we modem it to simply to say that we will provide access in an appropriate manner to be approved by the Planning Department? Vice Chairman Winton: No. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. I -- Vice Chairman Winton: I don't think so. Ms. Slazyk: -- think what the Law Department had a problem with the way you phrased it before, was continue to work with the Planning Department. That was too vague. We have to say here that you have to provide it subject to -- Mr. Fernandez: To approval by staff. Ms. Slazyk: -- our review and approval. Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: That's -- Ms. Slazyk: Subject to -- Ms. Dougherty: -- fine. Ms. Slazyk: -- review and approval by staff You have to -- Ms. Dougherty: That's fine. Ms. Slazyk: It has to be provided. Ms. Dougherty: Provided that -- provided approval by staff, but I don't know what those other things are. Those bay walk standards may not be appropriate for here. Ms. Slazyk: That's why I had put here at the end, "as determined by the Planning director," so -- Ms. Dougherty: Just so we're clear. City of Miami Page 83 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Slazyk: --1 believe that gives us the flexibility to work something out. Because it's not technically a bay walk, it isn't required -- Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- but we wanted those standards to generally be met, so -- Mr. Fernandez: And it is typically must to defer and to give your staff that quantum of discretion in making those determinations. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Right, as long as the bay walk's there, we can work with them on the width and the - Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- length, and the materials, but -- and I -- that was the intent of this condition. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Dougherty: The issue is not the bay walk; that, we will comply with. The issue is -- Ms. Slazyk: It's the connection between 79th and 80th Street. Ms. Dougherty: And there may not be an ability to have 17-feet wide and -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- so -- OK, so that's all I'm saying. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. That's why -- then 1 would go back to how 1 read it, as determined by the City Planning director. Then the other new conditions were that the developer meet with the neighborhood association regarding the traffic issues for -- Vice Chairman Winton: No, not the neighborhood association -- Ms. Slazyk: With -- Vice Chairman Winton: -- per se; with these specific people -- Ms. Slazyk: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: -- and anyone else in the neighborhood that wants to come to the meeting to talk about the traffic plan that's in place and to explain what really is happening and the impact of whatever is happening so they have a clearer understanding of what's going on. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And can maybe perhaps, Commissioner Winton, the local NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) in the area can assist with making sure the notices get out -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- to -- Ms. Slazyk: OK That -- City of Miami Page 84 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- the residents that are not a part of the association. Ms. Slazyk: All right. Then I'm going to -- we -- I have to put words in here, so developer will meet with the adjacent neighbors and neighborhood prior to the issuance of a building permit regarding a traffic presentation to be -- and for NET to coordinate the meeting notice. Ms. Dougherty: Commissioner Winton, let me just -- Mr. Fernandes: Well -- Ms. Dougherty: -- put something so you understand that when we go get a building permit, we have to prove we did these things -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: -- so the best evidence that we did this is a -- minutes of either a NET meeting or a neighborhood association meeting, so -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Ms. Dougherty: --1-- Mr. Fernandez: 1 need to -- because this is a condition that we're imposing that would become enforceable, we need certainty and finality, and the way that you have recommended it, Commissioner Winton, is open-ended. I'd much rather have the onus placed on the homeowners' association or on NET so that at the end of the day, the developer can be deemed to have met the requirements of the Commission and proceed to pull the building permit. Vice Chairman Winton: So maybe we put it on NET. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Mr. Fernandez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: So the developer shall coordinate and meet with the adjacent neighborhood in coordination with NET prior to the issuance of a building permit, OK. Then the next new condition was accepting the proffer of the cleaning of the canals and the landscape maintenance, and you'll give me that language. I didn't get it; you were talking too fast before, and so we got the canals, and then the other new condition was the proffer of the land that they're going to be conveying to the City -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: -- and that shall be conveyed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Chairman Gonzales: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: OK, so moved, with all the new conditions. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, we have a motion and we have a second. It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. I need to -- before we break for lunch, I have -- Vice Chairman Winton: But would you all make sure that you leave, even give it to my office, your names, address, phone numbers so we can follow up with y'all, make sure that happens, and if you -- my office is right back here. Y'all can go back there; staffs there, and leave your information, OK. Thank you. PZ.2 05-01515 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 8, 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 "0" OFFICE AND "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, F.A.R. OF .45 TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7951 NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01515 Legislation.pdf 05-01515 & 05-01515c Exhibit A.pdf 05-01515 Analysis.pdf 05-01515 Zoning Map.pdf 05-01515 & 05-01515c Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515 ZB Reso.pdf 05-01515 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01515 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from 0 Office and SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, F.A.R. of .45 to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 7951 NE Bayshore Court APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avirio, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 12, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 05-01515c and related File IDs 05-01515a, 05-01515b, 05-01515d, 05-01515e, 05-01515f and 05-01515g. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial City of Miami Page 86 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 for the proposed Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12766 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.1 for minutes referencing Item PZ.2. PZ.3 05-01515d ORDINANCE Second 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 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7921 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND 7950 NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01515d Legislation.pdf 05-01515a & 05-01515d Exhibit A.PDF 05-01515d Analysis.pdf 05-01515d Land Use Map.pdf 05-01515a & 05-01515d Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515d PAB Reso.pdf 05-01515d Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01515d FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515d SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 7921 N Bayshore Drive and 7950 NE Bayshore Court APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avif o, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 21, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 05-01515a and related File IDs 05-01515, 05-01515b, 05-01515c, 05-01515e, 05-01515f and 05-01515g. City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12767 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.1 for minutes referencing Item PZ.3. PZ.4 05-01515a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 8, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7921 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND 7950 NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01515a Legislation.pdf 05-01515a & 05-01515d Exhibit A.PDF 05-01515a Analysis.pdf 05-01515a Zoning Map.pdf 05-01515a & 05-01515d Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515a ZB Reso.pdf 05-01515a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01515a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 7921 N Bayshore Drive and 7950 NE Bayshore Court APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avif o, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 12, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 05-01515d and related File City of Miami Page 88 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 IDs 05-01515, 05-01515b, 05-01515c, 05-01515e, 05-01515f and 05-01515g. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12768 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.1 for minutes referencing Item PZ.4. PZ.5 05-01515e ORDINANCE Second 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 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1165, 1169, 1173, 1177 AND 1199 NORTHEAST 79TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" TO "HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01515e Legislation.pdf 05-01515b & 05-01515e Exhibit A.pdf 05-01515e Analysis.pdf 05-01515e Land Use Map.pdf 05-01515b & 05-01515e Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515e PAB Reso.pdf 05-01515e Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01515e FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515e SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Restricted Commercial" to "High Density Multifamily Residential" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 1165, 1169, 1173, 1177 and 1199 NE 79th Street APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avilio, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 21, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File City of Miami Page 89 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 ID 05-01515b and related File IDs 05-01515, 05-01515a, 05-01515c, 05-01515d, 05-01515f and 05-01515g. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to High Density Multifamily Residential for the proposed Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12769 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.1 for minutes referencing Item PZ.5. PZ.6 05-01515b ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 8, 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 TO "R-4" MULTIFAMILY HIGH -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1165, 1169, 1173, 1177 AND 1199 NORTHEAST 79TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01515b Legislation.pdf 05-01515b & 05-01515e Exhibit A.pdf 05-01515b Analysis.pdf 05-01515b Zoning Map.pdf 05-01515b & 05-01515e Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515b ZB Reso.pdf 05-01515b Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01515b FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515b SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from C-1 Restricted Commercial to R-4 Multifamily High -Density Residential to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 1165, 1169, 1173, 1177 and 1199 NE 79th Street APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avirio, Esquire FINDINGS: City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 12, 2005 by a vote of 7-1. See companion File ID 05-01515e and related File IDs 05-01515, 05-01515a, 05-01515c, 05-01515d, 05-01515f and 05-01515g. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12770 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.1 for minutes referencing Item PZ.6. PZ.7 05-01515g RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A STREET LOCATED AT NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT BETWEEN NORTHEAST 79TH STREET AND NORTHEAST 80TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." 05-01515g Legislation.pdf 05-01515g Exhibit A.pdf 05-01515g Planning Analysis.pdf 05-01515g Zoning Map.pdf 05-01515g Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515g Public Works Analysis.pdf 05-01515g Public Works Letter.pdf 05-01515g ZB Reso.pdf 05-01515g Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01515g Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of a Street LOCATION: Approximately NE Bayshore Court between NE 79th Street and NE 80th Street APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier Avirio, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with a condition*. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval with a condition* on City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 December 1, 2005 by a vote of 5-1. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 9, 2006 by a vote of 9-0. See companion File IDs 05-01515, 05-01515a, 05-01515b, 05-01515c, 05-01515d, 05-01515e and 05-01515f. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the proposed Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit project. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-06-0127 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.1 for minutes referencing Item PZ. 7. PZ.8 05-01515f RESOLUTION "INCOMPLETE (CHANGES NECESSARY) - PENDING FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY." A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE OASIS ON THE BAY PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7889 AND 7921 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, 7890, 7950 AND 7951 NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT, 1165, 1169, 1173, 1177, 1199 AND 1201 NORTHEAST 79TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT TWO APPROXIMATE 205-FOOT, 20-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURES TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 467 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 4,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 719 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES; 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 92 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-01515f Outside Cover.PDF 05-01515f Inside Cover.PDF 05-01515f Table of Contents.PDF 05-01515f Article I - Project Information.PDF 05-01515f Letter of Intent.PDF 05-01515f Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF 05-01515f Zoning Write-up.PDF 05-01515f Zoning Atlas.PDF 05-01515f Project Data Sheet.PDF 05-01515f Deed -Computer Printout.PDF 05-01515f Ownership List.PDF 05-01515f State of Florida Docs.PDF 05-01515f Directory of Project Prinicipals.PDF 05-01515f Article II - Project Description.PDF 05-01515f Article 111 - Supporting Docs.PDF 05-01515f Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 05-01515f Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 05-01515f Site Utility Study.PDF 05-01515f Economic Impact Study.PDF 05-01515f Survey of Property.PDF 05-01515f Drawings Submitted.PDF 05-01515f Legislation.pdf 05-01515f Exhibit A.pdf 05-01515f Exhibit B.pdf 05-01515f Analysis.pdf 05-01515f Zoning Map.pdf 05-01515f Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515f Miami -Dade Aviation Dept Letter.pdf 05-01515f Pre -Application Design Review Comments.pdf 05-01515f School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 05-01515f PAB Reso.pdf 05-01515f Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515a-g Corres..pdf 05-01515a-g Photos.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Oasis on the Bay Project LOCATION: Approximately 7889 and 7921 N Bayshore Drive, 7890, 7950 and 7951 NE Bayshore Court, 1165, 1169, 1173, 1177, 1199 and 1201 NE 79th Street APPLICANT(S): River Bait & Tackle, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier Avirio, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on December 21, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File IDs 05-01515, 05-01515a, 05-01515b, 05-01515c, 05-01515d, 05-01515e and 05-01515g. *See supporting documentation. City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Oasis on the Bay project. Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-06-0128 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.1 for minutes referencing Item PZ8. PZ.9 05-00769 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "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 2.0, 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 (Version 2).PDF 05-00769 Exhibit A.pdf 05-00769 Analysis.pdf 05-00769 & 05-00769a Zoning Map.pdf 05-00769 & 05-00769a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00769 ZB Reso.pdf 05-00769 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00769 Legislation (Version 1).pdf 05-00769 FR Fact Sheet 11-17-05.pdf 05-00769 FR Fact Sheet 09-22-05.pdf 05-00769 SR Fact Sheet.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 2.0, 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 City of Miami Page 94 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 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. See companion File ID 05-00769a. 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 2.0, for the proposed Mile Major Use Special Permit project. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12771 Chairman Gonzalez: Let's go back to PZ.9 now that Commissioner Regalado is here, and that's his district. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): OK. PZ.9 and 10, they're companion items. PZ.9 is a change of zoning in order to add the SD-19 designated FAR (floor/area ratio) overlay to the property at 3622 Southwest 22nd Street and 3605, 3625 Southwest 22nd Terrace. As you recall, this -- the initial request was for a higher SD-19. I don't recall now if it was 2.2 or 2.4. The applicant has since modified the request to reduce the SD-19 to a 2.0 in recognition of the fact that at the back, the property -- the zoning does not go to the center line of the street. They have also modified their project in PZ. 10 to reflect the reduction, and this was approved by the City Commission on first reading, and it was recommended for approval by the Zoning Board, and then PZ.10, the companion item, is the Major Use Special Permit for the Mile project. It's going to be a 14-story high mixed -use structure. It will have approximately 119 multifamily residential units, 3,079 square feet of retail, and 166 parking spaces, and it was also recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board, with the conditions in your package, and the only remaining condition from the Planning Department now has to do with the submittal of a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Department. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chairman, before we start -- Chair, may I make sure and clear for the record, PZ.9 and 10 are companion items. The discussion that we're going to have is on PZ (Planning & Zoning) --1 want to clar -- 9 and 10, but we're voting separately. Would that be a correct statement? Ms. Slazyk: Correct. PZ.9 is an ordinance and 10 will be a resolution. Ms. Thompson: And I -- just to let you know, I asked that of you because when we put in our minutes in Legistar, we need to make sure that people understand there are two items, one set of discussions, two separate votes. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. This is your second reading of this ordinance and a Major Use Special Permit. This is the project that is located directly across the street from the Sears and Roebuck building on Coral Way. It is one that -- it was actually -- somebody said it was super -sized, and so we came back and amended the application so that it is now only 14 stories tall. This is the new elevation, as opposed to the old elevation that was here before you, you know, at your first reading, and we continued it for three months. We redesigned it; came in with a much smaller building. Again, it's only 14 stories tall. It's a modest building, right in line with the rest of the buildings on Coral Way. In fact, it's smaller than many of the buildings on Coral Way. We have met with our neighbors, who are directly across the street. They are supportive of this project, and we would urge your approval. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, just -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission in reference to this item, please come forward. All right, seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to put it again on the record, there will be no exit on 22nd Terrace? Ms. Dougherty: That is absolutely correct. Commissioner Regalado: So, we had, Mr. Chairman, the whole debate and explanation, and the only thing 1 can say is that sometimes it works to engage in a debate with the developer and the developer representative because it really work. It work for them and it work for the resident. It was too big, too high, and they came back. It seems to me that they think it's economically feasible, and aesthetically, it's much, much, much better, so I'll move the ordinance in second reading. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Madam City Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. 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 Gonzalez: OK. PZ.10 is a companion item. We need -- Ms. Thompson: Resolution. Chairman Gonzalez: A res -- it's a resolution. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. I think we already presented it. This is the actual MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) -- City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- and for you, Commissioner Regalado, this is where they tie themselves to the plans that show no ingress and egress on 22nd Terrace. Commissioner Regalado: OK. I'll move the resolution, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion -- Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Those opposed have the same right. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. PZ.10 05-00769a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE MILE PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3622 SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET; 3605, 3615 AND 3625 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 164-FOOT, 14-STORY HIGH MIXED USE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 119 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 3,079 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 166 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES; 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 97 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-00769a Outside Cover.PDF 05-00769a Inside Cover.PDF 05-00769a Table of Contents.PDF 05-00769a Article I - Project Information.PDF 05-00769a I -A Letter of Intent.PDF 05-00769a I-B Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF 05-00769a I-C Zoning Write-Up.PDF 05-00769a I-D Zoning Atlas.PDF 05-00769a I-E Project Data Sheet.PDF 05-00769a I-F Deed - Computer.PDF 05-00769a I-G Ownership List.PDF 05-00769a I-H State of Florida Documents.PDF 05-00769a I-1 Owner Authorization Letter.PDF 05-00769a I-J Directory of Project Principals.PDF 05-00769a Article II - Project Description.PDF 05-00769a Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 05-00769a III -Tab 1 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 05-00769a III -Tab 2 Traffic Impact Study.PDF 05-00769a III -Tab 3 Site Utility Study.PDF 05-00769a III -Tab 4 Economic Impact Analysis.PDF 05-00769a III -Tab 5 Survey of Property.PDF 05-00769a III -Tab 6 Drawings Submitted.PDF 05-00769a Legislation.pdf 05-00769a Exhibit A.pdf 05-00769a Exhibit B.pdf 05-00769a Analysis.pdf 05-00769 & 05-00769a Zoning Map.pdf 05-00769 & 05-00769a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00769a Pre -Application Design Review Comments.pdf 05-00769a Miami -Dade Aviation Dept Comments.pdf 05-00769a School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 05-00769a PAB Reso.pdf 05-00769a Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for The Mile Project LOCATION: Approximately 3622 SW 22nd Street; 3605, 3615 and 3625 SW 22nd Terrace APPLICANT(S): Key Real Estate Development Corp., Contract Purchaser and M Three Corp., Owner APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on September 7, 2005 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 05-00769. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of The Mile project. City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0131 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.9 for minutes referencing Item PZ.10. PZ.11 04-00576b RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13, 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE METROPOLITAN MIAMI - MET 2 PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 200 SOUTHEAST 2ND STREET, 200 AND 300 SOUTHEAST 3RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MUSP (RESOLUTION NO. 05-0351) TO PRIMARILY ALTER THE USES ON TRACT C OF THE METROPOLITAN MIAMI PHASED PROJECT. THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO TRACT C ENTAIL THE ELIMINATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE OFFICE COMPONENT (FROM 9,000 SQUARE FEET TO 700,000 SQUARE FEET), AND RE -INTRODUCTION OF A 400-UNIT HOTEL COMPONENT. THE TWO -TOWER PROPOSAL HEREIN BRINGS THE FLOOR AREA USE TOTALS FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT TO 1,194 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 964,010 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL SPACE, 3,689 PARKING SPACES, AND 400 HOTEL UNITS; 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 99 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 04-00576b Outside Cover.pdf 04-00576b Table of Contents.pdf 04-00576b Introduction.pdf 04-00576b Application for Major Use Special Permit.pdf 04-00576b Legal Description.pdf 04-00576b Disclosure of Ownership.pdf 04-00576b Ownership Affidavit.pdf 04-00576b Directory of Project Principals.pdf 04-00576b Zoning Atlas Map.pdf 04-00576b Future Land Use Map.pdf 04-00576b Aerial and Location Map.pdf 04-00576b Ownership List.pdf 04-00576b Project Data Sheet and Summary.pdf 04-00576b Summary of Approvals.pdf 04-00576b Ownership and Tax Information.pdf 04-00576b Corporate Information.pdf 04-00576b Article II - Project Description.pdf 04-00576b Survey.pdf 04-00576b Site Plan and Drawings.pdf 04-00576b Traffic Impact Statement.pdf 04-00576b Site Utility Study.pdf 04-00576b Economic Impact Study.pdf 04-00576b Minority Construction Employment Plan.pdf 04-00576b Archeological and Historical Assessment.pdf 04-00576b Legislation.pdf 04-00576b Exhibit A.pdf 04-00576b Exhibit B.pdf 04-00576b Analysis.pdf 04-00576b Zoning Map.pdf 04-00576b Aerial Map.pdf 04-00576b HEPB Reso.pdf 04-00576b Miami -Dade Aviation Dept Letter.pdf 04-00576b FDOT Sufficiency Letter E-mail.pdf 04-00576b School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 04-00576b PAB Reso.pdf 04-00576b URS Sufficiency Letter.pdf 04-00576b Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit Substantial Modification for the Metropolitan Miami - Met 2 Project LOCATION: Approximately 200 SE 2nd Street, 200 and 300 SE 3rd Street APPLICANT(S): MDM Residences, LTD, MDM Retail, LTD, P & G Development Tract C Development, LTD and P&G Development, LTD APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* of a Certificate of Appropriateness to City of Miami Page 100 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 City Commission on June 15, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on January 4, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a substantial modification for the Metropolitan Miami - Met 2 project. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0130 Chairman Gonzalez: We have -- in order, we have PZ9 and 10, but that's in Commissioner Regalado's district and he's not here yet, so let's go to PZ.11. Is anybody here from staff? Unidentified Speaker: Where's the staff? Commissioner Sanchez: PZ 11. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.11, Lourdes. Commissioner Sanchez: That's Johnny's. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. He said -- Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ.11. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 11 is a consideration of a substantial modification to a Major Use Special Permit for the Metropolitan Miami - Met 2 project. As you recall, this is one of four blocks that was originally approved as One Miami. The One Miami and Metropolitan Miami bifurcated, and this is now a modification to Met 2. Met 2 was originally approved as a residential project primarily. The substantial modification before you today is to reduce the residential and then add -- convert it to office, to 700,000 square feet of office, a 400-unit hotel component, and that brings the totals of the entire project, which is all three blocks, to 1,194 residential units, 964,010 square feet of nonresidential space, and 3,689 parking spaces with the new 400 hotel units. This project was recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning Advisory Board, approval with conditions by the Planning Department -- let me get to the conditions. The design related conditions associated with this -- also, just so you know, this is in an archeological zone, and the project did go before the HEP (Historical and Environmental Preservation) board and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions about the archeological management plan. The design -related conditions are that the pedestrian sidewalk realm shall remain at a consistent height throughout; vehicles shall rise to the sidewalk level with ramping beginning at the outer edge of the curb. The reason for this is to make sure that, as pedestrians walk around the project, they're not changing levels where there's driveways. The vehicles need to be the ones that change levels, and that area shall be maintained with a consistent recognizable pattern, which shall continue across the vehicular entrances, and with that, we recommend approval. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Before we go into your presentation, we need to sworn [sic] in City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 the people that are going to be speaking on the Planning and Zoning items. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): If there are any individuals that were not sworn in already and you'll be giving testimony on our P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, go ahead. Tony Recio: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Tony Recio, with law offices at 2665 South Bayshore Drive. I'm here on behalf of MDM Residences, MDM Retail, P&G Development, and P&G Tract C Development Corp, LLC. I'm joined here by my partner, Gil Pastoriza, as well as Richard Eichinger, our traffic engineer, and Mr. John Nichols, who is our architect. I know you have a long agenda tonight, so I will be extremely brief in presenting this, and if you have any questions, we'll address them accordingly. I just want to give you a brief overview. This project has been before you about five times. This is where -- we're trying to break the record for the most MUSPs (Major Use Special Permits) to be on the same property, and it's because the project has changed as the market conditions have changed. This is the project right here, encompassing three city blocks right at the epicenter of downtown Miami. This first city block, which is what we consider Tract B, includes a residential tower and an entertainment complex. Again, this was all approved. It's gone through several incarnations, but this Tract B residential tower is already permitted and it's under construction. They're about eight stories up, in fact. This portion here, which is what they call Tract D, has a residential tower as well, as well as a parking garage, a supermarket, and some other uses, such as health club uses. This project was already approved, already under -- they're about to start the foundation work They're about to get their foundation permit. What we are focusing on today is Tract C, which is the last remaining piece of this development here, and Tract C was originally approved as a residential tower, much like the other two. However, because of market -- changes in market conditions, we've gone a different direction here, and what we're proposing here is a 700,000 square foot office building, which is what you see in front of you, with a dramatic design that will be a gateway feature, basically, for people coming off of I-95 into downtown Miami. Also, there is a hotel component to this, and that's what we're presenting before you, and like 1 said before, we're here to answer any questions that you may have, but since you've seen this so many times and you have a long agenda, I want to keep this very brief. I know that Mr. Bass wants to say a few words. He represents the -- a neighboring property owner, and we -- you know, we've been working with Mr. Bass. He's going to talk about traffic issues, and we are aware of his concerns, and we've been trying to work with City staff to get this fixed, as well as FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) and -- there are a lot of parties involved regarding the traffic in this little area, and we want to make sure that -- it's a citywide issue; we want to make sure that we address all of that. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, thank you. Yes, sir. Jeffrey Bass: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good afternoon. Jeffrey Bass is my name; 46 Southwest 1st Street is my address, and I'm an attorney, and 1 represent Crescent Miami Center, the owner of the building called the Miami Center, and I'm joined today by Maggie Vassilaros from Crescent, who is sort of the face of Crescent, and I'd really just like to make a few brief points. Number one, I'd like to thank this applicant, who served as a model for how a developer/applicant should work with neighboring stakeholders. You call them, they call you right back You ask for something, they get it to you. You have an issue, they discuss it with you, and they pledge their cooperation, and that is what they've done. We are a stakeholder in City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 downtown as the Miami Center. We are a pioneering Class A office building. We were there before a lot of people, and we are very committed to making downtown the highest functioning downtown area that it could possibly be. The change that before you is a change in use from residential to office, and what we all know, whether you're a traffic engineer or just a person on the street, office buildings move differently than residential buildings, the way the traffic comes and goes. We're not here to tell you anything about this project in particular, but we're here to use this opportunity to ask you, on behalf of Crescent and the other significant stakeholders, we need to know how we're going to handle the road way network in downtown, and we're going to need to know how the road way network in downtown is going to handle this project in its change in use, as well as those other projects which are approved and underway, approved and not yet underway, and otherwise committed. Now, as Mr. Recio told you accurately, there're a lot of agencies involved. There's FDOT, there's the City. There are studies underway. Crescent has been at every meeting, every workshop. We've hired our own traffic engineer. You have a model, a simulation model that sort of runs how traffic is supposed to move, but that model doesn't show this change of use from residential to office, and the other models that the City has generated don't show that change of use, and there are some other things that they don't show that are important, like where are the driveways? How do the driveways on this project line up with the other projects? Because this developer is a very smart developer; they built their project to work one way, two ways, this way or that way. A lot of the existing and older office buildings, with their parking structures, are facing some significant challenges in the event that the alignment of the roads and the flows either go two-way or change direction, and these are very serious issues. As you own an office building, your number one objective is to keep your tenants happy. They have a right to know, we have a right to know, you all have a right to know how are the roads going to work downtown. Now, 1 was hoping, although Commissioner Winton's not here, that 1 could make a very modest request, and that is to have the City get the stakeholders in downtown, the office building owners, together with the City's representatives, together with all of the traffic expertise that all of we individual office owners have already dedicated and let's update the model, let's let the model show the existing state of affairs, let's let the model show where the curb cuts are coming to avoid problems in the future, because this guy's garage doesn't line up with her garage and doesn't line up with where the signal is, because the viability of downtown depends on it being an easy place to work, and if it stops to become an easy place to work, people are going to continue to do what they've done recently, and move to the Gables. I keep my office in downtown. We want to keep office people in downtown. Obviously, this developer is committed to keeping office people in downtown, but there's only so much we could do without the City's help to bring everybody together, so we're here, they're here; 1 know other developers are here, and we would ask that this City take the leadership role, command us to all together with the City's traffic planners, with the FDOT representatives, and let's, once and for all, resolve this issue. I thank you for your attention now, just like you've given me this attention previously on these other phases, and we're here to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. You wanted rebuttal? Mr. Recio: No. I just want to say we're fully in support of moving this along. We had -- we realize we're building a building that has to live in this area, and we're filly supportive of that. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Suzanne Beni: Just briefly. Suzanne Beni, with offices at 1441 Brickell Avenue, on behalf of Wachovia Tower. Just to reiterate that we concur with what Mr. Bass has said, and in addition, we had a letter saying that prior to them filing any amendment, their predecessor and interest, you know, sent us a letter stating that if there's any amendment or any change to the project that they would consult with us, adjacent property owners, so that's exactly what we're looking to do, to get together and make sure the traffic patterns, everything is in order, so that's it. City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Very good. All right, let me clear the record. Before Commissioner Winton left to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) meeting, I asked him if he want any of the items to be deferred to later this afternoon. He said, no; hear the items and proceed with the items, so you know that, you know, that's why we're making decisions on the cases, OK? So, is anybody else in the public that wants to talk on this item? OK, hearing none, I want to close the public hearing. It comes back to the Commission, and 1 don't know if any of the Commissioners have a question or they want to make a motion or -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I actually have a question, Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Couple -- just a couple of items -- questions on this item, but on -- 1 guess I want to direct this to our sitting in City Manager, Otto. The request that they're making now regarding some type of study or something that needs to be put in place to make sure we don't create serious traffic jams downtown, what are we doing right now to work with both groups to make sure that that happens? Otto Boudet-Murias (Chief Planning and Economic Development): Through the Chairman, Commissioner, we've been working with all the stakeholders, and we've actually -- have modeling done for the area. If you want more details on that, Mary Conway can address those issues specifically, but we have been working with the stakeholders and their transportation consultants -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Boudet-Murias: -- with our transportation consultants modeling the traffic patterns in that area to address the very concerns being brought forth. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So what they brought today, what he just spoke on now, is actually being done; is that what you're saying? Mr. Boudet-Murias: That is correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So he's just -- really just putting this on the record to make sure that it happens before the project moves? Mr. Bass: Well, if I could, through the Chair, we want just some resolution. The studies are ongoing, and things sort of need a big push to resolution. We keep continuing to study this forever. We just need resolution. Which way are the streets going to go, and when will that decision be made? Because we can spend a lot more -- yes, and Otto's great, and your team is great, and there's just a lot of people involved, but ultimately, we come to a point where, if we have all the information, which I think we do at this point in time, it needs to be synthesized, and then the policymakers, you all, have to make a decision as to what's going to happen, and we just kind of want to hasten that along so that we can start to tell people and actually plan it -- and I think this developer will concur -- they need to plan and know which way the streets are going to run. Commissioner Spence -Jones: May -- staff -- can -- yeah. Mary Conway: Mary Conway, CIP (Capital Improvement Programs) & Transportation. It is accurate that we have been working exhaustively regarding the traffic modeling in this entire area, in association with the traffic recirculation project in the four -block area. We just recently, in January, submitted the final draft report to the Department of Transportation. It has also been provided to the traffic engineers for Miami Center and the other developers in the City of Miami Page 104 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 immediate area. We're waiting for DOT's (Department of Transportation's) comments on that report before scheduling what should be the final TAC, Technical Advisory Committee, meeting for the PD&E (Project Development & Environment) study for the recirculation project. After which, we'll be able to schedule the public hearing, and hopefully, move this project from study into design and then implementation and construction. Chairman Gonzalez:. And that's basically what you're asking, right? Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, basically, your question is being answered now regarding the issue of traffic? I'm talking about stakeholders. Basically, that's -- Mr. Bass: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with the clarification that the model that we're talking about isn't a model that shows this as office. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Bass: The model is pre -change. The model shows this as residential, so you know, things move quickly in the City -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Bass: -- and the value of a model based on outdated or wrong data is not a model that we all deserve, so you know, now that we're back here, now that I think you're about to approve this unanimously -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Bass: -- if we have a model that shows this as residential, 1 really don't think we should be basing our decisions on it. The model should show it as office, which is what this applicant is asking you to do, and then let's move forward, actually looking at how the office use, as compared to the residential, affects the roadway network in these areas. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, Commissioner Sanchez. Are you done? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Otto -- I mean -- Mr. Boudet-Murias: Sorry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. It seems as though staff is addressing those issues in the new Commissioner Sanchez: No. He's asking -- he has a very valid -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I just want to be -- I want to be clear before 1 vote on anything, so that's why -- Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I'm hearing that it was -- these plans show new office space, right? They're not showing residential now, right? Correct? Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Mr. Recio: That's correct. City of Miami Page 105 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Slazyk: What -- I was just actually speaking to Mary and Otto, and I think a reasonable condition, based on, you know, the information and the model and all the information you received today, that it would be a reasonable condition to attach to this substantial modification that the applicant's traffic consultants update that model, based on their change of program. That's a -- Mr. Recio: That's fine. Ms. Slazyk: -- condition you can add on the record -- Mr. Recio: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: -- and I believe it's reasonable -- Mr. Recio: Well, we've reviewed it, yeah. Ms. Slazyk: -- or that they pay the dfferential costs for our consultant to update the model -- Mr. Recio: That's fine. Ms. Slazyk: -- but this way, we'll make sure that the model is updated. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Recio: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: That sounds fair. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sounds good. Mr. Recio: That's -- Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Ray Charles. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bass, you're a class act, you are. Maybe this is a sign that truly the building boom in Miami is slowing down, as you're seeing a lot of the Central Business District changing from residential to businesses. We are facing a significant challenge in downtown. I think we have debated back and forth. As our downtown continues to change, you know, what would be the future of downtown when we -- pertain to traffic and getting transit from point A to point B? I do agree that with all these changes, we need to have a plan, and we definitely have to have all the shareholders at the table to assure that we do plan and we do have a good plan in place to create a movable transit downtown, because that's going to be the future of downtown with all these development, whether it's residential or businesses. You're right, there are a lot of people that need to sit at the table, FDOT, the City, and all the studies that have been going back and forth. Every time that we've had a development in that specific area of our city, they all come in with traffic studies. What we do need to have is to -- maybe if we get all those studies together -- because downtown is a disaster to get around. I think anyone who will come here will tell you that to get around downtown, it is a disaster. You end up turning one way, and to get to one point, you've got to City of Miami Page 106 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 make 15 turns, and I think the future of downtown, if we're going to be able to continue to attract world -class development and world -class businesses to our great city, we're going to have to have one shoe that fits all of us, so I do encourage the Administration to sit down with all the shareholders and continue on that path to create a transit movable, connectable downtown, so that's it, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Yes. On two questions regarding traffic. One question is who has the ultimate decision on the closing and opening hours of the Brickell Bridge? Ms. Conway: Mary Conway, CIP & Transportation. The United States Coast Guard has the ultimate jurisdiction. Commissioner Regalado: OK, because -- I mean, everybody knows that most of the gridlock in that area is because of the Brickell Bridge operation, so has the City requested specific -- Ms. Conway: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- times? Have they responded? Ms. Conway: Yes. The Department of Transportation and the Coast Guard have worked very proactively with the City and the constituency. There are restrictions during the morning, lunch time, and PM period peak hours regarding the bridge openings. However, there are exceptions for tugs that are towing vessels because of the navigation issues associated with low tide and high tide, but there are restrictions that are currently in effect, and further, the recirculation project that 1 referenced earlier, a fundamental purpose of that is that to convert 3rd Street from one-way to two-way operations so that when the Brickell bridge is in the up condition, that there will be uninterrupted access from the interstate system in and out of this portion of the Central Business District. It won't have an impact on the Brickell side, but it will have a significant impact on this side. Commissioner Regalado: And are we going to do this soon? Ms. Conway: We would hope so, but that's a fundamental next step. As soon as we're able to get this project successfully through the public hearing in the next several months, we will be petitioning the Metropolitan Planning Organization, on which Commissioner Winton is a representative, where he is right now, to add this project into their financially feasible long-range plan and their five-year plan. The City has set aside some monies for the design and construction of the project. We would like the County and the State to also be funding participants, but we have to get to the public hearing first -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Conway: -- before we can. Commissioner Regalado: I know that, Mary, but what I'm asking is, the last part of your answer is the two-way street, which can be easily done, and the reason I'm asking is because we're only 90 days away from hurricane season. Suppose that we have a storm watch. The Coast Guard will be opening the bridge for many, many long hours for vessels on the bay to come into the river, so the question is where do we go, because you have to exit here, there, or up? Maybe we can use our helicopter, but the thing is that we need to be thinking on the next hurricane season, because I mean, all the experts are saying it's going to be similar or worse or earlier than this hurricane season. I mean, it's there for everybody, and 1 think that's another -- an issue that we have to look You know, think ahead. It's only 90 days away. The other issue is, one of the City of Miami Page 107 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 things that has downtown -- or people saying that traffic in downtown is so bad is because all the potholes in every streets in downtown. I mean, like we complain -- Commissioner -- Chairman and 1 about me -- him, Allapattah, and me, in Flagami, of potholes in the street. Well, downtown is worse -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- than those streets, and 1 was wondering, if we decide to fix it, how do we do it? Because if we have to -- if we do it all at the same time, well, then, it's major gridlock, and -- but if we do it piece by piece -- so these are just details. It's not the big picture, but these are details of the problems and the complaints of the people, but I do think that you need to get in touch with the Coast Guard and say, well, what if you guys decide to have this bridge open for usually 18 hours all day? What is going on, if we have to evacuate downtown? Because you never know, so that's -- that was my traffic issue. The other issue is with developers. Is that -- that is the same project that you need to sign a covenant with the state of Florida because of the Tequesta? Mr. Bass: Yes, yes. Commissioner Regalado: You did. Mr. Bass: Yeah. We signed a covenant; it's been submitted to the State; the State actually returned it signed. Commissioner Regalado: What are you going to do with them? Mr. Bass: With the human remains? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Bass: I'll show you. In between -- I hope you can see here. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Bass: Commissioner, in between the residential tower, at this end of the project, on the east end of the project, and then the -- there is a four-story entertainment complex here. There is a 57 foot plaza, 57-feet wide, which is going to be a pedestrian plaza. Within that plaza, there's going to be landscaped open space areas that are not accessible to human traffic. They're going to be cordoned off, and those -- and in those areas, we've agreed with the State and with the two Indian tribes, the Miccosukee and the Seminoles to reenter all of the human remains that are found on this entire site in those areas. That's the agreement that we've come up with. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So it's like a memorial -type -- Mr. Bass: A memorial. However, it's not going to be -- there aren't going to be any plaques -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Bass: -- or anything designating that because it -- both tribes -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No tombs -- Mr. Bass: -- were adamant about -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Bass: -- not, you know, making this a spiritual memorial, but not a public memorial. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Any further questions from the Commission? Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. I just --1 have a question, though. Just a -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I second it so we can be done with it? Chairman Gonzalez. All right. We have a motion and a second. You have a question. Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. I just wanted to -- with all the major, you know, things that are happening from a development side in Miami, I just really want to make sure that we're doing everything that it takes for us to make sure we reach beyond just our projects. You mentioned that there was a hotel that was attached to it, which I'm assuming is going to provide at least jobs in the area, correct? Mr. Bass: That's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Also, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of jobs that are just, in general, that are going to come from the new project that you guys are going to put there, correct? Mr. Bass: That's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to make sure that 1 at least put with you guys this morning to try to find a way to make sure that we reach out -- I know, through the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) office, for instance, we have this initiative that we're doing called first source hiring, so 1 would really like to encourage that you do that so that our residents from -- throughout the whole city can benefit from all this stuff that's happening within the City -- Mr. Bass: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so I'd like to see that at least happen. Mr. Bass: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. Mr. Bass: Excellent. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This is a resolution. Ms. Slazyk: Let me just clarfbifor the record, this includes the new condition, that the applicant fund the cost associated with rerunning the traffic modeling to accurately reflect the change of City of Miami Page 109 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 use. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Slazyk. Correct? Chairman Gonzalez: Correct, with conditions. Ms. Slazyk: With conditions. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. Let's go back to PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Mr. Bass: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry? PZ.12 06-00086 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE LIMA PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2919 AND 2937 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND 330 NORTHEAST 30TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 473-FOOT, 41-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 207 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 7,544 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; IN ADDITION TO EXISTING 30,430 SQUARE FEET (OFFICE) AND 10,150 SQUARE FEET (RETAIL) USES; AND APPROXIMATELY 363 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES; 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 110 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 06-00086 Outside Cover.PDF 06-00086 Inside Cover.PDF 06-00086 Table of Contents.PDF 06-00086 Article I - Project Information.PDF 06-00086 Letter of Intent.PDF 06-00086 Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF 06-00086 Zoning Write-Up.PDF 06-00086 Zoning Atlas.PDF 06-00086 Aerial -Context Aerial.PDF 06-00086 Project Data Sheet.PDF 06-00086 Deed-Computer.PDF 06-00086 Ownership List.PDF 06-00086 State of Florida Documents.PDF 06-00086 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 06-00086 Article 11 - Project Description.PDF 06-00086 Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 06-00086 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 06-00086 Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 06-00086 Site Utility Study.PDF 06-00086 Economic Impact Study.PDF 06-00086 Survey of Property.PDF 06-00086 Drawings Submitted.PDF 06-00086 Legislation.pdf 06-00086 Exhibit A.pdf 06-00086 Exhibit B.pdf 06-00086 Analysis.pdf 06-00086 Zoning Map.pdf 06-00086 Aerial Map.pdf 06-00086 Miami -Dade Aviation Dept Letter.pdf 06-00086 School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 06-00086 PAB Reso.pdf 06-00086 Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Lima Project LOCATION: Approximately 2919 and 2937 Biscayne Boulevard and 330 NE 30th Street APPLICANT(S): 2937 Ferrari, LLC and 2915 Biscayne, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* (excluding condition 11a and modification of 11g in the Development Order) to City Commission on January 4, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Lima project. City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 2 - Commissioner Winton and Spence -Jones R-06-0132 Chairman Gonzalez: Let's go to PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 12. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 12. Chairman Gonzalez: We did 11. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Let's go to PZ 12. Ms. Slazyk: PZ.12 is a Major Use Special Permit for the Lima project. This is located at 2919 and 2937 Biscayne Boulevard, and 330 Northeast 30th Street. This is for a 41-story high mixed -use structure. It will have approximately 207 multifamily residential units, 7,500 -- 7,544 square feet of retail space, in addition to an existing 30,430 square foot office building; 10,150 square foot retail uses, and a total of 363 parking spaces. This was -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: -- recommended for approval by the Planning Department with conditions, and the Planning Advisory Board had recommended approval with conditions -- Chairman Gonzalez: We don't -- Ms. Slazyk: -- excluding -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- have a quorum. Ms. Slazyk: Oh, sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: We lost quorum. We lost quorum. All right, go ahead. Ms. Slazyk: The Planning Advisory Board had recommended approval with conditions, excluding condition 11a and mod Eying condition 11g in your packet, and the Planning Department had agreed with those because they were completed already, and the package before you includes those changes. There are still a few outstanding design -related conditions, including Northeast 29th Terrace; has to terminate the Vista onto a feature in the building, a corner architectural feature, or a line with the proposed driveway. This is something that the applicant has already been working with us on. We haven't approved a final solution yet, but they are willing to work on -- keep working on that; B, bring all the sidewalk materials over the vehicular entrances to form a continuous pedestrian surface; (c), design the palm trees within the plaza extending to Biscayne in a row; (d), the plaza should not include a driveway to Biscayne Boulevard as this severely impacts the public space and pedestrian realm; (e), the concrete sidewalk along Biscayne Boulevard should be continued to the face of the building to provide a wide sidewalk; awnings or other structure can protrude over the space for definition, if desirable, and (fl, the parking pedestal louver screening, and the aluminum balcony railings should match the concrete facade of the Technomarine building in color and pattern, but not material. Originally, we had asked that they do the same material, but the concrete would be City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 difficult, so we're willing to accept the same pattern. Other than that, we recommend approval. Chairman Gonzalez: Is there opposition to this item? There's no opposition. OK, go ahead. Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the property owner 2915 Biscayne LLC. With me here today is our architect, Kobi Karp Architects, and Jennifer McConney, as well as our landscape architect Seraj Saba with Kimley-Horn; our traffic engineer, Tom Schlosser -- I mean, Sonia Shreffer-Bogart; our economic consultant, Tom Schlosser, and my colleague, Javier Aviiii6. We're requesting your approval of this project. If you'd like, we can walk you through the building; otherwise, we would just request your approval. We've had recommendations of approval, and we accept the conditions placed by staff. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, with conditions. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Ms. Pardo: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Commissioner Sanchez: That was a -- counsel, that was a great presentation. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, it was a great presentation. We did PZ.13 this morning. PZ.13 06-00122 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE AN ALLEY LOCATED WEST OF NORTHWEST 47TH AVENUE, SOUTH OF NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." 06-00122 Legislation.pdf 06-00122 Exhibit A.pdf 06-00122 Planning Analysis.pdf 06-00122 Zoning Map.pdf 06-00122 Aerial Map.pdf 06-00122 Public Works Analysis.pdf 06-00122 Public Works Letter.pdf 06-00122 ZB Reso.pdf 06-00122 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00122 Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of an Alley LOCATION: Approximately West of NW 47th Avenue, South of NW 7th Street City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 APPLICANT(S): Sorimar Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Dean S. Warhaft, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on March 3, 2005 by a vote of 7-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 9, 2006 by a vote of 9-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-06-0129 Chairman Gonzalez: Before we -- Vice Chairman Winton: OK, I'm sorry. Chairman Gonzalez.: -- break for lunch, I have one item that I need to bring up. It's going to be a quick one because I think there is no opposition on the item. It's PZ.13. The people here from PZ.13. We need to clariA) the record because on the item, it says that it is an official vacation and closure of an alley, and that is -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- not correct. What they're doing is -- Ms. Slazyk: Dedicating a new one. Chairman Gonzalez: -- they're moving the alley. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: And I had a lot of -- and let me tell you, I was going to defer the item -- this item because it was not written the way it is, and 1 had a lot of calls from the neighborhood complaining because they thought that we were closing the alley and we're not closing the alley; we're moving the alley from the center of the lot to the right -- Ms. Slazyk: Correct, and let -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- and the access on the back will continue to be there. City of Miami Page 114 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Slazyk: Right. When we did the briefing yesterday, 1 wasn't sure if they were actually dedicating it as right-of-way or dedicating an easement. I did get confirmation this morning that it is a dedicated right-of-way, so it is indeed closing an alley to open a new one, but it's basically moving the alley. It's like you said. Chairman Gonzalez: Moving the alley. Ms. Slazyk: The way these items are advertised, because officially, it is closing one to open a new one -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- it had to be advertised this way, but you're a hundred percent correct. The request is to vacate and close this alley. However, there is a dedication of a brand-new alley, which has been through the technical review, and we found it to be definitely in the public benefit. Because the way the alley is situated now, service vehicles and emergency vehicles can't use it because it dead -ends. The new alley that's going to be opened is now going to make it useable for service and emergency vehicles, so it has been recommended for approval by every committee and board that it has gone to. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. You want to put something on the record? Dean Warhaft: Dean Warhaft, offices at 2841 Day Avenue. Thank you for hearing me out of order. 1 appreciate that. Essentially, as was already stated, basically, currently, there's a -- there's basically two things that are key with this, so that everybody understands, because obviously there is some confusion. The developer owns this lot, this lot, and this lot, and this is the existing alley right here. What they're proposing to do is move the alley to the end. Now, as you notice, this piece right here is not subdivided, so there's an existing alley here, and the existing alley runs down here, but it doesn't run through here, so essentially, everybody has been encroaching on this guy's property for all this time, garbage trucks and the like, so the new configuration, there'll be a dedication of this piece and there'll also be a dedication at this end, and in addition, in order to satisfy fire requirements, there's a 25-foot radius in this rear corner, so it creates a better configuration for the area. Thank you. Vice Chairman Winton: So you'll be able to -- the alleyway will go all the way -- Mr. Warhaft: Correct. It actually -- Vice Chairman Winton: -- through now. Mr. Warhaft: -- connects to 47th -- Vice Chairman Winton: OK, great. Mr. Warhaft: -- to the east. Vice Chairman Winton: Good. Chairman Gonzalez: You want to ask, Johnny, if there is opposition on the item? Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. Am I doing this? Oh, I'm sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: I don't think there is. City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Vice Chairman Winton: PZ.8 -- what item are we on? PZ.13 -- Mr. Warhafi: 13. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ.13. Ms. Slayk: 13. Vice Chairman Winton.: -- is a public hearing. Anyone from the public would like to comment on PZ.13? If not, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: I'll second. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. I need to turn to the page. What is it? Mr. Fernandez: It's a resolution. Chairman Gonzalez: It's a resolution. Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, it's a resolution. All in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Mr. Warhaft: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Winton: And Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: -- I have to go to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) board meeting at two. Chairman Gonzalez. OK. Vice Chairman Winton: 1 don't know when I will be back, so you know, y'all just have to continue on without me. Chairman Gonzalez: The items in your district, you want me to hold them? Vice Chairman Winton: No. You can go -- Chairman Gonzalez: No. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. No. Chairman Gonzalez: OK Very good. All right. Now we're going to stand in recess until -- what is the will of the Commission, 2:30, 3 o'clock? Two thirty will be fine? Until 2:30. Thank you very much. City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 PZ.14 05-01506 ORDINANCE Second 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 2370 NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01506 Legislation.pdf 05-01506 & 05-01506a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01506 Analysis.pdf 05-01506 Land Use Map.pdf 05-01506 & 05-01506a Aerial Map.pdf 05-01506 School Impact Review.pdf 05-01506 PAB Reso.pdf 05-01506 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01506 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01506 SR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" to "General Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 2370 NW 17th Avenue APPLICANT(S): YMCA Village Allapattah Phase I, LLC, Lessee and YMCA Greater Miami, Not For Profit Organization APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avirio, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 16, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 05-01506a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to General Commercial. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12772 Chairman Gonzalez: Let's go to PZ 14. City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Lourdes Sla-yk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.14 and 15 are second reading companion items for change in land use and zoning. This is for the property at 2370 Northwest 17th Avenue. The request is from major institutional, public facilities, transportation and utilities, and GI (government/institutional) to general commercial, which is a C-2 category. Was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board, approval by the Zoning Board, and approved by this City Commission first reading on January 26. Commissioner Sanchez: All right, this is an ordinance on second reading. Madam Applicant, you're recognized. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today with the owner and the applicant, which is ajoint venture between Biscayne Housing Group. The principals are Gonzalo DeRamon and Michael Cox and the Carlisle Group. You passed this on first reading. You may recall, this is the elderly housing, as well as the YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association). We're renting it from the YMCA, and I think you'll recall it, and we'd urge your approval on second reading. Commissioner Sanchez: All right, this is an ordinance on second reading. It requires a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. Chairman Gonzalez: I'll move -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Before you -- Commissioners, again, let -- stating for the record, the discussion and public hearing on Items PZ 14 and 15. Chairman Gonzalez: And 15. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, I'll move PZ.14. Commissioner Sanchez: All right, there's a motion -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: -- on PZ.14. The motion is made by Chairman Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Regalado. The item is under discussion. Hearing no discussion on the item, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ 15 is an ordinance. It's also on second reading. It's a companion item to PZ.14. City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: I'll move PZ.15. Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion on PZ.15. Is there a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. The motion is made by Chairman Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Spencer -Jones [sicJ. The item before going into discussion, it requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, for the record, coming back for a discussion. Hearing no discussion, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance on second reading into the record. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner 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. PZ.15 05-01506a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 19, 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 "G/I" GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL TO "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2370 NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01506a Legislation.pdf 05-01506 & 05-01506a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01506a Analysis.pdf 05-01506a Zoning Map.pdf 05-01506 & 05-01506a Aerial Map.pdf 05-01506a ZB Reso.pdf 05-01506a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01506a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01506a SR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from G/I Government and Institutional to C-2 Liberal Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 2370 NW 17th Avenue APPLICANT(S): YMCA Village Allapattah Phase I, LLC, Lessee and YMCA Greater Miami, Not For Profit Organization City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avirio, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 12, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 05-01506. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-2 Liberal Commercial. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12773 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.14 for minutes referencing Item PZ.15. PZ.16 05-00520b ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTION 610, SD-10 "MEDICAL HEALTH CARE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT", IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE UNDERLYING DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE THE C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AS A QUALIFYING UNDERLYING DISTRICT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00520b Legislation.PDF 05-00520b PAB Reso.PDF 05-00520b FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00520b SR Fact Sheet.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 December 21, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will modify Section 610 to include the C-2 Liberal Commercial District as a qualifying underlying district. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12774 City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 16 is a second reading ordinance amending the SD-10, medical health care, hospital and research park overlay district. This is in order to make sure that the C-2 property is particularly on the east side of the district right abutting 1-95 would qualify for the under -- as an underlying district for the SD-10 benefits. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and passed by the City Commission first reading in January. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 just have a -- Chairman Gonzales: All right, this is an ordinance and it requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please step forward. All right, seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 have a question. Chairman Gonzalez: OK You want to second for discussion or for -- ? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I want to have a question first. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, go ahead with your question. Commissioner Spence -Jones.' OK, and I think you might have answered it. I just want to be clear. This is -- this particular overlay district is off of 20th Street, correct? This is the biomedical -- Ms. Slazyk: This is the -- this is a special district that's already in place. It is -- the 20th Street is the northern boundary; 836 is the southern boundary; 14th Avenue is the west, and 1-95 to the east. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, it's basically both you and -- Ms. Slazyk. It's already -- yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, OK. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. It's -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so this is just extending it so it would include the -- Ms. Slazyk: The -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- little strip of land that you and 1 talked about? Ms. Slazyk: Right. The C-2 properties to the eastern side of the district, and that is for the purpose of the biotechnical research facility, which the Mayor's office has been working with the University of Miami on. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Ms. Slazyk: All right. Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to stay on this, and Otto and 1 have talked about this, and hopefully, once I get my official Miami 21 briefing -- because every time 1 turn around, I see one of these zoning items, this SD (Special District), SD, SD, SD. We got a million and one SDs, so I just -- how many SDs do we have for medical -- Ms. Slazyk: There are -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- health care, hospital? Ms. Slazyk: Well, that one, there's only one for them, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, just one? Ms. Slazyk: -- there's -- yeah. It's 29 total in the City, but theirs is just this one. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Second. Chairman Gonzalez. All right, we have a motion and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, please read the ordinance. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.17 05-01090 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY AMENDING CERTAIN POLICIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MIAMI21 PROJECT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO STATE AGENCIES AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01090 Legislation.PDF 05-01090 PAB Reso.PDF 05-01090 FR Fact Sheet 10-27-05.pdf 05-01090 FR Fact Sheet 11-03-05.pdf 05-01090 SR Fact Sheet 01-26-06.pdf 05-01090 SR Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf 05-01090 SR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544 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 incorporate language necessary for the implementation of the Miami21 project. CONTINUED Note for the Record: Item PZ. 17 was continued to a time certain for the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 23, 2006. PZ.18 05-01508 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 12, SECTION 1201, DUTIES OF CITY COMMISSION, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THAT CITY COMMISSION REVIEW OF ZONING BOARD DECISIONS IS BY HEARING DE NOVO; FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 20, STATUS OF DECISIONS OF ZONING BOARD; REVIEW BY CITY COMMISSION; COMMISSION POWERS, ETC., TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR A HEARING DE NOVO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01508 Legislation.PDF 05-01508 PAB Reso.PDF 05-01508 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01508 SR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000 Text APPLICANT(S): Joe Arriola, City Manager FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommend approval to City Commission on December 7, 2005 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This clarifies and codifies the long-standing practice of the City Commission in conducting their review of Zoning Board decisions by hearing de novo at the City Commission level. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12775 City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: All right, PZ. 18. I'm sorry -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): 17. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, 18. Lourdes Slayk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. 17 -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 17. Ms. Slazyk: -- just for the record, was continued to March -- Chairman Gonzalez: 1t was continued, right. Ms. Slazyk: -- 23. PZ 18 is also a second reading ordinance. If you remember, this is the one that our Law Department explained at first reading. This is in order to amend the language to allow de novo hearings before the City Commission on appeals, and it's also been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and passed by this Commission first reading in January. Chairman Gonzalez:: All right. This is an ordinance. It requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please come forward Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Have we move it yet or no? Ms. Thompson: No. Chairman Gonzalez. No, it hasn't been moved. Commissioner Regalado: OK. I have a question for the City Attorney on this ordinance. There have been -- and I show it to him -- some residents that are concerned about this ordinance, and I see one there, Judy. She and other residents have concern that this will cut off residents from coming before the City Commission. That's one issue, and that's the legal issue that we discussed. The timing of the hearing is another different issue, but I would like the City Attorney to, on the record, explain if what we're doing here helps or obstruct the people of the City from coming to -- before the City Commission in terms of zoning matters. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as explained to you earlier, resulting from the Morningside case, this Commission was put up to the task of having to act as judges in your appellate capacity, which means that appeals coming to you from the Zoning Board, you were very limited. You could only read the record below, hear arguments of counsel, or of representatives, and then you would make your decision. You would not, under the present circumstances we are -- and we will have one such case this afternoon -- you will not be able to take input from the citizens. By amending our ordinance and clarifying the intent of this Commission, it is very clear to the courts and to everyone else that this Commission values direct citizen input, and that their involvement and participation at the Zoning Board level is very valuable and very important. They need to start making the record there, but they will still have an opportunity for a full day in court, if you will, in front of you, because they will be able to individually present to you their perspective, their issues, their concerns, so by having this City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 ordinance in place and amending and clarifying our Zoning Ordinance, we continue to buttress the importance of neighborhoods and of citizens to this Commission. Commissioner Regalado: OK Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just wanted to add and -- so that I'm clear, too, regarding this whole issue, Mr. City Attorney, so you're saying, presently -- and once this is passed, then we're able to hear from any group that's -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- appealing an item, right? Mr. Fernandez: Items in front of you will be on a de novo basis. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Fernandez: Appeals from the Zoning Board will come to you for a full blast type of hearing. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK Mr. Fernandez: Everyone gets to speak, not just the attorneys. You're not limited just to what happened at the Zoning Board. You can hear things that the Zoning Board never heard -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- and make your decision on what you hear today or what you hear in front of you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, presently, we can only -- at this present time, until this is passed, we can only base it upon the information that we have received from the past? Mr. Fernandez: Exactly. You've had a few items before, and today you'll have Item 32, in which you will be acting as appellate judges, having read the record from below and limiting yourself to legal arguments of counsel, and that's it. Nobody can speak. You cannot hear anything different, nothing new, because the courts have put you in that predicament, something that I understand this Commission does not like, and that's why you're passing this amendatory ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Did I open the public hearing? Ms. Thompson: Yes, sir, you did. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, and 1 closed the public hearing, right? Ms. Thompson: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: I need a motion. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Judith Sandoval: Please. City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead, but you were not here when I opened the public hearing. You just walked in, right? Ms. Thompson: Then that being the case -- Ms. Sandoval: This issue, among others. Ms. Thompson: -- Chair -- thank you. Is there anyone else that needs to be sworn in that will be speaking on P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items that are coming before the Commission? If you are, I please need you to stand and raise your right hand so I can swear you in. Thank you. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me reiterate what I said this morning. I'm going to allow everyone two minutes -- anyone from the public two minutes. Attorneys will have more time to present their cases, but the general public will have two minutes, and please don't make me cut you off because I'm an educated person and 1 don't like to do that to no one, so don't force me to cut you off. Stick to your two minutes. 1 think two minutes, you're able to say a lot of things, if you organize your thoughts. Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am, you're recognized. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. What you just said is part -- Ms. Thompson: We need your name. We need your -- Ms. Sandoval: Oh, Judith Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25 Terrace. What you just said, which is long-standing practice at this Commission, is part of my complaint, because in practical terms, what this ordinance will do is allow the developer, who is always five steps ahead of us -- after all, we're citizens; we work; they get paid; that's their full-time job, to come before you with evidence that has not been heard at the Zoning Board and the Planning and Advisory Board They speak first at these meetings. They speak last. They can withhold information that we have no advanced notice to counter, until their last rebuttal, which we are not allowed to rebut. This is not parliamentary procedure followed in this body. It is very much to the disfavor of the residents expressing their rights to disagree with ordinances. It's just one more ordinance, one more method of the City government and most of the Commission to make it very difficult for citizens to protest against things we don't like to present our arguments. I think you should leave it as it is, and that the arguments from the City Attorney are not at all convincing to many of us. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez. I -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK 1 definitely want to add on that. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you, I think that you're totally confused. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: You're totally confused. The system that we're using now prevents you from talking at a hearing when there is an appeal, because we can only hear attorneys, OK We're changing to a system where everyone will have the right to speak at any of the hearings. Ms. Sandoval: But that's only -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's -- we're going back to that system that you precisely want now, and you want to keep the old one where you can't talk? Ms. Sandoval: Appeals is a diftrent situation from rezoning issues. Chairman Gonzalez: Well, rezoning issue is the same thing, you have the -- you are allowed to speak. Everyone is allowed to speak at any rezoning hearing. The general public is given two minutes, and that is something that is up to the Chairman of the Commission, the president of the Commission determines the time. The attorneys, they both have more time to present their cases, but they present the case and then they bring their witnesses, and their witnesses usually, most of the time, or 98 percent of the time will make a statements that would only repeat exactly what the attorney has been addressing, so it's a repetitive type of deal that I don't think nobody wants to hear the same thing over and over and over and over. Yes, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. The -- while this Commission must, under the law, have a level playing field for everyone, and must not discriminate against either developers or neighbors -- it must treat everyone equally and the same; that's what the law provides for. Clearly, the ordinance that you have in front of you today contemplates giving the neighbors and giving the individual citizens perhaps a second bite at the apple, a second opportunity -- Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- to make full cases, not only in front of the Zoning Board, but also in front of you. Chairman Gonzalez: In front of the Commission. Mr. Fernandez: If you do not pass this ordinance, everyone is limited to only one bite at the apple, one time in front of the Zoning Board, and the issue that this Commission, in its infinite wisdom, deems important and essential is that issues be vetted and it be fully discussed, not only at the Zoning Board or a panel of citizens appointed by you act and make a decision, and then it comes to you and you, as the final policy makers, elected officials, insist on making the final decision, but you want to make that final decision with input that's new, derent; it could be the same thing that they did at the Zoning Board, but gives for sure the neighbors a greater chance to double prepare their case or to counteract whatever it was that they heard or saw at the Zoning Board that they might not have been prepared or they might not have been ready to tackle and challenge at that time, so clearly, this ordinance, while I insist that this Commission deals with everyone, applicants and neighbors, in a very fair and equal basis, this, in my opinion, tends to give the benefit of the doubt and a second opportunity, as it were, to the individuals and to the neighbors. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Ms. Sandoval, 1 just want to add, too -- I think that both my colleagues have said it. I think that this is definitely going to give everyone the latitude to be able to have a second shot, and presently, the way that it is now is we have to base the decisions based upon whatever testimony was given to us the first time. Now, this gives us the opportunity to take more information in and to make a better decision, so this is the right direction. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you, Ms. Spence -Jones. I appreciate all of your input and the attorneys. In practical terms, what would really happen is that the onus will no longer be on the Zoning City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 and the PAB (Planning Advisory Board) boards; that their decisions will become ineffectual in this body; that the decisions for everything will be made by the Commission, and the Zoning Board's decisions can be so easily overruled. The Zoning and PAB boards are more and more taking the sides of the citizens against the City, because they also are citizens and they see what's happening to their neighborhoods, as well as ours. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next. Nina West: Nina West, 3690 Avocado Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm the communications director for Miami Neighborhoods United, but today I'm speaking as an individual citizen. I think we spend a lot of money on Planning Advisory Boards. 1 think we spend a lot of money on Zoning Boards. 1 don't think we need them anymore. I think we should have -- since it's going to be de novo, let's just have it here. Why are we spending the taxpayers' money for a review at the Planning Board or at the Zoning Board, because what is going to happen is what's happened in the past? They just reserve their argument for when they see the Commission. Now, the review process was only made known to this Commission after this court case came back. Until then, they had a review process, and before that, much of the arguments were withheld at the Planning Boards and the Zoning Boards by both of the developers, and then, when the citizens wised up, by the citizens, too, so 1 don't think we need the Planning Board. 1 don't think we need the Zoning Board. 1 don't think we need the Urban Design Review Board. These boards are expensive, time-consuming, and we are wasting then the time of the people who volunteer to do these -- to do this work, plus we are paying a goodly amount of salaries keeping our official -- our administrators up very late at night for Planning and Zoning meetings when they are totally unnecessary. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? All right, the public hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ.17? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir --18. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. Discussion. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 1-- first of all, I think that the Zoning and the Planning Board are necessary. Recently -- well, several month ago, there was an idea brought by the Administration to merge the Zoning and the Planning Board, and to set some standards that you have to be like a engineer or architect or something, and the Commission opposed it, and 1 would never, ever support that because I think it's part of the voice of the people, granted that the Commission makes the final decision, but the Zoning Board and the Hearing Board, and especially the fact that they are televised, are the conduit of the people to send the message to the City Commission. If the City Commission doesn't follow it, that's a different issue, but at least the City Commission knows and the Administration knows what the people want, and it's sort of like a chilling effect to -- and to me, I really enjoy seeing Planning and Zoning Boards meeting because I learn of the future cases that we all going to hear, because frankly, I have never been briefed on these zoning matters. I cannot talk to the developers. I cannot talk to the residents who are representing themselves [sic] because of Jennings, and very, City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 very rarely I get a briefing from the Administration in any zoning matter, so I think that we should support the Zoning and the Planning Boards. I would fight forever for the right of the people to come before this Commission. I think that probably, you know, when I chaired this Commission, I -- it was the first year that we had some changes in government, and 1 think -- I did wrong for my colleagues because I kept them here very long hours, but I guess that I didn't know how to stop the people from talking, so I'm glad I don't chair anything now because 1 know that 1 would do it, and I really think that it's important to streamline the agenda. 1 still have my concerns about this, Mr. City Attorney, but 1 think that the main concern that the people have is the timing of the items when they are heard. To hear a Major Use Permit or zoning change at 10 or 11 a.m. is sort of a back door passage because it's very dcult for people to be mobilized and be here. You never know when. You have to be here in the morning. You have to go have lunch. You have to come back, and you are at the mercy of the clock and the other people testing, and the agenda. It's very difficult, and this 1 am troubled with, and 1 don't know what is the solution, but I think that maybe this Commission sometimes should consider, well, let's do once a month Planning and Zoning only in one session and come around 5 o'clock. I mean, you rest a little in the morning, and you come at 5 o'clock, and you stay for a night, but my concern is -- and I'm really troubled, and I don't know what the solution is that people would think that we're trying to railroad the voice of the people before this Commission, because actually, this Commission has voted many, many, many, many times with the will of the people, when the people shows up here, and 1 can remember many, many instances --1 vividly remember the Stallone Gate, where we have here more than 500 people, and you know, you weren't here, and you weren't here, but you know, it worked, it worked. The people presented their case, so that's all 1 want to say. I'm -- I don't know what else to do, but I do think that somehow we need to gain again the trust of the people, and have the people believe that if they come, they can talk, and if they talk they can move the system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I just add to -- ? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Madam Clerk we have voted on this item already, right? Chairman Gonzalez-. Pardon me? Commissioner Spence -Jones: We did vote on this item, right? Chairman Gonzalez: We already did a motion and a second. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm just -- Chairman Gonzalez: We're going to need the City Attorney to read the -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Because we have some -- you have a citizen, that's all. Chairman Gonzalez: -- ordinance. The public hearing has been closed. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Closed. Unidentified Speaker: Oh, closed. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, that's what 1 was trying to -- City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, please read the ordinance. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.19 05-01524a ORDINANCE 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 3760 BIRD ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01524a Legislation.pdf 05-01524 & 05-01524a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01524a Analysis.pdf 05-01524a Land Use Map.pdf 05-01524, 05-01524a & 05-01524b Aerial Map.pdf 05-01524a School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 05-01524a PAB Reso.pdf 05-01524a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01524a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01524a SR Fact Sheet.pdf First Reading REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "General Commercial" to "Restricted Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 3760 Bird Road APPLICANT(S): Bird Ventures LLC, Owner and H&H Development, Co, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avif o, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 18, 2006 by a vote of 6-1. See companion File IDs 05-01524 and City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-01524b. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Bird Road Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton Chairman Gonzalez: PZ 19 -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 19 -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- first reading. Ms. Slazyk: -- is a companion item to PZ.20, and 1'll present them together, but they will require separate votes because they are ordinances: This is for a change of land use and zoning. The property is located at 3760 Bird Road. The request is from general commercial to restricted commercial, and the zoning is from a C-2 to a C-1. This has been recommended for denial by the Planning Department, approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and approval by the Zoning Board. The Department's recommendation of denial is due to the fact that this -- even though it meets the size requirements for the zoning and land use change, it's creating a restricted commercial category on a corridor that is general commercial, so it's not a spot zoning technically, but it is an isolated restricted commercial classification in a general commercial zone. The height limits are higher in a C-1, and it's got a potential for something that could be out of scale. This is accompanied by a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), which you'll see at the next meeting, and that would be the appropriate place to put conditions, but as a strick land use and zoning change, it's an isolated restricted commercial on this corridor. Commissioner Sanchez: Would it be safe to say that this is a technical denial? Ms. Slazyk: I've never heard it put that way, but -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well, there are soft denials. There's hard denials. Chairman Gonzalez: This is a -- Ms. Slazyk: A technical sounds good. Chairman Gonzalez: -- soft denial, 1 understand. Ms. Slazyk: Technical sounds good. Chairman Gonzalez: You know, the more I hear about this, the more confused I get -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- because it's a commercial zone; they want to do commercial, and the Administration don't want commercial. You know, I mean — you know, it's pretty hard to -- I guess it takes to be in the City of Miami for 20 years -- working for the City of Miami for 20 or twenty -some years to go that crazy, you know. Commissioner Sanchez: Planning Department -- Chairman Gonzalez: To go against your own rules and -- City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- against your own zoning and against your own, you know -- I mean -- Commissioner Sanchez: Planning Department -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- it's incredible. Commissioner Sanchez: -- recommends denial, and the Planning Advisory Board recommends approval to the City. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): On PZ 19 -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right, go ahead. Mr. Fernandez: -- right. Chairman Gonzalez. You're recognized, Lucia. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today with my client who owns the property, Harvey Hernandez, and the property is located on Bird Road. It's bounded by Bird Road on the north, 37th on the west -- no, excuse me -- 37th on the west, 37th Court on the east, and Peacock on the south, and it's an interesting site because it is directly across the street from the FP&L (Florida Power & Light) substation on Bird Road. What we're seeking is a change from C-2 general commercial to a more restrictive commercial of C-1, and the reason that we're asking for this is not because of density, because they're the same; not because of FAR (floor/area ratio) because they're exactly the same, but because there is height and that allows us to do a very interesting building as opposed to having monotone, 120 foot height limitation, and I'm just going to show you the -- this prop -- this again is the site. Along here we are proposing 120 feet, which is exactly what you can have in a current C-2 district. Along this area, which is to the west, is where we think the height ought to be; we're asking for 17 stories. Along the back, towards the Metrorail station, we're asking for only eight stories, and what we're asking to do -- and the Major Use Special Permit, which is on your next agenda, is being recommended for approval by the staff because they like the building. It is a true mixed -use building. It's residential. It's office. It's retail on the bottom floor. It is totally incorporated by liner uses. The parking and the loading is totally internalized in the project, and each side of the building looks different. In other words, if you look on the Peacock side, this is the office structure. It's only eight stories, and it looks like one building. If you go to the other side, which (INAUDIBLE) this is the 37th Avenue side, it's a little bit bigger, so it has undulating architecture much more interesting architecture than we could have if it was just a plain, flat C-2 commercial. Now, just (INAUDIBLE) -- sorry, I know. I'm going to read you the uses that are permitted in the general commercial, which is currently allowed. Secondhand items, automobile repair service, new and used vehicle sales, parking lots, garages, heavy equipment sales and service, building material sales and storage, wholesaling, wholesaling and distribution, transport of related services, light manufacturing, assembly. That's what the current uses that are permitted in this C-2. We believe that this area is changing. It is no longer a C-2 area. It's really a -- more of a C-1 local commercial, which permits -- and this is what we're asking for -- general activities that serve the daily retailing needs of the public, typically requiring easy access by auto, often located along arterial and collector roadways, which include retailing, personal and professional services, real estate, banking, and other financial services. Again, if you look right here, here's the Collection. This is the Collection, which is, you know, an office building at 180 feet. City of Miami Page 132 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: That's what I was going to ask you. That's the area where you have all these car dealers? Ms. Dougherty: Correct, but this is the Collection right here. We have a -- this is the -- our site, immediately next to it. We have a new retail area that's coming if here. This is going to be mixed -use. We're currently rezoning this whole entire area for mixed -use in Coral Gables. Again, everything from here on is allowed to be mixed -use in Coral Gables, so this is a new emerging neighborhood It is no longer appropriate, we believe, to have the kinds of commercial activities on Bird Road directly across the street, by the way, to residential, so we think that the land use amendment is appropriate. The staff is actually recommending approval of our Major Use Special Permit, which will be on second reading next month. Commissioner Sanchez: This -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: No. There's no opposi -- is there any opposition to this? Chairman Gonzalez: 1 don't think there is any opposition. Nina West: No, 1 have a question. Commissioner Sanchez: You have a question? Chairman Gonzalez: OK. That concludes your presentation, Lucia? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. I just wanted to mention, it is immediately next to the Metrorail site. Let me show you a photograph, that aerial photograph. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: Lucia, that's on the south side of Bird Road, right? Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Dougherty: It's on the south side. Commissioner Sanchez: Right. Ms. Dougherty: Here's your Metrorail parking garage. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Dougherty: It is immediately south of that, and if you're not -- if you're ever going to have something that has more density, more intensity, it should be right around your Metro. I'm sorry. Commissioner Sanchez: That area there is car dealers and car shops, and light industrial area, OK. It's -- OK. I got a better understanding of it now. Light industrial area, right? Ms. Dougherty: It's general commercial currently. We are going to restricted commercial. We're actually restricting the kinds of uses that we'd be permitted. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: That area is where Jimmy's Hurricane used to be, remember? Remember that hamburger place, Jimmy's Hurricane? Ms. Dougherty: 1 don't remember it. Commissioner Regalado: You're too young. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please come forward. Yes, ma'am. Ms. West: Nina West -- Chairman Gonzalez: You're recognized. Ms. West: -- 3690 Avocado Avenue. I just have a zoning question. I'm sure Lucia can answer it as easily as the -- probably the Planning Department. What is the difference in the density for residential between C-1 and C-2? Ms. Dougherty: The same. Ms. West: Is it the same? Ms. Dougherty: One hundred fifty units per acre. Ms. West: They're both the same FAR and everything else? Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Ms. West: OK, thank you. That's the only question. Chairman Gonzalez: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed It comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez. We have a second. It's an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, please read the ordinance. Mr. Fernandez: PZ 19. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: 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 134 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.20 is a companion. Commissioner Sanchez: No, that's 19, right? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. 20 -- Ms. Thompson: That was 19. Chairman Gonzalez: We voted on 19. Ms. Slazyk: -- is the companion. Chairman Gonzalez: Now we're doing 20. Commissioner Sanchez: OK, 20, OK Chairman Gonzalez: Hello? Commissioner Sanchez: I mean -- Ms. Thompson: I think that -- what Lourdes said for the record -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Thompson: -- was that 19 -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: It's -- so moved, so moved. Ms. Thompson: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This requires a public hearing again. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission, please come forward. All right, seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We have a motion. We need a second. Commissioner Sanchez: I did the motion. Ms. Thompson: Need a second. Chairman Gonzalez: Do we have a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzales: We have a second. It's an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll -- Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. City of Miami Page 135 Printed on 3117/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Thompson: -- 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. Commissioner Sanchez: Does it have -- Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: -- another companion item? Ms. Slazyk: No. Ms. Dougherty: No. Commissioner Sanchez: No. That's it? Ms. Dougherty: Next month you'll have a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Before we go to the next one, and we start setting up, this is a perfect -- you really have to understand that area to have a better understanding of it. That's on the south side. If it was on the north side -- Chairman Gonzalez: Um -hum. Commissioner Sanchez: -- where you have abutting residentials, which is a C-1, R-3, and even on some R-ls will be completely different The way it is designed now -- and the question that was asked, where they can benefit from the FAR (floor/area ratio) any bonuses -- I mean, if you were building the future of Miami in that area, this will be an ideal project for that because you're basically in a very light industrial with car dealerships, used car lots, body shops. You really have to drive through that area there and see that it's -- it welcomes this type of development, so I just wanted to state that for the record. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.20 -- I'm sorry. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. PZ.20 05-01524 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 47, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3760 BIRD ROAD, 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 136 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-01524 Legislation.pdf 05-01524 & 05-01524a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01524 Analysis.pdf 05-01524 & 05-01524b Zoning Map.pdf 05-01524, 05-01524a & 05-01524b Aerial Map.pdf 05-01524 ZB Reso.pdf 05-01524 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01524 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01524 SR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from C-2 Liberal Commercial to C-1 Restricted Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 3760 Bird Road APPLICANT(S): Bird Ventures LLC, Owner and H&H Development, Co, Contract Purchaser APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avii o, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended of approval to City Commission on December 12, 2005 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File IDs 05-01524a and 05-01524b. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed Bird Road Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.19 for minutes referencing Item PZ.20. PZ.21 05-01555 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 221 NORTHWEST 38TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 137 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-01555 Legislation.pdf 05-01555 & 05-01555a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01555 Analysis.pdf 05-01555 Land Use Map.pdf 05-01555 & 05-01555a Aerial Map.pdf 05-01555 PAB Reso.pdf 05-01555 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01555 FR Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf 05-01555 FR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Duplex Residential" to "General Commercial" to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 221 NW 38th Street APPLICANT(S): Alejandro C. Trasobares, Gregory M. Wood and Carlos Nunez, Owners APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Alejandro C. Trasobares, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 21, 2005 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 05-01555a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to General Commercial. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, with Vice Chairman Winton absent, and was passed unanimously to defer Item PZ.21 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 23, 2006. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ21. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): 21. PZ.2I and 22 are also companion items for a land use and zoning change. The property address is 221 Northwest 38th Street. The request is from duplex residential to general commercial. The companion zoning change is from R-2 to C-2. This has been recommended for approval by the Planning Department, approval by the Planning Advisory Board, and approval by the Zoning Board. If you look at the maps in your package, you'll see that this is a piece of property that only has access off of an alley. The - - this -- the grant of this change will un fy it with the property that's actually on 2nd Avenue and allow it to be developed cohesively, rather than a duplex on a site that's only got alley access, so we recommend approval. Chairman Gonzalez: all right. Is there anyone in opposition in this item? OK, I don't see any. Yes, sir, you're recognized. Alejandro Trasobares: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Alejandro Trasobares, 513 Northeast 38th Street. Come before you for consideration of change of a land use and zoning change for the subject property at 221 Northwest 38th Street. The subject property is contiguous to two commercial properties that face Northwest 2nd Avenue and which are now zoned general commercial. Yes, the subject property is separated by a 15 foot alley from any R-2 duplex City of Miami Page 138 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 properties north of subject property as preserving -- the subject property faces Northwest 38th Street, which is a dead-end street and which is parallel to Highway 1-195, and therefore, will not create an impact on any other properties, and lastly, the subject property is on a dead end street, and the only parcels directly west of the property is the green area of the expressway. As property owners, we wish to maximize the highest and best use for the subject property, and that's all 1 have to say. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Are you an attorney or you're the property owner? Mr. Trasobares: No. I am the property owner. Chairman Gonzalez: You see. It doesn't -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know, right. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm glad to see that you're the property owner. You don't require to have an attorney to come before the Commission and speak to the Commission, and to request -- make a request from the Commission, so that proves that everyone has a right to speak to the Commissioner and ask -- present a request to the Commission without having to hire an expensive attorney. Mr. Trasobares: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just have a question. 1 happen to know exactly where that property -- piece of property is. It's actually within my district. Mr. Trasobares: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 just did a tour of the Buena Vista Heights area, and we're looking at doing some stuff on Northeast 2nd Avenue to, perhaps, assist or help by way of Mary Conway with the roadway improvements over there. What are you planning on putting there? Because I know, in meeting with the Buena Vista Heights Neighborhood Association, they knew something was going on, but they didn't know what, so I'm just curious as to whether or not -- what is -- what do you plan on putting there? Mr. Trasobares.' Well, first of all, the subject property is only 6,000 square feet, and we are considering the possibility of possibly joining with the property owners here that face Northwest 2nd Avenue and 36th Street to develop something to be determined, not just yet. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So you don't know what you have in mind to put there as of yet? Mr. Trasobares: No, ma'am, not as of yet, but it will certainly be friendly to the area, which we are in desperate need of there some -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I'm a very strong advocate of making sure that you reach out to the neighborhood association in the area. Mr. Trasobares: Absolutely. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I would like to defer this item until you reach out to them. 1'11 bring it back on March 9; not a problem. Will we have another meeting on March 9? The next City of Miami Page 139 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 one -- the next Planning and Zoning will be what? Ms. Slazyk: March 23. Chairman Gonzalez: March 23. Commissioner Sanchez: March 23. Commissioner Spence -Jones: March 23. It's not a long time. Commissioner Sanchez: You're requesting a deferral? Second. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, 1 believe the City Attorney wants to interject. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): 1 want to make sure that the Commission understands that when you're considering a land use change or a Zoning Ordinance change to the map, you're going from one district to another, and all of the uses within that district are permissible uses. You cannot base your decision -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know. Mr. Fernandez: -- on any one particular use, and so what you need to look at is all of the uses permitted in the district into which they are asking this Commission to approve. To make your approval conditioned on the selection of any one of those uses would be inappropriate for this Commission to consider, so you need to balance that. You know, those are rights that the applicants has -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- that we provide them under our ordinance, and we must be diligent to observe those. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I -- I mean, we have a vacant lot there. You have a duplex there. Right two doors down, you have nothing but commercial happening there, so it's not -- you know, that's not really the issue. I just really would like for you to at least reach out to the folks in the area, so -- Mr. Trasobares: Most definitely, Commissioner. However, as I say, at this particular time all we were requesting was the change of the zoning because -- as a step I to then go to a step 2, we have no plans yet on the board, nothing on the drawing board yet, which we will reach out to them. That's why we're requesting this as phase I, and now once we get this -- because we do nothing if this is not approved -- we will then reach out and see what we can -- as a group, will plan for development there, and of course, reach out to the area, to the neighbors in the area. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so March 23 you'll come back at that particular time and then you'll present to me -- will represent the item, and by that time, you would have met with the local neighborhood association? Mr. Trasobares: Well, we really don't have a plan yet -- as of yet, Commissioner, to say we want to have office lofts or we want to have anything. We don't have a plan yet because we went first to this board. If that is what you so desire, well, then, by absolutely all means, we'll figure out a way to do that and come back to you. City of Miami Page 140 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: I desire to defer the item to March 23 until we have that meeting. Mr. Trasobares: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. -- OK. Commissioner Sanchez: It's been deferred. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, you're shaking your head. Mr. Fernandez: Well, is there a motion? 'just need to understand where -- Chairman Gonzalez: There is a motion and there is a second. Mr. Fernandez: -- the sense of the Commission is. Chairman Gonzalez: But let me tell you, every time 1 see you shake your head, I get concerned. Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just deferred it to the 23rd. Mr. Fernandez: OK. If -- it's a deferral, but on the 23rd, Madam Commissioner, the application will be identical in front of you. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: How would it be different? Commissioner Spence -Jones: They would have met with the local neighborhood association that I requested. Mr. Fernandez.: Oh, OK, fine. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so we're going to defer 21 and 22, right? Ms. Slayk: 21 and 22 to March 23. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- Mr. Trasobares: Excuse me. 1 just have one more question. I'm a little confused with when you tell me to go back and speak with the neighborhood association. By all means, we want to. However, you know, we only have this one lot of 6,000 square feet. You know, we still have not gone into further discussions. I'm not so sure that by March something, we can come back here already with more of a plan. Commissioner Sanchez: All that she's asking you is to go back and extend an invitation to City of Miami Page 141 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 surrounding neighbors or a homeowner association -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I can tell you the name of one, Buena Vista Heights. Commissioner Sanchez: -- to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Trasobares: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's all. Commissioner Sanchez: All right, and that's it. Mr. Trasobares: Gotcha. Got it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: And then come back. Mr. Trasobares: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion and we have a second to defer this item to March 23. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. PZ.22 05-01555a ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 16, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 221 NORTHWEST 38TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-01555a Legislation.pdf 05-01555 & 05-01555a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01555a Analysis.pdf 05-01555a Zoning Map.pdf 05-01555 & 05-01555a Aerial Map.pdf 05-01555a ZB Reso.pdf 05-01555a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01555a FR Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf 05-01555a FR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf First Reading REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from R-2 Two -Family Residential to C-2 Liberal Commercial to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 221 NW 38th Street APPLICANT(S): Alejandro C. Trasobares, Gregory M. Wood and Carlos City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Nunez, Owners APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Alejandro C. Trasobares, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 23, 2006 by a vote of 7-1. See companion File ID 05-01555. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-2 Liberal Commercial. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, with Vice Chairman Winton absent, and was passed unanimously to defer Item PZ22 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 23, 2006. Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.21 for minutes referencing Item PZ22. PZ.23 06-00099 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 35, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO "SD-14" LATIN QUARTER COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 203, 219, 229 AND 237 NORTHWEST 12TH AVENUE AND 1161 AND 1169 NORTHWEST 2ND STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-00099 Legislation.pdf 06-00099 Exhibit A.pdf 06-00099 Analysis.pdf 06-00099 Zoning Map.pdf 06-00099 Aerial Map.pdf 06-00099 ZB Reso.pdf 06-00099 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00099 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00099 SR Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from C-1 Restricted Commercial to SD-14 Latin Quarter Commercial -Residential District to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 203, 219, 229 and 237 NW 12th Avenue and 1161 and 1169 NW 2nd Street APPLICANT(S): Beta Credit Management, LLC and Nivardo D. Marquez, Owners City of Miami Page 143 Printed on 3117/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Javier F. Avino, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended of approval to City Commission on January 9, 2006 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to SD-14 Latin Quarter Commercial -Residential District. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.23. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.23 is a request for a change of zoning for the property located at approximately 203, 219, 229, and 237 Northwest 12th Avenue, and 1161 through 11 -- and 1169 Northwest 2nd Street. This is in order to change the zoning from C-1 to SD-14 Latin Quarter Commercial Residential District. This has been recommended for approval by the Planning Department, approval by the Zoning Board It -- the property is along 12th -- the 12th Avenue corridor, which is the -- one of the principal corridors in the Latin Quarter Commercial Residential District. We also found that there was currently a development under construction on the subject property with ground floor retail that did not open onto the street. What this change will allow it to do is give it the flexibility, with FAR (floor/area ratio), to be able to open that retail to the street, and that is something that is favorable for 12th Avenue, given its proximity to the center of the Latin Quarter, so we've recommended approval. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition on this item? All right, Lucia, you're recognized. Go ahead Commissioner Sanchez: Very brief. Chairman Gonzalez: Very brief. Lucia Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today with Carlos Rodriguez, and this -- the reason for this is so that we can open the retailing out to the street. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: This has already been zoned. Chairman Gonzalez: It's a great presentation. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission on this item, please come forward. All right, seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Mr. City of Miami Page 144 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 City Attorney, read the ordinance, please. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ23. The Ordinance was read by tide into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. PZ.24 06-00143a ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 35, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, INCREASING THE F.A.R. TO 2.0, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 45 SOUTHWEST 8TH AVENUE, 715, 717, 727 AND 735 SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET, AND 702 AND 720 WEST FLAGLER STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-00143a Legislation.pdf 06-00143a Exhibit A.pdf 06-00143a Analysis.pdf 06-00143 & 06-00143a Zoning Map.pdf 06-00143 & 06-00143a Aerial Map.pdf 06-00143a ZB Reso.pdf 06-00143a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00143a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00143a SR Fact Sheet.pdf First Reading REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from C-1 Restricted Commercial to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, Increasing the F.A.R. to 2.0, to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 45 SW 8th Avenue, 715, 717, 727 and 735 SW 1st Street, and 702 and 720 W Flagler Street APPLICANT(S): Little Havana Associates, LLC, Contract Purchaser and Amefra Corporation and New Rabar Corporation, Owner City of Miami Page 145 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Simon Ferro, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 23, 2006 by a vote of 5-3. See companion File ID 06-00143. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, increasing the F.A.R. to 2.0 for the proposed Intown Village Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton Chairman Gonzalez: PZ. 24. Lourdes Sla_zyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.24 is a request for a change of zoning. This is at approximately 45 Southwest 8th Avenue, 715, 717, 727, and 735 Southwest 1st Street, and 702 and 720 West Flagler Street. This is a request in order to add the SD-19 designated FAR (floor/area ratio) overlay district to this property, increasing the FAR to 2.0. The Planning Department had recommended denial of this item before it went to the Zoning Board, and the Zoning Board, however, recommended approval. Since that time, we have met with the applicant, who is going to proffer to you today, as part of the project that's coming on this site, a redesign in order to bring some of their parking underground, which is something we've been trying to encourage because it reduces the height of the parking pedestal and the podium, and will result in something that is much more in scale with the area. If the Commission considers that covenant, then the Planning Department can address whether we have any further objections, which, if you accept it, I don't think we have any more objections. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition on this item? Commissioner Sanchez: PZ.24. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.24. Commissioner Sanchez: I think there's people in support. Chairman Gonzalez: Anyone in opposition? No opposition. Is there anyone in support of this item that wants to speak to the Commission? None. Go ahead, sir. Simon Ferro: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Simon Ferro at 1221 Brickell. I represent the applicant. This is a piece of property that many of you might know. It is located between Southwest 1st Street and Flagler, and between Northwest 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue. Right now there's a supermarket there called La Mia. Chairman Gonzalez: La Mia. Mr. Ferro: That is the property where La Mia is located La Mia has been there for a very long time. In fact, the building where La Mia is located -- Chairman Gonzalez: And before La Mia, there was a Winn -Dixie store. Mr. Ferro: A Winn -Dixie store. That building has been there since 1947. There has been no -- City of Miami Page 146 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: You old-timers. Mr. Ferro: -- new buildings -- Chairman Gonzalez: 1961, I live a block away from there. Commissioner Sanchez: You old-timers. Mr. Ferro: So you know the area well. I just wanted to show you where it was. The property is currently zoned C-1. We are in the middle -- we're in an island between Flagler and Southwest 1st Street, but that is all C-1. To the south of us, on 1st Street, is also C-1. To the north of us is C-1, so we do not abut residential in any of our sides. We're completely engulfed within C-1. The property -- first of all, let me just tell you who the developer is on this property because I think it's very important. This is a joint venture between the Canyon -Johnson Urban Fund, which -- and the Johnson in this fund is Magic Johnson. As you know, when he retired, he started a development company that went into the inner cities to try to redevelop areas, you know, that needed redevelopment. Well, that evolved into the Canyon -Johnson Urban Fund, and they look at properties like this, properties that can actually make a difference, if they are improved. The local joint venture partner is mFm Construction, represented here today by Mr. Elie (phonetic) Dresser and Jose Moulavette (phonetic), and many other members of the construction company. They also are pioneers in redeveloping Little Havana. They have done many projects in the area, properties that nobody else wanted to develop on. They went in and they built something very nice and affordable, so those are the two joint venture partners that are on this property. This property is located within the Little Havana target area, as you can see in yellow here, and it -- we're basically -- our property within the yellow is basically around here, and the Little Havana target area goes all the way up to Northwest 22nd Avenue. We are between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue, and we're three blocks immediately west of downtown Miami. This is our property, so you have one, two, three; here's the river, and you're at downtown Miami. We have requested an SD-19 overlay, and also the two bonuses that generally are asked for, the PUD (Planned Unit Development) and the affordable housing bonuses, in order to not to get more -- greater number of units, but to make the units slightly bigger so that they are nicer units, and we want to put quality into these units and not just get as many units as we can out of the property. This property is permitted up to 200 units per acre because of the overlay that you have, so we're not asking for -- in fact, we're below the density that we're being -- that we have. We initially came in with a project that those two towers, 395 residential units. A lot of -- do we have a -- a lot of residential on the groundfloor. Our whole groundfloor is residential, and we also have retail -- I'm sorry. Our whole groundfloor is retail commercial, and we've lined the other floors immediately above us with office space and the like, so we have lined all our parking, enclosed all our parking. This is going to be one of the truly first mixed -use developments in this area because we're going to have the right amount of commercial so that a lot of people, not just the people who are going to live here, can walk to this area and do their shopping here. A lot of the other projects in the area are basically residential in nature. They have very small amounts of retail commercial. We are really having a positive impact in this area because we're bringing in affordable housing to -- in market prices, and also at the right amount of retail so that people can actually go shop where they live. We -- as staff says, we were approved at the Zoning Board on the SD-19 request. The Planning Board actually also approved the application, subject to conditions, and one of the conditions was that we not receive the HUD (Housing of Urban Development) -- the affordable housing and the PUD (Planned Unit Development) bonuses. We do not -- that's what we don't agree with. Since that hearing, we went back to the drawing board We met again with staff. We took into consideration what staff had said and also what the Planning Board had said, and we have redesigned the building so that we lower the building two full floors, and we have one floor of parking -- Chairman Gonzalez: Underground City of Miami Page 147 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Ferro: -- underground -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Ferro: -- and it is our understanding that having done so, it's satisfactory to the Planning Department and that they no longer object to this application. That said, if you like to see the new building, I would like to introduce Robert Behar, who is the architect on the building, on the project, and he can go over in more detail the development details of the building, if you so wish. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We thank you. I believe there is a gentleman that wants to speak. Yes, sir. Fernando Gonzalez: Good afternoon. My name is Fernando Gonzalez, 128 Northwest 18 Avenue. We are here with a group of members of the community requesting to the Commission to approve, please, this project in our area. Every time at night when we walk around the -- that block over there, it's dangerous, it's terrible, looks very ugly. It's something what the community really needs. There is no place where the people can rent or have an apartment in our neighborhood because there is no places. This construction, this -- I guess it's 22-floor building is going to bring more enhancement to the area, more beautification to the area that been working for many years in our area in that manner, and please, again, approve this project in our area. This is part of the community here. It's another bunch of people coming in, but they -- I think they coming a little late as maybe be over the presentation, and -- but we have these five ladies over here that live in the area. They are members of the community, and they are very excited to see in that particular area, especially for the elderly people who have to walk around the supermarket over there (UNINTELLIGIBLE) many business, you know, a dangerous place like this. We also want to please do something to take out from our neighborhood those people who have a very bad police records. I know this meeting right now is not about this, but this is -- Chairman Gonzalez: It's not about that. Mr. Gonzalez: -- part of the -- what we want in our neighborhoods. It's very difficult for us to come over here. Please, again, approve this project. We need this project in our area. It's necessary, you know, so thank you -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Mr. Gonzalez: -- for your -- Commissioner Sanchez: Could -- Mr. Gonzalez: -- time. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Could we have the architect talk a little bit about the redesign, just very brief -- Mr. Ferro: Sure. Commissioner Sanchez: -- as to the height, which one of the concerns was the density of the building? Robert Behar: Thank you, Joe. The idea is -- what we've done is incorporated -- and we believe this project would improve the quality of life tremendously in this area. What we've done is City of Miami Page 148 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 incorporated a retail component on the ground floor, and that will encompass about 90 percent of the street frontage or have pedestrian -oriented, friendly, including an urban plaza on the corner to promote that liveliness on the streets. What we've done is we went one whole level of underground parking. By doing such, we were able to reduce two full levels of the pedestal on the building to bring the whole building down. Commissioner Sanchez: So how tall is it going to be now? Mr. Behar: It's going to be a 17-story -- Commissioner Sanchez. OK. Mr. Behar: -- to the penthouse levels. Commissioner Sanchez: Not a 21-story? Mr. Behar: No. No, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: OK, go ahead. Mr. Behar: We have also -- as Simon started to address, is we have covered the entire or 1 will say 80, 90 percent of the garage with habitable liner units. The City -- you know, and this is more in keeping with Miami 21, where the Code is going to be required to do. We have 80 or 90 percent of the liner units fronting street frontage. The recreational level starts on the Sth floor, and then you have residential units, two towers. By moving the building down, we were also able to open up the distance between two building, create a much better environment for the units. We feel this is a really, truly a project that will enhance the quality of life in that neighborhood Commissioner Sanchez: I have certain questions I want to just -- for point of clarification. One is, through the redesign, the urban plaza was not changed. Mr. Behar: No, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Stays the same way. Mr. Behar: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: The retail stays the same? Mr. Behar: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. The difference was separating the building so it wasn't one -- just one mass. Now it has a separation gap between one building and the other. Mr. Behar: Now it has a much greater gap than before. What we did, the advantage (UNINTELLIGIBLE) underground was able to allow us to have more parking taking from the pedestal and put it down on the ground, and by doing that, we -- the whole massiveness of the building came down, which was one of the concerns that the Planning Department had, and we successfully addressed that. Commissioner Sanchez: And the lining of parking is at the same percentage? Mr. Behar: Yes, sir, yes. City of Miami Page 149 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: Which is? Mr. Behar: Close to 90 percent of the street frontage is about 33,000 square feet there about. Commissioner Sanchez: And 1-- Planning, I could say that that will be one of the buildings or one of the projects in Miami that will have one of the largest percentage based on parking coverage or liner, 80 percent. I've never heard anybody have eighty -some percent. It was, what, 50, 60? Ms. Slazyk: We've had a few others throughout the city; none in this area, you're right, but there have been a few others in the city that have been close, you know, in the 90, 95 percent -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well -- Ms. Slazyk: -- so, yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: I'm prepared. Ms. Slazyk: Very good. Commissioner Sanchez: I mean, most of the concerns that 1 had have all been addressed, and I'm prepared to support this project. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Behar: Good. Chairman Gonzalez: Is anyone else from the public that wishes to address the Commission? Yes, ma'am, you're recognized. Judith Sandoval: Thank you. Judy Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace. We -- some of us spoke about the building at the hearing board meetings, and they have also met many of the things which we hoped they would, and I agree. It -- this neighborhood really needs things like this, and it's not terribly high. It's not, you know, 50, 60 stories, like you've gotten to the east, but 1 only had one question; I was not clear about it. This project won't provide housing that's affordable for people that are used to living in that area, will it? Commissioner Sanchez: Workforce. Ms. Sandoval: Workforce housing. What are the prices of the condos? Mr. Ferro: Starting at 180 and going through -- by 3 -- 300. This is -- obviously, your location dictates a lot of things -- Ms. Sandoval: Um -hum. Mr. Ferro: -- including price -- Ms. Sandoval: Yeah. Mr. Ferro: -- and this building will be much more affordable to many, many more people. We are right next to two of the largest work centers of the County, downtown Miami and the Civic Center, and we anticipate that this building is going to be occupied by many people who will be working downtown and in the Civic Center area. City of Miami Page 150 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Sandoval: Well, 1 hope so. How many apartments will you have at the lower end? Mr. Ferro: About 30 percent of the apartments will be at the lower end. Ms. Sandoval: Oh, that's good. Thank you. Mr. Ferro: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else from the public? The public hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sanchez, you're recognized. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you why this project is so important to Little Vietnam -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, that's right. Commissioner Sanchez: -- or an area that was known Little Vietnam where the highest crime rate, where Julie, you wouldn't imagine or fathom sitting down somewhere in a cafeteria and having a cup of coffee in the cocaine cowboy days -- Chairman Gonzalez. And getting stabbed. Commissioner Sanchez: -- and five or six years ago, when I brought the developers from all over the world to the Development Summit to that site, and they told me, "Commissioner, you're out of your mind if you want me to invest a penny in this area." Well, they were looking at Brickell, Upper Eastside. Investors minimize their risk. They're going to put their money in areas where they're going to build and it's going to sell, and it's going to sell fast. Let me tell you what we've done here. We've put together two great companies, Canyon -Johnson and mFm. We've taken -- have you been seeing Dancing with the Stars? Well, we did that. We took a company that knows how to dance and another company that was a good dancer too and they're dancing beautifully, and let me tell you. mFm was one of the pioneer companies that came to the Development Summit in 201 [sic] and bought property in that area. They invested, just like Carlos Rodriguez, who was here with San Lorenzo, who bought property, and look how long it's taken them to develop what I consider great projects with mixed -use commercial. There isn't a single project right now west of the river that is a large-scale mixed project such as this one. This is the first one, and that's why we want to make sure that it's done correctly so the other ones that come along are going to give us 80 percent linear -- parking -- linear coverage; are going to give us urban plazas; are going to give us retail because west of the river, if you look at it, when they first came back with a 21-story high, 1 had opposition as a Commissioner, because I'm looking into the future and I'm optimistic about Miami 21. Miami 21 really will clearly redefine Miami's history for years, and we haven't done that in the past. Now we're doing it. Downtown Miami, you have unlimited heights. Well, as you go west, you have to scale down, and that's why it was very important to get this project little down so it's more compatible and it fits in with the area. Look at the residents that are here. You know why the rest of the residents aren't here? Because they're out there working right now. It's a very poor part of Little Havana, a very part, and you know what? It's still considered one of the highest risk for any developer to buy property there and invest it, and sure, we want to clean up the area of crime, and we want to clean it up of the other bad elements that exist, but along the way, we're going to be giving people an opportunity. Thirty percent affordable housing, that's a start. It is a start, especially at $180, 000. Where can you buy something now for $180, 000 now? Nowhere, so I want to thank both developers for believing in Little Havana. Thank you for working with me, and I know we haven't agreed on issues, and you know what? We'll have a cup of coffee one day and we'll make up; perfectly fine, but I -- it's a pleasure to work with the Administration to make sure that we are building a world -class city. This is the first project westbound on Flagler -- between Flagler and lst. You're going to see great projects come on board that'll have the same City of Miami Page 151 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 characteristics to make sure that when you say Little Havana and you say that area, you'll never use the word Little Vietnam again in your life. It'!l be known as in town or mid -- or -- Intown is the name that it's got now. They're giving it that name, Intown. There's downtown, Overtown, Midtown, and of course, there's Intown, Little Havana, so thank you so much for working with me to get this project accomplished. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We need to make a motion, either to approve or -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well, yeah. The motion is to approve with the conditions that have been proffered. Ms. Slazyk: Actually -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- Commissioner Sanchez: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's get -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, it's not conditions because this is zoning. You're accepting their voluntarily proffered covenant -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well, for the record. Ms. Slazyk: -- which they will bring at second reading. Commissioner Sanchez: For the record, we're accepting the voluntary covenant. What is it? Ms. Slazyk. The covenant. Commissioner Sanchez: Covenant. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, we have a motion and we have a second, I guess. Do we have a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: And we have a second. It's an ordinance. Please, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Gonzalez? City of Miami Page 152 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Before voting yes, let me tell you that Commissioner Sanchez, 1 really commend you. I commend you on the work that you're doing, not only in this specific project, but all over that Little Havana. Let me tell you, when I arrived in the United States back in 1960, I went to live at Southwest 7th Avenue and 2nd Street, two blocks away from this place. That place is one of the -- it was a real good neighborhood, family -oriented people, a quiet neighborhood, businesses were striving, everything was working fine. Let me tell you, the change that went through that area was incredible for the worse; crime, drugs, prostitution. Whatever you can imagine, you could find in that neighborhood. It deteriorated completely, and what you're doing in there is what we're trying to do in all of our neighborhoods that have been abandoned and forgotten for years and years and years, and that includes Allapattah, it includes Overtown, Model City, Little Haiti that -- let me tell you, people that have been privileged enough -- and I -- and let me tell you, God bless them. The people that live in the Groves, that lives in Pembroke Pines, that lives in Coral Gables, that lives in Miami Beach, the privilege class never were concerned about this neighborhood They were never concerned about the condition that the people that live in those neighborhood were surviving. They were never did -- they never did anything to concern themselves about what was going on in this neighborhood. They didn't care. Actually, they didn't care because they were in their world up here, and they were looking down at people, OK, and what we're trying to do now is to change that, and to make sure that all of these neighborhood have the same opportunities as everyone else, and that everyone in these neighborhood have the chance to build up a business, to raise a family under human conditions, to improve the quality of life, and let me tell you, I really, really admire you and I really commend you because 1 know this area. I lived there. My family own a business there at 7th Avenue and Flagler Street for over 32 years, and like you say, the place got to be known by Little Vietnam. There wasn't one night, back in the 1980s, there wasn't one night there wasn't a shooting, a stabbing, or some type of violent crimes being committed in that neighborhood, and that is already changing. Even though we haven't seen this project built yet, it's starting to change, and it's starting to change because there are people that have believed in the work that you're doing and have believed in the City, and are investing money. Same thing happen to me. There were years when people -- if you ask someone to go and invest money in Allapattah in the project, they would say, "Where is Allapattah? On the other side of the bridge? Forget about it. 1 won't even drive there," and now there is a lot of people investing money in that neighborhood, and giving that neighborhood a second chance to have -- to be living at the same level of other neighborhoods in the City of Miami. As a matter of fact, like Mariano Cruz says, we all pay taxes here, and since we all pay taxes, we all should have the same rights as everyone else, so 1 really commend you, and 1 vote 'yes" on this. Thank you. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. Mr. Ferro: Thank you all very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Ferro: Have a great afternoon. Thank you. PZ.25 05-01484 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF 5"0" (10'0" REQUIRED), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 238 NORTHWEST 63RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." City of Miami Page 153 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-01484 Legislation (Version 2).pdf 05-01484 Exhibit A.pdf 05-01484 Legislation (Version 3).pdf 05-01484 Exhibit A.pdf 05-01484 Appeal Letter.pdf 05-01484 Analysis.pdf 05-01484 Zoning Map.pdf 05-01484 Aerial Map.pdf 05-01484 ZB Reso.pdf 05-01484 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01484 Plans.pdf 05-01484 Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf 05-01484 Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Zoning Board Decision of a Variance LOCATION: Approximately 238 NW 63rd Street APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S): Pathfinder Construction, LLC AGENT(S): Octavio Vidal, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the Variance and approval of the appeal. ZONING BOARD: Denied the Variance on November 28, 2005 by a vote of 4-2. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow a multifamily structure with less side -yard setbacks than required. CONTINUED Note for the Record: Item PZ.25 was continued to a time certain for the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 23, 2006. PZ.26 06-00140 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 9, SECTION 917.7.2 IN ORDER TO AMEND THE NAME OF THE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION DISTRICTS (CRD) TO NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ZONES (NDZ); AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES THERETO AND TYING THE BOUNDARIES TO THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE CITY OF MIAMI CONSOLIDATED PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2004-2009, AS MAY BE AMENDED; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 154 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 06-00140 Legislation.pdf 06-00140 Map.pdf 06-00140 PAB Reso.pdf 06-00140 FR Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf 06-00140 FR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.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 January 18, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will amend the references and boundaries of the former CRDs to reflect the new NDZs as identified in the current City of Miami Consolidated Plan Fiscal Years 2004-2009. CONTINUED Note for the Record: Item PZ.26 was continued to a time certain for the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 23, 2006. PZ.27 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 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 05-01229 Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Historic and Environmental Preservation Board Decision of a Historic Designation City of Miami Page 155 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 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 DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. HISTORIC AND 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 Note for the Record. Item PZ.27 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for May 25, 2006. PZ.28 05-00764 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1583 NORTHWEST 24TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "INDUSTRIAL" AND "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" (PARCEL 2) AND "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO REMAIN "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" (PARCEL 1); MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 156 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-00764 Legislation.PDF 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Exhibits A & B.PDF 05-00764 Analysis.PDF 05-00764 Land Use Map.pdf 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Aerial Map.pdf 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Miami River Commission Recomm.PDF 05-00764 & 05-00764a School Board Comments.PDF 05-00764 PAB Reso.PDF 05-00764 Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 05-00764 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00764 & 05-00764b Submittal Letter.pdf 05-00764 Submittal Letter.pdf 05-00764 Submittal Maps.pdf 05-00764 Submittal Photos.pdf 05-00764 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00764 analysis.pdf 05-00764 Letter.pdf 05-00764 Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 10544, from "Industrial" and "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to "Restricted Commercial" (Parcel 2) and "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to Remain "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" (Parcel 1) to Change the Future Land Use Designation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: Approximately 1583 NW 24th Avenue APPLICANT(S): Brisas del Rio, Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Found the proposed Brisas del Rio project to be inconsistent with the Miami River Corridor Urban lnfill Plan on November 1, 2004. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 20, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File Ds 05-00764a and 05-00764b. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial (Parcel 2) and Medium Density Multifamily Residential (Parcel 1) for the proposed Brisas del Rio Major Use Special Permit project. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzaalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12776 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ.28. City of Miami Page /57 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: All right. The gavel has been passed to me. PZ28. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ28, 29, and 30 are companion items. PZs 28 and 29 are companion land use and zoning change here on second reading, and PZ.30 is the Major Use Special Permit -- Commissioner Sanchez.: Well -- Ms. Slazyk: -- for the same property. Commissioner Sanchez: -- I've lost a quorum. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: No. I think that Commissioner Spence -Jones is over there. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh. I can't see with the glasses either. Ms. Slazyk. OK. Again, for the record, PZs 28, 29, and 30 are companion items. PZs 28 and 29 are the land -- second reading land use and zoning change, and PZ.30 is the Major Use Special Permit. On PZ28, the request is to change the land use from industrial and medium density multifamily residential to restricted commercial on parcel 2, and medium density multifamily residential to remain medium density multifamily residential on parcel 1. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: This was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and approval by the Planning Department. It also passed on first reading on January 26. PZ.29 is the zoning change. This is going from SD-4 and R-3 to C-1 for parcel 2, and remaining R-3 for parcel 1. This was also recommended for approval by the Planning Department, approval by the Zoning Board, and passed City Commission first reading on January 26. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. We're on PZ26, right? Ms. Slazyk: 28, 29, and 30. 26, 1 think, was continued Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: OK. PZ 30 is the Major Use Special Permit. This is for the Brisas del Rio project. It's located at approximately 1583 Northwest 24th Avenue. The request is to approve a mixed -use high-rise and townhouse cluster development that includes three towers ranging in height from 177 feet to 247 feet. This will contain approximately 698 total multifamily residential units with recreational amenities; 2,200 square feet of retail space, and approximately 1,158 parking spaces. This was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and approval by the Planning Department. There were a few design -related conditions regarding the provision of a sample color metal roof to be used for the townhouse elements to be reviewed and approved by the Planning director; also, to keep working on the garage. It's important that these cars and mechanical systems be hidden from view. We'd like the applicant to provide details on how they propose to cover the garage openings, including how all of these systems will be concealed from the public view, and any blank walls facing the open space and recreation areas within the site shall be articulated to provide an attractive appearance. We also wanted them to provide additional benches and landscaping areas throughout the site and along the river to encourage the activity and pedestrian use along the water. With that, we recommend approval. City of Miami Page 158 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Before we turn it over to the applicant, how many will be speaking on this item, either in favor or in opposition? All right. Since I'm looking around and I see that some individuals walked in, Madam Clerk, could we swear them in -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: -- please? All right. Please stand up and be sworn in. Well, if you've already been sworn in, you don't have to do it again, but there are certain individuals who walked in late, and 1 want to make sure you're sworn in. Ms. Thompson: Chair -- we do have some other individuals who are outside that just came in and signed up for the remainder of the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items, as well, so if they -- Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Let -- Ms. Thompson: -- want to come in so we can -- Commissioner Sanchez: Let's get everyone who's going to be -- who hasn't been sworn in, please stand up and be sworn in if you're going to be speaking on any of the remaining PZ items. 1 do apologize for that. Bear with me. Ms. Thompson: Will you please stand and raise your right hand? The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Thank you so much. Mr. Ap -- Ben Fernandez: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Applicant, you are recognized, counsel. Mr. B. Fernandez: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, with the law offices of Bercow & Radell. I'm here today on behalf of Brisas del Rio, Inc., the property owner. With me is Mr. Homer Meruelo, Sr., principal of Brisas del Rio, Mr. Collin Henderson, our environmental and marine consultant, Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo, our planning consultant and former director of the City of Miami Planning Department, Ms. Sonya Bogart, our transportation consultant, and my partner, Jeff Bercow. The first thing 1'd like to do is simply incorporate all of the testimony that was proffered at the initial reading on the zoning and comprehensive plan amendment into this presentation, in that way I think I can abbreviate our presentation somewhat. 1'd like to remind you that on both the comprehensive plan application and the zoning application, you had favorable staff recommendations from the Planning Department, from both of the lower boards, and from the Internal Design Review Committee. This is a Major Use Special Permit. It is located in a part of the river known as the "middle river." It's approximately a 9.4-acre parcel that's -- you can see over there on the aerial photograph highlighted in yellow. The character of this area is primarily residential. There's only one industrial use remaining between 22nd Avenue and 27th Avenue, and that is the Detroit Diesel facility that is directly east of this site on the south bank of the river. The remaining area you can see from the zoning map that it is all multifamily residential or duplex residential. There isn't any single-family residential anywhere in this area. The project that we are proposing for this site is something that will be consistent with that multifamily and town home zoning. It is a combination of town homes, flats, and condominiums. City of Miami Page 159 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 The project will have 20 town homes, 78 flats, and 600 condominiums, with amenities such as a river walk along the south bank of the river, approximately 7,000 square feet of retail space, a marine store, a water taxi station, and significantly -- I think, maybe most significantly, a half -acre open green space located here on the westernmost part of the property, and that's significant because if you look at the aerial photograph of the area, you can see that there isn't any access -- if you live in this residential community down here, in this R-2, R-3 area, there's no way to get to the river -- to the bank of the river. If you live on the north side, you can get to Curtis Park. You can enjoy the bank of the river, but if you live between 27th Avenue and 22nd Avenue, there's really no access at all to the river. Our project is going to provide that access. It's an open space that is directly -- it's right at the end, a terminus of 24th Avenue. Currently, the site is vacant. 