Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2006-11-09 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 9, 2006 10:00 AM PLANNING AND ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Angel Gonzalez, Chairman Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Linda M. Haskins, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Michelle Spence -Jones, Commissioner District Five Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Part B Chairman Gonzalez: (INAUDIBLE) the Planning & Zoning meeting. Madam City Clerk, should we swear the witnesses in case --? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): In case there're any other individuals. If you're in the chambers and you will be testifying on a P&Z (Planning & Zoning) item, and you have not, you have not been sworn in, I will need you to please stand so that can swear you in. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Present: Chairman Gonzalez, Commissioner Haskins, Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Spence -Jones PZ.1 06-01019Iu 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 726 NORTHWEST 32ND PLACE AND 725 & 733 NORTHWEST 33RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION; A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 726 NW 32nd Place and 725 & 733 NW 33rd Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Dimar and Brothers, LLC and Santiago D. Hernandez, Owners FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 6, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File IDs 06-01019zc and 06-01019mu. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Loftika Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones 12862 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Now we're going to go to the Planning & Zoning agenda. Mr. City Attorney, will you please read the procedures of the Planning & Zoning agenda? City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and members of the public, right now you will be taking up PZ.1, 2, and 3, and just for the record, you need to know that PZ.1 and 2 have had both a first reading and a second reading, but that the Commission continued it today to see if the parties could reach a different agreement. Also, is PZ.3, which is the attached MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) to 1 and 2, so the nature of the testimony you're about to take today is only limited to what the applicant and the concerned neighbors would report to you was the nature of their meetings on some sort of a compromise. The order of speakers today, Mr. Chairman, on this item, seeing that both public hearings have already been fully held, is just limited to the attorneys for both sides making limited presentation. All the public input has already been had to the extent that you have had two full hearings on this matter. Now staff will make a very brief presentation. Immediately after that, the applicant will state his position, then the neighbors' attorney or the neighbors' primary representation will have an opportunity to address the Commission also, and then, at that point in time, you should take the item to yourselves and make a final determination. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Madam City Clerk, we need to swear the witnesses. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): If you are testifying today on any of our P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items, I need you to please stand so I can administer the oath. If you're testifying on P&Z items, I need you to please stand so we can administer the oath. 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. PZ.1, Mr. Lavernia. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): Yes, sir. Good morning. For the records, Roberto Laverna, with the Planning Department. PZ.1, PZ.2, and PZ. 3 are companion items, land use and zoning change, the first two, and the third one is the Major Use Special Permit. They were fully presented. The last Commission, we have the same recommendation of approval on the three of them, and we already put the conditions on the record for the Major Use. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Let me ask you, the Administration is recommending this, right? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir -- Chairman Gonzalez: It has -- Mr. Lavernia: -- with conditions. Chairman Gonzalez: Everybody is recommending the project? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. The last meeting that we had, I said we were not going to take anymore testimony, and I asked, since this is my district, both attorneys to go back; meet -- the developer to meet with the neighbors; try to come to a compromise where people be halfway happy because people are never going to be happy. Some people are going to be happy; some people are going to be unhappy. That's life. Maybe I would have loved to have dark eyes, but I came with blue eyes. Maybe I would have like to had darker skin, but I came -- you know, so City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 we're never happy. I mean, we will never be a hundred percent happy, so have you met and come to an agreement, or still you have some problems? Ben Fernandez: Yes. We have met, Commissioner. For the record, Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, on behalf of the property owner. We've met on two separate occasions, most recently, last week. We listened to your instructions, took heed, and immediately began a dialogue with Ms. Schreiber, who's representing the neighbors, and we have modified the application, and we'd like to present that modification to you, which is the result of our dialogue. We have modified the building, as a result of those meetings, and ifI could explain that to you -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- very shortly -- Leslie Schreiber: Can I just briefly interject? I just want to object to this because -- Pamela Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Excuse me. Your name for the record, please. Ms. Schreiber: I'm sorry. Leslie Schreiber. I'm an attorney representing Mrs. Iglesia and the family, the Safstroms. This is not a result of our dialogue. This final offer that we have been discussing all week was presented to us this morning at 9:30. My clients really haven't had a time to digest it, so we -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well, let me tell you -- Ms. Schreiber: No. We have not reached an agreement. Chairman Gonzalez: Well, let me tell you -- Mr. B. Fernandez: But that is not -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- I'm -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- entirely accurate, Commissioner. With all due respect, we presented them with an initial modification last week. They didn't accept that, so we -- yesterday, I received a counteroffer from Ms. Schreiber. Immediately, we began additional revisions, and I could gladly explain those to you today. Chairman Gonzalez: Please do so because -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: -- I want that to be on the record. Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you. The initial revision was simply a reduction in height of the building of one story. You see the original design here. You see the reduced height design over here. Essentially, the townhome units that were on the top level above the parking podium for the building were two stories under the original plan. They've been reduced to one story. The net effect of that is a reduction in units of four units, a $1.2 million impact on my client. We took that to the neighbors. That was unacceptable to them. In their response yesterday, they indicated that their concern was that they didn't want to have anyone with the ability to look into their abutting property. Now let's begin by understanding that this project, unlike an R-2 zoning district -- City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Well, let me tell you how I personally -- and I'm sorry for interrupting you -- feel about that. I will be very concerned because the neighbors that I have, about half a block away from my house, they can look from their balcony into my window, so -- Mr. B. Fernandez: That's the case with every project -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's the case everywhere. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- and what the Planning Department encourages is to provide habitable liners around buildings -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- so that you're not looking at a blank facade, but what we did, in addition to the reduction in the number of units and the reduction in the entire story of the building of ten feet, we went back last night and added an additional amenity to these townhome units that will essentially prohibit anyone from being able to look down into the project, and I think that it was a very intelligent plan modification by Mr. Borges. Essentially, what he created was a planter that is 40 -- it's in your package, in the third page. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. B. Fernandez: It's a planter that 42 inches high, 36 inches wide. It'll be at the balcony. It'll be planted with plants. It'll be an additional foot and a half to two feet tall. It will prohibit anyone from being able to peer down directly into an abutting property, so if you're sitting in your living room, the only view that you will have is the open sky, and maybe someone's house that's a block away, and those are our changes. We think that they're very reasonable, and we've heard the case. I know that the item is closed. We would ask that you approve this today because we have met with the neighbors. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me ask you, how many times have you modified your project? Mr. B. Fernandez: We've modified it twice since the last meeting. Chairman Gonzalez: And before that? Did you have a modification before that? Mr. B. Fernandez: After -- before that, we had modifications as a result of our dialogue with the internal design review committee. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Schreiber: May I voice my objections -- Chairman Gonzalez: Sure, sure. Ms. Schreiber: -- on behalf of the client? Again, we feel that this offer is a token gesture and completely insufficient to satisfy the needs of the neighborhood. Those 116 signatures objecting that you received two weeks ago. Your role -- pardon me -- last week was to reduce the height of the building and to make the community feel better. We don't feel that this has happened. There's no guarantee that the visual impact now of these surprise planters that were introduced to us this morning are going to guarantee that her privacy considerations are not City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 considered, essentially, and that, again, this building is completely out of context with the character of the neighborhood. I won't reiterate our -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well -- Ms. Schreiber: -- argument from two weeks ago -- Chairman Gonzalez: That -- Ms. Schreiber: -- but the -- my client is not interested in moving. She's been a resident for a number of years. The only agreement we did come to was a masonry wall that would separate her property from this property. We'd like to make sure that, as per the offer, that that would be agreed to on the -- Chairman Gonzalez: You want them to build a wall? Mr. B. Fernandez: We were agreeable to that. Chairman Gonzalez: Huh? Mr. B. Fernandez: That's not even a question. We're doing that as part of our plan. We're also agreeing to provide shade trees along that wall. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Schreiber: But we're -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me ask, where is --? Lourdes, is there anybody here from your department that can answer my -- one question that I have? Unidentified Speaker: Sure. I'm sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: There is a concern of visual from the building that people could look directly into the neighbor's house, OK, and that is a legitimate issue, OK. They are proposing a planter that will actually prohibit anybody from looking down the building. Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: How can we incorporate that -- Mr. City Attorney, I don't know if that -- that's a condition that I can, you know, ask. Mr. Fernandez: As part of the MUSP, certainly. That's one of the conditions because it's a design -type of criteria, and it would be a legitimate condition imposed on the MUSP. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Lavernia and -- Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Lourdes, I need help here because I want to make sure that the neighbors, you know, their concerns are covered, you know. As far as the traffic, as far as the, you know, character of the neighborhood, this building is right on Northwest 7 Street, which is a commercial corridor, and what had happened is that, in the last 30 years, nothing has been built on Northwest 7th Street, but eventually, we're going to start seeing new buildings coming up because what you have there is buildings that are 40 years old, 45 years old, 50 years old, City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 and that -- those buildings, by nature, are going to go down, so we're covered with the planter. Can you determine what size of planter? What kind of trees we should have in the planters? Mr. Lavernia: OK. I think that the applicant is offering reduce one floor of the building and provide the planter as part -- Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, you already reduced one floor in the building? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Mr. B. Fernandez: One floor in the building, that's correct. This is -- Chairman Gonzalez: On the side of the -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- two-story townhome. Chairman Gonzalez: -- neighborhood? Mr. B. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Lavernia: And we already discussed the changes, and we have -- the Planning Department have no problem with the change. As a matter of fact, we think that it's -- the project is better now with the things that they are proposing. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but even though -- Mr. Lavernia: If you accept it per plans -- the plans that they are offering, we don't have to add the condition because -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right, but what I want to make sure -- because even though they reduced the height of the building, I want to make sure that still there is something obstructing the visual impact of the people from the building to the duplex, so if you tell me that a planter will suffice -- I want to make sure that we have the right size of planter and the right size of trees that will protect the neighbors. Mr. Lavernia: Yes. The dimension of the planters -- he's going to put it on the record. We think that those are the proper dimensions that would not allow somebody to come to the border and look -- Chairman Gonzalez: Near the -- Mr. Lavernia: -- down, and also, we can have some type of vegetation that stop the visual too, but that will be determined by the landscape architect at the time of building permit. Chairman Gonzalez: So that will be one of the conditions. Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: The other condition will be the wall that they're talking about. You're willing to build that wall to separate the duplex from the project. Mr. B. Fernandez: A five-foot masonry wall between the property and the neighboring City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 property; 14-foot tall shade trees at the time of planting to provide the visual -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but they -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- buffer on -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- they're not talking about trees. They're talking about -- Mr. B. Fernandez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: -- a wall -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Exactly. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so I want to make sure that we talk walls. Mr. B. Fernandez: Right, and then on the top level, the townhomes, is a ten foot reduction in height, equivalent to one story, and a planter that is 42 inches tall, 36 inches wide. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It doesn't let you look down. Mr. B. Fernandez: Doesn't let you look down. Chairman Gonzalez: That's more than -- 36 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. B. Fernandez: It's -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- inches wide is, you know -- yeah. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- more than a yard. You can't get through. Chairman Gonzalez: And 40 inches tall? Mr. B. Fernandez: Forty-two inches tall, and then the plant. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. One concern -- one serious concern that I have with this project is parking. Do they have -- Mr. Lavernia, Lourdes, Lourdes, Mr. Lavernia -- sufficient parking for their building? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, they do. Chairman Gonzalez: They do. Mr. Lavernia: They are not requesting any variance -- Chairman Gonzalez: They comply -- Mr. Lavernia: -- of parking. Chairman Gonzalez: -- with parking. Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: They're not asking for any waivers; they're not asking for any variance. Mr. Lavernia: No. Chairman Gonzalez: Nothing. They're going to have enough parking to contain their residents and their businesses. Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Mr. B. Fernandez: Commissioner Gonzalez, we have 27 additional parking spaces over that required by the Code. Chairman Gonzalez: You have an additional 27? OK. Mr. B. Fernandez: That's correct. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anyone -- anything else, ma'am, that you want -- Ms. Schreiber: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to put on the record? Ms. Schreiber: I would like to voice my specific objection to the record and state that what my clients are requesting and seeking is a complete removal of all the townhomes. There was, in their view, a misunderstanding with respect -- and a misrepresentation with respect to the actual existence of the townhomes in the first place. They were under the impression that there were no townhomes on the rear part of the building. I would like to voice that objection and -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Schreiber: -- preserve that, you know, for review, and also, confirm and have some sort of discussion with respect to the bottom floor. Again, there's a misunderstanding of whether or not there are indeed townhomes down there. They were under the impression there were not. We believe it's on the record from previous meetings, and now we see that there are townhomes at the bottom with a balcony, so again, that's, you know, not only an inconvenience, but it goes to the privacy issues and her quality of life -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Schreiber: -- so if you can address that. Chairman Gonzalez: Any rebuttal, anything that you want to add to --? Mr. B. Fernandez: Commissioner, the townhomes were -- have always been a part of the project. They have had the benefit of these plans for a minimum of three weeks, since the last meeting, and I assume that they had the plans prior to that, otherwise, they wouldn't be here today objecting to them, and they wouldn't have been at our prior meeting objecting to the plans, and so I don't think that's anything new. There's substantial and competent evidence in the record to support this application, and we would ask that you approve it. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. It is closed. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. As I said, it's very difficult to please everyone and people are City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 never going to be a hundred percent satisfied, no matter how much we try to please everyone. They have revised the project three times. They are building a fence -- a wall between the property and the building. They're building a buffer so people can't look down into the building. They're building enough parking. I mean, you know, the building is right on Northwest 7 Street. I know some people are going to be opposed to it, no matter what we do. If we reduce the townhomes in the back, then they're going to want to reduce the townhomes in the front, and eventually, they will want the building to become a duplex, instead of a residential building. I believe the architecture of the building is beautiful. I think it's going to be a project that is going to enhance that area, especially an area that has been in decay for the last -- I remember I had a business right across the street from them back in 1974, and ever since, I haven't seen anything happening on Northwest 7 Street, so I'm very familiar with the area, and I think this is going to begin to improve the appearance of the neighborhood, so with that, Mr. Vice Chair, I'm ready to move for approval. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. At this time -- and it comes back to the Commission. I believe that the Administration has one more statement to make on the record, and then we'll go ahead and vote on the item. Mr. Lavernia: Yes. We put on the records the last time, condition 11, the design conditions. We want to add condition 110, as proffer, the applicant shall reduce the height of the building by one level; five-foot tall wall have to provide it at the back of the property; 14-feet shade -- high shade trees are going to be included in there, and a 42 tall and 36 wide planter is going to be included at the top level in order to avoid the straight visual from the top; for plans to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Once again, I move it, but with conditions -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- with all the conditions. Mr. Fernandez: -- and you need to hold that until we get to PZ.3. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Fernandez: First, we have to do PZ.1 -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and PZ.2 -- Chairman Gonzalez: So move -- Mr. Fernandez: -- and then -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- PZ.1. Mr. Fernandez: -- PZ.3 would be -- City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Mr. Fernandez: -- all these conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: Move PZ.1. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion on PZ.1 and a second, and it's an ordinance on second reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance for -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the record, followed by a roll call by the Clerk. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: And understanding that the vote is taken on the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Three items. Mr. Fernandez: No -- Ms. Thompson: No. Mr. Fernandez: -- no, no, no. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. Mr. Fernandez: One item at a time -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- PZ.1 now. Ms. Thompson: As presented, no modifications. Mr. Fernandez: Not -- the modification pertains only to PZ.3. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 3. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0. PZ.2 06-01019zc ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 26, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 726 NORTHWEST 32ND PLACE AND 725 AND 733 NORTHWEST 33RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 726 NW 32nd Place and 725 & 733 NW 33rd Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Dimar and Brothers, LLC and Santiago D. Hernandez, Owners FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 10, 2006 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File IDs 06-010191u and 06-01019mu. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed Loftika Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones 12863 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ.2. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.2, it's an ordinance on second reading. I believe all the testimonies have been put on the record. Is there a motion? Chairman Gonzalez: I'll move it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. There's a motion by the Chair, second by Commissioner Spence -Jones. The item is under discussion. Hearing no discussion, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance on second reading into the record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0. City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 PZ.3 06-01019mu 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, 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE LOFTIKA PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3271, 3299 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, 726 NORTHWEST 32ND PLACE AND 725, 733 NORTHWEST 33RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 149-FOOT, 13-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 183 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 14,875 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE; APPROXIMATELY 11,306 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 473 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. LOCATION: Approximately 3271, 3299 NW 7th Street, 726 NW 32nd Place and 725, 733 NW 33rd Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Dimar and Brothers, LLC and Santiago D. Hernandez FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions*, including that there be no waiver of Chapter 36, Section 36-6 (Noise Ordinance), to City Commission on September 6, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File IDs 06-010191u and 06-01019zc. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Loftika project. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0654 Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.3 is a companion to PZ.2 and 3 [sic]. It is a -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): 2 and 1. Chairman Gonzalez: I'll move it -- City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Chairman Gonzalez: -- with all -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: This -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- the condition and all the proffers -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and also, before taking the vote, one thing that I want to make sure is that you tell the developer that, during the construction phase, I want to make sure that they have the fullest consideration of the neighbors, you know, as far as parking, dust, and the whole nine yards, OK? I want the neighbors to be protected -- Ben Fernandez: Absolutely. Chairman Gonzalez: -- on the process of the construction. Yes -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion with -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- conditions by the Chair, followed -- second by Spence -Jones. This is a MUSP. It is a resolution. Everyone in favor, say "nay" -- say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, and I believe we -- Mr. Chairman. Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. PZ.4 06-01243mu RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE OMNI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1501-1701 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A SIX -BUILDING MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 584 FEET TO 644 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,208 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 350,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 6,154 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 1501-1701 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Downtown Miami Mall, LLC and Downtown Miami Hotel, LLC FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* (excluding conditions 11 b and c) to City Commission on September 20, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Omni Development project. CONTINUED Item PZ.4 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for January 25, 2007. City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 PZ.5 06-00155a 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 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND 1905 NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" AND "INDUSTRIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management Corporation FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on February 1, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. See companion File ID 06-00155. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Avenue One Major Use Special Permit. NOTE: This item was reconsidered on October 12, 2006; see File ID 06-01663. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. What item do we --? Chairman Gonzalez: I'll be back. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk. Chairman Gonzalez: As McArthur said, 'Tll be back." Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'll be back. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What item can we pick up? And also we're going to try to move along the agenda. It's a voluminous agenda, so as you leave, please be a little quiet. Commissioner Regalado: PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Do you want to continue with PZ? City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, PZ. We're going to continue on PZ. Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): If you look on the dais, you should have a one page summary of what's left. PZ is in red, so we would start then with -- what's left is P -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Thompson: -- starting -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.5. Ms. Thompson: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: PZ.5. Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.5. I'm sorry. Yeah, let's go to PZ.5. Sir, what's your item? Let's try to get some of the residents out of here. Whoever is here is going to be able to get out of here early. Unidentified Speaker: 12 and 13. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 13? Unidentified Speaker: 12 and 13. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 12 and 13, OK. Let's go to 5, and then we'll go to 12 and 13. Mr. Fernandez: 5 and 6 are companion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, 5 and 6. It's an ordinance on first reading. Mr.Fernandez: Introduce item number 5. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): For the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. Items 5 and 6 are companion item. This is a reconsideration of the -- of a land use and zoning change for the properties at 1950 Northwest 1st Avenue and 1905 Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Florida. The land use change is from general commercial and industrial to restricted commercial. It -- this is for the project Avenue One, the Major Use. What you have in front of you is the first reading only, so you don't have the Major Use in front of you today; it's just only the land use and zoning change that are going to be for that Major Use at second reading. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Lavernia: The recommendation of the Planning Department for the land use is denial, and the Planning Advisory Board recommend approval to City Commission for the zoning change; the Planning Department recommend denial, and the Zoning Board recommend approval to the City Commission. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Applicant, you're recognized. Lucia Dougherty: Thank you. For the record, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. This is a project which I feel resurrected in, and it -- we have a motion for City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 reconsideration at your last meeting so that we can address some of the issues that were brought up by the Commissioner, and I'd like to put on the record how we have addressed them. The first issue was the former building, she felt was out of scale with the neighborhood; it was much larger on this side. We've now reduced the building down to this size. Now this is the Major Use Special Permit, in which you'll hear at your next meeting, and if we want some further refinement, we can do so. The Planning Department -- we've given these plans to the Planning Department and they feel comfortable with them. In fact, they like them better than the former project. In the plan there is a 4,000 square foot retail space that is set aside for vocational training center for the culinary arts, performing arts, medical training, architecture, security, law enforcement, beauty, physical training, computer literacy, and other things such as that. It faces Phyllis Wheatley Elementary School, and we thought that that was a good public proffer. In addition to that, we have hired a consultant to assist us in finding a proper or a suitable vocational retail tenant for the site, and also to help us find or to make sure that Overtown residents can move into the ten percent units, which have been set aside for affordable housing. The City -- we're going to be looking for the City to assist us trying to find a subsidy for these affordable housing units. Again, we've brought down the project in terms of the height. The ground floor live/work units have been replaced with standard residential units, which was a request. The developer will seek to hire contractors from the Overtown community first. They will work with the Planning staff to insure the inclusion of the maximum amount of pedestrian, which we've already done that, and prior to that, we will establish a life skills center, which will provide vocational and educational assistance and workshop in the -- for Overtown residents for job placement, so these are things that we will be proffering, and we will make them conditions of our Major Use Special Permit and conditions of the permit itself so with that we'd urge your approval on first reading. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition to this item? Please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. It comes back to the Commission. Is there a motion? It's an ordinance on first reading. Well take a motion and a second, and if we have a motion and a second, we'll discuss the item. If there's no motion, we -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Discussion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion, for the record, by Commissioner Spence -Jones, second by Commissioner Regalado. The item is under discussion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. I do have a quick -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Spence -Jones, you're recognized for discussion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: First of all, I want to thank Ms. Dougherty for working very hard to make sure that, you know, this project becomes something that is digestible for the community. The surrounding community definitely looks very different. The architects did a awesome job. I know that we beat you up off and on trying to, you know, make sure that we came up with something that the residents would be happy with, and I definitely like the project a lot more, and I do want to -- we've already passed it for the first reading, but I want to make City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 sure that we also just meet with them once again to finalize the way that everything looks, and I'm sure that they'll be happy with it. I also want to thank Patrick Range -- I can officially thank you now, right? Your two-year period is over now, right? -- for working very hard with the residents to, you know, come up with something that is good for the neighborhood, and I truly appreciate his leadership in making that happen, and I want to just say job well done. It's great to see young leadership there in that position really making sure that the neighbors are not pushed out. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. It's a ordinance on first reading. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance for the record, followed by a roll call. Let's go. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Vice Chairman Sanchez: The item -- Ms. Thompson: The -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- is passed. PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Ms. Thompson: On first reading -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Thompson: -- 3/0. Vice Chairman Sanchez: First reading. Three/zero on first reading. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We go to PZ.6. Commissioner Haskins: Be recorded -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It is a -- Commissioner Haskins: -- as a "yes." Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- companion -- Commissioner Haskins: I'm very happy this one was done. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your comments. Commissioner Haskins: Can you record me as a 'yes" on this one? I'm very happy this was done. I was watching it in the back. City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 PZ.6 06-00155 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "I" INDUSTRIAL AND "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND 1905 NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management Corporation FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 23, 2006 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 06-00155a. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed Avenue One Major Use Special Permit. NOTE: This item was reconsidered on October 12, 2006; see File ID 06-01663. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez A motion was made by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Gonzalez absent, instructing the City Attorney to meet with the applicant to review proffers made on the record regarding this item. Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ.5 for minutes referencing item PZ.6. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.6 is a companion to PZ.5. It's an ordinance on first reading. Madam Applicant, just very briefly. Lucia Dougherty: I don't have anything, other than to introduce my clients, who are here today; Victor Labruzzo and Luis Dominguez, and the architect, Dean Lewis, who I failed to recognize at the first meeting. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition to this item? Anyone in opposition, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, and it comes back to the Commissioner [sic], and a motion is in order. City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Regalado. Any discussion on the item? Hear -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just have -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. We're trying to get along here. We got a long agenda. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Speedy Gonzalez, can I just do one -- ?I just want to say a special thank you to the builders and developers for bending and understanding how important it is to make sure that there was definitely inclusion. I truly, truly appreciate -- I didn't say it before, but wanted to at least acknowledge when developers decide to do things like this, this is a shining example of what can be done when we want to have projects happen in neighborhoods, so I want to thank you also. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, prior to my reading this, I need some clarification and some specific direction from the Commission for me to meet with Ms. Dougherty so that all the proffers that she has made, which are understood to be proffers that would attach -- supposedly attached to the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) when these items come back for second reading, that we have an opportunity to review them. I may have some concerns with including some of those conditions, as good as they are, in a land use type of document, so we may need to meet and, very creatively, come up with a way in which they are solid, on the record, and they need to be committed, but don't want to contaminate the purity of the land use process, so as soon as I finish reading this and you take a vote, please direct me to meet with Ms. Dougherty so that when the MUSP comes in front of you at second reading, then we could have ascertained where goes -- what goes where. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Your advice is for us to do it before the vote or after the vote? Mr. Fernandez: After the vote. After -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- the vote on this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: After the vote. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Madam -- Mr. Fernandez: An ordinance -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- Clerk, roll call. Read -- City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Roll call, Madam Clerk, on first reading. Ms. Thompson: Before I take the roll call, please, just want clarification for our records, from our City Attorney. Does this now represent a modification to your first reading ordinance? Mr. Fernandez: No, no, no, no, not at all. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Roll call. Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: Just want to say one thing. I'm going to say 'yes" to this, and I want -- because I have a feeling, over the next week, that people are going to bring up that '7 voted in favor of two zoning changes today," so I just want to put something on the record. This zoning change makes a lot of sense because of what is in the surrounding area. I had driven this particular parcel a number of times to look to see what's in the surrounding areas, where the industrial is, where the industrial really is versus residential in the area. This is a little pocket of industrial zoning that was remaining from previous land use changes, so this change makes all the sense in the world to me, and especially what the developers have done in proffering certain conditions and that sort of thing. I have to say I wish we always had developers come in, like you all have done, and made the proffers that you had -- that you have made, and work with Commissioner Spence -Jones on this, so my vote is "yes," and I just wanted to put that on the record. Ms. Thompson: Continuation: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: And Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Now we -- Ms. Dougherty: Thanks very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- need a motion directing the City Attorney to sit down with the applicant. Is there a motion? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, second. Oh -- Commissioner Haskins: So moved. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so moved. Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones. All in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." It passes, and Commissioner Haskins, policies are based on facts and should never be based on politics. Let them criticize you all they want. Ms Dougherty: Thank you very much. PZ.7 06-01057zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-20.1" EDGEWATER OVERLAY DISTRICT AND "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, WITH AN INCREASE OF THE F.A.R. TO 3.0, TO "SD-6" CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND "SD-20.1" EDGEWATER OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1756 AND 1770 NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE, AND 1751-61-71-77 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 1756 and 1770 NE 4th Avenue, and 1751-61-71-77 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of V Downtown, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 11, 2006 by a vote of 5-1. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to SD-6 Central Commercial -Residential District and SD-20.1 Edgewater Overlay District. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, and was passed unanimously, with Chairman Gonzalez and Commissioner Regalado absent, to continue Item PZ.7 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for January 25, 2007. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Where are we at, Madam Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): PZ.7. Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.7. All right, we're making progress here. PZ.7, it's an ordinance on first reading. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: If -- for the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with offices at the Wachovia City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Center. If, through the Chair, it would be appropriate, I would like to continue this item. We have not finished working out the covenant issues, which was the reason for coming back. This was heard at your last City Commission meeting. There was a conflict on the covenant, and we were asked to get with staff. Because of the shortness between the two hearings, we really haven't had an opportunity to fully work out the details, and I would respectfully request that this be continued until December. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Haskins: I'll make a motion to continue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- Haskins, second by Commissioner Spence -Jones. There is no discussion on the item. All in favor, say -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- "aye." Mr. Fernandez: -- we need to make sure that if we're continuing, we continue it to a time certain, which would be, I'm informed the first time available would be at the January 25. Ms. Garcia- Toledo: Not December 14? Mr. Fernandez: No -- December 14 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Mr. Fernandez: -- I'm told, is crowded, crowded, crowded. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. See, the problem is that we put two meetings in one, so it'll be in January, second -- Commissioner Haskins: It's January 25 meeting, so continue to the January 25. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. As so stated on a date for the record. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, say "nay." It passes. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. PZ.8 05-00767 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 City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2865 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 2865 SW 22nd Terrace [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Kon N. Lee, President, on behalf of Four Dragons, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 20, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 05-00767a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Haskins Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez Direction by Commissioner Regalado to the Administration to meet with Off -Street Parking Authority to review the traffic flow of trucks entering and exiting Publix Supermarket on S. W. 27th Avenue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Next item on the agenda. Commissioner Spence -Jones: PZ (Planning & Zoning) what? Vice Chairman Sanchez: We have PZ.8, and that is in Commissioner Regalado's district. PZ.8 and PZ.9 are companion. All right. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.8 and PZ.9 are companion items, land use and zoning change for one lot that is facing Northwest 22nd Terrace. The Planning Department is -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, southwest. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Southwest. Mr. Lavernia: -- Southwest 22nd Terrace. The Planning Department is recommending approval on both cases. This is the only lot with a different zoning designation for the whole block, so we think that it's a logical extension of the commercial designation, and we're recommending approval. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, sir. Mario Coro: Mario Coro, with offices in 1532 Southwest 8th Street, Suite 200. The reason City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 we're here today with my client, Mr. Lee, is because we would like to ask for a continuance for the next meeting in January, so we can present the project for this property -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Coro: -- and that's what our intentions are today. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Were you here long enough? I mean, how long have you been here? Mr. Coro: I've been here all day. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You should have just told us, and that way, we save you time, if you were going to ask for a continuance, so if it ever happens again, just let us know, and that way - Mr. Coro: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you don't have to sit here that long. Mr. Coro: Thank you. Commissioner Haskins: I -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: But -- Commissioner Haskins: On this item -- Commissioner Regalado: -- Mr. Chairman, ifI may. I don't know if they have to come back with the whole project -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Commissioner Regalado: -- because we can proceed now with the land -- the issue is very simple here. All that block, the 2828 Coral Way building, plus the bank, faces 22nd Terrace. The only property on 22nd Terrace on that block that is not zoned as the other property is that little space, which, by the way, is a parking lot -- already, it's a parking lot of the restaurant. They are trying to expand the restaurant and do some construction there, so I don't know why they would need to -- is there a need for them to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner, we could always pass it on first reading, and we'll deal with it on second reading, Commissioner Regalado: Right -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and that way, we -- Commissioner Regalado: -- and that's what I'm saying. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Make a motion. Commissioner Regalado: I'll -- City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: Can I make a statement here? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sure. Commissioner Haskins: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I'm up for discussion, because I -- you know, two wrongs don't make a right, and when I drive Coral Way, especially Coral Way when I go west on Coral Way, from 27th Avenue on, no one in their right mind can say what's gone on along that Coral Way corridor is fair to the residential neighborhoods behind it. No one can say it, and no one can say what -- that what's gone on in Coral Way, especially as you travel west along 27th Avenue, is fair to the Coral Way corridor, when we have parking lots facing Coral Way. What we've allowed to happen in this City -- I know that -- I hear lots of complaints about development all over the City, but when we get on Coral Way and 37th Avenue and see what we've allowed to happen in the City, those are the poster children for the wrong thing to do, so I would like to see a project, and on these changes, I would like to understand why we need to go to C-1, why do we need to go to C-1 with the additional height and all of that, why isn't C-2 adequate? Why are we not doing the things that we should be doing to protect our neighborhood? Now, this is one last pocket of a re -- and the other side facing 22nd Avenue is residential, and this is the poster child for me of what we've done wrong with land use changes in the City over the years, and why we need a Miami 21. Because when you look at any of these structures and what it's done to these neighborhoods, these people are livid, and I don't blame them, and no one, no one has lived up to their promises, and this is currently a parking lot. Well, if you're ever on Coral -- if you're ever in a business in Coral Way, you can't find parking on the street; Miami Parking Authority has done nothing about parking; all of those ugly parking lots are restricted just to those buildings; they don't provide public parking, and then you go back into the neighborhoods and everybody's parking on the street, and these people suffer day in and day out. This is not in my district, but it's very close to my district, and I hear this complaints from my -- from people in my district all the time, so I just wanted to put that on the record. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Let me just say this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, let me -- let's -- it's -- let's -- public -- it's a public meeting, Commissioner, and then we'll come back to the Commission. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. No, but I just wanted to respond. On that particular block, I don't know who, but it was many, many commissions away, they have the Publix, which is almost all the way up to the corner, plus two duplex, and the -- actually, whoever zone 22nd Terrace many years ago made a huge mistake, because they allowed exit on 22nd Terrace on the bank and on the 2828 building, building that I used to work on a radio station many years ago. After we got here and this Commission had been doing zoning, none of the zoning changes have allowed exit on 22nd Terrace, ever, nor on 21 st Terrace, around Coral Way, and we have zone -- or rezone many properties facing the north side of 22nd Terrace. My only request to this zoning, which we have a really small lot on one block, was that there will be no exit on 22nd Terrace because that's -- that is what they -- the policy has been in this Commission, but in terms of parking, you're right, and by the way, not only you're right, we have approved about three SD-12 in Coral Way for parking, for different agencies, a doctor's office on 31 st, a restaurant on 30th, and we still have property that we could maybe buy or get into a business deal with a developer, that we can have parking, but in that particular 22nd Street from 27th to 29th to 30, we use quality of life bond money of District 4 to redo 22nd Terrace, and because the Aston, the big building where Radio Mambi used to be, did this town houses facing 22nd Terrace, and we had problems that we needed to modify the curbs and the City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 parking for the area, so on the rest of 22nd, of course, we have been working with the Golden Pines Association, but on this block, it's very unusual what had been done, unfortunately. The Publix would not and cannot close their exits on 22nd Terrace, nor will the bank, so this is why I am supporting this, because if we going to have something really nice in that parking lot, which is now sort of a isolated spot on 22nd Terrace, it would be great. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Before we continue the discussion, it is a ordinance on first reading. It is public. You've requested a continuation. I think that we could go ahead and make a motion and get it passed on first reading -- Mr. Coro: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but let's open it up to the public. Sir, you're recognized. State your name and address for the record. James Harris: James Harris, 3001 Southwest 22nd Terrace, at the Aston condos. I live in the town houses on 22nd Terrace, and I'm opposed to any rezoning of a townhome for commercial use. There's enough commercial traffic that uses 22nd Terrace, with the trucks that come up the street from Publix at 5 o'clock in the morning. Even those -- there have been street signs placed on both ends of 20 -- on 27th -- 27th Terrace and 32nd saying" NO Thru Trucks, "Publix and their -- and the people who supply Publix with their groceries and what not still utilize that street, and I don't think there needs to be anymore commercial traffic or anymore traffic on 22nd Terrace, because it has become quite a throughway there because of all the traffic on Coral Way, and you can't even -- you know, on Coral Way, it gets so backed up in the evenings that people use 22nd Terrace as a throughway -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Cut -through. Mr. Harris: -- and I'm just trying to limit as much commercial traffic or anymore development that would create more traffic on 22nd Terrace. Not that I have any children, but we do have kids that are playing on the street; they're dodging cars. I am a cyclist, meaning bicyclist. I'm dodging cars. Actually, I had an acc -- an incident with Publix and one of their trucks on my bicycle, and I'm just looking to curb or eliminate anymore commercial traffic through there. