Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 6, 2004 TranscriptsThursday, May 6, 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. Teele, 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 Vilareilo, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk REGULAR 1 03-0415 PZ,7 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 Anatysis.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 & Supra Docs.PDF, 03-0415 Plans.PDF, 03-0415 LecisIation_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.opt, 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 APPLICANTS) 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.7 to the Commission Meeting currently scheduled for June 10, 2004 at 3 p.m.; further requesting the developer of the Kubik Project to meet with area residents to negotiate a solution to neighbors' concerns and come back with a model, in appropriate scaled proportions, showing how this project compares with the surrounding area properties; further directing the Administration to observe the meeting between the developer and the area residents. Chairman Teele: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, those of you who are remaining, would you please raise your right hand and repeat after the Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Commissioner, we still have some people outside that are coming in, as well. Chairman Teele: Welt, I can't be responsible for that. They'll have to be re -sworn. The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues (said oath was translated into Spanish and Creole). Ms. Thompson; Thank you. Chairman Teele: You may be seated. Ladies to gentlemen, now, we are on a schedule in which we'd like to try to move this through. Mr. Attorney, Mr. Attorney, would you review the record as to where we left this matter, and what were the conditions that we said in the last meeting, the ground rules? 1 Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): I believe you closed the -- 1 believe you accepted testimony from both sides at the last hearing, and closed the -- and staff -- and you closed the public bearing, 1 believe. Chairman Mete; And we are coming back today for the limited purpose of doing what? Mr. Maxwell: Did you have a -- no, no. Chairman Teele: Would both counsel -- would the two lawyers please introduce yourselves and state your understanding of where we are in the proceeding? Lucia Dougherty: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, Lucia Dougherty, with law offices at 1221 $rickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the applicant, and my understanding is that we closed our presentation. The opponents have not made their presentation. We have several supporters who didn't get a chance to speak the last time, and then I'm going to be taking rebuttal, so that's where we are. In other words -- Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Attorney -- Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Well, hold on. Commissioner Regalado, could we get that door closed back there? Andrew Dickman: Same of our people are trapped out there. Chairman Teele: Sergeant -at -arms, take Commissioner Regalado down to the -- Commissioner Winton: To the brig. Do we have a brig? Chairman Teele: OK, ladies and gentlemen, we need your cooperation. We're trying to move through this as fairly but as expeditiously as possible. Counsel, is your recollection the same as Ms. Dougherty's? Mr. Dickman: Yes, sir, it is. Chairman Teele: How long are you going to require in making your presentation? Mr. Dickman: I'm going to make a very brief, one -minute presentation, and I have a number of people that want to speak. They will keep it ta, I would say, two minutes each, and then I would like to close. Chairman Teele: You're recognized for your presentation. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, again, my clients are having trouble getting in the room. Chairman Teele: There is no trouble getting in the room, sir. You need to move forward with your presentation. Commissioner Winton: There's two doors and there's no one coming through that one. Chairman Teele: There's no one at the other door and the doors are not blocked. Mr. Sergeant -at -arms, go out there and say, if anyone is here for the 6 o'clock, please come in. Go right ahead. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9111 Park Drive, Miami Shores, Florida, here representing the Morningside Civic Association, our homeowners association. We are here in opposition to the applicant, the so-called Kubik at Morningside Project. We are here specifically to address issues that concern the neighborhood in dealing with the context of this project in the neighborhood, how large it is in relationship to the other buildings and houses around it, and specifically, how tall it is. We have a number of members that are here to speak, and we'd like to give a presentation, a Power Paint presentation outlining what our objections are, so if 1 could, 1 would go ahead and ask the homeowners that are going to speak to come on up and keep your comments as brief as possible and do not repeat. Chairman Teele: Who's making the Power Point presentation? Mr. Dickman: Mr. Cruz. who is serting up his materials. Maybe he could get that set up while the others speak. Chairman Teele: Oh, so you're stalling for time. Mr. Dickman: No, no. Chairman Teele: Ali right. Homeowners, please, those people in opposition, you're recognized. Please come forward. S Michael Carl: I am Dr. Michael Carl, I am living at 570 Northeast 57th Street in Miami, and I'm a tviorningside resident. I am a new face on the block here. I've never spoken before. Now, what does the law say? The Miami Zoning Code Section 1703 sets forth the certain standards for the City Commission to consider when evaluating a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) application. Such standards include whether the development will have a favorable impact on the environment and natural resources of the City; whether the development will adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. Now, what's our analysis here? Notwithstanding the lack of adequate documentation materials, it is clear that the project, as submitted, fails to adequately address the above noted standards. In this regard, the proposed development will not have a favorable impact on the environment. It will adversely affect the living conditions in the neighborhood, as the overall size, density, scale and orientation of the structure will envelope and overwhelm the more low -scaled character of the surrounding area. Specifically, the orientation of the proposed towers, as you can see, broadsides major public streets -- namely, Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 58th Street — in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the established pattern of buildings, Second, in combination with a ten -story building to the immediate east, a large canyon effect will squeeze a narrow portion of Biscayne Boulevard and the larger vicinity of the site, having an extremely negative impact on the pedestrian experience at the sidewalk level. Large shadows will cast over the single-family homes in Momingside to the east, as well as Lemon City to the west. The design of the round base portion of the project, which continues with no breaks around the entire block fails to address the individual low -scale character of the existing architecture -- Chairman Teele: Doctor, you did say this is your first time coming. Dr. Carl: Yes. Chairman Teele: Those beeps were telling you that your time has expired. How much more time will you need -- l5 seconds to close? Dr. Carl: Ten seconds. Chairman Teeie: OK, thank you. Dr. Carl: -- of the existing -- I mean, fails to address the individual low -scale character of the existing architecture that defines Biscayne Boulevard. Therefore, I'm opposing this project. Thank you for your attention. Chairman Teele: Thank you for coming, and I hope to see you many more times in the future. Dr. Carl: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Ma'am. Jennifer Zilka: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jeniffer Zilka. I live -- Chairman Teele: Jennifer, pull that down to you a little closer. Yeah. Ms. Zilka: I live at 441 Northeast 52nd Street. Section 1702,2 of the Miami Zoning Code dictates in part that in order to properly address any impact created by the proposed developments, additional data may be required by the City through its boards, officers, agents or the City Commission upon showing of need for proper decision -malting purposes. Moreover, Section 1702.2.1 of the code requires that a report be submitted with specific exhibits, including the following: A survey of the proposed area showing property lines and ownership; existing features, including streets, alleys, easements, utility lines; existing land use; general topography and other physical features and materials to demonstrate the relationship of these elements of the surrounding area's characteristics. The architectural drawings and exhibits submitted by the applicant fail to fully detail and address the impact created by the project. Few, if any, of the applicant's exhibits illustrate the project's impact in relationship within the neighborhood context in order to evaluate size, scale, context and compatibility. In this regard, additional material in the form of elevation drawings for all sides of the building are needed. Specifically, the applicant should provide a contextual sketch or detailed computer photo image of the project showing the Biscayne Boulevard, 53th Street and Northeast 4th Court elevations of the proposed project within the as -built surroundings. These should include schematic elevations of the existing buildings and properties on both sides of the aforementioned streets, indicating the overall height, massing, window and door placement, as well as significant architectural features of the existing buildings. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Jennyfer Simpson: Dr. Jennyfer Simpson, 530 Northeast 59th Street. This is for the record. In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code, the subject project is required to be consistent with the design review criteria in Section 1305.2. Under the architecture and landscape architecture criteria, the project must: One, respond to the neighborhood context; two, create a transition bulk and scale; three, articulate the building facade vertically and horizontally in intervals that conform to the existing structures in the vicinity. The existing neighborhood context is one of much lower scale structure, as you can see, on smaller individual lots. This existing context has not yet been addressed in any way by the applicant, and as the project seemingly consists of a monumental base, four stories in height, running the entire length of the property, and a similarly oriented tower that has only one break. Secondly, no transition in bulk or scale has been provided as the subject structure fails to provide any type of stepped massing or orientation that allows for a better transition level to the highest floor. The proposed structure goes from grade level to 150 feet within the same building plane. Finally, the structure has been overly massed in a horizontal fashion. When combined with the proposed height, the result is a structure that fails to establish an adequate horizontalvertical balance and inappropriately broadsides the sidewalk, street and surrounding area. Chairman Teele: Say that again. Dr. Simpson: Yes. Say it again? Chairman Teele: "Inadvertently," did you say? Dr. Simpson: And inappropriately broadsides the sidewalk, street and surrounding area, and 1 think there's a good demonstration on the board there, if you could -- if you see Elvis' thing. Can I keep going fast? Chairman Teele: Yes. They held your time so you're nut being penalized, Dr. Simpson: OK. I'm trying to go fast. OK. Therefore the -- this is for the record -- the project fails to comply with the criteria listed in Section 1305.2 of the City Code. I suggest that in addition to reducing the height and density, as reorienting the mass of the tower in a perpendicular manner, the project needs to employ other design options in order to address the established context of the immediate area. Such options include gradually or incrementally stepping the building back from the streets, creating multiple towers with significantly smaller footprints and utilizing different types of massing forms and floor plates, which are more geometric as opposed to rectangular. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Ma'am, what is your degree -- you're a doctor of what? Dr. Simpson: Medicine. Chairman Teete: Medicine? M.U.? Dr, Simpson: Pardon me? Chairman Teete: M.D.? Dr. Simpson: M.D. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. Sir. Robert Stebbins: Good evening, Chairman. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Robert Stebbins. I live at 410 Northeast 52nd Terrace and this is for the record. Design review criteria, streetscape and open space. In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code, the subject project is required to be consistent with the design review criteria in Section 1305,2, Under the streetscape and open space criteria, the project must provide usable open space that allows for convenient and visible pedestrian access from the public sidewalk, The analysis is the subject submitted drawings fail to clearly delineate and define pedestrian paints of access. Pedestrian access to the residential tower directly from Biscayne Boulevard has not been provided. Therefore, the project fails to comply with the criteria listed in Section 1305.2 of the City Code. Thank you for your time, Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Sir. John Parsons: Good afternoon. John Parsons, 670 Northeast 59th Street, a 27-year resident of Morningside. In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code, the subject project is required to be consistent with the design review criteria set forth in Section 1305.2, Under the pedestrian oriented development criteria, this project must design facades that respond primarily to the human scale, which it does not; provide active, non -blank facades, for blank walls are unavoidable. They should receive design treatment, This project does not do that, The lack of adequate physical breaks in the base portion of the structure results in a massive run-on building fronting the sidewalk, thus failing to adequately respond to human scale. lust look at the drawings. Look at the scale of this massive building, compared to the surrounding neighborhood. Secondly, only one building elevation was submitted. Therefore, it's impossible to verify whether this particular criteria has been met. Additionally, it is not clear from the submitted plans how the second and third floors of the street -facing portions of the parking base will be utilized, Therefore, the project fails to comply with the criteria listed in Section 1305.2 of the City Code. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Mark Schuberts: Good evening, Chairman. In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code -- Ms. Thompson: Your name, please. Mr. Schuberts: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Mark Schuberts, 1 live at 544 Northeast 55th Street, Morningside resident for approximately 20 years. In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code, the subject project is required to be consistent with the design and review criteria in Section 1305.2. Under the screening criteria, the project must screen parking garage structure with program uses; where program uses are not feasible, softening the garage structure with trellises, landscaping and/or other suitable design elements. Details regarding the mechanical ventilation of the proposed garage levels have not been provided. In this regard, the size, location and orientation of fans and vents associated with mechanical ventilation will have a significant impact on adjacent residential structures, as well as the units in the tower portion of the subject project. Additionally, it is not clear from the submitted plans how the second and third floors of the street -facing portions of the parking base will be utilized. Therefore, the project fails to comply with the criteria listed in Section 1305.2 of the City Code. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you. David Bloom: Good evening. My name is David Bloom. I am a Morningside resident at 63C1 Northeast 55th Street. In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code, the subject project is required to be consistent with the design review criteria in Section 1305,2. Under the site and urban planning criteria, the project must respond to the physical contextual environment, taking into consideration urban form and natural features, and buildings on corner lots should be oriented to the comer and public street fronts. An analysis suggests the orientation of the tower portions of the project broadside and overwhelm adjacent streets, sidewalks and neighborhoods. This totally contradicts the existing context and urban form. Secondly, the primary corners of the site, the southeast and northeast have not been adequately developed as the project has been oriented on a rigid north/south and east/west access, which broadsides two major streets. Further, the existing strong corner architecture at the northwest corner is proposed to be removed, via the demolition of an architecturally and historically significant structure. In other words, the dance studio. The proposed siting and building orientation is wrong. In addition to broad -siding three pedestrian streets and creating a valley along Biscayne Boulevard in relation to the existing ten -story structure to the east, the project will hover over and cast shadows on established low scale residential areas to the north, east and west. Therefore, the project fails to comply with the site and urban planning criteria listed in Section 1305.2 of the City Code. l thank you for your time. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Scott Crawford: Good evening. Scott M. Crawford, 430 Northeast 52nd Street. In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code, the subject project is required to be consistent with the design review criteria in Section 1305.2. Under the signage and lighting criteria, the project must orient outside lighting to minimize glare to adjacent properties. The analysis is an exterior lighting plan has not been provided by the applicant. Therefore, the project fails to comply with the criteria listed above in the City Code. Thank you, Chairman Teele: Thank you very much, sir. Ma'am. Catherine Hite: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Catherine Hite. I live at 620 Northeast 51 st Street in Morningside. Section 1703 of the City Zoning Code dictates that the Commission, in reaching a decision on the appliication submitted, shall make a determination as to whether the development will be in conformity with or necessitate a change in the adopted Miami Comprehensive Plan. Neither the City nor the applicant has questioned the projeet's compatibility with the City's adopted comprehensive plan, specifically, the goals, objectives and policies that protect existing residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses; preserve important and unique historical resources; encourage mixed use multi -family development in and near the downtown and City center and ensure adequate public infrastructure in place at the time new development is built. Under state law, development orders issued by the City must be consistent with its adopted comprehensive plan. Based on our initial review of the Kubik Project, the project contravenes many of the City's adopted goats, objectives and policies, and therefore is subject to a legal challenge by adversely affected residents. The amount of density and height proposed by the applicant is much too much for the subject site. Notwithstanding any potential changes in building orientation, siting, massing and design, the amount of commercial and residential space, as well as the required parking, as proposed, will significantly strain the infrastructure requirements of the immediate area and further burden a local and regional roadway system that is operating beyond capacity. Therefore, we respectfully request that the project, as proposed, not be approved. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Jonathan Sackson: Good everting, Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Jonathan Sackson. I live at 670 Northeast 52nd Terrace in Morningside. I've been living there l4 years. I'm going to talk for a second on historical preservation. The City's adopted comprehensive plan contains many goals, objectives and policies calling for preserving important and unique historical resources. There are five sets of structures on the subject site which have varying degrees of architectural and historic significance, which are proposed to be demolished, Two of these structures are clearly important to the historical context of the boulevard, The first is the site of the In Motion Dance Center at the corner of Northeast 4th Court and Northeast 58th Street, It's clearly the most significant structure on the subject site. It's an outstanding example of the med deco architectural style with an exceptional degree of historic and architectural integrity. It's a beautiful building. The structure is defined by a well developed cylindrical corner. The entryway is this wonderful cylinder, flanked by asymmetrical wings. The building is in excellent condition and well maintained. The structure is representative of its period and contributes to the as -built scale and context of the immediate area. Additional research regarding the history of this structure should be completed prior to the project moving forward, as every effort should be made to retain and preserve this building. The structure at the northeast corner of the site, 58th Street and Biscayne Boulevard is an early post-modern •- post-war modern Nemo structure, typical of the motel architecture unique to upper Biscayne Boulevard. The structure is consistent with the as -built scale and context of this section of the boulevard. The proposed demolition or removal of time test established and context sensitive building forms on Biscayne Boulevard is significant. Further, the proposed replacement project fails to address the existing successful building form in any way. Look at that. Significant changes to the architectural vocabulary at the base level of the project are in order to address this gross deficiency. Allowing the destruction of these buildings would be a violation of the City's adopted comprehensive plan, and thank you for your time. !O Chairman Tcele: Thank you very much, Eileen Bottary: Good evening, My name is Eileen Bottary. I reside at 545 Northeast 76th Street in the Palm Grove neighborhood for 21 years. The developer has consistently made statements that they are building their project next to It-3 zoning. What they fail to mention is that 95 percent of the buildings on the R-3 zoning are historic single-family homes. The pictures I have taken -- top left, Biscayne Boulevard and 58th Street, which is right across from where the project is going to be -- is a two-story historic house. The top middle picture is Biscayne Boulevard and 58th Street -- 56th Street, which is where the project is going to be. It's one- and two-story apartment buildings that they're planning on bulldozing. The top right picture is Biscayne Boulevard Street, which is e one-story, and the road that leads to the Cushman School. The second row, the first picture is Northeast 4th Court and 59th Street looking north. This is the road that all the traffic from this project will be pouring out into. It is a small residential road with traffic one lane each way. The second picture is 58th Street and Biscayne Boulevard looking north. You can see that everything is one and two stories homes and buildings. The third picture is 58th Street and Biscayne Boulevard looking across to the Morningside neighborhood. You can see the historic homes. The fourth picture is 64th Street and Biscayne looking north. The third row, the first picture is the pump house. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, I believe you lost quorum. We don't have quorum. Chairman Teele: All right. We need to take about a three -minute break anyway. Your time is being frozen at 25 seconds left. Ms. Bottary: OK. Chairman Teele: There's no problem, and well just sort of relax for a few minutes. Ms. Bottary: May I start? Chairman Teele: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bottary: OK. I'm going to start on the third row on the bottom. The first picture is the pump -- Chairman Teele: Where you really need to be is your conclusion. You've got about 24 seconds, Ms. Bottary: I'm concluding with the bottom row, Chairman Teele: OK. Ms. Bottary: It's the pump house and in Pictures 2, 3 and 4, 461, 469, 47I Northeast 58th Street is the north side of the road. They're all single-farnily homes. It is right across the street from this huge condominium project, and 461 Northeast 58th Street shows you how small the road is right next to the project. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right, Thank you very much. All right. Now, Let's line this up now. How many more people do we have left to speak? You're the last in opposition? Mr. Dickman_ Actually, we have -- we have -- yeah, this is opposition, We have Mr. Cruz, this gentleman, this lady, and we have one expert that's here that will speak, and then 1 will conclude, and the expert has told me that he could do it in two minutes. Chairman Teele: Well, C'rn not going to rush the expert, although two minutes is a reasonable amount of time. Hold on just one minute, now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: He's getting paid by the hour. Chairman Teele: Hold on just one minute, Who's going to make the presentation? Elvis Cruz: Myself Chairman Teele: How long are you going to require? Mr. Cruz: 1 have two minutes, and this young lady will speak for another two minutes, and I'll work the pictures for her. Chairman Teele: All right. Please, sir, proceed. Ken Whiting: I'll be very brief. Ken Whiting of 742 Northeast 68th Street in the Bayside Historic District. I'm here in support of my neighboring Momingside residents in controlling growth on Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Elvis Cruz: Gentlemen, Elvis Cruz, 63 i Northeast 57th Street. Section 1305.2 of the Zoning Code empowers you to protect the public interest with these design review criteria: Respond to the physical contextual environment, taking into consideration urban form; respond to the neighborhood context; create a transition in bulk and scale. As I've shown in earlier appearances here, on the 2.48 miles of Biscayne Boulevard north of48th Street, 95 percent of the properties are two stories or less, with only 14 buildings higher than two stories, and eight of' those being only three stories. That is the neighborhood context. There is, however, a ten -story building across the street from the proposed site at 5701 Biscayne. It is still surrounded by single-family homes and two-story apartments. Even when it was built back in 1973, it is still out of scale. Even today, there is no other ten -story or higher building on the east side of Biscayne from well below 36th Street to far above the City limits. Even today, there is no other ten -story or higher building on the west side of Biscayne from 48th Street to the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) Building at 79th Street. Does it make sense to use a 31-year-old violation of scalc to justify another violation of scale? The scale model before you, with the existing 5701 Biscayne Building in blue shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the proposed building is out of scale with the existing neighborhood. As per the submitted plans, the building is over 162 feet tall, over 400 feet wide, with 293 units. Notice the single-family homes across the street. They've been overwhelmed. The proponents say that they met many times with area neighbors and have letters of support. They did, but those meetings never resolved the bulk and scale problem with the project, and they involved questionable tactics. They told as and this Commission that the building height is 149-11, but their submitted plans show 162-5. This is a picture shown to area neighbors. Notice the building on the left side of the frame. That's 5701 Biscayne, a ten -story building; yet here, the Kubik Building is made to look shorter than it and only about twice as tall as the young mahogany tree on the right. The balconies shown are actually on every other floor, This misled several neighbors into signing letters of support for what they thought was a seven - story building. [ now submit for the public record four letters that retract support and an additional seven letters from area neighbors in the immediate area expressing their opposition. Lastly, this building would sit across the street from four single-family houses. Proponents dismissed that out of hand because it's an R-3 neighborhood. We have a letter from an expert witness that examines that R-3 neighborhood, and to read the letter, we have Ms. Mary Foehrenbach. Go ahead, Mary. Mary Foehrenbach: I'm Mary Foehrenbach. I live at 655 Northeast 55th Terrace. I have a letter here from the noted historian of Miami -Dade County, Dr. Paul George. He says_ "Dear Miami City Commissioners, this plat map shows the Bayshore Subdivision from the early 1920s. Back then, it was zoned single-family, and went from Biscayne Bay west to the FEC (Florida East Coast) Railroad; from 55th Terrace north to 6 [st Street. it includes today's Soyka Complex and the proposed condo site. In the late 1920s, Biscayne Boulevard was constructed through the area, separating Bayshore into east and west. East Bayshore is today known as Morningside, which is still zoned for single-family houses. Unfortunately, for reasons known only to the authors of Miami's bizarre Zoning Code, Bayshore West was zoned to R-3, even though there are still 41 single-family houses there. These examples show they have the same architecture and vintage as Morningside's historic district. This area is rich in Miami's history, including its earliest roots as Lemon City and the location of the beautiful coral rock masterpiece, the Bayshore pump house, once threatened, but now being preserved. While Bayshore West may not be an officially designated historic district, it certainly could and should be. [ am in opposition to the proposed behemoth condominium project. It would sit directly across 58th Street from four single-family homes. Should these single-family homeowners be punished because they are in an R-3 zone? The project would also likely demolish the beautiful home of the Northeast Miami Women's Club, now known as the In Dance Motion Studio, designed by the renowned architect, B.H. Dellinvogen. What kind of future will this neighborhood face if this massive building project goes forward? Historic neighborhoods of single- family homes are a precious treasure to any City, regarded across the country as a key to both the past and the future. Please protect Miami's past and future by denying this out -of -scale project. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul George, Ph.D., historian." Mr. Cruz: Thank you, gentlemen. And -- (APPLAUSE) Mr. Cruz: Please don't applaud. Instead, I'd like to ask everybody that's here in opposition to the project to please stand and be recognized. This is our II th time here at City Hall fighting high-rises, gentlemen. Thank you. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, after this final speaker, I'd like our expert to come up and -- Chairman Teele: All right. Let me thank Mary again for that excellent presentation. Mary, 1 did want to just clarify one thing. You show that beautiful limestone pump house there. Now, that's not in this development, is it? That's -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Chairman Teele: That's on the other side of the street, isn't it? Ms. Foehrenbach: It's on the other side. Chairman Teele: OK. I just want to make sure that were not destroying that, because I can tell you, if that pump house were underneath this building, it would be a different -- it would be a very, very meaningful issue for me, but it's not in the plan. Is that -- Commissioner Winton: Across the street. Ms. Foehrenbach: No, but the Miami Women's Club, which is a treasure -- Dellinvogen is one of the most famous architects -- Chairman Teele: You need to be on the record, ma'am. My question was just to clarify to the public, primarily, that the pump house, that historic limestone house there is across the street from this project. Ms. Foehrenbach: Right, and what is in the project is the Miami Women's Club, which I remember, when I first moved to Miami, was used as a voting place. This is a -- and the architect is very, very famous. Dellinvogen is one of the famous architects from the early 1920 period. It's our history. Chairman Teele: What was the name? Ms, Forenbach: Dellinvogen. It's our history. Don't destroy it, please. <5' Vice Chairman Sanchez: Will it be torn down? Chairman Teele: The Women's Club, she said. All right. Thank you all again. One more, oh, yes, indeed, one very important. Becky Roper Matkov: I'm Becky Roper Matkov, the Executive Director of Dade Heritage Trust, the largest historic preservation non-profit organization in Miami -Dade County, and I am here to amen what was just said. Morningside has been one of the City of Miami's most important historic resources. That is a neighborhood that on its house tours over the last decade for Dade Heritage Days, literally thousands of people have toured that neighborhood and have been attracted to the City of Miami, wanting to live there, admiring it, writing about it nationally, all across the State, and this is something that I think you must not discount in importance. One single building could really impact very negatively this very wonderful historic treasure that you have, so we would oppose this building. We would oppose any building that is out of scale and that is not enhancing the historic nature of the neighborhood. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you, Becky. All right. Karen McGuire: Ili. My name is Karen McGuire. Chairman Teele: Pull it up, Karen. Yeah. Ms, McGuire: Hi. My name is Karen McGuire. I reside at 736 Northeast 67th Street, and I am a board member on the Bayside Neighborhood Association, and I know last week or the week before, you were informed that Bayside unanimously supports this project. I'd just like to say that I'm retracting my support for this project. Unfortunately, the evening when we were told to vote on this project, it was a quarter to 9, my son was in Boy Scouts, everyone was tired, and we were told that we shouldn't align ourselves with the fanatics in Momingside and that it was a done deal and there was nothing we can do about it. Well, I think people in my neighborhood are starting to wake up and find out that there are things that we can do about it, and in its present form, I don't support this project. Thank you. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce our expert, Mr. Blazejack. Economic feasibility and impacts are an important factor that you need to consider, and we would like our expert to put some testimony on the record. John Blazejack: Good everting. John Blazejack, 655 Southwest Miami Place, City of Miami. I'm a real estate appraiser. t was asked to look at the supply and demand aspect for the condominiums, and we work on these periodically, both on a supply and demand basis doing market studies, but also on evaluation of different projects for lenders and developers. Our office, what we're seeing now -- what I'm seeing is that we're basically in an over -supplied market at this point, and for the past few years, we've been lucky in that we've had a big pipeline, but many of the projects didn't get delivered and -- Chairman Teele: We're over -supplied on what? Mr, Blazejack: Over -supply of condominiums in the higher price range. What we're seeing now is about 2800 units under construction that would include the Upper Eastside and downtown Miami, and about 14,000 units in the pipeline. Our annual take -- Chairman Teele: 14 what? Mr. Blazejack: 14,000 units in the pipeline. Those are projects that have already been in some phase approved, and announced and so forth, and what happens is we've had a historical takedown or sales of units in the same area of about 650 units a year, so we've reached the point where maybe we have a three - or four-year supply that's under construction, and so what will happen is if interest rates go up the way we think they are, we're going to lose some of the demand, and its also going to be much harder for these projects to finish, because they're fifty to a hundred million dollar type projects, and if the loan interest rates go up, it's going to be much harder for them. Chairman Toole: What's your price point analysis on this? Mr. Blazejack: What -- I didn't do a price point analysis, but when I was here the other day, they were talking about a four hundred thousand dollar unit, and at that point, what -- what we really need there is about a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar unit, and I would say you'd have plenty demand, but at four hundred thousand, we've got so many existing projects on Briekell, and in downtown, and in the -- as we move up the boulevard that are competing with it that -• it would be waterfront and already existing high- rises that we've got too many units in that price category, so that's about all I had to say on it. I'm just fearful about the fact that we're at the point where the cheap money is drying up. Adding to it is going to be harder for the delivery of these projects. I always like to look at a fall back position that if you could rent the project, what would it cost, and I think at this point, when the projects get too over -designed, you can't rent them. They cost too much, and that's all I've got to say, if there's any questions. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Is that it? Mr. Dickman: That's it, Mr. Chair. I'd like to take a few minutes just to close with some closing remarks. Chairman Teele: Take your time. Mr. Dickman: I'm going to actually start and finish with the same comment, and I'm going to start with basically concurring and supporting thc comments that Commissioner Winton made at the last hearing, that this isn't a -- don't interpret our objections as a message of anti -development. None of the clients that I represent -- and it's a growing number of homeowners -- have ever said to me once that they are against development. That is just absolutely not the case, and no one should send that message out, and I would venture to guess that 99 percent of the people that are here with me will say that. We want smart growth, good growth. We want projects that'll enhance the neighborhood, and what you heard tonight was the criteria that's in your own code that your staff, your City and you all up here on the Commission are required to use when you're evaluating these projects. At the Last hearing, we heard a lot about how many meetings the applicant had. They claimed to have 50 meetings. That isn't the standard that you have to evaluate this by. The applicant went on about how tong they've been in the process, how long it's been getting approval. That isn't the standard that you need to use to evaluate this. It's irrelevant. The applicant wants you to believe that just a few homeowners in Morningside are angry about this. That's absolutely a mistake. Don't make that mistake to assume that it's just a few Morningsiders. I can guarantee you that's not the case. We talked about, at the last hearing, how much they paid for the property, and when they paid for the property, Candidly, that's not what you have to be looking at, as far as the standard of approving or not approving this project. These are things that should not even necessarily be on the front burner of your minds when you're thinking about this. What should be on the front burner of your minds are the standards that you heard the neighbors speak to you tonight. They're in Article 17, they're in Section 1305, These are thc standards that talk about context, scale, massing, whether it is supported by your own adopted comprehensive plan, whether you can support this project through the comprehensive plan, and we have given you evidence tonight that it does not, and again, we would -- more than happy if this project would come back in a different form. Nobody is saying that that property ought to stay exactly as it is forever and ever. Everyone agrees that that's an important corner. It's a focal point as you go north on the boulevard. It's a very important piece of property. The standards that you have seen -- we feel the plans that are presented do riot take into the full context of the surrounding area. If you look at the plans and if you look at the plans that have been given to you tonight, the exhibits, it shows you that their own plans, their exhibits do not show the other buildings in and around it, like they are required to do by code, so that you can evaluate whether they are in context. The handouts that we've given you -- and you can see this one, as well, -- shows the actual scale, It shows how tail this is, as well as this building here, with regard to a 25-foot house, a six-foot human being. I think all of these pieces of evidence show you that how out of scale this very large building -- the pedestal that was referred to tonight is the parking pedestal. That