1t hasn't been used for any type of shipping use or marine repair in years. It's never been a shipping facility, and it hasn't been used for marine repair in over six or seven years that we're aware of. There have been some issues raised with other applications with respect to the consistency of this type of application to rezone and re -designate an SD-4 property that's located east of 27th Avenue, and the arguments have basically been that because your port element in your comprehensive plan protects properties that are marine -related or zoned SD-4, or rather that it protects properties that are identified as the port element, that these properties that are zoned SD-4 merit protection, and the issue has come up as to where the 14 companies cited in the footnote to the Comprehensive Plan are actually located, and at your prior hearing on the Coastal project, which is directly east of this over here, I think that it was made clear that the 14 companies are identified in a Miami -Dade County document, which is the proposed port and aviation element amendment, and this right here -- and you can see that the 14 companies are located west of 27th Avenue and east of Northwest 7th Avenue, and the ones that are east of Northwest 7th Avenue are no longer in existence to our knowledge. What we have discovered since that hearing is the data and analysis -- there was a question as to where the City of Miami found the 14 companies, found the -- where the Miami -Dade document came from, and what we have discovered is that in the data and analysis that the City used to create its Comprehensive Plan in 1989, clearly is referenced the Miami -Dade County document identing the 14 companies, and that's here on page 75 of the data and analysis, where the 14 companies are identified, and I'd like to introduce Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo now to talk to you generally about the consistency of the project and his opinion with respect to the 14 companies and the consistency issue. Guillermo. Guillermo Olmedillo: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Commission. Guillermo Olmedillo, 330 Greco Avenue, Suite 108, in Coral Cables. I was asked to review the applications, the different applications and look at the consistency with the master plan, and that's one of the first decisions that you have to make. Is the land use designation that is being proposed for this property consistent with the master plan? I'll give you a little sense of history. Originally, when the first master plan was created for the City, was prepared for the City, there were two components to it: data analysis and the goals, objectives, and policies. At the same time, Miami -Dade County, the County was also preparing its first comprehensive development master plan under Chapter 163. When the first submittal was made by the City in front of DCA (Department of Community Affairs), the data and analysis included the 14 terminals that were part of the comprehensive plan in the County. DCA's reaction to that -- because they were not included in the goals, objectives, and policies -- it was only included in the data and analysis -- they say to the City, "City, you have to include that port of -- the river of Miami port as a sub -element of the port element that you have in your master plan," so the initial submittal did not include the sub -element of the Miami River, the port of Miami River as one sub -element of the comprehensive plan within the goals, objectives, and policies. Although, it did include it as the data and analysis portion of the master plan, which was not adopted, and DCA instructed the City to incorporate it into the goals, objectives, and policies, so therefore, not only it is part of the comprehensive development master plan of the County, but it's also part of the City of Miami's Comprehensive Plan, so that being said the policies were very clear both in the County and in the City, and the description of the character of the river was also very clear. West of 27th Avenue, it's an industrial character, and you will see throughout all the documentation City of Miami Page 160 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 between the City and the County that that depiction of the primary use of the land east and west of 27th Avenue is west of 27th Avenue, it's industrial character. That's what it should be maintained as, and it should be supported. East of 27th Avenue, it's a mixed -use, and you will see that -- and bear with me. 1 want to quote the exact language. In the Miami Comprehensive Development Master Plan it talks about the 14 shipping terminals located in the Miami River provide services to small ports in the Caribbean, and when -- the master plan speaks as the port of Miami River being an economic engine speaking strictly about the 14 terminals that are listed -- not only listed, but they're mapped on that particular exhibit that you see at the bottom, so they're very specific about what the port of Miami River is not only in the master plan for the City, but also for the County. Having that in mind that the character of the river changes dramatically east of 27th Avenue and west of 27th Avenue, the next question is, is the land use that is being proposed to you for a master plan amendment, is that consistent with the rest of the goals, objectives, and policies of the master plan, and is it compatible with the area? Well, you take a look at the area -- and Commissioners, 1 know that you're familiar with the area -- you see that this particular property is surrounded by residential activity; it's residential use and residential activity surrounding the property. The access to this particular piece of property is through residentially zoned property and residentially designated property, so obviously you have a conflict when you're creating an industrial pocket in this particular location because the transportation and the lines of communication that take you there are through neighborhoods, established neighborhoods, so obviously from the compatibility perspective, it is much better to have something that is either mixed -use of residential in character rather than an industrial use, which when you read the definition of the industrial use in your master plan, in the interpretation of land use, you will see that the industrial use is the most permissive type of use. It allows manufacturing; it allows a number of things that are incompatible with a residential district, so obviously, from the compatibility point of view, you would have to conclude the same that my analysis did, is that it is compatible with the rest of the area. Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you, Guillermo. Another important issue to take note of is that the change in the land use is consistent with objective PR-1.1 of your Comprehensive Plan, which encourages you to increase public access to all identified recreation sites, facilities, and open spaces, including the Miami River, and beaches and enhance the quality of recreational educational opportunities for all age groups and handicap persons within the City's neighborhoods. Clearly, this application, by virtue of the fact that it is providing an access to the river for this neighborhood that is currently landlocked, is furthering that objective. Also, your Comprehensive Plan -- your housing element, housing objective 2.1.4 encourages you to increase residential development along the river, and this application is consistent with that element -- with that objective as well. Finally, it's significant to note that schools in this area are significantly underutilized in comparison to schools in other parts of the City of Miami and in Dade County, and it makes sense to bring additional residents to this part of the river. There is obviously Curtis Park, which is directly north of this site, one of the largest parks in the City, and that is also something that would benefit from additional residents in the area, and with that, I really close my comments, and I'll save some time for rebuttal. Commissioner Sanchez: Time for rebuttal. All right. All those wishing to speak on the item, please step forward and be recognized. State your name and address for the record. At this time, the public hearing is open. We have any legal representation on your side? Fran Bohnsack: No. I was just going to say, Commissioner, our attorney can't be with us today. I have very brief remarks, but 1 would like to complete them for the legal record. It -- probably four minutes is the most. Commissioner Sanchez: You are recognized for five minutes. Ms. Bohnsack: Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Fran Bohnsack. I'm the executive director of the Miami River Marine Group. That -- the mission of that group is to City of Miami Page 161 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 preserve and protect the working river. Our office is located at 3033 Northwest North River Drive, and I need to say that my comments are directed at companion items 28, 29, and 30; that is the land use amendment, the zoning change, and the Major Use Special Permit for Brisas del Rio. The Miami River Marine Group is a not -for -profit trade organization and port cooperative consisting of shipping and related companies, 24 terminals that work on the Miami River collectively known as the port of Miami River. We are a member and are actively involved with the Miami River Commission, and I act as the liaison between the port of Miami River and the United States Coastguard, which regulates the river under the Department of Homeland Security. The members of the Miami River Marine Group all rely on the City and the County to maintain the water-related/water-dependent industrial land uses along the banks of the Miami River, to create a safe and uncomplicated transit corridor in and out of the river, to encourage their businesses to grow, to prevent incompatible land uses adjacent to or in the vicinity of industrial uses, and to implement policies and programs such as the Waterfront Florida program to preserve the limited commercial working waterfronts on the Miami River. The items before you, particularly the land use amendment for Brisas del Rio, are inconsistent with the policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Approval of these will further deplete the City of viable working waterfront for the port of Miami River and cause many safety hazards and difficulty for the shipping industry transporting in and out of the river. In addition, I'd like to say that I was here recently on a similar property located also in this part of the river, which -- the block of which is predominantly marine industrial featuring Florida Detroit Diesel. I made these arguments about the inconsistency of the Comprehensive Plan and asked you to honor the protections offered in the Comprehensive Plan for marine industry. At that time, all of you voiced your support for saving the working river, and then you voted the project zoning to be changed, so with that in mind, Brisas, I thinly represents our major problem -- is typical of our major problem, and you read about it today in the Miami Herald. For the first time in the Miami Herald, I read that the City -- a representative of the City of Miami Administration made a statement saying that marine industrial no longer belonged on the Miami River in the City of Miami. I feel that that's a disingenuous statement and a breaking of a promise that you made when you formed a partnership with the Army Corp of Engineers, the federal government, the State of Florida, Miami -Dade County, to dredge the river for commercial marine purposes; that's one point. The second point is later on in this article, the same representative of the City made this statement: "Appropriate water uses on the City's portion of the river would be marinas, which condo developers are adding or renovating." That person would have you -- or our -- the counsel here would have use believe that this is a marina that's being renovated or improved. I need to say that this is a project where seven of the slips that currently exist are going to be filled, taking what is originally 4,000 linear feet of dock space and reducing it to only 1, 300 feet of dock space. Now, if that's the case, I have to say that this language talking about renovating a marina really doesn't mean that at all. It means filling in the slips. You're losing marina space, and I will point out there's not a single new marina anywhere on the Miami River in the last ten years. The site you're told has been abandoned, that is not the case. We have photographs for you, and I would suggest that it's terrible that you lose this real jewel of marine industry on the river when you're so much going to need it in the future. The project comes at a time when nationwide slips are being lost to residential development, and more particularly in Florida and South Florida. According to Governing magazine, Florida ranks first in the nation in boat ownership, with our state numbers increasing by 84,660 just from 2002 to 2003, the latest time that figures were available. The greatest number of registered boats are here in Miami -Dade County. We just had the boat show. We want to encourage wealthy people to buy boats, middle -income people to use their boats; they have no place to put them. I would suggest that this project should go back to the drawing board, and 1 ask you to reject it. Mr. B. Fernandez: Ms. Bohnsack, may I ask you -- ? Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Well, you have the right -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Do you want to finish -- ? City of Miami Page 162 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: -- to rebuttal, yes. Did she make -- ? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Well -- Commissioner Sanchez: Legal -- she didn't make any -- Mr. B. Fernandez.: I'd just like to ask her a question. Commissioner Sanchez: Well -- Mr. Fernandez: Under your rules, through the Chair, different presenters have an opportunity to ask each other questions, so he's correct. He may seek clarification of a point she made through the Chair, so he can state the question. You can ask the speaker to answer. Commissioner Sanchez: Counsel, you may proceed -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: -- through the Chair. He's going to ask you some questions through the Chair. Mr. B. Fernandez: You indicated that you believe that the property is currently not vacant, and what do you base that opinion on? Ms. Bohnsack: Well, I have some photographs with me, the -- some that were taken in 2003 that show ships in the slips, large ships, commercial marine cargo vessels, as well as recreational boats -- yachts being painted. If you would like a copy -- Mr. B. Fernandez: 1 would like a copy. Ms. Bohnsack: -- we can -- it's dated -- Commissioner Sanchez: Please -- Ms. Bohnsack: -- for the time that the film was developed, so -- Mr. B. Fernandez: When was the last time that you were at the property? Ms. Bohnsack: I go by the property often. Mr. B. Fernandez: And have you noticed that it is vacant presently? Ms. Bohnsack: It's been vacant since the developer bought it. Mr. B. Fernandez: And how long has that been? Ms. Bohnsack: I'm not sure. Mr. B. Fernandez: OK, thank you. Ms. Bohnsack: Is that it? Mr. B. Fernandez: That's it. City of Miami Page 163 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Mr. Chairman, Commission and Commissioners, my name is Horacio Stuart Aguirre. I'm a proud resident of Durham Park at 1910 Northwest 13th Street, Miami, Florida, in Durham Park. I speak before you on my own behalf and as president of Durham Park Neighborhood Association on the banks of the Miami River, our neighborhood peninsula just south of the proposed development. My comments are directed at companion items 28, 29, and 30, the land use amendment, the zoning change, and the Major Use Special Permit requested by Brisas del Rio. I've lived in Miami -Dade County for 53 years, the City of Miami for over 20 years, and in Durham Park for three years, and like my neighbors, choose to live on the river knowing that it is a working river, and that the port of Miami River is a predominant use of the river. We choose to live in Durham Park because of the single-family density character of the neighborhood, the surrounding areas. According to the Comprehensive Plan and future land use plan, high-rise and high density condominiums are supposed to be downtown, near downtown or other locations where the infrastructure can support them. It's very important that the City of Miami follow its policies and prevent the land uses and developments that are out of scale and inappropriate for these surrounding areas. The items before you, particularly the land use amendment for Brisas del Rio, are totally inconsistent with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Approval of these will further deplete the City of Miami's much needed viable working waterfront for the port of Miami River, further deplete the City of Miami's much needed recreational marine facilities, further deplete the infrastructure levels of service Durham Park depends on, and further deplete land presently zoned suited and needed for marine -related employment. Finally, there is ample evidence in the media that the gross overbuilding in the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County has produced an outrageous glut of condominium properties in this area. I just came back from the commercial real estate mortgage bankers conference, and I'd like to report to you with great regret that the institutional lenders of the United States have already red -lined Miami -Dade County for multifamily project developments, and I'm referring to Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Bank of America, Wachovia, just to name a few. These are the people that are doing cold, hard numbers from where they sit, not being influenced by other influence and agendas. Commissioners, you should not continue to turn the Miami River into a condominium canyon for the pure and simple benefit of the economic profit of developers, and to do so is a slap to the Third District Court of Appeals. Therefore, I urge you, please deny this request. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Next speaker. Ashley Chase: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ashley Chase, Miami River Commission, with offices at 1407 Northwest 7th Street. 1 would like to read a letter into the record on behalf of our Chair, Ms. Irela Bague, which is currently being distributed. On November 1, 2004, Mr. Ben Fernandez, Bercow & Radell, presented the Brisas del Rio development to the Miami River Commission, including the proposed land use and zoning amendment. The MRC (Miami River Commission) found the zoning amendment in this upper river marine/industrial area for marine/industrial to commercial to allow the proposed 698 residential unit development to be inconsistent with the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan. The MRC noted the development would require the partial filling of existing and irreplaceable water slips on the subject property, and is out of scale and character with the surrounding area. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, and the letter has been turned in to the City Clerk for the record? Ms. Chase: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. All right. Anyone else? Beau Payne: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Beau -- ladies, excuse me. My name is Beau Payne, P & L Towing, 1883 Northwest 7th Street and 31 Northwest South River Drive in the lower river. Let's see, my comments are directed at the companion items 28, 29, and 30, the City of Miami Page 164 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 land use amendment, the zoning change, and the Major Use Special Permit for Brisas del Rio. 1 just have a couple things here. First of all, the gentleman mentioned that there's only one SD-4 property marine terminal -- what you would call it there -- between 22nd Avenue and 27th Avenue. I count seven; the Crusader Boats, boatyard 1 don't know the name of right on the 27th -- on the east side of the 27th Avenue bridge, Coastal, which is SD-4 because it has not been changed yet; FDDA (Florida Detroit Diesel -Allison), Best Yacht, Martin's Point, and Jaws Boat Builders -- that's between 22nd and 27th Avenue. Furthermore, I'm the one that took those pictures that you were handed out. They were -- that was an active property until that time, which I believe the developers bought it shortly thereafter that in 2003, if I'm correct. That's when the property went vacant and abandoned -- Mr. B. Fernandez: So the photographs -- Mr. Payne: -- so -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- are from 2002? Mr. Payne: Right, so up till the time that the developers bought it, the property was working, so anyway -- OK, I'd like to say that -- you know, that the cost of purchasing these properties -- and we worry about them being abandoned and everything, but the cost of purchasing these properties is more than triple of what they're actually worth, making it impossible for maritime interests to purchase for expansion or new start-up. Commissioner Sanchez: The property? Mr. Payne: The properties that are for sale along the river that are being classified as abandoned and -- you know, disarray -- conditions of disarray. This is happening because of the willingness -- because of the extreme willingness of the City of Miami to hinder, displace, and destroy the $4 billion a year economic machine known as the port of Miami River, for the sake of high-rise development that funnels money into the City of Miami's coffers. What it does for the citizens of Miami is increases property taxes, making living in the City of Miami too expensive for most of our fixed income residents, overcrowding already overcrowded streets. We've had countless traffic experts come here and say that putting an 1,100-unit on a single lane street won't over -congest it, but we know that's all incredible ridiculously. OK, it's overcrowding already overcrowded streets, and it's hindering and destroying an industry that employs over 8,000 people in the City of Miami. Most of the Commissioners have said at one time or another that we need to protect the marine industry on the Miami River. However, we continue to vote in favor of land use changes that harms the marine industry on the Miami River. I would also like to clear up -- there was a statement made east of 7th Avenue in the lower river that there are no marine industries there. There --1 have five off the top of my head, one being my own, and Biscayne Towing. There's a shipping terminal right at 7th Avenue on the river; Bassas Cargo and Bimini Bait Company it's called there. Commissioner Sanchez: That's on 12th. Mr. Payne: No, it's on 7th. It's on -- it's right next to my property. That's -- well, maybe that's where they bring their boats in to discharge the caught material, the fish or what have you. Maybe they have a store somewhere else. OK, I just wanted -- a little bit about my company so you get an idea. I'm a small company. I have 29 employees. I have four tugboats that I've spent almost a couple of million dollars buying and investing in this area. In '94, I came here and started my business. I invested everything I had, risked my whole livelihood; invested in this business because somewhere it said that we were going to keep this a business, and then I had a future here. I'm -- you know, it's ridiculous that we're seeing now that that doesn't count; to me, it is, as a business owner. I do business with 78 companies right in the City of Miami. Within the City of Miami jurisdictions, I have lists of them, and 1 spend about $54, 000 a month to those City of Miami Page 165 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 companies, which is an incredible amount of money right in the City of Miami, so 1-- you know, 1 hope that you guys vote against this. I think it's inconsistent with the policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Approval of these will further deplete the City of viable working waterfront for the port of Miami River and cause more safety hazards and difficulties for the shipping industry transport in and out of the river, and let me just say that -- one other thing before I close. I'm involved in the dredging, incredibly so. I've did all the marine coordination. I've seen -- there's been a couple of terminals that have come back because of the areas that have been dredged already. However, we all know that there's been some issues with funding because of the dredging because of Hurricane Katrina. I have spent four months in that area with my company doing salvage and things like this. I've seen the devastation there. They are spending incredible money. I understand they're coming back in August. Now, we -- you know, we have an opportunity here to -- like I said, eight -- in excess of 8, 000 jobs. My payroll for last year for 29 employees was in excess of $990, 000. I'm not talking about $13, 000 a year people. I'm talking people that are in these areas that are having an opportunity to get a profession and move on, as Mr. Gonzalez says we all have the right to do. I mean, I am putting that goal -- that's a goal for my company, and I grew up in the City of Miami, in these neighborhoods that we are talking about that have been crime -ridden and everything else. I grew up here, and I come from these low-income families, and I'm sure to think that any low-income family out there or anybody that's down on their luck would much rather have the opportunity of getting a job with a profession, something they can learn and make a living and be proud of other than being somebody's housemaid or something like that; not that there's anything wrong with that, but 1 think that a lot of people in these neighborhoods have a lot of pride. We heard a gentleman earlier mention about he wants the crime out of his neighborhood. Well, one way to battle crime is by offering jobs to people who are out here committing crimes. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Payne: Thank you. Mr. B. Fernandez: Excuse me, sir. May I ask you a question through the Board? Commissioner Sanchez.: Yeah. Mr. B. Fernandez: The name of your company again? Mr. Payne: D & L Towing and Transportation. Mr. B. Fernandez: That's the one that's east of 7th Avenue? Mr. Payne: That's one of the ones that are east of 7th Avenue, yes, sir. Mr. B. Fernandez: OK. Mr. Payne: 31 Northwest South River Drive. Mr. B. Fernandez: And the others? Mr. Payne: Biscayne Towing, Bassas Cargo. There's a terminal right next to 7th Avenue on the river. I can't think of the -- Mr. B. Fernandez: OK. Mr. Payne: -- name of it right at this time. Fran, do you know that name? Mr. B. Fernandez: OK. Well, just for the record, what 1 said was that there aren't any shipping City of Miami Page 166 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 terminals remaining east of 7th Avenue that are protected under -- as one of the 14 companies in the Comprehensive Plan. The four that show in the Comprehensive Plan are Victoria Marine, Miami Ship Services, Bahama International Lines, and Vas Mesa Marine -- Mr. Payne: Right. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- and that's -- Mr. Payne: I believe an appellate judge -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- what I said, for the record -- Mr. Payne: OK. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- and the point is that our comprehensive plan provides that the port is defined as 14 shipping terminals. It specifically says that right here. This is from the Miami Comprehensive Plan. What has been -- what has come up in other hearings is that the 14 companies -- it didn't specifically -- they aren't specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and then the planning -- the assistant Planning director indicated that they refer to the 14 companies in the County's port and aviation element from 1988, but what was missing up to today, I think, was the connection that clearly identifies that they are referring to these 14 companies, and what we have submitted to the record today is an excerpt from the Volume II of the data and analysis from the City's Comprehensive Plan from 1989, which clearly provides that the 14 companies are the same 14 companies identified by the County, so that the port element -- the City of Miami port element only applies to the 14 companies identified in the County's port and aviation element, and that is crystal clear so that our application, as are the other applications in the middle river, are entirely consistent with -- Mr. Fernandez: Is that -- ? Mr. B. Fernandez: -- your Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, is that a question or is that a statement? Commissioner Sanchez.: Yeah. That's -- that I was going to ask you, counsel. Is that a statement or is that a question? Mr. B. Fernandez: That is a state -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's a statement -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- so we're going to -- we -- Mr. Fernandez: -- reserve your statements for your -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- presentation. You're limited to only ask questions through the Chair. Mr. B. Fernandez: Understood. Commissioner Sanchez: And that was not a question; that was a statement. City of Miami Page 167 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Payne: I believe an appellate judge -- Mr. B. Fernandez: I just -- Mr. Payne: -- shot down that 14 -- and right out of the gate, it says approximately or most, so I mean -- whatever. I don't want to -- Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Mr. Payne: -- overstep my boundaries, but -- Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. B. Fernandez: The appellate judge didn't have the benefit -- Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone else? Mr. B. Fernandez: -- of this information. Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone else speaking on the item? Nina West: Nina West, 3690 Avocado Avenue, Coconut Grove. Commissioner Sanchez.: Nina, why don't you lower the mike? Ms. West: 3690 Avocado Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm here as the communications director for Miami Neighborhoods United, and 1 would like to say something on behalf of Miami Neighborhoods United, and this doesn't have anything to do with land use. This has a lot to do with economics. We're always talking about we need an economic engine. Quote Manny Diaz talks about an economic engine. When these buildings are built, the economic engine for those buildings are gone, but we need an economic engine for people who need jobs, who need to move up in this world, who need an education, and who need to succeed, and who need to make more than $18, 000 a year to support their families. About a year ago 1 was asked to take a look at why the marine industry was not viable here. That's what we were told by Manny Diaz; the marine industry is not viable here. The next thing I did was to start to look at things in Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale has a huge, humongous marine industry. It is a tremendous multibillion dollar economic industry. If we do not have marinas to service mega yachts, which is what we are looking for at Watson Island, which is what we are looking for all over the place, we are going to shut down one of the few industries, which is a way up, which is an economic engine for this community, and I think that it would be very wise if this Commission and the Administration and people who work on economics to improve City economics would take a look and do a total study of the marine industry in Fort Lauderdale and see if we could replicate it here. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Anyone else? Yes, please come up, state your name and address for the record. Judith Sandoval: Judy Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace. 1 wish to, number one, support all of the arguments made by the people who are against this condominium, and I'm speaking to you as a sailor. I come from a yachting family, and I've been yachting all my life. My brother recently -- who is a member of the Chicago Yacht Club -- his latest boat, he bought it in Fort Lauderdale, and he wanted to stay at my house in Miami and get the boat fixed up a little. He couldn't find a place to do it in Miami, so he did it in Fort Lauderdale. Point number one. That will happen more and more. We need that kind of a marine industry as well. Second of all, this gentleman talked about the traffic around the neighborhood that would result as more -- develop City of Miami Page 168 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 marine industry where he wants to put this condo. What about the traffic they're going to generate? I mean, that's even worse. Another point is that does anybody think that all that money was spent by the State, by the federal government to dredge that river so that it would provide a place for these mega yachts? All right. Number five, it does not fit in with the neighborhood has been stated I have attended many meetings and heard all the arguments for a long time. 1 remember one Commission meeting where Johnny Winton said -- because it's not only 8, 000 jobs that are right there, but as a union -- the head of the union of the marine industry of the region testified, it represents many thousands of jobs more, and Johnny Winton said, "My God, if the Beacon Council had a chance to bring an industry into this City and create 13,000 jobs, they'd be all for it," and so would you, and here we are destroying a worthwhile industry -- Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Sandoval: -- and if -- wait a minute -- one more moment. If you think that marine industries and residential and all sorts of things are not -- don't work together, go to Stockholm, Sweden. Now that is really a great city. You have all kinds of boats, recreational, water taxis, excursion boats, ocean liners, icebreakers, all together around that city. It makes it a much more interesting city. Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Julie [sicj. Anyone else? Seeing no one else, the public hearing is closed. Counsel -- Mr. Fernandez: Applicant is entitled to a short -- Commissioner Sanchez: To rebut -- Mr. Fernandez: -- rebuttal. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, rebuttal. Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Fernandez: Short. Mr. B. Fernandez: What is out of scale and incompatible with the neighborhood is the existing condition, and you can see it from these pictures. You can see the dilapidated condition that this property is in. The existing SD-4 district does not allow residential uses at all. The Miami River Commission's own Urban Infill Plan recommends residential for this property, a mixed -use residential product, but the zoning SD-4 doesn't allow it, so we're left no other choice than to apply for a zoning district that will allow the mixed -use that we're proposing. We are keeping a water -dependent marine -related use on the site. We have a beautiful marina that we're going to be providing which is currently not there. It's water -dependent; it's going to accommodate boats. Ms. Sandoval's brother can visit from Chicago and park his boat at the facility. What it's not going to be is an industrial facility that's going to be driving trucks through a residential area, industrial trucks that are incompatible with a residential area, generating noise and doing things that are incompatible with the residential area, so I think that it is a happy mix between a residential and marine -related use. Also, it's going to be providing workforce housing that the Civic area needs, the Jackson area needs. This is a very underdeveloped area. You -- through other hearings, lower boards, you've heard neighbors speak from the area that have been in support of this application, and I just want to state that for the record, and with that, I'll close my comments and ask that you approve our application. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Counsel At this time, it comes to the Commission, and -- Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. City of Miami Page 169 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez.: -- Mr. -- Chairman Gonzalez, you're recognized. Chairman Gonzalez: 1 got elected in 2001, and ever since 1 got elected, all I have done and all I do every single day of my life is to drive through my district, Allapattah, West Little Havana, which is where this site is located at, because there are some people here that don't even know the boundaries of the neighborhoods. They call Allapattah my entire district, and a lot of them don't know that my district encompasses Allapattah, West Little Havana, and Grapeland, and also a section of Flagami, and 1 heard -- I was taking a couple of aspirins in my office and 1 heard a comment that what was happening at this site back in 2003. Back in 2003, the present owners hadn't buy this property at that time yet, right? Mr. B. Fernandez: That's right. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Back in 2003, I sent a report to Code Enforcement Office with some photographs that I took of the place -- or my staff took of this place so they would take some corrective action because the neighborhood was on uproar of what was going on at this site, and this was back in 2003. There were a whole bunch of abandoned containers where there were homeless living at the site. There was also a lot of empty, abandoned containers. There were buses, abandoned buses, inoperable buses, inoperable trucks, piles of tires. That was the scenery of this site back in 2003. I sent Code Enforcement. The place was cleaned up by the prior owner, and back then, this site wasn't used. 1 remember that in 2001, there was one pleasure boat inside one of these slips that was being painted at the time, so the neighborhood is much in favor of this development. The neighborhood is much in favor of this improvement because, after all, these property owners that live next to this site and these property owners that live in this neighborhood are the ones that have to put up with all of this every single day of their life. As a matter of fact, not long ago -- and that 1 want you to take notice of this and you let the actual property owner know about it because 1 sent Code Enforcement back to that place back in 2003, and 1 will send Code Enforcement tomorrow if I have to do it again, OK. 1 was driving by with my assistant, Frank Castaneda, and there was a lady screaming out in the middle of the street because there were two guys inside the property and one of the guys was naked, high on drugs, and we had to call the police from my car to give this lady police assistance, so that is what has been happening in that site, and let me tell you. I recognize the industry, and if the industry -- and I said it many times, and 1 keep saying it -- ever comes here with a project for their industry, for commercial, for industrial -- marine industrial, for whatever they want on their industry, 1 will support it because they will provide jobs. It will be a creation of new jobs, but this is not creating any jobs. This is going to -- this is creating an eyesore, and it's deteriorating the quality of life of the residents of my district, so based on all that, I'm going to move to approve PZ.24. Commissioner Sanchez: A11 right. There's a motion. We need a second for the purpose of discussion. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Mr. Fernandez: It is -- Commissioner Sanchez: OK, there -- Mr. Fernandez: -- PZ.28, for the record. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Counsel -- Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry, PZ.28. City of Miami Page 170 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Sanchez: -- all you do is interrupt me today. Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. There's a motion and a second. For the record, the second was made by Commissioner Regalado for the purpose of discussion, Madam Clerk, and therefore, Commissioner Regalado, you are recognized for discussion. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think that we have heard a very interesting debate about two issues, and one larger than the other. One issue about the City, and it was mentioned today in the newspaper trying to declare a d4erent scenario of what the City painted several years ago; that would be unfair. Trying to circumvent the District Court of Appeals ruling by inventing some new rules, it's unfair. Trying to dis-invite the people that we invite to the river, it's unfair, but also it's unfair if the Miami River Commission said that that should be a residential and now says it shouldn't be, so 1 think that we should separate and have a very, very larger debate on that proposal that 1 read today in the paper because it deals with the whole river and the whole enthusiasm that this City Commission had several years ago with a working river, but it's also unfair for the Miami River Commission just to change the rules or the recommendation and say that it shouldn't be residential in what they recommended that should be residential. The problem with the abandoned sites is that if it remains like that, it remains an eyesore. There is a building in my district that had been abandoned for years, and some people say, well, you know, you shouldn't -- well, try to move with new constructions or new projects because it will alter the aesthetics of the area. However, that is a daily headache. Drugs, people smoking crack, a girl was attacked and almost raped there; police calls everyday, so the question we face is, what do we do? Do we leave it like it is and not do anything, or do something that will not be liked by some other people? I, for one, think that we should have a very, very long debate about the river. I do not represent the river, but anyway, my vote is for the whole city every time that 1 vote, and 1 think that, you know, the City has been putting money into the dredging of the river and we have been -- it's very easy and very nice to celebrate in press conference when Ileana Ros comes down or other congressmen comes down, and now say, well, the river should be like this or like that. That should be another debate. What we are debating here is that particular -- in specific, that piece of property, and 1 thought that we should separate both issue because it seems in this debate about the future of the river that its a genuine debate. That is a debate that we should have. That the whole controversy about the river is about that small piece of property, and it isn't. It's just a piece of property. The rest of the future of the river should be dealt with a public hearing, and I'm sure that the Chairman will allow that when the time comes, so I just wanted to say that my focus here today, this afternoon is about that small piece of property and not the future of the river. 1 can say to you now that I don't agree and 1 don't like what I read today. 1 didn't know anything about it, and 1 think it's unfair, but that's another issue. That's another day; that's another debate. We're here to decide on this item, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1-- Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- just had a couple comments on it. I am very much aware of the site. It's actually not in my district, but it is right across the street from Curtis Park, and it is right across the street from the seniors' facility there, and it's an area that's walked by all the time, so it is a sore eye to the area. Just listening to the presentation, you know, and hearing from a local business owner in the area, until it was further explained to me, 1 thought we were displacing all these businesses when actual -- when the actual reality of it is that we're not. We're taking an existing site that is already abandoned -- and I know I have several sites within my district that has the same issue and same problem that needs to be redeveloped, so I think that at least this gives us a better idea of what's actually going to be happening on an abandoned City of Miami Page 171 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 site that there's no current businesses -- business things happening at all, so 1 think that's important, Commissioner Gonzalez, that you did bring that out because just in hearing it in the beginning, I was like, oh, my goodness. We're displacing 8,000 people that are working people, and it's very hard to support something that does that, so this is an existing site that there's nothing happening at this point, correct? And there are additional improvements that are going to take place that's going to beauty the area, that's going to make it a safer environment, so 1 think that it's important to say that. I do want to just add on to what Commissioner Gonzalez mentioned because I think the last time we had this meeting, it was brought up with the Miami River Commission that, you know, we need to figure out a way to sit down all at the same table to develop one overall plan. People keep saying that, but that's not happening, and I'd like to at least say today -- and maybe -- I don't know if it will be Otto, the sitting City Manager now. Since the three of us, I believe our district touches -- touch the river, correct? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: You know, all three of us, so we definitely have a vested interest in the river, so is there any way that we can, you know, after today, Otto, sit down with the Miami River Commission and whoever else is necessary -- you know, I don't know -- Commissioner Sanchez: You mean a sunshine meeting. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, we don't have to all three. Maybe if the Chairman or someone would like to identift one of us, it doesn't matter. I just think that to keep saying we're going to do something about it or we should address it and it doesn't happen, that only creates more confusion and people just become more and more upset about it, so is there any way -- I don't know how my fellow colleagues feel about that, but can one of us, you know, head up that mission to do that? I mean, 1 only have a small section of the river in my district. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me work on that, and I'll try to arrange something for -- maybe for the next Commission meeting we'll have something planned so we can address it. Let me tell you, if you allow me, 1 will never support anything, any project that will shut down a business that is operating and that is providing jobs to anybody, and the reality is that these places have been abandoned for years and years and years, and another reality is that even people that were members of this Miami River Group committee that owned property in the river of Miami, they shut down their operation and they sold the land because they wanted to profit on that, and the specific site -- I don't know the specific site, but I know it was in your district, Commissioner Sanchez, around 8th Avenue or 5th Avenue on the river. There was a gentleman that was a part of the -- he was a member of the Miami River Group, and he didn't care about protecting the industry or protecting the jobs, or protecting anything. He -- someone came up and offer -- made him a good offer, and he took it up on the offer and sold -- closed down the business and sold the property, and this is what is happening here. There's people that are coming and they're looking at these sites, the abandoned sites, and they're making an offer, and the actual owners are selling, and that's -- you know, the demand, so we -- there's nothing, as government, that we can do, but let me tell you once again, I will --1 won't have -- I will never have anything to do with shutting down a place that is providing jobs and livelihood for people. 1 will never do anything like that, and 1 will always support the industry if they ever come to this Commission with a proposed plan for a site to open a new business and provide jobs for the community, I'll be the first one to support that proposition, but that hasn't happened. That hasn't happened. I haven't heard this group come up to the Commission and say, we're here to present this company that wants to establish a business in this site for the marine industry. I haven't seen them; I haven't heard them in six years, so I don't know when is that -- that is going to happen. If it ever happens, they will have a supporter in this Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. As the Chair, I get to go last. Let's cut through all the smoke and just get to the bottom line. The Urban Infill Plan has not been approved by this City of Miami Page 172 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commission; that's just it. It hasn't been approved by this Commission. I'm very sympathetic to the marine industry. I'm very sympathetic to the Miami River Commission. The bottom line is that it hasn't been adopted by the City, and therefore, it is not something that this City should comply with, as we speak. However, I have stated many times before we are not capitalizing and we're not extending a hand to an industry that is to the advantage of the City of Miami, and that is the marine industry. We're losing a lot of these -- and the arguments have been made -- to Fort Lauderdale and abroad because we don't have the place, but I could tell you this much. As a policymaker, when you have to base things on the facts and base things on the legislative law that's in front of us, you look at this today, and it's -- you know, you have a place that's been abandoned since 202 [sic], 201 [sic], 203 [sic], whatever. It is blight and slum compared to something that is going to come forth and it's going to be, you know, residential; improves the area, improves the quality of life, and I have to say it has marinas, and I've made it very clear. I am not supportive of us infilling anymore. I'm -- it's going to get to a point where I think really the Mayor should take the leadership on this and sit down with the Miami River Commission and bring it to a vote; either we vote it up or we vote it down, but we're doing a terrible injustice to the Miami River Commission, to the industry, to the residents, and to this legislative body that has to make these tough decisions here, because it's tough for me to sit here and say, hey, you know, yeah, we should preserve it. Leave it like that; we're not going to do anything. We're going to protect the marine industry. That area is going to be there for years, and somebody's going to have to buy -- the property owner, the guy who paid all the money. It certainly ain't going to be the City, so once again, I feel that if the marine industry comes with a new project -- Merrill Stevens just -- is going to expand. Great. God bless him. You know, we're here to support him. If he came in front of us and we voted him down, then we're hypocrites, but if we supported the industry and we support any other industry that comes in front of us to enhance employment, to enhance quality of life, to make it better for all of us, I mean, we need to work with everybody. The biggest concern that I have here is that, yes, we are losing -- little by little, we're losing that balance, and we need to maintain that balance. The history of the river is a working river and a livable river. We have to maintain a certain level to make sure that all those that live, work, and play in the river are going to be content, but I could tell you this much. It's hard for me to make a decision and say, you know what, I support the Miami River Commission because the infill -- the law says you -- you know, it's been adopted and it's the law. Then I could vote to say no development, but there's nothing in writing. 1t is in writing, but it hasn't been adopted by this Commission, so I have to say, well, if you look at the project and you look what's there today, what's better -- what's the betterment for the entire city? Well, it's option B, so it's a tough decision for us to make, but until we don't have that urban plan -- infill plan adopted by this Commission, really it's going to be -- it's going to always put the marine industry possibly not in the losing end, but it's going to be a disadvantage, so I just want to state that. I think we've had plenty of debate. There's a motion and a second on the table. That's PZ -- Mr. Fernandez: 28. Commissioner Sanchez: -- 28, and it's PZ28, 29, and what? Ms. Slayk: 30. Chairman Gonzalez: 30. Mr. Fernandez: 30. Commissioner Sanchez: And 30. All right. We'll go with PZ.28, which is an ordinance on second reading. That is the Brisas del Rio. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call. Mr. Fernandez. PZ.28. City of Miami Page 173 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Commissioner Sanchez: Next PZ (Planning & Zoning) item. Chairman Gonzalez.: PZ -- Ms. Slazyk. PZ.29 is the companion zoning change. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ.29 is an ordinance also on second reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. I mean, we need a -- Chairman Gonzalez: 1'11 move -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- motion. Chairman Gonzalez: -- the ordiannce. Commissioner Sanchez: We have a motion by the Chair. Is there a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Second by Spence -- Commissioner Spence -Jones. Any discussion on the item? Hearing no discussion, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. 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. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ.30 is a resolution. Is there a motion? Chairman Gonzalez: Move it. Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion by Chairman Gonzalez -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: -- second by Spence -- Commissioner Spence -Jones. Any discussion on the item? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone in opposition having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. City of Miami Page 174 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you very much. PZ.29 05-00764b ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 25, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "SD-4" WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL (FOR PARCEL 2) AND "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO REMAIN "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (FOR PARCEL 1), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1583 NORTHWEST 24TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 05-00764b Legislation.PDF 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Exhibits A & B.PDF 05-00764b Analysis.PDF 05-00764a & 05-00764b Zoning Map.pdf 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Aerial Map.pdf 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Miami River Commission Recomm.PDF 05-00764b ZB Reso.PDF 05-00764b Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 05-00764b FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00764 & 05-00764b Submittal Letter.pdf 05-00764b SR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00764 analysis.pdf 05-00764 Letter.pdf 05-00764 Photos.pdf REQUEST: To Amend Ordinance No. 11000, from SD-4 Waterfront Industrial District and R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential to C-1 Restricted Commercial (for Parcel 2) and R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential to Remain R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential (for Parcel 1) to Change the Zoning Atlas LOCATION: Approximately 1583 NW 24th Avenue APPLICANT(S): Brisas del Rio, Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Found the proposed Brisas del Rio project to be inconsistent with the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan on November 1, 2004. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 11, City of Miami Page 175 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 2005 by a vote of 8-1. See companion File IDs 05-00764 and 05-00764a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial (for Parcel 2) and remain R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential (for Parcel 1) for the proposed Brisas del Rio Major Use Special Permit project. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton 12777 Note for the Record. Please see Item PZ.28 for minutes referencing Item PZ.29. PZ.30 05-00764a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE BRISAS DEL RIO PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1583 NORTHWEST 24TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED -USE HIGH RISE AND TOWNHOUSE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES THREE TOWERS RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM 177 FEET TO 247 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 698 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 2,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 1,158 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES; 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 176 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-00764a Outside Cover.PDF 05-00764a Table of Contents.pdf 05-00764a TAB A - Letter of Intent.pdf 05-00764a TAB B - Application - MUSP.pdf 05-00764a TAB C - Zoning Write-Up.pdf 05-00764a TAB E - Aerial.pdf 05-00764a TAB F - Zoning Atlas Page 25.pdf 05-00764a TAB G - Project Data Sheet.pdf 05-00764a TAB H - Warranty Deed & Tax Forms.pdf 05-00764a TAB I - Ownership List & Mailing Lables.pdf 05-00764a TAB J - State of FL Corp Docs.pdf 05-00764a TAB K - Directory of Project Principals.pdf 05-00764a TAB L - Project Description.pdf 05-00764a TAB M - Minority Construction Employment Plan.pdf 05-00764a TAB M - Minority Construction Employment Plan.pdf 05-00764a TAB N - Traffic Study.pdf 05-00764a TAB N - URS Sufficiency Letter.pdf 05-00764a TAB 0 - Site Utility Study.pdf 05-00764a TAB P - Economic Impact Analysis.pdf 05-00764a TAB Q - Site Plans including Survey & Photos.pdf 05-00764a Legislation.pdf 05-00764a Exhibit A.pdf 05-00764a Exhibit B.pdf 05-00764a Analysis.pdf 05-00764a & 05-00764b Zoning Map.pdf 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Aerial Map.pdf 05-00764a HEPB Reso.pdf 05-00764a Miami -Dade Aviation Dept Comments.pdf 05-00764a Traffic Sufficiency Letter.pdf 05-00764a Pre -Application Design Review Comments.pdf 05-00764a Miami -Dade Aviation Dept Letter.pdf 05-00764, 05-00764a & 05-00764b Miami River Commission Recomm.PDF 05-00764 & 05-00764a School Board Comments.PDF 05-00764a PAB Reso.pdf 05-00764a Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00764 analysis.pdf 05-00764 Letter.pdf 05-00764 Photos.