Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBooklet Exhibit F• • • Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:00 AM Verbatim Minutes City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www. ci. miami. fi. us City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Arthur E. Teeie, Jr., Chairman Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Angel Gonzalez, Commissioner District One Johnny L. Winton, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Joe Arriola, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk PLANNING & ZONING • • 03-0415 PZ. 1 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, FOR THE KUBIK AT MORNINGSIDE PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5600-5780 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE PROPOSED AS TWO 14-STORY BUILDINGS WITH TWO DESIGN OPTIONS WITH THE "ALTERNATIVE A" OPTION COMPRISED OF 293 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 41,745 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 422 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; OR THE "ALTERNATIVE B" OPTION WHICH IS COMPRISED OF 293 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 33,046 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 362 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. 03-0415 MUSP Fact Sheet.pdf, 03-0415 MUSP Analysis.PDF, 03-0415 Zoning Map.pdf, 03-0415 Aerial Map.pdf, 03-0415 PAB Resos.PDF. 03-0415 MUSP Application.PDF, 03-0415 Sp Exception Fact Sheet.PDF, 03-0415 Sp Exception Analysis.PDF, 03-0415 ZB Reso.PDF, 03-0415 Sp Exception Application & Supp Docs.PDF, 03-0415 Plans.PDF, 03-0415 Legislation.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit A.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit B - Alt A.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit B - Alt B.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit C - Alt A.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit C - Alt B.PDF, 03-0415 - submittal.pdf, COMM-4-22-4. ppt, 03-0415 - submittals.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Kubik at Morningside Project LOCATION: Approximately 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard APPLICANT(S): Kubik, LLC; Biscayne Premier Investments, Inc and Mark's Classics Corp APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire • • • FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 4-2. Recommended approval with conditions* of the substantial modification to City Commission on April 7, 2004 by a vote of 5-4. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval of special exceptions to City Commission on December 15, 2004 by a vote of 9-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a mixed -use multifamily residential development. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to CONTINUE item PZ.1 to the Commission Meeting currrently scheduled for May 6, 2004, at 6 p.m. Direction to the City Clerk by Chairman Teele to provide the Commission with a verbatim transcript of today's meeting on item PZ.I, and any other previous discussions related to this item to date. [Note: Clerk delivered transcript of today's discussion on April 28, 2004. The item had not been before the Commission prior to April 22, 2004.j Chairman Teele: Anyone else for a deferral? Andrew Dickman: Mr. Chair, Andrew Dickman, law offices 9111 Park Drive, in Miami Shores, Florida. I'm here representing the residents of Morningside, and we're here on item PZ.1, which is the Kubik project. We would like, respectfully, to request that this be deferred. This item was heard by (PAB) Planning Advisory Board only two weeks ago, At that time, we protested that. We are engaged heavily in working with City on the SD-9 and, at the same time, having to deal with this. It's just not enough time for us to prepare, get experts to fully put on our presentation, so we respectfully request that you continue that item, PZ.1. Chairman Teele: Counsel. Lucia Dougherty: Thank you. Lucia Dougherty, 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the applicant, and we would oppose that continuance. We have lots of people from the neighborhood who have come today, people who otherwise wouldn't be here; took time out of their busy schedules to come here, not to go to their jobs. This project was heard by the Planning Advisory Board last December. Since that time, we've had 31 community meetings. There has been plenty of time, since December, to prepare a case and to get expert witnesses, so we would request that you hear this matter today. Chairman Teele: All right. Will those persons that are here on PZ_t please stand? This is PZ.I `? All right. And you're representing these people? Mr. Dickman: Some of them. 410 Ms. Dougherty: There are many people who are in support of the project, as well. • • Commissioner Winton: One way or another, there's a lot of people here to hear it. I guess it goes up or down. Chairman Teele: You need to come to the mike, ma'am. We'll -- anyone who wants to be heard on this, on the deferral, please come to the mike, whether you're for it or against it. Commissioner Winton: Well, I -- Chairman Teele: Please come to the mike. Commissioner Winton: Hold on. If -- I think, with this many people here, I'm not going to support deferring it. 1 don't need to know how many are for or against. We're going to hear that when it goes on, and I'm -- we're going to vote one way or another. 1 think, with this many people here, even if it's half and half or 90/10, whatever it is, there's a lot of people here for this issue. I'm not going to support a deferral at this time. Chairman Teele: All right. Anybody here against the deferral? 1 mean, for the deferral? Anybody here for the deferral? Commissioner Winton: Well -- but in light of what I said, do we want to hear that? I'm not going to support it, no matter what. Chairman Teele: I just want to make sure that the record is protected, Commissioner. Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Gentlemen, this is the packet that the applicant submitted on this item. There's very important information here, which is -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): That's out of order right now, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Are you here for the deferral or against the deferral? Mr. Cruz: l am for the deferral. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Is there anyone else who needs to be on the record? All right. Is there a motion to defer? If not, the item will be heard when it's called. Chairman Teele: PZ.I . Thank you all very much. Commissioner Regalado: And we didn't even vote. Chairman Teele: Huh? Commissioner Regalado: And we didn't even vote, and look how many people. PZ.1. Commissioner Winton: Wait till the next meeting. Chairman Teele: I just didn't want Tomas to form an opinion about this thing and start • • • expressing his opinion tonight. Commissioner Winton: Actually, he -- you know, he gets -- you understand this stuff pretty good. Commissioner Regalado: I understand. Chairman Teele: Madam Director. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you. PZ.1 is a Major Use Special Permit for the Kubik at Morningside project, located at 5600 to 5780 Biscayne Boulevard. The Planning and Zoning recommendation is for approval with conditions. This item went to the Planning Advisory Board in December of 2003 and was recommended for denial. At that time, the applicant opted, instead of coming to City Commission, to take the project back and make some modifications to the project. In essence, they eliminated two floors and changed the development program slightly. The modified project then went to the Planning Advisory Board at the meeting of April 7, 2004 and was recommended for approval by a vote of 5 to 4. Planning and Zoning Department recommendation includes several conditions that would alter the project from what is being presented to you tonight. Planning and Zoning Department's recommendation: In our findings, we found that the project is a very large site, and because the project is such a large site, it has a very large gross lot area. In addition, the developer is asking for a PUD (Planned Use Development) bonus -- designation as a PUD for the additional 20 percent increase in (FAR) Floor Area Ratio, of which they're proposing to use a little over 30,000 square feet of that. The Planning and Zoning Department is recommending approval of the project, with the conditions in your package, including a condition that the PUD bonus not be approved, and that they continue to work with the Planning and Zoning Department to try to further reduce the height. The Planning Advisory Board recommended approval of this project without those conditions. They were satisfied with the modifications that were done to the project from their December hearing, until the hearing in April, earlier this month, and they recommended approval without conditions 12 and 13, which are the conditions that the plans be modifled to eliminate the PUD bonus, and that the applicant continue to work with the Department to try to further reduce the height of the project. Other than that, you know, we believe that those things could be done and it would still be -- it could be a more compatible project without that bonus. Therefore, that's our recommendation. Chairman Teele: All right. So, the recommendation is? Ms. Slazyk: For approval, with conditions. Also, let me -- one other thing for the record. When the applicant took the project back to the Planning Advisory Board and after they had made their modifications, there were actually two alternatives being presented. There's an alternative "A" and an alternative'B." The Planning Advisory Board approved both of them, and 1'li let Lucia explain in her presentation what the differences are between the alternatives, but the Planning Advisory Board recommended a preference of the alternative "A" because it included a cut in the building that would reduce the mass of the project on Biscayne Boulevard , but they said, if the City Commission were to choose option "B," they were OK with that one, as well. The recommend -- yeah, our recommendation is the same for both, and they recommended approval of both, with a preference for the alternative "A," and the Planning and Zoning Department recommendation with conditions would apply to both alternatives. • • • Ms. Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. l'm here today with Jose Camilo Laga (phonetic), who's a principal of the owners of the property, as well as Camilo Alvarado, who is also a principal. Camilo is also an architect with Lab Group, who have, in coordination or collaboration with Chad Oppenheim, are the architects for the project. As Lourdes said, last December, we went to the Planning Advisory Board and they recommended denial, and their denial was based on concerns of traffic, circulation, that is, ingress and egress out of 58th Street, and height. Those are the three issues, and instead of going directly to the City Commission at that time, the clients opted to, instead, have 31 additional meetings with neighbors to -- and so there had been over 50 meetings with neighbors so far. We've gone through internal design review again. We went to the Urban Development Review Board again, and the Urban Development Review Board unanimously approved this project, and they unanimously approved both options, and they said, we like the fact that it's a cutting edge design. We like the fact that it's lining the garage; the retail is open to the street; you've preserved the Andiano Pizza, which we think is a landmark in the City, and there's more open space than is required. The height has been reduced by two floors, and there are 282 parking spaces, whereas -- excuse me -- there are 200 -- 452 parking spaces, where 282 are required. We've increased the open space. The same number of units, with and without Soyka, and what I mean by that is, option "A" includes Soyka's property, a corner clip that you'll see in the diagram in a minute. Option "B" does not include an additional piece of property, so we have exactly the same number of units, but we have added additional land. We have under contract additional property, in order to bring down the height of the building, so we have 53 units less than is permitted in one option, and 100 units less than is permitted under an option. We've always had less FAR than we're permitted under the total FAR that would be permitted with all the bonuses that the City has as its -- in its Zoning Ordinance. Last time, when we came before the Planning Advisory Board and instead of coming here, the Planning Department recommended approval with all the bonuses. After we've changed and went back and had 31 more additional meetings, bought more property, reduced the height, increased the circulation, made it a much more risky building by having one podium and one building instead of two buildings, they are now recommending taking away the bonuses. The Planning Board thought that was patently unfair. After we have done everything that the City had asked us to do, they thought it was an unfair situation to now recommend taking away the bonuses. Well, bonuses are something that is absolutely necessary to make this a project that is a viable project, and I'm going to explain this to you. The property cost ten million dollars. The additional property cost a million dollars. In order to sell these properties, the price per square foot that we're going to have to sell these properties, given the construction costs of this very unique building -- and, remember, we have to have something really unique to be able to sell on U.S. 1. This is not Bayshore Drive. This is U.S. 1. it's a street that goes all the way from Miami -- you know, from Key West all the way to Maine, so it is U.S. 1. We have to have a really unique property, a really unique product, so this is what we're going to sell our price points with, all of the money. the construction costs for this unique building, and you'll see how unique it is. We're going to be at three hundred and fifty dollars a square foot. You've got to realize that anything over that is not going to sell on U.S. 1. People can buy properties in Miami Beach, on the water. They can buy properties on Brickell Key, on the water. They can buy properties on Bayshore Drive, on the water for four hundred dollars or even three hundred dollars a square foot, so we're going to price ourselves out of the market at some point, so that's the point that our market people are telling us. We can't sell this property for more than three hundred dollars -- three hundred and fifty dollars a square foot. You all can do the numbers, so if we take away • • • 30,000 square feet of FAR -- that's what the City's saving -- this project is no longer viable. It's up in the three hundred and seventy-five dollars a square foot, maybe even four hundred dollars a square foot. Now, the other thing that's really unfair about telling us now to take away the bonuses -- and this is what the Planning Department -- 1 mean, the Planning Board didn't like. If we took the doors of our retail and turned them inside, it doesn't count towards FAR. It is because we are now doing the retail -- because it's accessory. It's accessory retail to a unit -- a apartment building over 100 units -- Commissioner Winton: Failed accessory, but maybe accessory. Ms. Dougherty: The point of the matter is, we don't need to count it if we turned the doors inside. We don't want to do that. We're doing exactly what you all had asked us to do, cover our garage with retail. That's what you asked us to do. We're covering our garage with retail. We could take it away and be just fine, but then you'd have exposed garage, which is something the City doesn't want, so for us to be penalized for doing exactly what the City has asked us to do -- take the retail, count, it torwards FAR, provide all the parking for it, turn it to the outside and now say we shouldn't have it -- is really unfair, and that's what the Planning Board said, so with that, I'd like Camilo Alvarado to make his presentation so you can see the project, and I think you'll all be very excited. Camilo Alvarado: Good evening, Mr. Chairman -- Ms. Dougherty: I'm sorry. 1 forget to ask if these people wanted to talk. You know what, we've missed -- we've had a lot of neighbors who have had to leave because of -- and we have some others who would like to leave. I'd like to see if the neighbors could actually -- the ones who want to speak, who don't want to wait until the end, could come forward and speak on behalf of the project, and then we'll make our presentation. Robert Flanders: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Robert Flanders, and for the last 24 years, I've lived at 720 Palm Bay Lane, in the Palm Bay Club, which is almost part of Bayside in the Upper Eastside. It's a well-known fact that the Upper Eastside residents have been fighting for many years to better our community and with your help, we have. We've fought the bad guys and the bad projects, and we've been here in front of you supporting the good guys and the good projects, and that's why I'm here today, to speak in favor of the Kubik project for the following reasons -- and incidentally, gentlemen, we do appreciate your courage, your vision, and common sense and patience to sit here and to go through the.process and make sure that the process works. I just want you to know that. It is not easy to redevelop a City, and it is not easy to redevelop the poorest City in America. Why am I in favor of this project? Because what is fair is fair. These people applied for their permits before we codified, and can adopt the updated developer guidelines for Biscayne Boulevard. The project has a majority of support from the various Upper Eastside homeowners associations, including Palm Grove, the site of the project experiencing the most impact. Shane Graver called me from Chicago today. He's the president of Bayside Homeowners Association. He called me to apologize for not being able to be here, and would I read into the record that Bayside unanimously passed a resolution in support of Kubik. This project meets almost all of the qualities that we have found desirable in such a project. Attractive quality of design. It will be a signature building that raises the bar on Biscayne Boulevard. It's mixed use. It combines commercial, adequate hidden parking, it's pedestrian friendly, and it's residential. Finally -- and I can't say enough about this -- the Kubik developers have bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of the community. As you • • • know, we're a very strong-willed group of people, which is why we are where we are. They have -- they've bent