Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Submittal
Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 Property Information Map or NW 2OTH St _ 8T NE17THST ZOE • _ �•� } I , i NW?aTH STD i : ++r. NE z tt, t^r- - • lli .�.� ' t ' tNE SSTH TER Ej My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida Digital Orthophotography - 2005 m ss.1'z D _ .1' r, 11,771zc v , .`111c� Jiu: • NE 11TH 8T I* 1111.1 i k• ` "alslw.. twit( S7 { 0 This map was created on 917/2006 2:34:28 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. 225 ft MIAMIDADE Summary Details: Folio No.: 01-3 s :sti '03-0050 Property: 79 NE 17 TERR Mailing Address: 110 AVON LLC 455 S MAIN ST BALDWIN FL 32234- Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0081 VACANT LAND Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 0 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 0 Lot Size: 3,125 SQ FT Year Built: 0 Legal Description: SEITTERS ADD PB 2-60 W1/2 OF LOT 3 LOT SIZE 25.000 X 125 OR 11347-304 0282 5 COC 23029-3429 01 2005 6 Sale Information: Sale O/R: 23029-3429 Sale Date: 1/2005 Sale Amount: $15,000 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $101,563 $78,125 Building Value: $0 $0 Market Value: $101,563 $78,125 $78,125 Assessed Value: $101,563 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $101,563 $78,125 UBMTTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR TEMPzSON . ), http://gisims2. miamidade.gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapurl=http://gisims2.miamidade.gov... 9/7/2006 Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 lam: a e. o Property Information Map My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2011,1 ST • z , NW 1701 ST ta 111'11 ST tm! r'.71 -i S '14Z.; PA" • 1 Z , en .... NE i/TH ST - • " - .1 NWI6TH7 •,*- trtiThei "77., 4"ml , f. • T s'T t -1 • ., , I t6TH sr `'" r,-.- "1-1' • ',71isr • 1.• > 1 IL NE 15 •f V' •11 1 " • , asr-f 1 1 fr •• r-wan reR Digital Orthophotography - 2005 0 This map was created on 9/7/2006 2:40:54 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site 02002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. 225 ft Folio No.: MIAMID ION Summary.Retans: 0173136-00-0010 Property: Mailing Address: BDB MIAMI LLC 4401 DAVIDSON AVE ATLANTA GA 30319- Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC' • 0066 EXTRA FEATURE OTHER THAN PARKING Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 0 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 0 Lot Size: 272,947 SQ FT Year Built: 0 Legal. Descnpbon: OMNI ANNEX PB 144-98 T- 18498 TR A LOT SIZE 6.266 AC M/L FAU 01-3136-000- 0040-0050-0060 0070-0080- 0120-0160-0180 & Sale Information: Sale O/R: 22032-0230 Sale Date: 2/2004 Sale Amount: $11,700,000 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 and Value: $10,917,880110,371,986 Building Value: $27,878 $23,040 Market Value: $10,945,758410,395,026 Assessed Value: $10,945,758-$10,395,026 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $10,945,758 $10,395,026 1C:31'C! ;11 item --ez • s cri e ,'7 6- Priscilla A. hornpson --- City Clerk http://gisims2.miamidade.gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapur1=1-ittp://gisims2.miamidade.gov... 9/7/2006 Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 tami a e. Property Information Map My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida m NW17THST NE17THST� — al rn Y� ut..: a a X, c+ td • HE. 1TTH -- =5tl , ,- i. !l'` 3 f .I' tar. - - I. f� -Fi i ._1I a �- H,r NE ST WI6TH;; ST t -4 � I6TH x - .,..,_ y 'Ili:,s .Alt i -, -� I ! .1 r a NE IsTH TER 1..bset Digital Orthophotography - 2005 0 This map was created on 9/7/2006 2:35:39 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. CEO 225 ft MIAMI•DADE Summary Details: Folio No.: 0 1-3130_O( 3060 Property: 75 NE 17 TERR Mailing Address: 8DB MIAMI LLC 7301 PARKWAY DR HANOVER MD 21076- Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0065 PARKING LOT Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 0 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 0 Lot Size: 3,125 SQ FT Year Built: 1981 Legal Description: SEITTERS ADD PB 2-60 E1/2 OF LOT 4 LOT SIZE 25.000 X 125 OR 23208-4984 03 2005 2(4) Sale Information: Sale O/R: 23208-4984 Sale Date: 3/2005 Sale Amount: $2,075,700 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $187,500 $78,125 Building Value: $5,968 $5,323 Market Value: $193,468 $83,448 Assessed Value: $193,468 $83,448 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $193,468 $83,448 Submitted into the public record in connection ith item n.5 on etloro. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk http://gisims2. miami Bade. gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapurl=http://gi sims2.miamidade. gov... 9/7/2006 Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 talmiade.•ov Property information Map My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida - r . �e•i K: iw J ___ „�. =i' 16TH Sr •. 1 - NW 16TH ST ENE ..+ - r R TT rri 'F A er ; lap411A a .� .i , -+ ! p,1 . r,,� rNE 111`5TN TER r / ■ar i t.i rr ..., Digital Orthophotography - 2005 0 This map was created on 9/7/2006 2:35:57 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. 225 ft MIAMI•DADE Summary Details: Folio No.: Q7 -3136-O 3-QO70 Property: 69 NE 17 TERR Mailing Address: BDB MIAMI LLC 7301 PARKWAY DR HANOVER MD 21076- Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0032 LIGHT MANUFACTURING Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 1 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 2,475 Lot Size: 2,950 SO FT Year Built: 1964 Legal Description: SEITTERS ADD PB 2-60 W1/2 OF LOT 4 LESS S7.5FT FOR RANLOT SIZE 25.000 X 118 OR 23208-4984 03 2005 2(4) Sale Information: Sale O/R: 23208-4984 Sale Date: 3/2005 Sale Amount: $2,075,700 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $177,000 $73,750 Building Value: $72,159 $65,206 Market Value: $249,159 '$138,956 Assessed Value: $249,159 $138,956 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $249,159 $138,956 Submitted Into the public record in connecti n with item PPa5 on 9 ob Priscilla A. Th mpson City Clerk http://gisims2.miamidade. gov/myhome/printmap. asp?mapurl=http://gisims2.m iamidade.gov... 9/7/2006 Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida Property Information Map t„ .., .... , ras - NW 17TH ST ME ITT"5T 1-r^* OP m • * ; F aR 1 a f• rf e- l HE 17Tii ST iiiiA NW 16TH ST I-- z . $"- �^ +� �. : ,- t .i --:.�:-: i !tom.. 1 - ^ tjl �� Digital Orthophotography - 2005 0 This map was created on 9/7/2006 2:36:18 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. 225 ft MIAMI•�pADE Summary Details: Folio No.: 01 -31.36-003-0080 Property: 67 NE 17 TERR Mailing Address: BDB MIAMI LLC 7301 PARKWAY DR HANOVER MD 21076- Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0036 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OR LUMBER YARD Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 1 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 5,200 Lot Size: 5,900 SQ FT Year Built: 1966 Legal Description: SEITTERS ADD PB 2-60 LOT 5 LESS S7.5FT FOR R/W LOT SIZE 50.000 X 118 OR 23208-4984 03 2005 2(4) Sale Information: Sale O/R: 23208-4984 Sale Date: 3/2005 Sale Amount: $2,075,700 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $354,000 $147,500 uilding Value: $177,714 $162,083 Market Value: $531,714 $309,583 Assessed Value: $531,714 $309,583 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $531,714 $309,583 Submitted Into the public record in connection w'th item Pz.5 on Da. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk http://gisims2.miamidade. gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapurl=http://gisims2.miamidade. gov... 9/7/2006 Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida rams' a + e. • o Property Information Map t • I NW MN ST NE 17TH ST — f rn �.+� N - z iC Ya s at 1 i M 141 Halts TH 5T ••� NE 16TH Sr f h' � 1�+r•ll-. p I. - rn {,, a •�,�, i „� -+ T • it ]P e ! t i S ba i Lli+ r-1 NE t7TH ST �t ,r ` NE 15TH rER ...1.4.. , Digital Orthophotography - 2005 0 This map was created on 9/7/2006 2:36:45 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. 225 ft MIAMIDADE Summary Details: Folio No.: O1-3135-003 Q090 Property: 65 NE 17 TERR Mailing Address: BDB MIAMI LLC 7301 PARKWAY DR HANOVER MD 21076- Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0032 LIGHT MANUFACTURING Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 1 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 4,675 Lot Size: 5,050 SQ FT Year Built: 1982 Legal Description: SEITTERS ADD PB 2-60 LOT 6 LESS S7.5FT & LESS N17.5FT THEREOF LOT SIZE 50.000 X 101 OR 23208-4984 03 2005 2(4) Sale Information: Sale O/R: 23208-4984 Sale Date: 3/2005 Sale Amount: $2,075,700 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: .$303,000 $126,250 Building Value: $140,436 $123,861 Market Value: $443,436 $250,111 Assessed Value: $443,436 $250,111 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $443,436 $250,111 Submitted into the public record in connection with item Pzwon _ at Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk http://gisims2.miamidade. gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapurl=http://gisims2.miamidade.gov... 9/7/2006 Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida @.►o Property Information Map Digital Orthophotography - 2005 0 This map was created on 9/7/2006 2:37:00 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. 225 ft Folio No.: Property: MIAMI-DADE Summar f�Details: 01-3138-OQ3-0 100 59 NE 17 TERR Mailing Address: BDB MIAMI LLC 7301 PARKWAY DR HANOVER MARYLAND 21076- Property Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0081 VACANT LAND Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 0 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 0 Lot Size: 4,600 SQ FT Year Built: 0 Legal Description: SEITTERS ADD PB 2-60 LOT 7 LESS N33FT FOR R/W OR 15035-436 0591 4 COC 23186-3078 03 2005 3 Sale Information: Sale O/R: 23186-3078 Sale Date: 3/2005 Sale Amount: $0 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $276,000 $115,000 Building Value: $0 $0 Market Value: $276,000 $115,000 Assessed Value: $276,000 $115,000 Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $276,000 $115,000 Submitted into the record in connection with item Pe- s Prisc 11 a! qon �"� -oe Thompson City Clerk http://gisims2.miamidade. gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapurl=http://gisims2.miamidade. gov... 9/7/2006 Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 lam' a•-. Property Information Map Digital Orthophotography - 2005 My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida 0 —225ft This map was created on 9/7/2006 2:37:17 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved, MIAMI•DADE Summary Details: Folio No.: +01-3136-003-0110 Property: 51 NE 17 TERR Mailing Address: BDB MIA LLC C/O FRANK ROSENBLUM 1436 SWAN LN JACKSONVILLE FL 32207- Pronerty Information: Primary Zone: 6600 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL CLUC: 0081 VACANT LAND Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 0 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 0 Lot Size: 6,250 SQ FT Year Built: 0 Legal Description: SEITTERS ADD PB 2-60 LOT 8 LOT SIZE 50.000 X 125 OR 19463-1641 0101 COC 23121-3635 02 2005 3 1 Sale Information: Sale O/R: 23121-3635 Sale Date: 2/2005 Sale Amount: $425,000 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $375,000 $156,250 Building Value: $0 $0 Market Value: $375,000 $375,000 $156,250 $156,250 Assessed Value: Total Exemptions: $0 $0 Taxable Value: $375,000 $156,250 Submitted Into the public record in connecti e n with item z. s on q a� Priscilla A. The meson City Clerk http://gisims2.miamidade.gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapurl=http://gisims2.miamidade.gov... 9/7/2006 City of Miami Planning Advisory Board Agenda REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2005 CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA A. INVOCATION B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF THE APPLICABLE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAMI CITY HALL), LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33133. TIME: AFTER 7:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PLEASE NOTE THAT ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER 1. Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Paramount Park project, located at approximately 728 Biscayne Boulevard and 225 NE 7 Street. (Downtown NET District) No.: 2005-033 Applicant: Adrienne F. Pardo, on behalf of Panelinios, Limited. Consideration of a Resolution approving with conditions a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Articles 5, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Paramount Park project (MU-2005-007), located at approximately 728 Biscayne Boulevard and 225 NE 7 Street, Miami, Florida, to construct a 756-foot, 68-story high mixed use structure to be comprised of approximately 467 total multifamily residential units with recreational amenities; approximately 120 hotel rooms; approximately 12,947 square feet of retail space; and approximately 818 total parking spaces; providing for certain floor area ratio ("FAR") bonuses. 2. Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Park Lane Tower project, located at approximately 345 NE 32 Street. (Wynwood/Edgewater NET District) No.: 2005-034 Applicant: Adrienne F. Pardo, on behalf of Park Lane Towers, LLC. CITY OF MIAMI • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 444 SW 2ND AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR • MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 PHONE (305) 416-1400 Printed on 4/8/2005 Submitted into the public' record in connection with item PZ• 5 on R ' 1- o0 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City of Miami IPlanning Advisory Board Agenda I April 20, 2005 Consideration of a Resolution approving with conditions a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Park Lane Tower project (MU-2005-009), located at approximately 345 NE 32 Street, Miami, Florida, to construct a 437-foot, 22-story high mixed use structure to be comprised of approximately 143 total multifamily residential units with recreational amenities; approximately 19,839 sq. ft. of office space; approximately 16,310 square feet of retail and restaurant space; and approximately 371 total parking spaces; providing for certain floor area ratio ("FAR") bonuses. 3. Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Bayview Market project, located at approximately NE 17 Street and NE 2 Avenue; 51 NE 17 Terrace; 59 NE 17 Terrace; 65 NE 17 Terrace; 67 NE 17 Terrace; 69 NE 17 Terrace; 75 NE 17 Terrace; and 79 NE 17 Terrace. (Wynwood/Edgewater NET District) No.: 2005-035 Applicant: Lucia A. Dougherty, on behalf of BDB Miami, LLC, owner/contract purchaser, F & C Kochen LLC, and Sylvia Whyte Mfg. Co., and Abacus Advisory & Consulting Corp. Consideration of a Resolution approving with conditions a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Bayview Market project (MU-2005-003), located at approximately NE 17 Street and NE 2 Avenue; 51 NE 17 Terrace; 59 NE 17 Terrace; 65 NE 17 Terrace; 67 NE 17 Terrace; 69 NE 17 Terrace; 75 NE 17 Terrace; and 79 NE 17 Terrace., Miami, Florida, to construct a 160-foot, four story high mixed use structure to be comprised of approximately 653,659 square feet of retail space (14,325 sq. ft. of which is street side); approximately 24 total loft residential units; and approximately 2,360 total parking spaces. 4. Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Lynx Downtown project, located at approximately 16 SE 2 Street; 60 SE 2 Street; 41 SE 3 Street; and 61 SE 3 Street. (Downtown NET District) No.: 2005-036 Applicant: Lucia A. Dougherty, on behalf of Downtown Associates, LLC, contract purchaser and 1225 SW 8 Street Property, owner. Consideration of a Resolution approving with conditions a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Lynx Downtown project (MU-2005-008), located at approximately 16 SE 2 Street; 60 SE 2 Street; 41 SE 3 Street; and 61 SE 3 Street, Miami, Florida, to construct a mixed use six building cluster development to be comprised of approximately 430 total multifamily residential units; approximately 91 live/work units; approximately 207 condominium/hotel units; approximately 194 hotel rooms; approximately 147,696 square feet of office space; approximately 50,357 square feet of retail and restaurant space; a 291-foot high vertical sports club of approximately 111,041 square feet; and approximately 1,459 total parking Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz•5 on 4-9-06 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk spaces. CITY OF MIAMI • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 444 SW 2ND AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR • MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 PHONE (305) 416-1400 Printed on 4/8/2005 Page 2 of 3 City of Miami Planning Advisory Board Agenda l April 20, 2005 5. Consideration of amending Ordinance 10544, as amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, in order to amend the Future Land Use Element/Map by amending the text to incorporate language regarding the designation of an Urban Central Business District. No.: 2005-037 Applicant: City of Miami Planning Department Consideration of amending Ordinance 10544, as amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, in order to amend the Future Land Use Element/Map by amending the text to incorporate language regarding the designation of an Urban Central Business District within the City of Miami pursuant to Section 380.06(2)(e), Florida Statutes, setting forth the boundaries of the Urban Central Business District; establishing guidelines and standards which shall be applicable to developments within the Urban Central Business District; providing for transmission to the Department of Community Affairs; providing for conflicts, severability, codification and an effective date. DISCUSSION ITEM(S) • PAB Workshop with City Attorney's Office Submitted Into the public record in connection with itemTZ_5__—on q-fl- O4 Priscilla A. Thompson -:i City Clerk CITY OF MIAMI • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 444 SW 2N° AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR • MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 PHONE (305) 416-1400 Printed on 4/8/2005 Page 3 of 3 City of Miami Legislation Resolution City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.ci.m iami.fl. us File Number: 05-00408 Final Action Date: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE BAYVIEW MARKET PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY NORTHEAST 17 STREET AND NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE; 51 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 59 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 65 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 67 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 69 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 75 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; AND 79 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A 140-FOOT, FOUR STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 653,659 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE (14,325 SQUARE FEET OF WHICH IS STREET SIDE); APPROXIMATELY 24 TOTAL LOFT RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND APPROXIMATELY 2,360 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. WHEREAS, on March 9, 2005, Adrienne F. Pardo, Esq., on behalf of Bayview Markets, LLC (referred to as "APPLICANT"), submitted a complete Application for Major Use Special Permit for Bayview Market (referred to as "PROJECT") pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the properties located at approximately NE 17 Street and NE 2 Avenue; 51 NE 17 Terrace; 59 NE 17 Terrace; 65 NE 17 Terrace; 67 NE 17 Terrace; 69 NE 17 Terrace; 75 NE 17 Terrace; and 79 NE 17 Terrace, Miami, Florida, as legally described in "Exhibit B", attached and incorporated; and WHEREAS, development of the Project requires the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Large Scale Development Committee met on June 3, 2004 to consider the proposed project and offer its input; and WHEREAS, the Urban Development Review Board met on July 21, 2004, to consider the proposed project and recommended APPROVAL; and WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of March 14, 2005, Item No. 8, adopted Resolution No. ZB 2005-1007 by a vote of seven to zero (7-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL with conditions of a special exception, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of March 14, 2005, Item No. 9, adopted Resolution No. ZB 2005-1008 by a vote of seven to zero (7-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL with conditions of a variance, as hereinafter set forth; and Submitted into the public record in connection with City of Miami Page 1 of 4 h • 5- u n • ed On: 5/14/2005 Priscilla A. Thompson 1 City Clerk File Number. 05-00408 WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting held on April 20, 2005 Item No. 3, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 40-05 by a vote of eight to zero (8 -0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL with conditions as presented in the Major Use Special Permit Development Order as attached and incorporated; and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami to issue a Major Use Special Permit Development Order as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORI DA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. A Major Use Special Permit Development Order, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit A," is approved subject to the conditions specified in the Development Order, per Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the PROJECT to be developed by the APPLICANT, at approximately NE 17 Street and NE 2 Avenue; 51 NE 17 Terrace; 59 NE 17 Terrace; 65 NE 17 Terrace; 67 NE 17 Terrace; 69 NE 17 Terrace; 75 NE 17 Terrace; and 79 NE 17 Terrace, Miami, Florida, more particularly described on "Exhibit B," attached and incorporated. Section 3. The PROJECT is approved for the construction of a 140-foot, four story high mixed use structure to be comprised of approximately 653,659 square feet of retail space (14,3: sq. ft. of which is street side); approximately 24 total loft residential units; and approximately 2,360 tot parking spaces. Section 4. The Major Use Special Permit Application for the Project also encompasses the lower ranking Special Permits as set forth in the Development Order ("Exhibit A"). Section 5. The findings of fact set forth below are made with respect to the subject PROJECT: a. The PROJECT is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as amended. b. The PROJECT is in accord with the C-2 (Liberal Commercial) Zoning classifications Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended. c. Pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the specific site plan aspects of the PROJECT, i.e., ingress and egress, parking, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage, preservation of natural features and control of potentially adverse effects generally, have been considered and will be further considered administratively during the process of issuing a building permit and a certificate of occupancy. d. The PROJECT is expected to cost approximately $250,978,429, and to employ approximately 214 workers during construction (FTE-Full Time Employees); the PROJECT will also result in the creation of approximately 2,550 permanent new jobs. The PROJECT will generate approximately $1,300,745 annually in tax revenues to the City (2005 dollars). e. The City Commission further finds that: (1) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy of the City; (2) the PROJECT will efficiently use public transportation facilities; (3) any potentially adverse effects of the PROJECT will be mitigated through compliance with the conditions of this Major Use Special Permit; (4) the PROJECT will favorably affect the need for people to find adequate housing reasonably Submitted Into the public record in connection with item p2. s on 9-*1-o, City of Miami I I lbC.1 ci H. I i 1Ul IIpSO Page 2 of 4 rimed On: 5/10/2005 City Cle File Number: 05-00408 accessible to their places of employment; (5) the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary public facilities; (6) the PROJECT will not negatively impact the environment and natural resources of the City; (7) the PROJECT will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood; (8) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public safety; (9) based on the record presented and evidence presented, the public welfare will be served by the PROJECT; and (10) any potentially adverse effects of the PROJECT arising from safety and security, fire protection and life safety, solid waste, heritage conservation, trees, shoreline development, minority participation and employment, and minority contractor/subcontractor participation will be mitigated through compliance with the conditions of this Major Use Special Permit. Section 6. The Major Use Special Permit, as approved and amended, shall be binding upon the APPLICANT and any successors in interest. Section 7. The application for Major Use Special Permit, which was submitted on March 9, 2005, and on file with the Planning Department of the City of Miami, Florida, shall be relied upon generally for administrative interpretations and is incorporated by reference. Section 8. The City Manager is directed to instruct the Planning Director to transmit a copy of this Resolution and attachment to the APPLICANT. Section 9. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are made with respect to the Project as described in the Development Order ("Exhibit A") for the PROJECT, attached and incorporated. Section 10. The Major Use Special Permit Development Order for the PROJECT ("Exhibit A") is granted and issued. Section 11. In the event that any portion or section of this Resolution or the Development Order ("Exhibit A") is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall in no manner affect the remaining portions of this Resolution or Development Order ("Exhibit A") which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 12. The provisions approved for this Major Use Special Permit, as approved, shall commence and become operative thirty (30) days after the adoption of the Resolution. Section 13. This Major Use Special Permit, as approved, shall expire two (2) years from its commencement and operative date. Section 14. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. {1} APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JORGE L. FERNANDEZ CITY ATTORNEY Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz. S on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City of Miami Page 3 of 4 Printed On: 5/10/2005 File Number: 05-00408 Footnotes: {1} If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ., s on 61-0g6. Priscilla A. Thompson .` City Clerk City of Miami Page 4 of 4 Printed On: 5/10/2005 EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Tract A and that portion of N. E. 17th Terrace lying Easterly of the Northerly prolongation of the East Right of Way line for N. E. Miami Place, OMNI ANNEX, as recorded in Plat Book ;144 at Page 98 of the Public Records of Miami —Dade County, Florida. AND Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 4 through 6, less the South 7.5 feet thereof and the West 1/2 of Lot 3, AMENDED _MAP OF SEITTER ADDITION, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 60, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, lying and being in. the City of Miami, Miami —Dade County, Florida Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ. 6 on q- Pi. ot. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 motion carries unanimously. Ms. Pardo: Thank you very much. PZ.3 05-00408 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE BAYVIEW MARKET PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY NORTHEAST 17 STREET AND NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE; 51 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 59 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 65 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 67 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 69 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; 75 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE; AND 79 NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A 140-FOOT, FOUR STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 653,659 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE (14,325 SQUARE FEET OF WHICH IS STREET SIDE); APPROXIMATELY 24 TOTAL LOFT RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND APPROXIMATELY 2,360 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. 05-00408 Legislation.pdf 05-00408 Exhibit A.pdf 05-00408 Exhibit B.pdf 05-00408 Exhibit C.pdf 05-00408 MUSP Analysis.pdf 05-00408 Zoning Map.pdf 05-00408 Aerial Map.pdf 05-00408 Pre -Application Review Comments.pdf 05-00408 School Board Review Comments.pdf 05-00408 PAB Reso.pdf 05-00408 Special Exception Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00408 Special Exception Analysis.pdf 05-00408 ZB Special Exception Reso.pdf 05-00408 Variance Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00408 Variance Analysis.pdf 05-00408 ZB Variance Reso.pdf 05-00408 MUSP Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00408-Submittal.pdf Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P25on 9- _04. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Bayview Market Project LOCATION: Approximately NE 17th Street and NE 2nd Avenue; 51 NE 17th Terrace; 59 NE 17th Terrace; 65 NE 17th Terrace; 67 NE 17th Terrace; 69 NE 17th Terrace; 75 NE 17th Terrace; and 79 NE 17th Terrace APPLICANT(S): BDB Miami LLC, Owner/Contract Purchaser, F&C Kochen, LLC and Sylvia Whyte Mfg Co and Abacus Advisory & Consulting Corp. City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on April 20, 2005 by a vote of 8-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* on March 14, 2005 of the special exception by a vote of 7-0 and variance by a vote of 7-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Bayview Market Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Submitted ;µto the public record in conne , with item Pz- 5 on 41 -'7rot Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk R-05-0350 Chairman Sanchez: We move to PZ.3. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ (planning & zoning) -- Chairman Sanchez: PZ.3 is a Major Use Special Permit, Bayview Market. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, this is for the Bayview Market project. It's located on 17th Street, just south of the Miami Cemetery. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board, approval by the Planning and Zoning Department. There are several conditions that were attached to this one. Regarding some design -related comments in the loading bay areas to the east of the building need to be screened from view of the street. The pedestrian sidewalk shall be maintained with consistent recognizable pattern and height, which will continue across the vehicular entrances, and then some landscape -related conditions regarding the shade trees on 2nd Avenue. The project is in order to construct a 653,659 square feet of retail space, of which 14,325 square feet is at street side, and it will also include 24 total loft residential units, and the parking will be approximately 2,360 spaces. This is a vertical shopping center, the first of this kind in this area, and it's proposed to be 140 feet tall. It did consist of a various request, which was recommended for approval by the Zoning Board, and again, with those conditions, we recommend approval. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition? Commissioner Allen:: Opposition, yes. Chairman Sanchez: All right. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this Commission, please step forward and be recognized. Sir, have you been sworn in? Saul Cimbler: Yes, I have. Chairman Sanchez: OK, sir, please state your name for the record. Mr. Cimbler: For the record, my name is Saul Cimbler of Strategic Consulting Group, located at 409 West Hallendale Beach Boulevard, Hallendale, Florida. I'm a zoning consultant, and I have registered as a lobbyist on behalf of Steven Goodman of Jerin Associates, which is located at 35 Northeast 17th Terrace and 41 Northeast 17th Terrace, which, incidentally, are the properties that are immediately adjacent to the western part of this 2 million square foot development. I'm here to discuss the variance application within the MUSP (Major Use Special City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 'PZ.5 on 9_'_p6 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Permit), as well as the incompatibility of'the design with the surrounding neighborhood, specifically, my properties -- my client's property, which is located next door. The variance application doesn't meet the City or the common law standard for variance. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry, what was that? Mr. Cimbler: The variance application does not meet the City or the common law standards -- Chairman Sanchez: The common law standards. Mr. Cimbler: -- for a variance. Commissioner Allen: City or the common law. Mr. Cimbler: It's a simple case that involves a hard and fast rule and land use law. If you don't have a hardship, you're not entitled to a variance. You have an applicant who comes to you before today because they would like a variance, and that's awfully nice, but they're not entitled to it because they don't have a hardship, let alone a hardship that was not self-created. The -- as these cases come before the Commission, the common law standards are incredibly high, and this application doesn't meet them. Under the common law standards, a variance seeker must show that without the variance, it is virtually impossible to use the land as it is presently zoned; the variance seeker must also show that the claimed hardship is not self-created or self-imposed. The law requires that the owner not be able to use the entire property without the variance in order to qualify for it, and finally, unless all variance criteria had been met, the variance can't be granted. Simply put, the application doesn't meet the incredibly high common law criteria. Furthermore, Section 1903.2 sets forth the City Code requirements for granting a variance. The City's requirements conform with the common law standard of hardship and each, individually, each of the criteria must be met. The first criteria, which is set forth in the ordinance and is then repeated in Section 17 of the application for a variance, requests and requires that special condition -- that the applicant establish that special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved, and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. Here, with the Bavview Marketplace project, this is a C-2 property, the same as many others in the area. There's really nothing special about the configuration of the property that requires an additional 20 feet in height, and that is the issue before you today. Chairman Sanchez: Twenty feet in height is the issue? Mr. Cimbler: That's correct. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Cimbler: They're entitled to 120 feet. This applicant does not seek to stop the project, but -- the objector, rather, doesn't seek to stop the project. Their problem is, this applicant is entitled to 120 feet and is seeking a variance for 20 feet. In addition, when we get to the compatibility issues, you'll see why, given this particular property, this MUSP application is a tremendous problem to him. Here in the application, the petitioner claims that the special circumstances are "the national standards for urban structures such as this, projecting an additional number of parking spaces." The national standards test, they state, does not rise to the level of hardship. Here, they're not saying anything more than, ladies and gentlemen of this Commission, of the staff, we want 20 additional feet. There's no legal criteria to give it to them. The second prong of the City's own ordinance requires that the special conditions and the circumstances requiring a variance do not result from the action of the petitioner. Here, the petitioner clearly is self-imposed the requirements. They have this mythical national standard, which I would proffer to you, basically, means that they're trying to say they want to have as much parking as they can City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ• s on q-q- ob Priscilla A. Thompson k City Clerk because it's a big box center, and big box centers attract a lot of people, and they want a lot of parking. That doesn't meet the criteria. The petitioner doesn't even, in any shape or form, address the special circumstances that are created because it's obvious that they aren't. Commissioner Allen: All right. Mr. Cimbler: If you find -- and I think you must, at the imposition of the requirement of national standards is self-imposed, then you can't grant the variance. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mi. Cimbler: The next prong -- Chairman Sanchez: Can I just stop you? Mr. Chairman, just for clarification purposes. We're also considering an appeal of a variance; is that your argument right now? Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no. There's no -- Commissioner Winton: No -- Commissioner Allen: That's not on the table, is it? Commissioner Winton: -- no, no, no, no. Lucia Dougherty: No. Mr. Cimbler: No Chairman Sanchez: No. Mr. Cimbler: The variance would actually be considered -- Commissioner Allen.: No. Mr. Cimbler: -- as part of the AIUSP. Commissioner Allen.: Right, so -- Commissioner Winton: This -- Mr. Cimbler: So the two things that we'll be talking about are the compatibility issues -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Cimbler: -- and the variance issue, and there is a tremendous interplay in this round between both of those. Commissioner Allen: OK. Right. I just wanted -- because -- Chairman Sanchez: Right. Commissioner Allen: -- you were touching on that issue. Mr. Cimbler: The third prong of the ordinance asks that the applicant establish that literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the applicants of rights City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 'PZ • 5 on q-11-0.1. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, and would work unnecessary and "undo hardship" on the petitioner. Here, the petitioner is not being deprived of any rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the same district, but rather seeks special exemption for height requirements. The petitioner, in its application, doesn't address whether it needs the special treatment in order to enjoy rights commonly enjoyed by other property. The petitioner simply provides a self-serving statement that without the variance and the additional parking, the project would be "deficient, " again referring to those national standards that they seek to self -impose. This doesn't live up to the strict common law standard for issuance of a variance. The next prong that the Commission -- that the applicant needed to meet, which it didn't, is that granting a variance request which conveys the same treatment to the individual owner as to owners of other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Here, granting the variance would permit the petitioner with a C-2 height limitation that govern other properties in the same district. In order to ensure that the City conveys the same treatment to other owners in the same district, the City would be required -- and this is where a lot of attention needs to be given -- the City would be required to grant similar variance to other owners of properties in the district, and that means, when the next folks come by in the district and ask for a variance, this Commission's going to be vety hard-pressed to say "no" because they've just set a precedent, which in the appellate courts, is going to be followed. The applicant on this prong basically states that the project will better the community and will improve the project because it will provide for extra parking. If the additional parking, I stress to you, is so important and so necessary for survival of the project, the petitioner could have foregone some of the six thousand, five hundred and thirty-three, six hundred and fifty-nine square feet of retail space in this 2 million square feet of construction. The other prong -- and there are two prongs left that the applicant had to overcome before the City staff could even accept this application -- was that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. It's clear that they could do something else with this property. They could build the building. It's 120 square feet, so the variance simply is not required by -- Commissioner Winton: A hundred and twenty square feet's -- Mr. Cimbler: -- the petitioner -- Commissioner Winton: -- a pretty small building. Mr. Cimbler: A hundred and twenty -- thank you for correcting me, Mr. Winton -- is not required for the petitioner to make reasonable use of the land, and there are other things that they can do. Finally, the last prong that this applicant had to meet, before staff could accept the application, is that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, or here, granting a variance of 20 feet of additional height involves granting a variance, not of half a foot over what they want or a foot, you're talking about increasing the height by 16.7 percent over that which is required; not only is it a variance, and the math is simple. If you divide 20 by 120, you'll get that number. You're talking about not only a variance; you're talking about a massive variance. They're not saying, you know, we came up a little short. What they've basically done is said, "Hey, we've designed the building" -- as Frank Sinatra would say -- "our way, and we want you to approve it, " and the applicant, once again, basically sets -- simply cites the requirements and states that the application makes it -- meets it without offering any proof thereof I next would invite your attention to Section 135 of the City Code, and 1 -- Section 135 of the City Code sets forth certain design criteria, and we have certain exhibits that we're going to go through to talk about this. which are standards of review when determining whether to issue a special permit, which, in this instant, is the MUSP application itself. The section lists eight criteria. I don't plan on addressing all of them, as I did with the variance. I understand you have a very long calendar today, but only a couple that directly affect my client's adjacent property, and which are glaringly sub par, and I'm going to City, of Miami Page 9, Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connectio with item 1'Z. 5 on bq�\er, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk take a couple seconds to set up some exhibits so we can do that. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Commissioners, just a point of order. I had an emergency; that I had to be away from the dais when this item was first called. I just came back, and I see a fidl presentation on the merits of the appeal. Chairman Sanchez: There is no appeal. Mr. Cimbler: This is the MUSP. Chairman Sanchez: It's not an appeal. Mr. Fernandez: Oh, all right. Chairman Sanchez: This is no appeal. Mr. Cimbler: This is item number 3. This is -- Mr. Fernandez: Oh, number 3. I'm sorry. Mr. Cimbler: So you get a little feel for what we're talking about. This right here is the back of the Bayview Marketplace project. You're going to see the front in a while, and I, too, if I was the architect, would be showing this. This is a project that has already come through the process called the Park Lofts. These two buildings right here are the Filling Station project, which has an item that is asked to be heard as item number 7 today. What is basically happening is my client's property is right here. He owns 12,500 square feet. You're going to see that this developer has designed a project that makes it absolutely detrimental to my client's use of the property. This, once again, and all these drawings so far are coming right out of the MUSP book. This is one of two drawings that, on November 8, 2004, was signed off as the Planning Department. There is some ambiguity as to what really is going to go on here, because when you look at the drawing, one of them says that, well, there's some footplates here. We don't know what's going to go in there, but on the same day, there's another one that says, to and behold, there's a Home Depot coming, so we don't know, first of all, what's coming there. More importantly, when you look at the plans that are presented by this developer -- Commissioner Winton: You're not supposed to know what's coming. Mr. Cimbler: -- you'll notice that they made reference to Lot 9, as a 'proposed expansion loading area, "and I would invite your attention to this drawing in your book because you'll notice that there are some geometric drawings there, and I didn't do too well in geometry; that's why I'm not an architect, but it's clear that they discussed and tried to give the impression, as this came through the boards, that Lot 9 was part of the determinations that were made for traffic circulation. Small problem; Lot 9 is owned by Jerin & Associates, the objector today. This developer doesn't own that, so when you look at what came through, it's clear to somebody who looks at it with a naked eye that they think that all the traffic circulation issues are internalized in this property, which they are not. When you see what's really going on in this area, you'll now understand what some of the objections are, and we're going to get to the point in a minute. Commissioner Winton: Well, I hope so. City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 6/10./2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2_on o� Priscilla A. Thompson- City Clerk Chairman Sanchez: So, sir, the 20-feet variance is not the only concern your client has? Mr. Cimbler: That's not the only concern. Commissioner Allen: Right. You're -- Mr. Cimbler: There's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Commissioner Allen: Comp -- right. You're discussing the -- internalizing the loading dock; that's what you're -- Mi. Cimbler: Loading and the traffic -- Commissioner Allen: Right. -h Cimbler: -- and the traffic circulation. Commissioner Allen: Yes, right. Mr. Cimbler: ihis is a document, this one here. ihis is probably a deed -- DDA (Downtown Development Authority) document. You've seen it before, Downtown Development Authority, but this document right here is a document that came out of a document that has been presented by the developers a "traffic study," and the inference that the developer tried to make at the planning level and at the zoning level is "Hey, a planning -- a traffic study was done; the City's traffic analysis looked at it; there's no problem here." I'd invite your attention to this document. The document that they used, first of all, when you read it, you know -- you understand that, in fact, this area doesn't require a traffic study for concurrency. This is a redevelopment area. The traffic study was done solely for purposes of trying to figure out if the internal distribution of the property, the applicant's property, was sufficient. It didn't establish that there aren't traffic issues, which they [sic] are. As we know, we saw it from Downtown Development Authority, and for all those who read the Miami Herald, we know that the area -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, it's backwards. Mr. Cimbler: There you go. Thank you, Commissioner. -- that the area through here is being inundated with construction. What's happening is that all of this construction, when the developers come here, and in the Edgewater, in the Park Loft area, they say, "Hey, don't worry about it. We've got Biscayne Boulevard and we've got Northeast 2nd Avenue, and we've got North Manzi Avenue that we're going to use to throw off traffic," which will come to a point that's internally inconsistent. The Herald highlighted 90 projects. I would call to your attention to the conspicuous absence of the Bayview Marketplace project. That's not on here. I would call to your attention to all the projects that didn't need -- Commissioner Winton: I don't -- Mr. Cimbler: -- a Class II Permit. Commissioner Winton: -- think this is relevant. Mr. City Attorney, could you -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- get focused here? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ•5 on 9-n-o6 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Winton: You know, he's -- I don't even know what he's talking about anymore. He's talking about the fact that somebody didn't show something on something that is irrelevant to whatever we're doing here, so could you keep him focused so we can move along. Commissioner Allen: Right, so, if I may, the only issues we're discussing right now, your concern is the internalizing of the loading and the traffic issues; that's what you're -- Mr. Cimbler: Which I'm trying to get to, if I can -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Cimbler: -- continue, because what happens is that, as all this traffic heads down south on Northeast 2nd Avenue, on Biscayne Boulevard, on North Miami Avenue, you then have now this project that comes in that, quite frankly, they didn't think about what the effect is. This is the project. Hold on a second. I know this is difficult to read. My assistant is going to hand out, including to Ms. Dougherty, a copy of this, so that you could see a little bit easier and follow a little bit easier. This is the Bayview Marketplace. ",X" marks the spot where my client is. The loading docks delineates the same loading docks that I spoke about before. You have the Park Loft project and the Filling Station project, which are the ones that I identified here. The way that this developer has done traffic and circulated traffic into this building is incredible. You have to come in off 14th Street -- and there's only one way to get into this 2 million square foot monster. You go in on a one-way street, you go over to this street right here, which is on the east -- on the south side of the property, and that's your only point of egress for automobiles, and the reason we make that conclusion, you'll see in a second, because if you look at the pictures, there's no way to turn a truck up this street. The only way to come out of this project is, once again, you come now not back out to this street, but you can only go out to Northeast 2nd Avenue. Pictures B, C, andD represent 2nd Avenue. Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney, may I ask another question, please? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Is -- I'd like to know if the gentleman doing the presentation is a traffic consultant expert. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, because he's testifying as an expert. Mr. Fernandez.: Well, when he was sworn, he put his credentials on the record. I don't know the gentleman. I don't know what credentials he has, but then again, the Commission is to take his testimony, given his credentials, and then you weigh it, whether it's -- Commissioner Winton: So I would like to know -- Commissioner Allen: And respectfully, I don't -- Commissioner Winton: -- what his credentials are relative to traffic. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, but respectfully, I think he's just making common sense arguments as to traffic, not expert opinion. Mr. Cimbler: That's correct, Mr. Allen. Commissioner Allen: It just seems based on my observation. Mr. Cimbler: And it's -- City of Miami Page 97 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 1'Z. 5 on Priscilla . Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Allen: -- my observation. Mr. Fernndez.- You give it -- you give to his argument the weight that you deem appropriate. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Cimbler: And the common sense argument is that you have a one-way street that's supposed to accommodate traffic to fall up a 2 million square foot center that's coming in several times a day. There's 2,630 square feet, and all those cars are coming out to Northeast 2nd Avenue. Commissioner Allen: A reasonable person, I should say. Mr. Cimbler.: Now -- which would a reasonable person would say. Commissioner Allen: I would say a reasonable person testimony. That's what you're doing. Right. Co ahead. Mr. Cimbler: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Now, let's talk about how this all impacts. Let's get to the meat of the argument, because I know Mr. Wanton's losing patience with us, but 1 need to make the presentation. You have 650,000 square feet of retail space. There're going to he trucks corning in and out, in and out. How are they going to get in there? They're not going to get in here through this one-way street; they're going to come -- the only way they can come is down North Miami, turning into this one-way street right in front of my client's facility, and I would invite your attention, specifically, to this picture E because you're going to see that even today, before all of this construction, there's nowhere to get -- there's almost impossible to get in and out of there. There're going to be trucks constantly coming in and out, and what's interesting is what's across the street. Across the street you have the same projects we talked about, the Park Loft project and the Filling Station project, so you're doing two things here. Number one, there's no consideration given to my client's operation of a business, so there's no misunderstanding, this client -- he's not a developer, he's not a land owner; he's a printer. In 1999, before anybody was concerned about redeveloping this section of Omni, Jerin Associates put their proverbial money where their mouth is. They bought a dilapidated product -- project -- property for $200, 000; they spent $300, 000, and they have a beautiful printing facility there. Now, you have developers who are coming in and saying, "You know what? Too bad. Our desire to develop is more important than your vested property rights, "so you have an applicant who's come in and who refuses to deal with this person's property. In your packet, you have a letter confirming the attempts that he has made to go to the developer. Applicant's not saying don't build this thing; saying build the thing that doesn't negatively impact me, and that's what's going on here. This developer refuses to do that. Fortunately, the law is on the app -- this objector's side, because the law says you can't grant that variance for all the reasons that are stated, and the law that the MUSP requires says that before you grant that MUSP, you have to make sure that what they're doing is compatible with the neighborhood, and if putting in their loading docks there in front of three condominium towers -- and there are more corning -- these folks who think that they just bought $1.5 million unit are going to be looking at the dumpsters in the loading area. Those folks are going to come back here to this Commission one day and one way or the other and say, "How was it possible that you permitted the loading docks on this project to be placed, not in the back where the cemetery is, where it's not going to bother us, where it's not going to affect our value, "just as this applicant is saying, "You're going to destroy my business. You're destroying the value of my property." I did not buy this property. I didn't redesign this property to be in a truck depot. Even there today, with only the construction of the Park Loft projects, it is very difficult to get in and out of this property. Chairman Sanchez: In conclusion. City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 6710/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Tz.5 on 9 1-o Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Cimbler: In conclusion, 1305.8 says that you must -- and there has to be satisfaction with this criteria -- review for appropriateness shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties -- which is what this one is -- of the use or occupancy as proposed or it is -- or its location construction, design, character, scale, or manner of operation where such potentially adverse effects are found, consideration "shall"-- emphasis added -- be given to special remedial measures appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case, including control of manner, of operation, alteration of proposed design or construction of buildings, relocation of proposed open space, or alteration of use of such space, or such other measures as are required to assure that such potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the maximum extent reasonably feasible, and that the user occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of value of the nearby property. In conclusion, what you basically have is a size 12 shoe, and they're trying to put in a size 9 -- a size 12 foot, and they're trying to put in a size 9 shoe, and it may be Guc -- a pair of Gucci loafers, but that size 12 foot still isn't going to fit in there, and that's the point here. Build a project that's 120 feet high. Build a project that puts the loading docks, not where it's going to affect the buyers of $1.5 million condominiums, but do it -- or my -- more importantly, my client who's trying to operate a business, this Commission has the obligation to follow the MUSP law, has the obligation to follow the requirements for a variance, so therefore, I would state that the application fails to meet the very strict criteria for permitting a variance found both in the City Code and in Florida case law; therefore, I ask that you deny the variance request within the MUSP application. I also ask that you deny the MUSP application because it fails to comply with Section 1305 of the City Code that requires compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. To the extent that the applicant will be -- make a presentation, I would like to reserve time for rebuttal regarding new arguments. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, if1 may. Chairman Sanchez: Could -- why don't -- Commissioner Winton: No. Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I was going to -- right. Chairman Sanchez: You have a direct question or -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I know -- no. Actually, I just want to sort of -- if we can sort of expedite things -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Conzmissioner Allen: -- I just was going to ask Madam Lourdes -- I'm sorry, not Lourdes. Madam, just to go directly to just address two or three issues that he made, and that way -- Commissioner Winton: No. She's got to do her full presentation. Chairman Sanchez: Presentation. Commissioner Winton: -- presentation. Ms. Slazyk: Technically -- Commissioner Allen: Right. City of -Miami Page 99 Printed on 6,10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted into the public record in connection with item F-6 on 9•�-�� Priscilla A. Thompson City Cleric Commissioner Winton: She hasn't done her presentation, so -- Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, she hasn't done her presentation. Ms. Slazyk: -- you took them out of order. She was -- Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: Right. Ms. Slazyk: -- supposed to present first -- Commissioner Allen: That's what I thought, right. Ms. Slazyk: -- then the opposition, and then -- Commissioner Allen: That's why -- Ms. Slazyk: -- she gets rebuttal, and since you asked for opposition first, she didn't even get to make the presentation. Commissioner Allen: Presentation, right. That's why -- Chairman Sanchez: And I do apologize. That's why I want to give her the opportunity now to present her presentation. Mr. Cimbler: Commissioner Sanchez, just as a point of order. I'd just like to give a copy of this to the Clerk, and make it a part of the record -- Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir, please do. Mr. Cinibler: -- which, as a courtesy, is the same. Chairman Sanchez: For the record. All right. I apologize, Lucia. Lucia Dougherty: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant. With me is Frank Rosenblum, Jeff Weil, and Ignacio Garcia, who are the principals, as well as the architectural firm of Will & Perkins, and they'll make a presentation that'll be very brief. We are asking for a Major Use Special Permit for which we also sought a variance and a special exception. The special exception was to allow us to have 24 loft units that would line our parking garage and hide it. The variance was for 20 feet in order to accommodate emergency vehicles in the garage. This is probably the most unique building in all of the City of Miami. There is only one other in the entire United States at this point, and that's in San Francisco. It is a true urban retail center. There aren't any others like it. It's one that actually internalizes all the cars. It's not suburban, where you have the cars outside on the ground. It's internalized. The loading is internalized. We have 2,400 cars. There are only four stories in this building. The first floor must be 25 feet tall in order to accommodate the emergency vehicles. The next floor has to be at least -- the ramping and the other stories require this variance. Again, the garage is totally lined with 24 units that is a very unique circumstance. How many retail centers do you have that have residential lining? The downstairs is a retail -- service retail. In terms of the location of this particular retail center, could you get a better location in terms of all the residential uses all around? It's going to service the Opera tower, the Cardinal development, 1800 Club, Quantum, all of these residential districts -- residential projects, huge residential City of Miami Page 100 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz. S on 9 i- c' Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk projects that have no place to shop. 1, for one, live on Brickell Key and will be shopping here because the only other place that you can shop is on 81h and 8th. Then we have the Filling Station lofts, which are across the street, the Park Lofts, the loft departments that are occurring over here, David Lombardi, that you've just approved last City Commission meeting. You have lots of residential and no place to shop, and why is this a perfect location? Look it, you have a Metrorail. People can actually get here by Metrorail. You can walk two blocks over to here. You're going to have your trolley car running down the side on the FEC (Florida East Coast) Corridor. It's absolutely perfect for a retail center. He's talking about residential uses going to be complaining about it. We have that residential developer. Henry Harper is here today, and can testify that they are completely supportive of this because it enhances their residential building. In terms of what it does to Jerin's property, I'm going to pass out a picture of Jerin's property. His building is the one that has absolutely no windows facing this property. It is a one-story building with no windows. We have totally internalized all of the loading. The garbage, actually, for the restaurants -- in other words, on that side of the building is only refuge, meaning paper products. Any kind of garbage for restaurants is actually located on the opposite side of the entire site, and I'm going to ask the architects to come forward, and then I'd like a briefpresentation, ifyou don't mind, Mr. Chair, from the traffic planner, because that was the issue that was raised, but I'm going to have Pat Bosch -- Chairman Sanchez: And once again, 1 do want to apologize for taking you out of order. Therefore, you had the opportunity to make your presentation. Of course, you would have had to make your argument. Sir, you stated time for rebuttal. There is no rebuttal from your side. All right. You may proceed Pat Bosch: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Bosch from Perkins & Will. As Lucia was pointing before, we have internalized all the circulation. The loading is completely internalized and will not be visible from the units because it's actually under the mass of the building. We have smaller retails lining 2nd and 17th that will energize that sidewalk. Actually, we have pushed the building beyond what we were requiring in terms of setbacks in order to really activate that sidewalk and create activity not only for the adjacent neighborhood, but for those who will come either from the Performing Arts Center, but also from the adjacent neighborhoods. We do have treated all the facades, including the one on the cemetery side, not only with landscape, but also facade -wise. We have created -- it says we have here -- all the window treatments to go through, and then on the cemetery side, we have landscape on the bottom, as well as a series of gardens being resembled, as you can see here. Also, that you have also landscape on that side, so what you see from the cemetery side will be a continuation of that garden, and would not be detrimental to that view. Also, to be able to make sure that the residences again, adjacent to it, have the privacy We have treated the facade with the spandrel glass and the glazing that we see on the units you can see here on 17th and 2nd, but again, it will allow for privacy for this unit because there is no use behind them. Commissioner Allen: All right. Ms. Bosch: Internal -- vehicular circulation will actually come through 17th Terrace, directly into the building, and we have worked diligently with staff to ensure that we don't have that traffic that was being mentioned before, service -wise, you would also come and, again, internalize all of the turnarounds of the trucks inside a screened area that is almost 20 feet high, so again, you don't even see it from the street. Commissioner Allen: I see, right. Ms. Bosch: All the uses, all of the services, everything have been internalized, and what we want to create is a place in the city with an atrium that is about 12 stories high, centered to the building that would allow for fascinating views to the downtown area, as well as up north, all the way through the building because it's almost a balcony to the city, so you will be able to look City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pi-. 5 on , i -a, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk back and have energy there internalized, as well. Commissioner. Allen: OK. Yeah. Just -- before she steps away, I see, sum and substance of what you've just said is that, it appears to me that you've addressed the issue of any potential adverse effect on the adjoining property. In fact, it appears to me you guys have done something to enhance the beauty or -- of any adjoining property, based on what you've just said, so OK. Ms. Bosch: And worked diligently with the owners, again, of the future adjacency properties. Commissioner Allen: And you've addressed the issue of internalizing the loading, as well. Ms. Bosch: That's correct. Commissioner Allen: Good, OK, and the traffic. Got you. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: There is -- before Juan Espinosa, from David Plummer, who's our traffic engineer, speaks, I want to also put on the record that the client has offered to actually sandblast and fix up the gravestones in the cemetery, and if you can see, he sensitively treated the cemetery with as much landscaping on that side as he did on the other side, so -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah. It's a beautification project, in fact, yeah. Ms. Dougherty: It is. We happen to have -- we have approvals from the internal design review, the Urban Development Review Board, the Planning -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- Board, and the Zoning Board, and with that, I'd like Juan to -- Juan Espinosa: Good evening. Juan Espinosa, with David Plummer and Associates, 1750 Ponce De Leon Boulevard. I'm the traffic engineer for this project. We conducted a traffic impact study in accordance with the City's standards, and it was found to be sufficient, with review by the City and the City consultant, (IRS (United Research Services). I just wanted to point for the records that the site has two entrances to the parking garage. The main entrance will be on 2nd Avenue, completely aligned with 17th Terrace; both of those streets are two-way. There's another entrance and exit to the parking garage on 17th Street that roughly align with Northeast 1st Court. Northeast 17th Street currently is a one-way street. However, in the City master plan, the transportation master plan that was adopted by the City, it's to be converted to two-way, and we analyzed it both ways, one-way and two-way. Under both circumstances, the level of service for this project are within the City's standards. Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Ms. Dougherty: In case you all don't know -- and you may already know this -- but when we submit our traffic plan, we also have to submit a $4,500 check that goes to the City's traffic consultant so they can review our plan, so it's not only been reviewed by our traffic consultant, but it's also been reviewed by the City's traffic consultant. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: With that, we would close and urge your approval of this -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: -- project. City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item I?Z-5 on q-n.olo Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Chairman Sanchez: Corning back to the Commission. If the Commissioners have -- Sir, you have no rebuttal on this. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Cimbler: I know, but to the extent that you took it out -- Chairman Sanchez: There is no rebuttal. Mr. Cimbler: -- of turn -- Chairman Sanchez: No, sir. We took you out of turn, and we apologize. You had your opportunity to state your record. You've made your record. Mr. Cimbler: I'm asking for 90 seconds, that's all. Chairman Sanchez: No, there is no rebuttal. All right. We come back to the Commission. If the Commission has any questions on either side, you could ask the questions. Commissioner Allen: Well, just a quick summary. I think the outstanding issues here, they've been answered, and it appears that we have placed on the record substantial and competent evidence to that extent, so I'm ready to vote on the item myself. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I would add that I can't think of a more important project that's going -- than this project that's going in an area that has been awful, awful, awful for decades. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: And this project, unlike all these residential projects we're seeing developed, what this project brings are jobs because all of these retailers have to hire people that need a job, and those jobs are going to get filled by residents who are living in the City of Miami, and we heard the Mayor say just the other day that unemployment in our city has been cut in half, which is just absolutely amazing, but there's more opportunity here. This isn't just another condo development. This is one of the best looking projects I've ever seen, where we end up with significant re -- we don't have any retail, so we're getting more retail, we're getting more jobs, and they're building a project that's just absolutely -- you couldn't ask for something better in terms of how it's really interacting with a neighborhood that's just been the pits. It's going to be the anchor that's going to make that whole area really take off, so with that, I would move -- Commissioner Allen: Move the item. Ms. Slazyk: Approval. Commissioner Winton: -- approval. Ms. Slazyk: Let me just -- Commissioner Winton: Sorry. Ms. Slazyk: Let me ask that one thing to the record. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Cit)of Miami Page 103 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 PZ.4 04-00576a Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 12. 5 on 9 -f Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Slazyk: One of the findings that you are supposed to make as a Commission is whether this has a positive impact on the economy of the City. There are over 2,500 jobs being created by this project, so just -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Are there any conditions? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. The conditions are -- Chairman Sanchez: Could you put them on the record? Ms. Slazyk: Well, there's a lot of them. The only ones that have to do with design, I read at the beginning when I presented the item, so I would recommend approval with the conditions in the development order. Commissioner Winton: So move. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion by Commissioner Winton. Is there -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- a second? Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Allen. It is open for discussion fr•orn the Comrnission. Hearing no discussion, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." It passes. Ms. Dougherty: Thanks very much. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, RESOLUTION NO. 04-0419, PER ARTICLES 13, 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE METROPOLITAN MIAMI PROJECT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 200 SOUTHEAST 2ND STREET; 200 SOUTHEAST 3RD STREET AND 300 SOUTHEAST 3RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN THE APPLICATION FROM 736,700 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA AND 3,716 PARKING SPACES (AS IN ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 98-1151 AND MODIFIED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 02-1249; 04-0276; AND 04-0419) TO APPROXIMATELY 259,361 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA AND APPROXIMATELY 3,328 PARKING SPACES; SPECIFICALLY, A DECREASE IN THE OFFICE COMPONENT FROM 500,000 SQUARE FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 9,000 SQUARE FEET, TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF PARCEL D PREVIOUSLY SHIFTED TO PARCEL C BY THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL (RESOLUTION NO. 04-0419) BACK TO PARCEL D; AND TO PRESERVE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 1,500 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON THE ENTIRE SITE; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF City of Miami Page 104 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P .5 on 9-1-06 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 04-00576a Legislation.pdf 04-00576a-exhibit A.pdf 04-00576a Exhibit B.pdf 04-00576a Exhibit C.pdf 04-00576a Analysis.pdf 04-00576a Zoning Map.pdf 04-00576a Aerial Map.pdf 04-00576a School Board Analysis.pdf 04-00576a Traffic Impact Analysis.pdf 04-00576a Pre -Application Design Comments.pdf 04-00576a Miami -Dade Aviation Dept Reivew.pdf 04-00576a PAB Reso.pdf 04-00576a Fact Sheet.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit Substantial Modification for the Metropolitan Miami Project LOCATION: Approximately 200 SE 2nd Street; 200 SE 3rd Street and 300 SE 3rd Street APPLICANT(S): MDM Residence, LTD, MDM Retail, LTD, P & G Development Tract C Development, LTD and P&G Development, LTD APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Tony Recio, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Recommended approval of a certificate of appropriateness to City Commission on June 15, 2004 by a vote of - . PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on May 4, 2005 by a vote of 4-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a substantial modification to the Metropolitan Miami Project. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Allen R-05-0351 Chairman Sanchez: We move on to PZ 4? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: 4. Chairman Sanchez: PZ.4. City of Miami Page 105 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item r - s on q_r_o� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ4 is a request for a modification to a Major Use Special Permit for the Metropolitan Miami project. This project was originally approved as a single tower here on the Met-3 portion. The applicants, some time ago, requested a modification to replace the single tower with two smaller towers. Now, since that was approved by Commission action, the applicant is now seeking to go back to their single tower; that's why it's back here at the City Commission. In the process of going back to the single tower, they've also redesigned the garage facades in order to conceal the vehicles better, and they've also made some other adjustments to the project. In total, the project is now going to consist of 200 -- OK. The change is from 736, 700 square feet of nonresidential floor area and 3,716 parking spaces to approximately 259,361 square feet of nonresidential floor area; 3,328 parking spaces, and they decreased the office component, and then they put hack the residential component, so the application has been recommended for approval with conditions. The Planning Advisory Board recommended approval with the same conditions as the Planning Department, except eliminating two of the conditions, which the applicant requested. Condition 11B talks about the loading area. The Department had recommended that they internalize the maneuvering of the loading. The applicant will present, when he presents the case, why they feel they can't do that. The PAB (Planning Advisory Board) recommended eliminating that condition and replacing it with a limitation on the hours that they could deliver, and requiring a dockmaster to be present. The plans indicate that there would be some backing up required on public right-of-way, and that was our concern. Commissioner Winton: No. Ms. Slazyk: And the applicant will explain why they need to do that. The other condition that the PAB recommended eliminating was 11C, and this had to do with additional liners that the Department was looking for on the west side -- the west elevation. On the west elevation, they have ground floor retail, then they have a parking garage that's architecturally articulated. We were Dying to see if the applicant could add additional liner to that west side. The PAB, again, recommended that that condition be removed, so the Department is recommending our original conditions, and the PAB recommended eliminating two of those. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Applicant. Gilberto Pastoriza: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Gilberto Pastoriza, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, here on behalf ofMDM, who is the owner and developer of the property. Just to cut short, I will just specifically address those two modifications. We are in full agreement with the Planning Department's recommendations, which is to allow us to do -- back up into the loading area. The loading area is all internal, all internal. The only thing that we're doing is, the trucks, as they approach our Track D, OK, as they approach Track D, they will have to make a movement on one of the lanes, and then back into it. I have a bigger blowup, Commissioner, if you want to look at it. All the loading is inside of our property, OK. When you come west on Southeast 2nd Street, the trucks will have to do this maneuver. That's the only time that we -- but all the loading takes place in here. We're keeping the sidewalk clean. There's going to be continuity of traffic on Southeast 2nd Street, going west and going south, and this will occur -- we agreed that we will do this only off hours, and that we will have a dockmaster 24 hours a day here to supervise any type of truck movement whatsoever here, and the reason, Commissioners, that this happen is that we are putting in a Whole Foods store on the ground floor, and as we have progressed with this application, Whole Foods kept adding to their floor plate; kept adding to their floor plate because Whole Foods wanted the entire ground floor for themselves, and obviously, we couldn't do that because then, where would we put the loading? So, we restricted somewhat Whole Foods, and did this, but in restricting Whole Foods, we could not provide the full back up in the property, inside the property. That was -- that's the reason -- and by the way, we've spoken with DOT (Department of Transportation), and this is a DOT road; they have no objections to doing this, so long as we have a dockmaster present. City of Mianci Page 106 Printed on 6,110/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2.g onq_q -a� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Winton: Who -- the trucks that will be using that loading area, are they the trucks that are going to move people in and out of units also, furniture and everything, or is that just for Whole Foods? Mr. Pastoriza: That's for both. Commissioner Winton: It's for both? Mr. Pastoriza: That's for both, yes. Commissioner Winton: It does everything? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes; and then, with respect to the liners -- Commissioner Winton: And you said that you're going to do -- that you're going to restrict that to what? Mr. Pastoriza: Off hours, not -- we're not going to do anything during peak hours. The -- Ms. Slazyk: The peak is 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: Right. Ms. Slazyk: So they're going to be prohibited from loading during those two tinges. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: And then, with respect to the liners, the -- one thing that we need -- that I want to point out to you, that normally, the second and third levels ofparking occur somewhere above nine feet. They -- you know, you have one story, then second story, the level of parking is at nine feet; the third level is above that, another nine feet. We have a Whole Foods, and the entire ground floor is 25 foot in height, with clear glass throughout and totally activated, so that -- Commissioner Winton: How many square feet is Whole Foods? Mr. Pastoriza: Forty-five thousand plus. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: So it's a pretty big -- you know, pretty big store to serve -- I mean, only in the Dupont Plaza area you're going to have 3,000 units there, so actually, our second and third levels of parking really are more like a third or fourth levels ofparking. We have articulated the entire building so that there's never going to be any type of view of the cars themselves because everything is going to be, you know, behind the louvers that I was told by the architect that you cannot even see the lights; you cannot see the cars, and you know, the Planning Advisory Board felt since we already have the 25 feet habitable, well articulated, that just with the architectural articulation that we were doing here, that that was sufficient, so I would respectfully request that you approve this application with the recommendations from your Planning Advisory Board. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Does that conclude your presentation? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes, sir. City of Miami Page 107 Printed 017 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz•6- on 9-r7-a` Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there anyone in opposition to this item? It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, it comes back to the Commission. This item is -- had been approved by -- recommended approval with conditions. You want to state -- you've already stated the conditions -- Commissioner Winton: They're already on -- yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- on the record. OK, is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: Yeah, so moved, and -- but I do have a comment. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before we discuss -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- the item, we need a second -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- for the purpose of discussion. Madam Clerk, there is a motion made by Commissioner Winton, second by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, and is under discussion at this time. Commissioner Winton: The -- I understand the issue relative to the liners on that west facade, but this is an issue that I've been bringing up more and more often. That still looks like a parking garage pedestal right now, even with the articulation, and I think that -- I'd like to see you guys work with Planning Department a little more. We need to hide these garages downtown, and just plain hide them, and I've said to Planning all along that the only answer isn't just to put liners on these garages because there's certain circumstances under which that just simply doesn't work, but we have to find the appropriate architectural treatment in those cases where the liner -- the liner is the best option, but that doesn't always work, and so -- and where you all are, that is the new heart/epicenter for downtown, and so I think we've got to take, you know, that next step here and do something else with that so that it really doesn't look like a parking pedestal. Mr. Pastoriza: We -- Commissioner Winton: Not liners. Mr. Pastoriza: We will do that. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: We will do that. Commissioner Winton: So that's my request. Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion and a second. The conditions have been said on the record. Ms. Slazyk: And what about the -- Chairman Sanchez: I don't think there's -- Ms. Slazyk: -- loading condition? City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item=on 9-ora Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Winton: The who? Ms. Slazyk: The loading -- Commissioner Winton: I'm fine with that. Ms. Slazyk: So the PA -- Commissioner Winton: I'll accept -- Ms. Slazyk: So you'll go with the PAB recommendation. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, with the PA -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Sanchez: -- B recommendations. All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Pastoriza: And that we further work with staff to -- Commissioner Winton: Yes. Mr. Pastoriza: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: So we'll remove -- again, for the record, we're going to remove conditions IIB and IIC; replace it with the PAB recommendation, and add a condition that the applicant continue to work with the Planning Departrnent regarding the west facade treatment. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Sanchez: All right, so there's a motion and a second based on those conditions. Any further discussion from the Commission? It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Pastoriza: Thank you. PZ.5 04-01388 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF NORTHEAST 1ST COURT AND THE ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN City of Miami Page 109 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 NORTHEAST 15TH STREET AND NORTHEAST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." 04-01388 Legislation.PDF 04-01388 Exhibit A.PDF 04-01388 Public Works Analysis.PDF 04-01388 Public Works Letter.PDF 04-01388 P&Z Analysis.PDF 04-01388 Zoning Map.pdf 04-01388 Aerial Map.pdf 04-01388 ZB Reso.PDF 04-01388 Application & Supp Docs.PDF 04-01388 Fact Sheet 05-26-05.pdf 04-01388-M O U . pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of a Street and Alley LOCATION: Approximately NE 1st Court and Alley Located Between NE 15th Street and NE 16th Street APPLICANT(S): Miami -Dade County Public Schools APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended denial on April 3, 2003 by a vote of 3-3. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on November 22, 2004 by a vote of 5-3. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified commercial development site. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ. 5 on 9- r1- o� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk R-05-0352 Chairman Sanchez: And we move on to PZ.5. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.5 is a request for official vacation and closure of the public right-of-way; it's a portion of Northeast 1st Court, between l5th and 16th Street. This has been continued several times. We're waiting for the Memorandum of Understanding from the School Board, which is their proffer, which we now have, which I will let them put into the record, but I do have a copy, and it's executed, along with Art Noriega, with the Miami Parking Authority. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: So, our recommendation is approval now. City of Miami Page 110 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2.5 on q. i - aL Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Chairman Sanchez: It is approval. Sir, could you state your name for the record, and a brief -- Luis Garcia: Sure. Good afternoon, Commissioners, and Mr. Chairman. I'm Luis Garcia, on behalf of the School Board of Miami -Dade County, Florida, 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33132. Basically, what we're requesting is the closure of a street and an alley that is within the administrative complex for the school district. We own the parking -- a parking garage and an adjacent parking lot, and we're basically just asking for the closure of Northeast 1st Court, which is in between those two. Basically, in the future, we may need to expand the parking area, and that's what we would like to do, and by closing this street, we would have more ability to do that, and more flexibility. We've executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Miami Parking Authority in order to establish an after-hours parking program in this area, which would serve -- it's for the public use. It would basically serve as -- the Commissioners may be aware that Performing Arts Center is only a couple of blocks away from this facility, and also, the museum park, which is going to be established in the future, would also be served by this after-hours parking facility, and so long as we own the property and we maintain it as a parking facility, we will be using it as a -- we would seek to establish an after-hours parking program with the Miami Parking Authority. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there any opposition to this item? It is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed -- Commissioner Winton: Move it. Chairman Sanchez: -- coming back to the Commission. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Sanchez: It is moved; it's second. I'm glad to see that we were able to work out something with the School Board. Our biggest concern was that when we turn over that land to you, it must benefit the public, and I'm glad to see that it will provide necessary parking in the downtown area, and in that area as it develop. People are going to be able to use your parking facility -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Chairman Sanchez: -- for the public benefit. Yes, sir. Commissioner Allen.: Well, that was my concern. This was a School Board issue. I just want to make sure -- they're getting public land, right, to go forward -- Ms. Slazyk: In the closure of this, it's -- Commissioner Allen: The closure, right. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Allen: For parking, right, and there's no way, shape, or form that, at some time down the road, the School Board will not sell that piece of property going forward to anyone; anyone who wants to expand parking in and around the Performing Arts Center, because my concern is, as 1 said earlier, I've expressed to the Department of Planning that we're giving up land; are we going to have use to it? I mean, 1 can understand a public purpose, but we should still have some means of having some benefit, deriving some benefit from it in the way -- Ms. Slazyk: Well, the -- City, of Miand Page 111 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 PZ.6 04-01268c Submitted Into the public record in connection with itemP2.5 on 9-1-b& Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Allen: -- of parking -- Ms. Slazyk: -- benefit is the -- what was executed in the Memorandum of Understanding. It doesn't preclude them from selling their property off -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- but as long as they own it and they operate it, this is what the City entered into in this Memorandum of Understanding. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any further -- Mr. Garcia: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- discussion on the item? Hearing none, there's a motion and a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Congratulations. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE ALLEYS LOCATED EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, WEST OF NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND BETWEEN NORTHEAST 20TH TERRACE AND NORTHEAST 21ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." 04-01268c Legislation.pdf 04-01268c Exhibit A.pdf 04-01268c Plat & Street Comments.pdf 04-01268c Public Works Comments.pdf 04-01268c Planning Analysis.pdf 04-01268c Zoning Map.pdf 04-01268c Aerial Map.pdf 04-01268c ZB Reso.pdf 04-01268c Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 04-01268c Fact Sheet.pdf 04-01268c-Submittal. pdf REQUEST: Official Vacation and Closure of Alleys LOCATION: Approximately East of Biscayne Boulevard, West of N Bayshore Drive and Between NE 20th Terrace and NE 21st Street APPLICANT(S): Royal Palm Holdings, LLC and Bacardi USA, Inc., Owners APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with a condition*. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Unanimously recommended approval with a condition* on February 3, 2005. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on March 28, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Allen, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Allen Submitted Into the public record in connection wI rith item Pa.5 on 9- I_ oc, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk R-05-0353 Chairman Sanchez: Next item is -- Lourdes Slaryk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.6. Chairman Sanchez: -- PZ.6. Ms. Slazyk:: This is an official vacation and closure of the east end of Bis -- located east end of Biscayne Boulevard, west of North Bayshore Drive, and between Northeast 20th Terrace and 2lst Street. This was part of a project that was previously approved as a Major Use Special Permit. It's been recommended for approval with a condition. The condition has to do with the applicant having shown in their Major Use Special Permit a series ofpublic amenity improvements that are going to be right along the bay in front of the Paramount at Edgewater Square development. This includes landscaping, benches, and lighting. Based on that, we recommend approval. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, ma'am. Adrienne Pardo: Oh, I'm sorry. My boards -- do I need my boards? This is for an alley closure. We had a Major Use Special Permit before you last month, which was approved for the Paramount Bay project. It's in Edgewater off of Biscayne Boulevard, and -- give me one second. Commissioner Allen: Sure. Ms. Pardo: OK. Anyways, we had a Major Use Special Permit, which was approved last month. This item was also supposed to be on that agenda. There was a mix-up, so it didn't get on that agenda, and here we are today. Anyways, that Major Use Special Permit was approved. In order to do the project, we need to have the alley closure approved, and what we're doing is, along North Bayshore Drive, we have a plan to do -- and there was a big discussion of it last month, you may remember, that staff had wanted a driveway off of North Bayshore Drive, and then we discussed in detail all of the improvements we were doing to North Bayshore Drive; that we were improving the seawall across the street; that we're making major improvements, and I have a copy of the plan. Planning Department's approval was subject to these improvements. I put a copy in the record, and I'll give a copy to Planning staff., as well, so that they have a copy - Chairman Sanchez: All right. City. of Miami Page 113 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 PZ.7 04-00670b Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ^5 on R--9.6` Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Pardo: -- and we agree to these conditions. We would request your approval. Chairman Sanchez: OK. Madan Clerk, 1 believe, it's -- the public hearing has been closed, right? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: No. We haven't opened the public hearing yet. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Is there any opposition to this item? Is there any opposition to this item? It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. Is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: Move -- Commissioner Allen: I move the item -- Connnissioner Winton: -- with conditions. Commissioner Allen.: -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: There is a motion -- Commissioner Allen: Second. Chairman Sanchez: -- to approve, with conditions. The motion has been made by Commissioner Winton, second by Commissioner Allen. It is under discussion now. Any discussion on the item? If not, all in favor, say "aye." The Conzrnission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING OR DENYING VARIANCES FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A STREET FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 0'0" WHERE 10'0" IS REQUIRED; TO ALLOW A SIDE STREET YARD SETBACK OF 0'0" WHERE 7'6" IS REQUIRED; TO ALLOW A SIDE STREET YARD SETBACK OF 0'0" ON CORNER LOT WHERE 7'6" IS REQUIRED AND TO ALLOW A FOOTPRINT OF 22,125 SQUARE FEET, WHERE 16,724 SQUARE FEET IS ALLOWED, THEREBY REQUESTING AN INCREASE OF 13% OR 5,400 SQUARE FEET, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1636, 1646 AND 1650 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT AND 1653, 1655 AND 1657 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." CO; of Miami Page 114 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pe . s on 9_ 1 _ o. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 04-00670b Legislation (Version 3).pdf 04-00670b Exhibit A.pdf 04-00670b Legislation (Version 2).pdf 04-00670b Exhibit A.pdf 04-00670b Fact Sheet.pdf 04-00670b Appeal Letter.pdf 04-00670b Analysis.pdf 04-00670b Zoning Map.pdf 04-00670b Aerial Map.pdf 04-00670b ZB Reso.pdf 04-00670b Application.pdf 04-00670b Plans.pdf REQUEST: Appeal of a Zoning Board Decision of Variances LOCATION: Approximately 1636, 1646 and 1650 NE Miami Court and 1653, 1655 and 1657 N Miami Avenue APPLICANT(S): Filling Station Lofts, LLC, Owner and Contract Purchaser and Jersey Ltd. APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire APPELLANT(S): Steven Goodman, Adjacent Property Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the variances and approval of the appeal. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Platting is required. ZONING BOARD: Granted the variances with conditions* on March 14, 2005 by a vote of 5-2. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow the Filling Station condominium with fewer setbacks than required. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed unanimously to dismiss Saul ambler's appeal of a Zoning Board decision, stating the appellant has no standing to raise an appeal. Chairman Sanchez: What's the next PZ (Planning and Zoning) item on the agenda? Lucia Dougherty: 7. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ.7. Chairman Sanchez: PZ7. Oh, my goodness. We're going to be here 'til tnidnight today. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, we are. City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted ins) record in connoctcn with item Fz•5 on - oco Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Chairman Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: We are. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: That's what he said in the other (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right. This is a what? Is this an appeal? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yeah. The appellant will -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you're the appellant; you go first. Then the applicant, and then you could reserve time for rebuttal, then we'll open up for the public hearing. Saul Cimbler: Thank you, Mr. -- Chairman Sanchez: So this time we're going to do it right. Mr. Cimbler: Thank you, Mr. Sanchez, Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Cimbler: 1 appreciate that. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, before you begin the process, 1 need to call this City Commission's attention to the fact that, over the past several days, both the appellant, as well as the applicant, have contacted my office with regard to this appeal, and 1 have, in a very cordial manner, spoken to both of them, but basically, have not revealed to them the nature of my reasoning, or of what my legal opinion is with regard to the merits of their respective positions. In this regard, 1-- Ms. Dougherty has raised the issue, or she has raised a very important issue, but 1 don't believe that 1 am in a position, as your City Attorney, to rule or to actually have given her a decision prior to tray giving to you my legal opinion with regard to the merits of her position. She claims that the appeal -- or she's actually moving -- and my recommendation to you is that, as a matter of procedure, that you would allow Ms. Dougherty to address this Commission with regard to her concerns. Because if you rule in her favor, then there is no appeal actually pending in front ofyou. Ms. Dougherty, to my atten -- has written a letter to my attention asking that I rule with regard to her motion to dismiss the appeal prior to the appeal being heard, and she raises some very interesting issues, in which I'm ready to give you a legal opinion, but I suggest that, at -- in this particular item, that you first, procedurally, listen to Ms. Dougherty with regard to her claim, and then, if you find no merit in her motion, then you proceed in the proper order, listening to the appeal, and then listening to the -- Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Cimbler: And if I may be heard on that. Chairman Sanchez: Sir, sir -- Mr. Cimbler: Sir. Chairman Sanchez: -- under the advisement of our City Attorney, I believe that this legislative body can decide what it wants to do. Do you want to go ahead -- Mr. Cimbler: 1 don't think your microphone is on, Mr. Sanchez. City' of Miami Page 116 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ?Z.5 on 1- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Chairman Sanchez: Yes, it is. Mr. Cimbler: Oh, it is. Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. 1 was just too far. Under the legal advice of our City Attorney, 1 believe he is requesting that we listen 10 Ms. Dougherty, and basically, after her presentation is made, or argument is made, we vote -- we determine whether there's merit or no merit in her arguments. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Sanchez: So, Lucia, at this time, we're -- 1 believe we're going to allow you to do that. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanchez: And then we'll decide, and if we vote that there is no merit, then we'll proceed with the appellant -- Ms. Dougherty: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Sanchez: -- or the appeal. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, again, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant, and joining me is Henry Harper, and his architect, Scott Bakos. Mr. Goodman, the appellant, appealed our setback variances that were granted by the Zoning Board. Had he not appealed it, that decision would have been final, but, in fact, he appealed it, and he has an obligation to bring forward certain legal arguments and certain things on the record. The first thing he needs to do is he has to appeal within 30 days; he has to allege grounds for that appeal, how it affects him, and he has to do -- he has to allege and show that the board had no substantial and competent evidence. Well, he can't do that because he had never objected below. There was no record, whatsoever, on which he can base any appellate argument before you today, and 1 want to just read to you from a case that I cited in my opinion to the City Attorney, and it -- Commissioner Allen: Are we privy to that? Ms. Dougherty: -- deals with a zoning case in which the reviewing agency, which is what you're doing today -- you have to review whether or not there was substantial, competent evidence below, whether there was due process given below, or whether or not they applied the correct law. You can't do that today because there is no record below because he didn't object, and he was there. The transcript, or the record clearly shows that they were there because, on the exact same agenda, was Bayview Marketplace, which he did object to. Right after it, on the same agenda, was Filling Station Lofts, which he never objected to, and there was no issue about notice to Filling Station Lofts, and we have the City staff here, Anel, who can testify that in the record you can see that there's clearly labels to that entity, and there was rho issue about whether or not they received notice. I just want to read to you what the reviewing agency said in this particular case. The record of the proceedings conducted by the County, as reflected in the appendix attached to the petition, does not include any evidence as to how the petitioner's interests are affected, or what decision to approve Wal-Mart proposed, and how the decision to approve Wal-Mart is affecting their plan. Commissioner Winton: Wal-Mart? Chairman Sanchez: Wal-Mart? City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item p_on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Dougherty: The record does -- This is an appellate case. Chairman Sanchez: Oh. Ms. Dougherty: I'm just using this as an example. The record does not demonstrate that the petitioner has a legally recognizable interest in which the affected -- by the County Commission decision. It doesn't reflect will the interests of the petitioner might exceed the general interest of the public good. The record doesn't reflect do the petitioners own any (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The record doesn't reflect anything because the petitioner wasn't there, and they had no standing to bring this case in an appellate capacity. Ifyou don't object below -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- you can't appeal at a de novo hearing in an appellate capacity. It's called appeal by ambush. You have no idea what they're going to allege. You have no idea how they're going to be affected, and you're not sitting here as a trial de novo; you're sitting here as an appellate review panel, and for that reason, we would ask that their petition be dismissed. Commissioner Allen: Lucia, before you move on, not to disrupt your train of thought, is that a correct characterization? We sit here a board -- are we sitting here trial de novo? I need to know that. Mr. Fernandez: No. The analogy that I would have to give to you is that any decision of this board, when appealed to the circuit court, the circuit court, in its appellate capacity, is limited to the record below. Likewise, any decision of the Zoning Board corning to you by way of an appeal, you, in essence, become the appellate court -- Commissioner Allen: Correct. Mr. Fernandez: -- and you're limited to the record below. Commissioner Allen:: Record, right. Mr. Fernandez.: The point that Ms. Dougherty has made is that there is no record below -- Commissioner Allen: Below, correct. Mr. Fernandez: -- to which the appellant says that there is -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- no record below because he didn't receive proper notice. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: To which Ms. Dougherty claims that the issue of notice is either irrelevant or moot because he was present at the meeting, and failed to make, at that point -- Commissioner Allen: I see. Mr. Fernandez: -- any consideration. Commissioner Allen Correct. City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ?z. s on q - 'l - oa Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Fernandez: Now, that's a summary of what has -- Commissioner Allen: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- transpired -- Ms. Dougherty: Except for one thing. Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. Ms. Dougherty: The issue about whether he received notice was never brought up in this case. It was brought up in the Bayview Marketplace; that's the case in which he alleges he -- Commissioner Allen: But -- Ms. Dougherty: -- didn't have notice. In this case, the City staff can clearly show you that he did have notice. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Allen: But you can always appeal a due process if notice issue, right? Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Commissioner Allen: That can always be -- Mr. Fernandez: -- the -- there is case law that I believe that is controlling in this case, where -- while the general rule is that strict compliance with statutory notice requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, a contesting party rnav waive the right or be estopped from asserting a defect in the notice if that landlord appeared at the hearing and was able to fully and adequately present any objections to the ordinance. Commissioner Allen: And that's your argument -- Mr. Fernandez: I believe that that is -- Commissioner Allen: -- that he was present? Mr. Fernandez: -- case law. Mr. Cimbler: That is our argument. Commissioner Allen: I see, good. That clears it up for rne, and again, it was not done within 30 days, as well. Ms. Dougherty: No, it was done in 30 days, but their -- he appealed within 30 days -- Commissioner Allen: Right. He did -- Ms. Dougherty: -- but he -- Commissioner Allen: -- do that. Ms, Dougherty: -- offered no grounds, whatsoever. City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz. S on q-1 _oce Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Allen.: Correct. Ms. Dougherty: And there is no appellate -- Commissioner Allen: And he had an opportunity to object, and he did not -- Ms. Dougherty: He didn't. Commissioner Allen: -- so he was present, so -- Ms. Dougherty: He was. Commissioner Allen: -- arguably, there's no due process issue. Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Allen: I got you. Commissioner Winton: So, Mr. City Attorney, that said then -- Mr. Cimbler: Do I get to respond? Mr. Fernandez: Well, that is Ms. Dougherty's presentation of her motion. Commissioner Winton: No, I was listening to your presentation. Mr. Fernandez: OK, no, no. Mine is a summary of what I believe to be the skinny of the issues - Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- in front. I suggest that, as a matter of if nothing else, professional courtesy, that you allow the prospective appellant, because his role as appellant has not yet been determined by this Commission, for him to address the Commission with on the issues that Ms. Dougherty has raised. I think that -- Commissioner Allen: Well, that's -- Mr. Fernandez: -- notions of fairness dictate -- Commissioner Allen: I see. Mr. Fernandez: -- that you at least extend him an opportunity, and then, after he makes a presentation, I'll give to you my legal interpretation and my legal advice. Commissioner Winton: Great. Commissioner Allen: Mr. Chairman, if I may, so is that discretionary whether or not we will allow, the fact that he's lost his right, procedurally, based on what you've said? Mr. Fernandez: It is totally discretionary with you. The way I introduced this is as a matter of professional courtesy. Commissioner Allen: I see. City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ.5 on c - 1-o Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Fernandez: And this Commission always exercises that -- the maximum with every presenter in front of you. Commissioner Allen: Gotcha. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't know about that. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: And so, I think you, in a very limited way, should allow the gentleman to address Ms. Dougherty's concern. Commissioner Allen: Right, which are two -- Chairman Sanchez: Sir, you are recognized, at this time. Commissioner Winton: And a -- Mr. Cimbler: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: -- which are two issues. Which are two basic issues, right. Chairman Sanchez: And a very brief. Commissioner Winton: I understand. Commissioner Allen: Very brief two basic issues. Mr. Cimbler: For the record, Saul Cimbler, with Strategic Consulting Group, the zoning consultant for Jerin Properties. An interesting thing happened; Planning entered its recommendations of denial, and after Planning recommends denial on this project, a red herring is thrown at you, and for those of you who have done securities work, you know what a red herring means. It's something to take you off the path of what you should be looking at. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Cimbler: And that's what you have here. This gentleman was here for the Bayview Market presentation at the ZAB (Zoning Advisory Board) hearing on March 14, 2005, and as soon as that hearing was done, he got a phone call from his wife, and he went home. He was not here for the presentation for the Filling Station Loft. The real issue is that he didn't even know about it, and the reason he didn't know about it -- one of the things that in this quickness to expedite this evening's agenda, is the following: it's uncontroverted [sic]; it's on the record at the ZAB hearing that the Hearing Board staff failed to notify him, as required in the ordinance, by sending the letter that was sent to him. He also did not get the letter, and he is here, ready to testify under oath, that he did not receive notice. These are due process issues. He was not there. He didn't even know the Filling Station matter happened until he found out the next day. He was only here for the Bayview product -- he didn't rec -- Bayview presentation. He didn't receive notice of that, but he was there, and as Mr. City Attorney correctly states, because he was at that hearing, he couldn't bring up a notice issue, not that he needed to, in the Bayview presentation, but as opposed to the Filling Station, there's no evidence before you that he was at that presentation. I have given the City Attorney this argument. This is not something they haven't known for the last day and a half because Ms. Dougherty didn't bring up this issue when the Notice ofAppeal was filed 45 days ago. This issue only comes up now that the Department is City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pe. 5 on _aG Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk requesting denial. I would ask you to look carefully at the motives for bringing that argument now. It's a legal argument that's brought because the Planning Department has failed. There is no question whatsoever that the appeal was properly filed. I invite your attention to the appeal, which in there states we did not receive notice. That's why we're appealing -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Cimbler: -- Bayview -- Ms. Dougherty: That is not the case. Mr. Cimbler: -- and the Filling Station. Commissioner Allen: All right. All right, wait. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Allen: So I can get -- Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely not the case. Commissioner Allen: -- so I can wrap nzy hands around this factually, what you're saying is that he was here on another issue concerning Bayview; however, the Filling Station Lots [sic] were discussed, and he was never notified as to that. Mr. Cimbler: Correct; that was later in the agenda, Mr. Allen. That's correct. Commissioner Winton: Well, how about letting the City Attorney do what he was going to do, and that is -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Winton: -- issue an opinion. Mr. Fernandez: -- there -- as I guide you through this morass of arguments, perhaps, assume for a moment that the burden has shifted, and it's now Ms. Dougherty s turn to put evidence on the record that the notice issue -- and with regard to notice, the burden is whether the City mailed it, not necessarily whether the party got it, picked up, opened up his mailbox, or whatever, and so, to that extent, you should shift back to Ms. Dougherty for her to conduct a limited cross-examination or direct examination of the relevant City staff with regard to the notice issue, as this then becomes a critical finding for you. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Allen: Notice as to the appeal -- Ms. Dougherty: I would like to question Anel. Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Allen: OK, notice as to the Filling Station, not the Bayview. Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Commissioner Allen: Right, OK. City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ==on R_ _04 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Dougherty: This is only as to Filling Station because there was an issue raised with respect to notice in Bayview, but there's an entirely different applicant. It has nothing to do with Filling Station. Commissioner Allen: Correct. Ms. Dougherty: Not even same parties, nothing. ,4nel, could you -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- have you had a chance to look at the notice? Mr. Fernandez: Has he been sworn, Ms. Dougherty? Ms. Dougherty: You're asking me? Mr. Fernandez: Before he testify, he needs to be sworn. Have you been sworn? Anel Rodriguez: No, I have not. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Just as a point of clarification, he's administration; does he need to be sworn? Commissioner Winton: 1 didn't think so. Mr. Fernandez: Well, he will be providing, for Ms. Dougherty, testimony in her motion, which is outside of the item that's on appeal. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: This is pre -appeal. Ms. Thompson: Will you please raise your right hand? The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Anel, have you had a chance to examine the notice issue as it relates to the Filling Station? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, I have. Ms. Dougherty: And what is your determination with respect to notice? Mr. Rodriguez: In respect to notice, the adjacent property owner was notified not only by mail for the Zoning Board, but also the property was posted, and also there was an ad that was circulated in the Miami Herald. Ms. Dougherty: I'm going to show you a agenda of the Zoning Board. It has Items 8, 9, and 10; 8 and 9 deal with the Bayview Market, and number 10 is the Filling Station. 1 want you to tell me if this is a true and correct copy of that agenda. City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz- 5 on Q- 7- o� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Thompson: Chair, as she's going over, we need the witness to put his name on the record. Chairman Sanchez: Sir, could you state your name and address on the record? Mr. Rodriguez: Anel Rodriguez, Department of Hearing Boards. Yes, this is, in fact, the agenda for March 14 Zoning Board, 2005. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. I have no -- Mr. Cimbler: May I cross? May I inquire? Commissioner Allen: I just have one question. Chairman Sanchez: Wait, wait. Yeah, you could. Commissioner Allen: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Cimbler: What position do you have with the Hearing Boards? Mr. Rodriguez: I'm an Administrative Assistant II. Mr. Cimbler: OK. Is it your responsibility to place the letters in the mailbox? Mr. Rodriguez: No, but that's one of my functions that I oversee. Mr. Cimbler: OK, and do you know for a fact that that got placed in the mailbox? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. Mr. Cimbler: OK. Were you there on the -- are you aware of the fact that the Hearing Boards has admitted that, as to the Bayview project, the notices did not go out to this applicant? Commissioner Winton: This doesn't have anything to do with Bayview, Mr. City Attorney, Commissioner Allen: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: No, it doesn't. This is limited to the Filling Station. Commissioner GG inton: So he should not answer that question. Commissioner Allen: Filling, that's right. That's -- Mr. Cimbler: It's a predicate question. Chairman Sanchez: All right, all right, all right. Listen -- Commissioner Winton: No, it -- Mr. City Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- is he required to answer that question? This is not about Bayview. Mr. Fernandez: No, he's not. Mr. Cimbler: To the extent that there was a mistake in sending out notice on another agenda City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pe. S on ?