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Brisas del Rio Project LOCATION: Approximately 1583 NW 24th Avenue APPLICANT(S): Brisas del Rio, Inc. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Ben Fernandez, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* of a Certificate of Appropriateness to City Commission on September 22, 2004 by a vote of 6-0. City of Miami Page 177 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION: Found the proposed project to be inconsistent with the Miami River Corridor Urban lnfill Plan on November 1, 2004. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 20, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File Ds 05-00764 and 05-00764b. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Brisas del Rio project. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Winton R-06-0133 Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.28 for minutes referencing Item PZ30. PZ.31 05-01050 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 36TH STREET BETWEEN NORTH MIAMI AVENUE AND NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 05-01050 Legislation.pdf 05-01050 Exhibit A.pdf 05-01050 Planning Analysis.pdf 05-01050 Zoning Map.pdf 05-01050 Aerial Map.pdf 05-01050 Class II Special Permit Final Decision.pdf 05-01050 Class II Special Permit Appeal.pdf 05-01050 Public Works Analysis.pdf 05-01050 Public Works Letter.pdf 05-01050 ZB Reso.pdf 05-01050 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-01050 Fact Sheet 10-27-05.pdf 05-01050 Presentation.pdf 05-01050 Submittal-1pdf 05-01050 Submittal-2.pdf 05-01050 Submittal-3.pdf 05-01050 Submittal-4.pdf 05-01050 Fact Sheet 11-03-05.pdf 05-01050 Fact Sheet 12-15-05.pdf 05-01050 Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf 05-01050 Petition.pdf 05-01050 Corres..pdf 05-01050 Photos.pdf 05-01050 Traffic Impact Study.pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of an Alley City of Miami Page 178 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 LOCATION: Approximately North of NE 36th Street Between North Miami Avenue and NE Miami Court APPLICANT(S): A & S Design District Development, LLC APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval with conditions* on June 2, 2005 by a vote of 5-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on September 12, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. See related File ID 05-01050a. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site for the proposed Electra project. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 2 - Commissioner Winton and Sanchez R-06-0134 Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.31. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.31 and -- they have to be taken separate. 31 and 32 are for the same site, but one is an official vacation and closure of an alley, and PZ.32 is an appeal of a Class II, so I think they really need to be separate, yes. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, let me speak to that. While these two items are related, the standard of review and the way that you must conduct yourself on both of them really differs dramatically, so I will advise you that you may open both of them together at the same time, but on 31, you are able 10 take full range of evidence. You may hear from the neighbors. Anyone may speak to the limited issue, which is the vacating and aban -- closing, vacating, and abandoning, and discontinuing of that right-of-way. When you hear that and you hear that fully, then you vote on that; you close it whichever way it goes. Then you need to move to the next item, and at that point, you need to conduct yourself in an appellate manner. We will explain to you the limitations that you have when you get to that particular hearing. Ms. Sla-yk: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: OK Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, Mr. City Attorney, I just want to be clear. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. City of Miami Page 179 Printed on 3117/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, while we're dealing with -- number one, this is the issue that we were talking about earlier -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- Ms. Sandoval. This is why it's very important, you know, to be able to have that item pass so we're not put in a situation that we're not able to hear it again, correct? Mr. Fernandez.: No, not on 31. On -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, I'm saying on 32. OK. Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry? Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. God was speaking. Mr. Fernandez: Yes? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm saying on 32 -- Mr. Fernandez: On 32. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so this is the reason why it's important for the item that we were talking about earlier -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and Ms. Sandoval had some concerns about it not being passed Mr. Fernandez. Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so now 31, we're able to hear from both sides? Mr. Fernandez: From both sides, from any neighbors, from anyone — Commissioner Spence -Jones: Now -- Mr. Fernandez: -- that wishes to speak now on 31 -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: 31. Mr. Fernandez: -- but on 32, you cannot hear from anyone other than the attorney representing the parties and you reading and making reference to the record in front of you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So it's time for me -- this provides us with the opportunity to ask everything we need to ask now for the first time on 31. Mr. Fernandez: On 31-- Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's it. Mr. Fernandez: -- limiting yourself to the issue -- City of Miami Page 180 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Slazyk: To the alley closure, right. Mr. Fernandez: -- of vacating and street closure. Ms. Slazyk: Right -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Slazyk. -- and that's important to put in the record; 31 is not the Class II. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, I know. Ms. Slazyk.: It's not the development. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 know. Ms. Slazyk: It's just the alley closure, OK Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 know. Ms. Slazyk: The -- OK, so PZ.31 is an official vacation and closure of an alley north of Northeast 36th Street between North Miami Avenue and Northeast Miami Court. It's been recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning Department, approval with conditions by Public Works, and approval with conditions by the Plat and Street Committee. It was also recommended for approval by the Zoning Board. The applicant has proffered, as part of this vacation of an alley, a series of public improvements and also a voluntary contribution in the amount of $50, 786.72 towards the cost of the City's Capital Improvement Program job entitled "Buena Vista Heights," so in addition to all of the site improvements, they've also proffered the $50,000, and I'll let them describe to you what that project is for, so it has been recommended for approval. Gilberto Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, I'll wait till you have a quorum. Chairman Gonzalez: We have quorum. We have Commissioner Regalado over there. Mr. Pastoriza: Oh, OK. Chairman Gonzalez: He's over there. Unidentified Speaker: 1 think they need to wait. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Pastoriza: OK. Gilberto Pastoriza, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, here on behalf of the applicant. With me is Adrienne Pardo, and we're co -counsels on this matter. I'm going to give the first portion of the presentation, and then Ms. Pardo will give the balance of the presentation. We were here before you one time before on this alley closure, and Commissioner Winton at that time requested that we defer this matter until the appeal came along so that you could have -- although you can't talk about the project during the appeal, it's very limited, but Commissioner Winton wanted to see a project that came along with this road closure. We're requesting the vacation and closure of a very narrow, thin strip of property, which is located between Northeast Miami Court and North Miami Avenue, just north of 36th Street. It's a ten foot alley by -- 188 foot alley. Your Section 55-15 of the Code, which I have a board here for you, tells you what are the standards, OK, that you must meet -- that we must meet in order for the vacation to be granted. I would like first to point out to you that your Public Works City of Miami Page 181 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Department, when they went through the tentative plat here, they went through all of these standards, and they found that this application met all of those standards, and therefore they recommended approval of this road closure. The first prong -- or the first standard that we must meet is, is it in the public interest, or would the general public benefit from the vacations of the rights -of -way or easements? 111 submit to you that there is various things that this applicant is doing towards the public benefit prong of this test. The first thing, which you heard your department state, Ms. Slazyk, is that we have -- and in your recommendations is one of the conditions that we contribute $50, 786.72 for improvements to offset some of the capital improvements program for job number B-40699, which is in the Buena Vista Heights. The Buena Vista Heights improvement project is addressing street improvements to the surrounding streets in the area, thus providing a general public benefit in the immediate area. In addition, after consultations with your staff, we are hereby committing and we are -- we would -- we don't mind if you add an additional condition if you chose to approve this application -- we're hereby committing up to $50, 000 to assist the City of Miami in creating a gateway -type entrance feature in the public right-of-way to herald the Miami Avenue corridor. The applicant commits to working with the City's Planning & Zoning Department, the Public Works Department, and the Capital Improvement Program to accomplish this objective of creating this landmark feature for North Miami Avenue at the entrance of Midtown Miami. Finally, and you will see shortly, the applicant has incorporated into the project many ground level open public spaces, and 1 think that you'll see our architect describe them more fully in a minute, so we do have three basic components that we're doing that all address the public benefit. The next portion of the test is whether the alley really is being -- whether the public no longer uses the right-of-way or easements, including police, service vehicles, et cetera, et cetera. I'm going to hand out to you -- and 1 hand it out also at our first meeting -- a photographs that shows that this alley is not in use. It hasn't been in use in many, many years. The alley is not paved. The access to this alley is very restricted because you have 1-395 that runs along the northern portion of our property, right through here, so that North Miami Court ends, so this is -- this alley right here is very short and is very nonuse. In addition, it's only ten foot in width. Your Code -- so ten feet of width is very difficult for you to have fire trucks, for you to have garbage trucks, for you to have any kind of public service vehicles traveling through that alley. Even your Code, Section 55-11(b) of your Code recognizes this and requires an alley to be 20 feet in width, so for all practical purposes, this alley is nonfunctional. We own both sides of this alley. The next prong of your standards is would there be no adverse effect on the ability to provide police, fire, or emergency service? I think, on the contrary, the fact that we are asking to close this nonconforming alley because it's a very narrow alley and we have frontages on all three avenues, opens our entire project for accessibility, fire, police, and everything. Trash, by the way, is going to be collected in the interior of the building. It's all going to be out from the street. The last prong of your test is the pedestrian enhancement. With the vacation and closure, the rights -of -way or easements have a beneficial effect on pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area. I would like to bring in Mr. Kobi Karp, who is our architect, to address the beneficial effects of this project on the pedestrian scenery, and then I would like to bring in our expert in traffic, Mr. Richard Garcia, who would like to talk to you about the beneficial effects of closing this alley, the layout of this project, and how that would benefit the vehicular circulation in the area. For the record, I would also like to place a copy of Mr. Garcia's -- Mr. Garcia did a traffic study for the area also, and he will talk to you a little bit about the results of that traffic study. 1 would like to place that traffic study on the record, and without anything further, Mr. Karp, please. Kobi Karp: Hi. Good afternoon. I'll try to be brief. As has been so eloquently described to you, we have basically met with your staff and reviewed the project a number of times and got a number of comments, and one of the comments that kept on coming back to us that this site, which is immediately adjacent to Midtown Miami -- it's right across the street -- which is currently under construction -- I believe the Zyscovich building is about to the 25th floor, so now -- and it has the commercial continuing on this side, meaning to the west. They wanted our pedestrian friendly street to be not only on North Miami Avenue, but only -- but also on 36th Street, so what you'll see is that we opened up a commercial facade, a glass facade to North City of Miami Page 182 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Miami Avenue -- so we opened up a glass facade to North Miami Avenue and also to 36th Street. One of the comments that came to us then is that there is an opportunity for us to improve the existing sidewalks and also set the glass and the commercial facades back to create more of a promenade effect, so we did that all along North Miami Avenue and 36; and then another comment came through, which was can we carve out the area on the corner of 36 and North Miami Avenue, which would give more of an open plaza corner because most folk come down -- they come down the ramp right here. This is the ramp which takes you from the Julia Tuttle, 195, and you descend down to 36 Street, at which point you can make a left under the highway and enter the Design District, or you can make a right and half a block down, and you're on the corner of what I think is going to be Target on this corner on Midtown Miami, so what staff has asked us to do is to create an opportunity for an open plaza which is about eight thousand plus square feet on this corner; recess the promenade back and the street to create more of a pedestrian street friendly, and then also what came to us was the request to improve the area and really make it a zipper connection because right now the area is quite derelict in the sense that there is no commercial function happening there. There is construction across the street, and there is a gallery existing on this corner, so what they asked us to do is also when people descend down the ramp, to create a vista along the Julia Tuttle, which is a green landscaped vista, which we created; and also, to create a glass facade, which is when the staff also came up and suggested an opportune location to create a point of reference, a point of arrival, whether it's signage and what have you, to recognize that you have arrived at a certain area, so that's the pedestrian and the public ambience that we have created, which has a full residential liner facing 36 Street and North Miami Avenue, and keeping our garbage trucks and service trucks on Northeast Miami Court, and tucking it away inside the building along the highway. If you drive by, you will see that there is a sign -- there's a highway sign, which is perpendicular to the highway, and that sign has a long-term lease, so what we did is we really kept it there and created here a green area to create more of a vista and an open space, and with that, 1 think that is it, so -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah. 1 would like to -- Mr. Richard Garcia, if you could, please -- our traffic engineer, just touch on a couple of traffic issues with regards to the fourth item on the prong test. Richard Garcia: Hi. Good afternoon. Richard Garcia, Richard Garcia & Associates, 13117 Northwest 107th Avenue. I think they asked me only to discuss the items regarding the alley closure. I did a traffic impact study also for this project, and so if you have any questions regarding that, I'll be more than happy to answer. However, regarding the alley and the public benefit of closing an alley, 1 looked at this from a traffic engineering standpoint, from an FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) traffic engineering standpoint, since I worked there for eight years. North Miami Avenue isn't a state road; Northwest 36th Street is. In any regard, if this was a state road, it would be held to a higher standard, and that standard would be what's called access management. They would look at the spacing between this as an access point or a driveway and 36th Street. What the department would find is that it's too close. It's what they call in the influence area of the intersection. In other words, any cars slowing down to turn right into this driveway, or for that matter, any cars coming out of there would influence the operation and the safety of that intersection because it's too close. That's why driveway spacing is very important in an urban area, for operation and safety of the arterial. Furthermore, like Gil mentioned, the alley is only ten feet wide, so from a driving land standpoint, that's substandard. A standard lane width is 12 feet. As a matter of fact, ten foot lanes are only allowed on what we call auxiliary lanes, which are left -turn lanes, so that would be a severe issue in even trying to maintain this as a viable alley or street. Additionally, it's -- it would have to be -- let's say you wanted to, let's say approve a variance for a narrow road. Let's just say, hypothetically. It would have to be directional, right. You could only either be in or out. You can't be both, obviously, right, so that would cause a problem, too, because regardless of what signing you do, if you design it for inbound, anyone that goes the wrong way, you know, you could have a car trying to turn in while one's trying to come out, and that causes a severe operational, and then that leads to a safety problem. On the contrary, if you do it the other way around, you have, of City of Miami Page 183 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 course, vice versa, so any way you look at this, it's really -- probably when it was designed or thought of was many, many years ago, and the conditions were not as they are today, so -- and if you have any questions regarding the traffic impacts or traffic study, I'll be more than happy to - Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just would like to ask -- I'm sure the neighbors are going to also present, too, but what's the entry -- where do you enter for parking? I mean, like where is the entry point? Mr. Pastoriza: All access to the building is on Northeast Miami Court. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Pastoriza.: Miami Avenue and 36 Street are totally pedestrian friendly without any driveway connections. Everything is done on Northeast Miami Court, which as you know, dead -ends on I-395. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so really there's not going to be any issues with cars going out on the main roads like North Miami Avenue or 36? Mr. Pastoriza: Right. By eliminating the alley -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Mr. Pastoriza: -- you eliminate that access from this property to Miami Avenue. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. This -- I know we're only talking about one traffic -- part of this traffic study, which was for the alley, correct? But there was an overall traffic study done, correct? Mr. Garcia: That's right. There was a traffic impact study, and I believe it was submitted for the record. Commissioner Spence -Jones: What -- did we somehow share that with the neighborhood association? Mr. Garcia: I'm sorry. Say again. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Did we share that with the neighborhood association? Mr. Pastoriza: Well, we met with the neighborhood association -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. I mean, did we -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- numerous times -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, no. Did we share -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- the traffic study with them? Mr. Pastoriza: It was part of the record. I introduced it into the record at the last meeting that we were here, and -- City of Miami Page 184 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: So they got copies of it? Mr. Pastoriza: They should have gotten it from the records. It was on the records. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Chairman. Mr. Pastoriza: And just to -- if you don't have any more questions -- Commissioner Regalado: I have a question. Mr. Pastoriza: OK. Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Hypothetical. If the City wanted you to do a pedestrian friendly on Miami Avenue and on 36, right, so you need landscaping and all that, what happen if the alley closure is denied? Can you comply with the City's request? Mr. Garcia: That might be more of an architectural question -- Commissioner Regalado: Right. Mr. Garcia: -- for the architect. Mr. Pastoriza: Well, if the alley closure is denied, you're still going to have the access from -- to Miami Avenue -- Commissioner Regalado: I understand. Mr. Pastoriza: -- and it will split up -- you know, it will split up the development into two sides. Commissioner Regalado: No, I understand that, but in order to make what the Planning Department wants, pedestrian friendly on both street and avenue, do you need the alley? Mr. Pastoriza: No. Commissioner Regalado: You don't. OK All done. Mr. Pastoriza: On the contrary, by eliminating the alley, you make those two streets more pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Regalado: But that's what I'm asking. Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah, they are. Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm asking. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. By eliminating the alley, you make North Miami Avenue entirely pedestrian friendly because you no longer have a curb cut on Miami Avenue. Commissioner Regalado: Well, that's what I'm asking -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- that if they request pedestrian -friendly on both -- City of Miami Page 185 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- then the alley is necessary. Mr. Pastoriza: No. The -- Commissioner Regalado: The alley closure. Mr. Pastoriza: -- closure is necessary, right. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, that's what I'm asking. Mr. Pastoriza: Correct. Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes, sir. Now Ms. Pardo will complete the balance of the presentation. Thank you. Adrienne Pardo: I have some additional boards I'm just going to put up. Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Gil Pastoriza and 1 have been working on this project for several months with regards to the alley closure as well as the Class II Permit that we need in order for the building -- and 1 think I have a -- there's a rendering of the building, and it shows the 1-95 in the rear, just to give you an idea of the location. We have the Electra building, which is located in the SD-8 district. It's in the far south corner, and it's right across the street from Midtown, and we have 1-95, which is behind it. We have the SD-8 district, which is approximately 38 acres, and then we have the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association up here. The reason I'm showing you all of this is because we do have opposition from the Association, and we've met with the Association on many, many -- actually, we've met with a couple of the representatives from the Association on many occasions -- three or four, or maybe even five times -- trying to see if we could come to reach an agreement, and unfortunately, we haven't been able to reach an agreement with the Association with regards to the building. We had obtained a Class II Permit for the building, which is a total of 420 feet. Since we couldn't reach an agreement with the association, we tried to reach out to other people within the neighborhood, and that's why I wanted to show you the location. I think it's important for you to see where we're located off of 30 -- Northeast 36th Street and North Miami Avenue, and the Association being located -- their neighborhood begins around 42nd Street, and it's approximately 1,300 feet or more to the north, so we reached out to other people within the neighborhood, and we made this chart, which 1 have a smaller version. 1'!1 submit it into the record, and what this board shows you is where the Electra property is located, and in red are the three individuals who had appealed our Class II Permit, showing you where they're located, which is over 300 --1, 300 feet away, and then we have signatures, which 1 will submit into the record, which we showed you in green, and these are individuals who have said they don't have any objection to the project, as well as the alley closure; and then we also have some businesses within the Design District 'cause this property is in the SD-8 district, which is in the Design District, and just to give you some background on where we're located -- within the SD-8 district, you are allowed to have unlimited height within this district, and it's been this way for many, many, many years; over ten years this district has had unlimited height, and there are other projects as well within this district that have approved Class Hs. One of them, in fact -- and we showed them here, Cube is here, which is right on Northeast 41st Street, and Aria, which is on 41st Street, as well. These projects do have approved Class Its for them to be built. Cube is actually at 240 feet, and the Electra is back here, just to give you an idea. This is looking south towards Midtown. Electra is back here. You have Cube, which is approved at 240 feet, and Aria, which is approved at 202 feet. Aria has a foundation permit, so these are projects that City of Miami Page 186 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 will be built in the Design District already. I just had some other renderings. You have -- Aria is going to have approximately 78 residential units, and Cube will have 101, and then here's another aerial we did which shows you just the building. This is the proposed Electra, and these are -- this is Midtown in the foreground. You have Cube, Aria, and the Blue, and the coastline over here. One of the things we did when we met with the other individuals within the neighborhood, we had met with them and we had agreed to lower the building to 360 feet with them, so we would ask that if you approve the building, that you -- you know, you could put that as a condition, that it be no higher -- the top of the roof be no higher than 360 feet, which we think is appropriate. We believe that with the alley closure -- even if the alley closure wasn't approved, you could still build two buildings here, but obviously -- and it's much more efficient and pedestrian friendly to have this particular alley closure, and with that I'm going to just reserve time for rebuttal for whatever we need to say on rebuttal and answer any questions that you may have with regards to this application. Oh, and I have the signatures I'd like to put into the record, and 1 have copies as well. Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 just have some quick questions from a staff standpoint real fast so that I have clarity on some issues. Lourdes, I guess -- OK I think one of the biggest issues was the traffic study in the beginning, so I think we've kind of dealt with some of the traffic study's related issues. My concern when I look at this plan and the aerial is the two other projects -- what is it, Aria and Cube, correct? Can -- yeah. I'm just trying to -- they're on Northwest 41 st, correct? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Speaking to staff. Correct? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. The Aria project was approved as a Class II Special Permit. It was approved at 211 feet, or 18 stories, and Cube was approved also as a Class II at 244 feet, 23 stories. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Were the neighborhood associations involved in both? 1 mean, were they -- Ms. Slazyk: I -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- consulted in both? Do you -- Ms. Pardo: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: I don't know. 1 don't know. I think -- Ms. Pardo: They could answer that. Ms. Slazyk: -- one of them was appealed Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'd have to ask the neighborhood association. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm going to ask the existing neighborhood association from that area, which would be Buena Vista. !'m talking about Aria and Cube. That's all I'm speaking of now. Brenda Kuhns: Our neighborhood -- well, our neighborhood association was -- Rafael Suarez -Rivas (Assistant City Attorney): OK. I'm sorry. Please give your name and -- City of Miami Page 187 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Kuhns: Brenda Kuhns, 119 Northeast 43rd Street. We actually planned to address this in our presentation, but we were notified that the buildings were coming. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Both? Ms. Kuhns: Of Aria and Cube, but the problem is is that this was in 2003, and nobody had ever proposed something so out of scale and so enormous for our neighborhood, and our neighborhood association frankly was just caught off guard. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Ms. Kuhns: 1 mean, you're given notice and you have 15 calendar days to start basically an entire legal proceeding, and our neighborhood association was consulted about the projects. We chose not to oppose them, but that is why we have created a development committee. We've learned what the law is since then -- Section 1305 was passed At the time that these two projects were proposed, Section 1305 hadn't even passed; it was passed in 2004. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Brenda, you're going to give me a full presentation. I just wanted to ask that -- I wanted to be clear of that. Ms. Kuhns: Unfortunately, yes. We just weren't prepared at the time. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK No problem. I'm sure in your presentation you'll go through it; so they were aware of both projects. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. The Class 11 requires that -- Class II procedure requires that the registered associations receive notice. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Whether they -- the -- once they got their notice, whether they met with the developer or not, we have no way of knowing how -- who -- if anyone reached out to anybody else. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But they were -- they're saying -- Ms. Slazyk: They did receive notice. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- they stated on the record that they did -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes, yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and did they receive alley closures for those two? Do you know offhand? Ms. Slazyk: No, I don't know. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Slazyk: 1 don't think they did. Commissioner Spence -Jones: You don't think they -- Ms. Slazyk: I don't believe they did because I don't remember them coming to Commission, and City of Miami Page 188 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 an alley closure requires Commission approval. Mr. Pastoriza: I don't think that those projects required an alley closure. Ms. Slazyk: No. I don't recall that neither. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. 1 just --1 was just trying to get clarity because you're looking at 41st Street, which is much closer -- and really deeper into the Buena Vista, you know, Historic Home [sic] Association's area. That's like in the heart -- really like on the borderline of it, unlike when I look at -- the project that's in front of us now has that highway -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes, in between. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- which -- Ms. Slazyk: Absoutely. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- not only does it has a buffer for the highway, it also has a buffer for -- of the Design District, correct? Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So -- and I understand -- and I'm sure Brenda and the homeowners' association is going to break it down for me so that I truly understand what their issues are and concerns, but when I look at what I'm seeing in front of me now, which is very different when you're looking at it from a visual standpoint -- I mean, literally you have a project on Northwest 41 st Street that, you know, you said yes to. Ms. Pardo, I got it. Ms. Kuhns: May 1 add something also -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Ms. Kuhns: -- to this discussion? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure. Ms. Kuhns: But this is really getting into a discussion of Section 1305 and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Ms. Kuhns: -- context and the zoning, and the alley closure hinges not on what properties are around the building, but whether or not the project that they're proposing creates a public benefit to the neighborhood. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Slazyk: No. Ms. Kuhns: I just wanted to -- Ms. Slazyk: That's not a -- Ms. Kuhns: -- say because -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: But, Brenda, what I'm trying to do is have a very clear City of Miami Page 189 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 understanding -- Ms. Kuhns: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- about what's being asked of me. Ms. Kuhns: Fair enough. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's within my district, so 1 want to be clear, and this is the first time that I'm seeing this. Ms. Kuhns: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so -- Ms. Kuhns: Fair enough. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. Ms. Slazyk: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: The --1 just wanted to put for the record, the alley closure doesn't require that the project be a public benefit. It's just -- the requirements, I believe, were already read into the record. Mr. Suarez -Rivas.: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: The requirements are in the City Code and staff is mindful of them. The Commission should stay focused on those requirements because that's what the alley closure is about. I mean, it's not about the project in general or the appeal. It's about those four factors in the Code: Is it in the public interest? Is the general public no longer using the right-of-way? Would there be no adverse effect? And would the vacation or closure of the right-of-way or easement have a beneficial effect on pedestrian/vehicular circulation in the area? Those factors. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And just so that I'm real clear, the reason why I asked about the alley closures for the last two projects, it, to me -- I thought it would -- if we did something similar to that, I thought that there -- Mr. City Attorney told me that that is the case, right? That I could ask that question -- Mr. Fernandez: Regarding the alley closure. Commissioner Spence -Jones: The alley closure -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Alley closure. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so I asked about the two other projects that had -- whether or not they had alley closures, correct? Ms. Slazyyk. Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. City of Miami Page 190 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Does that conclude your presentation, so I can open the public hearing? Mr. Pastoriza: I'd just like to add one more thing, that this project, remember, comes to you as a Class IL There's no rezoning involved here. There's no comp. plan amendments involved here. There are no variances involved here. There are no bonuses being thought out here; no FAR (floor/area ratio) bonuses, nothing. This is a Class II by -- which is required under 608 of your Zoning Code. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Does that conclude your presentation by now? Mr. Pastoriza: 1-- Yeah. Ms. Pardo: Yes. Mr. Pastoriza: I'd just like to -- Ms. Pardo: We're just going to reserve -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- reserve some time for rebuttal. Chairman Gonzalez: Of course. All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to address the Commission? Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Ms. Kuhns: We definitely have our presentation, but Hattie wanted to -- she has somewhere to be, so she's going first. Hattie Willis: I apologize. Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you very much for allowing me to speak My name is Hattie Willis, and 1 am the president of Communities United, which encompasses 36th Street to 84th Street to the railroad track to 10th Avenue northwest. One of the things that I'm really concerned about is everyone has been saying today -- and 1 respect everyone for the allowances that you say things are in pieces, but that's the mistake that we've been making in the City in a very long time. See, things are not in pieces, Commissioner. What affects one affects the all. We are a hole in a body. Right now we've got some serious major issues going on that we're asking you to take a look at, and I need you to think about this. This is not pieces, and what they're asking is not a piece of First of all, 1 want you to understand that there is 29 condos and things going on around us in our area, in our community right now with street improvement projects on 36 Street that's going on right now. Biscayne Boulevard is going on right now. We're about to break ground on Northeast 2nd Avenue, and we're building a brand-new park, and these children have to cross Northeast 2nd Avenue. I don't want to be standing here in front of you after four of them are dead because they didn't get a opportunity to cross the street because we didn't have a carryover or a flyover or a bicycle pass for them. This is not a piece. We got to do this in perspective to take care of the City. I welcome any economic development. 1 welcome anybody to do anything, but we need to do it so that the people who are community citizens that live in the City of Miami, that work, that have their business there are taken care of first. That's why you guys are here and we elected you. Now, I can't stop any of this, but this is what I'm asking. I was late here today because we had to go to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) because one of the things that -- that's why Commissioner Winton is not here, and 1 was thinking that he was going to be here, knowing that he couldn't be in two places. We need to get a feasibility study done. We need to stop some of City of Miami Page 191 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 this madness going on until we can get the Miami 21 completed so that we all know what's going on because we don't know what's going on. The second thing we need to do is $50, 000 is an insult, OK. Look at this. We need some help here, and if they're going to build whatever they're going to build to do whatever they're going to do, $50, 000 is an insult to the community. I'm asking you to not do this. Pm asking you before you do anything -- and I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying let's sit down, just like Commissioner Spence -Jones said on the last thing, talk about this. Find out what's going on in the community adjacent to the people that are in the community, how it's going to affect us and do something about it, and have the developers get with that. The last thing and final statement is can we get a commitment from the Commission to at least deal with the County, the City, and the state, through the MPO, and kind of come up with some kind of traffic suggestion of what we're going to do with the people -- ? Chairman Gonzalez: Well, I believe that's why Commissioner Winton -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Commissioner Winton. Chairman Gonzalez: -- is sitting at the MPO. Ms. Willis: Right, exactly, but we need to -- Chairman Gonzalez: He's representing the City. Ms. Willis: Right, but we need to get you guys involved in that. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: OK. That's a separate item -- Ms. Willis: Right, but (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- that's off topic of this. 1 understand, but you're talking about MPO and the state and the County, and -- Ms. Willis: No. What I'm saying -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- all I'm -- Ms. Willis.: -- to -- OK. 1 understand what you're saying -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Right. Ms. Willis: -- and I'm respecting what you're saying, but they're not separate issues. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Right. Ms. Willis: But 1 understand what you're saying, but they're not separate issues. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: No. I'm just saying the Commission should address that separately -- Ms. Willis: Right, separately, right. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- so you have the benefit of -- Ms. Willis: Separately -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- having that as a -- City of Miami Page 192 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Willis: -- but address it. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- distinct issue. Ms. Willis: Exactly. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Right. Ms. Willis: So I'm saying to the whole thing no, and I'm saying that yes it does affect my community and my neighborhood, and where are my children going? Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It is -- Ms. Hattie, it's definitely overstood (sicj, so we definitely -- when Commissioner Winton gets back -- I think that he's probably still in that MPO meeting -- we'll continue to work with him to deal with those issues 'cause we do have -- not just for this area, but other issues that we're being faced with now. Ms. Willis.: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, I do have a serious concern, and I need to express it. Every time I hear people talking about amounts of money for exchanges or on alley closures, or on any type of zoning issue, I really get very, very concerned and very, very scared because I don't know if that legal. To me, if it is legal, it's unethical. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: No. We know -- the City of Miami does not exact nor require contributions for any kind of land use change. What -- at times, informationally, the Commission hears about a public benefit that a development is conferring, and that's done by way of factual information that this is being given to the community, but you're very correct. It cannot -- Chairman Gonzalez: But let me tell you. 1 will feel personally -- I don't know how the rest of the Commission feel, but 1 would feel much, much better if any amount of dollars that any developer is willing to give to the community, instead of saying I'm going to give you 50,000 -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- or 75,000 -- because this is not an auction here that -- I give you 50; you give me 75. No, 1'll give you a hundred; no, give me 115. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 agree. Chairman Gonzalez: I mean, if (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on talking about physical improvements -- you know, and 1 would like to hear, you know, talking about physical improvements of the neighborhood; sidewalks, parks, trees, lamps, whatever, but when -- you know, every time I hear these type of comments about monies, you know, and it happened at the last Commission meeting, and it happened at the Commission before last, and it seems to be getting, you know -- and I don't know if 1 have a reason to be concerned, but I don't want to be -- to be honest with you, you know, I don't feel comfortable to execute a vote on an item where amounts of dollars have been discussed as a condition of a vote of this Commission. I personally don't feel comfortable with that. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: And -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 agree. City of Miami Page 193 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes. Of course, legally, you're correct. Again, I think it's just laid out as factual data, but it's certainly not a condition, a stipulation, a requirement or anything like that. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Pastoriza: If I could, Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, if I could, and let me tell you the reason why that came about. We met with your staff and there was a formula that they had, and they have a public improvement project right now in the area, so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Pastoriza, I don't mean to interrupt -- Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, but I think the Chairman has basically stated a record what the issues were with the City Attorney, and I think we've addressed it. 1 would like to, at this particular time, at least allow for -- if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez.• Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- for the neighborhood association to -- OK Ms. Kuhns: Thank you. He reserved time for rebuttal and he can go then. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No problem. Ms. Kuhns: We have a short presentation. I'm just going to set it up. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Does -- I want to inquire -- Ms. Kuhns, does the presentation have to do with the street closure? Ms. Kuhns: Yes. This is a presentation dedicated entirely to the street closure. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: OK, about the street closure? Ms. Kuhns: Yes. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: OK. Ms. Kuhns: Yes, and about -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Thank you. Ms. Kuhns: -- the $50, 000. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. We're not going to mention the money part of it. The Chairman just said that we're not -- Ms. Kuhns: Oh, we're not going to talk about money? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well -- Chairman Gonzalez:: 1 don't know -- you know, I personally -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: He just wants to know about the improvement. He doesn't need to know -- City of Miami Page 194 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: You know, you talk about improvements and that's perfectly fine. I mean, you know, if you want to improve a park, you want to build a new park, you want to build sidewalks, you want to build whatever, it's perfectly -- to me, it's perfectly fine. Now when you start talking about amount of dollars -- the developer is willing to give $50, 000 or $55, 000, and $55,249.29, that really -- to me, it doesn't sound good, and we have had it, and Commissioner Spence -Jones, you just came on board, but I want you to know that we have had situations here in this city, specifically -- I'm going to talk about the Miami River once again, and we're not on the Miami River. Let me tell you. There has been opposition to projects in the Miami River, and once the developer has accepted to give "X" amount of dollars to certain groups, those same groups that came in opposition to the project spoke in favor of the project. To me -- that might be perfectly legal, but to me, it's very unethical. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, we -- we're not -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Because to me what is -- to me, if a project is bad, it's bad. Money doesn't make it good; it's bad. No matter how much money you want to give, no matter how much money you want to pay to have an approval, it's bad, it's a bad project. Now when the situation comes that after a person is willing to pay "X" amount of dollars that bad project becomes a beautiful project, that really concerns me, and that has happened in the City, OK, recently. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Commissioner Regalado: But did the -- who suggested the money? Was it the City staff? I mean -- Ms. Kuhns: I don't know who suggested the money, but 1 know that this particular project and this is what 1 wanted (INAUDIBLE) -- Commissioner Regalado: But could you let him ask -- answer the question? Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah. As part of the public benefit, OK, we met with your City staff and we met with your -- one of your Assistant City Manager and with the Capital Improvement Programs coordinator, and we said, look, is there any programs in the neighborhood that are now currently in the process of being worked that we can aid to further make those projects a reality, and that's what we did, and the monies were specifically earmarked for the Buena Vista -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Roadway improvements. Mr. Pastoriza: -- road improvements project, so absent us going ourselves and doing that, which is going to be kind of difficult, we thought that the next best thing would be to help the City, you know, defray some of the costs, in that way we improved the rights -of -ways around the property. That's how this whole thing came about, and then also, the other thing that we agreed to is that the City's trying to create this landmark feature, entrance feature into this area, and we agreed to assist the City in -- not only with design, but also if there need be monetary contributions to make that a reality too because we could not do that ourselves, but the City has that in mind -- has that project in mind, so we kind of sponsored that project. That's what we became. We became small sponsors for those two projects. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And if you don't mind me saying, Mr. Chairman -- and I'm going to let Brenda finish -- this section on North Miami Avenue was originally in the GOB (General Obligation Bond) from the County, and it didn't fall in the first phase of the funding for roadway improvements, and I know that was a big concern for the folks in Buena Vista Heights because City of Miami Page 195 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 they wanted to know when was North Miami going to get started, so if this is going to be used to at least begin or jump-start roadway improvements on North Miami Avenue, I think that's a great idea. We do need the support to get that moving, so if it's for roadway improvements and that's understood, then I'm fine with that. Ms. Kuhns: Well, I -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: And I -- Ms. Kuhns: Well, according to the -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- just wanted to --1'm sorry -- add -- clam that of course as long as the applicant is giving this as a voluntary proffer, it is -- just so there's no lack of clarity about that, entire lawful. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez. Very good. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Ms. Kuhns: 1 mean, I think there's been so much discussion about this that 1 should be allowed to at least respond. This project that they're funding has already been fully funded. It was fully funded according 10 the Department of Capital Improvements Projects report of April 4, 2005, and it was funded one month before Electra I applied for the permit. In addition, the residents of Buena Vista Heights, they earned this money. They went through a charette process that took months. They worked with the City to get the funding. They earned this money, and they never heard -- Wendy spoke with someone in the neighborhood association. They never heard of this until she told them about it a couple days ago that their project was now, 1 guess, privately sponsored. I think that to call this a public benefit when it was going to happen anyway is a real stretch, so that's what I'll say about the money. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Go ahead with your presentation. Ms. Kuhns: In addition, the money that the developer is paying for this alleyway doesn't even come close to being market value for the property. This alley is 10 by 180, which is 1,800 square feet. Just according to what the value is that they bought the property for, that makes it worth $339,475, which makes it a $289,475 gift, not to Buena Vista Heights, not to us, not to the people of Miami, but to this developer. This is not a public benefit. Sorry, I got out of -- Electra I itself is also not a public benefit. I know, Chairman, you said that you should look at just the project, and somebody else said you shouldn't look at the project, you should look at what they're giving as far as the money. I don't know which one this body wants to consider, but this is a private condominium high-rise. It's not providing a public park. It's not really a public plaza, which I'll get into later. There's no public facilities. There's no affordable housing. This is a private project for private benefit, so the project itself -- if you are so inclined to interpret the ordinance as asking that the use of this public land that you're giving the developer be a public benefit, it's not. In addition, there's a public detriment because of the impact on the zoning. Now, I'm going to stop right now and address Aria and Cube, which they mentioned because it directly deals with my point. This is a slide of what Aria and Cube looks like. It's a vacant lot. There are no buildings on it. These buildings have never happened and may never happen. There's a reason why the Code doesn't provide for conduct -- context with nonexisting buildings, and that is that they may never happen. As I mentioned earlier, we were caught very un -- we were caught by surprise and very unprepared in 2003, and we have since done our City of Miami Page 196 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 homework, and if you ask anybody in our neighborhood about Aria and Cube, this is what we'll say, "Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me," and we're ready now. That's why we're here today. In addition, Aria and Cube may never happen. They lost their financing some time ago. The projects were supposed to be done by now; they're not. They may never happen. They've changed hands a couple of times, and to permanently alter the zoning context in SD-8 by approving Electra I contingent upon two buildings that don't exist and aren't there -- Chairman Gonzalez: But let me tell you -- Ms. Kuhns: -- is not -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well, I -- Ms. Kuhns: -- appropriate. Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me. Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, 1-- Chairman Gonzalez: 1 presume that you're going to address exactly what I was going to address, but go ahead. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. I want to make sure that the speaker limits her comments to issues relative to the closure -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- of this -- Ms. Kuhns: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- alleyway. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: Anything relative to the zoning or to any other development project or financing, or anything like that -- Chairman Gonzalez: It has nothing to do -- Mr. Fernandez: -- is wholly inappropriate, and you know, this Commission is very much encouraged to disregard all of those comments. Ms. Kuhns: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Kuhns: I -- it was -- Chairman Gonzalez: 1 was going to -- Ms. Kuhns: -- discussed at such length I felt it needed to respond Chairman Gonzalez: I was going to address exactly that, that I hear, you know, going up and City of Miami Page 197 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 down -- Mr. Fernandez: The -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- and -- Mr. Fernandez: The admonition goes to both parties, ma'am. You know -- Ms. Kuhns: OK Mr. Fernandez: -- I have been listening very patiently, perhaps, to applicant alluding to issues relative to that. Perhaps, they have been responding to some inquiries made by members of the Commission, but my admonition to the Commission is that they limit the focus of their attention to issues relative to the criteria in the Code relative to street closure. Anything relative to 1305, zoning, building, permits, all of those things are wholly inappropriate. Ms. Kuhns: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Got you. Ms. Kuhns: So, as I mentioned, this public benefit of the Public Works project for Buena Vista Heights already fully funded. The $50, 000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the money that they're making, and I want to point out when Mr. Pastoriza was asked whether he could still build -- whether it would still be a benefit to the pedestrians if the alley were not closed, he answered "yes," but I want to just talk to you about what this alley closure makes possible. OK. This is a representation of the ten lots that the developer bought and has to aggregate in order to build this building. It's a little blurry, but as you can see, there are a number of lots that were purchased, and the alley runs down the middle of all of these lots. This building is absolutely not possible without the closure of this land, and that's why the question of whether or not the building creates a public benefit is so relevant because the alley makes the building possible. Without the alley closure, there is no Electra I, but what they could do, which -- is build other projects that fit onto the present lot sizes, which is what we would prefer that they do. I'm now going to turn to -- hand it over to Wendy Stephan, who's going to talk about the traffic implications of this alley closure. Wendy Stephan: To the issue of the public detriment -- Chairman Gonzalez: We need your name and address for the record. Ms. Stephan: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Wendy Stephan. I live at 101 Northeast 43rd Street. I am the president of the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association, and we've been working diligently on this project for several months. We're very concerned because we do believe there is a substantial public detriment from the construction of the building allowed specifically by this alley closure, and the applicant went on at great length about the public benefit from the alley closure being directly linked to the building. They went through their whole architectural discussion and the plaza and all these things, so our concern is what we found out from the traffic study that was actually created by the developer, and we have studied it at great length. In fact, it's dog-eared. My husband sees me taking it to bed at night, and he's concerned about my mental health, but -- I've gone through a lot -- so my concern is that this building will generate increased traffic. Keep in mind that the lot that is currently there generates no traffic, so every single car coming and going from this property is in addition -- above what's there like from the ground. For instance, this project has six stories of parking. It has 377 -- Chairman Gonzalez: Now, we're going -- City of Miami Page 198 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Stephan: -- spaces -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- again -- once again, we're going out of the alley closure. Ms. Stephan: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: You're going to go into how many floors the building has, the traffic. Ms. Stephan: Um -hum. Chairman Gonzalez: We're not talking about the project. We're talking about the alley closure, and the City Attorney just mentioned it, and we keep going outside the matter that we're discussing here. You have to concentrate on the alley closure, and also, you know, I need you to move on because you have been speaking for more than five minutes already, and we haven't hear a conclusion of why you oppose the alley closure, and that's what we want to hear. Ms. Kuhns: Could we just ask for the City Attorney's clarification? So -- Chairman Gonzalez: Sure. Ms. Kuhns: -- is your interpretation of 55 -- Section 55-15 that when it asks whether the vacation and closure would have a beneficial effect on pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area, you can't -- you cannot look at the use of the alley? Mr. Fernandez: Had this application come to the City Commission without a plan as presented by the applicant, they could have proceeded It's no requirement that when there is an application for vacation or closure, that they present a substantial plan to make it a reality, so ultimately 1 would have to answer your question that, no; that whatever plans they have for construction or building has relatively little bearing on the criteria of 55-15(c). Ms. Kuhns: So whatever -- I just want to -- we'll move on if this is the interpretation, but I just want to clam for the record -- so if the use of the property -- if the alley were closed, in order to make possible a use of the property that was obviously illegal -- and I'm going to be really dramatic with my example. Let's say someone wanted to close the alley so that they could build a methamphetamine lab, would their use, would their proposed use of the alley as such be relevant because that's really the issue that we're talking about. Mr. Fernandez: The -- Ms. Kuhns: It's hard to distinguish -- if you -- Mr. Fernandez: And the answer is -- Ms. Kuhns.' -- tell me -- Mr. Fernandez: -- no. Ms. Kuhns: -- yes, then -- Mr. Fernandez: The answer is no; it's not -- Ms. Kuhns: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- relevant. City of Miami Page 199 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Kuhns: OK. Then well wait for the other item. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Well, and at the other items, you're -- you know, as -- well, well get to the other item when we get to it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, hearing none, I'm going to -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, there's few -- there's a few up there. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Nina West: My name is Nina West. I'm a property owner at 175 Northeast 43rd Street. I'm a member of the development committee for Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhoods Association. The traffic study that was alluded to in terms of this alleyway and closure, I just want to speak to the traffic on 36 Street. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and Tuesday and Thursdays of alternate weeks, 1 arrive onto the 36 Street exit coming -- heading in an easterly direction. 1 have a log of how many minutes it takes and how far up away from that ramp 1 am, so when I am coming to exit at 9:01, 9:02, 8: 57, 9:05 in the morning, different times of the morning, the traffic doesn't just stack up into one lane. It stacks up beyond the exit lane back into the traffic. This is a very busy road. That's dangerous. OK What happens is the guy at the end of the outside lane decides that he doesn't even want to wait on line to get through, so he's cutting out. All of this is the traffic on 36 Street. This is the off -ramp heading east on 36 Street, which this traffic person alluded to the traffic on 36 Street. The impact is not just on 36 Street. It's a terrible danger to the people trying to exit 36 Street to get into the neighborhood, so if you don't think that that's important, it is important, and 1 think the other thing is that the lady who was speaking to you was alluding to a public benefit to pay for the City to put a flyover at 36 Street so that the kids could get to school without getting knocked down, not that they are looking for money themselves. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. Next. Pat Kelly: Hello. My name is Pat Kelly. I live at 75 Northeast 44th Street. I oppose the alley closure as well. I don't see the public benefit, and I don't think there's enough of a public benefit for the City to give away the land. 1 will say that the alley was in use before the current owners put a chain link fence across both sides of it so that now -- no, it is not in use at all. 1 think that the City owns this alley, and though it may be too narrow to drive down and may not be usable as a road, I would urge the Commissioner -- Commissioners to use their influence through the ownership of this alley to reduce the height and the scale of this building. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Once again, we go about the scale of the building. All right. Mr. Fernandez: Again -- Chairman Gonzalez: Next. Mr. Fernandez: -- comments relative to transportation impact, size of building, all of those go to the actual project. They're, you know, totally unrelated to -- Chairman Gonzalez.: Unrelated to the -- Mr. Fernandez: -- whether you should close or not close -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. 1 mean, you know -- go ahead. City of Miami Page 200 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ken Bower: My name is Ken Bower, 68 Northwest 47th Street. I'm also a merchant in the Design District on 39th Street and North Miami Avenue. I'm in favor of closing this alleyway to allow for this project to be built. We're in need of this project to bring in new residents and upscale retail into the Design District. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Next. Alan Murphy: Good afternoon. My name is Alan Murphy, and I live at 51 Northeast 42nd Street. I am in support of the alley closure. I'm in support of it for a number of reasons. I don't know if -- I'm sure that you have been in the Design District, and the business community is obviously (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- business going -- coming and going from one end to another. 1 believe that with a development like this, it's going to bring in the foot revenue that's going to be needed to help that community. Al nighttime, there is no foot traffic over there. A lot of the businesses are closed at night. There is some crime over there, and that's another'concern that I have. I believe with this kind of a development, it's going to bring in jobs into the community. Mr. Fernandez: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, you know, the speakers should relate only to the standards or to the criteria set out. Business or economics or all of that is really -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Alley closure. Mr. Fernandez: -- immaterial to the purpose of the closure. Mr. Murphy: Well, sir, I beg the difference because -- Mr. Fernandez: Well, the other side has been differing with --- Mr. Murphy: -- the closure -- Mr. Fernandez: -- me all day, too, but -- Mr. Murphy: OK, OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- that is instruction I'm giving to my Commission that they are to disregard any evidence or any testimony that does not directly speak to the conditions of 55-15(c). Mr. Murphy: OK. 1 would like to also just say that Ms. Spencer [sic], I see that you place a great influence on community associations, and I thank you for that, and I applaud you for that. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Jones. Mr. Murphy: Jones, I'm sorry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's OK. Mr. Murphy: Spencer -Jones [sic], but 1 think we need to know a little bit about our association. Our association does not represent the views of our community. It does not reflect the views of our community. It is not -- it does not represent the makeup of our community. Now, Ms. Kuhn will make an excellent lawyer, but I think it starts off with first being truthful. The association says that it only knew 15 days before the permits were going to go through and the building was going to go up. That's not quite true. Commissioner Spence -Jones: What does it have to do with the alleys? Mr. Fernandez: Exactly. City of Miami Page 201 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Murphy: I just -- well, it's to help to -- you're weighing the association's views -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm not weighing -- we're not weighing anything. Mr. Murphy: OK, all right. Then having said that, I do support the street closure. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Next. Let's concentrate on the street closure. Antonio Grullon.• My name is Antonio Grullon. I am a homeowner and resident at 51 Northeast 42nd Street. The closure of this alley will allow this building to go up, which will provide a resurgence of our community and the area around us. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next. Mr. Fernandez: Like they would do in a gong show, "Wonk (phonetic)," you know. Again -- but you know, I think we've made it perfectly clear to everyone -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and the Commission -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Hallelujah. Mr. Fernandez: -- must continue to listen but disregard -- Commissioner Sanchez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- any evidence or any testimony that does not directly relate to -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- the criteria. Jonathan Neuman: Jonathan Neuman, 119 Northeast 43rd Street. Would the alley closure benefit the public interest? Mr. Fernandez: OK. Mr. Neuman: It's a stretch to say that this is going to benefit the public at -large. This alley closure is going to benefit one person, and that's the developer of this project. We're not talking about a benefit rendered to the entire city or people of Miami. If we were talking about closing this alleyway for a public park, then yes, it would provide a public benefit, but for a private condominium? We can't really say that that's a public benefit. That's benefiting one person, and it's not the public; it's the developer of this project. Some of the other factors in the statute, does the public use this alleyway? Arguably, no. It is fenced off from what I heard, and people don't use it, but it would have an adverse effect on police and fire services because if you close this alley, you're going to limit the number of directions police and fire services can approach the existing properties from. You're effectively closing off a major avenue for their approach, and finally, what is the effect of the alley closure going to be on pedestrian and vehicular traffic. I think it's going to overwhelm the area with hundreds of new cars. It's going to cut down an City of Miami Page 202 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 existing ingress and egress to the properties, and with all due respect to the City Attorney, I don't think you can really consider whether you should close this alleyway without thinking about what's coming next, and for those reasons, I would urge you to oppose the alley closure. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Joel Denero: May it please the Commission, my name is Joel Denero. I live in Buena Vista East. My address is 121 Northeast 45th Street, and I was asked to come here by a Wendy, who is the head of our neighborhood society -- or she runs it and she's done a tremendous job making our neighborhood better, and one of the reasons why I moved to Buena Vista East is 'cause I work on Brickell Avenue -- and this goes to the City Attorney's point before he interrupts me --1 live in Buena Vista East because it's easy to get to downtown Miami. What you're going to do is -- when we talk about public interest and public benefit, how is it a public benefit if you're going to build a 42-story building -- you talk about a land -- wait a minute. We talk about closing the street. We're actually giving the street away, and there has to be a public benefit, so if there is traffic as a result, is that a public benefit or is that a hindrance? What is the public benefit of closing the alley, allowing the building to be built, and then having a 43-story building towering -- 7 Chairman Gonzalez: We're going -- right now you're going into the building. You're going out of the alley closure. You need to speak to the alley closure. Mr. Denero: Well, if you don't close the alley, with all due respect, they can't do -- they can't build the project. Chairman Gonzalez: Well, then you can say that you are against the closure of the alley, and you know -- Mr. Denero: Well, yeah, 1 wouldn't be here if I wasn't against the closure of the alley, but I think that it's going to detriment the public if you allow the alley to be given away. It's not -- it's a closure, but it's also being given away, so before you give away our alley, the people's alley, there has to be a public benefit, and there is no public benefit, except -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's a good point. Mr. Denero: Is that an argument? Chairman Gonzalez: That is a good argument, a good point. Mr. Denero: Look, we live in a very quaint neighborhood. We're talking about public benefit. Well, what is the public benefit of now all of these cars racing through our neighborhoods when I have kids and I got two boys who like to play in the neighborhood, and now there -- there's an influx of traffic going through a quaint, historic neighborhood. I mean, we're supposed to be preserving the historic neighborhood, and yet, you're thinking about giving away land, public land, and you can do it so long as there's a public benefit or a public good, and they've expressed -- that is, the developers have expressed no public good except to say that we're going to throw $50, 000 at the situation, and any time you see people saying we're going to throw money at a situation, obviously, there is no public good, and they've said that well give money and throw money at the problem when they have no solution, and -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right, so -- Mr. Denero: --1 would implore the committee to reject this proposal, and that's all 1 have. City of Miami Page 203 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next speaker. Michael Gold. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Michael Gold. I'm a homeowner at 112 Northeast 41st Street in the Design District, and I'd like to say that I love and support and salute Wendy and the neighborhood association for the work that they've done. On almost every issue I agree with them. They've given our neighborhood a voice when we didn't have one before. On this issue, I disagree. I support the closing of the alley because 1 believe that it allows for a building to be built that will benefit the neighborhood, that will bring the kind of development we've been waiting for. I'm sorry. It's my opinion; I support it. I think it would be a public good because of the things it will do for our neighborhood. I moved to the neighborhood in 1997. There were only four habitable buildings on my street at the time. There was a drug gang that lived across the street. 1 mean, things have changed a great deal, and the development that we are finally seeing there -- and this building symbolizes that development -- is what we wanted when we moved there, what many of us did. Now that we're finally seeing it and the shops and businesses that we want to open up -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Alley closure, alley closure, alley closure. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Mr. Chairman, again -- Mr. Gold: I want to see the building built, and I support the closing of the alley. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Mr. Fernandez: The closure of the alley, whatever portion of -- Chairman Gonzalez: The closure of the alley. Mr. Fernandez: -- his testimony dealt with criminality or -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- improvement in the general -- Chairman Gonzalez: Has nothing to do with it. Mr. Fernandez: -- aspect and the like is relevant. Any reference to the nature of the development that would take place on this parcel is really not relevant for your purposes -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- so the burden would be on the applicant, at the end of the day on their rebuttal argument, to be able to explain to you the public interest or would the general public benefit from the vacation because I think that the other three criteria you have heard, perhaps if you determine, competent, substantial evidence that would sustain the record one way or the other, but on that issue, applicant carries the burden, and they need to be able to give you that level of satisfaction without referring to the -- Chairman Gonzalez: To the project. Mr. Fernandez: -- nature of the building and all the other criterias [sic] of 1305 and the like. Ms. Kuhns: Thank you, and I want to add one more thing; that if you're not going to look at the use of the alley, then you can -- and what you're instructing us to do is only look at whether the actual act of closing the alley creates a public benefit. Then that means that -- when would that City of Miami Page 204 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 ever happen? It would be f the alley were hurting people, the alley was causing some sort of public harm, then closing it would be a public benefit, and 1 argue that the applicant has not met that burden at all. They've not shown -- they've used their $50, 000. They've used the building, but they have not shown that the act of closing it is a public benefit. I ask that you deny it. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Kuhns: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Point well -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- taken. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, point well taken. Again, I -- the -- let's make the record very clear, and 1 want my Commission to be very clear on this that the proffer, the voluntary proffer of that $50, 000 in no way should signal to anyone that it has been a quid pro quo or that they're doing this to get that. They're doing this as a result of all the other issues with regard to the development, but certainly not tied and not as compensation for the grant, or for that matter, the denial because we don't know how this Commission would vote yet on the closure. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Pastoriza: Absolutely. Chairman Gonzalez: Rebuttal. Mr. Pastoriza: Definitely whatever has been said here is all voluntarily; there are no strings attached. Commissioner Regalado: OK, but let me ask this. The proffer of the grant, was it discussed after the City staff recommended approval? Mr. Pastoriza: No, sir. Commissioner Regalado: It was discussed before? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Mr. Pastoriza: No, it was a plat -- Commissioner Regalado: -- that's a problem. Mr. Pastoriza: See, here's -- and you see it all the time. For example, you had a matter before you -- Commissioner Regalado: No. You see it all the time in Miami, but -- Mr. Pastoriza: No, no. Let me step back. You saw this morning that there was a street closure on Northeast Bayshore Drive. In that particular case, the public benefit -- one of the public benefits was the owner deeding property to the City for a park, OK. Unfortunately, we do not have the size of property that that owner had, so what is the best way that we can be -- provide a City of Miami Page 205 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 public benefit to everybody? Commissioner Regalado: No, no, but what I'm saying -- it's not about your fault. You see, because here we have -- OK, we have to vote and we have the City Attorney saying forget about anything; it's about -- the only thing is about the public purpose of the closing of the alley, and our Commissioner from the district kept saying, "Closure of the alley, closure of the alley, closure of the alley." Now -- so we only have to legislate about that narrow idea of the public purpose of the closing of the alley, and then the City staff comes up with this ideas of you give us a piece of land for a park; you give us a grant to finish the street, and then maybe the recommendation comes back because it benefits the City, but not the public purpose. See, what I'm trying to say here is that it's very difficult to deal with this quid pro quo thing; you give us this, and we'll recommend that, and then we have to focus only on the public purpose of the alley. If it were for me, 1 would -- Mr. City Attorney, I would, you know, ban any kind of deals because then it's much better for us to make the deal in behalf of the City because, you know, after all, we vote and we'll tell you, "No. Fifty thousand for a park? No, no, no." I mean, it's like the Chairman said, you know, we are in a auction here. It's very uncomfortable to hear all this that it's been done before and you give us this and that, and then we vote, and then we get stuck with the decision, so -- Mr. Pastoriza: There's -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Commissioner -- Commissioner Regalado: I mean, it's not about you. It's not about you. Mr. Pastoriza: No, no, I understand, but I think that there's more of a public benefit than maybe our willingness to become a sponsor on projects that benefit that whole area. The closure of -- Mr. Fernandez: And that -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- the alley -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- on Miami Avenue -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pastoriza: -- benefits the -- I'm sorry. Mr. Fernandez: And that is a valid point for your consideration if you consider that to be -- you could consider that to be part of what would constitute or would meet the test of public purpose. If there is that type of public purpose, you can take that -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Mr. Fernandez: -- into account. Commissioner Regalado: No, please. Excuse me because I don't think that will be ethical for me to say, "Well, you know, public purpose, it's not $50, 000. Public purpose is $100, 000 or $150,000 because that way we can finish the whole Miami Avenue thing." Mr. Fernandez: And then at that point in time, what you're considering is a sufficiency of the proffer, not the nature of the proffer, and all the point that I'm making is that the nature of the proffer is a valid element to be considered to meet that public benefit test -- City of Miami Page 206 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can -- Mr. Fernandez: -- so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm sorry. Mr. Fernandez: -- with -- well, I'll stop there. I have some other comments before you begin to deliberate. Commissioner Spence -Jones: If you don't mind, Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Gonzalez, I just want to have a clear understanding. I'm seeing the front part — the front area of the drawings. Now these are the revisions that were made, correct, after the original -- ? Were these -- are these revised? Is this what the project's always been? OK. What is the front part of that circle? Is that like a waterfall sitting area type feature? Is that something that people from the -- people -- pedestrians on their way going to Midtown can sit or stand or drop a penny in the waterfall? What is it? Mr. Karp: The short answer is yes, and -- number one; and number two, originally this corner element -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Karp: -- was not here. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Karp: This corner element, your staff and the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) asked us to move it. Originally, it was right here in the middle of the block. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, OK. Mr. Karp: They asked us to move it to the corner and enlarge it to about 8,500 square feet, which is what we did. Chairman Gonzalez: 8,500 square feet? Mr. Pastoriza: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So -- Mr. Karp: 8,300 square feet without all the sidewalks and promenades. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, Brenda, did you see this addition? Ms. Pardo: If 1 could just add, that's a plaza area that is open to the public and they're planning on -- it's off of the retail so that there would be tables and chairs there, and it would be open -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Pardo: -- for anybody to sit there, so that's what we wanted to address as well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No problem. Ms. Pardo: -- and that's probably -- City of Miami Page 207 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: I was just asking Brenda and the neighborhood association, did you guys see this? Because, 1 mean, when we talk about public purpose -- Ms. Kuhns: Is this the same design that you had when we went in front of the Zoning Board? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Ms. Kuhns: There -- although it looks in this depiction as if this is an open air plaza, it's actually not. There's a ceiling 14 feet, 6 inches over it, and in the applicant's drawings, it's dedicated to seating for restaurants, which isn't exactly a place where the public can just go without buying something. Again, it's serving a private retail purpose. It's serving the private citizens that live in the condominium tower, and I'm sure it's lovely, but it's basically an entrance to your lobby or an outdoor seating restaurant -- dedicated to a restaurant or a tenant. It's not necessar -- it's not a -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Kuhns: -- plaza. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, 1 just want to be -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm just trying to make sure that I'm clear. I thought -- Mr. Pastoriza: If 1-- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- did the architect say before -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and staff did we say that these drawings had changed? Kobi Karp, didn't you say that they changed from the original? Ms. Pardo: If 1 could just explain. They did change. We had been working with staff for many months before the Class II was approved -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Pardo: -- so during that process, originally, a portion of the plaza was here -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Ms. Pardo: -- and in the internal design review comments, before we got the Class II approval, it was over here, and from those comments staff had said we want you to move your plaza area away so it's separate, and we moved it then, so I think there -- I didn't understand you, but since we got our Class II approval, the plans did not change. This is what they were, but before the Class 11 approval, the months before it, it had changed. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, part of that you're utilizing as an -- you're saying that this, in your mind, is public purpose. Ms. Pardo: Absolutely, because right now they can -- this -- whenever you have a new project and you're providing retail and you're providing seating and they're enlarging the side -- they're City of Miami Page 208 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 putting in sidewalks along here -- wide -- big, wide sidewalks that are right across from Midtown, so -- Ms. Kuhns: Again, this is the -- Ms. Pardo: -- it's creating a -- excuse me. It's -- Ms. Kuhns: They're a separate project. Ms. Pardo: We have rebuttal, though. It's -- since she asked a question. This is a -- it is a public purpose, and it's providing a pedestrian activity along the street, which right now you have a derelict piece of property, and it's a continuous -- and also with the removal of the alley going through the center of the property from -- where is it? Hold on. OK, it goes from Northeast Miami Court through North Miami Avenue. Right now it breaks up your pedestrian flow and your continuity along that street, which the alley closure removes that, and you'd have continuous pedestrian activity around the property; plus we're providing widened sidewalks. We're improving all the -- and other public purposes that we're improving property on three sides fronting North Miami Avenue and 36 Street, so we have those public purposes that go along with this particular project. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and staff, just so that I'm -- Chairman Gonzalez: I hope that we have had enough, right? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: 1 mean, I think we -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, call the -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- got enough -- Commissioner Regalado: -- question, please. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to make a decision, right? So I'm going to call the question. As a matter of fact, the public hearing is closed. It comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Spence -Jones, it's your district. You should take the lead on this. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It is a very, very tough decision -- Chairman Gonzalez: It is. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- probably the toughest decision that I've had to make since sitting in this seat, and I'm going to ask that I pull those signs down so that 1 could see my residents because those are the people that support me. Everybody else, you know, not saying anything bad about either one of you, but 1 can't -- this one right here, too. Thank you. Those are the folks that, you know, support me, support everything that we try to do in their area. They're hard workers. You know, Wendy is definitely a fighter; from day one has always been a fighter to make sure, you know, that things happen in that district. When we look at Buena Vista, it being a historic neighborhood, they've had to really deal with so many issues over there, code violations on their homes, fighting, you know, against gentrification or major projects coming to City of Miami Page 209 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 the area. 1 wish all my neighborhood associations could be as organized and well thought out and well planned like Brenda and Wendy, so you know, it's a tough decision. I am -- I was hoping that I would hear from the Design District today, and I did have a few people that came out from the Design District that were business owners in the area, and they're the group that that particular area would be the area that would be affected the most first because it's right on the other side of the expressway, if anything like that took --1 know, Mr. City Attorney. You're telling me only deal with the alley -- Mr. Fernandez: Alley closure. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- but I think it's important for me to at least address this because from this issue, we go into the much bigger issue, and 1 will not be able to explain myself on that matter because of -- Mr. Fernandez: And that is fine, Commissioner, as long as, at the end of the day, if you make a motion in supporting the vacation, that you state it in terms of the applicant having met the conditions laid out in the Code, or if you make a motion to the contrary, that the applicants have not met their burden; and meanwhile, you're very much entitled to express your sentiments and your feelings. You are, after all, the elected official. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you, sir, so you know, this is, like 1 said, the hardest decision because you really want -- you want to support your neighborhood associations; you really do. You want to also, at the same time, support growth happening in your neighborhoods, you know. Our district has been -- has suffered so long, so -- and one of the things I see that somehow in this whole thing we're getting caught up on setting a precedent. That's what it sounds like. When I'm listening to both sides, people are more afraid or fearful that this happened to them one time and it's going to happen again, so not to say they don't have a issue with the project, but it's more about if you did it to me once, you're going to try to do it to me again, and that's not what it should be about. It should be about looking at the project. It is abutting an expressway, and I said this from day one; anything on the 1-90 -- I think that's 1-- or is that 395? Chairman Gonzalez: 395. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 395, I always said --195, I'm sorry. 195. There's an automatic buffer between that, and it's very difficult not to support a closure -- and I was hoping that my association would have, you know, really pushed hard to show why it couldn't be vacated, but you know, it's very difficult, so unfortunately, this is going to be a decision that I probably will have to get beat up by them on, but I'm going to go ahead and move that we do the alley vacation. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Before going into the appeal, I'm going to take a ten-minute recess. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I have to be somewhere with some residents around 8 - - 7:30, 8, so -- City of Miami Page 210 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: 7:30 -- we should be done -- before 8 o'clock, we should be done. I mean, I -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- hope the appeal doesn't -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Is it -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- prolong itself. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Are any of the other Commissioners coming? Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Are we -- Mr. Chairman, are we expecting any other Commissioners? Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Winton is supposed to be here. Ms. Pardo: The appeal won't be long because there's no public input. It's just -- Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Ms. Pardo: -- we make a presentation. Commissioner Regalado: Why don't we do it now? Mr. Fernandez: Ms. Freisner, thank you. Ms. Pardo: I'm sorry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, no. Mr. Fernandez: Ms. -- what's your name now? Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Let me take -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Pardo. Chairman Gonzalez: -- I need five minutes to go to the men's room. Let's take five minutes. Commissioner Regalado: OK. PZ.32 05-01050a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING THE APPEAL BY ADRIENNE F. PARDO, ESQUIRE, ON BEHALF OF A & S DESIGN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, AND APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 05-0166, ISSUED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2005, TO ALLOW FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE ELECTRA PROJECT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3601 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." City of Miami Page 211 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 05-01050a Legislation (Version 2).pdf 05-01050a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01050a Legislation (Version 3).pdf 05-01050a Exhibit A.pdf 05-01050a Zoning Map.pdf 05-01050a Aerial Map.pdf 05-01050a Zoning Board Appeal Letter.pdf 05-01050a ZB Reso.pdf 05-01050a ZB November 14, 2005 Transcript.pdf 05-01050a Class II Special Permit Appeal Letter.pdf 05-01050a Shubin & Bass Letters.pdf 05-01050a Class II Special Permit Final Decision.pdf 05-01050a Zoning Ordinance Section 1305.pdf 05-01050a Class II Special Permit Referral.pdf 05-01050a UDRB Reso.pdf 05-01050a Plans.pdf 05-01050a Fact Sheet 12-15-05.pdf 05-01050a Fact Sheet 02-23-06.pdf 05-01050a Case Laws.pdf 05-01050a Class II Appeal.pdf 05-01050a Maps.pdf 05-01050a MDC Grade Separation Study.pdf Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 2 - Commissioner Winton and Sanchez R-06-0135 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Just before Ms. Slazyk introduces this item on the merits, I'd like to set up the structure of the proceeding that's about to take place. This Commission is expected to act as an appellate body, which means that tonight on this item you're limited to consider what is in the agenda packet that was distributed to you last week, which contains a transcript of the Zoning Board hearing at which this item was decided, and also of this document -- and there is another one. Where is the other one? I'm sorry. This document, which you have also received that you have had an opportunity, I'm sure, to look at, so by way of written materials, you're limited to your agenda packet and to this document. Then when it comes to presentations, after you hear the item being introduced by Ms. Slazyk, you are only supposed to consider arguments of counsel representing both sides. If one of the sides do not have an attorney representing them, certainly, they're entitled to have a representative of their group make a presentation, which in essence, much be a presentation grounded on legal arguments. They can refer to the record. They can refer to the facts of the application, but they cannot be used as a vehicle to introduce new evidence, evidence that otherwise was not already introduced and discussed by the Zoning Board, so as an appellate body, you must limit yourself to the record from below, as well as hearing legal arguments of counsel. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Slazyk. Lourdes Slazyk: Thank you. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning Department. The item before you on PZ 32 is an appeal of the Zoning Board decision of a Class II Special Permit, Class II application number 05-0166. This Class II Special Permit was approved with conditions by the Planning director on September 28, 2005, to allow for new construction pursuant to the requirements of the SD-8 zoning district. The appeal of this Class II Special Permit went to the Zoning Board, where the Zoning Board grant the appeal -- appeal, I'm sorry, City of Miami Page 212 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 was appealed by the neighborhood association, and the appeal was granted by the Zoning Board. The Planning Department's recommendation is to approve the appeal before you tonight. After the Zoning Board granted the appeal by the association, the developer appealed it to you. Our recommendation is that you approve the appeal tonight and deny the Zoning Board's decision to reverse the Planning director. The Class II Special Permit was issued pursuant to the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and we believe that it was properly issued and should be upheld. Mr. Fernandez: And to give you further guidance, if you are going to hear the appeal tonight, and obviously you're of a mind to do so -- because what I should have stated initially is that you always also have the prerogative of remanding this to the Zoning Board if, after you reviewed the record that's been presented to you, you do not find that it's complete. The applicant or the appellant in this case has a statement or a proffer to make that it would make it very easy for you to in fact hear the appeal today, and the appellant is -- has announced -- and they need to state on the record -- that they're willing to waive all arguments as to the need for the Zoning Board to have made specific findings under Article 13 of the zoning ordinance. Adrienne Pardo: That's correct. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, and we do waive any arguments that we could make that the Zoning Board resolution did not have written findings. We would never raise that. Mr. Fernandez: OK -- Ms. Pardo: We waive it. Mr. Fernandez: -- so having waived that argument, which would have been one of the arguments that they could have raised that would have, in essence, given you reason to consider remanding it back to the Zoning Board for them to make appropriate findings, then you now may proceed to hear the appeal on the merits. As you do so, you need to keep three things in mind very clearly. You are, in essence, limited to the decision that you have to make. You consider whether the Zoning Board followed procedural due process, and as you hear the attorneys speak to you, they will address this. They will define for you what procedural due process is; was there a proper notice; that everyone was given an opportunity to be heard You will hear the parties address that, so you need to weigh that and satisfy yourself that the Zoning Board afforded everyone procedural due process; issue number one. Issue number two, you then need to consider did the Zoning Board follow the essential requirements of the law. There is at least two or three prongs of that test; one of them was just waived in front ofyou. You know, you do not need to address the issue of whether the Zoning Board considered all of the elements of 1305 because that would be something that cut against the appellant, but they're waiving it; and then you will hear the appellant address, as well as the other side, also address the other prongs of that test, and the third consideration that you need to keep in mind is was the Zoning Board decision supported by competent substantial evidence, and how do you arrive at that? You arrive at that by reading the transcript that was submitted to you and see if the evidence that was presented in front of the Zoning Board -- not in front of you because today you're not going to hear evidence of any kind. You're only going to hear legal arguments. If you believe that the Zoning Board had enough competent substantial evidence to make their decision, then you need to support -- you need to go with the Zoning Board's decision, but if in your mind you feel that the Zoning Board did not have sufficient competent -- substantial competent evidence, then you may reverse what the board did. Those are the arguments, legal arguments that counsel would make, so right now you have in front ofyou an appeal of a decision of the Zoning Board which, in fact, went with the neighbor and went against the developer. The developer's burden is to show that the Zoning Board failed in any one of those three areas: due process, the essential requirements of the law -- of which they have already waived one prong, and sufficient competent and substantial evidence, and now you may hear from the parties. City of Miami Page 213 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. With me here today as cocounsel is Gil Pastoriza, and we're here today on behalf of the property owner, A & S Design, whose principal is Alex Forkosh. We had a Class II Special Permit for the Electra building, which we had filed with the City of Miami. That Class II Permit was approved. The reason we needed it is because the property is located in the SD-8 district, and anything -- any new development in the SD-8 district requires a Class II Special Permit, which is issued by your Planning staff so we had a project for 147 units, 420 feet in height. It's located -- this board before you was an exhibit that was presented at the Zoning Board, and you can see that the Electra property is located south of 195, so our Class 11 Permit was approved by your Planning director. That permit was appealed by the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association, and three individuals were also listed on that appeal, and that appeal was filed with the City's Zoning Board We went before the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board ruled in favor of the appeal, and they ruled against us. That's why I'm making my presentation first because we have now appealed the Zoning Board's decision to the Commission. I just want to remind you that this particular project meets all the zoning requirements in that we're not asking for any variances, no special exceptions, no additional square footage pursuant to a Major Use Special Permit, which you see many times before you. We haven't done any of that. It went -- it also had gone to the City's Urban Development Review Board because you're required to when you have a Class II Permit, and it was approved there, so the association and the three individuals who appealed our project, they live in the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association, which you can see on the board before you is the area in yellow. It's located over 1,200 feet away. Now, this appeal, as the City Attorney had told you, is different from other appeals that this Commission is used to viewing. It's not our preference to present in this manner, and I apologize that this is the way that we have to do it, but because of a recent court decision, Morningside versus City of Miami, it held that appeals from the Zoning Board to the City Commission cannot be de novo reviewed. Therefore, we can't present new testimony, evidence. You've heard all that. We need to stick with the evidence that was before the Zoning Board and we need to go through the criteria, so the only reasons we're asking you -- we're saying to you that the Zoning Board's decision should be overruled for these reasons: number one, was there procedural due process? We believe that there was, and we don't challenge that. There was proper notice; both sides got to present their cases. We don't challenge that at all, but we are saying that the Zoning Board did not follow the essential requirements of the law because the appellants to the Zoning Board do not have standing for the following reasons: one, the association does not have standing pursuant to Florida case law, and 1 have given you some cases. 