is basically four stories of cars that is going to take up the entire footprint almost of that whole property. The aerial photograph that we've prepared for you can show you in terms of scale what this means. When you look at this aerial that's in front of you and that we put up in front of you -- and you can actually see it on the applicant's own exhibits when they show the shadow studies. Rooftops are a good indicator of what the scale is. Count all those little thy -bitty rooftops. Those are single-family homes, and then you look at this big mass in yellow, which is going to be Kubik. The next biggest thing is the falls, and then you can see Soyka Restaurant, which I think is a very large space. It's at least 40 feet tall. Those are the kinds of things that are in scale. The Kubik Project, as it's designed today, is absolutely, by any standards, out of scale with anything in and around it. It even dwarfs the falls, which, as Mr. Cruz stated, is an anomaly. The other things that we said is that 40 feet of parking is broadsiding Biscayne Boulevard. You are going to have a tunnel going through there. Not only during the daytime, but at dusk and dawn, you are going to see shadows that are going to go way over that. The applicants have presented plans that show the 5 o'clock shadow, but as we all know, this time of year, the sun sets 7:45, 8 o'clock. Those shadows are going to reach so far into Morningside, it's going to have a dramatic effect. The lighting, the traffic, the facades, all of this, 1 think you understand that we think are going to have a disastrous impact on the area, not to mention the destruction of very important historic property that adds to the entire area, as well as the boulevard. Now, I want to really quickly go through a few things I have concerns about that are procedurally related. First and foremost, at the -- I believe it was at the last PAB (Planning Advisory Board) hearing, it was brought forward that they have Option A and Option B or whatever they're calling it -- two options -- and then there's one property that has become sort of the keystone of Option A or Option B, and it turns out that it's owned by Marks Classics or something like that. The paperwork that's in the applicant's files didn't, at the beginning of this process, disclose who was the owner of that property. It is required by your applications to disclose all ownership, so that it can be fairly evacuated. That's just your procedure. It wasn't until that meeting that the owner of that property stepped forward at the hearing and said, "I own it" of course, that was Mark Soyka -- and said, "I own it." They have a contract to buy the property. They don't own it, and I'm trying to figure out if it fits in or not, but procedurally, that's, 1 think, a violation because you need to -- Chairman Teele: Well, why is that germane, counselor? Mr. Dickman: Why is it germane? Because it's a procedure -- because your application requires you to disclose that. If a neighbor wants to know -- Chairman Teele: But if he -- you just said the owner came up -- I thought you were getting ready to say there was something going on here, but if the owner disclosed he's the owner, where is the -- Mr. Dickman: Because it wasn't done at the front end when this application became complete. It only came forward when I raised the issue. That -- I'm just putting it on the record that I feel that that's an issue. Chairman Teele: OK. I think you've done a good job and -- Mr. Dickman: OK, Chairman Teele: I mean, you're commended but -- t7 Mr. Dickman: Secondarily, at the PAB hearing, one of the members specifically had trouble deciding on this project, because elevations -- 1 believe it was the 58th Street side elevations weren't there. They weren't in the application. She said, I can't evaluate this. All the elevations weren't there. After that meeting, the applicant submitted plans into the file. I saw them myself. That -- and again, I think, procedurally, is not right, because how do we know whether those plans have been fully vetted by staff or whoever? Because they aren't initialed the same way that the other plans were. It just came out because the PAB hearing raised that issue, and then finally, I have an issue about the notice, the actual notice in the paper, specifically two issues: One, it refers to a 14-story building or two 14-story buildings. It does nat say anything about height, how high it is. As Mr. Cruz pointed out, there are some discrepancies in the plans about what the height really is, and if I'm a neighbor, and I'm reading this, and it says 14 stories, I don't know how tall that really is, and 1 know height is a big issue on the boulevard. Also, what they are requesting is a substantial modification of the MUSE , six Class 11 permits, nine Class 1 permits and one special exception. None of those are advertised in the notices. I feel that that's a deficiency. I don't feel that that's giving people enough notice for all the permits that they're asking for. Finally, what 1 want to remark to is that staff has stated that they are recommending remove the bonuses because it gives more density, and that's not appropriate. They're asking you -- your own professional staff is saying remove the bonuses. They are also asking you to send this back to staff so that the applicant can work with them to bring the height down. They've said that in their own staff recommendations. It's in your packet. Those are the two conditions that they put to the Planning Board. The Planning Board decided, for whatever reason, to just recommend approval as is with no recommendations. Your own professional planners are asking you not to give them the density bonuses and asking you not to give them the height that they're asking for. We agree with staff on that regard. However, we will disagree that we feel that it's not appropriate for it to be done administratively. We would ask you to either deny this applicant outright or ask them to go back and redesign this project and bring it forward in a public process. Again, I will close with we are not against development. This is a very important piece on the boulevard.. It is definitely a key to the whole boulevard, and I wanted to leave you with a vision of what we think could be done there. I was born and raised in Tampa, Florida, and if any of you have been there, there is a place called Old Hyde Park Village. It's a very, very quaint commercial area in the middle of one of the -- kind of cross - hairs of many, many nice, old historic neighborhoods. That -- 20 years ago, there was a big discussion about what to do with this. Developers wanted to have big buildings, and they felt like that was the only way to go. It went through a long, long public process. Ultimately, what came out of it was a very quaint neighborhood village with cards, restaurants, parking that -- and town houses; none of it above 40 or 50 feet, and it's one of the most exclusive areas around, and it generates this whole emphasis of the historic neighborhoods that are all the way around. It's Hyde Park, Soho, Armenia, Bayshore, Davis Island. This I wanted to give you as a vision of what could happen here. The applicants want to tell you that they can't -- nothing can be afforded other than this. We paid so much in the market and everything else that nothing else can happen here. I believe that something else can happen here. This is an extremely important decision. It's something that if this goes up, it could send shock waves through the whole boulevard. It is glass, steel, something that I think does not fit in with the overall historic nature of this area, so once again, we would ask you either to deny this outright or send it back, have the applicants work with us. We're not going to say no to everything. Really work with us. Don't just have a simple perfunctory meeting. Let's have a real meeting and get this done and move on. Thank you Chairman Teele: Thank you very much, counsel. Excellent presentation. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Teeie: By the way, who orchestrated all these people? That person ought to join General Abizaid over there in Iraq. /9 Mr. Dickman: This is a team effort. These people are the most educated -- Chairman Teele: There were more people corning from more angles in a coordinated way than I've seen since 1 left the military. Thank you all very much, Counsel, Ms. Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I know you don't want to hear a whofe presentation from me. Chairman Teele: We already have. Ms. Dougherty: Correct, so what I'd like to do is just sort of recap some of the salient points. We purchased this property in reliance on the current zoning. That current zoning is an unlimited height, which would permit, giving all the site triangles, about 268 feet in height in this property. We never proposed that. We first proposed a building of 167 feet, and, by the way, it is measured from grade. What they're talking about on the plans is measured from NOVO (National Geodetic Vertical Datum), which is below grade, but from grade, this project is 149 feet, but we had originally proposed 168 feet. We have reduced that from 168 feet down to 149 feet. We've worked very, very hard with the staff and with the City officials. We worked with the neighbors, and I'm going to have Gloria pass out a piece of paper that tells you all 51 meetings that we've had with homeowners associations, as web as 25 meetings with the City staff and with City boards. We have been approved by the Internal Design Review Board. We've been approved by the Large Scale Development Committee meeting. We've been approved by the Urban Development Review Board not once, but twice -- actually, three times, because they've approved three different projects. The Planning Advisory Board also approved this project unanimously. We would -- actually, 1 take that back. It wasn't unanimous. There was one vote who needed some more information. We have changed these plans five times to reach the concerns of both the City and our neighbors. We have now received the support of the Bayside Homeowners Association, the Paim Grove Homeowners Association, the Bell Meade Homeowners Association, the Biscayne Chamber of Commerce, the Upper Eastside Miami Council and the 55th Street Station. At the last time, we told you we've -- also, in our last presentation or our last set of plans, we have reduced this building by two floors. We fixed the parking and circulation that the City wanted us to do, and how did we do that? We bought more property. We bought more property, but we still had the same amount of units. We've never maximized the height. We've never maximized the FAR (Floor Area Ratio). We've never maximized the number of units that could be permitted. We've incorporated the historic Andiamo Pizza. They're talking about historic properties. We've incorporated the most important and significant building on that boulevard, which is the Andiamo Pizza, which was designed by Robert Law Weeds. At the end of the day -- I want you to understand this -- this building is substantially in conformance with the HOK Plan. What they suggested, there are certain nodes or certain urban nodes that should and have more high density, and this is one of those nodes. We also have a very large buffer next to any single-family neighborhood. This property is zoned C-1 in part, with an SD-9 overlay in part. There are certain portions of this property that still have an unlimited height. The portion that doesn't have an unlimited height now is at 120 feet. It is not 95 feet. It is 120 feet. Our property or our proposal is at 130 feet, just ten feet over the ordinance that you just passed on Biscayne Boulevard, so in other words, this property is ten feet on Biscayne Boulevard higher than what you just passed last week. The residence that sits back off of Biscayne Boulevard is an additional 20 feet on top of that, so we are substantially in conformance with the HOK Plan. Ali the design review criteria that was proposed by that, we are in substantial conformance with that, which was approved at your last Commission meeting, We have -- the nearest, closest single-family residence is across Biscayne Boulevard, which is 100 feet, and then again, there is a 95 -- or there is a buffer of another office district across from Biscayne Boulevard, which now can have 95 feet or 85 feet, depending if it's residential or commercial, so there's a substantial buffer between us and our closest single-family neighborhood. Now, Dr. George, which -- 1 have to unfortunately object to his letter being admitted into the record, because he wasn't here and I wasn't able to cross-examine him. 1 also would have to object to Mr. Blazejack's testimony as being totally irrelevant as to what the market can bear in terms of condominiums. It's not something that's relevant to your consideration. Many cities have very, very �7D historic buildings. If you want to consider this a historic neighborhood in a sense, many cities have buildings of our kind incorporated and compatible with those historic neighborhoods. lvlorningside is a historic neighborhood. We believe, and so docs the Urban Development Review Board, the Planning Advisory Board and your staff that this is a compatible development with that historic neighborhood, so I'd ask that the -- yes, I'd ask Camilo to come up and -- thank you, OK, I'm going to clarify this. The Upper Eastside Miami Council did not take a position, but individual members did support the project and some of them are here today, and I'd like to have Camillo talk about the scale of that versus the actual scale of the building. Camilo Alvarado: Carrillo Alvarado, 1625 South Miami Avenue, talking on behalf of Lapps Group. I will explain to you, in detail, a little bit about the scale of the project or -- very fast and 1'i1 pass you to it. What you see here, the pedestal, are commercial space and there are three stories, Then you have a setback of where the residential