over backwards to make the changes to make the people and the community buy into the project, and finally, let me say this. 1 believe that part of the resistance to projects like this is because of the traffic problem that we've heard referred to a number of times today and I, for one, would like to encourage -- and you, Mr. Chairman, you understand this probably better than anybody on the Commission because of your background -- we would like to encourage and support your influence on the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) to develop an action plan for a cohesive transportation plan, which, you know -- and adopt it and fund it. It's a comprehensive transportation plan that recognizes what we're calling the Eastward Ho, and the increasing density in the City of Miami. We think that with something that is -- you can see down the road, even if it takes 1€1 or 12 years to implement, that people will have less resistance to the density. Obviously, with density, you can pay and support mass transportation, which is what nhimately is going to make the City of Miami work. In any case, thank you very much. Chairman Teele: We didn't put the clock on you. That was part of the discussion, but -- 1 was having with the Clerk -- but just let me just respond. Actually, Commissioner Winton is in the forefront in working with the Mayor in trying to develop a plan that goes right to what you're talking about, but 1 do think the fact is, is that we should probably look, Commissioner Winton, at a mini five-year plan for the City that's inclusive of everything, and have it in one document, because I think — citywide -- because I think, you know, again. you're going to push it in District 1, and what you're going to have is, "Well, what about my area?" et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and 1 think that's a very good point. Commissioner Winton: Very good point Chairman Teele: 1 think it's a very good point, but we should work through the MPO, and I take your comments very seriously. Thank you very much. David Treece: 1'il make my comments brief. My name is David Treece. I live at 801 Northeast 74th Street, in Miami. I'm president of the Upper Eastside Miami Council, which is the coalition of all the homeowners associations in the area. We, as a group, didn't take a particular position, but many of us, as individuals -- and I'm speaking for myself -- have bent over backwards to work with the Kubik people, and this is really what 1 want to stress. We have organized meetings of people who have been concerned about the size of the project. We've tried to bring everybody together to take into account all of these considerations about parking, and traffic, and the height, and the Kubik people have requested meetings. We've put them together. They've changed the project time after time after time to improve the project, so the opposition has served, 1 think, a good purpose in making the project a iot better, but I think we're clearly at the point now where it's as good as it's going to be. Anything else is probably going to ruin the design. It is a spectacular design. That's going to be a signature building for the boulevard. The Planning Advisory Board specifically mentioned that, so we -- I'm strongly in favor of it. I think you'll notice that the people who are speaking in favor of this are the community leaders, presidents of organizations. Homeowners associations have really spent time to study this project, to work with it, to make it as good as it can be, and so 1 strongly am in favor of the project, and 1 hope you will vote in favor of it. Chairman Teele: All right. • • • Virgil Louis Fieber: Good afternoon. I'm Virgil Louis Fieber. For the last 40 some odd years, we've had property at 5631 Biscayne Boulevard, directly across from the Kubik. We wholeheartedly support the development. We think it's great. Recent articles in the Miami Herald and the Sun Sentinel -- fact is, one of them today showed that all of Latin America actually is in claims. The rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer, and if they can get here, they're buying their second home in Miami. The crime wave there is terrible. Twenty-seven and a half people killed in homicides on a Latin American average per hundred thousand; whereas western Europe has one. So, if you're rich and you want to have your family safe, you're going to have another home here, and 87, 000 people coming into Miami, you're going to have to build this kind of structure. You've got the world's largest cruise port, the largest boat show, the most direct route to Latin America, so it will help Miami. We wholeheartedly support it. Thank you. Bill Traurig: Good evening. Bill Traurig, 780 Northeast 69th Street, Unit 1709. I am actually recently involved in looking at Kubik. I find them to be an amazing building. What they've offered in the initial stages was something that, as was stated earlier, was kind of out of line for the neighborhood. They have spent a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of effort in working with the community to make it a better building and a better area for us. One of the nice things is, it is pedestrian friendly. As we know, we're trying to develop the area for pedestrians, and that's something that we were hoping and we were looking forward to having. I thank you for your time. Chairman Teele: All right. Is there anybody here in opposition? All right. All right. OK. I'm just trying to get a feel for where we're going, ma'am. How many more people do you have? Ms. Dougherty: Well, I just wanted the folks who had to leave to be able to testify, so we're going to make our presentation, and then we have other people who are supporters. Chairman Teele: All right. Ms. Dougherty: So -- Chairman Teele: All right. We're going to -- Ms. Dougherty: They'll be time for others to speak. Chairman Teele: We're going to take a strict two -minute -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. Chairman Teele: -- rule, Madam Clerk. Ms. Dougherty: So, right now I'm going to have Camilo -- unless somebody else needs to go -- do you need to go? OK. Guido Porto: I'm Guido Porto. I'm the principal of Porto Architecture and Design, located at 7100 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 306, and our firm recently relocated from Miami Beach to Biscayne Boulevard, attracted with all the Biscayne Corridor development. We've been involved • • • in a lot of projects in the corridor right now, such as Cafe 71, Dug McGrill, Posha's and different projects, and 1 had the opportunity to see the project of Kubik, and from an architect's point of view, 1 think that Kubik is taking a responsible approach to this urban issue and it has our firm's full support. Cora Bettzher: Thanks so much. I wish 1 could stay and -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. We need your name and address. Ms. Bettzher: OK. I'm Cora Bettzher, and 1 own Bettzher Gallery, which is virtually across the street there from the proposed site, and I've been in business there for five years now -- going on five years, and it's -- as I said -- I was about to say, it's really unfortunate, in my opinion, for me at least, that I am not able to hear the opposition. I hope, individually, some of those who know me -- and that's why I'm so sensitive to this issue, because these are the supporters of the complex in which I do business, and we very much need them and appreciate and are grateful for all that they have done. I know those in Morningside have some reservations about this, and I just will first strongly encourage them to reconsider their stance, and allow in some of the wonderful developments I think that this company has put forward in terms of trying to appease whatever issues they have previously had, but i had more or less been more prepared to come here just now and almost after having heard strong arguments -- and 1 didn't realty imagine that I could hear any in a way, because I can't imagine what they could be, being there day after day, having an interest in the residential population there, and an interest in the business community that's developing there, and an interest in the future of that area. Simply put, I will just read here from some of my notes that I -- in my mind alone, I suppose the reality is that so many individuals that did take the time out today and arrive on time to represent such strong support for the proposal should suggest to me a real and palpable bright line toward the desired future of this community in the broadest of respects. If the true objective and goal in City planning is that of what's known as a balance, it is my belief that what we have before us today and what I think you'll all hopefully receive today, the way 1 have -- what we have before us today, it represents a genuine opportunity to truly embark and immediately began on that process of balance and development, and residential commercial and all-over prosperity in this area that is so really wonderfully suited for this kind of project, which I think is, architecturally speaking, a masterpiece. Thanks. Mr. Alvarado: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board of Commissioners. My name is Camilo Alvarado. I'm going to give you a brief explanation of my studies. I am an architect. graduated from New York; then 1 did a master in housing and urbanism in London; had