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there anyone else from the public wishing to address this item? If not, the public hearing is closed. Now it comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Just -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: -- Mr. Chairman, just wanted to respond. As you know, FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) just did 27th Avenue, and lucky for us -- I live two blocks from there -- there is no way that people can turn left on 22nd Terrace If they're coming from the Grove north on 27th Avenue, but you're right on the trucks. The trucks should -- there has got to be a way for the trucks to come in through 27 and exit on 27. I don't think that they can do that with a narrow entrance that they have on 27th Avenue, because I'll go there -- this is my place to buy, but I do think that you're right, and we should have -- and I will ask the Administration, and I should have -- we should have all trucks, when exiting the loading berth, should make a right and not a left, and use 22nd Terrace all the way through 32nd Avenue. City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 That -- I think you're completely right, and I would request maybe Off -Street Parking can help us, trucks, you know, and advise the management of Publix that, you know -- they're not going to pay attention. I know that. Mr. Harris: Well, ifI may interrupt. I've already talked to Robert Garcia, the manager of the store, a couple of different times, and I've asked him to try and be a better neighbor to the neighborhood, as I've tried to be a good neighbor to Publix, like when I see their grocery carts down the street, I give them a call or let them know, hey, you have a grocery cart out here; come pick it up because that's an expense, I'm sure, they don't want to incur, and he hasn't made much effort as far as trying to get the delivery trucks to take a right out of there and use 27th to egress and whatnot from the store. Commissioner Regalado: And nor that they have made effort in cleaning 23rd Street, which, by the way, the City had pavers installed in front of the parking meters, and we planted, actually, eight trees over there in that street, and they were like knock down by cars and by their trucks, so -- but it's something that we have to live with them. I mean, we had -- I'm telling you, we have a similar issue with another store, and we have an attorney here in the room for other issue, but just participated in a mediation between neighbors and this supermarket, and it would work, because we have the police to enforce. We have the signs to guide truck drivers, so what I can tell you is that I would follow up with the Off -Street Parking on the issue -- and the police -- of the trucks. I mean, if Publix wants to cooperate, that be great, but if they don't want to, what's going to happen is the same thing that has been happening on that market that we are about to solve the situation in Flagami, that the truckers are being fined daily because of what they're doing, going into residential instead of using Southwest 8th Street. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move to approve, on first reading, and then on second reading -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there a second? There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado. Is there a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. There's a second. The purpose of discussion. The only thing that I ask is I would like to see some kind of covenant to protect the neighborhood from something else being built on the parcel. Mr. Lavernia: This is a land use and zoning change, so we cannot put conditions for covenant. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I'm just saying -- Mr. Lavernia: However -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- on second reading, whatever, I don't want -- you know, I want to protect the neighbors to make sure it's parking lot -- it's a parking lot and you don't get surprised two, three years down the road when they want to -- Mr. Lavernia: The companion item, which is a zoning request, is from R-2 to C-1 with an SD-23 for Coral Way, so any exterior change that they are going to do, they need a Class II Special Permit for design purpose. That's why -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Perfect. Mr. Lavernia: -- the Planning Department recommends approval because we're going to see any project in there. City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Perfect, perfect. I don't need -- that says it all. OK. It's an ordinance on first reading. Madam Attorney, read it into record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, on first reading. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3/1. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Comes back on second reading. Mr. Harris: Oh, sure. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Harris: Well, I'll sort of bring the enforcements then. PZ.9 05-00767a ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2865 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. LOCATION: Approximately 2865 SW 22nd Terrace [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Kon N. Lee, President, on behalf of Four Dragons, Inc. City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Made a recommendation of approval, which failed due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes, constituting a recommendation of denial to City Commission on September 12, 2005 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 05-00767. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, 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 Noes: 1 - Commissioner Haskins Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ.8 for minutes referencing item PZ.9 Commissioner Regalado: PZ.9. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.9 is a companion item to PZ.8. It's an ordinance on first reading. Is there anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized on this item. I believe -- do you want to --? You just stated what you had to state on the item, right? James Harris: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Basically, you stated -- Mr. Harris: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the same thing on the record. Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. The public hearing is closed; coming back to the Commission. It is on first reading. Commissioner Regalado: Move on first reading. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- a motion by Commissioner Regalado, second by Commissioner Spence -Jones. Read the ordinance on first reading, then followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: No. City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/1. Mr. Harris: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. If -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: We're done with the PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- I believe that we're done with the PZ agenda, right? Commissioner Regalado: Whoa. Chairman Gonzalez: So now we're going to go back to the regular agenda. All right. Let's -- before going back to the regular agenda, let's convene the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: We have one item. Yes, Madam City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: I just -- Maria J.Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): So you'll be recessing the City Commission meeting? Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. We're recessing the City Commission meeting. Ms. Thompson: Before -- wait a minute. Before -- your Chair for the CRA is leaving. So you're recessing now the regular City Commission meeting? Chairman Gonzalez: We're recessing the regular City Commission meeting, and we're going to open the CRA meeting -- Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: -- for one item, I believe. PZ.10 06-01242zc ORDINANCE First Reading City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 24, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "G/I" GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL WITH AN "SD-10" MEDICAL HEALTH CARE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "G/I" GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL WITH AN "SD-10" MEDICAL HEALTH CARE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, F.A.R. OF 3.2, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1050 NORTHWEST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 1050 NW 14th Street [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Miami Hotel Investments, Ltd. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 11, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to G/I Government and Institutional with an SD-10 Medical Health Care, Hospital and Research Park Overlay District and SD-19 Designated F.A.R. Overlay District, F.A.R. of 3.2, for the proposed Civica Towers Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Chairman Gonzalez: I'll be back in a little while. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. We -- this is your item, too, PZ.10. Chairman Gonzalez: Which one is this? Vice Chairman Sanchez: You want to -- Lucia Dougherty: This is the one in the Civic Center -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You want to get it out of the way -- Ms. Dougherty: -- with Judah and Sam -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- or do you want to do it later? It's up to you. Chairman Gonzalez: No, no. Let's do it now. City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right. PZ.10. Chairman Gonzalez: This is the site for Camillus House, right? Ms. Dougherty: No. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: No? Ms. Dougherty: No, no. This is the Days Inn site. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, the Days Inn. Mr. Lavernia: PZ.10 is the parcel facing Northwest 14th Street, between -- 14 Street and the expressway. Planning Department is recommending approval of the petition. The petition is a zoning change to add SD-19 with a FAR (floor area ratio) of 3.2 in an area under -- where we think that the FAR should be greater, so the recommendation is for approval in this case. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Is there any opposition to this item? Vice Chairman Sanchez: All -- Chairman Gonzalez: Any opposition? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Do you want to chair it or me? Chairman Gonzalez: No. Go ahead and chair it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, it's -- all right. Is there any opposition to this item? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Just put something on the record, Madam Applicant. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today with Judah and Sam Burstyn, as well as Jordan Naijar, who are the principals. We are seeking a -- this overlay in order to build a 272-unit hotel, as well as medical office building. It is consistent with the zoning in -- around this vicinity, and it is still zoned G/I (Government/Institutional), and we would request your approval of this. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. If I remember correctly, about a year ago, we had a debate about this. Lourdes -- Ms. Dougherty: We did -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- I think we debated this item about a year ago, when the medical campus came before the Commission, and there was a concern about hotels being built -- Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and I express my concern that we didn't allow, you know, new hotels coming into this district, which we should have supposed to, so I'm very happy to see that finally -- City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- we found a solution to that, because if we're going to have a lot of visitors coming to this area and we're going to have a lot of relative of people that might be admitted to hospitals, they will need a place to stay at and, you know, why send them somewhere else in the city where we can have them next to the hospital area, so -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- I'm in favor of it and I support it. I move to approve it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion and a second on the item. Discussion. I just want to take the opportunity to say that I am so glad to see that that area is finally making -- Chairman Gonzalez: Picking up. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the right decisions to make sure that we compete with great institutions throughout the United States, such as Houston and Boston and San Francisco on -- when it comes to medical care. We are heading in the right direction. It is about jobs. It is about bringing talented people from all over the world to provide services, and when you talk about providing service, well, let yourself be in a situation where you are ill and you have the best care in the world. That, ladies and gentlemen, it is priceless, and that's why people from all over Central and South America go to Houston; that's why people from all over the world go to Boston, and different great institutions, and we do have a great institution in our community, and that's Jackson Memorial Hospital, along with all the other institutions around there that provide medical service, so I am very pleased to be supporting this item. All right. Any further discussion on the item? It is a -- Mr. Fernandez: Comp plan change. Ms. Dougherty: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, it is. Ms. Dougherty: It's just first reading. Mr. Fernandez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) zoning Mr. Lavernia: Zoning. Chairman Gonzalez: Zoning. Mr. Fernandez: It's a zoning change. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Zoning. All right. It's an ordinance, second reading. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): First. Ms. Slazyk: First reading. City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: First reading. Chairman Gonzalez: First reading. Vice Chairman Sanchez: First reading, I'm sorry. OK. Read it into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. PZ.11 06-01240v RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING, BY WAIVING FOUR OF THE FOUR REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 67 GLEN ROYAL PARKWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A." Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Gonzalez R-06-0657 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What item are we still pending on PZ (Planning & Zoning)? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): 8 and 9. Ms. Thompson: 8, 9, 10, and 11. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 8, 9, 10, and 11. All right. Ms. Thompson: 10 -- Mr. Fernandez: But 8 and 9 are companion. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): And 10 -- City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: 10 and 11 just passed. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So -- Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Haskins: Those are Commissioner Regalado district. Is he here? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we -- just for the record, it's -- we have 8, 9 -- Mr. Fernandez: 8, 9, and 11, I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and 11, OK. All right. How about -- is 11 also in Commissioner Regalado's district? Mr. Lavernia: No. It's in your district. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right. Let's hear it, PZ.11. Mr. Lavernia: Item 11 is an appeal of a Zoning Board decision for a variance for parking. The Planning Department original recommend denial of the requested; the Zoning Board granted, and now we're recommending approval of the appeal and denial of the variance. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, on the item in itself if anybody owes these gentlemen, these property owners an apology, it's the County. What they have gone through -- I mean, they have better record keeping than the County does, and you know, these are -- this is issues that we have -- that we address as Commissioners, and when somebody comes to you and tells you, you know, I have "X" amount of units, and the County tells me that I have "X" amount of units, and then you start doing homework, and you start doing the research, and they're right and the County's wrong, and they have to go through all these bureaucracy to get their property straightened out. You know, that's when government, I think, needs to stand up and say, we are truly sorry for us messing up, and it's incredible, so you know, I would -- could I have one of the Commissioners make a move on this and move the item? Commissioner Haskins: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion and a second. Listen, just to give you -- the gentleman signed off on the building having 12 units. When it was expec -- they did an inspection on it, and it show that the building only had eight units, and of course, you know, he started to get harassed by the County, and then when they found out that the paperwork was correct, he end -- he had the 12 units instead of eight units, so that was taken care of but it took a long process to straighten that out, so -- all right, there's a motion and a second on PZ.11. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. That's taken care of. City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You didn't -- I don't even know why you hired an attorney. Unidentified Speaker: It's been a long time. Commissioner Regalado: You don't -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hasn't it? Unidentified Speaker: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You know, listen, those are the experiences that leave such a sour taste in people's mouth when it comes to dealing with government, and once again, although we did not have the -- well, although we were a part of the problem, I think the County was the one that is to blame. I do apologize for all that. Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Chiaro: Just to clarify the record, the motion was to deny the appeal. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Simon Ferro: Correct. Ms. Chiaro: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That was the motion, to deny the appeal. Mr. Ferro: Correct -- Ms. Chiaro: Grant -- Mr. Ferro: -- and grant the variance. Ms. Chiaro: -- and approve the variance. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And grant the approval, yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I don't -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. For the record -- Mr. Ferro: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that was a motion made. Commissioner Regalado: Ambassador, you don't have to come back on this matter anymore, right? City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Mr. Ferro: Thank you very much. Well, the -- well, actually, the owner does not deserve it. I agree with the Chairman, that he's gone through enough. Thank -- Commissioner Regalado: Yes. He's right. Mr. Ferro: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How many years have you been on this? Ms. Thompson: Simon. Unidentified Speaker: About two years. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Two years resolving the issue, and they were -- you were hit -- who hit you with the fines? Was it the City? Unidentified Speaker: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But that's been taken care of right? Mr. Ferro: Yes, sir. For the record, Mr. Chair, Simon Ferro, 1221 Brickell. I was asked to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't want to see him anymore. I like him, but I don't want to see him anymore. Maybe I'll have a -- you know, we'll meet somewhere and have coffee. Unidentified Speaker: I have to work today, too, so (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, but it's all been taken care of? Unidentified Speaker: This will take care of it. Mr. Ferro: This -- actually, the action here today will take care of the only outstanding issue that we had, which was that we were short of a couple of parking spaces, and this variance legalizes the building -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Ferro: -- so this -- the action here today takes care of the outstanding issues with the building. We still have to go back before the Code Enforcement Board and tell them what we did to correct what they had filed, so we do have to go back there, but thank you very much, because this really settles the issue for the Code Enforcement Board. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Jesus. Mr. Ferro: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Once again, I apologize. PZ.12 06-01023Iu 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 2648 NORTHWEST 22ND City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM -DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 2648 NW 22nd Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1 ] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of RHV of Miami, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on July 19, 2006 by a vote of 7-2. See companion File ID 06-01023zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Regalado Noes: 1 - Commissioner Haskins Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones Direction by Chairman Gonzalez to the Administration to study the zoning for uniformity along the 22nd Avenue corridor along approximately 2648 Northwest 22nd Avenue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you for -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: We move on to PZ.7. Unidentified Speaker: -- your reconsideration. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. I -- let's do something. Let's -- PZ.12? Commissioner Spence -Jones: 13. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 13. All right. Is your attorney ready? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's get you out of here. Let's go. PZ.12 and 13. You've been here since this morning. I'm sure you got a family to go home to or something to do better than to sit here and hear us. All right, and besides, your attorney just became a grandma; I'm sure she'd rather be someplace else, maybe changing diapers. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Best thing in the world to do. Good afternoon. For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with offices at the Wachovia Center, 25th Floor, and I'm appearing before you today on behalf of -- City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Ms. Garcia -Toledo, if you would allow staff to make a presentation -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Absolutely. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning Department): Please. Mr. Fernandez: -- inform the viewing audience and the Commissioner what the item is -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Absolutely. Mr. Fernandez: -- and then you can proceed with your presentation. Mr. Lavernia: For the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. Item 12 and 13 are companion items, land use and zoning change petition for lots facing Northwest 22nd Avenue. The Planning Department was recommending denial on both just because of the intrusion of commercial activity in a residential area designated. The applicant approach the Department saying that they are going to proffer a covenant, restraining themselves [sic] to residential, not to have any commercial uses, and the Planning Department have no problem with that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so they're banning the commercial use? Mr. Lavernia: That's what she's going to say. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: On behalf of -- Chairman Gonzalez: I decided to come back out here for -- just for this item, then I'm going to go back for awhile. The reason is this is in my district and -- go ahead. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: This is a land use and zoning change, and as you've just heard from your staff we have spoken to the staff and we'd like to proffer a voluntary covenant on behalf of the applicant that upon receipt of this request for land use and zoning change, the applicant/owner would only use and develop this property for residential use and would not take advantage of any of the commercial retail uses that are permitted. I would be happy to do a full presentation, if you so desire. Chairman Gonzalez: I do have a question, and I have a question from staff. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: This proposed project is going to be right on 22nd Avenue, right? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Which is a commercial corridor, is that correct? Mr. Lavernia: Not in this area. The designation -- Chairman Gonzalez: What do you -- what -- Mr. Lavernia: -- on 22nd is -- City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: -- do you mean, not on that area? Mr. Lavernia: In this area, there -- Chairman Gonzalez: It might not be in that area on papers, but have you walked that neighborhood? Mr. Lavernia: No. Chairman Gonzalez: I can tell you everything that it is on 22nd Avenue, that it is commercial. You have bars, you have restaurants, you have body shops, you have junkyards, you have supermarkets, you have liquor stores, you have -- if that isn't commercial -- and let me tell you. I agree -- I'm supporting the project, the residential project, but I would also love to see some mix use because we don't have new buildings there that can accommodate new businesses coming to the area, so I do have a serious problem with your concerns. Mr. Lavernia: Well, in that case, you should request the Planning Department to conduct another study and change the land use and zoning designation of 22nd Avenue from residential to commercial. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, I'm going to recommend that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so for the point of clarification, the Commissioner is making a motion to have your department study the changing of the zoning -- Mr. Fernandez: But that would be perspective. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- of that site. Mr. Fernandez: That would not be applicable to this -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, absolutely not. Mr. Fernandez: -- application. OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, he's not willing to make a motion today. He would like for it to come back where -- Chairman Gonzalez: How long -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it would have both. Chairman Gonzalez: -- would it take you to do your study and to change this recommendation? Mr. Fernandez: A long time. I can't speak for them -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It just -- Mr. Fernandez: -- but I can tell you -- well, let them speak for themselves. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: If I may -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I didn't anticipate this City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 being so complicated, or else I would have -- all right. Somebody step up. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you. Those are the problems that we have in zoning in the City ofMiami; that what we have in zoning in the City ofMiami is a total mess, because maybe, maybe this block is not commercial. Maybe this block on 22nd Avenue is not commercial, but the rest of the area is commercial, and we have Mariano Cruz, who have lived there for 40 years. I mean, you know, if the developer agreed not to have commercial, well, you know, let's -- I'm going to vote to approve it as residential, but I want -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: They could always come back. Chairman Gonzalez: -- that study to begin as soon as possible because that's an important corridor, commercial corridor, where we don't have any new spaces for -- I have a lot of businesses coming into that community and we don't have spaces. I mean, everything is rent out, and what we have is abandoned -- we have buildings there on 22nd Avenue that have been boarded up for the last -- I don't know -- that I remember, four or five years, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner, why don't we make a motion to approve with a covenant, and then they could always come back later on, and we could also, after the vote, direct this -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- City Administration to go ahead and study the changing of the zoning. Mr. Fernandez: Today was first reading, and typically, covenants are not proffered and accepted until second reading as part of the rezone, and today you have a comprehensive plan change and a rezone application, and this would give you time, at second reading, for us to review the proffer that the applicant is considering making if in fact, the Commission is of a mind to do only residential. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition to this item here? No one -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Not only that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in opposition. Therefore, the public hearing is closed. Anything else you'd like to add for the record, ma'am? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I'd just like to put a petition from 60 neighbors -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's fine. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- who are supporting this project. That's all. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Turn it in to the City Clerk. It comes back to the Commission. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner. Chairman Gonzalez: -- I'm ready to move to support the item. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion on PZ.12 to approve. Is there a second? City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Regalado. The item is under discussion. Hearing no discussion on the item, it's an ordinance on first reading. Mr. City Attorney, read it into the record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: This is one of those land use changes I'm not so sure about because I don't know the area. I'm going to vote "no" on first reading, but I will look at it on second reading and drive the area. Ms. Thompson: OK. Continuation: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: I agree with the Chairman. I know this area, and you find a pharmacy here, a house here, a shoe store here, gas station -- Chairman Gonzalez: Liquor store. Commissioner Regalado: -- liquor store, you know. We need to decide, you know. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: We need to decide, either way, so it's "yes." Ms. Thompson: OK. Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is passed on first reading 3/1. PZ.13 06-01023zc ORDINANCE First 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 "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2648 NORTHWEST 22ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 LOCATION: Approximately 2648 NW 22nd Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of RHV of Miami, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Made a motion to recommend approval, which failed, constituting a recommendation of denial to the City Commission on September 11, 2006 by a vote of 4-1. See companion File ID 06-010231u. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial. Motion by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Regalado Noes: 1 - Commissioner Haskins Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones A motion was made by Chairman Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Spence -Jones absent, instructing the Administration to study the zoning for uniformity along the 22nd Avenue corridor along approximately 2648 Northwest 22nd Avenue. Note for the Record: Please refer to itme PZ.12 for minutes referencing item PZ.13. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.13 is a companion to PZ.12. It's an ordinance on first reading. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm ready to move PZ.13. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before we do that, is there anyone in the public in opposition? Please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. It comes back to the Commission. There's a motion by the Chair to approve on first reading. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Regalado. It is a ordinance on first reading. Read it into the record, Mr. City Attorney, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: For the same reason I said before, "no." Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. I'm the vice chair. Yes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3/1. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And I believe that the Chair has a motion that he will make. All right. While -- Mr. Fernandez: So, Ms. Garcia -Toledo, make sure you follow up with my office so that we can discuss the nature of your proffer as a covenant -- I mean, as a -- yeah -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: As a covenant. Mr. Fernandez: -- as a -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: For second reading, should it be -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- necessary. Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- who's the next contestant on the --? Ms. Thompson: It would be PZ. 7. Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.7. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but, Mr. Chairman -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- since Chairman Gonzalez is going to be leaving, why don't you do the one that still he has on the agenda on his district. City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: It's -- Lucia Dougherty: It's PZ.10. Commissioner Regalado: -- PZ.10 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Hold on. Commissioner Regalado: -- and that's in Commissioner Gonzalez' district. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let's try to get through the agenda. We still have a long meeting. We have a lot of the regular agenda items that we have not discussed, and we would like to get out of here by maybe 10 tonight, so let's go ahead have -- start setting up 10. All right, Mr. Chairman, I believe you have a motion you would like to -- motion to direct the City Administration to -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- study the -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. I would like to make a motion to have the staff revise the zoning in this area, in this particular area, and you know, but I'm not going to tell you to change the zoning; I'm just going to tell you to find a solution where we can revitalize this area, which has been in decay for the last, I don't know, maybe 30, 40 years. Vice Chairman Sanchez: In other words, to have some standardization, uniformity -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- com -- you know. All right. There's a motion. Is there a second to the Chair's motion? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Haskins: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Regalado. The item is under discussion. Hearing no discussion on the item, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. PZ.14 06-00834ec RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THE EASEMENTS LOCATED BETWEEN NORTHEAST 13TH STREET AND NORTHEAST 15TH STREET AND HERALD PLAZA AND NORTHEAST BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 LOCATION: Approximately Between NE 13th Street and NE 15th Street and Herald Plaza and NE Bayshore Drive [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on March 2, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on June 26, 2006 by a vote of 7-1. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the City Square Retail Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Haskins, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Regalado R-06-0655 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Now we're going to move into PZ.14. PZ.14. Mr. City Attorney, I'm going to need some help on PZ.13. I'm sorry, PZ.14, 14 is the item. We had had - - we have had -- you know, I received an e-mail (electronic mail) in my office that made me feel very bad. Someone sent me an e-mail telling me that why did I give the privilege of a time certain -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: To Overtown. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to certain neighborhood of this City and not to other neighborhoods. That's very unfair. That is very, very unfair because I have tried to be as fair as I can be to any - - to everyone. I have tried to please everyone. I have afforded everyone the opportunity to speak one and twice on the items. I don't think there has been anyone more democratic than I have been in the process, and when I hear that racial remark -- because it was a racial remark behind it. I don't care how they put it. That's the way it is, and the more you read it, the more upset you get. After we gave two full meetings to this item, we had a meeting that we had to leave early, and Vice Chairman Sanchez took the meeting until 10 p.m. at night, and then we scheduled a special meeting, we scheduled a special meeting to hear this item. That's -- you know, I was saying a little while ago that people are never happy, and this is a perfect example. No matter what we do, they're never going to be happy. They're always going to criticize us. They're always going to tell us that we give privilege to some people because they're black or because they're blue or because they're Cuban, and we don't give privilege to them, and you know -- I mean, it's -- you know, what can I tell you? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Just do your best. City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: The thing is, Mr. City Attorney, we have had two full meetings, two full meetings where everyone has been afforded the opportunity to speak in these items, and I want to know how am I going to have to conduct this meeting, as far as time is concerned and testimony and the whole nine yards. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Well, with regard to PZ.14, which is the first of these four items that travel together, the -- there was a deferral on September 28 to October 26. On October 26, this was continued, so -- but then again, this is a vacation, closing, abandoning, discontinuing for public use -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- and this is a resolution, even though it's a public hearing. On this one, there's no second reading. It had already a full hearing on October 26, where the item was presented. I don't know -- I don't -- I have no particular recollection whether this item was open and both sides were able to present on it. We need to ascertain that from the Clerk, or perhaps, from the parties. On the other items, 15 and 16, 15 is a comprehensive plan, 16 is a zoning change, and 17 is the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), that typically comes to you when you do second and final reading. Certainly, 15 and 16 have had their first reading, and you passed it on first reading. When it came back to you for second reading, that's when it was continued without any more hearings, so you need to have a second full hearing for your second and final reading on 15 and 16, and now, to the extent that 17 is the presentation of the MUSP, which could only be considered if in fact, you have successful passage of 15 and 16, you also need to open the hearing for full consideration of the MUSP of 17, so the rules that you typically have in place is that staff makes a presentation explaining to you and to the public where each of these items stands, then the applicant gets to make their presentation. You usually limit them anywhere between 10 to 20 minutes, according to the wishes of the Commission. Then if there is a primary opponent, if the neighborhoods have retained the services of an attorney, what this Commission has done in the past is that they have given that attorney the courtesy of a longer, lengthier presentation so that any reports or any studies that they have conducted could be fully presented to you, and then any member of the public because, supposedly, the attorney representing the opposition has had as much time as the applicant, would be limited to two minutes per individual person wishing to speak. At that point in time, if anybody has any question of anybody, they could be asked through the Chair, and when that concludes, the applicant has what we call rebuttal and an opportunity to close, and immediately after that, you take it back to yourself and you make a decision. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Iris Escarra: Commissioner, ifI may, as to PZ.14. The item -- we did do the presentation. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. Ms. Escarra: However -- Ms. Thompson: Can I get a name for the record, please? Ms. Escarra: I apologize. Iris Escarra, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. We have a very short presentation just to clarify some of the concerns that the Commissioner of the district had with regards to the closure, so we would need approximately a couple of minutes only to present that clarification. However, we do want to reserve our presentation from the previous meeting. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I'm going to allow ten minutes to each attorney representing City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 each side. If you use less time, I'll appreciate it. We will all appreciate it here, but you have up to ten minutes, and then the public will have two minutes. Madam City Clerk, will you please set the clock? Ms. Thompson: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ. 14. Ms. Escarra: Good morning. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Lavernia. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning Department): PZ. 14 is the closing, vacating, abandoning, and discontinue for public use of easement for the City Square Retail Major Use Special Permit that was already approved. Planning Department is recommending approval, and the Zoning Board recommend approval also. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Escarra: Good morning. Once again, my name is -- Chairman Gonzalez: Morning. Ms. Escarra: -- Iris Escarra, and I'm joined this morning by cocounsel, Jeffrey Bercow, who will clarify the issues, as well as Mark Siffin, the principal. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Jeffrey Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Jeffrey Bercow, with the law firm of Bercow & Radell, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. We're here today on behalf of the applicant on this matter, and I'm joined by the applicant, Mark Siffin, and our surveyor, Dan Fortin, as well as cocounsel. The first thing I want to tell you is that this request has absolutely nothing to do with 14th Street. This request will not affect our prior representations regarding 14th Street at all. I want to briefly explain the request. In 1997, the Knight Ridder plat was approved. A specific purpose of the Knight -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hold on. Ten minutes. Ms. Thompson: Yes. I -- the -- this timer isn't working. We have a mini timer. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. Mr. Bercow: OK. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Bercow: A specific purpose of the plat for north -- for Knight Ridder was to close Northeast 14th Street. That was accomplished in 1997. I'm going to submit that plat for the record. That plat also provided an interior easement for utilities and emergency access, and I don't know if you can see this dotted line on the plat. It's right here. I'm going to show you some graphics that highlight this a little bit better, but that was a platted easement for utilities and emergency access. The concept was, since 14th Street was being eliminated, that they needed an alternative location to put the utilities, as well as provide for emergency access. That easement is what we're proposing to discontinue today. Now our surveyor, Mr. Fortin, has City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 provided and prepared these graphics. This crosshatched area shown in yellow is the public utility easement and emergency access easement provided on the Knight Ridder plat. This crosshatched area in blue is the pavement for Northeast 14th Street, which is a private road, which will remain a private road, subject to our representations that we made during the MUSP hearing that it's going to be open to the public for pedestrian and vehicular access, subject to several times a year where we will obtain approval for special events to close it. Northeast 14th Street will remain a private street, but again, open to the public for vehicular and pedestrian access, and nothing that we do today will affect that at all. We are closing the platted easement because it is no longer necessary to serve the project. The existing utilities are going to be relocated, and a new easement will be provided for each of those utilities at the time of development. The MUSP approval requires us to provide for emergency access for police and fire in the project design, and as a result of that, we have a recommendation of approval today from your Planning Department, from your Public Works Department, from your Plats and Streets Committee, as well as from the Zoning Board. We satisfied the public interest criteria of the Code because approval of this vacation today will facilitate the City Square Retail project, which has already been found by this Commission, on September 7, to constitute a public benefit. I'm going to put a copy of that staff recommendation into the record. We are providing new easements and emergency access, as consonant with the redevelopment of the property for the new project, and this application or this approval will have no impact on pedestrian and vehicular access in the area, as a result of our prior representations regarding Northeast 14th Street. Mr. Siffin is here. He has met with the neighbors since the last hearing on October 26. He has addressed their concerns. He has confirmed with them that this application will have no effect on 14th Street, which he has agreed will remain open for pedestrian and vehicular access, so we would request your approval today. If there is any rebuttal, we'd like -- I'm sorry. If there is any objections, we would like to reserve time for rebuttal. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. The other side has the same amount of time. Is there anyone else on the other side? There is no one here, so at this time, I think testimony has been heard, correct, Mr. City Attorney? And therefore -- Mr. Fernandez: If you take it back to yourselves, and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Absolutely. It comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Haskins, you're recognized. Commissioner Haskins: I'm prepared to move the item. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. There is a motion by Commissioner Haskins on P -- sorry. Mr. Fernandez: 14. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 14. Mr. Fernandez: PZ.14. Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.14. It's a resolution; second by Commissioner Spence -Jones. It is a resolution. No further discussion on the item. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition having the same right, say "nay." It passes -- City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Mr. Bercow: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- three votes in favor. PZ.15 06-00383Iu 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 ONE HERALD PLAZA - PARCEL 3, 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. LOCATION: Approximately One Herald Plaza - Parcel 3 [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner and the McClatchy Company (Publicly Owned) as Successor in Interest FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor of the plan to the City Commission on May 17, 2006 by a vote of 4-3. See companion File IDs 06-00383zc and 06-00383mu. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Herald Square - Parcel 3 Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12864 Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, my suggestion on items -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- 15, 16, and 17 is that you open them all up together at the same time because they're intertwined; they're all related. It's comprehensive plan change, the zoning change, and then the MUSP; that whatever testimony they -- both the applicants and the opponents and the members of the public would make, they could specify going towards which of those three items. When you close it, then you make separate motions and you take City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 individual votes on -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- those motions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Under the advisement of our City Attorney, we will be taking all three items up at the same time. We'll be voting separately on the items that will be presented to this legislative body, so we'll go ahead -- Is the applicant ready? Need some time to prepare yourself? Mr. Fernandez: Allow staff to present the items to you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Staff, please put your -- Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning Department): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- record -- Mr. Lavernia: Again, for the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. We have 15, 16, and 17, which are land use and zoning change, plus the Major Use. For the land use, item 15, the Planning Department is recommending approval; the Planning Advisory Board recommend denial. Number 16, which is the zoning change, the Planning Department recommends approval; the Zoning recommend denial. Number 17 is the Major Use Special Permit that was part of this, and the Planning Department is recommending approval with conditions that I'm going to put on the record, the number 11, which is related to design issues. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so you're putting the conditions on the record? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Go ahead. Mr. Lavernia: Pursuant to design -related comments received by the Planning director, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) Provide habitable liner unit on the third to sixth level on the currently unlined portion facing Herald Plaza Drive. The proposed aluminum louvers and white stucco treatment of the unlined portion of the garage is unacceptable; (b) Coordinate with the City Square project to activate Herald Plaza Drive, retaining the parallel parking; (c) Revise the landscape plan to be consistent with the Performing Arts and Entertainment District Master Plan, including coordinating the street lighting and paver surface material with the Zyscovich streetscape guideline; (d) Incorporate pavers on a sand bed and utilize the pervious cut in the plaza as rain gardens, reducing storm water runoff and controlling nonpoint source pollution; (e) Revise the landscape plan to include the existing row of mahogany tree along Northeast 15 Street with the right-of-way; 0 Add a cluster of Medjool Date Palms to accentuate the corner of Northeast 15 Street and Herald Plaza Drive; (g) Include a pedestrian connection of landscape paver across Northeast 15 Street, connecting the baywalk north of the Venetian Causeway; (h) Provide an additional layer of shrub on the berm, hiding the truck access, and vine or some landscape should hide this wall height from within; (i) Group the shade trees along the tree allee adjacent to Herald Plaza Drive in planting beds with a small sidewalk space between to access the retail space and parallel parking; O Integrate a double row of palms along the baywalk and a few cluster of shade trees along the terrace and behind the remaining Herald printing press to provide some shade within the walkway segment; (k) Provide excess parking space shall be reduced due to the urban context of the project and its proximity to public transportation. Additional parking City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 shall be provided underground, if necessary, if these are considered essential to the project. Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. The conditions have been read in the record, and just for point of clarification, PZ. 15 is an ordinance on second reading, PZ. 16 is also an ordinance on second reading, follow with PZ. 17, which is a resolution and a MUSP. Madam Clerk, Mr. City Attorney, are we ready? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, we're ready, and as -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- per the rule of the Chair, each side would have ten minutes to make their presentation, assuming that there is opposition represented by counsel, and then members of the public, limited to two minutes, with an opportunity for the applicant to have rebuttal at the end of the entire presentation. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. All those that'll be testifying, have you been sworn in? Madam Clerk, have they been sworn in? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): We did one swearing in. I don't know if everyone was inside that's testifying now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: If there's anyone that will be testifying on either PZ.15, PZ. 16, and PZ.17, please stand and be sworn in. We already -- every -- OK. Mr. Fernandez: There's -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: There -- ma'am. Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- one party. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Madam -- the ap -- Madam Applicant, you're recognized. Lucia Dougherty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner and applicant, and joining me this afternoon is Pedro and David Martin, who are the principals of the project. Also with me today is Javier Avino, who is my colleague in Greenberg Traurig. This is the second reading of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and the MUSP. Currently, the comprehensive plan for this site shows general commercial. We are requesting a restricted commercial, a down planning of the site to restricted commercial. This is the same zoning classification or land use classification for every other piece of property surrounding this site. It is also the only C-2 property on the water in all of the City ofMiami. Jack Luft has done a 51-point presentation that was passed out at your last agenda, and we'll pass it out again today, about the goals, policies, and objective of your Comprehensive Plan. He's done this analysis, but one of them I want to bring to your attention is that it says that the City will continue to adhere to its established policies regarding community development districts, and will continue to implement plans for the Omni and Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 District. That's part of your current comprehensive plan. If you look at the Omni Redevelopment Plan, the one that is currently in place and that was adopted in 1987, if you look at the last page of that document that's being passed out to you today, you will note that it says that this particular site -- in fact, the entire Miami Herald site -- should be rezoned from CG-17 to SPI-6.1; that is the predecessor of the current SD-6 zoning classification. It also says that the property should be rezoned to a density of an FAR (floor area ratio) of a minimum of six up to ten. That is also consistent with your current SD-6 regulations, and we've passed out this map. It has a map; it has a -- on the second to the last page, it has another map, which also shows that the zoning classification -- on the third page from the end, page 6, there's a separate map that shows that the high -density mixed -use project is designated for this Miami Herald site. Again, you have another new Omni Redevelopment Plan that has been passed by your redevelopment agency, although, not by the City Commission. It is also consistent with this plan, which says that the current zoning of the City -- Miami Herald building, which is C-2, should be modified to better reflect the surrounding zoning and induce the redevelopment of the property and provide public access to the bay front. It has a number on it of one. One refers to an atlas change from C-2 to SD-6.1, so again, this rezoning and modification of the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the adopted current Omni Redevelopment Plan, as well as the proposed one for this site, so if you determine that it is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan, and this is -- and your redevelopment plan, and you decide that the Comprehensive Plan should be changed to restricted commercial, there are only two zoning classifications that could go along with this C-2 comprehensive plan, and that is the CD -- CBD (Central Business District), which is directly to the north, or the SD-6, which is surrounding the property. We opted for not the CBD, the most liberal of the two zoning classifications, we opted to request the more restrictive, the SD-6 zoning classification, and that's what's before you today. The project architect is Luis Revuelta, and Steve Lefton is our landscape planner. We have proposed 600 units on this site. I have to bring to your attention that this site, along with the Miami Herald -- I mean, the City Square Retail project, we could have a total of 5, 000 units on this site. The entire property, we're only proposing 600 units, instead of 5, 000. Your adopted DRI (Development of Regional Impact) Increment II allows for 8,000 residential units in the downtown DRI. This doesn't anywhere come near what the limitations of your downtown DRI or even what we could have on this site if we chose to do residential. Before we walk you through the project, we want to tell you that we've met with our neighbors, both the Venetian Island Homeowners Association, who is represented today by Matt Leibowitz, as well as the Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance, represented today by Barbara Bisno and Roger Simon, and I just want to go through some of the modifications that we've made based on our meetings with them. The first thing that we've -- the first modification I'm going to show you today is the modification not for the Venetian Causeway or the Venetian Islands Association, but it was for our Venetian -- Plaza Venetian [sic] neighbors, who are the most directly affected because they're just north of this property. This is the original site plan. As you note, we have a trapezoidal -type property with the edge extending further east -- the northern edge extending further east from the southern edge. We have proposed to flip the building. In other words, champer [sic] the edge, opening up greater vistas for the Plaza Venetian [sic] homeowners. If that's something that the Commission would like to propose, we would be -- gladly accept that as a condition. The other issue that we have done for the homeowners association, the Venetian Causeway Homeowners Association, is that we have opened up the entire plaza on the ground floor level. We have a -- modified the plans to include a baywalk of 22 feet in depth. We've got a loggia along 15th Street, to a height of 30 feet and to a depth of 33 feet. We've proposed to close the access on 15th from our property altogether. There'd be absolutely no ingress or egress. We have also agreed to install directional signs on the traffic -- from the causeway, and we've agreed to contribute to a mitigation of traffic impacts for the entire neighborhood and security for the causeway. At this time, I'd like Steve Lefton to go through the ground floor plan just a little bit more in depth. Ms. Thompson: Chair, ifI might, she's on -- City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: -- you're on two minutes and fifty-four seconds. Ms. Dougherty: Oh, since I have three different -- I think that probably we can go a little bit further. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, 'cause they're doing -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- everything together. Ms. Dougherty: 'Cause we're doing everything together. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, right. Go ahead. No, no. Time it, but in case -- you know, so we give the other side exactly the same amount of time, but they're taking the three items together, SO -- Steve Lefton: Good morning. For the record, Steve Lefton, landscape architect for the project, at -- offices at 1691 Michigan Avenue. I'll be very brief but I think what is really important is we look at what was done to really work with the context in the Venetian Causeway is how the building is set back, how the building is carved out, and this dash line is overhang, but what's really important -- I think what's critical to the Venetian and something that I've been working on since 1997, when I prepared the master plan for the Venetian Causeway, so it's certainly near to my heart and something that I'm familiar with, is that very wide open pedestrian corridor, and for perspective, there's a whole bunch of dimensions here, and I'm just going to go through a few, and I'm happy to go through any and all of them at a later time, but this line here -- this is the existing roadway. This is consistent with the Venetian Causeway Master Plan, organizing the parking, bumping up the landscape knuckles; from the back of curb to the building face is 57 feet;; from the back of curb to the building overhang, over 30 feet. At any given time, the minimum amount of -- to the -- open to the sky from back of curb to the overhang is 30 feet, essentially, a sidewalk, a promenade. Typical sidewalk in this city is 5 feet. There is no sidewalk that's 30 feet, and that's a wonderful, wonderful gateway. Moreover, all of this space is considered public access. There's nothing that keeps anybody from walking -- and you can see the conceptual paving pattern -- right to the edge of this building. The openness, the fluidity, and the idea that if you're coming from this area, coming off Herald Plaza, that this is all open and inviting to come down the Venetian, not only to come down the Venetian, but to come onto the baywalk, and the design of the base, even with that berm condition -- and that's shown here to really screen that existing truck access -- that's what you're seeing here, lots of shade, lots of screening -- even with using a lot of that area to get the screening, we get, at the narrowest point, where it connects to the existing printing press, where we have no control over it, 22 feet. At its widest point, it's 63 feet. This corner here is a 4,000 square foot plaza effectively, so that's what I wanted to share with you. I'm happy to answer anymore questions, but I think that's very important in terms of the connectivity back to the City and the access and the gateway to the Venetian, which is very important and really is a historic gateway in this community and in this neighborhood. Commissioner Haskins: Can you show me on this drawing how the trucks go to the printing presses at the Herald building? Where -- what access do they have? Mr. Lefton: Everybody comes in the same way. City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: There's only one access. Drop-off is here for residents. Here is the ramp that comes up. If you're a resident, you come back in here, and where that big, heavy screening is that you're seeing there, printing press access is in and out here. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: The only time you'll see those trucks is when they come out from behind this very minimal lobby, which we need to have on the ground floor, so this is all solid -- Commissioner Haskins: Right. Mr. Lefton: -- so you don't see the truck, you don't see the truck, you don't see the truck. The first time you see a truck is when you get to this point, and even there, you've got another core - - it's really when you get to the street, but you'll see the truck for this little section, of course, and this little section here, but it's completely screened a hundred percent to that point, ten feet - - about 20 feet, and then the street. Commissioner Haskins: And then you have the berm effect to screen the trucks -- the view of the trucks going into the printing press building, so that's not impeding the baywalk there? Mr. Lefton: Absolutely not, and we've tried to make that not just a condition to screen the trucks, but a real opportunity, and you can see here with the terrace steps, so we wanted to get enough height so we could get some real heavy planting, and you don't see it as it peels back off of this image, but what you see in the plan is the idea -- since we're going to be up so high, let's use that opportunity to create some seating and some terrace steps where you can just be sitting out on the baywalk, look out to the Venetian, and boats coming under the Venetian at the drawbridge, so tried to create that as a real pedestrian amenity, an opportunity, not just, you know, a wall with landscape. Ms. Dougherty: At your last meeting, an issue came up about the environmental and whether or not there was any contamination on this site, and on this site, there is no contamination. In fact, that has been confirmed by DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) at a recent meeting, and I have these minutes of the meeting that they had with a couple of the neighbors. This is a meeting of October 13, 2006, with Loretta Alkalay and Stacey Stokes with DERM, and they explained to them about the parcels and what the monitoring that DERM is doing, and they -- one of the concerns from the neighbors is that they were concerned about ammonia, and DERM specifically says here that they were -- that they confirmed that the latest groundwater sample results of the site indicate ammonia levels in the groundwater are below the human health standards of 2.8, and a final decision will be made later. I also have with me today Kerri Barsh, who is the chairman of the Environmental Department of Greenberg Traurig, who has made a composite exhibit of the environmental impact statement consisting environmental phase I -- phase II report, site assessment report addendum, and additional information submitted pursuant to DERM's requirements. We are also including an exhibit of recent groundwater sampling data and tested concerning -- conducted by DERM, so she is here and can answer any questions, if you would like, but we're going to submit those documents for the record. Again, also, City ofMiami is not an environmental agency, but you know -- you should know that, when we get our building permit, we have to get a sign -off from DERM before we can ever pull a permit. We also have our traffic engineer here today, Tim Plummer. We won't put him on, but we'd like to reserve him for rebuttal, in case there is traffic issues that come up during the presentation in chief. Let me just see -- oh, yes. I'd like Jack Luft to come forward and talk a little bit about the Comprehensive Plan and how this MUSP project comports with the strategies and goals and City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 objectives of your comp plan and the redevelopment plan. Commissioner Haskins: Lucia, while Mr. Luft is talking, I'd like you to -- you heard the earlier comments on the One Miami project and the riverwalk and baywalk, and having a permanent easement to make sure that those areas are always open to the public, and that we do not use security reasons or anything else, an excuse once an association is turned over to close, OK? I will be asking for that in this -- if we go -- if after all I hear today, I'm ready to approve -- if -- I will want that sort of agreement. Ms. Dougherty: Guarantee, sure. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Jack Luft: Jack Luft, 1717 Windward Way, Sanibel, Florida. As Ms. Dougherty has told you, we've compiled a list of over 50 goals, objectives, and policies in your Comprehensive Plan that specifically address the development objectives that this project meets. That's significant because your Comprehensive Plan has to be internally consistent. You cannot pick and choose which goals you want. They must be connected. The combined weight of these goals and objectives tell you that the land use change from general commercial to restricted commercial is necessary to maintain consistency with the other goals, and that the consequent zoning change to 6.1 is necessary to remain consistent with the land use district. We've pointed out to you -- I spent some time at the first reading talking about your CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) adopted plan that occurred in January of this year. I passed out to you, as Ms. Dougherty was addressing it, pages from your 1986, adopted and still in force, Omni Redevelopment Plan. The goal and objective that Hs. Dougherty read, 1.2.4 land use, says that that adopted plan embraces the policies that this Commission and the City are obliged to adhere to and to continue to implement for the district. That ties that plan directly to this comp plan. That's extremely important because that '86 Omni plan says this site shall be high -density residential, and it says it shall be 6.1 zoning. Commissioner Haskins: Jack -- Mr. Luft: I will submit -- Commissioner Haskins: -- what does the current -- what does the plan that was just proposed for the Omni, what does it call for? SD-6.1 because -- Luft: The adopted plan by this CRA authority in January says that this site should be changed from the liberal commercial to the restricted commercial in the comp plan, and it says it should be changed to 6.1, exactly as your '86 plan does. It goes further by noting the incompatibility of the present uses with the larger district, and that is the incentive for advancing this kinds of change, rather than leaving it there. I'm going to submit for the record this -- again, the consistency with the comprehensive neighborhood development plan, and because this is my last shot, I'll -- I want to introduce a memorandum that addresses the consistency with Section 1703.2 of your Code for special permits and 1305 for your Major Use Special Permits, and all the criteria and standards that must be met by this project and why, in my best professional opinion, this project complies with all of those standards. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Again, since your last meeting, we did meet with our neighbors at the Plaza Venetia. We did have, you know, nice, pleasant discussion, but anything that -- we've done the most that we thought we could do to assist in the impact of the neighborhood, and with that, I'd like to rest and reserve anything that we could for rebuttal. Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Clerk, how much time have they consumed? City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Ms. Thompson: That was 23 minutes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Maybe the other side after the recess 'cause -- Chairman Gonzalez: I think we're going to take a recess and have you -- take you after lunch because -- Andrew Dickman: That's fine. Chairman Gonzalez: -- we need -- Mr. Dickman: Need fuel. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to work around the clock, so -- Mr. Dickman: That's fair. Chairman Gonzalez: -- we'll take you back -- let's come back at 2 o'clock. Is that all right with all of you or --? You all right? Two o'clock. We stand in recess. "[Later..]" Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Dickman: That's OK. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Dickman: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioner. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Just to review, I have the timer set for 23 minutes. Mr. Dickman: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Very good. Mr. Dickman: OK. Hopefully, I won't have to take that much time. Appreciate it. For the record, Andrew Dickman, 325 Egret Avenue, Naples, Florida, representing Loretta Alkalay, who is owner of a apartment at 555 Northeast 15 Street, which is the Venetia Condominium, abutting the Herald property to the north. Her home is on the south side of the building, which will be mostly affected by this particular project. Also with me are the Venetia Condominium owners, other owners, including Hal Spaet, who will follow me with presentations and a traffic expert. I'm requesting that the record from June 27, 2006 [sic] be incorporated into this public hearing. I have already handed out to you all and to the Clerk a report, which is on -- in front of you, which looks like this and has some information in it that I'll be referring to. I have several issues that I want to raise, and hopefully -- I think I can go through this in about 12 to 15 minutes. First and foremost, it has to do with the environmental issues that counsel brought up, and that we raised at the last hearing. You can refer to page 19 and 27 in the book that I gave you. At the last hearing, on June 27 [sic], I provided you with a copy of documents we obtained from Metro -Dade Department of Environmental Resource [sic] Management, which is also called DERM, which show, without a doubt, the existence of potential serious environmental contaminants on the Herald property, including the Parcel 3. You'll see several City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 maps in the document that handed out. In January of 2005, Knight Ridder hired an engineering firm to perform a Phase I environmental assessment, which is called a ESA (Environmental Site Assessment), in connection with its sale of properties to the developer. The Phase I ESA is basically a quick analysis of the environmental conditions on the property that are visible and obvious. If the evidence of contamination is found, the next step is then a Phase II ESA. Knight Ridder's environmental engineers performed a Phase II ESA on April 25, in the hopes of seeking a -- what's called a "no further action " from DERM, in order to place residential use on the site. Florida -- State of Florida and County laws require that engineering companies report ESA findings to DER Mfor approval of remedial actions. In that Phase II ESA, the engineers concluded, among other things, the following, and I quote: Based on the presence of elevated concentration of arsenic, lead, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, and ammonia in groundwater samples collected across the site, additional assessment is needed to further characterize these impacts. Also, due to the presence of arsenic, total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon, TRPH, and PAHs constituents in soil samples above the soil cleanup target levels established by state and county regulations, a contingency is to be established to characterize and handle disposals of soils excavated from the site. These documents are part of the developer's Phase II site assessment, which is part of your packet at page 19 and 27. Looking at the application filed by the developer, these documents were prepare -- were never disclosed and never shown to staff in terms of the environmental issues on the project. To approve an amendment to your comp plan future land use map, the State mandates that you consider all professionally acceptable and relevant data, including environmental considerations. If the City is aware of such data and simply looks the other way, the land use amendments can be rejected by the State. Furthermore, the City's own adopted comprehensive plan, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, contains specific policies related to the protection of the environment, and more important, the people in the area from being harmed by authorizing hundreds of new dwelling units on property that is contaminated or not properly cleaned up. Once again, if you amend the future land use map in such a way that it is found to be inconsistent with the comp plan, the State can reject it. Finally, in consideration of the appro -- of approving the development itself your City Code, at Section 1703(b)5 requires that you consider, where applicable, whether the development will have a favorable impact on the environment and natural resources of the City. In light of the evidence before you that is -- that it is contaminated, that thousands of new residents will live on or near the property, and that it is abutting Biscayne Bay, which is a recognized environmental resource, if ever there was a situation when the environment is applicable, this is it. Before you make this decision, wouldn't you rather have staff scrutinize the environmental information, or better yet, have DERM come here and inform you of the risk and proper steps needed to make the proper safe decisions in respect to the environment. I'm going to put into the record -- this is going to be Exhibit number 1. I don't have a zillion copies of these. I'm not going to inundate you with paper, but I'm going to put these into the record as Exhibit 1, and I'll give them to Madam Clerk when I'm done. The second issue is Miami 21. The City has spent and is spending enormous time, effort, and resources developing Miami's answer to the challenge of smart growth, andl quote from the Web site, `Miami 21, a blueprint for the City ofMiami is -- of the 21 st century and beyond. Miami 21 takes a holistic approach to land use and urban planning, broadening the scope of a traditional master plan to become truly a comprehensive plan. Based on new urbanism and smart growth principles, the new form -based Miami 21 Code will consider several aspects of the City, including economic development, parks, public places, transportation, historic preservation, and arts and culture." The proposed zoning conversion map east quadrant for the area, which is -- the subject property is located, shows the property as T6-8, Urban Core Zone. Because the property would be located adjacent to a T5 and T6 zone, the maximum height, with the bonus, would be 12 stories. I'm going to put this in the record as Exhibit 2, which is the map from the Web site of the proposed zoning. The adoption process for Miami 21 is very soon. This property is so critical to the success of the PAC (Performing Arts Center) and surrounding design. The waterfront lands are essential for the area to become a meaningful destination for living, shopping, and culture. If your professional City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 world -class consultants Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company disagree with the proposed 20 -- 66-story use, why allow it? The right solution is to have a temporary moratorium on land use decisions until Miami 21 is in place. A lot of people reacted very favorably to this idea when Commissioner Haskins raised it in an article by the Herald endorsing her. You have done this on Biscayne Boulevard. You have done this on Southwest 27th Avenue, when new zoning was going through. You created new zoning regulations for key corridors. This is precedent you should follow for land use amendments until Miami 21 is adopted. I'll remind you that there is no entitlement to land use amendments and zoning changes, which is very different than granting a property owner building permits allowed under the existing zoning standards in which their property is located. I want to refer to some shoreline issues, and this is going to be in page 29 of the packet that I've given you. The shoreline of Biscayne Bay draws significant attention to the City's -- is -- has significant attention in the Miami Comprehensive Plan and County regulations for environmental reasons, economic reasons, safety reasons, and public access reasons. The coastal management element in your Comprehensive Plan, specifically, Policy CM-1.1.9 reads, "Site development criteria will ensure that development or redevelopment within the coastal zone will not adversely affect the natural environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the City's natural resources." Policy 3.1.1 reads, "Future land use and development regulations will encourage water -dependent uses along the shoreline." Again, Policy 4.1.5, in the Coastal Management section, reads, "Each proposed land use and land development regulation change within the high -- the Coastal High Hazard area of the City will require an analysis of its potential impact on evacuation times and shelter needs in the event of a hurricane, " and I want to emphasize that this isn't necessarily just for the people that are going to be living there. It's the evacuation routes and the shelters that the new residents are going to be competing for with all the other people in the area, and that's why the comp plan requires that when you do a land use amendment, that you evaluate these hurricane issues. Due to the enormous cost in human loss in recent hurricanes on September 20 -- or September 7, 2005, the Governor Bush issued Executive Order 05-178, creating the Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, which ultimately published its final report in February 2006. The Department of Community Affairs -- the final analysis calls for strengthening rules for developing on the shoreline through building codes, and I'm going to put the City -- the entire Comprehensive Plan of the City in as Exhibit 3, and I'm going to put the Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, the final report from the State, in as Exhibit 4. The year prior, the Florida Senate itself published a report, number 2005-122, called the Working Waterfronts. Once again, the conclusion was Florida shoreline -- the conclusion was that Florida shoreline is its most important assets and overdevelopment on the shoreline by private developments deprives Floridians of access and enjoyment of the waterfronts, and this ultimately is a negative impact on the economy. This is the entire Working Waterfronts report that I'm going to put in as Exhibit -- this is going to be Exhibit 5. The County, which -- and this is very important -- has home rule charter, retain jurisdiction over aspects of the development along the shoreline. Section 33D, among other things, creates the Shoreline Review Committee, which is a 13-member committee authorized to review all development on Biscayne Bay shoreline, including within the City for compliance with this section. A central provision is requiring a 75-foot setback from the shoreline for large buildings, such as the one proposed tonight. If the setback cannot be met, however, there are exceptions can be issued for the view -- such as view corridors and other public amenities. The Herald Square projects went to Shoreline Review Committee; did not meet the 75-foot setback, but did convince the committee it met the exceptions. Two applicants were submitted for Parcel 1 and for Parcel 3, and two resolutions, ultimately, were issued for approval and were received. However, in researching this issue and talking with staff at the County, both applications were presented together, and only one received a vote, and that would have been Parcel 1. County Planning staff in the minutes, confirm that it was presented and approved as one project. County staff was not aware -- as recent as two weeks ago -- that Parcel I was rejected because most of the amenities and the large view corridor on the Parcel 1-- it is likely that they would have decided differently if Parcel 3 were before them with very little view corridor or significant limited boardwalk. More City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 importantly, however, is the fact that Parcel 3 never received an actual vote, and I'm going to put the transcripts from that committee hearing, the entire transcript committee here along with the other documents that were submitted, and I want to read real quickly from those transcript. This is Ms. Dougherty. `Mr. Chairman, with your permission, Gil Pastoriza, so that we can do the Miami Herald site plan, if it's OK with you." Mr. Pastoriza, "They just went off -- want to go. She can go first." The Chair says that's fine. Ultimately, there's the discussion between staff. Ms. Dougherty says, "In all of our presentations, just by the way -- all of our presentations to the city, we've done them together, because they are sort of companion