tower is, and then you have another extra setback for the penthouses. In Biscayne Boulevard, what you see is commercial and retail. On 58th, what you see is the entrance to one of the buildings and residential, as well, town houses, town houses that are facing residential at the other side. Chairman Teele: Are you saying that town houses will be at the street level? Mr. Alvarado: Yes, correct, and the height is roughly 33 feet. Chairman Teele: That's on the 58th Street side? Mr. Alvarado: That is on the 58th, where there is -- in front of that, the other side of the street, there is residential, as well, and in 4th Court, what we see is the entrance to the other building and retail that is in front of the Soyka Complex that is commercial, as well, and one day probably is going to be as well retail. Ms. Dougherty: And the folks who live across from us on 58th Street all support this project. Chairman Tecle: OK. Hold on a minute. Would you just put that down and pick up the one that she almost threw in the trashcan? I saw that, counsel. a -I Mr. Alvarado: Oae thing that I saw from the other model is -- Chairman Teeter l-lold on, hold on, hold on. Mr. Alvarado: OK. Chairman Teele: What l think you need to do is, you need to critique this project so that it's clear to us and the public that's been looking at it, in terms of what you're presenting now, that this doesn't reflect. Mr. Alvarado: OK. First of all, it's out of scale. The scale that you can sec, you can compare clearly is the height of the pizza building and the height of the — our pizza building with the relationship of the residential area. Chairman Tecle: Now, is the pizza building the car wash? Mr. Alvarado: Yes. The pizza building is -- the pizza building is the Andiamo Building that is in the front of the building, if you look at the proportions to the building, you will see that the only differences will be one floor. Here, the proportions is more -- Mr. Dickman; Can you speak in feet instead of floors, please? Mr, Alvarado: Roughly nine feet, so what we have here is roughly 30 feet, and then what we have -- the height, the difference in height between the building and the pizza is roughly ten feet. What you see in that scale, taking into account that the pizza is roughly 20, 25 feet in height, you have more than double, so it's out of scale. It's difficult to compare, because they are out of scale. When you look at the -- Chairman Teele: No, no, you've done that. Now, put that one down and let's just look at this one, and tell us how this one doesn't reflect. Mr. Alvarado: Well, second thing of all, the building is out of scale with the pizza, so it's -- this difference in height is double. Chairman Teele: Right. Mr. Alvarado: So it's lower. Second of all, the commercial or retail space that is in Biscayne Boulevard, there are different open spaces to create sort of a rhythm. Here, you have a big block, a second -- Chairman TeI©: See, 1 think that's very important, because the public testimony of a lot of very knowledgeable and very thoughtful people was very clear that this was just one -- I think they used the word --- what was the word that kept being used? (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Chairman Teele: Huh? Mr. Dickman: It broadsides -- Chairman Teele: Broadsides. Mr. Dickman: -- broadsides the avenue. Chairman Teele: Broadsides the Avenue. Mr. Dickman: Which it does. Mr. Chair, I'd also like to note that there are no -- Chairman Teele: Counsel. Mr. Dickman: Excuse me. Chairman Teele: So in other words, this is not one solid wall that's presented here. Mr. Alvarado: No. What we have in the retail area, there's different volumes, and I can show you in the facades, and you can see in the volume, in the model, there's different movements in the facade that fits different volumes and different shadows. That's to create sort of a rhythm. That rhythm, you can clearly see it in the model. As well, there's some open patios at the eye level that brings the scale lower, so what you read is not -- you're not going to read one monolithic pedestal, but you're going to read four or five different units of retail. The -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, just one thing. Can I ask the presenters when you're referring to models, we need to make sure that the record is clear about which ones you're referring to, so you're speaking now of the applicant's model and the opponents' model, Can you make that clear when you make those statements? Ms. Slazyk: Certainly. This is the applicant's model. Mr. Alvarado: Yes. This is the applicant's model that is -- Ms. Dougherty: The good one is the applicant's model, Mr. Maxwell: l know what -- Ms. Dougherty: The bad one's their model. Mr. Maxwell: No, no. 1 know visually what we're talking about, but on appeal, they're going to have a piece of paper there. OK? Mr. Alvarado: This is the applicant's model that is within scale. This is the -- Chairman Teele: Opponent, Mr. Alvarado: -- opponent that is out of scale. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair. Ms. Dougherty: With respect to some of the issues that he raised procedurally, I want to let you know that the City Code does not require an ownership disclosure until it goes to the City Commission. That was an inadvertent issue, but one of the reasons for the disclosure is not so that the neighbors could know. It is so that the boards, who actually are voting on it, know that they don't have a conflict of interest. It's not for the purpose of neighbors knowing who owns the property, because that is also irrelevant. The issue in terms of the notices, 120 -- 140 feet, I mean, that sounds like 20 -- 14 stories, that sounds like at least 140 feet, if nothing more. Anybody who sees something that says that it's 14 stories is going to know that it's al least 140 feet. Chairman Teele: Right. Ms. Dougherty; So the public is on notice as to what was going to be discussed, and they have an opportunity to come forward and ask any other questions, so with that, I'd like the folks who are supporting this project to come forward and -- Chairman Teele: Hold it. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: We're going to limit the folks that are supporting. Ms. Dougherty: Understood. Chairman Teele: Now, 1 was in error, counsel, with you. You should have had the opportunity to cross- examine the architect. If you'd like to do that -- Mr. Dickman: I'd just like to -- Chairman Teele: 1 cut you off, and you can cross-examine him only as to what he's testified to. please. Mr. Dickman: Thank you very much. The -- you know, you testified that the opponents' model -- is that what we're taping it? -- the opponents' model is out of scale, but your model does not show any surrounding contextual buildings, which is required by code. Can you tell us what is the height of the Andiamo Building? Mr. Alvarado: Can I look at the drawings? Mr. Dickman: Because I'm looking at the drawings, too, and I've given them all to you all. Chairman Teele: By the way, Ms. Dougherty, subject to a decision by the board, the Chair is going to overrule 'both of your objections. The one is to the testimony by the doctor. That will be admitted, and the other objection you had was -- Mr. Dickman: She didn't like our building. Ms. Dougherty: The what? Oh, yes, Dr. Blazejack or the -- Chairman Teele: The objections to the testimony by the expert witness. You had the right to object or cross -- Ms. Dougherty: t object on relevance, It's not relevant as to whether or not there is a market for condominiums or whether or not they're going to be absorbed. That's not part of the criteria for granting a Major Use Special Permit. Mr. Dickman: Except that I would say, why are they asking the applicant to submit an economic impact study? Jobs, ad valorem -- I mean, 1 think you have to consider other projects cumulatively, as well. What are the impacts cumulatively? Chairman Teele: We're going to admit it -- Mr. Dickman: OK. Chairman Teele: -- for the purpose of the record. as Mr, Hickman: Thank you, sir. The height of Andiamo? Mr, Alvarado: Approximately 25 feet. Mr. Dickman: 25 feet? Mr. Alvarado: Approximately, yes. Mr, Dickman: Then from what 1 see by the plans that you've submitted, it looks more like it's approximately 40 feet; 39, 40 feet. Mr. Alvarado: No. You're out of scale. Mr. Dickman: I'm out of scale? Mr. Alvarado: Welt, if you say -- Mr. Dickman: Your numbers -- they're your numbers. Mr. Alvarado: If you say Andiamo is 40 feet, Andiamo is not 40 feet. Mr. Dickman: They're your numbers, and how high is the pedestal? Commissioner Winton: Well, could he look at whatever you're looking at? Mr. Alvarado: The pedestal is roughly 30 to 35 feet. Chairman Teele: Well, why don't we do exactly what Commissioner Winton said? This is not an "I goteha." This is -- we're trying to get the facts. Mr, Alvarado: Probably, what he's looking at is the numbers -- NGVD. Chairman Teele: Why don't you show hire what you're looking at, and then you tell us exactly -- Mr. Alvarado: The difference that he explained in the previous presentation and what he's quoting right now, he's taking the dimensions from the level, the water level that's NGVD, so that adds roughly 13 feet extra. So when 1 say 25, he says 38 or 40, and that is the difference. That's basically -- when 1 say the building is 149, he says the building is 162, but it's the same dimension, One is taken from the level of the street. The other dimension is taken from the water, Mr. Dickman, And what is from N -- say it again? Mr, Alvarado: NGVD. Mr. Dickman: Does anybody in here of the neighbors know what NGDV is? Unidentified Speaker: I do. Mr. Dickman: Excellent. Chairman Teele: Hold on, hold on, This is not a -- this is not a plebiscite. Hold it. This is -- Mr. Dickman: All right. I apologize, 1 apologize, but I'm just saying that when you read these plans -- Commissioner Winton: But he -- but Andrew, he just answered your question, so it isn't a guess anymore, Now we know the facts. Mr. Dickman: These are four -- OK, fine, but I'm just saying, when you look at -- they present heights, it's misleading to people, because they're presenting heights about how high things are. You have to understand that height is the most critical issue that people are thinking about on the boulevard, Commissioner Winton: But we have the answer. Mr. Dickman: That it's 13 -- so whatever numbers we're looking at, we subtract 13 feet? Mr. Alvarado: Depends. If it says NGVD at the right-hand side, yes. If it doesn't say NGVD at the right- hand side, you don't subtract. Commissioner Winton: And by the way, Andrew, 1 never heard NGVD, or whatever the thing is, until today so -- Mr. Dickman: IG s an alphabet soup, but at any rate, these -- you -- why are you -- Chairman Teele: Well, what is -- do we all agree that we're measuring this from the height of the street level or the surface? Mr. Alvarado: To clarify, the height from the street level is 149 feet, If you take the NGVD, you just have to add 13 feet and that's it. Mr. Dickman: 149 feet to what? To the parapet or to -- Mr. Alvarado: To the top of the penthouse is -- Chairman Teele: So are those 13 feet below the surface? Mr. Alvarado: Yes, Chairman Teele: No, let him -- he's the expert. You're the legal expert. He's the architectural. Where are the 13 feet? Mr. Alvarado: The 13 feet is the difference between the street level -- (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Mr. Alvarado: Yes, underneath. Mn Dickman: Sub -surface. Chairman Teele: So you're talking about -- so the other designation, the -- say it again? Mr. Alvarado: NGVD. Chairman Teele: -- includes the sub -surface structure; that is, the structure below the -- Commissioner Winton: No. It's just a measure -- Chairman Teele: Huh? Ms. Dougherty: it's a method of measuring. It's NGDV, which is a measurement that a lot of people measure, but it's below the surface. We don't have any ee it's not because we have a building below the surface, but for this purpose, the only thing you need to know is that the building is 149 feet. Mr, Dickman: Just one other final question. Would you -- so you state that whatever it's measured from, that Andiamo Pizza is about 25 feet, right? Mr, Alvarado: Can you repeat, please? Mr. Dickman: Tell me again what you think Andiamo Pizza's height is. Mr, Alvarado: The Andiamo Pizza, from the street level, is approximately 25 feet. Mr. Dickman: In your opinion, is that about as high as a single-family home? Mr. Alvarado: Depends if it's one story or two stories. Mr. Dickman: One story. Mr. Alvarado: One story could be 20 feet, yes. Mr. Dickman: 20 feet, 25 feet, so -- Chairman Teele: Why are we into this so deep? Mr. Dickman: The point being is its scale; that what their model shows -- and granted, they are architects and they have made a beautiful model that we haven't seen before, and they don't have anything around it to show you scale, other than Andiamo's, so if you look at Andiamo on their -- the applicant's model, for the record, you're basically looking at the height of all the other single-family homes that are around it in Ivlorningside and other places. That is what we want you -- and the reason why we have made a model to the best scale that we can, to show you that this is very out of scale and out of context. Chairman Teele: Yeah, but you know, you just opened the door again to the fact that your scale, according to their expert, is about two times of a deviation in terms of the height of that -- Mr. Dickman: No, he -- what l understood him to say was that -- and 1 don't know the alphabet soup of it - - but basically, they're -- if you measure 13 feet below grade or whatever it is, that were off, plus or minus 13 feet. Chairman Teeie: OK, fine. What's your other point? Mr. Dickman: I think that was it. Chairman Teeie: Good. Ail right. Now, look, how many people are going to be necessary, Ms. Dougherty, to testify? We heard from about an hour and a half of people. Mr. Dickman: Are these going to be — Ms, Dougherty: I just want -- I'd like the folks who did not testify the last time to speak first. How many of those -- Chairman Teele: First? Mr. Dickman: No, no, no. Chairman Teeie: Anyone who has already spoken will not -- Mr. Dickman: Cannot speak, right. Chairman Teele: -- will not speak again. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Teeie: The public hearing has been closed as to that. Are there any persons here that have not been heard before on this item? Please come forward. Have not been heard. Mr. Dickman: I believe this gentleman spoke. Mr. Gonzalez spoke. Chairman Teele: Please line up. Yes, sir, you're recognized for two minutes. Mr. Dickman: Sir, I object. He spoke at the last meeting. Alex Rodriguez: 1 asked far a continuance at 6 p.m., time certain, but I didn't speak. Alex Rodriguez, 469 Northeast 76th Street, President of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association. Chairman -reek: Alt right. Hold on a minute. Madam Clerk, in the future, when we bring these rnatters forward, 1 expect to have a verbatim transcript of the previous testimony. Ms. Thompson: We can get it for you. Chairman Teele: OK, Ms, Thompson: And we have -- Chairman Teele: But it needs to be out here with everybody so that we know where we are on this thing. Go right ahead, sir. Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. I wanted to -- Chairman Teele: Your name and address for the record. Mr. Rodriguez: Alex Rodriguez, 469 Northeast 76th Street, President of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association. First, I'd like to clear up that the Kubik Project is, in fact, located in the Palm Grove neighborhood, right across the street from Soyka. That section has been known to have a lot of commercial activity, and it can be considered one of those commercial nodes that have been referred to in the charette. The design of the building aside -- except for height -- addresses all of the concerns that we've asked for as Upper £astside residents in the past charette. What I would like to do is, I would like to applaud the developers for working so hard with the neighborhood, because they did not bring us what they could have built. In fact, they brought us -- the first design was what they -- they had already compromised. Then they went back and redrew this five times, met with us countless times, and even deferred meetings, because they would tell us, we are not ready for -- we're not ready for what you guys want to see, and they deferred meetings so that they could please the neighborhoods and the associations, and basically, that's ail I would like to say. The Palm Grove Board is in favor of the project and the majority of their members, Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Andres Lopez: Hello. My name is Andres Lopez. 1 live in 411 Northeast 52nd Terrace. 1 come today as an architect and as a Morningside resident. I recently moved to Morningside and I'm a strong supporter of Kubik. Of what I've heard today, there are different things, which 1 have something to compliment, my point of view. There was a lot of talking about the design of the project. Some of the things that were said is that it was not a project that was friendly towards pedestrians. I have to say that it is a project that is actually focused on the pedestrian side of the users of Biscayne Boulevard in its design. It's a project that, as well, differs from the context and the structures that are happening and are existing. I think it's a position that is not only valuable, but that is going to really increase the way you see Biscayne in the future. It's a project that, as well, is in a particular site, which has -- which is the last focus point in Biscayne Boulevard, and it's going to have great architectural value in the future, as it has been pointed out, old buildings that are as well of historical value. This can be done. This building is going to be a landmark that will eventually be historical, as well. Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right, Thank you very much. Abed Hamud: Good evening. My name is Abed Hamud. I live at 889 Northeast 78th Street. I do support the Kubik Project. As we all know, there is some activities and improvement on Biscayne Boulevard Corridor, but Kubik Project is the first unique major development in this area. Commissioner, please, I urge you to take this project into consideration and vote for it. By doing so, you will be voting for the future of this beautiful City we call Miami. I would like to remind you about something I received last election. It say here, "Vote yes for Miami future" -- which I did. I ask you, please, to vote yes -- Chairman Teele: We're going to rule that's inadmissible. Mr. Dickman: What relevance is that? Mr. Hamud: Thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman Teele: That was a picture of the Mayor and Commission, t think. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, I thought you were never coming back to City Hall. Mr. Dickman: He's back again. Steve Caterbone: Again, 1 apologize. Chairman Teele: I thought he testified on this. Mr. Dickman: Fie did, yeah. Chairman Teele: No, no, no. Mr. Caterbone: No, no, that was -- Commissioner Winton: But Joe's going to remind him every time he comes back. Mr. Caterbone: -- last week regarding the -- Chairman Teele: Go right ahead, sir. Mr. Caterbone: Yeah. Thank you. Steve -- distinguished Commissioners, thank you for your time. Steve Caterbone, 432 Northeast 65th Street, Palm Grove. Excuse me. I ask you, please, along this boulevard of broken dreams, Mr. Soyka, he turned on this light switch and now this Kubik can be the beautiful chandelier. As a resident of the City of Miami, a City which I truly love, 1 beg you, I plead with you, do not tear this project from our arms. The soul of Biscayne Boulevard cries out for this project, and I promise you, for those who might leave with heavy hearts, five years from now, some of those people wilt thank you for your support. Thank you. Mark Soyka: Hi. My name is Mark Soyka, 589 Northeast 57th Street, Momingside, Miami. I'm actually sometimes, i have difficulties coming and speaking, simply because anybody that knows me -- you know my -- (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Chairman Teele; Sir, let me apologize. Mr. Soyka: I didn't hear anything. Chairman Teeie: You were not here last time, were you? Mr. Soyka: Not in the Commission meeting. Chairman Teeie: OK, fine, so the gentleman is in error. He thought that you had spoken before, but this -- Mr. Soyka: The Planning Board. Chairman Teeie: You're more than welcome to speak today, sir. Mr. Soyka: Thank you. Anybody that knows me -- and I said it to the Planning Board, too -- knows that I'm a preservationist. I believe in preservation. I like quaint, small, nice projects and from that perspective, ( want people to know that I am in support of this project and those are my reasons why. I'm a resident of Morningside. I'm actually a resident of the Upper Eastside for a long time. The Soyka Project, which is five years old today, obviously was something that I hoped in, as a thing that I wanted to do for myself, for the community. I'm in the restaurant business. I'm not a developer. I look at Biscayne Boulevard -- we started talking about 36th Street to Miami Shores borderline, and the truth of the matter is that more or less up to 50th Street, it's almost built and has its own character. We're dealing with an additional 20, 30 blocks of what is known as the -- 50 -- 50 plus street to 79th Street. 1 know for a fact that, being also a business owner -- and I see the traffic on Biscayne Boulevard today — Biscayne Boulevard is -- looks nicer, there are more things going on, but it's not as safe and it's not as wonderful as we want it to he. If you came out of this building and just walked towards your cars and look at Coconut Grove across from you, and you see the beautiful residential community of the Grove -- and we all know it's a beautiful community -- and right across over here, we see a few very, very beautiful buildings, high- rises that blend very, very well to the entire landscape, the Ritz Carlton and a couple of the beautiful hotels that they bring a certain grandeur. They have a certain beauty. There's a safe atmosphere there because of its light, because of its attractions for different people to come there, whether it's to stay in a hotel or residentially. Biscayne Boulevard right now is a street that needs something to make it more friendly, and I cannot imagine that just by keeping it the same size all the way through, were going to achieve that friendly pedestrian walk. I don't walk on Biscayne Boulevard up and down. I don't think anybody will ever walk on Biscayne Boulevard, like you walk on Lincoln Road and Ocean Drive. It is not that type of a thoroughfare. It's just the question of a street that should be safer, should be nicer, and to me, it's not the size of the building. Chairman Teele: Mr. Soyka -- Mr. Soyka: To me, it's really about the architectural beauty of the project, and if we are going to have four, five, six buildings along Biscayne that are taller than what our residential buildings are, I have no problem with it. Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. Your time expired two minutes ago. All right. The public hearing is closed. Lucia, you can select one other person to speak. That's it. Mr. Dickman: I think he spoke last time, too. Virgil Louis Sieber: I have some new information. Chairman Teele: Your name and address for the record. Mr. Fieber: My name is Virgil Louis Fieber. Chairman Teele: You spoke the last time, didn't you? .�Y Mr. Ficber: Yes, sir, I did, but this -- Chairman Teele Hold on, before you do. Is there anybody else who has not spoken? You spoke the last time, All right, come on up, anyone who has not spoken. Those are our procedures, Virgil, Just hold on a minute. Come right up, anyone who has not spoken. Look, folks, let me explain something. The proponents had an opportunity to put on their case in full, OK? The proponents had an opportunity to put on their case in full. We didn't cut them off. What is happening now is you're opening the door to a rebuttal by putting on a case after they have put on their opposition, so all that I'm saying, counsel, is you need to help control your side of this issue, unless you all are prepared to continue this to the next meeting, because, you know, we have a time to adjourn, which was 20 minutes ago, and we announced that this morning. 1 don't have any problem starting this thing all over and letting everybody that's spoken today opposed come back and testify again, but if we let one person speak over here who has spoken already, I'm going to open the door and let somebody over here speak, because fair is fair, OK? Now, anyone else who has not spoken? Go right ahead, sir. Shane Graber: OK. I'm not sworn in. l don't know if that -- Chairman Teele: Well, everybody was sworn in at the beginning. Mr. Graber; OK. Chairman Teele: If anyone has spoken already that wasn't sworn in, would you please stand, raise your right hand and repeat after the Clerk? The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Mr. Dickman: Mr. Chair, just briefly. His letter was read into the record, 1 believe, at the last hearing. Commissioner Winton: Shane Graber's was. Chairman Teele: Huh? Was your letter read? Mr. Graber: Not that I'm aware of, no. Chairman Teele: OK. Go right ahead, sir. .lS Mr. Graben: My name is Shane Graber, 1001 Northeast 72nd Street, historic Bayside in the Upper Eastside, Miami. I'm the President of the Bayside Residents Associated. We start at 61 st Street and extend to 72nd, east of Biscayne Boulevard, about 250 homes, aver 500 residents. My purpose of being here is to just communicate that my board unanimously voted to support this project at our hoard meeting on April 6th. I want to make note that as President, I do not have a vote and I do not have the ability to make a motion, so I'm merely here as a communicator of that message. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Mr. Graber: Thank you very much. Chairman Teele: Anyone else? Imad Hamud: Good evening, gentlemen. Imad Hamud. I live at 889 Northeast 78th Street. I live in that community for about 28 years now and I know this neighborhood very well, probably more than anybody who spoke tonight. I heard they need smart growth. What is smart growth, really? They should Chairman Teele: Hold it, hold it. Mr. Hamud: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Don't even go like that. You don't need to begrudge or talk about anybody who's spoken. Mr. Hamud: All right. Chairman Teele: You make your point. Mr. Hamud: I will, Chairman Teele: And don't ask any questions of them. Mr. Hamud: I will, Chairman Teele: Because then they're going to come up and answer. Mr. Hamud: All right. Chairman Teele: Please. Mr. H imud: Sure. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Hamud: I think this project is the first and the finest project in 25 years that comes to that side of the boulevard. That neighborhood was so depleted and dull, melancholic, miserable. You name it. Then Mr. Soyka came in and put some nice development in that complex, and I hope it radiates all around that section. He put some life in that neighborhood, and quite frankly, we need some more life. This is not enough. We need some more life in that section. I have noticed something -- well, I should not speak about the other people. I understand this developer have changed the design three, four times, five times. What's fair is fair. Enough is enough. He went through a lot, and he worked hard with the neighborhood, and they don't mention that to you, I guess. What I'm trying to say, I don't mean to be rude, really, to them. I just want to speak my mind. I think they're a little bit paranoid. They're afraid from development. This is nice project here, and I think you guys should be really thankful to him. He got a lot of guts to come in and pump lots of money in this neighborhood. Commissioner Winton: You need to be talking to us, not to them -- Mr. Hamud: I'm sorry, truthfully. Commissioner Winton: Your comments are not to them, and talk to us and not them. Mr. Harnud: Right. That's all I have to say. 1 hope you approve this project. He really deserve it. We deserve it. It's good for everybody. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Harnud: Good revenues for the City, as well. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. All right, Is there anyone else that will be speaking? All right. This is the last person who will speak as a proponent. You're going to be recognized for one person to come back and speak in rebuttal to whatever he says. Go right ahead, sir, Mr. Fieber: Did you pass out my -- Chairman Teele: Go right ahead, sir. Mr. Fieber: My name is Virgil Louis Fieber. I've spoken before, but I have some information here that's different, There's three points. One of them is the building at 5701 was built in 1973. Another point is that the nearest paint of the Kubik Building to the historic Momingside is 229.54 feet away. if you look at the handout there, there's a plat showing you the distance, so it's farther than what you've been led to believe. The Other point is that we surveyed the number of properties that have been purchased in Momingside between 66th Street and 52nd Terrace on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. We surveyed 379 properties within this area. Of these properties, 342 were purchased from 1974 until February of this year. The ten -story high-rise was built in 1973, so what we did, there was 345 properties out of the 379 surveyed that were purchased after the ten -story building at 5701 was built. That is like 90.23 percent of the people back there bought their building after the ten -story building was up. They knew what they were getting. They knew what was going on. Please approve this thing. it's good. Thank you. Chairman Teele: The public hearing is closed. You've got one rebuttal, if you insist. Mr. Dickman: Very, very quickly. Chairman Teele: You have one rebuttal, not you. Mr. Dickman: Not me. Chairman Teele: If there is somebody you want to put on in rebuttal to the last person that spoke, be my guest. Ms, Foehrenbach: The gentleman -- Chairman Teele: Your name, Mary, your name. Ms. Foehrenbach: I'm Mary Foehrenbach, and I live at 655 Northeast 55th Terrace. The gentleman forgot to mention one very important fact: That those of us in the Momingside area -- and he was not part of the project -- we worked very hard to get it designated as a historic district. We went door to door. We looked up every property in the area. It was a long, tedious process, and that's what made the east side of the boulevard what it is today -- a desirable place for people to buy homes. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Thank you. Now, counsel, you've had your final say, Have you completed your rebuttal, or do you need more time? Ms. Dougherty: I just have one observation, and that would -- that is, I would ask that the City Commission approve the project as recommended by the Planning Advisory Board, and that would include the bonuses, because to take away the bonuses, all that means is that we would have to enter the retail from the inside of the building, or take it away, and that's not the character that you want for the boulevard, 3, Chairman Thole: Madam Director, I want -- I guess we're looking a little bit (or a clear statement that that is the sole intent of the bonuses; that that is the sole intent or impact of the bonuses. Ms. Slazyk: The intention of the condition that the bonus be eliminated would be that additional units be eliminated, and you know, the bonus has a square footage equivalent attached to it, which is in the 30,000 square foot range. The intention of that condition was that the retail stay, the ground Floor, and that it continue to open to the outside, and that the 30,000 be eliminated from elsewhere in the building, not from that location, so 1 guess I offer that as further clarification on the intent of that condition; not that they keep that as accessory and internalize it and the building stay exactly the same, The intent was that that be eliminated from somewhere else. I know that's how they used their bonus, but that wasn't the intent of that condition. Chairman Teele: So could the bonus recommendation be modified to provide for access consistent with the original plan? Is that your point? Ms. Dougherty: No. All I'm saying is that we are requesting that you not take away the bonuses. That's all we're asking. Chairman Teele: I heard that, but you said the reason -- Ms. Dougherty: And all I'm saying to you is, if you took away the bonuses, we could have exactly the same building, just have to internal the retail, and that's not something you want, or take it away from the garage. We've done everything that the City has asked us to do, and we would ask that -- to make this recommendation now, after we changed the project -- they didn't have this recommendation when we came in the first project that was 167 stories -- I mean 167 feet. They made that recommendation after we changed the project, and we went back to the Planning Board a second time, so we think that's highly unfair and, in fact, the height is not 95 feet. It's 120 feet, based on your new ordinance. Chairman Teele; All right. What we're going to do is allow the district Commissioner to comment and make a motion, and them we're going to debate from a motion, if that's all right? Commissioner Winton: Sure, that's absolutely tine, The presentation that the homeowners put on -- and Elvis seems to do this routinely. He has this capacity to put on very good presentations that make you look at things in a different way, and I'm not sure where I'm going yet, by the way, so I'm going to kind of -- I'm going to talk myself through this. There is going to be a project built on this site. There is going to be a project that's probably much more substantial than at least some of the people in this audience are going to want, because it's allowable. The fact that we have the MUSP process is the only reason we can get at potentially some of these ether issues. Absent the MUSP process, which gives us broad latitude, absent that process, given our current Zoning Code, this project probably would be completely allowable as it is. Morningside, however, is an historic neighborhood, and as far as I'm concerned, is a very, very important neighborhood that does have to be protected, and it's crucially important to protect that neighborhood. 1 struggled, and 1 understand the whole -- this issue about scale is, in my mind, the whole issue. It's the whole issue, and where both parties failed, both sides failed, that model is inaccurate. It's misleading. That model, I can't figure out what the scale is. I can't figure out how that model fits in context with the surrounding neighborhood, and probably, if I could figure that out, it would be easier to make a decision. I have a sense, however, that it doesn't -- that it probably doesn't fit contextual -- in context -- I'll change the word so I can get it out right -- but I can't tell, and so the reason that I'm talking myself through this, which I generally wouldn't do is because I don't know what the right answer is yet. I don't know how that building fits, but I will tell those of you from the neighborhood, in the presentation that was made last week, I guess it was --when it -- was it last week? We have so many meetings anymore, 1 can't keep up with them. Chairman Teele: Two weeks ago. Commissioner Winton: They've done some very, very, very nice things, as far as I'm concerned, relative to how -- at least at the street level -- how that's interacting with the street. There's an awful lot of landscaping in here that they're not required to put in, and what they've done with Andiamo's and that whole end down there, 1 think they've done a terrific job as it relates to architecture. You can go into any city in the United States and find brand new urban architecture right in the middle of historic architecture, and it works, and it's acceptable, so the issue in my mind is not architecture. It is about how it fits in terms of the rest of the neighborhood, and nobody's answered the question for me, so -- and I would further guess here -- and I think I know where I'm going to go -- I would further guess that if! introduce a motion to deny the project, it would fail. That's going to be my guess, and that doesn't do anything, and one of the things that this Commission has done over and over and over again, and has been successful every single time is made the developer, one more time, go with ail the neighbors as a group and figure out if there's something that's rational, but I will tell the neighbors -- and I've said this many times -- if you push too far, you're going to lose, because there's an awful lot in our code that this project fits in, and so I'm going to move that this project be continued for another 30 days so that the developer goes back with this group of neighbors and you all figure out if there's some changes that are rational to this project that can improve relative to some of the issues we're talking about, and to the developer, 1 want to make sure -- when you come back, I want to see context. I want to see the buildings around it, like they're talking about, so that the model is crystal clear to all of us, and then we're going to make -- then -- and I promise you, we will make a decision. They're going to make a decision. 50' Chairman Teele: Commissioner, that motion does not include -- or that motion does include that you're reconi needing continuance without additional public hearings? Commissioner Winton: Absolutely correct, We've heard all -- Chairman Teele: Not one new public nearing. The lawyers and the staff will make the sole presentation, Commissioner Winton: Yes. That is my motion. Chairman Teele: And I -- because what makes it look so unfair to both sides is you let one side have their whole day. We give the other side a continuance as a courtesy to them over the objections -- Mr. Dickman, We appreciate it. Chairman Teele: Say again? Mr, Dickman: And we appreciate the -- Chairman Teele: You do appreciate it -- and then everybody wants to start coming back again, and it's just so unfair to the process, and I realize the eagerness, but we cannot reopen the public hearing for one or two people without giving people on the other side the same opportunity, so what we're saying is there will be no further public hearings. It'll be open to the public. You're free and welcome you to come back, but if we open it for one person, were going to open it for everybody. That's sort of what we're saying. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, gosh. Commissioner Winton: Well, it's pretty crystal clear to us what everybody's opinions are anyhow, so that's well understood. Chairman Teele: All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Ms. Dougherty: Can I ask a question, though, before -- I just -- how do we treat -- this is just a question. How do we treat the R-3 district, which is immediately abutting for context? I mean, we have single- family, How -- I mean, you know, duplexes and multi -family. Commissioner Winton: You're going to treat it as -is, because the City is going through a new master - planning process, and a complete rewrite of our code, and we may do some zoning changes, so what I want to look at is what's there today, not what may be there 20 years from now. Ms_ Dougherty: And can we have this on May -- June the loth, instead of -- Commissioner Winton: June the lflth, yes, Lune the toth. Ms. Dougherty: June the 10th? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Not the last Planning and Zoning, but June the loth. Chairman Teele; All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion. Chairman Teele: AU in -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion. You know, I didn't want it to get so late, but let me tell you something. This is starting to be a nightmare. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. I'm being told that I need to modify my motion. I said 30 days. It was just -- so continue it to June the loth. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: OK? Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: So Commissioner Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Chairman, this is -- you know, this is getting to be a nightmare. 1 mean, in ail due fairness, I've heard both sides and now there's a motion and a second. I just want to discuss this. You know, we -- this has been back and forth, and no matter what, you have a district that's basically divided in a way with this project. 1 just -- listen, I'm looking at the point where we're starting to set a bad precedence in this City. 1 mean, we're sending a wrong message out there with the moratorium, and what we're doing to developers that are really -- in my case, have tried to act in good faith, in all fairness, in all fairness. I mean, this developer -- I think there's other -- one developer here in Miami that has really earned a name for being a humble individual, and that's Allen O'Hara, with Park Place, 1 mean, he met with everybody in the homeowners association, because I was involved in that, had "X" amount of meetings. 1 mean, I'm not going to get into the number because, counsel, you're absolutely right, they're totally irrelevant as to the many times that he's met and the many times that he's modified that, the plans, but let me tell you, you have a community that are divided. 1 mean there's pros and cons, and based on development that's going to go on that site, let me tell you something. The current zoning allowed for a development that you need to take into consideration. You know, what -- you know, be careful what you ask for. Looking at the design and stuff that I look at -- you know, Commissioner Winton's right. 