-1-06o Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk item, being the Bayview, is it possible that there was also a mistake sending it out on the Filling Station? Is it possible? Mr. Fernandez: Again -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: You know, this is -- Commissioner Allen.: Well -- Commissioner Winton: That's a very terrible -- Mr. Fernandez: There is a lot of leeway that's typically -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- given. hut he may answer to the best of his ability, knowing that possibilities are -- you take this as testimony, as competent, substantial evidence the way you deem most appropriate, so you may answer to the best of -- Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- your abilities. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, there is a possibility. Mr. Cimbler: And you're aware that Hearing Board staff admitted on the record that the notices didn't go out on Bayview? Ms. Dougherty: That is a mischa°acterization of what the Hearing Board staff said. Commissioner Allen: Well, it's a direct question. Ms. Dougherty: So I object. Mr. Rodriguez: I disagree with that. Commissioner Allen: It's either a yes or no answer. Mr. Rodriguez: I disagree with that. Commissioner Allen: OK. All right. Just one question. Could you step back to the podium, please? OK. These particular mailings are done regular mail -- I mean, postage -- does this -- this is regular mail, correct? Mr. Rodriguez: Um -hunt. Commissioner Allen: And you also said that it was also posted on the building, right? Mr. Rodriguez: Along the property, correct. Commissioner Allen: Along the property. Now, talk about the contents of that posting. What does it talk about? Does it talk about an item that's going to be heard on such and such a date? Does it specify the iteni, or does it give a generic explanation? City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 13z.5 on 9-'-0(- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Rodriguez: It's the same notification that is sent by regular mail; it lists a description of the petition, and it also lists the location, the time, and date of the hearing. Commissioner Allen: And so, it did list the Filling Lot [sic], what we're here discussing today? Mr. Rodriguez: The address, correct. Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Cimbler: You have a witness. Commissioner Winton: So, Mr. City Attorney -- Mr. Cimbler: Ninety seconds. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Are we in a position to make a decision now? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Now, that -- the burden shifted to Ms. Dougherty. Ms. Dougherty, whether she met her burden or not depends on you to make that determination, then that concludes all of the issues that were raised by the proposed appellant. Mr. Cimbler: Well, no, the appellee, actually, is the -- Commissioner Allen: Right, right. Commissioner Winton: So, my view here, based on the testimony -- Mr. Cimbler: Do I get to call my witness or --? Commissioner Winton: -- of our -- excuse me. Why are you interrupting me? Mr. Cimbler: I just have a problem with this man's due process rights being trampled on. Commissioner Winton: Well -- Mr. Cimbler: He has a right to bring a witness up. Coinnrissioner Winton: -- I think I have the microphone, and if the City Attorney says that's the case, that'll be the case; if he doesn't, it won't be, but in the meantime -- Mr. Cimbler: So noted. Commissioner Winton: -- I had the microphone. The point I was making is that it -- that based on the testimony of staff, it is clear to me that there has been sufficient notice on this particular item that -- what is he now, he's the appellant? Mr. Fernandez: He would be the appellant ifyou allow this appeal to go through. Commissioner Winton: So my view here is that he shouldn't have any standing here because there was proper notice, he didn't respond appropriately at the lower chambers, and so I think that -- and you got to help me from a technical standpoint here -- but -- City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 'PZ•6 on q-mil-oc, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Fernandez: He has not perfected his appeal. Commissioner Allen: Appeal, right. That's -- Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Commissioner Allen: -- the issue, right. Commissioner Winton: And so, if 1 view -- if I think that, what do 1 do to perfect my opinion? Mr. Fernandez: Well, then you need to look to Ms. Dougherty and understand the remedy she's asking, or -- what she's asking of you to do is to grant her motion -- Commissioner Allen: That he has no standing. Mr. Fernandez: -- that he has no standing to raise an appeal. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: And then just consider -- and dismiss it. Commissioner Allen: Right. Commissioner Winton: So moved. Vice Chairman Gonzalez.: OK. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Regalado: 1 second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: And we have a second. Mr. Fernandez: But that is her request. Commissioner Allen: For discussion. Mr. Fernandez: The motion would have to be made by one ofyou. Commissioner Allen: Right. Is it open for discussion or --? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Open for discussion. Commissioner Allen: 1 just have one observation on this. It appears to me staff has given virtually, at a minimum, two ways in which they distribute notice. They indicated there was a notice, the posting on the building, and the other notice is sent regular mail, and they did indicate that it was pursuant to this particular item, the Filling whatever -- what are we talking about? The Filling Station -- Mi. Fernandez: Filling Station. Commissioner Allen: -- Lot [sic]. Commissioner Winton: And there was an advertisement in the Miami Herald, so it's -- Commissioner Allen: And the advertisement in -- City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item TZ. S on q-rl -0 6. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Winton: -- three different methods. Commissioner Allen: -- the Miami Herald, and -- wow, so counsel, I mean, wouldn't you agree that that's -- Corr:missioner Winton: Why would you ask him that question? Mr. Cimbler: Mr. Allen, to the extent that I could call up a witness, which I've been precluded from doing so, it would maybe shed some light on it. Commissioner Allen: Well, I'm just -- Mr. Cimbler: But the issue -- Commissioner Winton: No. Mr. Cimbler: -- really is simple, Whether the advertisement made the newspaper, which is not an issue here, isn't the question. The question is if that third prong, which is the mailing, made it, and there's no evidence here that the three prongs were met, which are the advertisement -- Commissioner Allen.: Well -- Mr. Cimbler: -- the pole advertisement -- Commissioner Allen: -- let me ask counselor -- Commissioner Winton: No, no, no, no, no. Commissioner Allen: -- City Attorney. Must there be three prong met, or just one is sufficient, as long as it's communicated to -- the notices is conveyed. Mr. Fernandez: OK. The issue is that the advertised agenda for the zoning hearing clearly included this item, even on the very same page as the two previous items on which the party here complaining was able to amply participate and testify, so he was on notice, at the very least, when he got to the meeting, that this item was going to be part of the agenda. The -- Commissioner Allen: So he has an affirmative duty to look at the agenda. Mr. Fernandez: But, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, whether this issue goes on to the courts or not, by way of an appeal, I would always urge this Commission to err on the side of granting everyone that appears in front of you a fair opportunity to make the case. If this gentleman is asking that the -- his client testify to the limited issue as to whether he received it or not, because it would be the only thing that would be relevant, and he wants to put that on the record as satisfiling his client's due process, I would recommend to you that, for the very limited purpose of having his client -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- testes I received it, I did not receive it, he could do that, and then, at that point in time, you give it whatever weight you deem appropriate. Commissioner Allen: So what you're advising us to -- Ms, Dougherty: Here's the issue I ask -- I -- City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2 . s on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Commissioner Allen: Wait one second, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Commissioner Allen: So what you're advising us is that he should be allowed to make his pitch, if you will, right now? Commissioner Winton: No, that is not what he said. Mr. Fernandez No, to continue to counter the burden that supposedly was met by Mr. -- Ms. Dougherty. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: Now he wants -- apparently, it came back to him. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: Now, he wants to meet it by putting on the record the fact that he did not -- Commissioner Allen: Right, exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- receive it. Obviously, that's what he's saying -- Commissioner Allen: Right. That's what we've just done. Mr. Fernandez: -- he will do. Ms. Dougherty: But can I ask you something? Commissioner Allen: That's what we've just done, right? Ms. Dougherty: It's completely irrelevant as to whether or not he received it. Commissioner Allen: That's what I'm saying -- he (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- right. Ms. Dougherty: The burden of the City -- Mr. Fernandez: That would be my opinion at the end of the day. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: However, he insist on having due process -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- accorded, and this is what I'm trying to get my board to do. Clearly, he understood from the very beginning that my opinion -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- to you, ifyou were to ask me what would be the import of his client testifying that, I would tell you, as I told you originally -- Commissioner Allen: Right. City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2.5 on 9 •-7-dam Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Fernandez.: -- that what is significant is the testimony of staff, that they, in fact, mailed it, post it, advertised it. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Fernandez: And having heard that from him, anything else that he may want put on the record is courtesy that you are extending the gentleman. Commissioner Allen: All right, so under advice, ifI may, Mr. Chairman, under the advice of the City Attorney, I would suggest that we allow the literal individual, not the representative on behalf of the individual, to make his argument as to this issue of notice. That's what we're getting at, right? Correct? Mr. Fernandez: That he received it or not. Commissioner Allen: That he received it or not. Mr. Cimbler: Correct. and -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Yes, it's a 30-second thing. Mr. Cimbler: And is your -- Commissioner ,411en: So that literally means -- Mr. Cimbler: -- recommendation then that that be the only other evidence that we be permitted to present? Commissioner Winton: That is correct. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, because that's the only issue that's -- Commissioner Allen: OK. Mr. Fernandez.: -- being -- Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Cimbler: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- battered. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Do you have your client -- Mr. Cimbler: We will comply with the wishes of the Commission under objection, but we will do it because we think we have the right to bring in other things, but, please, let's get this over with. Commissioner Allen: Right. Mr. Cimbler: I believe he's been sworn, but to the extent you want to -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Just state your name and address for the record. City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted into the public record in connection with item Pz•5 on 9-1-0lo Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Steven Goodman: Steven Goodman. I'm the property owner at 35 and 41 Northeast 17th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33132. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You're recognized, sir. Mr. Cimbler: Were you at the zoning appeals board hearing at ,May 14, 2005? Mr. Goodman: Yes, I was. Mr. Cimbler: What purpose were you there for? Mr. Goodman: The Bayview Market project. Mr. Cimbler: Were you aware that the Filling Station was going to be there that night as an agenda item? Mr. Goodman: No, I was not. Mr. Cimbler: Did you receive notice? Mi. Goodman: No, I did not. Mr. Cimbler: You maintain -- you own a property that's within 500 feet of that applicant, Filling Station Lofts; is that correct? Mr. Goodman: Yes, sir. Mr. Cimbler: Did you see any posting of the Filling Station Loft hearing in or around the poling at 500 feet of your property? Mr. Goodman: No, I did not. Commissioner Winton: Blind. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Winton: He's blind. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You have been allowed the opportunity to state in the record -- Commissioner Allen: Is she entitled to rebuttal? Mr. Fernandez: If Ms. Dougherty -- Commissioner Allen: Is she entitled to cross? Mr. Fernandez: -- would like to cross-examine, she may. Ms. Dougherty: I would just ask Mr. -- Commissioner Allen: Yeah, I think you're -- Ms. Dougherty: -- Goodman, did you see Mr. Harper there that evening? Did you talk to Mr. Harper? City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2.5 on q-r1. of Priscilla A. Thompson City Cleric Mr. Goodman: I'm not -- Ms. Dougherty: Do you know Mr. Harper, the owner of Filling Station Lofts? Commissioner Winton: Is he under oath? Commissioner Allen: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Was he sworn in, Madam Clerk? Yes. Ms. Dougherty: Unbelievable. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: 1 think when they sworn in everyone who was going to testif ;. Commissioner Winton: And so, if he's under oath, it better be the truth; is that not correct? Mr. Fernandez: But, of course, it goes without saying. No one would dare stand in front of you and not say anything but the truth. Commissioner Winton: Just wanted to be clear of that. Commissioner Allen: OK, right. Chairman Sanchez: What? Mr. Goodman: Is there a question? Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Could you answer the question? Commissioner Allen: Yeah, a question was posed. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: The question is -- Lucia, would you -- Mr. Goodman: Did I -- Henry -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: -- repeat the question, please? Mr. Goodman: -- is that what you -- I believe that I saw him there, yes. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: You believe. Chairman Sanchez: You believe that you saw who there? Ms. Dougherty: And you know who he is, right? Mr. Goodman: I've met him before, yes. Ms. Dougherty: Did you have any idea why he was there? Mr. Goodman: No, I did not. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Commissioner Allen: OK. All right. City of Miann Page 132 Printed on 6/10/2005 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 26, 2005 Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Allen: I have just one last question on this issue. You spoke about being there, and you looked at your -- the agenda -- did not the agenda include the Filling Station Lot [sic], as well as the other Bayview, and whatever else was on that agenda? That's all need to know. Was it -- was the Filling Lot [sic] on that agenda that night? Mr. Goodman: If you read the agenda, it was on there. If you -- It didn't say Filling Station; it gave an address, I believe. Commissioner Allen: But it was on the agenda? Mr. Goodman: 1 believe so, yeah. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Winton: So did I not -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Does that conclude the arguments? Commissioner Winton: -- make a motion? Didn't I make a motion earlier, though? Commissioner Regalado: You did, and I second. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: I think we have a motion and we have a second. Commissioner Winton: Oh, yeah, and Commissioner Regalado -- Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: -- seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: It's a motion to deny the appeal, correct? Commissioner Winton: Is that what it -- Mr. Fernandez: No, it's a motion that was made to consider the appeal improperly or not properly in front of you. Therefore, there is, in essence, no appeal. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so everybody in favor, say "aye." Submitted Into the public The Commission (Collectively): Aye. record in connection with Vice Chairman Gonzalez: All opposed have the same right. Motion carries. item Pa•5 on q-r)-ot, Priscilla A. Thompson Ms. Dougherty: Thankyou very much. City Clerk Mr. Cimbler: Thankyou. Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Cimbler: Thank you. PZ.8 04-00726a RESOLUTION City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 6/10/2005