experience in working with the Rogers Group in London, then 1 went to work in Madrid, then 1 went to work for Italy and then, at the end, 1 came to Miami two years ago. When I came to Miami, I discovered two main corridors of development. One was Coral Way and the other one is Biscayne Boulevard. In Coral Way, we're finishing a project, successfully project, with all the support of the community. in Biscayne Boulevard, we are trying to accomplish the same process. We have been working in both of the projects for more than two years. In order to understand what is an intervention in Biscayne Boulevard, we need to understand what are the elements that comprise Biscayne Boulevard. These elements are the FEC (Florida East Coast) Corridor, the architecturally landmarks and the pedestrian circulations. If we -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Camilo, I think that's -- we've got to stop that. You know, it's rude. OK. I think it's the fire alarm. Sounds like a truck backing up. All right. OK, and you can't get • • • any breaks, can you? All right. Go ahead. Sorry for the interruption. Mr. Alvarado: I'm going to try to be as brief as possible. In order to make an intervention in Biscayne .Boulevard, we must understand what are the impacts in terms of its architectural landmarks and in terms of its attractors. The starting point of the engine of the revitalization of Biscayne Boulevard started with the Performing Art Center by the City of Miami. If you go through Biscayne Boulevard, is the blue line, there is the FEC Corridor that is the red line; you see the yellow spots that are the points of interest or the most interesting points in architectural or areas. The Performing Art Center is one. The Bacardi Building is another one by Enrique Gutierrez, a modern architectural piece; the Design District, and the Pizzeria Andiamo by Robert Lowit that is the starting point of our project, and as well as is part of the Sushi, Siam and Soyka Complex -- I could say Soyka complex. The Andiamo Pizza is part of our complex and is part of Soyka's complex. Understanding and taking the results of the charrette by the HOK Study of Urban and Architectural Guidelines that started from downtown to 87th Street, they identified intense pedestrian activities that generate higher density. These are notes. We are located exactly in one of those notes that they identified. These notes are pedestrian -- the circulation is three minutes away in distance, so you can actually have a pedestrian walk within that area, and I quote the notes that they identify and where Kubik is located, I quote, the HOK Architectural Guidelines. These notes or sheds makes possible, in certain locations, to build taller buildings fronting the boulevard without adversely impact the closed in neighborhood. Therefore, there needs to be difference in height and there needs to be difference in quality, and Kubik is located in one of those polls of activity. The uses of where Kubik is located is, Kubik is an island that is 180 feet from distance from the FEC Corridor. The FEC Corridor, hopefully soon, will have a mass transport system, and to the other side, we're 160 approximately feet from the R-1 Morningside homeowners. Between the FEC Corridor and the Morningside, there is a buffer zone that is Biscayne Boulevard itself and a C-1 residential -- a C-1 commercial area. At the back part of the property is 58th Street. 58th Street on the front side -- on the backside is R-3. Therefore, we're not abutting any R-1 property. This is very important to understand. Kubik -- or where Kubik is going to be is surrounded by streets and, as well, by commercia. We can therefore conclude that this is an island, and as being an island, it should be treated accordingly. The FEC Corridor is 180 feet, and is the red line at the back. Soyka's complex is in front with the Pizzeria Andiamo. We share common elements. The Pizzeria Andiamo is as well the most important part of our project. In the front, we have Biscayne Boulevard; at the back we have -- 58th Street is at the back. North 4th Court is abutting the property with•Soyka's and Biscayne Boulevard. Kubik is a smart development that captures the energy of the place. It's very important that we're not talking about only a building, but a place. It's a compact and mixed -use development that encourages quality of life by creating safety and mobility. We're going to bring eyes to the street. We're going to bring commercial in places. We're going to bring open space, urban plazas. It's going to blend into its urban landscape, and actually, you have to understand as well, the Kubik project is going -- is sitting very close to one of the nodes or the possible stops, as Mark Soyka said in the PAB presentation of the FEC Corridor. Hopefully, one day, we have one stop in the 55th Station. Usually, in Europe, and most of the places that have public transport, where the stops of the stations are -- usually, they're higher density. Kubik is going to enhance pedestrian activity. There's a lot of robbery actually today. We need to have safety on the streets. Kubik, as well, is going to consolidate a node. It's going to be a node of the neighborhood. It's going to be a catalyst, as well, of the redevelopment of the corridor. Kubik addresses the needs of its residents and the community. Throughout the evolution of Kubik, we have developed five different alternatives, five complete projects. Each • • • proHet took approximately one month of time. The five projects are projects that are completed p<n"=e._•ts with drawings, plans, sections and economic studies. The alternative one, or the first option, the one that we presented to the PAB meeting was composed by seven by -level units -- by-level floors, sorry, and three commercials. The red stripe that you see is the commercial. We always keep Andiamo Pizza, and the blue is -- reads as the residential. In the second option, when we went to the PAB meeting, we decided that we wanted to have more feedback with the neighbors. They agreed they wanted to reduce the height of the building, their concerns. Their ;cconi concern was increasing the parking space, and we agreed that we could reduce this height of the building by two levels. By reducing the height of the building two levels, we had t c _ _ a i ang one building. We still kept the plaza in the middle. The alternative "A"-- that is one of these proposals -- is by -- in creating more parking spaces, we decided that the public place that we were going to give in the middle of the building, we were going to put it in front of the z wria Andiamo. In that way, we wanted to create a structure or a plaza that linked both the complex of Soyka's and our property. The fourth project that we did, that was a recommendation of the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board), was to have two buildings and increase the height. The fifth alternative, which is the fifth project, that is the alternative 'B" that we're proposing today, still has two projects, but incorporates the Soyka's house. This house hasn't been bought. It's under contract. This delay in our effort to come to 100 percent agreement with the community has cost us over one point two million dollars. This takes us -- that the average selling price that we should sell in order to make the project feasible should be three hundred and thirty -- fifty dollars to three hundred and seventy dollars. The proposal. Today's proposal in both options has a lower height; have only one entrance through exit of ears in the fourth court; has 100 parking parks extra than what is required by code, and has almost one acre of open space. One acre of open space is a lot of space. Alternative "A" has the same number of units. It's 293 units, and a hundred parking spots extra, and if you count the valet parking, you will have 125 parking extras. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How many extra parking? Mr. Alvarado: A hundred and twenty-five, if you count the valet parking. The location of Kubik, the front part, what you see is the Pizzeria Andiamo. What we tried to do, and as I explained to you before as a gesture, as an urban gesture, we're trying to do an urban catalyzer that is opening up a plaza in front that relates to the Soyka complex and to our complex. Both for Soyka and for Kubik, the Pizzeria is like the starting point. The yellow that is wrapping around the project is the open space; the orange that is wrapping around the parking spaces, and the structure, so you don't see any cars, is commercial, and the blue is residential. We treat it blue on the 58th Street residential because in front of the 58th Street, at the other side of the street, there's residential, so we needed to create a friendly neighborhood. Second floor. Typical floor. This is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) eye level, where you can see the two buildings with a break in the middle. Typical floor plan: Roof, terrace and a section. This section, as we can see, is a pedestrian section that is thought as a pedestrian friendly because at the -- the first height, when you see -- when you're walking down the street, you're going to see a 35 foot of height. Then we have a second setback -- a first setback of 20 feet, then a height of 130 feet. 130 feet is the maximum height that you're going to see at the top of build -- in the building if you're walking through Biscayne Boulevard. It's very difficult to see it there -- the complete height of the building from standing on the ground because there's an extra 25 feet of setback. The red indicates the commercial. You don't see any of the parking, and the blue indicates residential. • • • Since the beginning -- the current Code allows us to build 244 feet. Even though we could have built 22 levels, plus the penthouse, we decided to lower_ We decided to go lower because we understood the needs of the community and we went lower. Today, what we're proposing is a building that the height of Biscayne Boulevard is 130 feet, then we have an extra penthouse level that goes to 149 feet. This is the east elevation, where you can clearly see that we're going to have a great ball of attraction at the ground level. All what I'm pointing here is all commercial. This is the west elevation, looking from 58th Street. We're going to have studios for artists and retail space. This is the view from 58th Street. The reason that you see something strange because the buildings are in an angle, so what you'll -- the only thing that you can see clearly that is parallel or perpendicular, I could say, is the residential area. These are all town houses, and the entrance are going to be through the street. That creates pedestrian friendly. We're going to have access to the studios at the bottom, in the same entrance, as access to the housing on the top. That creates people and that creates neighborhood, a community. This is a bird's eye view, where you can see both of the buildings, and the treatment on the 58th Street with residential, and on Biscayne Boulevard with retail. The corner from the eye's view or pedestrian's point of view, when we have a nice element that represents the corner, the corner of the 58th and Biscayne Boulevard, another possible attraction for the area. A view from the town houses along 58th Street. If alternative "B" that we're proposing here, as well, is the same height, has the same access to 4th court, and has 397 parking spaces, as well, it has 34,000 square feet of open space. It shares the same characteristics, except that we don't have the corner lot. Use of one long building with the same plaza and with same retail at the bottom, and with the same height. To attract people to come to here, to come to live to Biscayne Boulevard, being the first building built of condos on the Corridor, we must address something special and something unique in the units as well, not only at the pedestrian level, so Kubik proposes -- in order to attract these people to come to this place, Kubik proposes by -level units. All of the project is going to be by -level. Their design is unique, and as well their space -- the quality of the space. This is interior view. This is a concept that we developed, creating a compact city. A compact city is a city where you can live, work, shop and enjoy your free time within the same area. It's a walking distance area, the same area that HOK selected or identified as an urban charrette. At the top. we have the same modular that you saw in the previous picture, which is this one, but at the bottom, what you see, what is in front of the parking space, is wrapping the parking garage, you're going to see a studio or an office. We call them lofts living over the shop or living over the studio. This is done to attract people who want to work and live in the same area, but they don't want to share the same space where the office is or where the residential space is. The economic study that Kubik did for the employment and wage taxes give us an amount that -- tax -- annually taxed revenues that Kubik is going to bring to the City is more than two million and a half dollars. The employment under construction is going to be 325 people. The wages in construction are going to be more than forty million dollars, and annually, Kubik is going to pump more than a million or a million dollars. The traffic study that Kubik did for the area and results that showed that all aspects of the project are acceptable and fall within the level of service thresholds developed by the City of Miami. We even went further and by the request of the neighbors, we did a shadow study. We did a shadow study four times or four seasons during the year, at four different dates or hours, at 9 a.m., II a.m., 3 p.m. and 5 p.m., and if you note that the extreme shadow is always cast on the commercial place of the boulevard, which is -- or the boulevard or the commercial areas. This is in March. Chairman Teele: Excuse me. 0 Mr. Alvarado: Yes. • • Chairman Teele: Counsel, give us a little bit of a feel about how long you're going to be taking on this. Ms. Dougherty: This is the end. Mr. Alvarado: This is the end. March study, the same hours. June, September, and this is view from the top of the building. Top of the building -- that is the Wachovia building -- has a similar height, looking down to the green canopy of the neighborhoods. You can see it, and you can clearly see that there's no invasion of privacy. This last map shows us the red color, indicates the people who support Kubik. The orange color is where Kubik is located. We have more than 90 percent of people surrounding the project in support. I would like to express our deepest gratitude to all of the neighbors and community that have been involved in this process. Without their valuable input and feedback, this project couldn't have reached the level of excellence that we see today. As you can see, we have acted in good faith trying to be a good and friendly neighbor, not to mention the time and effort and dedication to the City staff to bring this project to you with a recommendation. Let Kubik be the renaissance of a boulevard, that it is not dead, but terminally ill. Kubik is the beginning of the future. Ms. Dougherty: I have some expert witnesses that I'm only going to use as rebuttal. We rely on our reports that were submitted in connection with the record. Chairman Teele: All right. Before we start, let me get the Director -- Lourdes, can you state again, what is your recommendation and what are the conditions, so that the people who are coming in opposition can focus in exactly on what you're recommending and what conditions. so we don't repeat each other. Ms. Slazyk: OK. The Planning and Zoning Department is recommending approval, and I guess there's really two conditions that were the, you know, major focus of discussion at the PAB. The first one is that the plans be modified in order to eliminate the floor area ratio bonus requested pursuant to Article 5. That means, reduce the PUD bonus. And the second one was that, as a result of this, keep working with the Planning and Zoning Department to try to further reduce the height, and just to go to what Lucia said, the reason for the change in the recommendation was that the results of the Corridor Study came out, and the study called for reduced heights on the boulevard, and while -- you know, the project originally, when we had reviewed it and made the recommendation, the results of that and the studies had not really been finalized to a point that we could adopt -- you know, apply them to projects on the boulevard, but when they came in with a substantial modification, we had new information and that's what changed the recommendation. Again, those were the two conditions primarily that we're requesting. Other than that, the recommendation was for approval. Chairman Teele: All right. And did counsel indicate they accept those -- Ms. Slazyk: No. No, they don't, and the Planning Advisory Board didn't accept the conditions either. They recommended approval as presented. Chairman Teele: All right. Counsel, you're entitled to about an hour and a half at the rate we're • • • going, so please don't use it. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9111 Park Drive, in Miami Shores, Florida. I'm here representing Morningside Homeowners Association. Also want to put on the record that I'm a member of the America Association of Certified Planners. I'm a member of the American Planning Association, as well. Approximately, three and a half hours ago or five and a half hours ago, I had asked fora continuance or a deferral because of the speed at which this application came from lower board PAS to this board. At that time, the consideration was that there were a number of people here from the neighborhood to speak for and against it and, therefore, it should go forward. I can tell you that in this almost six hours, 1 am even more lis a i vantaged now because we have lost probably 80 percent of our people who were going to be relied on to testify and bring important information to this committee, so once again, just in -- ver\ respectfully, I would ask that you allow a continuance. This is more prejudicial to us to go ward now than it is to the applicant to hear it. Chairman Teele: Counsel, if you had come up and said you'd like to put some of your people on in opposition, I certainly would have considered it, so I don't want the record -- Mr. Dickman: At what time? Chairman Teele: 1 don't want the record to be just what you're saying. I'm not saying that 1 would have granted it, given where we were, but 1 certainly would have considered it, but I'm going to yield to my colleague, Commissioner Winton, to see how he's responding to your request. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Winton: This is first reading? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. This is a resolution. Mr. Dickman: First, second, and last. Commissioner Winton: Oh, this is zoning. Mr. Maxwell: One reading. Ms. Dougherty: The zoning is already in place. This is a -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Could I ask, then -- before I get to that, 1 want to ask a couple of questions because they're going to be fundamental to where I'm going. Mr. City Attorney, everyone who testifies is under oath, is that not correct? Mr. Maxwell: Oath was given, that's correct, sir. Commissioner Winton: And what is the penalty for -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Perjury. • • • Commissioner Winton: Perjury? Mr. Dickman: Excuse me? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Five years. Mr. Maxwell: I'm not sure what the penalty would be under quasi-judicial procedures far perjury here. We'd have to let the court decide that, what the penalties would be. Chairman Teele: Well, the presiding officer would bar anybody from ever appearing, while I'm presiding, if they were found to be perjured, so that may not be responsive fully. Commissioner Winton: OK. No. That's -- I got two parts of an answer. We don't know exactly what the penalties are, but the courts would have to decide, so I'm assuming that there would be penalties, and the presiding officer's suggesting that whoever perjured themselves would never be allowed to testify, at least during his reign, before this Commission again. Mr. Maxwell: I think that would probably be a remedy the courts would sanction, and if it was an officer of the court that perjured himself, of course, there are remedies for that, as well. Vice Chairman Sanchez: State your name and present your facts, Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: Lucia, I have a couple of questions for you, tied to that series of questions. Does the developer own the land? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Commissioner Winton: When did the developer buy the site? Not talking about the expanded site that you've had to buy to try to satisfy neighbors, but the original primary site. Mr. Alvarado: We started to buy the land two years ago, and we bought piece by piece. It has taken -- I mean, it's a very special site. It's a very difficult site and it's a very unique site. It's an island. We have bought piece by piece, and the first piece we started to buy -- to negotiate two years ago, and we closed it September last year, of the big part. Then we bought the second part and it was when? In December, and now it's closed, and it's on our property and it's owned by us, and the third parcel that we have been trying -- that is under contract is not bought yet, but the rest of the property -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Understand. Mr. Alvarado: -- and the Soyka property. This property is -- the intention of buying this property was to make -- come through the suggestions of the community, because we keep the same number of units. Commissioner Winton: OK. Andrew, you were here, I think, when 1 was talking about -- I think it was the 27th Avenue Corridor moratorium, when I was quizzing our City Attorney and encouraging him to come back to us, by next Thursday, so that we could, in fact, enact a moratorium or moratoria, as fast as possible, so that we can prevent the flood gates from • • • opening for people who are trying to get in under the wire and be able to call their projects conforming or fitting in the old system, but I also said that I see the projects that -- where the developer actually owns the land. They've paid the price -- they've paid the price, based on an expectation that they could build a certain size project. I consider those very differently than I consider the ones that are trying to get in under the wire. The reason that I asked the question about this project is to understand when this developer closed on land, and this developer paid I don't know what they paid, because it isn't relevant. What's relevant is that they put their r;Krriey down on the table, closed with the expectation that I could build in this envelope. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yep. Commissioner Winton: That envelope is radically different than the envelope that we're all discussing as it relates to the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor, and if there's any project along the ;orridor that I consider -- personally, based on the information -- to fit in the old set of rules, this one qualifies, and as you know, we're going to -- I've got the City Attorney. He'll give us an answer next week in terms of what we can do about the rest of them, but I consider this one, that it fits under the old guidelines, not the new guidelines, so that said, I'm not sure I'm going to understand what we're going to gain by creating an environment where a whole bunch of people get to come and talk in another three weeks or four weeks, whatever the case may be, as opposed to going through the dialogue with the folks that are here, because I will get the point, and 1 know who all the players are, and I'm not sure where we're going to gain anything, other than having an opportunity to have one more night that's all extended, where all the people that did stay that are on your side of the fence, they've wasted five and a half more hours and we bring them back to waste two or three more, because you know how these Commission meetings go and something gets in the way, so -- Mr. Dickman: If I could just have a minute to respond to that. There's a couple of issues here. First of all, the -- if you were to continue this, the project that you're considering here tonight would still be under those rules. That wouldn't change, so that's not even -- that's a moot issue because nobody's saying that, you know, this is a trick or ploy on our side to try to get them under the new ordinance. That's not the case, at all. It's simply and merely the fact that this came very quickly after PAB, while my clients were fully engaged in SD-9 ordinance and other things, and there's only so much resources to go around, and I know you know what I'm talking about, in terms of how homeowner representation works. The other piece of this is that it's not a matter of numbers, and 1 agree with you, of the number of people that would come here, because I would counsel my clients to not repeat themselves. The fact is, without divulging my hand too much, it goes to competent evidence and putting testimony on the record, so that our issues are on the record, not necessarily just to educate you, but so that we can build our record, and what I'm in a position with now is that a lot of people have left in these hours and the two weeks that we've only had to prepare for this. We have not been able to adequately be prepared. That's it, so if you were to continue this, the rules would still be the same. We would be, in my opinion, more greatly penalized if you were to go forward tonight than any injustice that would occur to the applicant, so that's why .I put it out there. In no way are we trying to make a -- have a sneaky trick to try to get, you know, under the old ordinance whatsoever. It's just merely short notice to try to prepare for these things. My clients are, as you know, very heavily involved in the SD-9 issues. We've lost 80/90 percent of serious people that have been involved in this for eight and nine different hearings, and regrettably had to leave tonight, who I think would have put on some very important testimony. • • Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel -- if I may? Commissioner Winton: Sure. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, you're entitled to build your case. 1 mean, based -- you're entitled to build your case -- Mr. Dickman: I understand that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- on the issue. Now, let me just elaborate on what Commissioner Winton said, you know. Commissioner -- and exactly on the issue of earlier today, where he said there are certain developers that fall within that scope, that they've bought the property with the intention that I could build that on that property. Being that this is one of the developments that clearly -- 1 think it's --1 think -- how many are out there, Johnny? Commissioner Winton: Huh? Vice Chairman Sanchez: How many other developers are out there that fall -- it's like three or four? Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't know exactly. I'm trying to get that figured out also, but three or four. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's about three or four. Commissioner Winton: And there's one that's particularly egregious. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You know, we need to be very careful, and let me just -- well, let me not get into that. How many times have you changed your plans -- you said, when you opened up, the plans had been changed. Five times you've changed your plans. Mr. Alvarado: We have done five complete projects, developed with the community. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Five and -- Mr. Alvarado: Five complete projects, different projects. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And you met with -- How many meetings have you had with homeowner associations? Mr. Alvarado: We have met more than 51 times. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How many? Mr. Alvarado: Fifty-one times. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You've had 51 meetings, and you're still around? • Ms. Dougherty: Not just with homeowner associations -- 0 Mr. Alvarado: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: -- but individuals and people who -- concerned citizens. Chairman Teele: You've got to speak into the mike. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, don't say that too loud. Mr. Dickman: Including me, I was probably at one of those meetings. • • Vice Chairman Sanchez; All right, Well, don't say that too loud, that you had 51 meetings because that -- I mean, don't say that too loud. Chairman Teele: Commissioners. Commissioner Winton: Could I ask you one more question, Andrew? Mr. Dickman: Sure. Commissioner Winton: Of the people that are going to testify, how many of those people do you consider to be experts that will add competent testimony, not just neighborhood opinion, to the issue here? Because I'm going to -- I could probably recite the neighborhood opinion, and you have people from the neighborhood here, they're all smart people, they're all very articulate, and so the ones that are here can cover that, so I want to get to the point -- I don't want to cut your -- I don't want to reduce -- listen, they've already gone through a lot, so .I don't necessarily have a problem turning to them and saying, we -- apologies, but we're going to go one more time just so that everybody's record's straight. I'm getting a sense about where I'm going on the basis of -- kind of a rational judgment, but if there's competent technical testimony that you can't put on, I need to understand that, and if you come the next time, if 1 said yes and you don't bring that, I am not going to be a very happy camper. Mr. Dickman: Commissioner -- Patrick Whiteside: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, may I address the Commission, please? Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. No, you may not. I'm asking him a question. Mr. Whiteside: Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: Yes. The answer is yes, that -- and I'm sure Mr. Maxwell can expound on this, as well. The law in Florida is that homeowners can give competent evidence, as long as it's fact based. The homeowners that I had here knew that. We talked about the things that we needed to get on the record. They are not considered necessarily experts, per se. In fact, you know, had we had more time, we could have gotten other experts, but, yes. homeowners that were going to be here, I'm not going to say -- there are some here still, but most of them left, and important points that we want to get on the record, yes, it would have been fact based and it would have been used as competent evidence. I also want to state that since the time from the PAB hearing • • • and tonight -- as of yesterday, April 21st -- this is from the hearing file that I examined today. This is from the lab design, the applicants_ Basically, they have submitted new plans, elevations yesterday. 1 mean, that's just really unfair for new plans to be submitted, elevations to be submitted. This is -- 1 can put it in the record. It's in your packet, but it's dated April 21st, and this is basically the elevations that the PAI3 were asking for. I mean, there was a long discussion from one of the board members that, hey, I. don't have enough exhibits here to look at, so here is a document that's put in the record yesterday. This is where we are. Commissioner Winton: I understand. He wanted to address the Chair, so -- Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. Mr. Whiteside: Yes, sir. My apologies for interrupting, but I have an attorney and a Commissioner going back and forth, I didn't know when I'd get a word in edgewise, but I'd like -- Chairman Teele: State your name. Mr. Whiteside: I'm Patrick Whiteside. I'm with the Biscayne Corridor Chamber of Commerce, 780 Northeast 69th Street. I'd like to request that you not continue this meeting. Mr. Dickman is saying that his side has just kind of gotten tired and gone home. You have two sides here. You have one side that hasn't gotten tired and gone home. Mr. Dickman could have requested that he did the same thing that the proponents did and speak, so that they could make their claim and go home. Now, I mean, our foundation of how we run our government is based on, we do things in a speedy manner, and I think Mr. Dickman's request basically comes down to "The dog ate my homework. I didn't have enough time to prepare." I mean, this goes back several months. There's been many, many months, many hours Chairman Teeie: All right. Mr. Whiteside: -- for Mr. Dickman to prepare, and I would request that you do not continue this. Chairman Teele: Ali right. I'm going to ask and request respectfully of the district Commissioner to defer the matter to the first meeting in May, which is two weeks away -- since we're going to have that May 6th meeting, which is not a zoning meeting -- at a time that is convenient for both lawyers, with the Clerk being requested to make a verbatim transcript of the meeting to this date, so that it's there before us. Commissioner Winton, do not feel compelled, but I'm only trying to protect the record, and let me just tell you why. The meetings have gone very long tonight. I can't see any real danger or damage that is done. They've not closed on that last project. It's very frustrating to those people that are here, but the people that have presented the evidence, their information is in the record, so it's not like we're inconveniencing all of the people who are here to see what happens. They can have a pizza on us and tune in from your home, because we're not going to be opening up the public hearing again for that. There will be rebuttal, and your lawyer will afford -- be afforded the opportunity to bring other people back and to rebut anything that's said, but I just think given the manner in which the attorney is making the request and given the fact that two weeks -- if we were deferring it for a month, it would be a little bit different. I just would like to protect the record, but again, you know, the last time this came up, Commissioner Sanchez said go forward; we went forward, and I don't feel 410 bad about it. • • Commissioner Winton: But you read rne. 1 was torn between these two things, and then I got to thinking, well, it's going to be a month. It won't be a month. It's going to be six weeks, but I think you've got the right compromise there. We put it on the regular agenda, which is two weeks from now, and we've heard the folks from the positive side. That's already a part of the record: We don't have to rehear that. We can hear the competent testimony from those in opposition, and then we're going to make a decision. t;ltairman Teele: And the transcript -- Commissioner Winton: And the transcript. Chairman Teele: -- coming from the Clerk's Office. Commissioner Winton: Yes. And I think they want to put one more on the record. Alex Rodriguez: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Alex Rodriguez, 469 Northeast 76th Street, the president of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association. Also, a director of the Upper Eastside Miami Council. If you choose to defer this -- continue it in the next two weeks, could you please give us a time certain? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Mr. Rodriguez: So that way, when -- everybody could be here on time? Chairman Teele: Absolutely. Commissioner Winton: And would y'all like -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It will be -- Commissioner Winton: -- 6 o'clock, 5:30? Vice Chairman Sanchez: It'll be addressed and taken care of at that day. I mean -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah, and this won't be nearly as long because -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: -- we've heard a lot, seen a lot. It will be a much, much shorter presentation, but would y'all like 5:30 or 6 or -- Mr. Rodriguez: 6 o'clock would be better, and -- Chairman Teele: No, no, no. It's not up to you now. Hold on. You're -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You can't have the cake and eat it, too. • • • Chairman Teele: -- you're licking the plate. Mr. Rodriguez: I thought he said y'all. I thought he said y°all. Commissioner Winton: Well, I did. .I did. I did. I caused that problem. I did that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, you did? Commissioner Winton: I did that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You can't have the cake and eat it, too. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, what would you suggest? Chairman Teele: I would like for the people who are opposing to the deferral to tell us what time would be convenient for them? Mr. Rodriguez: 1 think 6:30 would be fair for everyone who works and that needs to get down here with traffic and everything. Commissioner Winton: Well, how big is our agenda on the 6th? Oh, we're going to have a combine meeting, aren't we? Vice Chairman Sanchez: We don't even know what we're going to have. Commissioner Winton: Oh, yeah, so -- Chairman Teele: We don't know what we're going to have. Mr. Rodriguez: 6, 6:30, whatever -- Commissioner Winton: 6 o'clock. 