items, although they are two Major Use Special Permits, two different projects, but in order to make it not disjointed, you may want us to actually present the entire site to you together, because it's the entire waterfront, although two projects. If you'd like us to do that and make one presentation." The upshot is -- and I can read more, but I don't need to -- that they presented one project to the Shoreline Review Committee and one -- they presented two projects at the same time, Parcel 1 and Parcel 3, and they did it simultaneously because it looks better when you see the whole project from end -to -end, but only one vote was taken, and this is akin to, basically, you taking these three items together and having one vote. It's void altogether. They didn't take a vote on Parcel 3. Therefore, they did not get Shoreline review. It was done improperly. You, as a city, are required to make sure that these developments on shoreline go through the Shore Committee, and they're -- make sure that they were approved properly. I'm giving you evidence -- and counsel, I could give you a copy of the transcripts, if you'd like to see it -- that it's clear that these projects never received the review -- the Parcel 3 never received a proper vote, and let me just point out how that came about. What I'm going to show you is what they presented in, again, two separate applications. These were Parcel 3 and Parcel 1, but as you can see from the transcripts, counsel came up and said, you know, it makes more sense, it's more expedient to do both these at the same time, so in each application -- again, you can see it says Parcel 3 -- they had the same map, and it shows the Parcel 3 tower, the printing press, this beautiful, you know, view corridor, the Parcel 1 tower, and then the 16-foot baywalk. Of course, the -- that's what the County looked at; that's what the committee looked at, and said, yeah, OK. We're going to give you the exception, instead of having a 75-foot setback. We like all this. This is great, especially the view corridor, but what you're really looking at is the fact that all of this is gone. They need to evaluate this independently. Would the Shoreline Committee have said, well, you've got the Herald building here, and you're just offering us this; is that acceptable? Would they have passed? I mean, not looking at the fact that they didn't even vote on it, it makes you wonder whether or not they would have considered it differently, so that needs to be put in the record, and I have those documents that I'm going to place in the record, as well, so I think that's, essentially, a fatal flaw in this application; that if you go forward on this, it hasn't received Shoreline review. The -- on another issue with regard to the essential requirements of the law, the Herald building office and printing press, as exist today, is a legal nonconforming structure, according to Article 11 of the Code of Ordinance. Approval of the FL UM (Future Land Use Map) sets in place a series of documents -- and this is addressed in page 1 through 15 of your report that I've given you -- approval of this sets in place a situation where Parcel 3 -- the entire TractA has to be subdivided. Your staff has said that; it has to be replatted, so what's going to happen is, when you approve the FL UM, assuming you approve the zoning, and then you approve the development, they're going to have to go through replatting. In order to do that, they're taking away a little over an acre of property from what's already existing. There are three thing -- four things that are really critical to this in terms of how the building sits on TractA. The first one has to do with the floor area ratio. The other -- the next one has to do with the footprint. The floor area ratio can only be 1.72 percent of the gross lot area. The footprint can only be 60 percent of the gross lot area. The building, under C-2, requires ten percent green space, and then, finally, for parking, it requires approximately one space per thousand feet. According to the survey submitted, Parcel 1 and 3, the gross lot area of TractA is 406, 000. Essentially -- and I'll cut to the chase on this -- what's going to happen is that the building right now is meeting FAR, but by the data itself when you take away that one lot and you multiply it City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 by now the new gross lot area, it does not meet the existing Zoning Code, so it becomes more nonconforming. Secondarily, the green space. There's hardly any green space out there already. I mean, there's maybe less grass on that whole property than at my house. They don't meet the green space requirement, which is ten percent. If you multiply that, that's almost an acre, 40,000 square feet of green space. When they remove the parking lot, they're going to further aggravate that nonconforming use, and then, finally, with regard to the parking and with regard to the footprint, I think it's pretty obvious that the footprint on this property is gigantic, and so, if you take away a one -acre parcel from that, the footprint requirements, which is maximum 60 percent, is going to become further aggravated. What want to point out to you, though, is that these things have not been looked at, and in fact, your Article 11 says precisely that things that are nonconforming, the policy is that these things eventually disappear. You don't want buildings that are nonconforming. The Herald building was built in 1963. Your new zoning ordinance was adopted in 1990. It is a legal -- right now, a legal nonconforming use, but your Code say that you can't further aggravate the nonconforming uses. If it has to be replatted -- and your staff has already said that -- it's going to further aggravate the nonconforming use, which means that it doesn't meet certain aspects of your Zoning Code; the parking, the green space, the footprint, et cetera. The Code also says in Article 11 that there shall be no variances for this. It says that explicitly. It says no variances, so what's going to happen is, when you go to replat this property, then they're going to say, well, you've got to get a variance because you're not meeting any of these other things. When you get variances, they have to meet hardship. Your -- the definition of hardship cannot be from the applicant himself, it cannot be caused by the property owner. This was recently decided in Auerbach versus the City, on the Onyx II project. The district court very succinctly shot it down and said you cannot cause these hardships, they have to be peculiar to the land, so what you're doing today is setting up a situation where you're ultimately going to need variances. The Herald building is also putting itself at risk because if 50 percent of it ever gets destroyed, then it cannot be rebuilt, and that, we think, is a very important issue. Portable [sic] water is a very important issue in this case. Your Land Use Policy 1.1.1 and your Capital Improvements Policy 1.2.3 say that you have to have available portable [sic] water. What happens in the city is that they assume there's water available because it's provided by the county, and you see that in your concurrency report that basically it says that we're assuming that availability and facilities are there. I'm going to put into the record a memorandum from the State to the County, which ultimately -- I'm going to put this in as Exhibit 7 -- and this is back in February of 2006, which is telling the County we reject your land use amendments -- I think it was about 17 of them -- because water isn't available, and so if you have a situation where you know that there are going to be 600 new units, that's a lot of toilets flushing, a lot of showers, a lot of everything that requires portable water, and you know -- and staff knows this because I've given it to them before -- that there's a portable water issue, and then you multiply that by all of the other projects that are being developed, and just to give you an idea that -- there are an -- look at your large-scale development reports -- the ones that are approved or under construction are going to generate approximately 80,000 new people. I mean, let's face it. You guys are going through a boom here in the City, but every one of those have to have portable water, and a lot of those have land use changes. You have several of them today. All of those -- again, the City is assuming that portable water is available and -- because the County provides it. The County has already been told portable water is a major issue. There's a disconnect here because all of these are small-scale develop -- small-scale land use amendments, which get far less scrutiny in -- with regard to these types of things, so you've got a portable water issue with regard to that. Traffic, very quickly -- actually, I'm going to skip over that because I think our traffic experts are going to address that. I want to address the compatibility issue. For a zoning change, and also in your MUSP approval under 17 and 1305, and Article 22 addresses the zoning change, it precisely says that it has to -- there has to be a consideration of scale and compatibility; that scale -- with regard to light and air issues. You can see by this diagram -- and this is their own diagram that they submitted to Shoreline review. This is the proposed building at 66 stories. The Venetia is at 35 stories, and the City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 printing press is at 12 stories. This is -- maybe 15th Street is a hundred feet across. The scale here is -- with your indulgence, ifI could have about five more minutes, I'd appreciate it. Article 22 and 17 say that the principle here is that the printing -- that it has to be compatible; that there -- your put -- what you're doing is you're putting what's already known as a industrial use, which is the printing press. It has what's called an IW5 Permit from DERM That's an industrial waste permit. You're already seeing that these trucks are coming and going from within the parking lot that's going to be proposed on the development. That's a compatibility issue. You're putting industrial and residential right next to each other. With regard to the scale, Section 22 says you have to consider whether or not the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or that the proposed change has the same or similar impacts on light and air in the adjacent areas. The light and air issue has to do with the buildings being out of scale; that you have buildings right next to each other that are going to effect the light and air. You'll see documents from the neighbors that are putting forward that shadows are going to be cast upon the building. This has been characterized as `you're destroying my view, " but in reality, your law says that you have to consider light and air considerations. Those have not been considered at all, and I'm going to put those diagrams, in smaller scale, here into the record. Finally, your CRA, which Mr. Luft addressed. You adopted your final draft on the Omni area community redevelopment -- excuse me. You didn't adopt it, but the CRA adopt it in January 2006. In it I will concede that it does identify the Herald building and the property as an impedement [sic], a barrier that the zoning should change. However, when you look at the actual graphs on here, the diagrams, none of those diagrams show that this particular property right on Venetian Causeway is being developed or developed with that type of scale. What it talks about is the entire TractA should be developed in a way that's comprehensive, so I think that's very important to understand that, when they talk about the site, the one -acre parcel being addressed in the CRA -- it doesn't address that one -acre parcel. It addresses the whole TractA as being redeveloped. I have to raise this because it's been raised and confusing to me that there was an article recently in the Miami Herald which referred to Mr. Siffin as being one of the purchasers here or whatnot, and I think it's confusing, and it needs to be disclosed, and I'm not saying that there isn't any -- that there's something nefarious going on here, but I think that the issue that he has been involved in some of the meetings and discussions with neighbors -- and I think this can be very easily reconciled if the applicant, after I'm done or after we're done, can come up and say, you know, he is or isn't a principle here because that's a major policy of your application, that there's full disclosure and the public has an opportunity to know who's asking for this. Finally, I want to say in conclusion that at the caucus that we had with the developers on Sunday, October 29 -- and I wasn't able to attend. My mom had her 75th birthday, and I called in from the phone. Ultimately, what we talked about -- what I presented was that if you are going to develop this one acre and separate this, then look at a building that is setback 75 feet, reconfigure it in a way that is more to scale, more compatible with the printing press. They took my e-mail (electronic mail). We gave them a follow-up. The neighbors gave them a follow-up e-mail. I never received anything in return, and at that point, you know, there really wasn't any adjustments other than what they're saying is flipping the building around, and I think that had more to do with their discussions with the neighbors on the Venetian Causeway, so again, I'll reiterate, I think that our position -- I know our position -- my client's position is that this tract needs to stay together; that when and where the Herald building is ready to go, hopefully, they'll go into one of our empowerment zones or one of our enterprise zones, offer jobs in neighborhoods where they really need it, and then take this property on collectively and do a really good development; put up a really nice boardwalk, the kinds of things that need to be done collectively. If you approve this land use, and ultimately, this development, you're just getting a little piece of something, and you're designing it around a printing press that shouldn't be there at some point, and so what I'm -- what I think and what I think the developers have done is a really good job. They've gotten a lot out of all of this property, the ten acres. They've gotten a lot of approvals, and what they're asking for on a one -acre parcel, I think, is going overboard. It's like putting a size 14 foot into a 10 shoe. It just doesn't fit, and there's a City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 reason that it doesn't fit, and I think what ought to happen at this point is that the developer just back off. We've never said no development, but bring a different building to the table. This is being characterized as a "down planning. " I don't see how that can be down planning because they're really up -zoning it to get more development on it. When they refer to 5,000 units, they're referring to the whole ten acres. They're not referring to the one -acre site, so I think that's disingenuous to say that. The 30-foot setback, that's the 30-foot setback under the porch. I'll call it the porch. Basically, they're putting a porch on, and that setback's to the porch, not to the building, and with that, I will just allow -- I will have Mr. Spaet and the neighbors come up, and I think that they have a presentation to make. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: They have two minutes each. Mr. Dickman: Pardon me? Chairman Gonzalez: They have two minutes each. Mr. Dickman: Two minutes each, OK. Chairman Gonzalez: They will have two minutes each. Hal Spaet: My name is Hal Spaet: I'm at 555 Northeast 15th Street. I was going to introduce the traffic consultants for them to give their report, if that's OK. The -- Chairman Gonzalez: I thought that was going to be part of your presentation of the -- counsel presentation. Mr. Dickman: The traffic engineers have been hired by the neighbors because they're concerned about traffic. My client has been coordinating with -- you know, with this group, but I have to disclose that I'm repre -- I'm representing one person that hired me directly. The traffic engineers are people that I've been coordinating with, but I didn't hire them, but they're here on behalf of the neighbors. Mr. Spaet: So I'd like -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Spaet: -- to introduce you to -- Commissioner Haskins: Can I say something here? I just want you to understand, Hal. When this thing was first heard, the traffic was raised as an issue. We gave time for you to bring a traffic consultant and then it turned into something terrible waiting for somebody to talk about a traffic consultant, so in -- to be fair to the rest of the Commissioners, OK, and to be fair to me -- because I think I've done a lot to try to hear the community's concerns. If you had more than one expert to stand up against this project, Commissioner Gonzalez -- the Chairman said in the beginning there's going to be equal amount of time from the experts from each side, and you've just used up, in the presentation for Mr. Dickman, all 23 minutes, plus -- Chairman Gonzalez: Plus five minutes extra. Commissioner Haskins: -- five minutes extra -- Mr. Spaet: Well -- Commissioner Haskins: Plus five minutes extra. City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Mr. Spaet: -- I understand. We have hired these traffic -- Commissioner Haskins: -- and then -- Mr. Spaet: -- consultants and -- Commissioner Haskins: Well, you know what? We -- the rules were set out by the Chairman ahead of time, and I just don't think this is right. I feel like I've done everything that I can to be supportive. Would you agree? I've done everything that I can to be -- Mr. Spaet: Yes. Commissioner Haskins: OK. I've bent over backwards with special meetings. This Commission has stayed late, and you -- again, I'm in a position of asking my fellow Commissioners to do a favor for me, so how long is this presentation going to last? Elio Espino: We can do it in five minutes. Mr. Spaet: They can do it in five minutes, and I was going to ask to close. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I'm going to allow the five minutes because, whichever way the vote goes in this issue, I don't want anyone to have an argument that they were not afforded the opportunity to do their presentation and to speak on the item and to oppose to the item or support the item, so once again, for the sake of whatever the vote goes on this, that there isn't any arguments in reference to people being allowed to speak, so you said you need five minutes to do your presentation -- and they had a presentation here on traffic. I remember. You did a presentation on traffic on this project. Mr. Espino: I did do a presentation -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right -- Mr. Espino: -- for Parcel -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- and I remember that -- Mr. Espino: -- City Square. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you couldn't get your computer to work, and I gave you extra time and Mr. Espino: That's correct -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- so go ahead. I hope you're ready to go, right? Mr. Espino: -- but it was not for this issue. Chairman Gonzalez: Whatever. You're ready to go? Mr. Espino: Yes. I'm ready to go. City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Go. Mr. Espino: Elio Espino. I'm a senior transportation engineer with Advanced Transportation Engineering Consultants, 12905 Bird Road, Miami, Florida. Basically, we were retained by the Venetian residents to look at the traffic impacts of the Parcel 3 of the proposed developer. Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Clerk -- I'm sorry -- the clock is not working? Ms. Thompson: Now. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, now it is. Go ahead, sir. I'm sorry. Mr. Espino: OK, so like I said, I'll briefly go over the presentation. The area -- basically, it's a very confined area. To the north, we have 15 Street, to the west, we have Biscayne Boulevard, and you can -- I'm sorry -- see here that the proposed site is just across from the Venetian Condominium. In addition, you can see that it's right at the beginning of the Venetian Causeway, so you can see the whole area is very constrained to -- the road widths are very -- the whole are is very constrained. The road widths are narrow, and there's very little opportunity for additional increase or capacity. Also, another point that I wanted to highlight is that the intensity of development in this area, we basically documented at least 13 projects in a very short distance which are having a significant impact on this area. If you could see here, we did a trip generation of all these projects, and this is close to 5,000 new trips that will be using those roads, especially the section on Biscayne and 15 Street. One additional point is that this trip generation is based on the assumption that about 14 percent of the traffic will be using transit; then 10 percent of the traffic will be pedestrian traffic, which we do not agree with. However, we did, for consistency sake, use the same number, so the numbers that you will see, even though show a significant traffic congestion, do not even begin to address the amount of traffic that we expect in this area. This is the existing conditions, and as you can see here, in the future condition, almost every single intersection in this area, such as Northeast 15 Street, Northeast 13 Street, will be operating a level of service "F." Your Comprehensive Plan calls for a level service standard of "E, " so a level of service "F" does not meet that standard. This is the same type of information. This is just to show you that we have taken all the data available and plug it into a traffic simulation program, and you can see the amount of congestion, especially on 15 Street. We are very concerned with the impacts to the residents of the Venetia; how they were going to be able to access their property, be able to ingress and egress with the amount of traffic that these projects are going to generate. I'm trying to go to the next -- In short, the impacts are significant, and all the intersections within the study area were going to a level of service "F," and in addition to that, we expect an increase in traffic, especially on 15 Street, of about 513 additional vehicles, and as you saw in the simulation, it will be very, very difficult for residents on 15 Street to be able to access their property during peak times because of the amount of traffic trying to use 15 Street. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Does that conclude your presentation? Mr. Espino: Yes, it does. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Thompson: Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Number of minutes? City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Two minutes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Spaet: In closing, I just wanted to say this speaks for itself. We're just residents, just citizens here who used Chapter 1100 to attempt to object to this process. You know, these are the reasons that we've said. We went to the Planning Advisory Board, where we won. It's true that was a technical win, which you eliminated that concept later, but the Zoning Board denial was an outright win. That wasn't a technical at all. As far as the two final issues I wanted to talk about that concern us as residents, you know, having gone through the process, having done those things that residents should do when they object to it, we came in contact -- the reason we're here today is because we're those people that went to those CRA hearings for the past -- for 17 years. We're the people that heard all those consultants and plans that cost the taxpayers $720, 000. The CRA plan is not going to be used in this area, and the obvious reason is because this area has been built out, so all of that money is as if it did not exist. All of that 16 years, all the time we all wasted going to meetings, it doesn't matter. Then we come to Miami 21, and I took the time to speak with the director ofMiami 21 and to read it. The Mayor was right. It's an absolutely fantastic program that was scheduled to go on at the third quarter, you know, of this year. For some reason, it didn't. For some reason, all of this property and -- all of this property was rezoned. People were permitted construction there, so whatever plans - - and I talked to the director ofMiami 20 [sic], who told me the two reasons for Miami 21 is, one, to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods, and second, to build out downtown in a 21 st century concept, in a 21 st century way. There are other people here who are going to speak, who I'm sure would give me a minute. I would just like to finish. It has been seven months for us, and you know, what bothers us the most is this wonderful Miami 21 plan. The whole concept really was best going to be used in this area right here. It's gone. This area is gone. The whole eastern quadrant, the thing we opened -- we -- opening we went to in early June for the eastern quadrant with posters all over the wall, is gone. There's only one property left for Miami 21 to do anything with, and that's the Herald property here, so doing this on this parking lot, building a building 64 stories tall on a one -acre parking lot, they -- effectively takes out of use the entire Herald property. You know, the entire future of the Herald property is clouded now if this change takes place, and Andrew very well presented our objection to the limitation of air and of water, the limitation of the view of air -- the view of the sky, and that's really -- the bottom line is the traffic report. The traffic report basically rating those intersections at an "F" and those roads at an "F" makes traffic movement in there impossible, impairing the Omni, impairing the City Square project, maybe even injuring the Performing Arts Center, so I just want to say, in closing, that I urge you to deny this application and allow the Herald to develop the way the CRA intended it to, the way Miami 21 depended [sic] it to, as -- in Miami 21, with the incentives there. All the kinds of -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Spaet: -- open space -- Chairman Gonzalez: I think -- Mr. Spaet: -- area could be visible, could be usable by all the community -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Spaet: -- and that's what Miami 21 is about. City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you -- Mr. Spaet: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: -- very much. Anyone else from the public that wants to speak on the item? Unidentified Speaker: Who would like to? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Come forward, please. We need your name and address for the record. Sharon Dodge: My name is Sharon Dodge. I am a two-year owner in this area at 555 Venetia, on 15th Avenue, and I want to say that I am now also a business owner, who has brought two businesses to this area. I have offices on the commercial floor of the Venetia, and I am a very concerned resident and member of this community. Last year, my partner and I were quoted in the New York Times, aglow with the promise of the Miami that we have adopted, a Miami we are bringing commerce, technology, and jobs to, and I'm very concerned at seeing that the effort and the vision that has gone into Miami 21 is being hastily pushed aside for development where we are not a group of people feeling we are happy or unhappy. I agree with you that, in the public, there is every measure of sentiment and emotion, particularly, about issues that come very close to us, where we live, where we work. I am not happy or unhappy. I am concerned very deeply about the issues that you have heard today -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Dodge: -- and I beg you to deny this request from our opponents. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? Nina West: Good afternoon. My name is Nina West, 3690 Avocado Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm here on behalf ofMiami Neighborhoods United, Parks and Open Space Committee. The first thing I wanted to do is to thank Commissioner Haskins and commend her because we have been asking at Miami Neighborhoods United and before that for dedicated easements on these baywalks, and we've had many baywalks swapped for property, but none of them have been guaranteed to us, and they have often been closed, so I want to thank her specifically for bringing this attention to the rest of the Commission and to following through on it. The second thing I want to say is on behalf of the Parks and Open Space Committee. We have supported the Omni plan for the Herald property. We would support any kind of building that would support the type of baywalk and open site line and that kind of thing. That was proposed by the Omni CRA before it was changed in January. We would support 75 feet, as the County requires, if you approve this (UNINTELLIGIBLE) building, but we would not support it as it stands now because we believe there is an economic benefit, a social benefit, a benefit for tourism in keeping what little of our bay wide and available. If you go up to New York City and look on the west side, where the West Side Highway was, you have an enormous outdoor riverwalk, and it goes back 150 feet, and that was done because one little lady badgered the city for 29 years, and sometimes she had help and sometimes she didn't, so we really believe, if we try very hard, we can enlist the assistance of our elected officials to save what is very important to Miami as a whole. This has nothing to do with the building. This has nothing to do with the neighbors. This has to do with the parks and the open space and the overall view of the city. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you -- City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Ms. West: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: -- very much. Anyone else? Laura Pellegrini: Hi. Laura Pellegrini, 3101 Indian Creek Drive. I'm a supporter of this project. I believe it will definitely start to revitalize the downtown core. Miami needs to revitalize their downtown core. I'm no traffic expert, but go to any big city and there's traffic. Maybe start thinking about improving transit. Again, you know, I think this project will bring a lot to the city in revitalizing it, and I'm a supporter. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Barbara Bisno: Yes. My name is Barbara Bisno. I'm president of the Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance, and I appreciate this opportunity to make a short statement. Ms. Dougherty accurately reflected the results of many meetings between our alliance and also the Venetian Island Homeowners Association. Matt Leibowitz had a doctor's appointment and had to leave, and so I'm representing them as well, and we were quite satisfied with the changes in the design of the building and the opening up of the loggia and the increased baywalk. I, again, would like to echo Ms. West's thank you to you, Ms. -- Commissioner Haskins because part of our agreement was that the developer would ask the City for an easement so that the area would stay open always, and so we wholeheartedly endorse that and grateful for your requesting it this morning -- or this afternoon now. We're worried about the traffic too. We feel that their particular decision to not allow vehicular entrance and exit out of their building is the best this building could do in terms of diminishing the pressure on 15th Street and the -- with signage to go south on Herald plaza to 14th Street and so on. We don't -- so we do no longer oppose this project, and we appreciate the time. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. Andres Asion: Hello. Andres Asion, 265 Palm Avenue, Palm Island, Miami Beach, born and raised and continue to live in this area, and I think that -- I keep on hearing the traffic situation, the traffic situation, and I don't think the solution to the traffic situation is also to stop growth of the city. We are one of the top four cities in the United States next to Vegas, in my opinion, New York, and L.A. (Los Angeles), and we're seen as a huge, growing city throughout the world, and we need to continue to expand and grow our downtown and our center core. It was amazing to be a part of the whole entire Performing Arts Center opening, and seeing everybody go and show up and enjoy and take pride of the downtown, which hasn't been done since ever. I mean -- and now, here comes a developer who's wanting to invest and continue to invest in that core of the City and make it -- and beautify it, and have the ability to have more people be able to live and be able to walk downstairs to the Performing Arts Center and to the parks and to all these things, and this ability that we're being offered by somebody going in there and building such a beautiful building is something that we should all, you know, cherish and work on, versus just say let's stop building because of the traffic situation. We just have to work on the traffic situation, but not building is not -- definitely not the solution, so I'm definitely in favor of the project. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? Josh Markin: Josh Markin, 19110 Southwest 89th Avenue. I'm here today in support of the City Square project. My wife and I are both fans of the arts. We are happy about the opening of the Performing Arts Center, and we look forward to the opportunities that having a nightlife and having a downtown restaurant location and things to do will afford us, so I definitely support the project. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes. Yes, sir. Manuel Alonso Poch: Manuel Alonso Poch, 3138 Commodore Plaza, Coconut Grove, Florida. I'm here as a resident and a taxpayer of the City ofMiami. I also direct the Arts & Minds Center, where the Arts & Minds High School in Coconut Grove is located. I'm here to support the project. There's a number of reasons why I think the project be supported. The most compelling is that a project such as this will significantly enhance the tax base of the City of Miami, and bringing more revenue to the City will help you, as our City leaders, to curb the burden of real estate taxes that we are all undergoing at this time. Real estate taxes have become a burden, as opposed to a civic obligation. You hear numbers of people that have to sell their homes because they can't afford the taxes anymore, and a project such as this will bring more revenue to the City that will, hopefully, help you to keep those real estate taxes in check. It will also enhance, I think, the ability of the City to increase the capital improvement projects that you can do with a enhanced tax base. Also, I think that another reason is that the City will be very much helped by the ability of -- to -- your ability to improve roads, parks, and that kind of project. For those reasons, I support the project. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Mary Thorp: I'm Mary Thorp, 510 Daroco Avenue, Coral Gables, and I think we're all here because we love Miami and we want to see it grow, and we want it to be the best city that it can be, and as you are in that part of downtown Miami, it looks pretty rundown. It looks dirty. The scene is pretty derelict, very derelict, and I think I told you the last time about my first experience in downtown Miami; it was very scary. Well, that still influences me. The book fair's coming to downtown Miami, and there's no way I'm thinking of going, not until it's safer. Performing Arts Center, the brochure came out and it said, you can walk to the Metrorail. Well, that's really not too safe for people to be walking from Performing Arts building to the Metro, so I think one of the best things about this project, it's going to change downtown. It's going to bring new growth, new vitality, new investments. You'll have people walking around. You'll have new restaurants. It will change the whole flavor of the area, and I think the big thing you have to think about is, OK, would you rather see the scene as it is now with people passed out in alleys and lying against the buildings, or would you like to see it as a vital place, with people just strolling around having the best time in their lives? Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Cruz. Mariano Cruz: Yeah. Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26 Street; been a resident of the City since 1962. I remember when I didn't have to go to Pembroke Lakes or to Dadeland to buy anything because I could go right there, that neighborhood, you got Jordan Marsh, you got Sears, you got Jefferson. We even had a theater, Mayfair Theater; restaurant (UNINTELLIGIBLE), a lot of things were around there. Maybe now -- well, now, yeah, we're getting something already at the Midtown. I already been at Target there. You know, I don't have to travel to North Miami. It's important because that means that we spending the money in the City. I would like to say I am for development if that development -- also if it set aside some affordable housing, workforce housing, all that because you have to keep -- it's not just gentrification; to hell with the poor people. No, put them in the middle of the bay. No, no, no. You got to keep -- everybody is entitled to live. It's there -- no -- the pursuit of happiness. It's not say the pursuit of happiness if you make a million dollars a year. Pursuit of happiness, period, and that's whatl am for. Let's see what will happen there, and do the Omni development too and do all that. Let's see. I won't have to travel that far to buy something. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next. Yes, ma'am. City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Maria Dolores Carrillo: Hi. Chairman Gonzalez: Hi. Ms. Carrillo: My name is Maria Dolores Carrillo, and I live at 555 Northeast 15 Street, and the lady that just spoke a minute ago made me think about the time I spend walking in the neighborhood. The first time I walked in this neighborhood was in 1961 when, at the age of seven, my cousins took my family, who had just arrived from Cuba, to show us the best part of Miami, and it was the Sears building and the beautiful palms on Biscayne Boulevard. Now I am a senior resident of the community, and I have relocated to this part of town. I've lived in the Grove. I've live in downtown Brickell area. I've lived on the Beach. I've lived in many of the neighborhoods in this city that have been revitalized. Many of my former homes have been taken down, in the name of progress, and large buildings put in their place. Now I walk the neighborhood many times a day. I have two little poodles, and I feel very safe walking there, and believe me, I am a very paranoid person, so I'm always looking around me because I grew up in New York part of the time. I am concerned not about having a development there, but about the scale of this development. I am all for progress. I want our city to be strong and to grow, and I want to be able to have plenty of money to keep a clean street and to have proper roads and lighting, but I don't believe that we should just, in the name of progress, approve every plan that comes through. We are in a very special time where we have many people interested in coming to our city and spending their money on development, so we need to be measured and look at what is available and what is right for our people, not just for right now, but in long term. To put a building this tall in this space, like this gentleman said earlier, a size 14 foot in a size 10 shoe. Please consider a smaller, more reasonable building in this space that will be in keeping with our community. Thank you very much for your efforts. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Patty Mayor: Patty Mayor, 555 Northeast 15 Street. When all the people stand up and say they approve of the project, the project is defined as ten acres. There are two towers by the boulevard shops. We all love that project. There's no opposition to the other projects. The Martins have been approved 600 Biscayne Boulevard. They've been approved 900 Biscayne Boulevard. They've been approved the Quantum. They've been approved the two towers by the boulevard shops. They've been approved the City Square Retail, almost 700,000 square feet of retail. The only objection is to the waterfront, the scale. We've been very reasonable. We've asked for setbacks. Size matters in this case at this particular parcel. No one is against the projects, as defined as a whole. It's one parcel that we're actually considering here, and that's it. Seven months, and it's up to you; five people for the whole city of downtown on the water, the shoreline. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Mayor: Thank you. Virginia Rosen: I'm Virginia Rosen. I live at 1717 North Bayshore Drive, which is the Grand building, which means that I look at this property, and I have been looking at it since 1989, and I had been anticipating that there would be development there some time in the future, and I'm happy that development is coming, and I think the important thing, though, is whether this particular building that's being put there now is the right development, and I don't see how anybody who's being honest with themselves can say this is the right development for this property. This is not about a size 10 shoe in a -- a size 10 foot in a size 14, the other way around. This is a size 5. This is one acre. This is the size of a buildable lot in Pinecrest. This is the size of a buildable lot in Pinecrest. That's what you're talking about. You're not talking about some huge property that we're talking about, and what you do here today is going to City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 color, for the balance of my lifetime, and most likely, all of yours, what happens with that property, and as the attorney said, they are coming here with a request. They are requesting to be able to do something, a project on that one acre that is unreasonable. It is your right and it is your responsibility to the public to answer that request with a resounding "no." Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Time to -- for rebuttal. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. I'd like first, Kerri Barsh, who is the chairman in the Environmental Department of Greenberg Traurig, to address the issues of the environmental in Phase II. Kerri Barsh: Good afternoon. As Lucia said, I'm her partner, and I -- my expertise is in environmental area, so I just will be brief. There was a prior statement regarding the environmental condition of the property and whether it would be -- result in a favorable impact. We previously introduced about six to eight inches of environmental reports. Those reports were presented in the case in chief and those reports are public records that reflect the degree of assessment work and impact assessment that's occurred on the site over the last 15 to 18 months. Those reports also reflect the extent that there's been some cleanup that's taken place on the property and will continue to occur in the future, so the answer to the environmental issue is that, in fact, it has been assessed, and there will be a favorable impact because there's already been cleanup that's occurred based on the existing conditions, and there will be additional to address any environmental issues that arise. It's required. We're in the process right now before DERM, and we're available to answer any other questions that this board may have. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Regarding the coastal zone, we did get approval from the Shoreline Review Committee, and it's interesting that Mr. Dickman would say that it was all one project, and furthermore, that they didn't take two votes, since I have two resolutions, one for each of the projects, including one for the Herald building, which was denied, and a separate one for this building, so I'm not sure what he was talking about in respect to that. Miami 21, I think you'd have to ask your staff but from all that Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk has been saying is all that she is doing is taking the existing zoning and translating it to a new transect. She has made no independent analysis of this particular site as what its zoning ought to be. The Herald building is not a legal nonconforming use. It is a conforming use. The use that is there currently today is conforming to the zoning that is there today. Replatting it will not change that legal nonconforming use. In terms of whether or not FAR will comply, footprint, green space, parking, all of that can be addressed at the time of platting, and furthermore, there is lots of ways to address it. We've got ample property that we could do a covenant in lieu, either on this site or the Herald site itself or during that analysis, we'll determine whether or not the FAR is there. He's taken a tax assessor's property note and says that's what the FAR is for the Herald building, but that's not true because you have to discount or take out parking, other kinds of mechanical equipment, all the bathrooms; all that does not count towards FAR, so that kind of analysis has to be done, and it'll be done at the time of platting. The scale and compatibility. The compatibility -- he says that residential is not compatible with a printing press. Well, the current zoning allows residential. C-2 allows residential at 150 units per acre. Actually, in this site, it allows 500 units per acre in a C-2, so right now, the current zoning allows it, so it's compatible, and the zoning allowing residential is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the current zoning. In terms of scale, immediately adjacent to this property is CBD. The Plaza Venetia are in the highest and most intense zoning classification there is in the City. Immediately north of it, 160 feet away, is the Grand. The Grand and the -- excuse me, the Marriott. The Marriott is exactly the same distance away from it on the north as this property City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 is on the south, so there is the same distance between the buildings as there was in the first place. Mr. Siffin is -- has no interest in this site. He will not have any interest in the future. There is a joint venture partnership with Mr. Siffin for the development of the retail site. In terms of the -- in terms of whether or not we've done anything to address the Plaza Venetia issue, I want you to know that none of the concessions that we've made for the Venetian Causeway people included champering [sic] the building. That is the only reason we've done this, to our detriment because this is where our pool deck was, was to open up the vistas. Now if you took 30 floors off of our building, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of the size or the view corridors to the Plaza Venetia, but champering [sic] this building really does mitigate our project, vis-a-vis, the property to the north, so we've addressed the issues as best we can. We believe that we've done a good job of turning -- of trying to address the issues. This is, after all, in your downtown DRI. This is downtown Miami. This is not in the suburbs. We are adjacent to CBD, and your current redevelopment plan -- not your Miami 21, but the current redevelopment plan shows this property as high -density mixed -use development with a point -- with a 6.0 to a 10.0 FAR, and this is consistent with that. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Haskins. Commissioner Haskins: I do have some questions here. Miami 21 -- Orlando, hi. On Miami 21, my understanding was Miami 21, that the transects that were going to be proposed -- I'm not sure if Ann [sic] Gelabert is here, as well -- my understanding of the transects that were going to be -- being proposed in Miami 21 were consistent with existing -- for the most part, were going to be consistent with existing plans in the City, and we have an existing plan proposed for the CRA, which shows this as an SD-6.1 parcel. Why is there an inconsistency between what's showing on the Miami 21 Web site and here, and the CRA plan? Ana Gelabert: Ana Gelabert, Planning director. The translation that you see on some of the Miami 21 in some areas is the direct translation on when they've calibrator the existing zoning to the transect, so in this case, it's C-2, so what they did was the C-2 translated into the T zone. It wasn't -- Commissioner Haskins: So -- Gelabert: -- done with the SD-6. Commissioner Haskins: -- in this particular instance, we made a mistake by not looking at the existing CRA plan, which has gone through a public process? Ms. Gelabert: I -- well, I would not call that a mistake. What we're -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Gelabert: -- doing is trying to recalibrate. What is consistent with the Miami 21 is that the area contemplates a high -density mixed -use area on the -- Commissioner Haskins: Right. Ms. Gelabert: -- Ts, which is what it is. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Gelabert: As you know, we are -- some areas are still need some of the tweaking, so in -- Commissioner Haskins: And this is -- City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Ms. Gelabert: -- this case, when it -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Gelabert: -- changes, then the plan that would eventually soon -- Commissioner Haskins: Right. Ms. Gelabert: -- will go out to the public, it will represent the existing zoning. Commissioner Haskins: Because I'm confused 'cause all of the discussions that we've had on Miami 21 -- Ms. Gelabert: Yes. Commissioner Haskins: -- and we're talking about what transect we have here and there. All the high -density transects were in this area, in this particular area -- Ms. Gelabert: Yes. Yes, they -- Commissioner Haskins: -- and so when Mr. Dickman raised the issue ofMiami 21, I called it up on my computer. I do see that it's got a T6-8 on the Miami 21, but that -- on this Web site, but it's totally inconsistent with any discussions we've had. Ms. Gelabert: What it is on that particular is just the literal translation from the existing C-2 into the transect -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Gelabert: -- but the Miami 21 envisions the mixed -use high -density. It's just -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Gelabert: -- like I said, it is not the SD-6; it's what -- Commissioner Haskins: Which would be -- Ms. Gelabert: -- presently has. Commissioner Haskins: -- the T6-36 in -- Ms. Gelabert: Yeah. Commissioner Haskins: -- Miami 21? Ms. Gelabert: Is what it would be around the area, and you have the map -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Gelabert: -- in front of you (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Haskins: T6-36 -- City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Ms. Gelabert: Yeah, so that's the area that it would -- Commissioner Haskins: -- is what the rest of it is. Ms. Gelabert: Precisely. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Dougherty: Madam Commissioner, I forgot to put our traffic engineer on. If any of you have any questions about the traffic, he is here and available to answer or rebut any of the issues. Commissioner Haskins: Well, I don't think there's a rebuttal. I just wanted to make sure -- in the last meeting, we had an issue with whether 14th Street was going to open, and it -- and I understood, from the last item, that it is going to be open -- Ms. Dougherty: It is going to remain open. Commissioner Haskins: -- and we are sticking with the conditions that there are certain number of times a year that it -- Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Haskins: -- could be closed -- Ms. Dougherty: That was my -- Commissioner Haskins: -- with -- Ms. Dougherty: -- mistake at the last -- Commissioner Haskins: -- Commission approval. Ms. Dougherty: -- meeting, and I apologize. Commissioner Haskins: OK, good. That's good. Then, had the neighborhood had a chance to look at this design where the building is chamfered in a different direction? Was that part of the discussion? OK. You had seen that? Mr. Spaet: We have seen it. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Would you refresh my memory on what the setback, where the loggia is, because it was clear on the presentation it was a loggia, not an open walkway along Venetian, and what the setback from the waterway is for the baywalk and the plaza? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. I'm going to have Steve Lefton walk you through that. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: Again, Steve Lefton. This dash line is a loggia. Loggia, in fact, itself is not straight. You can see how it -- or the overhang, we'll call it the pedestal above, and I'm going to work my way from -- and this is not from -- what I'm going to -- the dimension I'm going to give you are from the back of curb to the property line is 25/6. I don't have -- directly to the loggia, approximately another 8 feet, which takes you to 33 feet at its minimum. Now it's approximately another 5 feet here, so at its minimum, open to the sky, is 33 feet of pedestrian City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 area. That's from the narrowest point. You can see how the curb goes farther out, but again, I'm going to give you the minimum because I think that's appropriate. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: It only gets better from there. The narrowest pedestrian area, 33 feet. Now to the actual face of building -- and this is a consistent dimension that we can always call -- the narrowest point is 57 feet, so effectively, at any given point, you have 20 feet of three -level height that you can walk under in this shaded area. It's a -- that's wider than a normal city street, which is a 50-foot right-of-way, 57 feet of pedestrian area, so that's a, in my mind, great promenade. That's the gateway to this large public gathering space that we hope will be the new beginning of the Venetian and the new beginning of a baywalk that needs to be there, and this is -- this probably gives you the best feel for it. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: The only thing, and this is -- thank you for bringing this up, Lucia -- that penetrates that is obviously the columns -- Commissioner Haskins: Right. Well, you -- Mr. Lefton: -- but the paving -- Commissioner Haskins: -- explained it as a loggia -- Mr. Lefton: Right. Commissioner Haskins: -- because of that, OK. Now the plaza itself the 4,000 square foot plaza, can we go along that corner there? OK, in there, and what are those distances? Mr. Lefton: Well, I'll work -- Commissioner Haskins: To the edge of the build -- Mr. Lefton: -- from here. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: As the building starts coming around -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: -- from the corner of where the steps are that we use to screen this area, this is 83 feet -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: -- and at this dimension going to the bulkhead, it's 63 feet -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Lefton: -- so for more than half of the property, the setback is 63 feet or greater, and obviously, it gets bigger and bigger, effectively, to infinity for what we've said is 57 of the feet, and then we've tried to give some benchmarks every 10 feet or so as we have to meet the existing condition 37 and a half feet and, ultimately, to 22 feet where we connect in where the City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 printing press is -- Commissioner Haskins: OK -- Mr. Lefton: -- which is the -- Commissioner Haskins: -- and what's the narrowest width of the baywalk there? Mr. Lefton: Twenty-two feet. Commissioner Haskins: Twenty-two feet. Do you have a picture of what the baywalk in front of the Miami Herald building looks like right now? Mr. Lefton: Yeah, and this is that -- this is the before and this is -- Commissioner Haskins: What's that -- Mr. Lefton: -- showing at its narrowest point. Commissioner Haskins: -- fence there? Mr. Lefton: Well, this is -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: The small (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Lefton: -- you can't access it. Commissioner Haskins: There's no access whatsoever. Mr. Lefton: Well -- and that's why we took the picture from here, because we can't physically get into that area. Commissioner Haskins: There's no access at all right now? Mr. Lefton: Not without me jumping this fence to take the picture. Commissioner Haskins: So that is solely for the use of Herald employees at this point? Mr. Lefton: I don't know, but as a citizen who parked there and tried to get in, I could not get in. Commissioner Haskins: So we would go from on the baywalk -- in the public right-of-way access, we would go from 65 feet back from the water, accessible to the public -- Mr. Lefton: Yeah. Let me slide this -- Commissioner Haskins: -- with tree canopy, with the narrowest point of the baywalk being exactly what the City requires along its waterfront, is that correct, Orlando? The width of the baywalk in this would -- is what we're requiring on our baywalks? Orlando Toledo (Senior Director): Yes. Commissioner Haskins: OK, but we have 65 feet -- City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Unidentified Speaker: Sixty-three. Commissioner Haskins: -- at the -- much greater than what we're requiring, a plaza area, canopy, and it's open to the public -- Mr. Lefton: The whole thing, up until the door to enter the lobby. Commissioner Haskins: -- and there is no access for trucks to go through there? Mr. Lefton: Absolutely not. There's only one access; it's the same place where cars go in. Commissioner Haskins: OK. All right. Mr. Lefton: For everybody. Commissioner Haskins: How many units are in this building? Ms. Dougherty: Six hundred. Commissioner Haskins: Six hundred, and the C-2 zoning -- Ms. Dougherty: I'm sorry; it's 543, to be exact. Commissioner Haskins: Five hundred and forty-three, and C-2 zoning, right now, would allow five hundred? Ms. Dougherty: Five hundred units per acre. Commissioner Haskins: For this one -acre site? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Per acre, five hundred. Unidentified Speaker: No -- Commissioner Haskins: Five hundred per acre. Unidentified Speaker: -- that's not true. Commissioner Haskins: It -- Ms. Dougherty: It is. Commissioner Haskins: Is that true, Lourdes? Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): Yes. In this particular area, because it's within the Omni area, it is, it's 500 units per acre. Commissioner Haskins: Five hundred units per acre is what it would allow. Yeah, I mean, but Jack, the problem I have with our old master plans is that's how the City got into the mess it got into today, and we've got this anti -development stuff going on, and I'd really like to concentrate on where we are currently, and I know, with the CRA plan, there -- this was -- the CRA plan was -- I wasn't on the Commission then; I was in another role -- but the CRA plan went through City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 significant public processes, and we had some -- we had urban planners working with the CRA board, and the conclusion was that this was going to be -- this was the high -density area, and what I've heard over the last few weeks from everyone is high -density belongs in this area, so now I think that what I see here is we are getting access to a baywalk that we haven't had before. We're getting tree canopy. That would be a condition, right, that they put in all this beautiful canopy that we see here? OK. We're going to get a permanent easement; did you discuss that? Ms. Dougherty: We agree with that. Commissioner Haskins: We would agree with that, so -- and the building would be chamfered so that the sight line from the Venetian and from the Grand would be less impeded than what it would be if it were chamfered the other direction, the other -- if the trapezoid went the other way, so now we're down to the issue of sight lines, of view corridors; that's really where we are. We're down to the issue of view corridors, and I was in -- I've been in apartments in the Venetian and in the Grand; that it's a beautiful view. It's a -- it is just a phenomenal view to be able to be in these places and see everything. Is there -- does the City Zoning Code require us to consider impeding view corridors? Mr. Fernandez: No, it doesn't. Commissioner Haskins: If this were -- is this any different -- we've heard this one parcel, OK -- is this building any different than what was being proposed originally, when it was being looked at as one entire parcel between 1 and 3? Ms. Dougherty: Well, it's different to the extent that we've opened up the bottom to -- Commissioner Haskins: You've opened up the bottom. Ms. Dougherty: Other than that, and -- Commissioner Haskins: But that building is the same height? Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Haskins: The building is the same height -- Ms. Dougherty: Same height, yes. Commissioner Haskins: -- so there's not a difference? Ms. Dougherty: No. Commissioner Haskins: And as we go forward, in my understanding of all the planning that's been done in this area forever and ever is that this is a high -density area; is that right, Lourdes? This is where the density was going to get concentrated. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. This is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan from the '80s and the Omni Redevelopment Plan. Commissioner Haskins: Is this developer delivering more or less than what we would require for public access to the baywalk -- to the bay? Ms. Slazyk: It's more than the minimum code requires. City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Lourdes Slazyk, for the record, right? Ms. Slazyk: Oh, sorry. Lourdes Slazyk. Vice Chairman Sanchez: For the record. Commissioner Haskins: There any other questions? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Haskins: No? Commissioner Regalado: Thank you -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Until Ms. Patty Mayor spoke, I was almost going to be confused, because most of the people that were supporting were talking about nice stores and walking projects, and I remember that I, as other members of the Commission, embrace and supported the shopping center, which has -- the shopping center does have a component of housing, too, right, facing Biscayne Boulevard? And we all supported that because it is what the area need. The last time we heard this on the first reading, I did not support it because I didn't understand it. I still don't, because I still don't know what is the future of the Herald building and the printing press. I don't understand the way that they are hoping to remain or leave. I don't understand. Neither I understand the water access, which will be only for that parcel. The fact of the matter is that this Commission has approved a huge and a spectacular project facing Biscayne Boulevard that will help the redevelopment, and I'm sure that -- and a lot of people that came to support will enjoy that, as well as I hope I do, but I still don't understand why we have to focus now in the small parts of waterfront that still remain in downtown Miami. I -- hopefully, when Miami 22 [sic] is finished, which will be on the 22nd Century, probably, we will know, but you know, last Tuesday, in Miami Beach, 78 percent, I think, of the voters vote for an amendment that nobody look, and it's about 34 small parcels of land that the City own on the waterfront, and Mayor Dermer decided, well, you know, it's about time that people can peek and see the water from Collins and Ocean Drive, and they have on the ballot this question, whether this little, small 34 parcels of land, in between condo buildings owned by the City, should be sold, and the question was if we want to sell it, should we go to a public referendum for each and every one of those little parcels, and the voters said, "Yes, we have to go to a referendum, " you know. Some day the voters of Miami are going to start gathering signatures and put on the ballot, by force, some very strict guidelines that not even Miami 22 [sic] will be able to stop because of the waterfront and downtown property, so the time will come, I'm telling you, because the people throughout the State are rebelling against government, but I still don't understand the future of the building of the Herald, nor understand the corridor. The Herald uses the waterfront to unload the paper for the printing press, right? Ms. Dougherty: No. They use -- they come into the printing press loading area and then leave, but they don't use the waterfront. Chairman Gonzalez: They come in trucks. City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: Oh, I thought -- they come in trucks? Chairman Gonzalez: Trucks. Commissioner Regalado: I thought they used to come in -- Ms. Dougherty: No. Commissioner Regalado: -- barges. Ms. Dougherty: No. Chairman Gonzalez: Trucks, trucks. Unidentified Speaker: Used to. Ms. Slazyk: Used to. Unidentified Speaker: They used to. Commissioner Regalado: No. They used to come in barges. I've seen barges there. I don't -- I still don't understand. I just want to say that I'm -- I love the next -door project. I'm very confused about this project. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Commissioner Haskins: Can I say something? I think that -- hopefully, this'll clear up a little bit of the confusion. On Parcel 1, I wasn't -- I don't -- didn't think we should be considering any land use changes on Parcel 1 because that parcel was not going to be developed, and the -- where the printing building was, that wasn't even part of the deal for the option, so it made no sense to e -- for me to even consider a land use change when that wasn't -- there was no imminent need to do that, so what was left out of that was the retail, the City Square high-rise, and this parcel, which are separate projects and separate MUSPs, and it's a residential project on acreage that -- on one -- on about one acre of land that is being submitted for proposal, submitted for the zoning change, and submitted for the MUSP, and this is one of those that only reason that I would consider this land use change is that it is consistent with the studies, all the plans that were done for the Omni CRA that, to my understanding, were voted on unanimously, and in those plans, there was a firm direction that this was going to be high -density. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll -- I promise to be brief but somebody needs to brief me on what Miami 22 is going to be all about because they threw out Miami 22. Commissioner Regalado: It's Miami 21 when it's finished. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Well, I am very sympathetic to the residents that have been here. For the last seven months, they have exercised their right as concerned citizens, and I respect that, and I know that there's a due process in the entire process that we go through, and at the end of the day, we act as a quasi-judicial judges based on the facts that are determined here and based on the laws and based on the recommendation that we're given by the City Administration, and as we hear the debates and discussion, which I think it's very healthy to City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 discuss these issues, we need to take into consideration several factors here. The zoning laws in the comp plan allow up to 500 units per acre. Miami 21, or 22, or 23, whenever it happens, supports the area as a high-rise area. Ladies and gentlemen, you're living in downtown Miami. If you put a building in downtown Miami, it's compatible. If you put a factory, it is not compatible, but we do need to take into consideration the quality of life. We do need to take into consideration that, at the end of the day, whether we agree or disagree, we're neighbors, and we need to work together sometimes to try to find solutions to the problems, and that's this whole process that we have here. Someone said that a lot of the projects come here and they pass. Well, that's not true, because a lot of these projects come up and they don't get approved by the Commission, or they don't get approved in the process, and by the time -- they don't make it here because they know it's not going to pass, and there's always that art of compromise. You know, whatever happens between the developer and the residents, up to them; that's not up to us, but the process does exist. Now consistent with the study was the key issue that was here, and I was very involved in that study, where our whole focus was to open up the baywalk, because if we do have a vision in the City, whether they criticize it or not, is that there any -- there hasn't been an administration or legislative body that has fought so hard to give back that baywalk to the people and the residents of the City ofMiami, and if you see any new development that's going on, I could guarantee you that you're going to be able to walk behind that development and enjoy the riverwalk or the baywalk, and this is one of the many steps that we're trying to do to connect the entire baywalk, which I am one who has a long-term vision, not just focused on one issue, but if you look at downtown Miami, at one point or another, you're going to be able to cross that bridge and be able to walk down a beautiful baywalk, starting at Miami One, which we spent a lot of money and we got criticized for it, but that's municipal government for you, but now today, a lot of people are enjoying it, and you'll be able to walk all the way to Margaret Pace Park, and hopefully, hopefully, not too long in the future, even further up north along the bay, because the bay really belongs to the people, and the sins of the past, were that we gave that away. Once you give something away -- you know, once you giveth, you cannot taketh, and that's one of the things that we worry about. Now seeing the plan in itself I could tell you this much. Whoever says that it's not going to improve the quality of life in your neighborhood -- well, there's going to be traffic; there's no dispute that. You live in downtown, you're going to have traffic, but you know what? It's going to beautify the area; it's going to allow you to walk out of your apartment now and walk down the baywalk; it's going to be more pleasant, and you know what? When it comes to people calling here and saying, well, you know, it's dirty, the homeless is there, all kinds of complaints, well, what do we do about it? Well, no, let's not do anything about it. Let's just leave it like it is, so you know, the concerned citizens, which I've had an opportunity to hear, have said it very clearly. They welcome development. They welcome improvements to downtown, but let's protect the bay, which is a treasure -- our treasured commodity for us in the city, so having said that, I think, Commissioner, you're prepared to make a motion with conditions? Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Jones [sic], is -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh. Chairman Gonzalez: -- anything you want to --? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, I -- the only thing that I want to add -- I think Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Sanchez has kind of summed up a lot of it. One of my questions was, originally, you know -- the original time that it was presented to us, it kind of created or showed us a project with the Herald not being there, and then the question of not really having an answer around whether or not the building was being sold was kind of misleading. I think, from today's presentation, at least it cleared up that matter by that not even being included in any of this, which made it a lot clearer for me to understand the direction of where we were going with the project. I also want to say -- so that help me clear it City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 up, Commissioner Regalado, because I had the same confusion going on in my head, like, OK, well, what happened to -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no. My confusion was that everyone that came to talk in favor, they talk about the whole project -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- and we were -- we are focus only in one. Everyone, I guess, talk -- one person talk about culture and crossing the street from Biscayne Boulevard to the Performing Art Center [sic] going to a restaurant, so he was referring to the project that we did support, that we approve. The other lady that was complaining that, you know, it was dirty and they had homeless, I think she was talking of what still we have, and we haven't fix -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- not this property, because the Herald does have security, and they don't let homeless -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, actually -- Commissioner Regalado: -- roam around. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- on the vacant lot, it's -- there is homeless. Commissioner Regalado: That was my -- I mean, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- I wasn't confused. I just was -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Well, I was confused, and I'm glad that I got that cleared today, so I have a clear understanding that nothing's happening with that overall Herald building because, again, for me, my concern originally was around the jobs that would be lost in the overall area because of it and not being sure whether or not it -- something was going to happen one way or the other, so I think today, at least, that's cleared up. The other part of this, I want to kind of commend my colleague on the first item which leads to this item on -- you know, focused on the baywalk to sit and hear the neighbors at least happy and them finding a happy medium between both groups to really help expand the baywalk so that it becomes something that everyone can be proud of. I was happy to see that there was at least some kind of happy ending to that particular issue, you know, open -- presently as Commissioner Haskins points out. When I see this photo and I see this fence there, no one's using it at all now. I mean, that's -- and no one's making any attempts to change that, and having a project there now would allow for everyone to at least have the opportunity to utilize or at least enjoy the bay, and last, but not least, I know you know, over the last six months, seven months, I've been complaining over and over again about the vacant lots. I mean, for me, I have issues with vacant lots, period, and I do know this particular lot that is right across the street from your building, and I can say that there're a lot of homeless people and a lot of people hanging out near that lot or behind that lot. That just happens over there, and not having anything on there, to me, creates a even bigger problem, so on my end, at least I've gained a better understanding about what's going to happen with the project, and I feel pretty comfortable with it at this point. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Haskins, are you ready to close? City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: I want all of you to understand, from the Venetian and from the Grand and from the entire Omni area, this is a really tough position. We have -- the City has gone through years of planning processes that have culminated in an Omni plan, a Grand Avenue plan, a this and a that, and everything that was in the Omni plan over the years has been adopted. The people that moved into the Venetian years ago pushed that plan. It was where density was going to be. It included the baywalk at the 22-feet width, or 12-foot width; whatever it is. All of that's been -- all of that is coming to fruition, and I understand the concerns about you've been there; you've been in these buildings for a number of years and what it does to the view; I understand. It's -- I've been in those apartments and I see it, but we haven't had the same reaction to other buildings, and what the traffic is, and -- because we've always said that this is the area where density would be, and that's why Metromover is close by there, and why there's been -- there's a -- the busway there to deal with mass transit issues for that area, because that's always where density was going to be, and I wish -- there would be nothing that would make me happier than to say this whole parcel would have been donated by the Herald to make a beautiful city park, or sold to the City on the cheap for a beautiful city park, but we don't have that option. These are private transactions. You can't say, all of a sudden, to a private property owner you're going to turn this into a park. I wish we had that option, but I think what they've done here -- and what I really feel they've done here is tried everything they can to make public access available to a greater extent than we would even require under our code. They're agreeing to a permanent easement, which has got to be a condition, a permanent easement for these -- because I don't want that taken away. I want to make sure that one of the conditions is the chamfer to -- which ameliorates, to some extent, at least the view corridor to the bay; it doesn't directly to the south from any of these units, but that's for -- actually for PZ.18, right, that one, or PZ.17 has those conditions, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Haskins: So I'm ready to make the motion for the change in zoning to SD-6 point -- Mr. Fernandez: The first one would be -- Ms. Dougherty: The first one. Mr. Fernandez: -- the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Haskins: The amendment to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: The comprehensive plan. Commissioner Haskins: -- the comprehensive -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Haskins: -- plan. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion on -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- PZ.15 and we have a second. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is adopted on second reading, 4/1. PZ.16 06-00383zc ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO "SD-6" CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY ONE HERALD PLAZA (PARCEL 3), MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately One Herald Plaza (Parcel 3) [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner and the McClatchy Company (Publicly Owned) as Successor in Interest FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on May 8, 2006 by a vote of 4-2 by virtue of the fact that Section 62-93 of the City Code City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 requires five (5) favorable votes for the approval of any item before the Zoning Board. See companion File IDs 06-003831u and 06-00383mu. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to SD-6 Central Commercial -Residential District for the proposed Herald Square (Parcel 3) Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado 12865 Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ.15 for minutes referencing item PZ.16. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.16. Commissioner Haskins: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. It's also an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance, 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): Roll call. Andrew Dickman: Mr. Chair? Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/1. City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 PZ.17 06-00383mu RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE HERALD SQUARE - PARCEL 3 PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY ONE HERALD PLAZA, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 649-FOOT, 63-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 495 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 96 HOTEL ROOMS, APPROXIMATELY 3,391 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 601 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. LOCATION: Approximately One Herald Plaza [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner and the McClatchy Company (Publicly Owned) as Successor in Interest FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on May 17, 2006 by a vote of 4-3. See companion File IDs 06-003831u and 06-00383zc. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Herald Square - Parcel 3 project. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-06-0656 Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ.15 for minutes referencing item PZ.17. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.17, that's the -- Andrew Dickman: Mr. Chair -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- Major Use Special Permit. That's where you conditions apply. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, one second. If I could just put in the record to incorporate my comments from my -- the prior -- City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Of course. Mr. Dickman: -- into this? And when you do this other one, I just -- Chairman Gonzalez: Of course. Mr. Dickman: -- want to put that in the record as well. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Your comments have been incorporated in all the items. Mr. Dickman: In all items. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So stated. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. -- before you go, I'd much rather have the applicant proffered into the record the easement. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Lucia Dougherty: We proffer the easement to be issued prior to getting a building permit. We also proffer to change the building configuration to include the loggia as well as the chamfered building, and all of those can be made as conditions and accept these plans as opposed to the ones that were in your package -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: -- and the lack -- Chairman Gonzalez: It's a resolution. Ms. Dougherty: -- of driveways from the property onto 15th. Chairman Gonzalez: It's a resolution. Mr. Fernandez: With con -- yes, Madam Clerk. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Haskins. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Just want to clarify that those conditions, do they modify now your resolution? City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: The MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), they modify the resolution. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.17. It modifies PZ.17. Those are the conditions. Commissioner Haskins: I move with the additional conditions. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." Commissioner Regalado: No. Chairman Gonzalez: Register Commissioner Regalado "no." Vice Chairman Sanchez: As a "no." Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez is going to chair for a while. I'm going to go back to my office; I haven't been feeling too good -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Chair -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I hope you feel better. Take some rest. PZ.18 06-00427mu RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE NIRVANA PROJECT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 680 NORTHEAST 64TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF EIGHT (8) TOTAL BUILDINGS, HAVING THREE (3) NEW AND FIVE (5) EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN, RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 59 FEET, 4 INCHES TO 93 FEET, 10 INCHES, AND FROM A 5-STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO AN 8-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE TO CONSIST OF 538 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 9,278 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 749 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LOCATION: Approximately 680 NE 64th Street [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] City ofMiami Page 90 Printed on 12/14/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2006 APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Sobay Partners, LLC FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to a motion to approve, which failed, constituting a recommendation of denial to City Commission on June 21, 2006 by a vote of 2-4. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Nirvana project. WITHDRAWN City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 12/14/2006