1 gave them to the City Attorney and 1 think 1-- we have some for you, so the assoc -- Mr. Fernandez: But, please, make specific reference -- Ms. Pardo: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- to your cases on the record, please. Ms. Pardo: 1 will -- so the association does not have standing to file -- to appeal the Class II Permit, pursuant to Peacock versus City of Miami. Do you want me to cite it? 646 So.2d 921. Mr. Fernandez: Citations are not necessary. Just -- Ms. Pardo: OK, just the name of the case. And that held that associations only have standing to raise procedural issues, and no procedural issues were raised before the Zoning Board, such as that notice was not given, things of that sort, so we believe the association does not have standing to bring the appeal. We also believe that the three individuals do not have -- that they also lack standing because of where they live in relationship to the building. They live on 43rd and 44th Streets. This project is on 36 Street, over 1,200 feet away on the other side of the City of Miami Page 214 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 expressway, and within the SD-8 district, which is -- there's 38 acres between the two. They also live outside the cone of the required zoning notice for Class II Permits, which is to abutting property owners or property owners across the street. Even for Major Use Special Permits and special exceptions, the City requires a notice to be given to property owners within a 500 foot circumference, and they're way beyond that. We don't -- therefore, the appeal should be dismissed for lack of standing. They don't have any recognizable interest. The case law provides, in Renard versus Dade County, that you have to have an injury that dyers in degree from the general community, and you just don't have that here. To say that the building is too tall or I can see it from my house, or it will create traffic is not an interest that is dferent from the general community as a whole; so based on those two grounds, we believe that the Zoning Board erred, and the appeal should be dismissed for lack of standing. However, in addition to that, the most glaring error is that the Zoning Board -- that the Zoning Board's decision should be reversed and the Planning Board's decision should be upheld, which granted the Class 11 is because the Zoning Board had no competent substantial evidence when it ruled against this project, and I'm sure you're thinking to yourself what does that mean, and it's a great question, and it's not an easy question because there's a lot of case law on what exactly is competent substantial evidence. Basically, competent substantial evidence is a substantial basis offact. Examples of competent substantial evidence, as defined by the applicable courts over the years are: number one, your staffs recommendation; that's competent substantial evidence. In this case, they ruled to approve the Class 71 for this project. Other competent substantial evidence is to have a traffic expert appear before the Zoning Board and testes as to the traffic situation. There was no traffic expert presented to the Zoning Board by the opposition, so they did not have a traffic expert. Also, an expert planner is competent substantial evidence, and you see that many times where both the residents, as well as neighborhood associations and developers will bring an expert planner before you because the case law says you need to have competent substantial evidence. They did not have a planner before them. Now resident testimony can be competent substantial evidence if it's a statement offact, but not an opinion, and everything that was before the Zoning Board were mere opinions. They presented a very nice PowerPoint presentation, which was very good. It was long; it was passionate. It was a great presentation, but it was all about their opinions on this particular project, and that's not what the case law provides. You've got to have competent substantial evidence, and they knew this because in the transcript on page 17, Ms. Kuhns, who made the majority of the presentation, she acknowledged the Morningside case versus City of Miami and how she had to -- at one point, the Zoning Board was saying something, and she acknowledged how she needed to present her case and -- because of the Morningside, and she needed to put everything into that case and make sure that the Zoning Board had information before them, but just giving opinions is not competent substantial evidence, and that's basically -- that's all that their presentation was all about. No staff no experts. All they said is this building is in the wrong place. It's basically your traditional NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) argument, Not in My Backyard. Now, I want to walk you through their presentation, which I gave you a handout, and it says at the top Electra 3601 North Miami Avenue. You have a copy as well, and if you go to tab 5, this was their PowerPoint presentation, and I think it's important to walk you through it because I need to explain why the Zoning Board had no competent substantial evidence. On the first page, they talk about the Class II being in the -- they say the building is wrong building, wrong place. In this book, I was on tab 5 and I'm on page 1 of their presen -- this was the presentation, the PowerPoint that they had made to the Zoning Board -- Mr. Fernandez: Which is part of the record. Ms. Pardo: -- which is all part of the record On this page, there are all opinions. They say it's the wrong building in the wrong place; that it fails to satisfy the intentions of the SD-8 district in Section 1305. Ms. Kuhns' opinion is not an expert planner's opinion, and nor did she proclaim to be an expert on the record. Therefore, it's all opinions. Remember, though, that your Planning director issued the Class II and that decision is competent substantial evidence. In the court of Metropolitan Dade County versus Fuller, it held that findings and recommendations of a City of Miami Page 215 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 local government's professional staff is competent substantial evidence. Also, in Ortega versus Miami -Dade County, the court said it's error to rely on mere neighborhood objections in the face of a staff recommendation for approval. If you turn to page 2 of the presentation, there are various Code sections that are cited. Then, if we turn to page 3, again, it's more of their opinions. They believe that it's not design -specific. They believe that -- they make reference to the SD-8 district and modifying zoning regulations. In it they had also stated that we should meet the R-3 zoning regulations, which is totally in error, and that it should be limited to 50 feet, which would be totally contrary to the law. This is all opinions. Then also, on this page at the bottom right-hand corner, it says that the purpose of a Class II Special Permit, and the second bullet says to determine whether to permit projects in specific locations, and then there's a Code section cited at the bottom, 1301.3.1. That specific section applies to special exception permits, which is a totally different permit than a Class ll, and it's totally different criteria, and 1 actually -- under tab 6, I've copied that section for you and highlighted it. Under a special exception, you can determine should this building be located in this particular location, this building, this use, but for a Class II, that's not the criteria, and that's what -- that was something that was presented to the Zoning Board, which is total error. It's totally wrong. It's the wrong section; it doesn't apply here. If we move on to page 4, we have all opinions and no facts. They say, again, it's the wrong place. They believe that it should be low- to mid -scale. These are their opinions that do not count as competent substantial evidence. In Canizares versus Metropolitan Dade County, the court said simply because the neighbors stated that the application would not be compatible with the area does not, without factual support, amount to evidence upon which the board could reasonably rely. In Faith Deliverance versus Metropolitan Dade County, the court held because the neighbors' objections are subjective and not supported by fact, they do not constitute competent substantial evidence. On page 5 of their presentation, once again, they have all opinions. They make reference to their nearby single-family neighborhood, which is over 1,300 feet away in a completely different zoning district. They say that it will overwhelm their neighborhood. These are just their opinions. They make reference to the Blue, and actually it's in error here because in this particular exhibit, they're saying the Blue is 336 feet tall -- and just for the record, I'm going to proffer that 1 have a copy of a plan that shows the Blue is at -- to the top of the parapet, is 374 feet, so that's in error, and it's totally wrong, and their whole presentation was how the Blue was so big and the Blue is so overwhelming, and this building was going to be a hundred feet taller than the Blue, and that's not true at all, and that's totally wrong. I'll put that in the record. On page 6, there's absolutely no criteria in Section 1305 that says if you can see the building from a neighborhood 1, 200 feet away, then this project should be denied, even though the Zoning Ordinance in this case allows unlimited height in the SD-8 district, but a great deal of the project -- their presentation was based on the fact that it's so big and you're going to see it, but we know that, you know, anywhere, any neighborhood in the City of Miami, you look up, you're going to see -- you see tall buildings wherever you look up here. Page 7, besides having a total error again with it being a hundred feet taller than the Blue, it's all opinion. Pages 8, 9, 10, and 11 are discussions on design criteria and pedestrian interaction. This testimony needed to be done by a planner, and in fact, we had a planner before the Zoning Board, and you also had staff -- your staffs recommendation that had reviewed our application and had determined that it did comply with Section 1305. More case law -- I'm sorry that I have to cite it, but basically, in Bal Harbour versus -- Bal Harbour, Inc. versus Bal Harbour Village Council, generalized objections of residents is insufficient to override an expert planner's opinion that a project was compatible with existing development, and before the Zoning Board we did have an expert planner, but it's really not about what we had before the Zoning Board. The law provides -- it's what did they have. Did they have competent substantial evidence for the Zoning Board to rely on, and they didn't. Like I said, it was a very good presentation, a very nice PowerPoint, but it was all opinion, and that's not sufficient pursuant to Florida case law. Mr. Fernandez: Excuse me one second while you're going on. Is the Clerk keeping time for the Chairman because we need to allot the other side a similar amount of time also, and just -- great. Thank you. City of Miami Page 216 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: She is. Ms. Pardo: OK. Basically, what I'm saying, the fact versus opinion. The world is round. That's a fact. Nobody's going to disagree with that. Or the sun's going to rise in the morning; that's a fact, but whether this building is too big or this building is beautiful, or this building overwhelms our neighborhood, those are their opinions. They may believe that. They may feel that way, but it's their opinion, and that's not what it can be based on. Pages 12 and 13 moves to the traffic issue. Did they present a traffic engineer? No, The president of the association testified and she testified in error because she said 36 Street is an "E" and "F" rated level of service. We had a traffic expert there. We had submitted a traffic study, and that was stated on the record on the transcript, pages 50 -- and our traffic expert, on page 52, he testified that the level of service for these roads was a level of service of " C," and our traffic report backed that up. There was nothing that said it's a level of "E" or "F." The case law also states that resident statements about traffic impacts are considered generalized fears and opinions when they are contradicted by a professional traffic study, which is what we had. That's pursuant to Allapattah versus Community Association -- versus City of Miami, and lastly, in Debes versus City of Key West, the court held that a potential traffic increase may not support the denial and deny a landowner the rights to which it is entitled. Because we know that, basically, any new development will have some type of traffic increase. Having reviewed the entire record and their presentation, the bottom line is that there was no substantial competent evidence for the Zoning Board to rely on in order to reverse your Planning director's decision to issue the Class II, as well as the fact that we believe they had no standing to raise the initial appeal. Having said all that, we're requesting that you grant our appeal and overturn the Zoning Board's decision, and we would also request -- because we had made an agreement with certain of the neighbors that we would lower our building to 360 feet, so we would request that you condition us to lower the building to 360 feet. It would basically be -- essentially the same building, but slightly wider because it would come down in height. I thank you. I don't know if you can ask me any questions. I have no idea. Mr. Fernandez: It will be appropriate now or you may choose, as a matter of protocol, to wait until the end of the presentation by the other side for you to ask questions of both sides. Chairman Gonzalez: I think that's what I'm going to do. The respondent. Mr. Fernandez: What amount of time was employed by the appellant? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Twenty-two minutes. Ms. Kuhns: Thank you. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. It's actually 18 minutes. Mr. Fernandez: All right. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Eighteen minutes, OK. Ms. Kuhns: Thank you. Today we're here to review the Zoning Board's decision, and the appellant is asking you to find and to hold that the Zoning Board, after hearing all of the evidence and all of the testimony and seeing all of the pictures and all of the maps and all the drawings, and trust me, we put on a full case and so did they because at the time, the Morningside decision ruler , and we knew this would just be a very limited review, so everybody put out everything they have, and 1 think that what's interesting about what the appellant has said today is that this packet that they've provided you doesn't provide their presentation, and the City of Miami Page 217 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 reason is that the Zoning Board found that their presentation was not credible. By the end of the meeting, the Zoning Board was laughing at some of the evidence that the appellant had put forward. The reason for that is that the photos that they showed of what the building would look like were taken by a photographer standing by a tree -- behind a tree in every single photo. In fact, the Zoning Board members had a lot to say about this. If you look at the transcript, page 56, line five, 1 thought it was -- this is me talking; line five. "1 thought it was very interesting that every photo was obstructed by a tree, and I would have to be standing in my driveway to see that view." I was referring to a photo in the appellant's presentation that they stood right behind a tree to take, and you couldn't see their building imposed in the photo because there was an enormous tree, and that's the way it was with every photo, and the chairwoman says, "Thank you. Maybe you should ask them to plant lots of trees." Again, on page 65, line 11, the chairperson says, "I see it in the simple fact that both sides presented pictures. In one set of pictures, the building is not there, and in the other set of pictures, the building is there in every picture, so who do you believe?" Chairman Gonzalez: What page are you in? Ms. Kuhns: I'm on page 65, line 11. "In one set of pictures --" I'll wait for you, sir "-- the building --" I should go because I have limited time "-- is there, and in the other set of pictures, the building is not there. So who do you believe? It's going to come down, I think, to a point of faith of who we believe and who would believe because either they're both lying or they're both saying the truth, but we can't have pictures of the same area where on one the building is not there and then the other, the building is there, so it's going to have to come down to what we think" Again, on page 66, Mr. Ganguzza says, on line 13, "And I have to tell you that, you know, it all would have worked out if you just plant the three in the right place and stand just so Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Which page? Ms. Kuhns: I'm on page 66 -- Commissioner Regalado: 66. Ms. Kuhns: -- line 14. This is why they did not win their Zoning Board hearing. The evidence that they presented was not credible. They presented pictures supposedly depicting the building as it would be seen from our houses, and they did such a laughable job at it that the Zoning Board was making jokes by the end of the meeting. It's not that our evidence was insufficient. It's that their evidence was insufficient, and you are asked today to overrule their decision and say that it was an abuse of discretion to find that their evidence was not credible when actually it was, and it's even more reinforced by the fact that they didn't even present their own presentation in the packets that they've handed to you. The appellant has attacked our evidentiary requirement. They have said that we did not have substantial competent evidence for the Zoning Board to find the way that they did, and they have said that all we did was put forth opinion testimony, and they cite a case -- the Peacock case -- saying opinion testimony by neighbors is not substantial competent evidence. Like a lot of things that they say and a lot of things that they did in the Zoning Board presentation, that is a half-truth. That's just a half-truth. Peacock does say that, but what they failed to admit is that there is other case law that says that what we presented before the Zoning Board was substantial competent evidence. We showed the Zoning Board photos. If you look on -- in section five of the presentation that Ms. Pardo gave you and you turn to page 4, you can see some of the photos. We talked about Section 1305 design criteria. This is a -- the slide on the top right, Section 1305.2.11; that it -- the building has to respond to the physical contextual environment. Then we showed what the physical contextual environment was. We showed that surrounding this building were one- and two- and three-story buildings, nothing even remotely related to something 420 feet tall. We also showed pictures of Midtown. You know these photos are credible because the appellant put this in their application City of Miami Page 218 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 to the Planning Department. This is their own image, and it's a very small image, but it shows how Midtown, the project that the public put million -- hundreds of millions of dollars in and this Commission was integrally involved in, respected our neighborhood All of Midtown's projects, all of Midtown's tall buildings are situated on the furthest corner, the furthest corner, the furthest side from us, and then as they come towards our neighborhood, they step down, and this was -- when this board acts and they act in a way to create a special district and work hand -in -hand with the developer to build that district, stepping down towards our neighborhood shows what your purpose was in creating Midtown. Your purpose was to create Midtown as a high -density area far away from single-family residential homes, and then step down towards it. What you didn't do was build high-rises where Electra 1 is, and that was for a purpose. This Commission acts for a purpose, and this was very convincing to the Zoning Board that not only is Midtown -- is Electra 1 out of context with our neighborhood, but it's out of context with Midtown. If you continue to page 5, there are more photos that we showed We showed a picture of what our single-family homes look like and what a building of a comparable size to Electra would look like. As you can see, I have a picture on page 5 on the bottom of Blue. Blue provided a great comparison from page 5 and tab 5 -- I'm sorry, sir -- of the appellant's presentation. You can see what Blue looked like. Blue is an enormous building, and yet, it's a lot smaller than what the applicant has proposed; and as you go away from Blue, we showed pictures as to what that would look like. This building is hovering over nearby residential neighborhoods, and if you go to a map, which is what 1 showed the Zoning Board, you can see that the residential neighborhoods are completely parallel. Blue's on 36 Street; Electra's on 36 Street. I live on 43rd Street. 1 found a house -- I have it on here -- it's on page 6 on the upper left corner; 520 Melaleuca Lane. Look at what that building looks like behind it. This is not context. It's not opinion to say -- Code provides context. Look, here's a picture of what this building is going to look like. This is not context. Our neighborhood is one to two stories. The Design District is two to five stories. All this evidence was presented to the Zoning Board, and they said, you know what? Four hundred and twenty feet is not in context with one to five stories, and that's not an abuse of discretion to make that finding. If you continue through the presentation, you can see that 1 showed photos. I also showed a map of the area, which 1 have somewhere, and their own design plans, their own floor plans -- we also showed, on page 13, an FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) map. We don't need a traffic expert if we have public records. I'm sure that the appellant would like -- this is the map that I showed -- you to believe that you can only have substantial competent evidence if you have an expert, but that's just not true. We had used an FDOT map to show that no upgrades are going to be happening, and that this dangerous intersection will continue. We also submitted into the record a petition that we took in 2004 for a moratorium on projects just like Electra. We had 187 signatures. I submitted it into the record We also had a number of affidavits with personal testimonies submitted into the record of people saying how they would see this building from their house. They drive down Miami Avenue. They drive down 36 Street. They're already stuck in traffic. It's going to be a lot worse with the 1,100 cars coming in and out of the applicant's building, and that figure comes from their own traffic expert. Now, is this substantial competence [sic] evidence? The answer is yes. Metropolitan Dade County versus Section 11 Property Corporation said this -- and it's very relevant to the issue at hand -- the fact -based testimony regarding the aesthetic incompatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood, coupled with the site plan, elevation drawings, and an aerial photograph constituted substantial competent evidence supporting the denial of a special exception. In that case, the neighbors had come to a meeting and talked about what the building would look like. They showed pictures of what the building would look like from the developer's own plans, just like we did, as you can see in the record; and they talked about what it would look like, what it would look like from their homes, the effect it would have, and this court, the Third DCA (District Court of Appeals), which -- actually, I'm not sure if it's the Third DCA or the Florida Supreme Court. I believe it's the Third DCA. Third DCA found that's substantial competent evidence, and they were reviewing a special exception for the County, which the City Attorney of Miami in Morningside Development versus the City of Miami found was exactly like and extremely comparable to a special permit, a Class 11 Special Permit. This case could not be more on point. If there is anything I'm sure of it's that we had substantial City of Miami Page 219 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 competent evidence. Also, the appellant has attacked our standing. They have a lot of arguments about us not being less than 1,200 feet away; we aren't within the required notice zone. A required notice zone is a factor that you consider. It is not determinative, and 1,200 feet is a factor you consider. It is not determinative. In fact, the City of Miami's own Code creates standing for us. Section 1311 of the City of Miami Code says any person aggrieved by the decision of any agency, agent, or body of the City in granting or denying a special permit may seek review of the decision in the manner set out in this ordinance. Any person aggrieved, and we showed in our Zoning Board hearing and in our appeal that we would be stuck in traffic; we were aggrieved. We were going to see this from our houses; we were aggrieved. This project was out of context, changed the scale of our neighborhood; aggrieved. We were worried about safety. The traffic expert of the appellants -- the appellant's own traffic expert's study says that over 1,100 cars are going to be coming in and out of this building, and these cars are going to be coming and circulating through our neighborhood in part because you cannot turn left -- actually, I'm going to have Wendy come up here and help me with this. Ms. Pardo: No, she can't. 1 object. She -- you can't do that now, not in this proceeding. She wants to have somebody come up and -- Commissioner Sanchez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: No. Mr. Fernandez: Oh, no, no. Ms. Pardo: -- testifr about -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Ms. Pardo: -- traffic. Mr. Fernandez: Sorry. I was -- no. Argument of counsel only. Ms. Kuhns: Standing -- OK. We have standing. We have standing. We showed in this zoning appeal that we were in over and over and over how we are -- we were aggrieved, and the Zoning Board agreed with us. They agreed with us. They heard everything that the appellant had -- applicant had to say. They saw the building. They saw what we had to say. They saw our pictures. They heard our personal testimony. This is all substantial competent evidence. The City of Miami Zoning Code provides standing for us, residents all over the City. In fact, one of the cases in their -- Morningside Development versus City of Miami. It's neighbors, just like us, appealing a building. It went all the way up to the Third DCA and back We -- that went all the way up to the County court and back The standing was never found to be anything other than completely valid. I think that what the appellant wants to do today, what the developer wants to do, is that they want you to go back and rewrite history. They want you to go back and undo the bad presentation that they put forward, and it was bad. Even the Zoning Board was laughing by the end of it and making jokes about what their presentation looked like, but that is not the role of this appeal; to go back and say, you know what, you didn't do a good job in your first presentation, so we'll give you another whack at it. I ask that you approve -- that you affirm the Zoning Board's decision. They listened to us. They heard testimony. They listened to all the experts. They saw all the pictures, and they made a very fair decision, and they made it after a lot of deliberation, and to undo that is not based on law because we met all of these criteria. We were very careful about that, and the -- I'll just also put on the record that this was an appeal not just by in -- not just by the homeowners' association, but also by individuals. My appeal letter is in that packet and it reads: I, Brenda Kuhns, along with Wendy Stephan, Pat Kelly, and the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association, appeal the project called Electra I, Class 11 Special Permit number. We all appealed. The association appealed and individuals appealed, City of Miami Page 220 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 and we are all persons aggrieved. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez.: The Commission now may ask questions of the attorneys, and -- but prior to that, to complete the cycle -- and I apologize -- the appellant is entitled to a very short rebuttal before they conclude their presentation in chiefs. Then you should proceed to asking questions. 1 apologize. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: The process provides for a short rebuttal. Commissioner Spence -Jones: What is short? Mr. Fernandez: Well, that's -- it's always up to the Chairman what he deems appropriate, having given each party a full 18 minutes, 20 minutes -- I don't know how long -- to make their presentation. Perhaps, rebuttal could be short. Chairman Gonzalez: Shorter, right. Ms. Pardo: I'll be short. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Pardo: With regards to the comments about our presentation and not bringing forth all of our boards, the case law provides that it's whether the Zoning Board had substantial competent evidence based on their presentation. It's not -- I was not supposed to put forth my presentation before you today, and that was the reason why it was addressed that way because that's what the Florida case law requires, and with regards to the standing and their location being distances away, those are all factors that go into the standing, and your -- she's right -- and I gave you the Code section that she cited, 1311, with regards to standing, but the operative word in it is that you need to be aggrieved, and they're not aggrieved because in order to be aggrieved, the case law provides you've got to have an interest different from the community at -large, and because there'll be more traffic or seeing a building does not make you aggrieved differently from everybody as a whole, and we believe that there was not substantial incompetent evidence, and that your Planning director's decision to approve the Class II should stand, and we would request that you grant our appeal. Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: Questions -- Chairman Gonzalez: Any questions -- Mr. Fernandez: --from the Commission would be -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- from the Commission? Mr. Fernandez: -- appropriate. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, I definitely have a few questions. Mr. Fernandez: Of which party? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I guess both. Either one could answer, and also staff, just so that I'm clear. The first thing, as you know, this item is coming back in front of me again. The first City of Miami Page 221 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 time I asked that the neighborhood association and the developers meet because I thought that it was important that you guys got on the same page. I asked staff to coordinate that meeting, and I believe that it had -- they had met -- could you just give me a quick little update on what occurred? Did they -- the meetings happen? Ms. Slazyk: There was a little bit of discussion about -- it really was a meeting between them. You know, we were -- we just kind of set it up for them. There was some discussion about reducing the building in height. I believe the applicant proffered 360 feet, and then there was some discussion of 320 feet, and there was no agreement on that height, and the meeting ended. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and my neighborhood association, what was -- I mean, I'm hearing it from their side, but I'm not hearing it from their side. What did they proffer? Ms. Slazyk: 120 feet. Commissioner Spence -Jones: A hundred and twenty. OK. All right. The next question I had was around the -- according to the transcript, right? 1 see the City Attorney looking over there making sure I don't go off -- and this is the reason why 1 think it's important to support that other item because this gives you an opportunity to hear it again, and now you have to look at evidence, but the FDOT upgrade in the transcript, it was mentioned, I guess, by the neighborhood association that it really was not an upgrade, correct? It was more -- I just want to know exactly what, and we're talking about coming off the highway running into the building. Ms. Kuhns: May my civilian traffic expert answer or do 1 need to? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I don't -- Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. City Attorney, who has to answer? Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. I'm trying to resolve some other issues. What was her question, ma'am? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Who has to answer the question? The attorney or -- Mr. Fernandez: Who -- Ms. Kuhns: I -- Mr. Fernandez: You -- either both sides are entitled to answer. Whatever question you ask of one, the other one may also pipe in. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But the -- OK, so the attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Only the attorneys can speak No one else may participate. Ms. Kuhns: What we presented was that the FDOT upgrade to 36 Street and Miami Avenue is aesthetic only. It does not do any increase in traffic flow or capacity. It's meant, in fact, to reduce capacity at that intersection by making things aesthetically calmer. They're planning on re -striping, planting trees -- Mr. Fernandez: Again, Madam Commissioner, if that evidence -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's -- City of Miami Page 222 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: -- was adduced or presented at the Zoning Board, she needs to make reference to the page -- Ms. Kuhns: It was aesthetic only, and that is in the record; not to capacity. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Now that -- Mr. Fernandez: Ms. Freisner may want to -- Ms. Pardo: Yeah. I'm looking in the record. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Pardo: When that comment was made, Mr. Garcia -- Mr. Fernandez: What part of the record, ma'am? Ms. Pardo: In the record on page 50 -- Mr. Garcia is speaking on page 50, and then he speaks again -- it was on page 52, and he said, "Now someone mentioned that 36 Street and Miami Avenue had a level of service -- I think I heard 'E' and 'F.' It doesn't have a level of service of 'E' and 'F.' The current level of service is 'C.' It has a future proposal level of service adding background growth rate and adding the site project remains at level 'C,'" and then he goes into the delay and he mentions how he used to work for FDOT, et cetera. Mr. Fernandez: So now you've heard two different answers to your questions. Ms. Kuhns: We had a -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's how (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Ms. Kuhns: -- dispute. We had a dispute as to whether 36 Street was a "C," or an "E," or an Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Kuhns: -- and that was a factual determination that the Zoning Board made that they -- Ms. Pardo: No, they didn't. Ms. Kuhns: -- chose to believe our evidence that came from FDOT that they -- that it actually -- and we sub -- we had a map available for you today, but 1 can't present it to you, but right where the applicant's project is, that road turns into either an "E" or an "F," but it is not a "C." Mr. Fernandez: Is there evidence of that on the record below? Ms. Pardo: I don't see any. Mr. Fernandez: If there is no evidence of that on the record below, Madam Commissioner, you're to -- Ms. Kuhns: But one of the things that we did do -- at the time -- Wendy was presenting our traffic argument, we were really rushed. She gave her two minutes. She had to rush through the material, and one of the things that I know Wendy said is that she went through that intersection four times just that day and it's full of traffic, and we are all going to be personally aggrieved -- City of Miami Page 223 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Is that -- well -- Chairman Gonzalez: But is that expert -- Mr. Fernandez: You need to consider -- Ms. Kuhns: Point to it. Mr. Fernandez: You're addressing concerns of competent substantial evidence -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and you need to determine if somebody going through an intersection four times is competent substantial evidence versus what has been quoted on the record by Ms. Freisner with regard to Mr. Garcia giving testimony, and presumably, Mr. Garcia has been qualified as an expert? I don't know. Ms. Pardo.' Yes, he was. Mr. Fernandez: Ms. Freisner needs to speak to that. Ms. Pardo: Yes. Mr. Garcia was qualified as an expert in the record. Mr. Pastoriza had questioned him, and I -- and we put his resume into the record, and 1 can tell you the exact page in just a moment. Chairman Gonzalez: So I can understand exactly -- I'm going to ask you a question, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: If they fail to prove substantial competent evidence in just one single case, that is grounds to accept the appeal? Mr. Fernandez: Again, as 1 explained to you, you need to determine whether the Zoning Board decision was based on competent substantial evidence. You need to look at the entire decision. If you find that any one element failed the competent substantial evidence test, then you may be entitled to reverse their decision under the fact that you've determined that they didn't have competent substantial evidence. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Don't you have to determine first if they do have standing or not because if they don't, immediately an appellate court will dismiss the suit, but if they -- I mean, both are presenting facts stating that they don't or they do have standing, so -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- if we are an appellate court, we're asking an expert -- in this case, you -- to support the court. Which version do you think is right? Do they have standing or they don't? Mr. Fernandez: That's right, and that's one of the issues in front of you, and you have heard both attorneys argue the issue of standing from completely different perspective. The appellant is saying that the neighborhood association did not have standing. I don't know that appellant City of Miami Page 224 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 addressed the issue that individuals didn't have standing. The appellee, the homeowners association, the attorney, Ms. Kuhns, stated that not only the homeowners were parties, but also individuals were party. Ms. Pardo needs to address that issue and make it very clear to you, but you're correct. You need to make a determination of whether the individuals and the homeowners association had standing. If you determine they do, then you continue to consider competent substantial evidence. If, on the other hand, you determine that they did not have standing, that they are not aggrieved parties -- and you heard argument, legal arguments back and forth -- then that's sufficient cause for you to overturn the decision of the Zoning Board and grant the appeal in front of you, but if you would like an explanation from my office with regard to the state of the law after you've heard both counsel on the issue of standing -- because there is some room for interpretation here -- I would be very happy to ask Mr. Suarez -Rivas to explain to you how it is that state statute reads or state law, and then how our own Code would seem to ampl f the issue of standing, potentially giving standing, notwithstanding state law, to a homeowners association. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Fernandez: If you're interested. If not, you can go -- Commissioner Regalado: No. I think that we have --1 have heard both and I think -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- I can make a judgment. Mr. Fernandez: Very good. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I just have a few -- because it is a project that's really affecting my district, so I just want to be very clear before I make a decision one way or the other on it. The FDOT upgrade to me was important to really understand if it was happening. 1 can't ask them -- I've already asked my questions of them. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I ask -- I can ask staff anything, right? Mr. Fernandez: My preference would be that you do not bring anybody else other than the parties and the record into your decision. An appellate court judge does have the privilege of calling anybody else to come and testes to them. That's why we just passed this most recent ordinance making all the issues de novo because in the regular type of proceeding, you could have asked staff to give you their opinion and their take. When you called Ms. Slazyk up here a few minutes ago -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- I almost stood up. 1 want to be deferential to the Commission, but you need to observe the process because if you didn't think about it before, we're setting ourself [sic] up for future appeals by either of these parties. It depends on who wins or who loses tonight, and then I want to make sure that the sanctity of the process has been observed, and whatever decision you make, you're free to make whatever decision, you know, your best efforts would give you. We need to make sure that our record is clean and clear, Commissioner Spence -Jones, and therefore, please do not call upon anyone else to assist. Ms. Kuhns: May -- City of Miami Page 225 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Understood, Mr. City Attorney. Ms. Kuhns: May 1 also point something out? It's directly in point to -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Ms. Kuhns: -- the question -- Mr. Fernandez: Excuse me. Ms. Kuhns: -- you had asked. Mr. Fernandez: The -- Ms. Pardo needs to complete -- Chairman Gonzalez: Her rebuttal. Mr. Fernandez: -- if she has already completed her answer, there needs to be a pending question before either party answers. We -- you need -- Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that you limit the attorneys to answering strictly the question posed to them and not utilize the good graces of this Commission to continue making arguments that, perhaps, they could have made -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- during their presentation. Chairman Gonzalez: Ms. Pardo -- Mr. Fernandez: Is there a pending question? Chairman Gonzalez: -- are you done with the rebuttal? Ms. Pardo: I am done with the rebuttal. I found the FDOT -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: What page? Ms. Pardo: -- reference, if you want me to make it. Chairman Gonzalez: There was a question in reference to FDOT -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. 1 was just trying -- Ms. Pardo: You want me to reply? Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- to understand the FDOT upgrade. There was assistance that was happening with the upgrade in -- FDOT is doing an upgrade there, correct? Ms. Kuhns: It's a -- may I answer? Ms. Pardo: Yes. FDOT is doing an upgrade with regards to one of the lanes going onto the expressway -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so that is -- City of Miami Page 226 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Pardo: -- onto North Miami Avenue. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- that's the only upgrade that's happening as a part of -- Ms. Pardo: That's all that I'm aware of. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Based upon what's in the record, right, Mr. City Attorney? Chairman Gonzalez: And that is on the record. Ms. Kuhns: Madam Commissioner, I need to add to that, though. On page 24 of the transcript, line, let's say, 22, "this intersection is not slated for any high flow volume upgrades through the year 2030, according to the Metropolitan Planning Organization," and we submitted into the record an enormous document via e-mail (electronic mail) showing every upgrade, every project planned until 2030. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Where is it? Ms. Kuhns: It's not in this bind -- the quote that she says is -- begins at line 22. This intersection is not -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Twenty -- Ms. Kuhns: Line 22, page 24. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Kuhns: "This intersection is not slated for any high flow volume upgrades through the year 2030, according to the Metropolitan Planning Organization," and we submitted into the record an enormous document, and the way that you know that there's no upgrade is by the absence of any upgrade for this intersection. This document had every possible upgrade that's going to happen, but not for this intersection, and that would be of Northeast 36 Street and Miami Avenue. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and based upon what's in the -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK, but I'm reading here -- I don't know -- 1'm reading here -- because 1 just didn't read what you ask us to read; I went a little bit further. Mr. Fernandez: What page, Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Same page. Chairman Gonzalez: Page 24. On page 24, it goes to the volume of upgrades throughout year 2030, according to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. "We argue this is not -- this is not a palm -lined boulevard. In the plans they show palms and medians and nice wide open spaces. This is a weedy little intersection that does not -- cannot accommodate the scale of this project. It will make our lives miserable. 1 came and went from this particular intersection in an --" up and on the ramp "-- on 95 and 195 four times just today." Is that a statement from FDOT? Is that a statement from your witness? Ms. Pardo: From the president. Chairman Gonzalez: That was your witness, right, that went up and down four times on the expressway? City of Miami Page 227 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Kuhns: Yes. That's -- Chairman Gonzalez: And that is -- is that -- Ms. Kuhns: -- personal testimony, and that's admissible evidence. Personal testimony about your own experiences in traffic and common sense conclusions -- Chairman Gonzalez: But -- Ms. Kuhns: -- about the effect of more cars is substantial competent evidence. Chairman Gonzalez: -- is that competent substantial evidence, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Fernandez: Ms. Pardo. Ms. Pardo: No. Pursuant to Allapattah versus Community Association -- it's under tab 9, the case -- it said the court held that nonexpert traffic -related testimony is to be disregarded in the presence of an expert traffic study, which we did submit at the Zoning Board. For a Class 11, we were not required to do a traffic study -- Mr. Fernandez: Exactly. Ms. Pardo: -- and when this appeal occurred, we went out, we hired a traffic expert, and we did that because we knew this is something that you need before these cases. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me ask you another -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- question, if you allow me. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No problem. Chairman Gonzalez: What other experts did you had at the Zoning Board? Ms. Pardo: We had an expert planner, who we also had to go out and hire in order to handle this appeal, and the expert planner testified that with regards to the context of this particular project at this particular location in this zoning district, that it was within context and it was in compliance with Section 1305 because you had 195, which was adjacent to it on the north, and the context that we have Midtown across the street, which does allow -- half of Midtown does have buildings that go -- can go up to 385 feet, and then you also have the Blue on 36 Street, which is also a high-rise building, so our expert planner testified that it met the criteria of 1305, and the case law also says that you need an expert planner as competent substantial evidence. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Let me just -- Ms. Kuhns: No. You -- Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Ms. Kuhns. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- add -- Mr. Fernandez: Excuse me. Ms. Kuhns should be able to reply to that with regard to whatever expert testimony -- City of Miami Page 228 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Kuhns: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- that would be considered competent and substantial was submitted on the record on this limited issue that you've raised. Ms. Kuhns: Thank you. Could you point to that testimony, Ms. Pardo? Ms. Pardo: Yes. If you want to address how you had it, I'll look for it in the meantime, but I know who our expert was and I`ll find it. Mr. Fernandez: Right. Meanwhile -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can -- Mr. Fernandez: Sure. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So do we have to wait for this one issue? Mr. Fernandez: Not necessarily. She's looking specifically for -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And we could come back to it? I just want -- I'm just Mr. Fernandez: -- the citation. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- in light of time, I just -- I had a couple of other -- Ms. Kuhns: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- thing -- do you -- Ms. Kuhns: 1 will make my point, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Kuhns: -- I think it's interesting the planner actually used Blue, which is almost a mile away, and downtown Miami and Biscayne Boulevard and the highway as context. Commissioner Spence -Jones: What street -- but -- Ms. Kuhns: None of these are--1-195. None of these create context for a 420-foot building. A building -- if you have to go all the way to downtown to find context, then it's not in context. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Where's -- is it here? Ms. Kuhns: I know. I need to find it in the record. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Pardo: OK. It said, Ms. Sweetapple -- Mr. Fernandez: What page? Ms. Pardo: I'm sorry. Page 39, line 16 -- well, she starts at 14. It says, "Again, we looked at the site location. We are located within the SD-8 Design District, which is located both on the north and the south sides of Interstate 1-95. We have Midtown to the south. We have the Buena City of Miami Page 229 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Vista neighborhood --" she's going through the entire area. Her presentation was several pages. I mean, you want me go through everything? And she basically -- actually, I can pull out her board, as well, where she goes through the context of this particular building in this particular location. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Brenda, do you -- ? Mr. Fernandez: Well, what -- Ms. Pardo: Actually, 1 might have it in here. Mr. Fernandez: -- you Commissioners need to determine is if after reading the transcript and seeing the presentations that have been submitted to you as part of the record, you consider the expert being produced by the appellant to have given competent substantial evidence with regard to the issue of context versus the neighborhood association giving their own -- through whatever testimony they adduced, expert or otherwise, their discussion on context. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean, it's -- to me, it's -- Ms. Kuhns: In fact, on line -- on page 41, it -- she talks about Midtown. Line 1, "We do note that the retail piece of Midtown, which is directly on the south side of this project, is a low scale --" tower -- sorry, low scale "-- town center retail. However, this is comparable to the pedestal that's then created by this building." That's the context she created with Midtown; that the parking garage is in context, but not the entire building. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Now, is the pedestal the parking garage? Ms. Kuhns: The pedestal -- Ms. Pardo: Yes. Ms. Kuhns: -- is the parking garage. Ms. Pardo: That is -- but she said a lot more. I mean, she's taking this totally out of context. Mr. Fernandez: Well, the record speaks for itself. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have the transcript in front of you. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: You need to be fully informed with regard to what the transcript says, notwithstanding differences of opinion between counsel as to what the transcript says or not. It says what it does. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I'm going to move off this item. Let me just finish with the other questions that I have. In the transcript, it talked about Midtown Miami and it talked about Miami 21, it not being in scale. Again, I can't ask staff anything, but it seemed as though that one of the approaches with the whole Midtown Miami piece -- Miami 21 piece was to create development that kind of scaled down into the neighborhoods, correct? Well, 1 mean, 1 can't ask Ms. Kuhns: That's a principle of Miami 21, to provide some sort of stepping down in different zones, so in between a zone like Midtown that would be very high density, you would have City of Miami Page 230 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 smaller zones stepping down toward lower density, so something like R-2 would be -- I think in Midtown is T-3; whereas stepping up toward something like downtown would be T-4, T-5, and we are missing T-4 and T-5. We go from -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Pardo: And we're missing Miami 21. Ms. Kuhns: -- single-family homes to high-rise. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Ms. Pardo: It hasn't been approved. Mr. Fernandez: -- Miami 21 is not the law. Miami 21 is far from being passed. The principles of Miami 21 are still being developed, and so therefore, you know, to the extent that it's not part of the record below, I would guide your attention away from applicability of Miami 21. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK Mr. City Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- you said that anything that was in this transcript, correct? Mr. Fernandez: And if -- was there a discussion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can that -- it would -- Mr. Fernandez: -- on the transcript of -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- Miami 21? Commissioner Spence -Jones: They talked -- Ms. Pardo: They may have mentioned Miami 21-- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Ms. Pardo: -- but we don't believe that it's relevant to the procedure that's here before you today because it's -- was there -- did the Zoning Board have competent substantial evidence? And Miami 21 hasn't been approved, and we understand the concepts, but we're also not next door to a single-family or even a duplex district. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But -- Ms. Pardo: It's 38 -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- Ms. Pardo -- Ms. Pardo: -- acres away. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- the only reason -- again, it's in the transcript. City of Miami Page 231 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Pardo: It is. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I don't remember where, but 1 remember reading it somewhere in the transcript about Miami 21, and -- Ms. Pardo: They did mention it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, and my question for that -- even though -- you know, again, my hands are so tied on this whole thing. 1 mean, I might as well not even talk. It's -- it seems as though this particular project, if we're looking at it from the standpoint of what's already going on in the area, it seems as though this project would somewhat begin to scale down, correct? Ms. Pardo: Yes, it would because you have Midtown at 385, and we are willing to go to the 360, and then you do have -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. What -- Ms. Pardo: -- Aria and Cube, and it goes down -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- when this originally came in front of everyone, it was -- Ms. Pardo: 420. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So when there -- when you guys were arguing with this point, was it at 420? Ms. Kuhns: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right, so now we went from 420 to 3 -- Ms. Pardo: 60. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- 60, OK, so there is some kind of scaling happening. Ms. Pardo: Yes, so that it would step down, exactly. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, not to where they want to step down though, correct, Brenda? Ms. Pardo: Not to 120. Ms. Kuhns: No. I'm not sure what kind of stepping down that you're referring to. What are you -- ? I mean, theoretically, if you have a building that's 360 feet tall or 420 feet tall at North Miami Avenue and 36 Street, you could provide stepping down. However, the present Code doesn't provide for that. There is nothing written down that says you have to step down. What we have is this context argument and it required that the Zoning Board not look at nonexisting projects. It requires that the Zoning Board look at the physical contextual environment, physical. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But, Brenda, I'm reaching, you know. It's Miami 21 -- I know that's the direction that we're going in. That's all I've been hearing. Ms. Kuhns: We would welcome stepping down. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Let me -- can -- let -- OK You know, so it seems as though the transcript is saying, you know, based upon what I'm reading, that, you know, it is somewhat City of Miami Page 232 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 scaling down, and again, I know I'm not -- this is not in here, but when we look at other projects that are within the area, this project, you know -- Mr. Fernandez: You may not take that into account, Commissioner. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. All right. All right, so I'm off that issue. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would like to invite -- Ms. Kuhns: Also -- Mr. Fernandez: -- Ms. Kuhns to occupy a full lectern podium. There is one empty, and she doesn't need to be inconvenienced -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, that's right. Mr. Fernandez: -- by being on the other side. Ms. Kuhns: Also, may I add one more point? And that is -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure. Ms. Kuhns: -- that Aria and Cube were not brought into the record in the Zoning Board hearing, and they shouldn't be considered today. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Who? Ms. Kuhns: Aria and Cube, the two -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Kuhns: -- projects should not be considered. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 agree. Ms. Kuhns: They didn't bring it up. It wasn't evidence, and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I agree. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm just trying to look at the overall area, you know; just trying to be -- Ms. Kuhns: I understand, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- at the end of the day -- Ms. Kuhns: -- this review is limited. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 understand, and this is why this is a problem, and 1 wasn't involved in this, but I'm walking into this, you know. Ms. Kuhns: But the purpose of this hearing today -- City of Miami Page 233 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Ms. Kuhns: -- is not to decide whether this project is in context -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Ms. Kuhns: -- and the purpose here today is to not decide whether this building provides for stepping down or it doesn't. It's just to decide whether seeing the evidence that the Zoning Board saw -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Um -hum. Ms. Kuhns: -- and hearing what they heard, did they make a proper decision -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: But -- Ms. Kuhns: -- and that's it, and substantial competent evidence is not more than 50 percent. Substantial competent evidence means you had something to hang your hat on. When the Zoning Board made their decision, they had something to hang their hat on. We didn't have to prove 51 percent; that's their burden. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and let -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Ms. Pardo: No. Mr. Fernandez: At that point, let me read to you the case definition of competent substantial evidence. Hanging your hat is not part of the definition; 50/50 is not part of the definition. Please follow closely what the case of DeGroat has to say, and this is the court opining. We have used the term competent substantial evidence to mean as follows: "Substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred" This sounds like a lot of legalese, right, but you know, you can reasonably infer. You should not devoid yourself of reasonableness. You must exercise your reasonableness, and without having to allude and specifically raise all the issues that may be improper, you're still equipped with your ability to be reasonable. The reasonable man standard is evidence -- like it says here, evidence has been -- substantial evidence is described as evidence that will establish a basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred. It goes further and says we have stated to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion, so use the evidence. Does it support a conclusion? You all are -- must arrive at a conclusion, and you need to use reasonableness to say this fact, is it enough to help me arrive at this conclusion? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: That is what the case law says about competent substantial evidence. Ms. Kuhns: But even clearer is Metropolitan Dade County versus Section 1I, which doesn't just lay out a very legal standard. It actually takes a case very similar to this one -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Is it in here? Ms. Pardo: Do you have a copy for all of us? Ms. Kuhns: I have a copy of it. City of Miami Page 234 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. I'm saying is it -- Ms. Pardo: Do you have a copy? Commissioner Spence -Jones: 'Cause they're telling me I -- Ms. Kuhns: It's not in the record -- Mr. Fernandez: Ms. Pardo -- Chairman Gonzalez:: It's not on the record. Ms. Kuhns: -- because it wasn't brought up at -- Ms. Pardo: I didn't cite it. Ms. Kuhns: -- the Zoning Board hearing. Chairman Gonzalez: It's not on the record. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And -- Ms. Kuhns: But it's a legal argument -- Ms. Pardo: But she could bring a copy. Ms. Kuhns: -- and I think we're allowed to bring in case law -- Mr. Fernandez: You are -- Ms. Kuhns: -- pertaining -- Mr. Fernandez: -- you're very much allowed to -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Mr. Fernandez: -- bring legal argument. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so at this point, I don't know what 1 can do. Mr. Fernandez: No, no. Listen to me. l'll let you know what you're allowed to do -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and if counsel is making a legal argument, she's certainly entitled to do that. Ms. Kuhns: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Read it into the record -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: You read it. Mr. Fernandez: -- Commissioner, if you will. City of Miami Page 235 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Kuhns: Do you want me to read it in? 1 have another copy. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Basically, it says here -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So I'm where? Mr. Fernandez: Specifically, the neighbor -- Ms. Pardo.' If we could see a copy, that would be great. Mr. Fernandez: This fact -- Ms. Pardo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Fernandez: -- OK. Basically, counsel is alluding to the case that she has cited and reads this fact -based testimony regarding the aesthetic incompatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood, coupled with the site plan, elevation drawings, and the aerial photograph constituted substantial competent evidence supporting the denial of the exception, and this case is correct. We have used this case to defend City Commission's action in the past, but listen to the coupling because there is things that are coupled here. Again, it says fact -based testimony -- that is an individual giving fact testimony -- regarding the aesthetic incompatibility of a project -- somebody finding something pretty, not pretty, aesthetic incompatibility of a project -- with the surrounding neighborhood coupled -- here is a magic word. You may have this opinion of I like it; 1 don't like it. Is it -- whatever, but then it has to be coupled with the site plan, elevations drawing, and the aerial photograph -- you know, once you are able to tie your feelings -- Ms. Kuhns: This is the -- Mr. Fernandez: -- to all of these factual drawings and -- as outlined here, the courts have found that to be competent substantial evidence, very correct. Ms. Pardo: And if 1 could just comment on that. Ms. Kuhns: And we've submitted all of that. Ms. Pardo: With regards to that particular case, you could have a totally different situation. You could have had a project that was right next door to a single-family home, and not a project that is miles -- you know, over -- almost a mile away, next to Midtown, next to high-rise, next to a highway. It's a completely different situation here -- Ms. Kuhns: Actually, the case -- Ms. Pardo: -- and in this particular case, you had the Planning director's, you know, decision. They reviewed it. We believe -- she's right. Maybe the Zoning Board, at that hearing -- we don't deny the Zoning Board ruled against it, and she's right. They had a problem with one of the pictures. There was a -- with trees. If you drive that neighborhood, though, there are trees everywhere. When you look through that neighborhood, there are trees, and 1 can -- you know, I have the pictures from that -- Ms. Kuhns: This is outside the scope of the question. Ms. Pardo: -- prior hearing. No, it's -- you brought it up. It was in your argument about why the Zoning Board denied our application, and she's right. 1 think they had a problem with one particular picture -- City of Miami Page 236 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Kuhns: No, it was a lot of pictures. Ms. Pardo: -- because it showed the building behind a tree, and you know what? I went to that neighborhood afterwards to -- because -- Mr. Fernandez: OK. Ms. Pardo: -- we had that picture. There were trees everywhere. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: Let me help counsel and this Commission to make a decision. I have participated in many appellate proceedings. This is nothing like real appellate proceedings. You're being extremely lenient. You're being very open, and you know, there is nothing wrong with that because after all, this is a people's business, and this is -- really, you're being forced to ask as appellate lawyers, but you're not appellate lawyers. You're trying to do the best you can, but I recommend and highly suggest to you that you have already afforded both parties plenty of due process. Chairman Gonzalez: Plenty due process. Mr. Fernandez: You have heard their arguments. You know where they're coming from, and unless you have some -- Chairman Gonzalez: That -- Mr. Fernandez: -- question that you could not answer from reading the record, without seeking some other issue, arrive at your conclusion in fairing from the facts and the arguments that have been given to you and bring this to closure. They're suffering; they're bleeding. You need to decide. Chairman Gonzalez: That is exactly what 1 didn't want to be accused of of not affording the proper time and the -- Mr. Fernandez: I believe that I will be able to defend in court the fact that this Commission -- Chairman Gonzalez: And 1 think we have. Mr. Fernandez: -- has been extremely lenient and open and very fair to both sides in presenting their full case, and so if you have anymore questions, you -- Chairman Gonzalez: I don't. Mr. Fernandez: -- may proceed to ask them, but -- Chairman Gonzalez: I don't have anymore -- myself I don't have any questions. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: I don't know if the Commissioners -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Since I'm the only one that's going to be affected by it, I have a -- City of Miami Page 137 Printed on 3/17/1006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Go right ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so we can pass that one. Just real fast -- and then I'm done after this last question, and I'll give you my viewpoint on it after hearing both sides. The SD-8 -- Mr. Fernandez: Overlay district. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- overlay district, this is -- Ms. Pardo: It's not overlay, not overlay. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's not overlay. Ms. Pardo: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's SD-8. Ms. Pardo: It's just the SD-8 district. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, which is in the record, correct? Ms. Pardo: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Does it -- based upon the record, it does allow -- how high does it allow for them to go? Ms. Pardo: Unlimited height. Chairman Gonzalez: Unlimited. Ms. Pardo: Unlimited Ms. Kuhns: This is a semantic issue. Ms. Pardo: It's unlimited. No, no. Ms. Kuhns: The Code says -- Ms. Pardo: It's not semantic. Ask your Zoning director. Ms. Kuhns: Let me finish. Ms. Pardo: No. Mr. Fernandez: No. Ms. Pardo: Ask your Zoning director. Ms. Kuhns: The Code says unlimited, no height restriction. There's no height restriction. However, the Code gives with one hand and it takes away with the other. It says no height restriction, but that's far from a mandate when another -- Mr. Pastoriza: Excuse me. City of Miami Page 238 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Kuhns: -- part of the Code -- Mr. Pastoriza: Excuse me. Ms. Kuhns: -- says that your building has to be in context with the other structures, so theoretically, there's no restriction on height, per se. However, there's still a requirement that buildings grow gradually, that they grow in context -- Chairman Gonzalez: But -- Ms. Kuhns: -- with the neighborhood. Mr. Pastoriza: Excuse me. Chairman Gonzalez: But the answer is there is no -- Mr. Pastoriza: Unlimited Chairman Gonzalez: -- limit. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: That's the answer. Mr. Pastoriza: Unlimited. Chairman Gonzalez: You know, you may want to change the answer and make it more beautiful or more ugly, but there is no limit. Ms. Kuhns: 1 argue there is. When the -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK Ms. Kuhns: -- neighborhood is one to five stories, how is 430 feet in context? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. You have answered the question. Ms. Kuhns: What would be out of context? Chairman Gonzalez: OK. I'm going to take control of the meeting because, like the City Attorney says, it's going out of hand. I'm going to take control of the meeting. You have answered the question. I think you had a question or an answer. Mr. Pastoriza.' No. I just wanted -- given the opportunity now to examine the case that was given to the Commissioner, I just want to tell you that this case -- Mr. Fernandez: Again, you know, the -- in appellate proceedings, Ms. Pardo should be making these arguments. We have not allowed anyone else to step in -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- on behalf of the other side -- Ms. Pardo: I will. City of Miami Page 239 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Pardo: The reason -- I mean, we had brought cases and we gave them to the other side so they would have them, but I didn't have this one, but this particular case was with regards to an industrial building being located in a single-family district, and that's -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right -- Ms. Pardo: -- why -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- so that clears the -- Ms. Pardo: -- you have a difference here. Chairman Gonzalez: -- smoke. That clears the smoke. All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: I think -- do you have any questions? Commissioner Regalado, no. Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. I guess it's basically time for me to make a decision about this. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Time to either -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- fish or cut bait. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I just want to be clear. The neighborhood association and the developer have met -- Ms. Pardo: We did meet. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- correct? 1t was 420; then it went to 360, correct? Brenda, can you come back up to the podium? I'm talking to the both of you guys. Ms. Kuhns: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: There's no real issue about development happening on the corner, correct? Ms. Pardo: Correct. Ms. Kuhns: I mean, we would like something there, just not this. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, not -- Ms. Kuhns: This is too big. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- this -- not the scale that it's at, correct? Ms. Kuhns: Exact -- and the density. City of Miami Page 240 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, but you wouldn't have a problem -- the both of you guys could agree that something can happen on that corner, but not at this scale, correct? Ms. Kuhns: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. One group wants 12 -- what was it, Otto, 12? I mean, I'm sorry, City Attorney, 12 --120 feet? Ms. Kuhns: Hundred and twenty feet. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and one group wants 3 -- Ms. Kuhns: 360. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- wanted 420, now they're at 360. Ms. Kuhns: 360. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. My mama told me there were going to be days like this. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, I just want to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- I just want -- Mr. Fernandez: Hold on one second. Commissioner, excuse me. Chairman Gonzalez: I just want to prevent that you rule based on the wrong type of issue. Commissioner Spence -Jones: The rules. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Whenever you rule -- I want to ask the City Attorney because -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- I want to make sure that -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: Our ruling has to be -- does -- can't take into consideration the size of the building, the floors, the structure; it has to be based on the facts presented on the record -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- at the Zoning hearing, right? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But that was presented Mr. Fernandez: However, you have three options. Ms. Pardo: Right. Mr. Fernandez: In regards to making a decision, you can grant the appeal, which is reverse the Zoning decision. Chairman Gonzalez: The Zoning decision. City of Miami Page 241 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Deny the appeal, which is to support -- Chairman Gonzalez: Upheld. Mr. Fernandez: -- the decision of the Zoning Board or you may grant the appeal with a modification, which is where you reach a hybrid because it is inherently in your power, as elected officials, notwithstanding the role that the courts want you to play, you know, quasi-judicial, appellate, what have you. You may have that third position, which is to grant the appeal with a modification, and then you would give us instructions on writing a resolution to that effect. Your packet right now contains only two resolutions: outright granting of the appeal, outright denial of the appeal, but there is a third option. If you want to be creative, and if you're able to articulate a rationale for reaching that point, you may vote in that direction. Commissioner Regalado: Can I -- ? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado: It's unfair to put Michelle in that position. It is really unfair because, I mean, they're throwing at her, you know, all this appellate and all these new rulings and all that. You know, it's her district, but if I were me in her shoes, I will say that the history of this Commission has been one of compromise, and they, the developers, already have the alley, which they have now a unified project. They can just go back if we reaffirm the decision of the Zoning Board, and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Commissioner Regalado -- Commissioner Regalado: -- think -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: --1 don't mean to interrupt you. I really don't. Commissioner Regalado: I'm sorry? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I don't mean to interrupt you, but 1 really want to make a statement before you -- Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Regalado: No, no. I mean, I'm not making any motion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Commissioner Regalado: I'm deferring to you for the motion, but I'm just saying that the first step that they needed was the alley to create a unified project, and they have it already, so it's up to you. I mean, 1-- Commissioner Spence -Jones: My concern is having to deal with this issue again. You know, it's not going to go away. You know, the developers are going to either decide to, you know, not be bothered anymore and sell it, and then we're still going to have to deal with somebody wanting to put something on the corner because of everything that's happening on Midtown, so no matter what, we're going to continuously have this argument or this disagreement or fight, and as the person that's elected to make a decision, I have to weigh both sides and be fair. I'm sure Ms. City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Pardo understands that. I'm sure Brenda and my neighborhood association understands that, and that's the reason why I'm trying to find -- and I'm talking really to the two of you guys -- a happy compromise. They went down to 360; you're at 120. Can you guys at least meet each other halfway? Hatay would be what, Otto? Oh, I can't talk to you either, Otto, right? Mr. Fernandez: Well, you know, in the -- in doing so, you need to understand that a project of this magnitude cannot be raised or lowered or the like, and that staff -- your professional staff would need to look at the impact that this would create because when you flatten it out, it goes fat out -- Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- and then you have other limitations that your professional staff would need to look at to be able to give -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, 1 can't -- unfortunately, 1 can't talk to them right now, so -- Mr. Fernandez: No, you can't -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right -- Mr. Fernandez: -- and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so -- Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: -- so if the motion that you would make would be a motion to -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: To amend -- Mr. Fernandez: -- grant the appeal with conditions and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: With conditions. Mr. Fernandez: -- you continue the public hearing to another time to afford the parties having ruled that in fact you will grant the appeal with conditions, and the conditions are left open for the parties to have a meeting of the mind, and for staff to analyze whatever it is that, you know -- and clearly, parameters are being set, then perhaps, that could be a viable fourth option that we very creatively could come up with, and then at your next P&Z (Planning & Zoning) board meeting -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, Mr. City Attorney. They've already had a meeting of the minds several times, and they minds have not met -- Mr. Fernandez: And they're not going to meet -- OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so what I'm trying to do today so that we're not dragging this out any longer than what it is -- and I'm speaking to Brenda and I'm speaking to Ms. Pardo -- you're at 120; you're at 360. Can you guys meet each other halfway? I do have some conditions added to -- outside of that. Can you guys meet each other halfway? Ms. Kuhns: Are you asking me if, right now on the spot, we would accept 240 feet? Commissioner Spence -Jones: What is halfway? Is it -- Mr. Fernandez: Somebody that does math. City of Miami Page 243 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Pardo: Do we -- Mr. Fernandez: 240. Ms. Pardo: Do we take it from 360 or 420? Mr. Fernandez: Well, that's right -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: You're meeting halfway. Mr. Fernandez: -- because you start with 420 -- Chairman Gonzalez: 420. Mr. Fernandez: -- and 120 -- Ms. Pardo: 420, it would be -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, we're taking it from 360, OK. Ms. Kuhns: Would that be -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. We're not taking it from 420. We're taking it from 360. Ms. Kuhns: Would that be -- and also imposing a condition that they cannot take advantage of the additional 9.99 percent bonus that they're usually allowed without reapplying? Ms. Pardo: What bonus? Ms. Kuhns: Apparently, there's part of the Code -- and I don't have it with me because 1 wasn't prepared to answer this question -- that allows -- that says that if you substantially change the project, you have to reapply for a Class II Permit. However, if the change is less than a 9.99 percent increase in height, it's not considered substantial, which -- when someone -- so if someone says 240, they would automatically, under that principle, be allowed to increase it another 50 feet. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Fernandez: No. Ms. Kuhns: You could make your -- Ms. Pardo: Not under this situation you couldn't. Ms. Kuhns: -- conditional on -- that's it, not one foot higher. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. City Attorney, can you tell me about the bonus? What -- Mr. Fernandez: I've opined to you that you may modem the grant of the appeal with whatever reasonable conditions you want to impose on it. However, you know, it's -- if what you're trying to reach is a meeting of the minds, you have both parties here. You know, appellate courts usually do not consult the parties with regard to where they want to go, and they're very reluctant. Ms. Pardo needs to speak with regard to the issue that Ms. Kuhns addressed because she kept waving her head, but I cannot speak for her. Hello. Ms. Pardo. City of Miami Page 244 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Pardo: I know -- up to this point, we've been negotiating against ourselves, so I wanted to hear what the association said. Are we talking 240 feet; is that where -- ? Commissioner Spence -Jones: That would be meeting halfway, right? Yeah. Ms. Pardo: To the roof, we could do -- 240 feet to the roof we could do that, and we would agree that we would not request a nonsubstantial amendment to increase that. Ms. Kuhns: You know, the difficult part for me is that it's not just me. There are three appellant -- there are four appellants, and if I make this decision, am I making a decision on behalf of four individual appell -- me, Wendy, Pat, Kelly, and the neighborhood association? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can you imagine how I feel? Mr. Fernandez: Well, at this point in time, I think what the Commission is indicating to you is that they're willing to do certain conditions, but clearly, you know, the understanding would be that the appellees, all of you as a class, individuals and homeowners association, must be part of it because to go through this whole process, to have any one of you turn around and sue us -- because this lawsuit would be against the City of Miami -- would be totally ill-advised, and I would then advise you, Commissioner Spence -Jones, to stop trying to be a nice person and finding compromises and the like -- Ms. Kuhns: I'm not trying to be difficult. Mr. Fernandez: -- because it would backfire. Ms. Pardo: Can I just add one thing -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you, Mr. -- Ms. Pardo: -- to that? Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- City Attorney. Ms. Pardo: If I could just add one thing -- Ms. Kuhns: It's difficult to agree -- Ms. Pardo: -- to that. Ms. Kuhns: -- to on the spot when there are four parties. Ms. Pardo: Our problem is that if this Commission imposes the 240 and they don't agree to that, then they're going to go back and appeal it, and now we're really low. I mean, we've been trying to negotiate for months, and we just keep coming down, and they say, no, no, no, no. We think -- you know, they just won't do it, so we would ask if they're not going to agree to it, that please do not limit us to 240 feet because that just -- it gives us no room at all, and then -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Pardo: -- they're going to -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK. City of Miami Page 245 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Pardo: -- appeal us and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Because the building's going to be 500 feet in a minute, so I just have to make a decision. It's not an easy one, and again, you know, I tried my best to make sure that everybody got a little something because 1 do understand your viewpoint. I'm a very strong supporter of certain developments not going in certain places, especially in our neighborhoods, and they're popping up left and right. From day one -- and I've always said it, and I've never held my tongue on this -- if the highway was not there -- if that highway was not there separating the project from Buena Vista, the homeowners' association community, if the Design District was not there, this would be a very easy decision, and when I look at all of that that falls between that before it gets to Buena Vista Homeowners Association's area, it doesn't all mesh out to me, so that's why it makes it difficult, but I do understand what you guys are saying, and at the height that it is now, at 320, you definitely will be able to see it from your community. Ms. Pardo: 360. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Now -- 360 -- with it going down to 240, right? Is that correct? Ms. Pardo: It would get fatter at 240. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. All right, 240, it would at least not be seen from where you guys are, and understandingly, 1 mean, that at least is a win, so I'm going to grant the appeal with conditions; is that correct? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I'm going to say this. I hate -- excuse me. I -- Mr. Chairman and my colleague, I hate this process because it does not allow for you to really get all the data that is necessary to make, really to me, a fully informed decision because things change, you know, so -- but I have to make a decision, you know. That's what I was elected to do, so I'm hopefully able to give you something out of that. I would like to also add, as a part of the condition -- Mr. City Attorney, you got to tell me where I need to stop -- that earlier we granted the -- Mr. Fernandez: Vacation. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- alley closure, and a part of that, we were getting the public right-of-way -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- correct? Some enhancements -- Chairman Gonzalez: Plaza. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- plaza, plus we were getting some assistance with North Miami Avenue, and we all know -- even though it is in the County GOB (General Obligation Bond) -- and I've been fighting with the neighborhood association and the County to make sure we get that money. It's not slated to happen now, and we really need to have the improvements happening. You know how long it's taken us to get even Northeast 2nd Avenue. Sometimes it's a lot faster when you have additional support outside of that to make things happen, so with that happening, and then of course, the gateway, you know, from under the expressway -- this is my only condition -- the additional conditions I want to add, and 1 want to make sure you're fine with it and you're fine with it -- is that currently when I looked at these photos that you guys passed out with the light blue and the area up under there, it's really -- you know, I understand City of Miami Page 246 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 the -- that they painted it at one time, but I really would like to see the developers work along with the neighborhood association to truly create a greenway/gateway project or something of that sort that is a beautiful gateway into their neighborhood coming off the expressway and then going past Midtown, so if 1 could at least get -- can I get a "Amen" on it or no, I can't get -- ? Mr. Fernandez: Well, I'm trying to -- 1'm wrestling with the nature of this condition. Conditions are imposed by this Commission. It's not left up to the parties to do a greenway or whatever -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Well -- OK. I got you, so I'm asking my Commissioners, my fellow colleagues if you would grant this with the gateway improvements, and asking that they work with the neighborhood association to make it a beautiful gateway for them. Mr. Fernandez: Well -- but you know, here again, it is not up to their agreement. It is -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I understand. OK. I was asking them for their agreement, though. Commissioner Regalado: OK. What she's saying is she would grant the appeal -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- with several conditions; one being -- Mr. Fernandez: 200 feet -- 240. Commissioner Regalado: -- 240 feet, and the other being a gateway sponsored by the developer, who will be designed by the Administration, by the staff -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- and it will be presented to the association and to the area Commissioner, and that's that. The neighborhood association or the developer will not be part of the designing of the -- it will fall only on the professional staff`' -- Mr. Fernandez: Exactly. Commissioner Regalado: -- of the City of Miami. Is that -- ? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm sorry. Will that -- I'm fine with that. Mr. Fernandez: And we're fine with that, too, but then it would be much, much easier if the appellant were to proffer the building of this gateway -- Ms. Pardo: No. I've done -- Mr. Fernandez: -- subject to the administrative staff professional review. Commissioner Regalado: She already did. Ms. Pardo: We did do that. Commissioner Regalado: She did already. City of Miami Page 247 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Pardo: We -- on the alley closure -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Ms. Pardo: -- we had proffered for the public purpose that -- Mr. Fernandez: OK. Ms. Pardo: -- they were going to give 50,000 towards the street improvements -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Ms. Pardo: -- but also we had also proffered that we had agreed to give 50,000 towards a gateway, and to work with the City -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. 1-- Chairman already said that we're not talking about money and we keep saying the money number. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but now it's part of the -- Ms. Pardo: No, no, but -- yeah, 1-- Commissioner Regalado: -- deal. Ms. Pardo: OK, yes, we will work with -- I just want to say we had already agreed that we will work with the City and the community on a gateway monument, and that we could put it on the property or, you know, we'll work with everybody as to where you want it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. I'm sure you will work with everybody, but the final determiner must be, as Commissioner Regalado pointed out, professional staff Commissioner Regalado: The professional staff and -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- the area Commissioner will present the design -- Mr. Fernandez: Subject -- Commissioner Regalado: -- to both -- Mr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- parties and that's that. That's -- Mr. Fernandez.: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- the end of the story, you know. Mr. Fernandez: All right, and now Madam Spence -Jones -- Commissioner, the 240, we need to make sure that -- two clarifications. This is to the roof and this is also subject to your professional staff reviewing the flattening out of this building for all of -- final design, in other words, so that was implicit in your condition of 240, correct, Commissioner Spence -Jones? City of Miami Page 248 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Ms. Pardo: I'm sorry. What was the question? 1 didn't hear it, Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez: The question was not a question. It was a statement -- Ms. Pardo: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- that 240 -- we need clarification that 240 is to the point on the roof -- Ms. Pardo: Right, to the roof um -hum. Mr. Fernandez: -- to the top of the roof -- Ms. Pardo: To the roof. Mr. Fernandez: -- and that the, f lattening of the building from 420, 360, needs to go to final design review again to professional staff. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. -- Commissioner Regalado: But -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- City Attorney -- Ms. Pardo: So we have to get another Class II? We can't do that. Mr. Fernandez: No, no, no, no. It's all within your Class II. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, I have a question. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: I have a question. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Do we have to render a decision tonight in this case, or we can render -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 would really like to render a decision because this is --1 mean, this has kind of been riding me. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, but the problem is -- remember that now you're having a conflict, and the conflict that you're having is that you're asking this building to be cut down 1 don't know how many feet, and the professional staff has to see the drawings, and maybe they will tell you this is not feasible, or this will look terrible in your, you know, district, and actually, North Miami Avenue and 36 Street is a gateway -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, 1 know. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so you don't want to have anything there. You want to have something that looks good and that gives precedence to the interest of your district. I mean, it's up to you. City of Miami Page 249 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 It's your district, but I'm just telling you, you know, what I'm hearing here and I'm -- Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. The fourth option that I gave you, which is the least preferred of all, is for you to continue this meeting to get staff, professional staff an opportunity to react to the 240 - Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. We don't have to go back to hear arguments. We already heard arguments. All we're going to do is make a decision at a later date, and then that will give the professional staff some time to analyze this proposal -- Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and maybe they -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- will come back and recommend -- Mr. Fernandez: You know, the problem with that is that it complicates things further. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but the problem -- excuse me. The problem is that we are going to have a debate -- Mr. Fernandez.: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- about the height and the -- if it's fat or if it's thin, and the thing is she just want to get it over with -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- and I think she's right. Get it over with; vote it, and I would suggest -- I mean, you know, 240 came not out of the blue. Somebody said -- and was it the professional staff? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just said meet halfway. Chairman Gonzalez: It came out of the blue. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Both of them meet halfway. Ms. Pardo: It was halfway if we were going to agree, but they won't agree. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But we just -- Ms. Pardo: That's -- I don't know. Are you agreeing to 240? Ms. Kuhns: I mean -- Ms. Pardo: Are you not going to appeal it? Ms. Kuhns: 1 think you were going to make a motion to just grant it that way -- City of Miami Page 250 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: I was making a motion -- I was making -- I'm so confused about what I'm doing, but 1 was making a motion with a condition. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's what I was doing. Mr. Fernandez: Now -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: 1 was granting (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Fernandez: -- the issue here is that Commissioner Spence -Jones is trying to be a judge and a mediator at the same time. She's trying to reconcile irreconcilable differences. She's trying to issue a legal ruling that would be the basis of an appeal to the appellate division of the circuit court, and 1 submit to you, Commissioner, that in spite of your best efforts, you know, you cannot do both, although we are very, you know, flexible and we try to accommodate all of you. Notwithstanding the party's ability to agree on it or not, or her inability to commit all of her parties to this, it's still the prerogative of the City Commission to grant the appeal, deny the appeal, or grant with modifications, notwithstanding whether they like it or not, and then they can all sue us if they want, either party or -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- both parties. Commissioner Regalado: That's it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: And Commissioner Spence -Jones has said that she already wants to grant the appeal with conditions. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: The only thing we need now is just the details of the conditions. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: Gateway designed by the professional staff. No discussion about the gateway. It would -- when designed, it would be presented to all parties involved, and then the height of the building, which she has said 240 -- Mr. Fernandez: 40. Commissioner Regalado: -- feet -- Mr. Fernandez: To the roof. Commissioner Regalado: -- with the blessing of the professional staff because maybe the professional staff will say, well, you know what, we need to say it's -- it should be 242 or 239 because of whatever, and that will not throw a monkey's wrench, you know. Mr. Fernandez: But -- yeah, but you cannot delegate your authority or your power -- City of Miami Page 251 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: Of course not. Mr. Fernandez: -- to make decision to staff. You say 240; it's 240. Commissioner Regalado: It's 240. Mr. Fernandez:: Then they would tell you -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Mr. Fernandez: -- whether 240 will fly or not, but they don't have an option of going below or above it. Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Mr. Fernandez: They need to limit themselves to that. Commissioner Regalado: -- then, Commissioner, 240 it is, and if you make the motion, I'!! second the motion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm definitely making the motion. I just want to make sure that I have added on there -- because we get these gateways done and there's no maintenance added to it, so they're beautiful when we do them -- so I wanted to at least make sure, since you're maintaining your beautiful building that you're going to put there, that there's some support for the maintenance of it -- for the gateway portion. Mr. Fernandez: Again -- Ms. Pardo: I'm hesitant 'cause I -- Mr. Fernandez: -- Commissioner Spence -Jones -- Ms. Pardo: --just don't know what the gateway is -- Mr. Fernandez: No, no. Ms. Pardo: -- so to say will we maintain it if it's 1, 000 feet of grass -- Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Ms. Pardo: -- I don't know how much that would cost, you know. I just -- Mr. Fernandez: You know, Commissioner -- Ms. Pardo: I mean, if you tell me it would be a monument on the property and we would make sure that the monument stays in one piece, I'm sure -- Mr. Fernandez: OK. Ms. Pardo: -- my client can agree to that. Yes? OK. Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner Spence -Jones, my advice to you -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm making a decision. City of Miami Page 252 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Ms. Pardo: The reason, I'm assuming -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's done. The decision is made, OK. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Done. Mr. Fernandez: Please make a decision -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I've made the decision. Mr. Fernandez: -- and both parties are free to disregard what you have done today and take us to court tomorrow morning. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: This party -- Ms. Kuhns is not sure that she's going to be able to get the other ones to agree to 240. Ms. Pardo is not sure that she can maintain or not maintain or do whatever, so make a decision. Do not consult them on what you're doing. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I made the decision. Mr. Fernandez: Good. Go for it. Commissioner Regalado: Good. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, do I need to say it -- and I got a second. Mr. Fernandez: No, we got it. We -- so far. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: You got -- Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Fernandez: So let me restate -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- it for the record: 240 to the roof subject to staff review -- excuse me -- and then the gateway, again, subject to staff review. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and that's the motion. Mr. Fernandez: And the maintenance that goes along with the gateway. Commissioner Regalado: I'll second the motion and -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in fav -- Commissioner Regalado: -- if they -- Mr. City Attorney, if they take us to court, and if you are very proactive and look for a settlement, please do not go to Latin American Cafeteria. Just do it here, OK. City of Miami Page 253 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: And then, again, for the record, as you're about ready to take a vote on the motion, the motion is a motion to grant the appeal, and it would read very much like the motion that you have here granting the appeal, subject to the conditions as stated by Commissioner Spence -Jones, so all the criteria in the motion are incorporated by reference in the motion to grant the appeal with modifications. You're ready for a vote. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Commissioner Regalado: Good. Ms. Pardo: Thank you. City of Miami Page 254 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA DISTRICT 2 VICE CHAIRMAN JOHNNY L. WINTON SI.1 06-00254 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION GRANTING WARNER BROTHERS USE OF THE COCONUT GROVE EXPO CENTER BEGINNING FEBRUARY 24, 2006 UNTIL MAY 1, 2006 WITH AN INCENTIVE TO OFFSET COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR USE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAIVER IS TO ALLOW WARNER BROS. TELEVISION TO FILM THE PILOT FOR THE TV SHOW "TEMPEST KEY" BASED ON THE COMIC, "AQUAMAN." 06-00254 Email.pdf DEFERRED Chairman Gonzalez: Now, supplemental agenda. Vice Chairman Winton: We have a supplemental agenda? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: We have -- what do we have on the supplemental agenda? CA. I. Ms. Thompson: On SI.1, Commissioner Winton has an item. Chairman Gonzalez: I don't know what Frank did -- Vice Chairman Winton: This item -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- with the book, but go ahead, Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: We're deferring this item. There's been a change, so I'm deferring SI 1. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so that concludes the regular agenda, that's correct? Ms. Thompson: That is correct. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. City of Miami Page 255 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 NON -AGENDA ITEMS NA.1 06-00266 DISCUSSION ITEM Mayor Diaz requested Chairman Angel Gonzalez and Commissioner Joe Sanchez to chair the task force on issues pertaining to the federal govemment's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds program; further requesting that said task force address the following actions: (1) quantify the fiscal and social impact of the FY '07 funding cuts already adopted by the federal government on City of Miami's CDBG program, as well as FY '08 cuts proposed in the President's current budget; (2) continue to inform and raise awareness among fellow Commissioners, City Administration, and citizens of Miami with respect to said issues; (3) build a broad coalition to advocate for increased CDBG funding with local officials, the business community, and the City's service organizations; (4) develop a strategy in conjunction with the City Administration to ensure that the City maintains a consistent level of funding for City programs in the upcoming FY '07 budget year; and (5) develop alternative contingency strategies for FY '08 in the event the current proposed cuts to the CDBG program are approved by Congress. 06-00266 memo.pdf Chairman Gonzblez: Mr. Mayor, do you have any item that you want to -- ? You're recognized, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Manuel A. Diaz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want everybody to know that the reason Commissioner Spence -Jones doesn't have a voice is because last night she spent hours talking to John Travolta about all kinds of things. 1 wish I was bringing you better news, as 1 like to when 1 address you, but we have another crisis this year in terms of our CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funding. As you remember, last year 1 asked you, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioner Sanchez to head a task force to do a series of things; whereas, we accomplished -- the good news is that we accomplished some things. I mean, one of the -- the radical proposal last year was intended to merge about 18 organizations, 18 different programs in government, which would have effectively eliminated the entire CDBG program. That didn't happen. That's the good news. We were able, politically, to stop that from happening and the program is alive, and it is still in HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), but it is not well. The Congress did cut a billion dollars from the program last year, and the budget that the President has recently submitted to Congress would cut an additional 800 million. Now, last year our great Community Development director -- this current fiscal year that we're in, our Community Development director figured out a way that the people that we serve, the neediest residents -- our seniors, our children -- wouldn't be affected by the cuts, but there's no guarantee that that's going to happen again in the coming fiscal year, so I am asking -- and there's a memo that I think should be distributed to all of you, if you haven't received it yet -- I'm asking you again, Mr. Chairman, if you would, and Commissioner Sanchez, if you would, to reconvene this task force and essentially do the things that you did last year, which included bringing together all the organizations that are affected, other levels of government. We need to fight this again. Perhaps, the good news is that this is a midterm election year, so all these congressmen and senators have to go back to their communities, and last year they did what they did, but maybe this year they'll be a little more sensitive to the needs of what mayors all around the country are fighting for because this is not a partisan issue. Republican mayors, Democratic mayors, Independent mayors all around the country are fighting this issue once again, so we need to raise the awareness. As you know, last year you -- through your leadership, we did a great job of bringing people together raising the awareness in a way that probably no other city in this country did, and I think we need to crank it up again because we're facing another severe cut, and unless, of course, we develop a strategy, we're going to be have -- we're going to have a tough time as we go into the next fiscal year, so I would ask that the two of you work, with the City of Miami Page 256 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Administration, with our Community Development director, and come back to us, come back to your colleagues, quantify the impact, look at alternatives that we can -- that work that -- if there's going to be a deficit, that we identifr how we're going to cover some of those deficits, and come back and report to this Body within the next 45 days. I know that you're all very busy. I know that you have a lot to do, but this is obviously something of critical concern to all of us and the people that we represent. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I will accept. It's an honor for me to serve on that task force once again. Mayor Diaz: Thank you, and Mr. -- Commissioner Sanchez: I would, too, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much for that honor. Mayor Diaz: Thank you so much. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. NA.2 06-00267 RESOLUTION District 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SEEK AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TRANSIT ("COUNTY"), FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COUNTY INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING BUS SHELTERS ON MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD WITHIN THE CITY, AT NO COST TO THE CITY. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sanchez R-06-0137 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Do we have any pocket items? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, I have one pocket item. That's it. Chairman Gonzalez: One? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. This is in relationship to the -- in the resolution that's coming around now. Commissioner Winton is here. In relationship -- so we're going to have that -- yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: My apologies. I got here from the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) meeting because it lasted late, and this part of the process, it started -- so I couldn't come out in the middle of a process, but I listened to the remainder of the process in my Commission office, so -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. All right. This item that I'm passing around now is a resolution. It's regarding -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): You want me to read it? Commissioner Spence -Jones item -- her pocket item deals with the MLK (Martin Luther King) roadway improvement project, City of Miami Page 257 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 which is presently underway, and basically, she's asking the Commission to direct the City Manager to seek an agreement with Miami -Dade Transit authorizing Miami -Dade Transit to install and maintain bus shelters on Martin Luther King Boulevard within the City of Miami at no cost to the City. That is, in essence, a direction to the City Manager that the Commission is -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion. We need a second -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Need a second Chairman Gonzalez: -- by Chairman Winton. Commissioner Spence -Jones: We need a second. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. What'd you say? Chairman Gonzalez.: We need a second. Vice Chairman Winton: Second Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez.: Motion carries. NA.3 06-00262 RESOLUTION District 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXTENDING THE HOURS OF SALE FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES OF THE PAWN SHOP LOUNGE, LOCATED AT 1222 NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ACCOMMODATE TWO EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WINTER MUSIC CONFERENCE, ON MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2006, FROM 5:00 A.M.-7:00 A.M. AND ON TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006, FROM 5:00 A.M.-7:00 A.M., PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4/ARTICLE 1/SECTION 4-3, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES/IN GENERAUHOURS DURING WHICH SALES ALLOWED; SUNDAY SALES." Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sanchez R-06-0138 Chairman Gonzalez: I've been handed out two more pocket items. Who are -- ? Vice Chairman Winton: I'm sorry? Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Winton, you have two pocket items? Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, I have two pocket items. A resolution of the City Commission extending hours of sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises of the Pawn Shop Lounge located at 1222 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, to accommodate two events associated with the Winter Music Conference on Monday, March 27, 206 [sic], from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 206 [sic], from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. So moved. City of Miami Page 258 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. NA.4 06-00264 ORDINANCE Second Reading Office of the City Attorney AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE XI/DIVISION 17, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS/COCONUT GROVE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE (BIC)," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 2-1253, ENTITLED "EMPLOYEES GENERALLY," OF SAID CITY CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-00264 Legislation.pdf 06-00264 Summary Form.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton and Spence -Jones Absent: 2 - Commissioner Sanchez and Regalado Vice Chairman Winton: Second one is the Coconut Grove BIC (Business Improvement Committee), and this is an ordinance modification. An ordinance of the -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Can I -- ? Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, please. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Sorry. Sorry about that. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed -- I'm sorry. Jorge, will this be first reading? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. This is first reading. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: On second reading, it will be advertised, and it would be put out there. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Mr. Fernandez: It's not being considered as an emergency ordinance. City of Miami Page 259 Printed on 3/17/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2006 Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Ms. Thompson: OK, so it's passed on first reading, 3/0. Mr. Fernandez: Right, and it will be in front of you first meeting in March. Vice Chairman Winton: Great. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. That concludes the regular and the Planning & Zoning agenda. The Commission stands in recess. Ms. Thompson: Adjourned. Mr. Fernandez: Recess or adjourned? Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry, adjourned. City of Miami Page 260 Printed on 3/17/2006