6 o'clock. Mr. Rodriguez: 6. And I will make sure our people are brief and it will be very direct. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Continue to the -- Teresita Fernandez (Hearing Boards): For the record -- Mr. Alvarado: Commissioner, could I have a word, please? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Mr. Alvarado: I will kindly request you that we don't delay this process anymore. It is not about two weeks that we have been working on this project. We have been working for more than six months with the community. • • • Commissioner Winton: You have my absolute commitment, on the 6th -- is it the 6th? Two weeks from now -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Johnny. Commissioner Winton: -- we will make a decision. Vi -r Chairman Sanchez: Johnny. Commissioner Winton: Done. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Any developer -- and I speak from the heart -- any developer who has hid 51 meetings with the community, have changed their plans five times, that's beyond acting to. good faith to try to get their project done, you know, Time to them is an essence. I want to make this happen, and I want everybody to have a fair process in this and have representation, but, you know, I've got to tip off my hat to you. I mean, I'll continue to say this: With all these things that are going on in this community with the moratoriums and the things that are going on, I mean, it's starting to send shivering down the spine of a lot of people in our community and we need to realize that. Chairman Teele: I want to be very clear about this to both sides. II think it's on the record that there have been a series of meetings somewhere greater than 25 and maybe as many as 51, so I think, clearly, this deferral is the last time and the last request that you all can make in good conscience, because it borders upon just raising the question of dilatory tactics, and I'm not suggesting that, but I am saying, when you all come in here, you all need to be concise, brief, to the point, take as long as you take, but we don't need a filibustering on this. Mr. Dickman: You have my word. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Madam Clerk, did you have a -- Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear, we have not finished with our supporters either tonight. Ms. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Commissioner Winton: Why not? We don't need any more. 1 mean, give me a break. Chairman Teele: OK. OK. Ma'am. Ms. Fernandez: Teresita Fernandez from Hearing Boards. To answer Mr. Winton's question on how big an agenda we have for the 6th, we have four second readings at 3 o'clock; we have one second reading at 4:30, and then we have this one at 6 p.m. Chairman Teele: What's at 4:30? Ms. Fernandez: 4:30 is the Silver Bluff, the moratorium. • • • Commissioner Winton: Yeah, but we've debated all these about 800 times, so these are going to go -- those will go quickly. Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Winton: As will this one. Chairman Teele: 6 o'clock, without delay. Commissioner Winton: As will this one. Chairman Teele: Hold on. No, no, no, no, sir. Counsel. Ryan York: Sir. Chairman Teele: No. no, please. Your -- the attorney. How many more people do you all have, Madam Attorney, to make presentations? Ms. Dougherty: You can see at least six people right here. Chairman Teeie: All right. When we take this up, we will begin with you all making your conclusion, with at least -- with six people. Ryan York: Sir, I know I don't want to interrupt, but I just -- I'm prepared today to speak on behalf of Mark Soyka. Chairman Teele: Your name. Say again. Mr. York: OK. My name is Ryan York. I'm here to speak on behalf of Mark Soya, who cannot be here today. Chairman Teele: Maybe he'll be available on the 6th. Mr. York: Perhaps, he will, but 1 think that there's nobody more impacted by this project than Mark Soyka and what he's done -- Chairman Teele: Well, sir, you're not debating the deferral. Either you come back on the 6th or Mr. Soyka come back on the 6th, and you'll be the lead up batter at 6 p.m., and no matter what else we're doing, colleagues -- please don't be offended -- no matter what else we're doing, I'm going to cut you off because we're going to start this at 6 p.m. Commissioner Winton: I vote yes on that. Chairman Teele: OK. So -- Juana Villegas: Can I just say something? I'm not going -- Chairman Teele: Your name for the record. • • • Ms. Villegas: Juana Villegas. I'm not going to be here on the 6th, but I have a letter signed by many supporters. Who can I leave it with? Chairman Teele: Would you like to read the letter into the record right now, ma'am? Ms. Villegas: OK. Respected Commissioners, my name is Juana Villegas. I'm a fashion designer for Soyka, a women's clothing store at Soyka's 55th Street Station. I'm here today in support of Kubik as a merchant of the area. 55th Street Station is a unique collection of wonderful stores and businesses. All of us are constantly working to make our niche a destination point to the residents of Miami, but there is still a great deal of work to be done. i believe a development like Kubik will make our streets secure, friendly, and more beautiful still. Kubik respects the area's aesthetics and will create pedestrian traffic that will abate crime and prostitution, while bringing customers to our places of business. I strongly support the development. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right, and that will be admitted into the record with the signatures of those persons. Ms. Villegas: And the signatures are most of the business owners of the area, OK? Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Ms. Villegas: Thank you. Chairman Teele: We have a motion to defer on the -- Commissioner Winton: Continue, right? Chairman Teele: I mean, to continue the matter to a time certain of 6 p.m., on the date, May 6th? Is there anyone else here against the continuance that needs to be heard? If not, all — Ms. Thompson: I need a second. Chairman Teele: The notion was made by Commissioner Winton. It was seconded by Commissioner -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: -- Regalado. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Sir. Steve Caterbone: Yes, sir. My name is Steve Caterbone. I'm a homeowner, who's been waiting since 3 o'clock, and I will never come back to this hall again. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else? • • • Mr. York: We ll,1 was cut off, but I would like to state my objection to this. 1 think there's nobody that's -- Chairman Teele: State your name and address again. Mr, York: My name is Ryan York. Chairman Teele: So, you're not going to be back on the 6th. Mr. York: We will be back on the 6th. Chairman Teele: Well, no, no, no, no. No. I apologize. Go ahead, go ahead. I mean, this is just playing with us now, but -- Mr. York: Well, the point is, is that Mark Soyka has proven his credentials in trying to benefit the City of Miami and Miami Beach. This project is going to impact him more than probably anybody else in the community. He has spent much time with the developers; he has considered the architectural aspects of the development, and he really objects to this continued process. 1 mean, he is very much at ease with the project. He looks forward to working with these people, and to have it in his neighborhood, and this has just been really an unfair and an ongoing situation that just -- Commissioner Winton: And is he not a resident of Morningside? Mr. York: He's a resident of Morningside. I'm a resident of Morningside. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Mr. York: He's -- six years ago, when he went and purchased the building at 5556 Northeast 4th Court, which is now Soyka, there was nobody interested in this area. There was no developers. There was nobody, and this is his home. Commissioner Winton: There were a lot of people. Mr. York: He has this cafe. He has Van Dyke. He didn't choose to live on the beach. He didn't choose to live in those neighborhoods. He chose to live in Morningside. He's very protective about his home, and his businesses and the community, and he has spent time with these people. He's impressed. They've been very sensitive to all the issues that have been brought forward to them, and he really wants to give it his stamp of approval and proceed, because this really has been kind of an unfair process that they've had to been put through, and so we would object to this continuation. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Attorney, do I have a conflict? I go to Soyka's every Friday, and we all respect Mr. Soyka and what he has done for the redevelopment. All right. We have a motion. We have a second. We want to apologize to everybody. We're going to be here for another four hours, but we do want to protect the record. We don't want this to be something that someone feels is being crammed down their throat. We want to give everybody a fair • • • chance, and I think Commissioner Winton is bending over backwards now, and thank you, Commissioner Winton. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed, say "no." The Morningside residents -- Mr. Dickman: You have our gratitude. Chairman Teele: -- have gotten their deferral. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you.