1 don't think it would have had -- you know -- he would have had the votes today if he would have voted against it, but I'll tell you this much: I feet very uncomfortable, super uncomfortable, you know, not voting on this and deferring. 1 know I don't have the votes. There's a motion and a second already, but Pit tell you this much: You know, I've heard -- 1 have dreams with this development, and I have problems in my district -- OK? -- and I know that you have problems in your district, but I think this is something that we need to resolve. Based on a point of view of community revitalization, that area is booming. I don't think this building -- there's a moratorium in that area now that's going to protect you in the long run, so I don't -- I think -- you know, you're looking down the line that you may not sec another building there in the longest time, and a lot of the arguments made here -- this developer bought the property two years ago. This is not somebody who's squeaking at the last hour, got in through the back door, bought the property and made the efforts to try to squeeze it through the process, so I'm telling you this much: If it comes back, this Commissioner is going to approve that project, because I shoot from the hips. You don't need -- I shoot from the hips. I mean, I've heard both arguments, I've heard both sides, and let me tell you how I'm going to make my recommendation. First, the City gives me a recommendation and when -- this is a Flip for me. I have to flip this coin. The Planning and Zoning recommended approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning Advisory Board recommended denial to the City -- denied to the City Commission on December the 17th, and then came back and recommended approval an a four to one. Zoning Board recommended approval on a special exception to the City Commission on December the 15th, 2004 (sic), and we have been playing ping pang with this back and forth, so you know, I'm not comfortable with deferring it another "X" amount of days, but you know what? In all fairness, if it comes back and there's no public hearing, we just decide on it, 1 can live with it, but I'm just -- I think we're sending the wrong message, especially to an area that you're not going to see much development there for the longest time, thank God, but be careful what you ask for. Mr. Dickman: If I could, Mr. Vice Chair, 1 just want to clarify something, Chairman Teele: Hold on, one moment. Just a moment. This is not -- this is Commission discussion. Mr. Dickman: I understand. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I know I don't have the votes, but -- you know. Chairman Teele: This is Commission discussion. Is there something you feel the need to say? Mr. Dickman: I just think it's important to say I don't think that the Upper Eastside is divided. I think -- Chairman Teeie No, no, no. You're -- I'm not going to allow a debate with the Commission. I -- good try. Commissioner Regalado, did you -- Coin ssioner Regalado: Well, sooner or later, we ha e t0 vote. Vice Chaim -um Sanchez: Well, I'm prepared to vote today, if you arc. Comrraissioner Regalado: So, I mean -- Chairman Teele: Where is the Sergeant -at -arms? You know, we've got to put these two guys on our watch list. They have such problems controlling themselves every time they come. Commissioner Regalado: They're lucky that the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) Ordinance is off the books, because they would have been arrested for just smiling, but 1 mean, you know, it's -- sooner or later, we're going to have to vote. Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Dougherty -- Commissioner Regalado: Sooner or later, we are going to have to make a decision. We always look to the area Commissioner for guidance in this, but it's getting to a point of, you know, like corning back, and coming back, and demanding more. 1 just don't think that the residents who are not in agreement will be in agreement when they come back. I mean, it will be the same, and so -- but, you know, that's why there are many associations that are seeking moratoriums, and change of zoning and codes, because we need to strike a balance between buildings and houses, and -- but we don't have that right now, so 1'lt just wait to vote on June 10. Is it June 10? But I guess that it will be the same people having a lot of issues, and other people pushing forward, so I don't know what this would accomplish, but I seconded the motion, and I would vote for a deferral. Chairman Teele: All right. If 1 could, let me say this: First of all, it's not -- zoning in this decision is not a plebiscite. It doesn't matter how many people are for it and against it. It's really based upon the competent evidence that's presented, and I think it's really a mistake to talk about things being divided, because if one person is saying it and a hundred are saying something different and that one is presenting the competent evidence, then that's the one that should win. This is really not about a referendum. Secondly, I want to compliment the homeowners who came in today. With the exception of the scale drawing, the homeowners came in today and really, 1 think, caused the district Commissioner -- they certainly caused me to take another hard look at the project, and I think your comments were succinct, were very orderly, to the point, and I'm very, very much inclined to support Commissioner Winton's deferral tonight, because 1 really do think the homeowners are entitled to another chance to sit down with the developer. However, I want to underscore what Commissioner Winton has said. This is not a carte blanche to insist upon and demand unreasonably anything in terms of your discussions with the developer, the development team. When 1 look at the schedule of presentations, two things strike me. First of all, the project really hasn't been in the system that long, but the intensity of the meetings, particularly the meetings that arc purportedly with the Morningside residents and different Morningside residents is very impressive, and 1 really do think that everybody here that has made a presentation tonight in opposition owes it to yourself and to the City to sit down in good faith and have an honest discussion, and I would ask that the City staff at least be able to come and observe -- not to participate, but to observe that meeting, and I hope both counsels can agree to that. Ms. Dougherty: We would welcome that. Mr. Dickman: Were more than willing to sit down and try to find common ground. Chairman Teele: Finally, 1 have to say this: I'm somewhat familiar with the area, in that 1 get my car washed on Fridays at the Lea's — in fact, I was a little offended. Everybody had the name of everything in the area except Leo's Car Wash. Mr. Dickman: Leo's Car Wash. Chairman Teele: You know, you had the pizza place and Soyka, but Leo is there, too, and he's doing a good job of washing cars, so give him a break. Mr. Dickman: He's doing a great job. Chairman Teele: But the fact of the matter is, in all candor, this is a unique piece of property, geographically, and the thing that I think has not really been made by Lucia -- one of the things that I think was not real clear is the uniqueness of this property. This property literally stops at 55th. I mean, it sort of goes down to 54th. There's a little narrow strip, but that's the point where Biscayne Boulevard and Federal Highway, I guess, or 4th Avenue, you can literally jump across -- you can jump from one side to the other -- jump across 54th --1 mean, Biscayne to 4th Avenue and very, very narrow in there, and then it opens up down as you go north, but really, when you get to -- what is that? -- about 58th Street? Is it 58th Street is the very end? ys Mr. Dickman: The north end. Chairman Teele: That's a double -- that is a divided street, so you're really looking at a very unique piece of property, which, by any standard in my mind, does not really set a precedent. The map here shows that, but I think -- you know, the thing that the Morningside people need to understand, my thinking on this is that this piece of property is so unique, it's almost like an island, in a way, in a very real way, from a traffic point of view and from a neighborhood point of view, and it's a unique piece of property. If this piece of property were a part of the corridor of Biscayne Boulevard, I would take a totally different look at this, but I have to tell you, the -- not this thing, but the drawing that the proposer, the Offerer, or the developer has presented, in terms of how it opens up onto the streets and you allow the traffic in and out and the commercial component, I think it complements the 55th Station extremely well in terms of what's going on in that neighborhood, and so I just want the public to know, the Morningside people to know that I am very, very impressed with this development. I am impressed with the -- with testimony that has been presented in opposition, as well, but I do think that it would behoove everyone to come to a consensus, because 1 think projects like this are on this -- projects that are really going to increase the pedestrian traffic on Biscayne Boulevard and the commercial activity are something the community needs, so I'm supporting the motion to defer, urging again that Commissioner Winton's words be taken to heart, and that is that everybody really sit down around the table one last time for a true compromise. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Yes, and I'd like to make a couple of points to the neighbors, and this is part of the conflict that you all are going to have to figure out, because here's some things you ask for. You ask us to deny the bonuses, but if we deny -- if you deny the bonuses, then the retail component that the City's tried to force them to put on Biscayne Boulevard can go away. They don't have to put it there, so there's -- what do 1 do about that? You've -- we've been through this long process where we've controlled height, but they do have a right to build — and this goes on all over the City, you know -- "X" number of units. They could build more units and make them smaller. They can do things that our code unfortunately allows, and you've got this height limit, so you know, do you play with the building in terms of height, open up more? I don't know, but those are issues. You want to save the dance studio piece or property that I think is magnificent, but they've gotten that property because they brought height down trying to -- and so you all have to think about these things and come to terms with some of these things to ultimately figure out how you reach an appropriate balance with the developer. Now, that's to the homeowners. To the developer, I will tell you guys unequivocally, if you all come back here and the whole issue is this is it, this is it, this is it, I'm not going to support it. If I don't have the true sense that you guys have done everything in your power to try to -- to rationally work through issues with the neighbors, I'm not going to support this. I may lose, but I'm not going to support it, so that's all 1 have to say. Vice Chairman Sanchez; Call the question. Commissioner Winton: Oh, yeah. So we have a -- Chairman Teele: We have a motion. Commissioner Winton: Oh, there's one question. The question is May 27th, I don't know, Mr. Dickman -- Mr. Maxwell: No, it's June loth. V. Commissioner Winton: -- 1 would like you to -- I'm sorry? Mr. Maxwell: June 10th. Commissioner Winton: No, no, 1 said 3une 10th. Chairman Teele: June 10th is set aside for community development. We are admitting this based upon your motion onto the June 10th agenda. Commissioner Winton: Well, they asked if we could do it May 27th, 1 don't know if that's enough time for everybody to get together, frankly. 1 think you ought to do it June 10th, because we got enough time, Then it's not a madhouse. Nobody can argue that we didn't have enough time. Commissioner Regalado: But remember, remember -- Unidentified Speaker: And a time certain. Commissioner Regalado: Remember -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, time certain. Commissioner Regalado: -- Chairman -- Mr. Dickman: There's not going to be -- Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: There's not going to be testimony. Commissioner Regalado: No. 1 think, you know, the June 10th is a special meeting, and we just had something about the bus benches and all that. Chairman Teele: About the what? Commissioner Regalado: The bus benches and the bus shelter there. Chairman Teele: Don't worry about it. We can manage all that. This will ba taken up June loth at 2 p.rn We will not be here until -- we will not be atter 4 o'clock on June tOth. Commissioner Winton: Oh, because it's a special meeting? Chairman Teele: it's a special meeting, strictly community development. There will be no zoning items on the agenda. There's only one or two other items on that meeting, so 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock at the latest Commissioner Winton: Because well be done. Chairman Teele: We'll be done. Mr. Maxwell: What time, 2 o'clock? Chairman Teele: What time is preferable to you, 2 or 3? Mr. Dickman: 3, obviously. Chairman Teele: 3? Mr. Dickman: 3 o'clock. Chairman Teele: 3? Ms, Dougherty: Doesn't matter. I would just like to be the first on your agenda, whatever it is. Chairman Teele: 3 o'clock time certain. Commissioner Winton: 3 o'clock time certain. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Chairman Teele: On the motion. All in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele; All opposed have the same right. The item is deferred until June loth at 3 p.m. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, Commissioners Chairman Teele: Or continued_ Mr, Maxwell: Continued, Mr. Chairman, is the meeting adjourned? Chairman Teele: The meeting is adjourned. 7